Stephen Colbert & Jeffrey Goldberg talk-up the existential threat to Israel from Iran
Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Larger Text
Print
E-mail
11 Comments
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Exorcism of my inner Peter King
- Gas question: why give Ireland's enormous wealth away? the Norweigan alternative
- Bashing the Irish -- a break neck run down on Ireland's history of betrayal
- Stephen Fry to appear on Gaelic soap opera Ros na Rún
- Stolkholm Syndrome infects Dublin
Archives
The contradictions of Stephen Colbert's person/persona are as shifting as the perspective his character/self takes through the course of any show.
It's hard to say what "he" believes, because he can dart in and out of irony like a rabbit.
He (whoever) talked on the Tuesday August 24, 2010 show, with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic about the How & Why of Israel's "inevitable" strike on Iran.
If I may digress, Colbert also talked about Prince Alwaleed, whom he personally vetted when selling him his Dorian Gray for the troops. Colbert did not say anything about the problematic symbolism a Wahhabi mosque would mean if built on a building destroyed by a hijacked plane on 9/11. Organizers literally hide their Wahhabi backers while selling the whole dream in a Sufi dervish. It's not fair to ask people to rally behind an undefined project with hidden funding sources.
Colbert did talk about Israel's right to defend itself against a looming threat--a principle I also believe. To drive the message home, Colbert profiled a weak little Iranian rocket, that mischaracterizes the fight Iranians would put-up if attacked. Israel attacks Iran, and we're all at war. As Bill O'Reilly says, "it's World War III," if anyone strikes anyone.
The justification for Israel's striking an enemy state is grounded on self-defense. Crucial evidence then, that Iran's president said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map," as was quoted by Colbert and lobbed to Goldberg. This is a very serious quote, and is invoked at every discussion of Iran's threat level. It's needed that we vet this quote for truthiness. It is the basis upon which coming sanctions and war are justified.
The Iranian president is a whack job, and a danger. Colbert and Goldberg discussed this fact, and casually described coming sanctions. The quote and the sanctions and the war are all entwined together.
Economic sanctions, Colbert might think to remember, are horribly inhumane, as Imam Feisal has said in defending his statements about terrorism's causes. To casually call for sanctions is to violently cut word from consequence.
It is also a great example of how a pundit like Colbert will create a compelling moral case for an undefined Saudi prince project on Ground Zero, but will give no examination to the meaning of this "sanctions" word "he" bandies about so freely.
As the Imam has said, citing UN statistics, the sanctions on Iraq caused the death of 500,000 children. That meant "children under five are dying at more than twice the rate" before sanctions, as UNICEF reported. Creepy statistics are what I mean by consequences.
The casual invocation of sanctions for Iran, on a comedy show, is particularly horrifying. Sanctions are about starving children. Caring about Muslims does not mean kissing some rich oil barrons rear so he can build a trophy on symbolically significant ground. It means seeing war (sanctions) for what it is.
Israel does have every right to take-out an enemy threatening nuclear war and/or boasting on a world stage about blowing-up Jerusalem.
I offer one concern with this depiction of Iran, while acknowledging the evil of Ahm-you-won-an-emmy-for-warmongering?-ejad: Did he really say he intended to blow Jerusalem away?
The New York Times leaves it an open question. We can't take the threat casually, considering Iran's meddling in terrorist acts against Israel, but neither can we say matter-of-factly that he was calling to wipe Israel away with a bomb.
American tax-payers are existentially not so cavalier about backing up Israel's fears based on questionable evidence of existential threat. We the people who fund Israel's military option, and American troop back-up have an obligation to better understand what exactly is this threat the Iranian president is making against our ally.
Ahmadinejad said "I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government, and I have talked about the solution, the solution is democracy." He goes on to describe a referendum and peace.
This guy stole his own election, so he's about as democratic and peaceful as a fascist banging his head against the wall. No question, this guy is a bad guy, and his views of Israel are at least as bad as anything said about him.
Was Ahmadenijad saying let's nuke Israel?, however, which is the impression you would get watching Goldberg and Colbert.
Israelis and Palestinians will be negotiating at the new peace talks with George Mitchell who moderated Ireland's IRA/British mess. The existential threat to Israel, like that to the UK's identity as inclusive of Irish territory, is bound-up in elections, demographics and the right of Palestinians chased off Israel to return home.
Britain conceded to a referendum, a real one, where if the people of occupied-Ireland vote to reunite with Ireland, they get to do so.
Ahma-what's-his-face-ejad believes Palestinians have a right to return to Israel, and vote alongside Israelis in Israel as citizens, on the fate of a new non-denominated Jewish state.
