Lost In Translation: Setting the Records Straight in the IDF Archives

I've wondered if the lack of precision among military journalists and historians writing about Israel (at least in English and some Romance languages) reflected some translation issues.  Similar effort might also pay off in working on pre-state documents dealing with security concerns in the 1930s and 40s, clarifying the decisionmaking of Zionist leaders for a larger audience.

Good luck, translations are more important than many believe. You are doing a much needed and important job.

You might be interestd in Hillel Halkin's recent article on translation. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/the-translator-s-paradox-11382

It's not surprising that the vast improvement in translation of hebrew books in the commercial world has not yet spread to the government. You're doing important work.

 

"...what struck me as an historically inaccurate, grammatically incorrect massacre of supposed facts. The archives weren’t manipulative or skewed in one way or another; they simply didn’t make sense."

Here's a perfect example of why I'm less than enthusiastic about Cori's conceptual skills. Something cannot be "historically inaccurate" and factually incorrect and also not "make sense". That is, the sentence "Abraham Lincoln spent too much time synching his iPod" is factually inaccurate, but it makes perfect sense, i.e., it conforms to the linguistic rules which render a sentence coherent. If Cori thinks that the translations are, BabelFish-like, clumsy or incoherent, say so. If she's saying they're inaccurate, well, that's another kettle of fish. What are Cori's credentials, as an historian or political scientist, which render her take on historical archives trustworthy, or at least informed? Is no one else shocked that a recent college grad from the US with no advanced training in history is charged with rewriting important historical records about one of the 20th and 21st century's most contentious matters? And, sorry Cori, but "...a sincere interest in history, the written word, and the historical and political image of Israel" doesn't count; in fact, by acknowledging that you have an interest in Israel's image (by which I assume you mean that you'd like the IOF's records to reflect your own notions of Israel's being a benign and unfairly accused nation), you remove yourself from the class of persons we typically nominate for this sort of task, i.e., someone disinterested. Of course, you're not really doing history, are you? You're doing propaganda. So let's not dress up what is explicitly a public relations job to something more elevated.

"My difficulties are completely unrelated to historical accuracy; I can easily read one paragraph at a time and alter what is not correct, verify facts with credible sources and make certain that the information is solid."

Here we have a degree of indifference to reality that is nearly clinical in its depth. Cori can "easily" determine what's correct, verify facts and insure solidity of info. Easily! How wasted have been the labors of phalanxes of historians, who need only have consulted our little Cori!

And tell me, how exactly did you determine that there is no "generally accepted" definition of a "Palestinian"? The entire world uses the word quite consistently and with specificity, save for those benighted precincts of opinion which insist that there are no such beings. You don't represent these Neanderthals, do you?

"Israel critics would have difficulty finding historical inaccuracies or biased terms in the IDF historical archives that are written in Hebrew."

Thank you for your assurances in this regard. There's nothing like the word of an historically untrained publicist for an occupying army to unfurrow the worried brow.

But it's Cori's antepenultimate paragraph that really gives the game away. Here she acknowledges that it is her intention to make the archives as immune to an unflattering reading as possible. Oh, wait-this historically untrained flack for the army, whose own ideological disposition has been made perfectly clear on this site before, is just certifying the archives' accuracy. Right.

If anyone needs further reason to lift an eyebrow at Cori's project, look no further than the endorsement of Weaver, who, by his refusal to source his calumnies at another post, has certified his own disregard for accuracy.

Birds of a feather. 

On the plus side, good for Cori for switching from using the letter "C" to using her actual last name. I can only assume that she has finally mastered its spelling, and I congratulate her on her achievement.   

  

Ismail, get a job. Perhaps you could translate Spongebob Squarepants into Arabic

Ismail - you're a dick. Cori is tasked with translating the records into English. Anyone perusing the records who is concerned with their historical accuracy or the injection of ideological bias into the task can merely refer to the original Hebrew versions and get them translated elsewhere by a supposedly unbiased source - if such a thing exists.

