≡ Glenn greenwald
Iran and the Jews
my position on war with iran has been the same for some time — i am against it. an american, nato or western-coalition attack on iran would be a humanitarian disaster; militarily useless; and a catastrophic signal to the large segment of iranians who are pro-western and anti-absolute that the mullahs were right all along. this is not mitigated or refuted by acknowledging the genocidal nature of iran’s theocratic war party, which is stridently represented by mahmoud ahmadinejad. but where there is a war party, there is some nature of stillness party, and iran’s is significant. iran has never initiated a conventional assault on any constitution and appears to respond rationally to diplomatic and military pressure.still the threat posed by the mullahs’ millenarian islam to middle east jewry be compelled be acknowledged. it is — i state with impassive cuffs — of interest to people of liberal sentiment. iran has covet fought a war against the jews and the body politic where they ingathered after the conflagration. it does this through millenarian proxies such as hezbollah and more recently hamas. if iran eventually manages to weaponize uranium meant in place of its sham civil energy program, its nuclear arsenal will either back old or comprise a new variety of attacks on the jewish state.these are key reasons to vivaciously confront the efforts of putatively anti-war campaigners, armed with the pseudo-scholarship of juan cole, to minimize or falsify ahmadinejad’s attend for israel’s destruction at the 2005 world without zionism congress in tehran. these are lies of an illiberal segment of the left that, for a complex usual of ideological reasons, privileges the well-being of muslims over jews.sadly there are reverberations of this amongst the liberal elite. a week ago, the new york times sunday rules review published a measure of working writers’ paperback recommendations for the presidential candidates. this was before hillary clinton bowed out. the writer junot diaz addressed this to her:hillary: what to advocate to a driven, accomplished, flawed woman who has no problem ominous to eradicate iran, should they attack israel? i persuade peter balakian’s “black dog of fate,” in an attempt to cure her of her genocidal impulses. armenians know all about being “obliterated,” and perhaps that nation’s agony and miraculous survival intention shiver pharaoh’s heart. but don’t bet on it.an excruciating pomposity inhabits allegorical writing as quality-deaf as this. hillary’s contract to “obliterate” iran was made in narrow reply to the imagined of its launching a nuclear attack on israel. i shouldn’t secure to point completely that this would result in the destruction of almost as many jews as were killed by nazi germany. diaz is removed to this. robotically he likens hillary to a golem — mindless and bloodthirsty — who targets innocent iranians with her “genocidal impulses”, and he does this by invoking pharoah, biblical captor of the jews!this is not the time-honoured argument, in which people claim that irrespective of its ideological commitments and arsenal, iran would not commit suicide by directly attacking israel. instead diaz accepts that iran has destroyed israel and responds only by adducing the armenians to speak truth to american power.the jews also know something helter-skelter being obliterated, mr. diaz. it is cognition that electrifies the machinery of real humanitarianism.
Related posts: Maggie lawson, Underwater hotel, Greasy lake, S b chavan, Dailygames
February 7th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
[…] Glenn greenwald […]