If Palestinians returned, and voted, Israel would be altered dramatically.
As an Irish diaspora person concerned about Ireland's survival, I understand why Jewish people would not like that at all. The "right of return" would "destroy" Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. It would become a multi-cultural democracy, and cease to be a sanctuary for replenishing Jewish people post-Holocaust. The destruction would be democratic though, not nuclear.
I believe Jews want and have a right to land and a nation-state, which are survival tools that any people need to persist into modernity. Reparations might take care of that.
Why not Israelis pay Palestinians for all the appropriated real estate in exchange for signing away right of return? It would be cheaper than war. No?
Has Iran said enough to justify the sense of looming existential threat?
Maybe, but it is unreasonable and dishonest to characterize the "right of return" in the same sense as would be characterized "dropping bombs on Jerusalem."
Has Iran said enough to justify World War III?
Maybe Colbert and Goldberg are not the best people to hash that one out.
It's hard to say what "he" believes, because he can dart in and out of irony like a rabbit.
He (whoever) talked on the Tuesday August 24, 2010 show, with Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic about the How & Why of Israel's "inevitable" strike on Iran.
If I may digress, Colbert also talked about Prince Alwaleed, whom he personally vetted when selling him his Dorian Gray for the troops. Colbert did not say anything about the problematic symbolism a Wahhabi mosque would mean if built on a building destroyed by a hijacked plane on 9/11. Organizers literally hide their Wahhabi backers while selling the whole dream in a Sufi dervish. It's not fair to ask people to rally behind an undefined project with hidden funding sources. Colbert did talk about Israel's right to defend itself against a looming threat--a principle I also believe. To drive the message home, Colbert profiled a weak little Iranian rocket, that mischaracterizes the fight Iranians would put-up if attacked. Israel attacks Iran, and we're all at war. As Bill O'Reilly says, "it's World War III," if anyone strikes anyone.
The justification for Israel's striking an enemy state is grounded on self-defense. Crucial evidence then, that Iran's president said he wanted to "wipe Israel off the map," as was quoted by Colbert and lobbed to Goldberg. This is a very serious quote, and is invoked at every discussion of Iran's threat level. It's needed that we vet this quote for truthiness. It is the basis upon which coming sanctions and war are justified.
The Iranian president is a whack job, and a danger. Colbert and Goldberg discussed this fact, and casually described coming sanctions. The quote and the sanctions and the war are all entwined together. Economic sanctions, Colbert might think to remember, are horribly inhumane, as Imam Feisal has said in defending his statements about terrorism's causes. To casually call for sanctions is to violently cut word from consequence.
It is also a great example of how a pundit like Colbert will create a compelling moral case for an undefined Saudi prince project on Ground Zero, but will give no examination to the meaning of this "sanctions" word "he" bandies about so freely.
As the Imam has said, citing UN statistics, the sanctions on Iraq caused the death of 500,000 children. That meant "children under five are dying at more than twice the rate" before sanctions, as UNICEF reported. Creepy statistics are what I mean by consequences. The casual invocation of sanctions for Iran, on a comedy show, is particularly horrifying. Sanctions are about starving children. Caring about Muslims does not mean kissing some rich oil barrons rear so he can build a trophy on symbolically significant ground. It means seeing war (sanctions) for what it is.
Israel does have every right to take-out an enemy threatening nuclear war and/or boasting on a world stage about blowing-up Jerusalem.
I offer one concern with this depiction of Iran, while acknowledging the evil of Ahm-you-won-an-emmy-for-warmongering?-ejad: Did he really say he intended to blow Jerusalem away?
The New York Times leaves it an open question. We can't take the threat casually, considering Iran's meddling in terrorist acts against Israel, but neither can we say matter-of-factly that he was calling to wipe Israel away with a bomb.
American tax-payers are existentially not so cavalier about backing up Israel's fears based on questionable evidence of existential threat. We the people who fund Israel's military option, and American troop back-up have an obligation to better understand what exactly is this threat the Iranian president is making against our ally.
Ahmadinejad said "I think that the Israeli government is a fabricated government, and I have talked about the solution, the solution is democracy." He goes on to describe a referendum and peace.
This guy stole his own election, so he's about as democratic and peaceful as a fascist banging his head against the wall. No question, this guy is a bad guy, and his views of Israel are at least as bad as anything said about him.