Cori aptly demonstrated the challenges at hand with respect to the word piguah. You expressed shock and indignation at her difficulty with the word Palestinian. It's current popular usage is rather contemporary. Prior to 1948 Palestinian referred to any resident of Britain's Palestine Mandate (that wasn't chopped off and given to the Hashemites), Jewish, Muslim, Christian or otherwise. The word itself originates with the Philistines who once lived on the coastal Mediteranean strip, roughly analogous to Gaza. The first official designation of Palestine as a geographical entity came to us thanks to Emperor Hadrian's attempt to render the region judenrein following the failure of Bar Kokhba's revolt in 135. Now, I'm not at all saying that Palestinians don't exist - regardless of the word's origins, today there's a clearly identifiable people who identify themselves as such and they are sufficiently unique to fall within the scope of the definition of peoplehood.

That doesn't change the fact that the term Palestinian means one thing now, meant something else in 1947 and a number of different things throughout history. Acknowledging these historical realities does not make one a Neanderthal - unless the one making the accusation is a total dick.

Ahem.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

I'd love to respond to any number of semi-valid points that you've raised, but other readers seem to be answering your many "questions"-- and I simply don't have the desire to get into a verbal cock measuring contest with someone that resorts to petty insults (clever re: my last name, really).

You don't shed light on anything for anyone.  You're antagonistic and condescending, not to mention more offensively biased than any other Jewcy user that I've ever encountered.  If you're actually interested in having meaningful conversation, why not remove the sarcasm and cheap shots?  You're a joke on this site, and you're not doing the people that you seek to defend any notable service.

I'm sure that you'll respond to this, but you might not want to waste your time.  You can say what you wish, I won't be responding.  Hope this is what you were looking for. 

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

 

Unless it is Jewish facts and history. a previous poster took the time to frame it much better than i could...

Ismail wrote:

07/10/08 10:14 am

"Here's a perfect example of why I'm less than enthusiastic about Cori's
conceptual skills. Something cannot be "historically inaccurate" and
factually incorrect and also not "make sense". That is, the sentence
"Abraham Lincoln spent too much time synching his iPod" is factually
inaccurate, but it makes perfect sense, i.e., it conforms to the
linguistic rules which render a sentence coherent. If Cori thinks that
the translations are, BabelFish-like, clumsy or incoherent, say so. If
she's saying they're inaccurate, well, that's another kettle of fish.
What are Cori's credentials, as an historian or political scientist,
which render her take on historical archives trustworthy, or at least
informed? Is no one else shocked that a recent college grad from the US
with no advanced training in history is charged with rewriting
important historical records about one of the 20th and 21st century's
most contentious matters? And, sorry Cori, but "...a sincere interest
in history, the written word, and the historical and political image of
Israel" doesn't count; in fact, by acknowledging that you have an
interest in Israel's image (by which I assume you mean that you'd like
the IOF's records to reflect your own notions of Israel's being a
benign and unfairly accused nation), you remove yourself from the class
of persons we typically nominate for this sort of task, i.e., someone
disinterested. Of course, you're not really doing history, are you?
You're doing propaganda. So let's not dress up what is explicitly a
public relations job to something more elevated."

Zionist re-history operations are horribly corrosive to society. All society, for all time.

Her saying the term "Palestinian" is a loaded term is astonishing. What if i say Israeli's dont exist?... as obnoxious as obnoxious gets. I hope the original copies are retained and the world isnt forced to accept this little girl's edit of history as reality forever...

the shame.... 

I'd love to respond to any number of semi-valid points that you've raised, but other readers seem to be answering your many "questions"-- and I simply don't have the desire to get into a verbal cock measuring contest with someone that resorts to petty insults (clever re: my last name, really).

You don't shed light on anything for anyone.  You're antagonistic and condescending, not to mention more offensively biased than any other Jewcy user that I've ever encountered.  If you're actually interested in having meaningful conversation, why not remove the sarcasm and cheap shots?  You're a joke on this site, and you're not doing the people that you seek to defend any notable service.

I'm sure that you'll respond to this, but you might not want to waste your time.  You can say what you wish, I won't be responding.  Hope this is what you were looking for. 

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

 

Cori-

OK, OK, you don't need to repeat yourself-I get it.

For the record, this is the second time you've told me how you'd love to respond to my concerns (the first time, some months back when Debbie Almontaser was the subject, you actually promised to do so, with a devastating rebuttal of my argument-never happened). Promises, promises.

