THE PLANK JUNE 18, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Writing about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's latest jeremiad about Israel and Jews, Matthew Yglesias opines:
You can construe Ahmadenijad's remarks about Israel the way Jeff Goldberg is doing, or you could draw a distinction between the idea of destroying Israel as a political entity and the idea of destroying its population. Independent Poland ceased to exist in the nineteenth century without there being a genocide of the Polish people.
Yglesias chooses the nineteenth century partioning of Poland as an example of the difference between the destruction of that country "as a political entity" and "destroying its population." This appears to be an arbitrary example of such a distinction, and yet Yglesias couldn't have chosen a worse historical analogy to demonstrate his ignorance. For Yglesias forgets a more recent partition of Poland, one which very much resulted in the destruction of that country as a "political entity" and many of its people. Maybe that's the sort of scenario Ahmadinejad has in mind when, to take just his latest remark, he says that "Israel has reached the end of its function and will soon disappear off the geographical domain," as opposed to the eighteenth-century division of Poland between the Prussians, Russians and Hapsburgs. But this is what happens when you're a blogger, answering questions "by request," whose political and historical memory begins circa January 2001.
--James Kirchick
26 comments
When is your book coming out, James?
- ndmackenzie
June 18, 2008 at 5:53pm
Giggle. Ajad as Katharine the Great.
Who is this Yglesias asshole, again?
- teplukhin2you
June 18, 2008 at 5:55pm
Hmm, this is character assasination. 'This appears to be an arbitrary example of such a distinction, and yet Yglesias couldn't have chosen a worse historical analogy to demonstrate his ignorance. For Yglesias forgets a more recent partition of Poland, one which very much resulted in the destruction of that country as a "political entity" and many of its people.' Do you really think Yglesias forgets the cause of World War II? You couldn't have chosen a worst historical moment to make this accusation, as every right-winger in the country has been raising the spectre of appeasement lately. I'm quite sure Yglesias, who is not dumb even if you disagree with him/envy his success, knows about this. His point was that the the elimination of a political entity is not necessarily the same as the destruction of a population. One example, such as Poland in the 19th century, establishes the point, that the two are not always the same. A counter example does not prove the opposite, but merely that they can be the same thing, something I doubt Yglesias would disagree with.
So you've not shown that Yglesias is wrong, but you have called him ignorant and ahistorical. Typical hackwork. Keep it up!
- skipper2379
June 18, 2008 at 5:59pm
"This appears to be an arbitrary example of such a distinction, and yet Yglesias couldn't have chosen a worse historical analogy to demonstrate his ignorance."
The first part of this sentence doesn't make sense. The second part is obviously wrong, since you go to talk about a worse historical analogy. I'm not sure what's your point, Yglesias says Ahmadinejad might have meant something somewhat peaceful, but Ahmadinejad might have meant genocide? Yglesias is historically ignorant because of something he didn't say?
- kbecker
June 18, 2008 at 6:24pm
Jamie, would it really be so hard for you to make a case against Yglesias's thesis that Ahmadinejad can be reasonably interpreted to be referring to destroying Israel as a political entity rather than destroying its people? Say, by pointing to other instances where Ahmadinejad has made his meaning more explicit?
Instead, as skipper points out, your response just refutes a claim that Yglesias never made in the first place. Then you end the post with an insult, saying that his "political and historical memory begins circa January 2001," in a post responding to his *historical example from the 19th century*. Even the insults are incoherent.
- AlanSP
June 18, 2008 at 6:45pm
How is the fact that Yglesias didn't become politically conscious till around 2001 relevant to whether he knew about something that happened 70 years ago? Virtually no one who's still writing today is old enough to actually remember the Molotov-Ribbentorp Pact happening while they were an adult.
- johnalthousecohen
June 18, 2008 at 6:54pm
The inputs of Nineteenth Century Poland and those Israel 2008 are not the same by any stretch. To compare the two is assesnine. Furthermore, I still think it's dumb to be any sort of apologist for an totally unpopular lunatic that calls for the destruction of a political entity, mostly because "destruction" is a VERY VERY strong word and that usually is employed in reference to the ruin of a physical entity, not an abtract one. I mean, unless Ahmadinejad is trying to posture himself as Dr. Claw from Inspector Gadget.
Yglesias loses points for this.
- dylanposer
June 18, 2008 at 6:55pm
Scotland ceased to exist as a political entity in 1707, and there has yet to be any genocide against the Scottish people.
Which is to say, yes, one can in fact cause an ethnic nation's independent state to cease to exist as a political entity without intending the massacre of that nation's people. One may doubt whether that's actually what the Dinner Jacket has in mind for the Israeli people. That's the argument to have, not a counterfactual assertion that undoing a state necessarily requires murdering the state's people.