Was Ahmadenijad saying let's nuke Israel?, however, which is the impression you would get watching Goldberg and Colbert. Israelis and Palestinians will be negotiating at the new peace talks with George Mitchell who moderated Ireland's IRA/British mess. The existential threat to Israel, like that to the UK's identity as inclusive of Irish territory, is bound-up in elections, demographics and the right of Palestinians chased off Israel to return home.
Britain conceded to a referendum, a real one, where if the people of occupied-Ireland vote to reunite with Ireland, they get to do so.
Ahma-what's-his-face-ejad believes Palestinians have a right to return to Israel, and vote alongside Israelis in Israel as citizens, on the fate of a new non-denominated Jewish state.
If Palestinians returned, and voted, Israel would be altered dramatically.
As an Irish diaspora person concerned about Ireland's survival, I understand why Jewish people would not like that at all. The "right of return" would "destroy" Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. It would become a multi-cultural democracy, and cease to be a sanctuary for replenishing Jewish people post-Holocaust. The destruction would be democratic though, not nuclear.
I believe Jews want and have a right to land and a nation-state, which are survival tools that any people need to persist into modernity. Reparations might take care of that.
Why not Israelis pay Palestinians for all the appropriated real estate in exchange for signing away right of return? It would be cheaper than war. No?
Has Iran said enough to justify the sense of looming existential threat?
Maybe, but it is unreasonable and dishonest to characterize the "right of return" in the same sense as would be characterized "dropping bombs on Jerusalem."
Has Iran said enough to justify World War III?
Maybe Colbert and Goldberg are not the best people to hash that one out.
11 comments
Page 1 of 1 pages
BrendanPKeane | Aug 29, 2010, 06:09 PM EDT
Israel is tiny, the Jews should just buy it, and give us all a break.
Report abuse
DennisQ | Aug 29, 2010, 03:52 PM EDT
The problem for Americans is that instead of opposing apartheid in Israel, we are enabling it. It's a contradiction of our values and it's been going on for so long that many Americans have come to see apartheid as the natural order of things.
New York Archbishop Dolan allowed Staten Island bigots to cancel the sale of a Catholic convent to a Muslim group. That's not spiritual leadership; it's simply caving in. By contrast, New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been forthright in the defense of basic human rights. The city is in the anomalous situation of getting moral leadership from the mayor; while religious so-called "leaders" work back room deals. Frankly, Archbishop Dolan should go back where he came from. There must be a small, unimportant city in the Midwest where he'll fit right in.
We can't continue to move against our own history by defending apartheid instead of opposing it. America has a unique role in world history, and it's not to uphold internationally what we wouldn't put up with if it happened here. Imagine - designating separate roads solely for the use of members of one tribe and forbidden to members of another. This is not the American way, and neither is granting building permits to one religion and withholding them from another.
New York Archbishop Dolan allowed Staten Island bigots to cancel the sale of a Catholic convent to a Muslim group. That's not spiritual leadership; it's simply caving in. By contrast, New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been forthright in the defense of basic human rights. The city is in the anomalous situation of getting moral leadership from the mayor; while religious so-called "leaders" work back room deals. Frankly, Archbishop Dolan should go back where he came from. There must be a small, unimportant city in the Midwest where he'll fit right in.
We can't continue to move against our own history by defending apartheid instead of opposing it. America has a unique role in world history, and it's not to uphold internationally what we wouldn't put up with if it happened here. Imagine - designating separate roads solely for the use of members of one tribe and forbidden to members of another. This is not the American way, and neither is granting building permits to one religion and withholding them from another.
Report abuse
BrendanPKeane | Aug 29, 2010, 10:38 AM EDT
WoundedKnee: Truthiness is a Colbert word. I understand what you're saying, but the argument against Israeli's right of return is moot at this point. It's crazy, I guess, but it's how the world has shaped up. Israel exists. The Palestinian right of return should become a demand for reparations, very high reparations. Israel owes a lot of money to the Palestinians.
Report abuse
WoundedKnee | Aug 29, 2010, 08:18 AM EDT
This is certainly a very badly written piece. "Truthiness"??? I can't follow its logic, if there is any. Our author says: "The "right of return" would "destroy" Israel as a democratic and Jewish state". But the whole Israeli project is built on a right of return. Is Keane arguing that a right of return after 2000 years takes precedence over a right of return after 60 years? What kind of crazy thinking is that? There are elderly Palestinians who still hold the keys of their homes in Jerusalem or Haaifa, homes from which they were ethnically cleansed 60 years ago or so. How many Brooklyn Jews who have settled in Israel held the keys of homes their forefathers owned in Roman times?
