Mazel Tov, Mahmoud!

Sorry Al, but this is an info-op. Old story and not much there there.

Sabourjian - jian is Farsi for 'worker'; the root sab- covers a range of meanings including rope, the mane of a horse, thread, scruffy hair or beard, etc. Generally, any sort of dangling fiber.

So...it can refer to a fringed prayer shawl. But more often, it's just thread in general. Sabourjian is a thread-painter - basically the low man on the totem pole in the carpet trade. An occupation somewhere in between scullery-maid and rag-picker in prestige.

It is a common name among Iranian Jews. But it's not exclusive to them. Cf. Nazi Alfred Rosenberg - Jewish-sounding name, but probably not Jewish descent.

That's not to say Mahmoud doesn't have some Jewish blood. But the name itself doesn't knock it out of the park.

"The high clerics of the Iranian theocracy may just now have to peek up his pants to inspect as to whether Mahmoud still counts with a schmendrick on his shvantz."

I feel this is not an informative indicator in Iran... (well, damn it, someone had to say it).

And before someone thinks I'm just not taking this seriously enough, my CAPTCHA is "pointing front", so this comment was clearly made to Be.

There's something about the tone of this post (well, almost jubilant and very sarcastic) that rings some alarms in my head... It happened with some other people I liked to suddenly discover that somewhere in some deep corner they were hiding something... well, not very nice. Hope not the case here, Al, it would be sad.

Anyway, apparently some greens in Iran see this as a diversion, see item #7 here.

If you read the full Daily Telegraph article, the reporter seems to have gone beyond the meaning of Ahmadinejad's birth surname and quoted experts asserting that the name is a well-known Jewish name in Iran.  Moreover, the articles notes that "Mehdi Khazali, an internet blogger, who called for an investigation of Mr Ahmadinejad's roots was arrested this summer."  Sounds like a sufficient case to make the claim.

Dan - You're welcome to dislike anything I write, but to cast aspersions that I've been somehow hiding my taste for sarcasm and jubilance when the hypocrisy of tyrants is exposed, you haven't read very carefully my body of work here! I believe in ridicule, in parody, in ruthless humor and mirthful disdain toward hypocrites and dictators everywhere. That ought to be obvious. So dislike all you want but don't accuse me of "hiding" something (especially while you yourself hide what it is you accuse me of hiding, ha ha!)

I enjoy it when despots step on a rake and it hits them in the head. Yes, I also enjoy slapstick, too! Take two aspirin, get a sense of humor, and call your doctor in the morning!

I didn't like the tone and comments either, but my reaction has nothing to do with inability to appreciate sarcasm or glee when tyrants step on a rake or even what Al wrote.  I'm afraid it's all tied up with strong post Lebanon 2006, post Gaza negative feelings I have toward Israel and its persistent efforts to try to manipulate the U.S. into another war against Iran.  I realize that wasn't what you meant at all Al.

The problem is since Israel is by definition a "Jewish state" and Ahmanijad has been persistently naming some of the apartheid abuses and raising the question why should the Palestinians pay for an European crime committed 65 years ago, my initial reaction when I read it was viewed through that lense.  "Aha! Who are you to call out Jewish/Israeli aggression when you yourself are a closet Jew."

I know that's not what you meant or wrote but that's what I 'read'.

Agreed: truly cringe-worthy. "Sarcasm" and whatever doesn't lessen the discomfort.

Interesting what kind of different associations people can have reading the same text:-)

I felt some glee, too, along the lines: all the negative stuff Ahmadinejad was saying about Jews now comes back to bite him. And it does not have anything to do with what I think about Israel policies (they are a colonialist power with the assorted brutality and condescension). Hell, Ahmadinejad views about Israel have nothing to do with Israel policies! He uses them as convenient demons to rally the Iranians behind him - they are his axis of evil.

Or maybe Ahmadinejad is of Pakistani background? Since Sabour is best known as a town in Pakistan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabour

The name itself has been known for at least four years, except for a minor variation in the latin transliteration:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/02/iran.roberttait

http://brownback.senate.gov/public/legissues/foreignpol_crsreportiranpro...