As for the other readers, I count two who take your part: our anon friend who made the hilarious Spongebob joke (and who, like so many of my adversaries here, seems to think that my employment status-quite employed, quite handsomely remunerated, as it happens-is a matter of pertinence, and jewlicious, who provides an unnecessary lesson in linguistic history which serves to obscure the relevant point- that the only folks who consider "Palestinian" a theoretical term are those who wish to efface them from the province of reality.

Cock-measuring contest? My, my. I thought I was making a pretty good case for a political point of view. I guess you take this sort of thing much more personally. May I suggest a different metaphor, though? For obvious reasons, you disadvantage yourself by choosing that particular, er, yardstick. Owing only to your chromosomal constellation, even such a shrunken  specimen as jewlicious will surely have you beat on that score. I'm pretty sure, anyway.

You're absolutely right that I'm antagonistic and condescending. These are precisely the appropriate responses to your transparently untutored and jejune musings about matters of such import. As for being "...more offensively biased than any other Jewcy user that I've ever encountered.", I would suggest you read the site more regularly. How about "palestineisamyth", who regularly produces outright racist drivel about the inborn criminality of Arabs? Or any of the naziesque types who natter on about Jewish conspiracies, etc, here at Jewcy? Are you seriously suggesting that my posts are more "offensively biased" than these? Come on, tell the truth-are you?  (By the way, I think you probably mean "prejudiced", not "biased". "Bias" is not an intrinsically negative term-it simply means that one is predisposed towards seeing things in a particular way. This doesn't mean that one is impervious to correction, just that, all other things being equal, she tends to favor a particular point of view. Prejudice, on the other hand, refers to coming to an opinion without reference to facts-"pre-judging", as the etymology suggests.)

Sorry that you won't be responding, but not surprised (see my 2nd paragraph above). But here's one last thing to think about. You write as though all I did was call you names and pile snark upon snark. As a simple matter of fact, I actually made some very specific charges about the project you described. That is, although you act as though there were no substantive aspects to my critique, I provided ample material for you to dispute. You chose not to, focussing instead on your outraged sense of propriety. Sorry, but this looks to me like you know you're out of your league and are relying on misdirection and refocussing the discussion away from its salient points. 

 

 

Oh, one more thing. On her blog, Ms. Chascione refers to both the European Union and Amnesty International as "despicable organizations". Despicable! More deranged still, she refers to the OPT as "Judea and Samaria".

So happy that she's making sure the IOF records are accurate.

I see she's also gone back to that simple "C" instead of her actual surname. Perhaps she went to lunch and, in the interim, forgot the spelling? Practice, Cori, practice. Soon, "Chascione" will spill from your pen automatically, as easily as "C".

Oh Ismail. You're such a bad ass! Please stop, my fragile male ego cannot handle the suggestion that my penis is small and shriveled.OK, OK! The Palestinians have existed for ever and ever and the Jews stole their land and there was never a Jewish temple on the site of Al Aqsa and we are all very, very bad people for expropriating your abundant Orange groves, Olive Trees, felafel and drip irrigation technology. But please, no more making fun of my tiny penis, I beg of you! Though you are completely anonymous, it is clear from your writing that what flows through your veins is a substance made up of equal parts blood, Semtex and pure, unadulterated testosterone. In fact your virility and manliness are so overwhelming as to alter the universe! Pure, blinding truth flows from the tip of your penis and to disagree with you is not just an exercise in futility, but an act of aggression against nature itself, inevitably doomed to failure. You really are Just. That. Manly. I pray we never meet lest I shit my pants in fear at the mere sight of you.

Heh...

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

Ok this is getting a little out of hand and Ismail, please don't waste Cory, or anyone else's time writing such ridiculous posts such as bashing a person's screen name. I hope that even you can realize how trivial your posts are becoming!  Cory-these translations will be great to have on record, and it sounds like your putting a lot of work into this project.  Great article!

Well said Ismail, though if you were the IDF wouldn't you hire Cori for the job? I mean, come on, it is very hard to find real Israelis that are so perfectly brainwashed for such a job.  That task can only be left to American Jews who still buy into the crap they are fed.  