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Aug 29, 2010, 01:02 AM EDT
Oh'Dennis! I will make a prediction of my own, that a muslim terrorist will kill large groups of innocent people in the very near future. I think that has far far better odds of happening than your prediction of one muslim taxi driver getting wounded by one black out drunk in manhattan. If I was a muslim I would feel quite secure.
Report abuse
DennisQ | Aug 28, 2010, 11:02 PM EDT
Attaboy, Monsoonman . . . stick to your guns. It's getting difficult to continue to believe in Israel's benevolence towards their Arab population. The wanton attack on the helpless people of Gaza led to calls for Boycotts, Divestiture and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, calls that were later implemented when the IDF boarded the Mavi Marmara and killed a dozen people.
The domestic right wing is tapping into energy that's difficult to control. Thugs aren't used to being viewed as political saviors, but they do enjoy the role. I predicted that something like the Michael Enright stabbing would happen; and now I'm predicting something more organized but just as ugly. Southerners who were opposed to the civil rights movement thought they were reasonable and responsible until the KKK murdered voting rights volunteers Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. It was the sort of defining moment that made people take sides. And we're headed for such a defining moment in our times.
There's a video out on the Web about the rise of the English Defense League - a group of thugs who are causing civil unrest and are seeking recognition as contemporary storm troopers. These boyos are not going to stop because David Cameron exhorts them to remember their manners. We've got a crowd like that here, too. They are not as far along as the EDL, but they will certainly get a boost if the Republicans regain power with no more of a platform of ideas than we've heard so far.
It's still possible for you to argue that anti-Muslim thuggery is really patriotism, a restoration of honor, but that window is closing. Political movements don't pop up overnight - it takes a few years to get going. However, we're all going to be sorry at the resurgence of Aryanism. That's a bad lot, and frankly you don't seem sufficiently alarmed.
The domestic right wing is tapping into energy that's difficult to control. Thugs aren't used to being viewed as political saviors, but they do enjoy the role. I predicted that something like the Michael Enright stabbing would happen; and now I'm predicting something more organized but just as ugly. Southerners who were opposed to the civil rights movement thought they were reasonable and responsible until the KKK murdered voting rights volunteers Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman. It was the sort of defining moment that made people take sides. And we're headed for such a defining moment in our times.
There's a video out on the Web about the rise of the English Defense League - a group of thugs who are causing civil unrest and are seeking recognition as contemporary storm troopers. These boyos are not going to stop because David Cameron exhorts them to remember their manners. We've got a crowd like that here, too. They are not as far along as the EDL, but they will certainly get a boost if the Republicans regain power with no more of a platform of ideas than we've heard so far.
It's still possible for you to argue that anti-Muslim thuggery is really patriotism, a restoration of honor, but that window is closing. Political movements don't pop up overnight - it takes a few years to get going. However, we're all going to be sorry at the resurgence of Aryanism. That's a bad lot, and frankly you don't seem sufficiently alarmed.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Aug 28, 2010, 06:10 PM EDT
What tripe Oh'Dennis, Israel doesn't want to practice genocide and mass murder, so it DOES NOT carpet bomb the residential areas that the hezbollah murderers hide behind to fire rockets into israel from...Israel could easily clear out the terrorists if they had the same respect for human life that the hezbollah and jihadist murderers have. Also I want you to recognize your leftist thugs for what they are, as in your world there are only thugs on the right....All of the seiu union thugs who beat people up and try to intimidate people at political rallies. The black panther thugs who harass and practice voter suppression at voting places and the race hustling thugs who try to brand anyone that stands up to them as a racist and the main stream media thugs who try to portray tea party attendees as extremist and racist in their views...just a little fair and balance would help oh'dennis.
Report abuse
DennisQ | Aug 28, 2010, 01:40 AM EDT
Brendan would like us to believe that the pit bull that's straining at the leash is actually very friendly; you just have to get used to what looks like its very malevolent intentions. Unfortunately, he's not quite convincing in this pose. Pay no attention to the pit bull, he says. The growling is just a characteristic of the breed.
The right wing has exploited the thuggishness that has developed over the past say, 15 years. Rowdy young men - and some who aren't so young - are looking to kick some ass and gain themselves some R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Right wingers have invited the thugs to share in what might be called hyper-patriotism. Thugs love it! The guys who wear Death Before Dishonor tattoos will get themselves full of liquor and avenge Wahhabi "insults" one or two Muslims at a time. We've already seen a start to this; and the animal will shortly be off the leash entirely.