Ahmadinejad's background might well be Jewish, but taking a tabloid like the Telegraph as a credible reference is a bit unwise. The Telegraph certainly failed to mention that Saborjhian was the latin-transliteration spelling of Ahmadinejad's birthname as published in English in 2005 and 2007. And it said nothing about the Sabourjian family from Pakistan that got named that way because they passed through Armenia - or wanted people to think that they were from Armenia.

Al cut his teeth working with Abbie Hoffman, so for anyone to imply [even if not openly stated] that his work is somehow informed by a subtle strain of anti-Semitism is revelatory of a form of self-delusion — and misses the larger issue put into play here.

Al alludes to his real point, at least as I see it, with this line:

The high clerics of the Iranian theocracy may just now have to peek up his pants to inspect as to whether Mahmoud still counts with a schmendrick on his shvantz.

In that one sentence, cloaked in humor, Al invokes three great addictions of the human condition that often prevent us from honest self-examination: Religion, ethnicity and cultural taboos.

I think what’s raised by Al’s post, and is worth confronting within our own inner psychologies, is the notion of self-hatred, a theme that runs through various communities that have a history of being oppressed but who also actively fight back against that repression with varying degrees of success and acceptance —with respect to the oppressors, those who consider themselves neutral observers, and within the oppressed community itself.

It makes for a complicated social psychology. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of being a “self-hating” African American, for example. Depending on who is doing the accusing, that allegation can quickly turn into counter-claims of racism. The same is true, I believe, with respect to the line between Zionism and Jewishness.

Given that a drumbeat for war has been rising against Iran for some time, a rhythm pounded out in the mainstream media since the final years of the Bush administration and continuing to this day, it is not out of line to hold up for scrutiny, even ridicule, the motivations of the key players creating the context for that move toward open belligerence.

One of those parties — though cleary not the only one — is the anti-Jewish zealot Ahmadinejad.

To expose Ahmadinejad as a closeted Jew — if that is the case — opens the door to all the psychological baggage associated with the term “self-hatred” in the context of the long running, perceived polarity between Jewish and Arab interests in the Middle East.

That can be a dangerous potion, allowing those pushing for war to twist unexamined hatred to their ends.

For example, are Jewish people who oppose the violence carried out by Israel against Palestinians “self-hating?” Are Palestinians, or Iranians, who oppose violence against Israel in reality enabling Zionist expansionist goals [a form of implied self-hatred]?

That those questions have to be seriously considered, and the delusional polarity they suggest [that Jews should always hate Arabs/Persians, and vise versa], demonstrates to me that we all might benefit from some more soul searching on this matter — to get a better handle on our own sense of self-worth and ethnic/cultural/racial identity.

As I see it, all hate, at some level, is fueled by a need to project our own suffering onto others that we, rightly or wrongly, blame for that suffering. But it is our suffering nonetheless, which means the hatred itself stems from a hatred of our own condition.

Until we recognize that blame and revenge, the drugs that feed our hate, will not change our underlying condition, the condition will persist.

If it takes Al’s satire to get us to examine this issue, this deep psychology of the human condition, then I say it’s work well done on his part.

@ Sohie Amrain  While I agree Ahmadinejad certainly uses anti U.S. & anti Israeli comments to rally flagging support in Iran, it is too simplistic to say it has "nothing to do with Israeli policies", particularly since one of those Israeli policies repeatedly stated for years is to bomb and invade Iran.  And this is before & after Israeli and American neocons - some of whom were dual US/Israeli citizens burrowed in the Pentagon, Bush Administration & corporate media - helped lobby for U.S. invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan, 2 of Iran's neighbors currently occupied by the U.S.

