If there is one constant across all political leaders, it is the way they all use ridiculously hyperbolic language and analogies to express their point. Gordon Brown's Freudian slip that he had "saved the world". Gaddafi blaming the Libyan uprising on hallucinogenic drugs. American 'Tea-Partyers' declaring that Obama's health care package was "forcible economic rape" (see Bob Marshall). This extreme tone of political discourse can often have unwanted consequences so it was, with some trepidation, that I decided to look at Benjamin Netanyahu's speech this week at the AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee). Obviously with the situation in the Middle-East being tenser than Nick Griffin at a screening of The Help, I was deeply concerned that the language the leader of Israel used when talking about Iran might usher us into World War Three (the long-awaited but ultimately misjudged third film). So it was to my surprise that what he actually said was this:
"If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it? That's right. It's a duck."
(You may be interested to know he is also releasing a DVD entitled 'Benjamin Netanyahu Describes the Bleeding Obvious', featuring the classics 'Oh that bear in the woods? He's probably going to do a shit' and 'I'm not sure that white powder from Whitney Houston's autopsy is dandruff'' - too soon?)
That's right, the leader of Israel decided to use ,as his terrifying analogy for threat of a nuclear Iran, an animal which is a blue waistcoat and hat away from an exuberant child asking for its autograph at Disneyland. I initially assumed he must have meant swan; because a duck makes exactly the same threatening noise as a swan but you can rest easier that if you take your dog for a walk and a duck appears, it'll probably be fine. If a swan gets hold of your canine though, it may well carry out the preparation stage of a controversial Chinese delicacy. However, the more I think about it, the more the duck analogy makes sense. Like a duck, Iran hasn't got a ferocious bite but it makes all the quacking like it might do. Of course, instead of 'bite' I mean 'has a nuclear weapon' and instead of 'quacking' I mean 'declare that it wants to wipe a whole religion off the face of the earth', but let's not worry too much about semantics. You could even argue that a country such as Israel that categorically has a nuclear weapon and is threatening war with a neighbouring country would be the swan, but then do swans eat ducks? And if so, how do they roll the pancake? And does Netanyahu enjoy soy sauce?
I should point out here that I am not some 'George Galloway' figure in this debate, feeding the duck and his Supreme duck from an countryside Press TV bridge with a bag of breadcrumbs whilst praising their "indefatigability". Iran clearly is a horrendous, authoritarian regime. It is only natural to abhor all regimes that support members of their own population being stoned, with the possible exception of the Netherlands. I also understand that historically Israel and its Jewish population have justified reason for feeling that they are victimised, sometimes to the extreme. However, there is a difference between being a 'victim' and 'developing paranoia'. And there is a difference between 'self-protection' and 'military aggression'.
My main concern, in all seriousness, is that soon the word 'duck' will no longer refer to a silly, misjudged metaphor from a conference in Washington but rather be an instruction from innocent civilian to innocent civilian as another batch of shells crash into hospitals and schools in both Tel-Aviv and Tehran.
"If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then what is it? That's right. It's a duck."
(You may be interested to know he is also releasing a DVD entitled 'Benjamin Netanyahu Describes the Bleeding Obvious', featuring the classics 'Oh that bear in the woods? He's probably going to do a shit' and 'I'm not sure that white powder from Whitney Houston's autopsy is dandruff'' - too soon?)
That's right, the leader of Israel decided to use ,as his terrifying analogy for threat of a nuclear Iran, an animal which is a blue waistcoat and hat away from an exuberant child asking for its autograph at Disneyland. I initially assumed he must have meant swan; because a duck makes exactly the same threatening noise as a swan but you can rest easier that if you take your dog for a walk and a duck appears, it'll probably be fine. If a swan gets hold of your canine though, it may well carry out the preparation stage of a controversial Chinese delicacy. However, the more I think about it, the more the duck analogy makes sense. Like a duck, Iran hasn't got a ferocious bite but it makes all the quacking like it might do. Of course, instead of 'bite' I mean 'has a nuclear weapon' and instead of 'quacking' I mean 'declare that it wants to wipe a whole religion off the face of the earth', but let's not worry too much about semantics. You could even argue that a country such as Israel that categorically has a nuclear weapon and is threatening war with a neighbouring country would be the swan, but then do swans eat ducks? And if so, how do they roll the pancake? And does Netanyahu enjoy soy sauce?
I should point out here that I am not some 'George Galloway' figure in this debate, feeding the duck and his Supreme duck from an countryside Press TV bridge with a bag of breadcrumbs whilst praising their "indefatigability". Iran clearly is a horrendous, authoritarian regime. It is only natural to abhor all regimes that support members of their own population being stoned, with the possible exception of the Netherlands. I also understand that historically Israel and its Jewish population have justified reason for feeling that they are victimised, sometimes to the extreme. However, there is a difference between being a 'victim' and 'developing paranoia'. And there is a difference between 'self-protection' and 'military aggression'.
My main concern, in all seriousness, is that soon the word 'duck' will no longer refer to a silly, misjudged metaphor from a conference in Washington but rather be an instruction from innocent civilian to innocent civilian as another batch of shells crash into hospitals and schools in both Tel-Aviv and Tehran.