 

I realize that young Cori brings out your maternal impulse, Maayan, but please keep your criticism focussed. I didn't bash Cori's screen name, I jokingly suggested she couldn't spell her own name.

As I said to Cori, it's very interesting that you extract from a series of quite specific and material charges against Cori a wiseass comment or two, and ignore the rest.

Do you really think it's trivial to point out the absurdity of having a right-Zionist non-historian publicist for the IOF, whose avowed interest is insulating said army from criticism, be responsible for translating historically sensitive documents?

Again, if you disagree, say so, but quit pulling this prissy schoolmarmish bullshit of being shocked by my treating this project with the contempt it deserves.

Oh, and jewlicious? You needn't abase yourself quite so pathetically. I will do exactly as you ask and cease mocking your tiny penis. 

i like to laugh at arabs who get their knickers in a twist about "palestine" and i like to laugh at brainwashed americans whose greatest wish is to be "israeli" and indeed "more israeli than the israelis" and i like to laugh at yafe nefesh israelis who generally have a severe case of cognitive dissonance and and and is there anyone i left out? i don't like to laugh at american YESH"A settlers because they scare the shit out of me, almost as much as hamas. i do like to laugh at hamas when tunnels collapse on their heads or in the course of other "work accidents" - they are covered in the first category i like to laugh at.

of course, that should be YE"SH settlers now, since 2005...

The difference between Palestineisamyth, Thorswhateverhisscreennameis and you, Ismail - is that you actually seem to take seriously the idea of being taken seriously.

The problem is, that no matter how "appropriate" you consider the copious emotional content of your invective, you achieve precisely the opposite. The only thing taken seriously is a tone so drenched in the acidity of acrid, if not rancid lemons that it completely eclipses whatever reasoning you claim you're trying to engage, merely leaving that taste in the mouths of your readers here. Leaving your audience nauseated by the way you make your appeals is not an intelligent way to attempt to make a point. And if you don't want to take my word for it, perhaps you might want to study the historical success rate of people and groups who demand that others wallow in their own misery with them and bring them down to the level they feel they are stuck dwelling in, as a way to achieve something.

It really doesn't work.

I don't know what you get paid so much to do, but I'm assuming it must not involve understanding such basic truisms such as this.  

Ismail, are there many like you amongst the burly men of Palestine? If so I suggest you all put down your Russian AK-47 pea shooters and simply drop trou. One sight of your magnificent manhood will surely cause the entire Zionist edifice to crumble to the ground! But I guess the lure of mamon is too hard to resist, even for someone as magnificent, and magnificently well paid as you. While you wallow anonymously in the flesh pots of Babylon, Palestine cries out for you to liberate her from the Zionist jackboot of obbression. No wonder tiny-penis Israeli guys like myself can wander freely amongst your formerly verdant fields and orchards! Woe unto us should you ever decide to, you know, step up your assault against our members and go from being a mere faceless armchair combatant to the head of an elite Palestinian vanguard who will surely succeed where all the others have failed by mere dint of the existence of your manly manhood. Impotent no more, you will be free at last. Good God Almighty! Free at last!

Heh. Loser.

---------------------------------

I blog at Jewlicious.com

 

I see Israel, like any other nation (a young one, especially) as a work in progress. I'll be the first to admit that it has done some heinous things (with and without the military). I came to Israel as someone who believes in its ultimate purpose for the Jewish people-- not to blindly defend it, but to be a part of a generation that wants to change it. That being said, my editing work and effort to verify facts and clean up poor translation is a part of this process. I'm not naive enough to believe that Israel's critics (or anyone else) will read the online historical archives and adjust their perceptions of historical events; the goal is simply to achieve accuracy and clarity (as I stated in the article several times) so that the IDF's publications reflect its actual history, and so that its credibility isn't tarnished by poorly translated documents.

I hope that everyone (minus Ismail, who is completely insignificant) understood this as the project's purpose; I'm not permitted to re-write history, nor do I have a desire to do so. I'm editing a document that I want to free from subjectivity, and a PhD in History wouldn't make that less challenging, as the process requires verification with specific sources, anyway.

 

Cori C

http://cori-c.blogspot.com

coriac@gmail.com

 

Well stated Cori. You'd think the difference between translating historical documents and interpreting their meaning within the context of the historical record would be obvious. Alas, we are dealing with someone for whom such distinctions are not useful.

