And then goes on to make a case against war in Iran. Wow.
I'd like to take this opportunity to complain about the profoundly dishonest character of "attack journalism." Journalists are supposed to interview the subjects about which they write. Mr. Hitchens never contacted me about this piece. He never sought clarification of anything. He never asked permission to quote my private mail. Major journalists have a privileged position. Not just anyone can be published in Slate. Most academics could not get a gig there (I've never been asked to write for it). Hitchens is paid to publish there because he is a prominent journalist. But then he should behave like a journalist, not like a hired gun for the far Right, smearing hapless targets of his ire. That isn't journalism. For some reason it drives the Right absolutely crazy that I keep this little web log, and so they keep trotting out these clowns in amateurish sniping attacks. It is rather sad, that one person standing up to them puts them into such piranha-like frenzy.
The precise reason for Hitchens' theft and publication of my private mail is that I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." I object to this translation of what he said on two grounds. First, it gives the impression that he wants to play Hitler to Israel's Poland, mobilizing an armored corps to move in and kill people.
But the actual quote, which comes from an old speech of Khomeini, does not imply military action, or killing anyone at all. The second reason is that it is just an inexact translation. The phrase is almost metaphysical. He quoted Khomeini that "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time." It is in fact probably a reference to some phrase in a medieval Persian poem. It is not about tanks.
It's long, but wow, damn.
Posted by binky at May 3, 2006 04:54 PM | TrackBack | Posted to BlogoramaSorry. Sully's no source, and I'll take the full profesor endowed chair middle east political history expert on the issue of translation any day.
Posted by: binky at May 3, 2006 05:09 PM | PERMALINKThough he backed off that translation, as he recounts it?
Face it: This war sucks. Hitchens has gone Weird. But Cole went off the deepend today.
Posted by: Chris at May 3, 2006 05:51 PM | PERMALINKHmm, I didn't catch the backing off. But the attacks are messing with his livlihood. Trying to sabotage the guy from getting a job, and conducting a smear campaign. It's ridiculous.
Posted by: binky at May 3, 2006 05:55 PM | PERMALINKHitchens went Weird many, many years ago. The guy is still quite the prose stylist, and on occasion has an interesting thing or two to say (though more often about literature than politics), but he's long been Weird.
And whatever President A has said or hasn't said, it's worth remembering that he doesn't control the Iranian military.
Posted by: Armand at May 3, 2006 08:43 PM | PERMALINKI generally like Juan Cole's website and appreciate his perspective. However his response to Hitchens' criticism is childish and overdone, and the accusation of alcoholism uncalled for. Cole's post takes what was a discussion about the motives of the Iranian leadership and turns it into an anti-war extravaganza. An intellectual of Cole's caliber should know better than to sink to that level.
Posted by: Brian at May 4, 2006 03:52 AM | PERMALINKPeople who look for problems with Hichens full time, is what you mean by "this," which is hardly emblematic of unbiasedness. Hitchens absolutely was out of line in the breadth of his slurs; his ad hominem attacks, indeed, are probably the biggest stain on his capacious intellect and more or less completely insane erudition. All of that said, it strikes me that to say Juan Cole is radically better with the language than whomever the Times pays six figures to do the same job without caveat is sort of silly, and I also note that the allegation that Cole ignored relevant contextual clues in the quoted material is relevant as well.
Finally, it seems to me a quibble. I don't need to think Cole an Islamofascist apologist to find somewhat naive this semantic argument that the Iranian fundies don't want Israel gone by any means necessary; there's far too much evidence that they want precisely that.
I agree with Armand, though, that Hitchens is far more engaging when he's talking literature.
Posted by: moon at May 4, 2006 01:13 PM | PERMALINKand to further the point (and again, i don't really care who wins this argument as i respect both men) about ad hominem, this from hitchens interview excerpted at the above link:
CH: Well, I've always thought that attacks of that kind, wherever they come from, were invariably a sign of weakness....The ad hominem is widely and rightly denounced, because it shows a collapse on the part of the person who uses it. They won't reply to your point, they won't reply to your case.
and this from his attack on juan cole:
But this apologist [Cole], who affects such expertise in Persian, cannot decipher the plain meaning of a celebrated statement and is, furthermore, in need of a remedial course in English.
a paragon of reasoned argument without resort to slurs, obviously. i think everyone needs to take a deep breath.
Posted by: moon at May 4, 2006 02:56 PM | PERMALINKI will know that I am truly influential when some adolescent name-caller starts a "Jacflash Watch" blog.