Juan Cole's blog is a respected source for Mid East news. Juan's translation of Ahmadinejad's oft misquoted speech of "existential threat" to Israel was never that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, but that "Israel would disappear in the sands of time", much like the end of the Soviet Empire.  http://www.juancole.com/

A CIA report released in March 2009 said much the same thing; that Israel probably won't survive in its present configuration beyond 20 years.  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12706

It was always an historical anomaly that a white European colony was established at the end of WWII in a country full of brown people at the precise time in history when the global south started shedding its colonial masters.

Bill - I didn't see anybody here suggest that my use of Yiddish (or knowledge of some of it) to make fun of Ahmadinejad could possibly be construed as anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. If that's what anybody was thinking, I'd love to see them make the argument. But I don't see that inferred in any of the comments here.

I think there are two other factors that might explain the unease felt by some (which is fine, because humor is a many-splendored thing and not everyone's ha ha belongs to everybody else). One is my Lenny Bruce imbued view that mixing religion, sex, and transgressive talk is humorous (that's not everybody's cup of tea).

The other is how difficult it is for many to separate bigotries against Jews (stated or otherwise), holocaust denials, and such from Israel policy. Which brings me to...

@ Nancy - Whatever Israeli leaders have said or not about bombing and invading Iran, it no more justifies attacks on Jews or bizarre claims that the holocaust didn't happen (or wasn't a holocaust, or wasn't as bad as A, B, or C other historic event) than Ahmadinejad's alleged threats against Israel would justify attacks on Muslims or Persians.

It's frankly the reason I almost never say or write anything about the Israeli-Palestine matter. To say anything at all too often ends up being a dog whistle for the haters on both sides. The Nazis and anti-Semites start barking, as do the racists against Palestinians, Muslims and others. So many of the voices on both sides of that conflict - including on the left - are so careless with how they mix the geo-political with the religious that if they wonder why folks like me don't often touch that "third rail" they should - both sides - look in the mirror. They've made rational discussion of it utterly impossible.

(And Judy - I find most ardent discussion along those fault lines cringe worthy if there isn't any humor attached.)

Those of you who are mightily anguished at a little humor directed toward Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and who are thus so anxious to defend him should ask yourselves why you are implicitly asking the rest of us to be less disrespectful of an authoritarian ruler who approves the execution of juveniles as a matter of state policy, the assassination of nonviolent demonstrators protesting reported fraud in an election, and the systematic rape of women political prisoners -- and who has indeed called for the termination of a nation-state if not all of its people (and does it really make a difference which state that is, or is it okay to want to terminate some states and not others?). If it makes you "cringe" for such a person to be ridiculed, just who is left whom it's appropriate to ridicule?  In this posting, Al Giordano is doing something equivalent to what Vaclev Havel did when he and other dissidents in Czechoslovakia used the music of Frank Zappa to make fun of their dictatorship, and something equivalent to what Honduran protesters are doing who haven't exactly been respectful of Micheletti and his fellow coupmeisters in that country.  The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, if the latter is a brutal ruler who holds power only through the exercise of repressive violence.  There are no exceptions to this that retain any moral consistency.

"a white European colony was established at the end of WWII in a country full of brown people"

You mean Israel?  Uh, speaking as someone with a Jewish father, I would say that he--in common with MANY Jews--was at least as dark-skinned as most Arabs.  Why not?  DNA research shows Jews and Arabs have very similar ancestry.

What people don't seem to get about the Jewish people is that we were not regarded as "white" until some time after World War II.  We were regarded more the way Arabs are now--or perhaps, to be more sanguine, as Arabs were before 9/11.  Not exactly dark-skinned, not exactly white, and not exactly welcomed.  And many of the same stereotypes that are now applied viciously to Arabs (and maybe held passively by many people about Jews) were then applied openly, and viciously, to Jews in the United States.

Al, I certainly don't think your comments or humor were anti-Jewish or anti-Moslem or racist at all and I'm glad you picked up on that.  And I also understand your discomfort with the "third rail" you mentioned.  (Sorry, I don't know how to do the quote block thing).

