A whole lot of very nice folks, most of a scholarly bent, had their Purim celebration ruined this year by Jeffrey Goldberg’s gratuitous assertion on the New York Times Op-ed page that the holiday was commemorating something that never happened. All of them, apparently, have my phone number.
Goldberg’s trump card in support of flushing the royal tale down the drain is the fact that the ancient Persian kingdom was very tolerant of other religions and cultures, not likely to indulge a spasm of rabid anti-Semitism. His retroactive certainty was in no wise shaken by the observation that Iran was a very philo-Semitic country until 1979 when the Shah was deposed.
In fact the book of Esther is most remarkable for its scrupulous recording of the multicultural tableau of Persian society. It is very clear from the outset that the Jews enjoy full freedom and live as equals. Esther and her adoptive father, Mordecai, are not outwardly identifiable as Jews. Mordecai does not tell that he is a Jew until the king’s courtiers pester him for days to explain why he defies Haman. Esther does not reveal her national identity until the critical moment when she can use it to foil Haman’s plan.
The Talmudic tradition adds the information that the Jews participated fully in King Ahasuerus’ national feast; he even provided kosher food “to do in accordance with the will of each person”. Clearly there is an effort in this recitation of events to hew closely to actual detail. This is hardly the stuff of bogeyman myths. Remember, too, that this is the same Biblical record that reported the generosity of Cyrus in allowing the Jews to rebuild the Temple – a piece of history that Goldberg chooses to believe.
The book of Esther notes that this Persian decree against the Jews was an aberration, incited by Haman, a descendant of King Agag of Amalek, who had been defeated and killed by King Saul five hundred years earlier. Haman wended his way into Ahasuerus’ good graces, among other ways by political fundraising, and got the king to sign on to his family’s vendetta against the Jews. Once Esther helped restore her husband to his senses, things went back to normal: the king ran a benevolent regime with his Jewish wife, and Mordecai was given a prestigious position, supplanting Haman’s influence.
One last point is critical in appreciating the painstaking honesty of the Jewish tradition in this matter. The Talmud (Megilla 7a) admits that the Rabbis were not inspired on their own to declare a holiday, or even to write up the story in Scripture. It was Queen Esther herself who approached them and made the argument that this was a watershed moment that should not be allowed to fade in the historical memory. They examined the case she presented and conceded that she was righter than their initial assessment.
It is not clear to me why Jews are intimidated away from their patrimony by the flimsiest evidence. If anything, we should ascribe much more credibility to the Jewish version of their experiences, because Scriptural texts consistently reveal the unflattering side of Jewish conduct while crediting all the positive players on the other side. By contrast, the other nations of antiquity never publicized their shortcomings, which would explain why Persia would not stress this one-year blip of hostility in an otherwise tolerant reign. (Still, the book of Esther concludes with the statement that all the facts were available in Persian and Medean royal annals.)
When we see today’s Iran sliding down the slippery slope into anti-Semitic vitriol, and threatening to back that up with weaponry, this is not a case of life imitating art but rather an instance of history repeating itself.
Goldberg’s trump card in support of flushing the royal tale down the drain is the fact that the ancient Persian kingdom was very tolerant of other religions and cultures, not likely to indulge a spasm of rabid anti-Semitism.
ReplyDeleteThis argument strikes me as similar to the one we hear from the left that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda couldn't possibly have anything to do with each other because Ba'ath was secular and al Qaeda was religious. Is this type of argument a formal logical fallacy of some sort, or just generic sloppy thinking?
The Goldberg article is sooo telling. First off, the fact that there is a need to tell readers of the NYT that Islamic leaders really don't like Jews is more than a little disconcerting. But then there's this little interlude in the middle - ho hum, whoa look at the calendar, Purim is a lie. Where did that come from?
ReplyDeleteApparently Goldberg felt the need to reinforce his point that Islamic religious leaders are homicidal maniacs by showing that its part of a pattern. You know the one - all religious people are crazy. And if you're making that point, one doesn't need to worry about getting a little fast and loose with the details. I like how Goldberg just throws out the following:
Scholars generally agree that it is a pseudo-history introduced into Judaism about 2,400 years ago, at a time when the memory of Jerusalem's conquest by the Babylonians was still laying Jews low.
Really? Well, there you go...scholars generally agree. No need for any backup there.