Jewlicious: LOL (twice)

Saleh Riqab: "The goal of the Zionist movement is to establish a state in Palestine, which would become a base for ruling the entire world. Its other goals are to destroy the religions it opposes, particularly Islam; to corrupt values and morality; to spread permissiveness and sex; and to generate moral decline."

"They have come up with many means to achieve this, such as inventing philosophical theories that destroy religion and morality. The French sociologist Emile Durkheim founded the theory of the formation of religion, which attributes it to reason - which means that religion did not originate from God. This is known as the theory of 'collective thought.'

"Jean-Paul Sartre, founder of existentialism, which is based on atheism, was a famous French Jew. The psychologist Freud, who interpreted the infant's relations with his mother as sexual, said, when he was given an award, 'I have never renounced my Judaism.'"

"There are also theories that were invented by non-Jews, but they disseminate them, knowing that they are scientifically false, such as the theory of Darwin. Darwin was not Jewish, but they exploited his theory. Even though new Darwinist theories have appeared, they spread the original theory, because the concept of 'survival of the fittest' serves their
colonialist needs."

Interviewer: "That's what the theory says."

Saleh Riqab: "Yes. It serves the goals of global Jewry. In addition, they established destructive movements to fight religion and morality, to corrupt the leaders throughout the world, and to break down social relations among nations.

"This was led by global Freemasonry, which was founded by three prominent Jews, the first of whom was Herod. This is a long well-known story -- the role of the Jews in creating the Masonic movement. The Freemason movement used various methods to bring the political,
philosophical, and literary leaders worldwide to their knees. I remember the names of Arab leaders - some are dead and others are still alive -- who joined the Masonic movement. They were brought down. There were even Palestinians among them."

"By the way, I'd like to say something... I don't want to mention names. The viewers will know what I mean. There is a book called Les Fous de la Paix, which was written by two Jewish journalists. I have a copy. It was translated into Arabic, and I've read it. It mentions that one of the architects of the Oslo Accords was meeting with the Jewish negotiator at a
hotel in Britain. According to the book, in an adjacent room, the son of the Palestinian negotiator was with the daughter of the Jews, and they locked the door. That's when the Palestinian negotiator was brought down. [...]

"We see this clearly in the U.S. elections. Both Democrats and Republicans compete to please the state of the Jews. That's why when a Democrat comes to occupied Palestine, he puts on a religious skullcap, goes to the Western Wall, bangs his head against the wall, and says: 'Your philosophy and the need to please you is now inside my head.' They all compete with one another, but the Jews maintain a balance, and they always prefer the Christian Zionists."

"If a Democrat comes to power, like [Bill] Clinton - who served them well in Oslo and elsewhere, and almost served them in the second Camp David, but then made statements [they didn't like] - what did Zionism do? It sent him the Jewish Monica, with whom Clinton had sex in the American White House. "Clinton left [the White House], but there are thousands of pages documenting his sexual depravity, because he had sex in the White House. I read a report that Clinton used to call Arab leaders and talk to them while she was having sex with him."

Interviewer: "My God!"

Saleh Riqab: "These things are documented, but the Arabs don't read them." [...]

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which are a product of the 1897 Basel Congress, discuss how the Jews should seize control of the world. In Europe, and especially in the U.S., there was a quick Jewish takeover of the major mass media, because in the West, the mass media shapes their mentality and their views. They don't read very much, they just listen."

I would like to know how Ismail is so handsomely remunerated given that he spends all of his waking hours on Jewcy, and cannot be productive at anything else. Can you provide information how we part time Jewcers can apply for your line of work? Does it have anything to do with Spongebob?

Well, as you can see, there seems to be quite a conversation going on here, more than the bland "attaboys!" and backslaps Cori's piece would have garnered absent my comments. Let's look at some of the fallout, shall we?

kahane_met wants us to know that he likes laughing at everyone. So noted.

our anonymous friend at 12:36 am (is that you, P-A?) advises me that I can attract more flies with honey than I can with vinegar. First, I'm not interested in attracting flies. Second, I've had some invective-free conversations with many here (my last volley with P-A is a case in point). Why? They make interesting and thoughtful arguments which I respect despite our disagreement. Cori has shown not a particle of insight nor uttered a single phrase that informs, delights or challenges. It is her blithe adolescent certainty in the face of this vacuity that catalyzes my sadism. Finally, one can try to be persuasive about matters of detail or nuance, but Cori's worldview is so completely opposed to my own that persuasion is out of the question, and so supportive of profound injustice that vitriol is entirely appropriate.

