The Real War

Those insignificant corrupt people, who lose sleep over earthly possessions should clear the way for those who lose sleep solely over history.

Those who shed tears, like Fouad Siniora, should fade away, abandoning the scene for those who do not even bleed when cut.

But Hitler, Stalin, and Khomeni were infatuated by history. For them, property and material commodities were meaningless. Corruption never came near them and they never approached it. Doubt never arose, even in the minds of those who hated them, to accusations of corruption. Their only cause was existence itself, along with immortality, obviously. And for existence and immortality, they exercised an iron-fisted, organized, cohesive and dynamic leadership. They controlled their cliques and loyalists as one does with hand watches. They invoked a sense of reverence from their followers that ordinary politicians fail to do.

As for how much their leadership was worth: not tens of
thousands or even millions of dollars, but millions of
people.

There is no doubt that Hassan Nasrallah and Hezbollah are followers of this school of thought. Both enjoy a sort of solidness, cohesiveness, and dynamism that were not known to the history of political life in Lebanon.

However, Lebanon is not in need of all these qualities except to prolong endurance during wartime, and consequently, to do away with politics. In small amounts, these qualities could serve to clean political life, provide standards by which it is to be monitored, and add a degree of seriousness to it. In excess, these qualities not only kill politics, but life and freedom in a country that thrives on diversity, contraction, commerce, tourism and the knowledge of languages.

Al-Qadhafi, leader of one of the Arab world's most secular governments, has also criticised Islamic leaders. "These days there are a lot of a dubious speeches and propaganda ... which some naive people believe in ... but we can counter them with the Holy Koran and with science. "These speeches will soon be prominent in Ramadan ... When I switch on the TV and see a bearded man, and naive people calling him to ask for religious advice, I feel pity for him ... Now this is like Europe in the Middle Ages, selling indulgences."

The Iranians today released the full text of President Ahmadinejad’s letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. I posted on this back on July 22. After reading the letter, I understand why Merkel didn’t bother to reply.

Ahmadinejad, after buttering up Merkel, informs her: “This is really an astonishing phenomenon in today's world. The propaganda machinery after World War II has been so colossal that has caused some people to believe that they are the guilty party by historical accounts and must pay the penalty fort [sic] the wrongs committed by their forefathers for successive generations and for indefinite period of time.” He’s talking about the Holocaust, obviously, since it is one of his favorite subjects. But I can’t help but wonder if he believes that Germany ought to get its eastern territories back?

And talk about internal logic. Everyone should forget the Holocaust, or whatever took place in Europe during the war, because it happened sixty years ago. But then Ahmadinejad launches into a diatribe about the creation of Israel . . . sixty years ago.

He also commits a mistake often made by Muslims in dialogue with Christians: Ahmadinejad praises “the teachings of the divine prophets, the teachings of Abraham, Moses and Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) and the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him).” I know nothing about Merkel’s religious beliefs. She was an “Ossi” and a young communist, but now she heads the Christian Democratic Union. If she is a believing Christian, Ahmadinejad in his letter denied the principle belief underpinning Christianity—namely the divinity of Jesus Christ, relegating him to the lesser status of prophet.

In my opinion, this letter is even stranger than Ahmadinejad’s earlier treatise to George Bush. Why not spend his time trying to convince her that Germany’s proposed sale of more submarines to Israel could destabilize the region? (I do not mean to imply that I believe it would; quite the opposite.) How did he expect Merkel to respond? “Hey, Mahmoud, you’re right on! Let’s get those damned Jews?”

Juan Cole is an intelligent man. He knows far more about Iran than do I. But the poor guy is so consumed by his hatred for the Bush administration that he is blinding himself to realities that stare him right in the face. You can be anti-Bush, anti-war in Iraq, without having to make excuses for thugs and butchers.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad gave a speech on Sunday in which he stated that Iran poses no threat to any nation, not even to Israel. Isn’t it true that last year Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”? Juan Cole says that it’s not. I’ve appended an extract of Cole’s comment. You can read the entire post yourself here. The bolding at the end is mine.