I suppose I should be glad that Goldberg is at least getting the word out that Islam is a bit of a problem. It would be nice, though, if we could make this point without having a complex about the fact that we're singling out Islam for blame.
Likewise Al Qaeda is militantly theocratic and seeks to impose sharia across the middle east.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that they could set aside their completely opposite world views to work together was ludicrous.
Why is it then that American troops continually find pornography and drugs during raids of insurgent camps? Either Al Quaeda is not so spiritually pure or they're willing to make common cause with outsiders.
How do you explain OBL accepting US assistance against the Russians? We're the Great Satan for goodness sake.
If you want to say there's no evidence for partnership between Al Quaeda and Saddam, that's one thing (and it's not what Kathy said). No one has proven that they were. But no one has proven that they weren't either, and the idea is far from preposterous.
Matt,
ReplyDelete“How do you explain OBL accepting US assistance against the Russians? We're the Great Satan for goodness sake.”
In the timeline scheme of things, Bin Laden took up Wahhabism after joining the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda postdates the fall of the Soviet Union.
“If you want to say there's no evidence for partnership between Al Quaeda and Saddam, that's one thing (and it's not what Kathy said). No one has proven that they were. But no one has proven that they weren't either, and the idea is far from preposterous.”
You are quite correct. No one has proven that they were in collusion, or that Hussein gave substantive aid to al Qaeda. However, the argument that the secular Iraqi Ba’ath would have nothing to do with the fundamentalist al Qaeda is indeed simplistic and fallacious. Hussein was genius at triangulation with his enemies, and might well have considered some kind of alliance, the enemy of his enemy being his friend. However, religiously motivated terrorists, including al Qaeda, had a long history of targeting Hussein and his regime for assassination, partly for its secularism. That antagonism likely provided an insurmountable barrier to cooperation. The idea itself isn’t, on its face, preposterous due to a secular versus fundamentalist split. Their mutual hostility, however, does indicate that the theory of their cooperation stretches the boundaries of credulity.
Buzz,
“Let's see... Iran's government is secular - check!”
Not entirely accurate or inaccurate. Iran’s government is a very traditional Muslim government: Politicians “advised” by powerful clerics. They have certain distinct and other overlapping areas of authority.
“Saudi Arabia is secular, maybe - give it a check! Syria - nope.”
Saudi Arabia is an interesting case, ruled by a royal family that is split between religious modernists and Wahhabists. Again, Syria’s situation is more complex than that. Syria’s Ba’ath party, after splitting with Iraq’s forty years ago, has played to public perceptions. As the Syrian public became more accepting of extreme fundamentalism, the Ba’ath have embraced that same sentiment.
“ Jordan - nope.”
What? Jordan is a monarchy, not a theocracy.
“Lebanon - nope. Turkey - nope.”
Now you’re just making things up as you go! Lebanon’s government is hardly theocratic. Turkey is, with the death of Iraq, the only officially secular government in the Middle East.
“Libya - nope. Egypt - nope.”
Libya is totalitarian with religious sympathies. Again, you’re being too simplistic. Ditto Egypt.
“UAE - maybe? (I don't know).”
See Saudi Arabia.
“Sudan - probably; give it a check.”
Again, too simplistic.
“Tunisia - who knows? Algeria - nope. Morocco - nope.”
For Morocco, see the notes on Saudi Arabia and Iran.
“Pakistan - nope.”
Again, far too simplistic. I think you’re confusing the influence fundamentalist groups have with actual or official power structures.
“Afghanistan - used to be.”
Used to be… what? You were evaluating who is “secular” or not, and then make a statement confusing secular with theocratic. I’m beginning to think part of your simplicity is forgetting what you were arguing in the first place.
“Bangladesh and the SE Asian Muslim countries - nope.”
Again, far too simplistic. Try looking at it this way: When the Christian Right in this country talks about wanting Ten Commandments monuments in court houses and acknowledgment of Christianity’s primacy (as examples, not universal goals here; there’s lots of variation, I get that), this is basically the same thing that occurs in a lot of those countries you’re saying “nope” to, including the Southeast Asian countries, like Malaysia. Is it wholly secular? No. Is it theocratic? No. I know that absolutists and conservatives in general kind of have trouble with that whole “nuance” thing, but it really does help.
”While the religion of Islam certainly dominates in Islamic countries, their governments for the most part can hardly be called secular.”