It's frankly the reason I almost never say or write anything about the Israeli-Palestine matter. To say anything at all too often ends up being a dog whistle for the haters on both sides.... So many of the voices on both sides of that conflict - including on the left - are so careless with how they mix the geo-political with the religious that if they wonder why folks like me don't often touch that "third rail" they should - both sides - look in the mirror. They've made rational discussion of it utterly impossible.

This is true and it's never productive or moral to get into a competition as to who has the greater number of victims or which side has perpetrated the greater number of atrocities or argue that one side's actions justify or excuse whatever the response was or debate who seems to be winning the PR flame wars.

However, I question your statement about mixing the "geo-political with the religious".  How I ask is it possible not to mix the two in a discussion of Israel/Palestine when by definition and UN mandate Israel is a "Jewish" privileged state?

Nonetheless, you and Bill are both right.  We all need to try to look within ourselves and our prejudices.  Even when I knew from years of following your writings that you were not supporting Israeli aggression, I still read your humor as if you were. And what's more I consciously knew that was what I was emotionally doing while I was doing it.

One final thought.  Humor is always tricky when combined with race or religion since it so often masks sexism or racism as in the 'dumb blond', 'mother in law' or Polish jokes.  I remember as a child growing up in the late 50's hearing men tell jokes like, "Trade the old 40 in for 2 twenties" and noticing my mother never laughed.

On the anti-Semitism concerns, I guess maybe I read too much into Dan’s comment:

There's something about the tone of this post (well, almost jubilant and very sarcastic) that rings some alarms in my head... It happened with some other people I liked to suddenly discover that somewhere in some deep corner they were hiding something... well, not very nice. Hope not the case here, Al, it would be sad.

I read that oblique statement, incorrectly I guess, to be raising the possibility that the “jubilant” tone in your blog piece might betray an anti-Semitic prejudice — the fact that you are happy — “in some deep corner” — that Ahmadinejad might be Jewish, since that would put the blame for his statements/acts against Jewish people back on the Jews.

You responded to Dan’s comment as follows:

So dislike all you want but don't accuse me of "hiding" something (especially while you yourself hide what it is you accuse me of hiding, ha ha!)

I may have, and hope I am, wrong in reading too much into Dan’s intent and apologize if that’s the case.

I don’t think he was outright accusing you of anti-Semitism, but I also don’t think the wording of his comment precluded that implication from being stirred in the minds of some readers [mine for example], based on the reasoning I advanced, and that’s what I was reacting to in this case.

The comment about the "whiteness" of Israel can be interpreted in a couple of ways.

The first is the distinction between different groups of Jews.  Middle Eastern Jews are, as you point out, as dark as Arabs - but about half of Israel's Jewish population are Ashkenazim, who are Jews descended from European communities.  Ashkenazim (who also make up the vast majority of American Jews) are generally fair-skinned, and resemble Europeans more than Arabs.  The encouragement by the proto-Israeli state of pan-Jewish immigration to Israel naturally brought many of these "white" Jews to Israel. It's a superficial distinction in a lot of ways, and I don't even think it's very significant to most Jews.  I know I don't personally put as much stock in this interpretation as the following, but this is how some people see it.

What I think makes more sense is the trail of funding, arms, and support that buttressed the state of Israel during its formal conception.  It leads straight back to the "white" power-players - particularly the US and UK.  This is not meant to take anything away from the Jewish blood spilled in the formative stages of Israel (for those of you who extol Zionism, which I do not) - but only to point out that it's unlikely that such an effort could have succeeded without the support of white European colonial powers.  These powers had a clear interest in backing the Jewish state, as their colonies and mandates in the region were in the midsts of increasingly successful emancipatory struggles.

In any case, I think labeling Israel as a "white" colonial outpost is pointless.  I deplore the Israeli State and it's certainly an outlet for American Imperialism; yet influential Arab States like Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have deplorable state apparatuses and are just as important - no, probably more important - to American Imperialism, be they white, brown, or whatever else.