And anon, such phrases as "...the copious emotional content of your invective..." and "...a tone so drenched in the acidity of acrid, if not rancid lemons that it completely eclipses whatever reasoning you claim you're trying to engage..." are calling out for a merciful death. Stop torturing the prose. This isn't some lexical Abu Ghraib.

And please advise where I demanded that others "wallow in my own misery"? This suits your perspective; it doesn't reflect what I wrote.  

jewlicious- two lengthy and overwrought comments about penises? I realize that you must have very stimulated by my offhand remark, but dude...you're embarrassing yourself.

Cori- you entitle your post "criticism of the idf and right-wing zionism", making it clear that you're responding to me, then describe me as "insignificant". What gives? Don't be so coy, you little vixen. Either you reply to my comment, or you ignore me. Can't have it both ways.

In your comment, you continue to use phrases like "verify facts", "clean up poor translations", "accuracy" and "actual history", as though these were straightforward, scientific, objective notions. You say that you want to "free the documents from subjectivity", but you've already acknowledged that one of your purposes is to deny Israel's critics the chance to "... conjure up arguments that could falsely represent the position of the IDF..." Can you not see that translating with this in mind is a highly subjective effort? Isn't it clear that your idea of falsely representing the position of the IOF may be someone else's idea of accurately characterizing its activities? Note that I'm not at the moment arguing for one view or the other, just that the activity you describe is a highly theory-laden one, not the simple technical one you suggest.

 Finally, let's keep in mind that you're a publicist. Your business is to burnish your client's image. Flacks for CocaCola don't remind us that it rots your teeth. Flacks for the IOF are no more concerned with the public interest than the Coke guys are. It's not their job. In any other context, this insight would be so basic and non-controversial it wouldn't need mentioning.

You're a PR person. And you're "cleaning up" the translations of your client's exploits. End of story.  

To our Monty Python fan (you again, P-A?)  Actually, the "distinction" between translation and interpretation is not obvious at all. If you were right, every person fluent in a language would be as good a translator as any other. They're not. Translation requires judgement.

Anon 9:17 reminds us that some Arabs are stupid. So noted. Also noted: another entirely non-responsive comment.  

Anon 9:17 gets back to the endlessly fascinating topic of my bank account and work ethic. What's with you guys? If I were unemployed or a homemaker or independently wealthy, in what respect would this make me inferior, or have any relevance to my argument? You shame yourselves with this obsessive concern over my employment status. 

As I've said before, I understand that many of you chumps can't imagine writing such elegant and literate prose without taking hours to do so. Not me. I write as fast as it takes me to type. It's a gift. So my appearance here really doesn't require the time commitment you seem to imagine it does.

The bigger question, though, is why do you all spend so much of your time commenting about my personal shortcomings or vices? Who cares? How about focussing on the particulars of my argument. Got a different theory of translation? Describe it and say how it's superior to mine. Think the IOF's gotten a bad rap? I'm listening. But this endless conjecture about my character, etc? It's boring and beside the point. Of course, if you have nothing else to say....  

How about this?-OK, you got me. I'm really a homeless guy and I live over a steam vent in Cleveland. There. Happy? Now, let's talk about the relevant stuff.  

   

I'm intrigued by your assertion that because translation requires judgment, every translation from a source you don't like will irreparably bias or corrupt the historical record. Many things require judgment. And the vast majority of those things have nothing to do with weighing and reinterpreting the historical record until it meets a flawlessly unbiased standard - an objective as hypothetical as it is utopian.

I suspect that on some level you must know all this.

That's the particular of the only "argument" hidden within your temper tantrum. It would have been much easier to decipher had you decided to be more concise. But as the only self-admitted sadist on this thread, you'll have to contend with our Jewish ignorance of the reasons behind your reliance on vitriol as a dialectical crutch.