Just as a future tip, I think I get what that sentence was getting at, but it’s constructed really poorly; so much so that it almost undermines your message completely.
“Considering that Saddam wore Islam on his sleeve whenever it was required, your argument holds no water. Furthermore, it has been disproven by many historical examples, such as the cooperation during WW2 of the USSR and the democratic Allied powers.”
I’m confused. You should at least reference your subjects here if you want people to give your thoughts any weight. I assume you’re referring to the “enemy of my enemy thing.”
“Saddam was allied with and supported numerous Islamic terrorist groups. Ever hear of Ansar al Islam? You are asking us to believe that 1) none of these terrorist groups were affiliated with or cooperated with each other, including Al Qaeda, 2) Saddam cooperated with, encouraged and supported ALL Islamic terrorist groups except Al Qaeda, and 3) Al Qaeda after being kicked out of Afghanistan was setting up shop everywhere but Iraq or retiring to the beaches of Tahiti.”
Not that you’re necessarily wrong (tone aside, it’s a good point), but you’re again being too simplistic. Not all Arab or SE Asian terrorist groups are religious in motivation or outlook. For example, the religious facet to Palestinian terrorism is a relatively new (last decade or so) phenomenon. There’s also a far cry from setting up shop somewhere or turning a blind eye, and willful material cooperation. Please don’t go making leaps of illogic where they’re not called for without further information.
”What Bush rightfully stopped in its tracks was the CERTAINTY of increased cooperation between Al Qaeda and an enemy state that had demonstrated its propensity to develop and use WMD, that was actively undermining UN sanctions against it and would have succeeded relatively soon to end these sanctions thanks to their allies in the UN, and that would have continued its aggression it had been practicing for the past quarter century.”
That’s a rather incredible leap of logic to make, not to mention a rather incredible run-on sentence. Seriously, that’s the kind of writing that makes English grammar teachers stab pencils into their eyes. Said “CERTAINTY” can only exist in one’s head, since no concrete evidence exists of minimal - let alone planned, material, or substantial – collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq. Let’s be slightly fair to Iraq, here: the whole WMD thing appears to have been something between a bluff and a prayer, a fervent wish that had no substantial chance of being fulfilled; a substantial part of that quarter century of bellicosity was at the Reagan government’s behest; and if the sanctions were working so well that we needed to worry about their undermining, what then necessitated a military intervention?
”The Jimmy Carter appeasement approach to the world's scumbags, Islamic scumbags in particular, has already been proven not to work and simply makes things worse.”
As opposed to the Ronald Reagan Iran-Contra approach that worked wonders for nipping Wahhabist extremism in the bud? Give me a break.
“The Middle East was evolving into a situation that could no longer be tolerated (see 9/11) and thankfully we have an administration that realized that it was time to use the stick and to hell with a limp carrot!”
I was kind of waiting for the conflation of Iraq with 9/11 thing. By all means, please enlighten us to how invading the former could have prevented the latter, or in any ways measures up as a substantive and applicable response to it?
The 9/11 Commission Report dealt with... 9/11! No one in the Bush administration ever claimed that Saddam was connected to 9/11. In fact, the only people saying this were dem/libs claiming the Bush administration said this.
ReplyDeleteBuzz, this is wholly full of crap. Completely, entirely, utterly filled with crap. A very fast Google search of "Bush Iraq al Qaeda" turns up about 26,000,000 hits. For example there's this from June of 2004, or this which is from a 2002 speech and can be found at the official White House website. You're wrong, man. Dead wrong.
Why don't you read David Kaye's report, who as I recall said that while Saddam turned out not to have stockpiles of WMD, the danger of a future conjunction between Saddam, WMD, and Al Qaeda was a grave risk, in other words, the possibility of Saddam's involvement in a future 9/11 was exceedingly great.
We must have read different Kay reports, since his report said no such thing. Kay reported that Hussein wanted to resume WMD research at a future point. Like I've pointed out before, WMDs for Iraq were something between a bluff and a wish. What the Iraq Survey Group found were biological labs and substantive efforts towards acquiring improved missile delivery systems. The Kay Report also noted that threats of attack were most likely bluffs. The Kay Report is roundly criticized among the professional peace and security community for being almost entirely anecdotal in nature, lacking the concrete evidence most weapons inspectors would insist upon before drawing conclusions like he does. With the exception of that lack of concrete data, his findings almost mirror those of the IAEA.