Kucinich reported position on Ahmadinejad intolerable
CLICK THIS TEXT TO VISIT THIS BLOG'S CURRENT SITE
There are a lot of things that even among Jews other Jews won't tolerate. One of them, at times, has been when a Jew lacks complete and total support of all things Israel. Another has been when a Jew lacks complete and total support for a belief that Iran must be attacked militarily.
But, for example, my lack of support for all things Israel or for the belief that Iran must be attacked militarily doesn't stem from the fact that I think Israel doesn't deserve to exist or from a belief that Iran isn't a threat to Israel.
I believe Israel does have the right to exist and I believe that Iran is a threat to Israel.
But I want to see Jews feeling comfortable living anywhere. The myopic view that we don't seek to make every place on Earth a place that a person would feel welcome - and that goes for anyone, not just Jews - but instead should focus all our efforts on securing Israel is not something I've ever possessed. But it's not because I don't believe in Israel or fear Iran.
This position of mine, such as it is - which, as it is, is not well-tolerated by many of my friends who are Jews who tend to be far more right-wing than I am when it comes to Israel - still leaves plenty of room to condemn Dennis Kucinich's failure to appreciate the danger that Iran poses to Israel.
This Plain Dealer article today explores that failure. Perhaps Kucinich will come out and say that they got him all wrong. I look forward to that and will study it. But until then - here's what I think:
For a man who tries to push the voters' faces day in and day out into the reality of the wrongness of being in Iraq, for a man who seeks to reveal and disclose and unveil all that is wrong about our military presence in what has been and will continue to be sectarian strife, whether or not we're in that country, Kucinich has found it all too convenient to say, in effect if not exact words, "Oh, Ahmadinejad doesn't really mean or say that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. That's just a bad translation. He just wants Ehud Olmert to be replaced by someone else."
Dennis - are you effing kidding me?
This blog already has a PG-13 rating. And I don't feel like getting an R or worse for using profanity, but if I did feel like getting an R, this would be the post where I'd use those words.
I tell you what - You come to the East side of Cleveland. You come visiton a Shabbat at every single synagogue here. Then you study case upon case upon case of human rights violations in Iran, against Iranians of all stripes as well as foreigners, you follow how he treats women and defers to the clerics and seeks to control what his people believe and think, and you tell me that this man isn't obsessed with ridding the world of anyone who doesn't follow him and otherwise intimidating them with any means possible.
You have cajones, Dennis. And that can get you far. But now? They're just making you look like a panderer. Why and exactly to whom, I'm not sure.
And, I would have thought, that the last thing you would ever want to be seen doing is pandering. It's practically blasphemous when applied to you, I would have thought.
But this report of your thoughts on the Iranian leader indicates to me that you aren't what you try to project yourself to be. Or else you would recognize the actual, real, threat that Iran is (as well as why it isn't imminent either, I do believe). And not only to Israel but to Iranians, and people of all religions and regions of the Middle East - in thought as well as in deed, and as that country is being led by Ahmadinejad. Have you spoken with Iranian-Americans? I have. They think he's a psychotic, dangerous nut. They talk to their relatives in Tehran who can't speak freely and feel that their circumstances are unpredictable.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that my feelings about your pandering mean that I want military action in Iran. I don't. But supporting the position of not wanting military action in Iran does not require me, or you, to believe that Ahmadinejad is a sane, acceptable leader who wants peace on Earth.
He isn't, he never will be - not in the way we want peace. And it is his fundamentally different world view that threatens us all.
Get with the program, Dennis. At least a twelve-step one to sanity when it comes to Ahmadinejad.
But, for example, my lack of support for all things Israel or for the belief that Iran must be attacked militarily doesn't stem from the fact that I think Israel doesn't deserve to exist or from a belief that Iran isn't a threat to Israel.
I believe Israel does have the right to exist and I believe that Iran is a threat to Israel.
But I want to see Jews feeling comfortable living anywhere. The myopic view that we don't seek to make every place on Earth a place that a person would feel welcome - and that goes for anyone, not just Jews - but instead should focus all our efforts on securing Israel is not something I've ever possessed. But it's not because I don't believe in Israel or fear Iran.