Of course, engaging the winnable argument about the Dinner Jacket's intentions would also preclude calling Yglesias snarky names. Which fact allows us a revealing glimpse into Kirchick's interests and priorities here.
- rhubarbs
June 18, 2008 at 6:57pm
The elimination of Israel as a sovereignty is no more justifiable than murdering its citizens. Israel is a thriving country far more economically advanced and politically free than any of its neighbors. That does not mean changing the extent of its sovereignty in terms of land area (i.e., a two-state solution with the Palestinians) is not OK. But Israelis worked hard to build their country up from nothing. It's fine if it goes to waste? We just demolish countries now?
- rozenson
June 18, 2008 at 6:58pm
The selecton of any historical example can be construed as arbitrary and as the hyperventillator suggested, IF Yglesias HAD indeed chosen Nazified example, then of course, he would be entirely wrong. But, alas, he didn't choose that example, he chose another example, and it is on that basis that the discussion must focus.
Yglesias' argument is not a strong one I agree but I always get a sense that this kirchick guy itches so much for a fight/snark/put down that he never really reads material all the way through and just flies off the handle and starts pounding the keys...
- thejauntyboulevardier
June 18, 2008 at 7:00pm
good lord Kirchick, you take a throwaway line and blow it out of proportion since his comment was simply in response to someone else; how about mentioning what his real frickin point is:
But the whole discussion seems to be undertaken in bad faith. One way or another, Iran isn't going to destroy Israel. And one way or another, Iran's rhetoric about Israel is ugly. At the same time, you have people in the United States who want to scuttle efforts at good-faith diplomacy with Iran in favor of an approach centered exclusively on coercion up to the point of actual bombing, and semi-pornographic displays of Iranian rhetoric about Israel is part of their political strategy. But bombing Iran is still a bad idea, the "bomb Iran" brigades are still crazy, and a serious, good-faith effort to improve relations with Iran is still a good idea. That's the Iran debate that matters.
- blackton
June 18, 2008 at 7:04pm
Whether crazy or not Blackie, they're the ones calling the shots and everyone is bracing for an incident before the year is out. Put the mortgage on it.
- The Ignorant Populist
June 18, 2008 at 7:25pm
A week ago my GF and her sister were driving back from Carson City when someone going the other direction threw a live kitten out the window of their car. Whereupon GF and sister pulled a Huey and scooped up the kitten.
Long story short: surgery, sickness, two vet hospitals and some breathtaking charges on my MasterCard later, the little gal ("Peanut," now weighing 1 pound 5 ounces and climbing) is doing much better, purring and meowing up a storm, hissing at all the adult critters in residence and, you know, not out of the woods yet but maybe she just might make it.
I happen to agree with the idea of "just war" as put forward by the likes of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. On a smaller scale if a crazed Iranian wanted to throw a hand grenade into a day care center filled with Israeli children, and I had the means, I would attempt to thwart him. Likewise, if a crazed Israeli wanted to throw a hand grenade into a day care center filled with Iranian children, and I had the means, I would thwart her. (Notice the clever use of gender equity.) But as to the relative merits of Iranians or Israelis, I will merely shrug, walk away, and leave that to y'all, who seem to think you know so much more about it than most of the rest of us, and for all I know you may be right. My sense of moral responsibility is perhaps too simple for your tastes. I don't believe we have to judge someone or hate someone before we attempt to stop him from committing murder; in fact, if I had the time I might put forth the theory that hatred and judgment actually detract from one's ability to prevent violance. In any case, lately I find myself too busy to judge or to hate. (Or to snipe meaninglessly back and forth across the pixelated ether that, within hours or maybe minutes, will roll into the emptiness of Yesterday.)
By busy as an example at the moment I have my hands full trying to keep a kitten alive, along with some other projects of similar banality or profundity, depending upon one's druthers.
- williamyard
June 18, 2008 at 7:50pm
Did somebody say mortgage???
- tomeg
June 18, 2008 at 7:58pm
that is sweet of you to do it yard, but to be honest I have always known you have been very partial to a little pussy.
- blackton
June 18, 2008 at 8:22pm
"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst." Ahmadinejad isn't the worst, not yet anyway. A nuclear weapon in Dr. A's quiver is another matter. Who's to say what he might do with one? Just one dropped on Tel Aviv could accomplish both elimination of Israel as a political entity and murder of tens of thousands of Jews. It might not matter then if Iran itself is nuked in return. It's goal could be attained either way.
- tomeg
June 18, 2008 at 8:25pm
Oh, sure - play the injured kitty card.