OK, you got me. I'm really a homeless guy and I live over a steam vent in Cleveland. There. Happy? Now, let's talk about the relevant stuff.  ....Ok, job training is available, and the US Marines are looking for a few good men-do you qualify?

Anon 2:02 says, "I'm intrigued by your assertion that because translation requires judgment, every translation from a source you don't like will irreparably bias or corrupt the historical record."

I'd be intrigued by such an assertion, too. But nothing of such stupidity has ever passed my lips. My assertion was much more local and specific than the silly generality you attribute to me.

See if you can follow this. Ms. C is a paid flack for an occupying force. She worries aloud that some material in said force's archive may be pounced upon by soulless terror-symps to besmirch the brave lads and lasses of of the IOF. With this explicit concern in mind, and as a right-wing Zionist, she means to render the archives "correct" and "objective". She's the one, not me, who asserts that her goal is "objectivity" and all the related words which suggest the act of translation is a mere technical operation.

Why do you characterize your ignorance as "Jewish"? Sign up for self-esteem lessons, stat. 

Anon 3:17 (and will you folks please adopt screen names, for the sake of us all?)  Nope, I'm too old and too smart for the marines. Oh, and I have no interest in subduing other people in the service of empire.

First of all, Ismail, you're a self-centered asshole. (And I mean that in the most constructive way possible). The only one whose sake is benefitted by screen names is you. And I daresay you're not giving anyone here much of a reason to be charitable to you.

Read your first comment regarding judgment and translation. A link between those two specific things was the only (foregone) conclusion you made following 3 sentences musing over a relation between translation and something else, interpretation.

Now, I'm tired, you see. Had a fun night out. And at around 4 o'clock I posted a good reply to anon 3:17 regarding the relationship between employment and fulfillment - having first noted your objection to speculation that a lack of renumeration might be your problem. But the screen crashed when the comment was posted and I have to reconstruct what were some pretty witty quips about how your true passion would seem to be as a spokesperson for Hamas/PA. Obviously your daily work engages some talent you must have. But passion should count for something too. It would be incredibly frustrating for someone as articulate as you to see that government's PR and the moral reasoning behind their policies go more poorly defended than (even) Israel's. It's obvious that not even the great Yasser Abdel Rabdo can hold a candle to you, and that must burn you up.

As Palestine's point-man, you might want to attempt an understanding of the following: Your "conflict of interest" complaint is noted. But what was not noted was a single coherent objection to Cori's specific translations. What was not noted was something that vindicated the original mistranslation. Knowing you, it's doubtful that an effort at such incredibly painstaking tasks was ever attempted. And that's because you never intended to have a serious discussion on them. Cori provided examples of what she did. And because you could find no fault with those specific efforts, because you could offer no argument against her specific interpretations, you did what you do best instead. You made the thread a soapbox for your politics. And now this newest application of your politics, in all the glory of its arrested-development, to this article, is noted as well. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you said anything that went beyond that or deeper than that. You didn't. And you know that.

Oh, and every now and then, do try subduing your urge to service the needs of the Arab empire. Even though it's been on life-support for nearly ten centuries - having forgotten how to recognize basic governance after outsourcing that to the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks, the U.N. and now the U.S. - old habits apparently die hard. Sorry to hear that Israel won't be the next caretaker government for your Palestinians, either. So stop expecting them to be. Perhaps, as a true believer in the Palestinian cause, you could interest the PA in hiring Juan Cole to translate the IDF's records instead. But first you would have to find a way to offer that old goat unbiased instruction in how to speak the damn language first. Get to it. 

 
Ismail,

 As I've said previously, if you were to post a comment solely based on "the issues", I would be happy to respond directly and completely.  It's the sarcasm and stupidly offensive remarks that enable me  to ignore them.  When I am "coy" about responding to something you've said, it's when I feel the need to clear something up for readers other than you.

 

Cori C

coriac@gmail.com

 

"Everything associated with this country—every military operation, every
sentence written in any publication, the general justification of our
existence—is scrutinized in an aggressive way that no other sovereign
state has had to contend with."