This position of mine, such as it is - which, as it is, is not well-tolerated by many of my friends who are Jews who tend to be far more right-wing than I am when it comes to Israel - still leaves plenty of room to condemn Dennis Kucinich's failure to appreciate the danger that Iran poses to Israel.
This Plain Dealer article today explores that failure. Perhaps Kucinich will come out and say that they got him all wrong. I look forward to that and will study it. But until then - here's what I think:
For a man who tries to push the voters' faces day in and day out into the reality of the wrongness of being in Iraq, for a man who seeks to reveal and disclose and unveil all that is wrong about our military presence in what has been and will continue to be sectarian strife, whether or not we're in that country, Kucinich has found it all too convenient to say, in effect if not exact words, "Oh, Ahmadinejad doesn't really mean or say that he wants Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. That's just a bad translation. He just wants Ehud Olmert to be replaced by someone else."
Dennis - are you effing kidding me?
This blog already has a PG-13 rating. And I don't feel like getting an R or worse for using profanity, but if I did feel like getting an R, this would be the post where I'd use those words.
I tell you what - You come to the East side of Cleveland. You come visiton a Shabbat at every single synagogue here. Then you study case upon case upon case of human rights violations in Iran, against Iranians of all stripes as well as foreigners, you follow how he treats women and defers to the clerics and seeks to control what his people believe and think, and you tell me that this man isn't obsessed with ridding the world of anyone who doesn't follow him and otherwise intimidating them with any means possible.
You have cajones, Dennis. And that can get you far. But now? They're just making you look like a panderer. Why and exactly to whom, I'm not sure.
And, I would have thought, that the last thing you would ever want to be seen doing is pandering. It's practically blasphemous when applied to you, I would have thought.
But this report of your thoughts on the Iranian leader indicates to me that you aren't what you try to project yourself to be. Or else you would recognize the actual, real, threat that Iran is (as well as why it isn't imminent either, I do believe). And not only to Israel but to Iranians, and people of all religions and regions of the Middle East - in thought as well as in deed, and as that country is being led by Ahmadinejad. Have you spoken with Iranian-Americans? I have. They think he's a psychotic, dangerous nut. They talk to their relatives in Tehran who can't speak freely and feel that their circumstances are unpredictable.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that my feelings about your pandering mean that I want military action in Iran. I don't. But supporting the position of not wanting military action in Iran does not require me, or you, to believe that Ahmadinejad is a sane, acceptable leader who wants peace on Earth.
He isn't, he never will be - not in the way we want peace. And it is his fundamentally different world view that threatens us all.
Get with the program, Dennis. At least a twelve-step one to sanity when it comes to Ahmadinejad.
JBlog Me
6 Comments:
Okay. I'll give it a shot. If someone were to say that Osama bin Laden had plans to blow up Atlanta, that would certainly ratchet up pressure to go after him. If it turned out that somebody just made up those plans to ratchet up the pressure, that would be unethical behavior. If you were the one to blow the whistle, and say that Bin Laden had no Atlanta plans, many would slam you for defending a terrorist, downplaying a threat, and helping to make America vulnerable. People would point out all of the things Osama bin Laden HAS done, and tell you how indefensible your actions were. Of course, 'til now, you had never actually questioned the threat Bin Laden posed, based on all of the same things that your new enemies were saying. You might then scratch your head and say, gee, if he's that bad, why do people feel the need to make extra crap up? I always believed the bad stuff, but now I have a pretty good idea that some folks have lied, so I'm going to be a bit more reserved in my judgment on the rest of the evidence.
Here's another attempt - I always believed that there actually was police misconduct in an attempt to ensure a case against OJ, who incidentally was actually guilty. Acknowledging police errors or misconduct does not mean accepting OJ's innocence. It unfortunately does create reasonable enough doubt for a jury.
Which brings me back to Dennis. Reasonable people have supported the contention that Ahmadinejad did not say the most inflammatory things attributed to him. If the only response to that fairly serious accusation is "shut up, he's a bad man and you know it," then it sounds like Iraq II.