Ahmadinejad: We are Not a Threat to Any Country, Including Israel

Believe it, don't believe it, that's up to you. But at least we should know what exactly he said, which is not something our US newspapers will tell us about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech on Saturday:Kayhan reports that [Pers.] Ahmadinejad said, "Iran is not a threat to any country, and is not in any way a people of intimidation and aggression." He described Iranians as people of peace and civilization. He said that Iran does not even pose a threat to Israel, and wants to deal with the problem there peacefully, through elections:"Weapons research is in no way part of Iran's program. Even with regard to the Zionist regime, our path to a solution is elections."Ahmadinejad seems to be explaining what his calls for the Zionist regime to be effaced actually mean. He says he doesn't want violence against Israel, despite its own acts of enmity against Middle Eastern neighbors. I interpret his statement on Saturday to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for. The result would be a government about half made up of Israeli ministers and half of Palestinian ones. Whatever one wanted to call such an arrangement, it wouldn't exactly be a "Zionist state," which would thus have been dissolved.The schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians who keep maintaining that Ahmadinejad threatened "to wipe Israel off the map" when he never said those words will never, ever manage to choke out the words Ahmadinejad spoke on Saturday, much less repeat them as a tag line forever after….

It is true that what Ahmadinejad said in Farsi does not translate literally as “wipe Israel off the map.” But Cole’s argument that “schlock western pundits, journalists and politicians” are the source of this misunderstanding is . . . informed bullshit.

For example, here’s how Aljazeera reported the story back on 26 October 2005. Headline: "Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off Map." And the quote: “‘As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map,’ said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah [sic] Khomeini.”

And what was it that Imam Khomeini had to say about Israel? Well, according to a short hagiographic piece on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting website (the bolding in the quote is in the original): “[Khomeini] was also aware of the danger posed by the illegal Zionist entity called Israel to the Muslim world. He called the Zionist entity ‘a cancerous tumour that should be uprooted from the Middle East.’ He said if the world’s billion-plus Muslims were to unite and pour a bucket of water each, Israel would be drowned. He ruled out any compromise with the Zionists and said only Islam will make the oppressed Palestinian people triumph over Israel.” Hey, he didn’t use the world “wipe.”

You can also find a synopsis of the October 2005 speech by Ahmadinejad at the official website of the Iranian presidency. Here’s the quote from that source: "The president called on the public and the Palestinian combatant groups to be vigilant and added that if they manage to overcome the new conspiracies of the world arrogant powers, the way would be paved for destruction of the Zionist regime and establishment of a national Palestinian government."

Okay, they’re not using the word “wipe.” If you were an Israeli, would you read “destruction” in lieu of “wipe” and feel safer? But I suppose “regime” is, after all, better than “cancerous tumour.”

Does anyone want to make a guess about where the “wipe” part of the wipe Israel from the map line probably originated? Unfortunately, the link has gone dead (how convenient), but I saved the cache. And what is the source? Would you believe the website of the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), dated 26 October 2005? Here’s the key quotation: "He [Ahmadinejad] further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away."

Let’s get real, and accurate. It was never just the “schlock Western pundits, journalists and politicians" who spread the “wipe” story, unless you consider Aljazeera, IRNA, and Ahmadinejad’s own website “western.” Nor was the less than literal translation of Ahmadinejad’s remarks of 26 October 2005 a conspiracy hatched by Neocons, dastardly Jews, or the ignorant. It was IRNA that saddled Ahmadinejad with a threat to “wipe Israel away,” and the fact that they didn’t use the word “map” does not change the meaning of the threat. And even if Ahmadinejad had said nothing on 26 October 2005, the fact that Iran for over a quarter-century has continued to refer to the “Zionist entity” is evidence enough that Iran officially wants to see the Israeli state disappear.

I agree with Noam Chomsky that Americans ought to be able to oppose the Bush administration’s handling of the war without their patriotism being called into question, or being labeled “un-American.” But those who do oppose the administration need to remind themselves that just because Bush said it’s so, doesn’t mean that it’s not; or just because Bush has labeled Iran part of the “axis of evil,” doesn’t mean that Iran’s current leadership is not a threat to the world, or to Israel. When scholars lose the ability to make such judgments they risk becoming “useful idiots,” and when they reach that stage, no one listens to them and their breadth of knowledge is lost to the process.