I don’t know about you, but when I hear America’s latest enemy described as
a "New Hitler" my eyes glaze over and I assume I am being assaulted by
fear-mongering propaganda. Invoking the shadow of Hitler is a way to bypass
analysis and sway opinion, to silence dissent, to rally the troops.
Mr. Bush invokes this shadow when he speaks of "Islamic fascism", and we
have argued about similar terms on this weblog in the recent past. I wonder if
this tendency to call one’s enemies "fascists" is not some residual habit left
over from the Leftist pasts of some of the leading neoconservative thinkers. To
those of us with similar pasts it is embarrassing to remember throwing the term
around so carelessly.
Those who defend such language will usually point to some combination of
aggressiveness, expansionism, and ideological agenda on the part of the radical
jihadists to justify such rhetoric.
Or they will mention anti-Semitic comments from Mr. Ahmadinejad, though
from what I have read these are taken out of context: "What will you do if
Israel bombs Iran?", the interviewer will ask. "We will destroy Israel!", he
will bluster, and the next day the headlines blare "New Hitler vows to destroy
Israel!"
I wonder at the selectivity of this.
The last two issues of the international version of The Jerusalem
Post have contained two paid political advertisements. The one obliquely
suggested using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran. The other was a petition to
annex southern Lebanon.
These ads- in a mainstream Israeli newspaper- clearly show the existence of
violent, expansionist, ideological Zionists. Do you think Mr. Bush would call
them "Jewish fascists"?
Don’t hold your breath.
I fear we are seeing the demonization of enemies that is necessary in
preparation for war. And I have become convinced that there are those in the
Bush administration who think that the only way out of the mess they have made
in Iraq, the only way to proceed with their stated goal of American hegemony in
the Middle East, is to provoke a major war. Too many of them are crowing about
World War III. Others are preparing us to accept total war, citing Hiroshima as
a model, telling us that we are too soft-hearted, that we need – in John
Podhoretz’ chilling phrase- "the cold-eyed singleness of purpose" that it takes
to incinerate the innocent by the hundreds of thousands.
Personally, I resist this cold-eyed propaganda by invoking the image of the
blind Iranian boy, Muhammad, his devout granny, and his adorable sisters from
the Iranian film The Color of Paradise whenever I hear the word
"Iranian".
And I invoke the image of the Hasidic Jews Moshe and Malli from another
favorite film, the Israeli Ushpizin, whenever I hear the words "Jewish"
or "Israeli".
It works for me; just a little tactic to keep everyone human.
And if it is aggressiveness, expansionism, and ideology that qualifies one
to be the latest Hitler, then the neocons meet the standard.
Of course, I am not saying it is only our leaders who demonize. They call
the Iranian president the new Hitler, but the ayotollahs of Iran have long
called the United States "the Great Satan", which is a very literal
demonization.
So. The war that is shaping up is going to be Hitler vs. Satan?
I hope no one minds if I declare my neutrality right now.
—Daniel Nichols
The US will “incinerate” Iran with A bombs? You are delusional.You are so busy reading left wing rhetoric you haven’t bothered to ask anyone about reality.
If there is an A bomb dropped, it will be by Iran. The “evil neocons” won’t “nuke” them. (although there are other “top secret” weapons that might be used). The US CIA is defanged, so can’t find their facilities, unless Putin lets us know where they are…And a lot of this rhetoric is bluffing, and thanks to the Europeans and China, Iran knows it.
.Look at a map….because all the Iranians have to do is close the strait of Hormuz and no oil can be exported from anywhere… Indeed, their navy already has taken over a Rumanian oil platform to emphasize the threat…
Well, you can remain neutral. You live in the US, and their missles don’t reach there.Not like Baghdad or Israel…
The danger of Iran getting nukes isn’t really the US…it is that Iran will expand into Iraq and other Arab countries. The result will not be an Islamic empire, but a civil war: The Arabs have hated the Persians for 3000 years. And voila, no oil…
And don’t preach “blood for oil”.
To an oil hungry Asia, a collapse of oil doesn’t mean giving up our SUV’s. It means deforestation (no propaneto cook..). Winnowing our fields by hand (no handplows).
Using bicycles when it is 100 degrees and 90 percent humidity, not buses, jeepneys or tricycles to get around. It means the one million Pinoys working in the Middle East will come home, so no money for their families…A collapsed economy… (no oil to run air con for offices or electricity for factories). In other words, poverty. Maybe even hunger, since the second planting requires pumps for irrigation…so only one rice crop a year.
I’m not sure it is possible to have a serious conversation with someone named “Boinkie” but I’ll try.
“Left wing rhetoric”? While I don’t reject thought from the Left, my reading is wider than that, including regular doses of The American, not to mention neoconservatives writing for each other, and my conclusions are my own.
At any rate the possibility of nuclear weapons being used against Iran is not some paranoid delusion I cooked up, but is based on the writings of neocon pundits and the statements eminating out of our own government.
Don’t let the neocons scare you into supporting their war or their empire.
Darn. Italic malfunction again.
And that’s supposed to be “The American Conservative”.
I, too, have grown weary of the Argumentum ad Hitlerum, the false stories of Iranian Jews forced to wear yellow stars that go uncorrected, and all the other propaganda.
I have come to the same conclusions you have and I read very little from the Left.
Joshua