Your response, Jill, was a suggestion that Dennis be more proactive in seeking out a variety of information about Iran. That, as usual, is an excellent suggestion on your part. Although I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt on wanting to make sure the case for war is made on facts rather than distortions and outright falsehoods, the truth is that he hasn't seriously engaged the fact-based case any more seriously than his detractors have addressed the propoganda issue.
Reasonable people have supported the contention that Ahmadinejad did not say the most inflammatory things attributed to him.
One of the inflammatory things attributed to Ahmadinejad is the statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map." If "reasonable people" contend that Ahmadinejad did not say it, those people are woefully uninformed.
Why do I say that? Because Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (the Iranian government broadcaster) reported:
Tehran, Oct 26[, 2005] - Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the President told a conference in Tehran entitled 'the world without Zionism'.
"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.
"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to the late founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Imam Khomeini.
Bonobo - just to follow-up on the Anon comment above, I had a similar response - which reasonable people are you thinking of? I'm not aware of which reasonable people, whom I'd believe or call reasonable, are saying that Ahmadinejad either a) didn't say it b) didn't mean it or c) doesn't desire it.
The other thing, Bonobo, is that if Dennis wants to make sure that the case for war in Iran is based on facts (and for goodness sakes, I don't even want to be talking about talking about making the case for WAR in Iran, regardless of what Ahmandinejad says, why on Earth wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't we expect him to SAY EXACTLY THAT?
As in, "I think he said this" or "I think he said that" or "I think what he really meant was...but it doesn't matter what he said because we need facts first that demonstrate the imminent danger required before going to war."
Bonobo - why didn't Dennis just say that, rather than, reportedly, claiming that 99% of the world has mistranslated the guy's actual words?
That's insulting. And it's pandering. :)
I think Lisa Renee was right - a good theme song for this blog might very well be "I won't back down."
If you'd like to know what Kucinich actually said about the resolution and translation conflicts on the day of the vote, as opposed to what the PD now says he says, or what you think he might have meant to say, or whatever, here it is.
Here's the New York Times translation of the Ahmadinejad speech. The debated phrase is at the beginning of the tenth paragraph.
Here's the resolution Kucinich and Paul opposed.
Here's Juan Cole on the issue.
Thanks for the links Bill. I've read them all.
If we accept the NYT version, then my response is that Ahmadinejad has a twisted, histrionic, inaccurate, politically and religiously self-serving image of history. He speaks of elimination of the occupying regime and we know exactly what he means - I don't care how much others want to equivocate over the phrase and the intention.
Kucinich and Cole can dismiss it all they want. That's their prerogative. I disagree with their interpretation and I believe it's enormously dangerous for them to pull their punches with this man.
As for Juan Cole, I only started reading his stuff a year or two ago but nothing I've ever read by him has resonated with me. I may be a peacenik but I'm not a spinner. I question Israel's actions regularly, but I'm not a self-hating Jew or anti-Semite. I argue with rightwing Jews regularly about their myopia when it comes to Israel and I've done so for as long as I can remember.
But Ahmadinejad and those loyal to him?
No one will convince me that he wants or will ever encourage a path that will leave Israel intact or in existence, if he had his way.
I don't believe military action is indicated. But I do believe he's dangerous.
Here's the translation of Ahmadinejad's key sentence as provided by an organ of the Iranian government: As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.
Here's The New York Times translator's rendering of the same sentence: Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map.
The only material difference between the two translations is the use of "Israel" in the first and "occupying regime" in the second. Are they equivalent?
Well, let's look at the next three sentences in The New York Times translation: We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] (sic) has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islam.
What is the translator's parenthetical appearing after the word "regime?" "Israel." How could "occupying regime" in the first cited sentence in the same translation mean anything other than "Israel?"
Based on both the Iranian government translation and The New York Times translation, it is unambiguous that Ahmadinejad meant, "Israel must be wiped off the map." I would suggest that those asserting otherwise are likely either disingenuous or self-deluding.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home