Come on ... these comments are absurd. Alarms are going off and people are cringing and the tone makes people uncomfortable. Give me a break. It's unfortunate but true that a moment like this exposes the true character of the modern left in the US -- overly-sensitive, afraid of their own shadow and, ultimately, completely impotent when it comes to affecting change and I frankly think there is a connection here. People need to calm down and get a sense of humor.

Bill, Thank you for explaining how you thought Dan's comment might have been anti-semitic.  I don't interpret it that way myself but I can sort of see your understanding.  I'm really enjoying this thread as it's so rare that one can openly discuss and explore one's inner prejudices in a forum particularly on the emotional Israel/Palestine issue without being personally attacked.

You ended your post with, "...and that's what I was reacting to in this case."  I think "reacting" is the key word as that seems to be what many of us are doing from our own perceptions and views, perhaps the 'dog whistles' Al alluded to.  This post seems to be some sort of Rorschach test.  I really don't know what precisely made Dan uncomfortable (and he indicated he isn't sure either) or what specifically Judy "cringed" at or understand Sophie's comment about "rakes & glee" or why Tribunius Plebis thought anyone was defending the Ahmadinejad regime's actions during the uprising after the election.  As I mentioned in my first post on this thread, I realized from the get-go my own reaction to Al's post was not related to what he wrote.

@ Ryan Vaquero

Are you joking or serious?

Just thought I'd mention that some nutter or nutters is/are apparently using bogus quotes to accuse various anti-coup figures of anti-semitism.

Reminds me of a similar process used against Hugo Chavez.

Bill - I think Ryan's being very serious and thoughtful, and I agree with him. This is a great Rorschach Test - that blot on a page that everybody has their own way of interpreting, revealing more about their own fears and traumas than about whoever dropped the ink on the page.

Phoenix Woman - I am going to address the topic of your comment, if not tonight, than I hope by tomorrow, in very clear terms that will leave nobody confused about where I stand on it.

"The high clerics of the Iranian theocracy may just now have to peek up his pants to inspect as to whether Mahmoud still counts with a schmendrick on his shvantz."

I assume this is a reference to circumcision. Muslims as well as Jews practice male circumcision.

Well, I'm not certain I agree that the comments made here are absurd, as Ryan suggests. Seems a bit of a self-aggrandized insight and an overbroad reading of the ink blots in the Rorschach Test — even if serious.

No offense intended toward Ryan or anyone else, but I just don't see the point of getting all serious about chastising folks for not having a sense of humor. Seems to put the critic in the same boat as the targets.

And, as long as we're on the subject of what bothers people about the "left," I'll weigh in with my own complaint: continuing to advance the meme that the "left" is impotent. I just see that kind of thinking as supportive of the very victim mentality it seems to be calling out.

What "left" are we referring to in that case, anyway? The one that, through effective organizing, just helped elect a president? [Not enough, of course, but then that's why it's called the struggle, right?]

If a movement is, in fact, "impotent," it's due, in large part, to the fact that it is not organized around any concensus. And the process of reading the ink blots in a forum such as this, it seems to me, can be an effective self-organizing tool, if attention is paid to the concensus, which is simply what the most people see most of the time in those ink blots.

But that requires everyone involved to have a thick skin and an open mind.

To chill that process by declaring nonconforming reads "absurd" seems to encourage a type of group think that is destructive to progress. But it would be equally absurd for me to hold out that view and and not respect Ryan's right to advance it.

Tolerance and respect must define the boundries of this field, however.

As a journalist and ardent proponent of free expression, I believe people have the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to harvesting ideas.

And for what it's worth, I also see humor as being informed by a deep, and "serious," understanding of tragedy. After all, that's the point of the twin masks of comedy and tragedy, no?

Could one exist without the other?

That's what I see in this particular Rorschach Test.

"I really don't know...why Tribunus Plebis thought anyone was defending the Ahmadinejad regime's actions during the uprising after the election."