- WoodyBombay
June 18, 2008 at 8:25pm
blackie: And, pound for pound, Peanut's the most expensive by far.
Woody: You're right. I might need it later--but now it's gone!
- williamyard
June 18, 2008 at 8:32pm
yard and blackie...
tnr classic exchange...now that was a huge smile!
- thejauntyboulevardier
June 18, 2008 at 8:57pm
Yglesias wasn't taking a position in this debate; he was describing the viewpoints of Goldberg and Walt. *His* conclusion is that either meaning is bad, neither will happen, and that such rhetoric shouldn't be deployed by those essentially urging war with Iran rather than diplomacy on the ground that Iran is intending to nuke Israel as soon as it's able, damn the consequences. The argument he actually makes is reasonable. Jamie misrepresents it here.
- jhildner
June 18, 2008 at 9:04pm
Maybe I'm so far down the thread that I'm forgetting it was Kirchik's blog post, but I think the complaint -- in my view legitimate -- is that Ygelsias, in trying to come up with an analogy that gave a different, less threatening dimension to Achmadinnerjacket's words, produced an analogy predicated on a particular country's non-genocidal experience of loss of national sovereignty -- unfortunately, however, he seemed to overlook a much nastier and more recent historical experience to do with that very same country, in which genocide was indeed the objective of the destruction of national sovereignty.
- ironyroad
June 18, 2008 at 9:25pm
It is said that when Maria-Theresa heard of the deal between Katherine and Frederick to split Poland (Germany and Russia splitting Poland, what a concept), she wept for the fate of the Polish people. And reached for Silesia.
As usual Jamie has a point, which he manages to destroy through snide comments. I don't think it's possible to say one way or another whether Ahmadinejad is a genocidal lunatic, or just a lunatic. In his three years as President, exactly zero Jews and Christians have been thrown in jail or otherwise harassed for their faith in Iran; meanwhile, Grand Ayatollahs have been attacked in print and on the pulpit, Iranians of various ethnic origin have been tortured and executed; many intellectual mullahs have been derocked; activists have been thrown in jail and students have been raped and killed in prison. His statements about Israel are insane and potentially dangerous, but frankly, he has done far worse to his own people than he could do to Israel and Israelis.
I don't think Yglesias can say with any certainty what Ahmadinejad means - I don't think anyone in Iran can figure out what he means. But this also means that Jamies is not a position to compare Iran to Germany in 1939 either.
- icarusr
June 18, 2008 at 10:42pm
If I were a guilty man, I'd want Kirchick as my prosecutor. By the time he'd finished his closing statement, the jury would probably be ready to give me a medal.
- Androscoggin
June 18, 2008 at 11:24pm
The Polish analogy was particularly inept. The early partitions were in fact catastrophic in their effect on the Polish people, and still pale beside the holocaust that was the direct result of the 1939 partition. Interestingly, Angela Merkel was in Gdansk last week, and one of the topics was the German determination to join the Poles in insisting that the actual start-point for WWII in Europe was not the September 1 German invasion, but the August 23 signing of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact.
There's no question about the fact that Iran wishes the Jewish state of Israel to be replaced by one dominated by a Muslim majority and is pursuing this goal by a variety of tactics, including the acquisition of nuclear potential. This doesn't mean that attacking Iran is a sensible way to respond. In fact, the idea is so ridiculous even George Bush wouldn't do it. The best idea would be to approach the Iranian leadership through our mutual friends in Iraq with a view to a new relationship along the lines of the one we now have with China; and to pursue current developments with Syria in an attempt to decouple that state from Iran and its allies Hezbollah and Hamas.
As a reader and commenter at Yglesius' column, I can substantiate Kirchick's characterization of Matt's historical perspective. Smart kid, with the emphasis on "kid".
- Robert Powell
June 19, 2008 at 3:29am
'The elimination of Israel as a sovereignty is no more justifiable than murdering its citizens.' Count me entirely unconvinced. A basic humanism makes me much more concerned about Israelis as individuals than the state of Israel as an abstract entity. I don't think Israel is the cause of the world's problems; I'm not an anti-semite and I'm not conspiratorial and delusional. I don't imagine Israel, as a state, is going anywhere, and I think Jews deserve a state given what history tells us about how people have abused them. Still, I do care more about Israelis than Israel as such, and I think it suggests a bankrupt imagination if you really think an abstraction is the same as flesh and blood.
- skipper2379
June 19, 2008 at 11:46pm
The sanguinity of some people on the Left -- and the paleo, non-interventionist Right -- towards dictators
- Anonymous
June 23, 2008 at 9:58pm