Pam Gellar's group has invited Ilario Pantano to address the protest rally. You may recall Pantano as the officer who directed his underlings to look away while he emptied a clip of ammunition into the bodies of unarmed Iraqi prisoners. At his pre-trial hearing he claimed that they'd "made a move" toward him and he feared for his safety. Pantano then reloaded and emptied a second clip into the bodies lying on the ground. Still not satisfied, Pantano decorated the corpses with a handwritten note, the Marine Corps slogan, "No better friend, no worse enemy." Pantano, now the face of American thuggery, is running for Congress in North Carolina. Michelle Malkin described Pantano's book, Warlord, as "riveting," and said she "couldn't put it down."
The goons are here and they're not going away. Brendan Patrick Keane is disingenuous when he pretends not to notice them. Of course he's as aware of them as the aforementioned Michelle Malkin, but wink-wink, let's just not let on. No wonder it sounds a bit incoherent.
The right wing has exploited the thuggishness that has developed over the past say, 15 years. Rowdy young men - and some who aren't so young - are looking to kick some ass and gain themselves some R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Right wingers have invited the thugs to share in what might be called hyper-patriotism. Thugs love it! The guys who wear Death Before Dishonor tattoos will get themselves full of liquor and avenge Wahhabi "insults" one or two Muslims at a time. We've already seen a start to this; and the animal will shortly be off the leash entirely.
Pam Gellar's group has invited Ilario Pantano to address the protest rally. You may recall Pantano as the officer who directed his underlings to look away while he emptied a clip of ammunition into the bodies of unarmed Iraqi prisoners. At his pre-trial hearing he claimed that they'd "made a move" toward him and he feared for his safety. Pantano then reloaded and emptied a second clip into the bodies lying on the ground. Still not satisfied, Pantano decorated the corpses with a handwritten note, the Marine Corps slogan, "No better friend, no worse enemy." Pantano, now the face of American thuggery, is running for Congress in North Carolina. Michelle Malkin described Pantano's book, Warlord, as "riveting," and said she "couldn't put it down."
The goons are here and they're not going away. Brendan Patrick Keane is disingenuous when he pretends not to notice them. Of course he's as aware of them as the aforementioned Michelle Malkin, but wink-wink, let's just not let on. No wonder it sounds a bit incoherent.
Report abuse
lawyer4 | Aug 27, 2010, 07:26 PM EDT
Was this written in English? It verges on the utterly incoherent.
Report abuse
DennisQ | Aug 27, 2010, 04:55 PM EDT
After Hezbollah defeated the IDF in the last war, Israel is afraid to commit ground troops. Instead they drop white phosphorus on the helpless people of Gaza, a war crime. Israel needs a PR boost from somewhere, but starting a war with Iran is not likely to succeed.
Israeli governments are increasingly hawkish in their political rhetoric, but hesitant to go to war against someone who might give them a fair fight. Israel is far more vulnerable to counter-attack than what we've heard. The backbone of Israel's economy, its educated class, are people who aren't committed to staying there. If there's any hint of trouble, these people will take their degrees and their work histories back to Cleveland or Minsk.
Jeffrey Goldberg is one of a group of writers who have consistently agitated for policies that don't work to America's advantage. He said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and was allied with Al Qaeda - neither of which was true. Goldberg also predicted that our troops would be welcomed as liberators and that victory in Iraq would take only a week or two. Here it is six years later, we're still stuck in Iraq, and the "winner" - if there is one - is probably the Shia clergy.
Israel's social structure assigns class membership based on ethnicity - in other words, apartheid. Does Jeffrey Goldberg believe that the United States will go to war to defend Israel's right to discriminate against Arabs?
Israeli governments are increasingly hawkish in their political rhetoric, but hesitant to go to war against someone who might give them a fair fight. Israel is far more vulnerable to counter-attack than what we've heard. The backbone of Israel's economy, its educated class, are people who aren't committed to staying there. If there's any hint of trouble, these people will take their degrees and their work histories back to Cleveland or Minsk.
Jeffrey Goldberg is one of a group of writers who have consistently agitated for policies that don't work to America's advantage. He said we had to invade Iraq because Saddam had WMD's and was allied with Al Qaeda - neither of which was true. Goldberg also predicted that our troops would be welcomed as liberators and that victory in Iraq would take only a week or two. Here it is six years later, we're still stuck in Iraq, and the "winner" - if there is one - is probably the Shia clergy.
Israel's social structure assigns class membership based on ethnicity - in other words, apartheid. Does Jeffrey Goldberg believe that the United States will go to war to defend Israel's right to discriminate against Arabs?
Report abuse
Page 1 of 1 pages
Report abuse