Bill Scher: The Importance of Cole v. Hitchens
And, a Suggestion
Bill Scher nails it.
He also points out the MEMRI's translation is close to my own.
So, I have a suggestion for my readers. Every time you see a newspaper article that alleges that Ahmadinejad said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the map, please write the editor. Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.
If enough people do this often enough, the press will get tired of the propaganda line they are carrying, which is intended to whip up a manufactured war, and drop it. And that would be the most fitting response to Hitchens and his Neocon puppeteers.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/04/2006 01:22:00 PM
17 Comments:
good suggestion, but it might be better if we can cite someone else... the stupid corportate media may pass you off as having an "agenda"...
after all, their bosses like the Hitchins-make-more-war type much better than reason and discourse and correct information.
They simply make more profits with war. And that is all they care about.
Say that this idiom does not exist in Persian, and that what Ahmadinejad actually said was, "This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time." And you can cite me.
I doubt that would help. For me, at least, that exact translation you gave is extremely ambiguous (although it may be less so in the Persian; I don't speak that). It's unclear whether he means the occupation must cease, that the Israeli government must vanish, or that the state of Israel and everyone in it must vanish.
I think that's the whole reason there is such controversy over this thing: people like you give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he meant something benign; people on the other side see the same thing and assume it was something malicious. I don't see anything grossly illogical with either interpretation; they're just using different preconceptions with the same data.
Of course, I agree with Cole on all this. But I notice that Scher refers to "neocon writer Christopher Hitchens." I'm pointing this out because I objected to Cole's formulation two days ago contrasting "neocon" versus "WASP." A glance or two at American Enterprise Institute or PNAC websites illustrates the same point.
It is true that the first person ever called "neoconservative" was Jewish. And today many ultra-nationalist Jews are attracted to neocon ideologies that rationalize aggressive wars, torture, collective punishment etc. But current neoconservative organizations like AEI and PNAC are not Jewish organizations, and neoconservatism is not a Jewish ideology.
Hitchens is a WASP; and so are a majority of AEI and PNAC so-called scholars. The AEI and neoconservatism are no more Jewish than the ACLU and civil libertarianism. Calling them Jewish is a huge mistake in my opinion.
This is ridiculous. Hitchens is not a neocon. Anyone who fails to understand the reasons for Hitchens' support of the liberation of Iraq is not fit to comment. How can I take seriously such a cavalier piece of crap?
Please keep in mind that the Slate comments board for the Hitchens piece was swamped with AIPAC.org representatives posting under assumed identities. Perhaps they have always had Professor Cole in their sights, as he speaks the truth about the Middle East, which is not always flattering to Israel.. but until this time I had yet to see anyone willing to stand with Christopher Hitchens. He's been so consistently wrong about Iraq, and so difficult to be physically close to, that even those who agree with him usually pretend to be on a parallel course, distantly removed.
Oh please! The man has spent years encouraging and defending neocon policies and actions and now we're supposed to believe he's not a neocon? As for "Liberation of Iraqis" double "oh please" it beggars belief that people are still peddling that line.
Juan, I have great admiration for you and your work, but I have a question. Given that your translation is accurate, to the untrained Western eye there doesn't appear to be much difference in the meaning and import of the two versions. Can you provide any guidance as to why the "must vanish from the page of time" should not be seen as threatening as the "wrong" translation? Not knowing how Iranians think, it seems equally threatening to me. I'd appreciate more clarity on this.
I am pretty rusty in my Farsi, but I read the original speech Prof. Cole linked to and my reading agrees with Prof. Cole's translation. (Yes, my Farsi is rusty, but I can tell the difference between the 2 phrases that are in contention! It's not that hard.) It's much more accurate than "wiped off the map". I'd say the reason it's important is because "vanish from the page of time" is very much a rhetorical flourish of a phrase. While "wiped off the face of the map" has distinctly threatening overtones to it in English that just aren't there in Farsi (the idiom the NY Times reporter chose to insert in there is very much an English phrase that doesn't have a direct correspondence in Farsi, and certainly it wouldn't be that one.) I'm not sure how to get this across, but if you're going to threaten in Farsi, this isn't the phrase you'd use.
This is a great idea, and inshAllah (God willing) the truth will spread and correct this incorrect idea floating around.
One criticism, Why didn't you mention this on your blog in October 2005, when it was a headline and talked about everywhere? Now that everyone's heard it, the damage is pretty darn hard to undo. I plan on trying my hardest, I forwarded it to plenty of people, but if I knew this back in 2005, I could have written a reply Op-Ed. With this information, writing a rebuttal 7 months later is just too late.
(Yes, if I knew more Persian friends, I could have learned this sooner, but shame on me for trusting the media for translations.)
Given the entire text of the speech from the Times, it seems clear to me that Ahmadinejad is calling for the state of Israel to cease to exist in the way the Shah's regime over Iran, the Communist regime of the USSR and Hussein's regime in Iraq ceased to exist. The latter three are used in the speech as reasons that give hope that Israel will meet the same fate.
On the other hand, the conclusion that Ahmadinejad and Iran's leadership is genocidally irrational towards Israel is essential to justify extreme efforts to isolate or weaken Iran.
When a conclusion is essential, it is completely impervious to contrary evidence, and if anyone presents contrary evidence, the first instinct is to argue logically, but if that fails, the conclusion is still essential so the next instinct is to smear and hopefully silence the presenter.
Prof. Cole's translation brings to my mind an English phrase along the lines of "cannot stand the test of time," though I am thoroughly unqualified to know how wrong I may be. Is the distinction here something along the lines of that between an expression of historical inevitability vs. an expression of intention to take action to achieve that end?
Juan,
This misses the point that the quote is from Imam Khomeni, on Qods Day, and that wilayat-i faqih is part of the constellation of Iranian politicial groups in power. To quote myself ... (Spittle has a funny post on the subject too):
My own comment last November 1st is along the lines of Iranian domestic politics is here. In a state where the political culture takes imitation seriously, seriously enough to put an Iraq war vet and academic in jeopardy of capital punishment for differing on the sense and scope of wilayat-i faqih ... quoting the Imam Khomeni word-for-word on Qods Day seems pretty damn unremarkable.
The analogy here is Kruschev's famous remark regarding the future of Communism vs. capitalism; "we will bury you".
To a Russian that's just a harmless turn of phrase, meaning something like "we will outlast you" but in translation it sounded very much like a threat.
Of course, Kruschev had a lot more power than Ahmadinejad could ever dream of. Oh, and he was wrong...
This is all about laying the groundwork to justify some sort of attack on Iran; The cowardly neocons need their bogeymen, but I hope the American people have learned a thing or two in the last few years.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I hate to have to do it...but while Iran's rhetoric might be idiomatic...Israel's repsonse is not.
Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Monday in an interview to Reuters that "the president of Iran should remember that Iran can also be wiped off the map," Army Radio reported.
According to Peres, "Teheran is making a mockery of the international community's efforts to solve the crisis surrounding Iran's nuclear program."
full article: here
I think one of your readers took up your suggestion in the Independent yesterday.
This started an interesting exchange because there is a response today from another correspondent which points out that the translated text (surely a precis?) on President Ahmadinejad's own website refers to "destruction" of the Zionist regime:
"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."
I note someone said that Hitchens is a W.A.S.P. I am watching him on C-Span today and he said his mother was Jewish.
It's the 3 hour interview he did yesterday Sept. 2nd..and we made a DVD of it.
Post a Comment
<< Home