Nancy, that doesn't state accurately what I was saying.  I was suggesting that if anyone felt upset about Al's ridicule of Ahmadinejad, they shouldn't --  because we shouldn't spend our time splitting hairs about the words used to ridicule any ruler with blood on his hands. Protesters in Tehran chant "death to the dictator."  All that Al was doing was hoisting him by his own contradictions (i.e. his repeated denunciations of the Jewish state, in the context of his now-reported Jewish roots).

In contrast, several of the remarks above (including your own*), in the context of a string of comments expressing concern about Al's humor, try to explain some of Ahmadinejad's criticisms of Israel as valid, as if that ought to have inhibited what Al said.  (The latter is a fair inference drawn from the full context of comments.)  But we are not talking about the foreign minister of France, we're talking about a ruler who has done and said heinous things.  To parse or object to the words of virtually any humor directed at such a figure is effectively to defend him.  If you didn't intend to make that objection, then I withdraw the inference about your particular comments.

* "...Ahmanijad has been persistently naming some of the apartheid abuses and raising the question why should the Palestinians pay for an European crime committed 65 years ago..."

To parse or object to the words of virtually any humor directed at such a figure is effectively to defend him.

I respectfully disagree with the above statement and simultaneously stand by my earlier comment you quoted, * "...Ahmanijad has been persistently naming some of the apartheid abuses and raising the question why should the Palestinians pay for an European crime committed 65 years ago..."

But I do appreciate your courteous and thoughtful response, as indeed I have enjoyed many of your posts on other threads.

*****

And slightly on a different topic, this thread truly is a fascinating Rorschach and the use of "humor" is one of the ink blots Al mentioned.  How many of us as children and teens don't have playground memories of being teased and then when we reacted to being the "butt of the joke" were told, something along the lines of "Can't you take a joke?" or "Lighen up. Get a sense of humor".

*****

Bill, I liked your analysis of how consensus is formed and that discussions such as this are part of that process.  I also can get tired of expressions that "the left is weak".

Nancy,

indeed my statement was simplistic - to get the point across. Of course the Israeli government is a good candidate for Ahmadinejads need to demon fiends, but their colonialist policies towards Palestinians are not the underlying cause, IMHO. And vice versa, for Israel the Iranian regime seems to be their required demon. So they both can feed off each other with aggressive rhethoric and riling up their population. And conveniently they are no direct neighbors so any threats of invasion are rather hollow.

There is no recognizable reasonable cause for Israel/Iran antagonism - if anything Iran and Israel should be sympathetic to each other because they each compete with the other power players in the region, Sunni Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

And with respect to Ahmadinejad pointing out Israels colonialism - I could take that a lot more seriously if he were not engaged in rather ridiculous Holocaust denials.

Well sorry, I realized my "oblique" comment has triggered some exchanges with divergent interpretations. So just to clarify - yes, it seemed to me that there may be some anti-semitic undercurrent in Al's tone in this post. Not that he was making fun of Ahmadinejad in a very sarcastic way - as you can imagine I am no fan of his either. But that what was apparently making such sarcasm acceptable was Ahmadinejad's possible Jewish origins. So using the most trashing language suddenly when it appears that they guy may be a Jew, not before.

But I was also not sure what to make of this, and I left the possibility open that I may be wrong, in addition to not even saying explicitly what I meant :)

I consider that Al's subsequent explanations pretty much cleared the main point (and the rest is just a matter of taste), so from my viewpoint the subject is closed and I regret any misunderstanding.

Thanks both of you for clarifying your statements.

No need to apologize, Dan.  In my opinion you kicked off an interesting and helpful exchange of opinions, thoughts and, maybe ink blots.

Great analysis, Sophie of Iran & Israel's quasi simbiotic relationship or whatever the proper term is. Thanks for the clarification.

And now I'm going to go read Al's new thread.

Here's the link to an article in The Guardian, convincing to me, that refutes the contention that Ahmadinejad's family was Jewish.  Too bad; it was fun to think so.   (h/t Ezra Klein)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/05/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-...

Oops, I realize this thread is dead & I accidentally found it while searching for something else but, just to set the record straight, yeah - I was being very serious in my comment.