Young lady, you really must get out more.  There is an entire profession dedicated to reading old documents an analyzing them (not just in translation) in minute and scathing detail.  It is called "history".  I appreciate you loyalty to your race and tribe, and I suppose the sense of victimization is inevitable.  But the notion that Israel is the only country that has suffered the most in all of history from a careful reading of its military, political and social documents is provincial.  It may be flattering to imagine your country as experiencing the overwhelming intensity of all historical scrutiny, ever, and somehow surviving all those historians, intact, but it just isn't so. 

The best of luck, and do enjoy your reading and translating.  As a historian, there is nothing more pleasurable (and eye-opening, as you have found) than reading original source material.

Anonymous 8:16, the problems of the potential for bias to obscure Cori's efforts have been noted. And responded to. However, no one has identified a substantive objection to her specific translations, despite the fact that examples of them were offered to the reader.

You focus on the historical memory of Jews as one of the most persistently persecuted peoples throughout civilization, and how that experience might affect the way they feel compelled to represent their military. You do not focus on something much more pertinent and obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of history: Modern Hebrew is a very new language. Speaking it on a daily basis is a recent innovation and an experience engaged in by a only a few million souls at best. The fact that making translations from it into English would have been a shoddy and error-prone process in the days before it had gained a foothold as a viable medium for communication and developed as a nation's language should be obvious. But every now and then you get a couple of people whose interest in the hypothetical is offended by things that are obvious. Too bad people like that weren't around to excoriate Herodotus, Ibn Abd el-Hakem and Ibn Khaldun for the biases that might have inevitably pervaded their works as well. We would have obviously been much better off as a modern civilization today had that been the case, right?

There are some individuals here who know a little bit about the problems of historical analysis and a whole lot of nothing when it comes to language translation, among other things. Go ahead and voice your hypothetical concerns. Cori will continue to focus instead on a real problem that you're ignoring. Just like everything else when it comes to how generalists approach Israel.

Oh, Ismail. You raise the issue of self-esteem. The Jewish sense of ignorance was referred to in a particular context - having to do specifically with ignorance of what it means to embrace vitriol as a life-style. I don't think that admitting to one's ignorance of that should raise concerns for one's self-esteem.  

The paragraph that you've quoted isn't meant to refer to historical scrutiny, it refers to each and every move that Israel makes-- "makes", being in the present tense. UN "Security Council" violations are a good example of this scrutiny-- you're telling me that there aren't more pressing HR violations in other areas of the world?

If an Israeli had perpetrated last week's attack in East Jerusalem, do you think that the BBC headline would have declared, "Israeli, father of 3, gunned down in East Jerusalem?"

Probably not. It's not a mindless sense of victimization; it's completely rooted in truth.

 

Cori C

coriac@gmail.com

 

Cori-

I did a quick search and found the following at the BBC website:

"Deadly Jerusalem Bulldozer Attack"

"Bulldozer Rampage in Jerusalem"

"Jerusalem Bulldozer Attack" 

You seem to suggest that the BBC ran the headline, "Palestinian, father of three, gunned down in East Jerusalem". Even if it did, it would have been outnumbered by those above, which I'm sure you prefer.

But I couldn't find a trace of such a headline at the BBC's website, nor did a Google search turn one up. Perhaps you can tell us where you saw this? 

Sorry, left out my name. The question above is mine.

   "However, no one has identified a substantive objection to her specific translations, despite the fact that examples of them were offered to the reader."

P-A, perhaps you are not as well situated as you think to offer linguistic advice, since you insist upon referring to Cori's "translations" and "examples" despite having been patiently instructed in the singularity of her example.

It's very amusing to witness the Procrustean contortions you'll endure to wriggle out of acknowledging the obvious; namely, that translations of highly contended historical events performed by non-historians with strong ideological inclinations working for the public relations section of the very institution whose soiled linen she's hired to freshen are not to be trusted.

Even my dog, admittedly smarter than most owing to her part poodle heritage, can see this. It's a very telling example of the human disposition to self-deception that, as closely as I rub your nose in the obvious, you insist, like a toddler in need of a nap, that black is white.

Have a bit of shut-eye and come read my words again. Remember to go potty before you get into bed. Sweet dreams. 

 
Ismail,

 It was the lead story on their radio show.  That was the tag line before the aired the actual story. I'm not sure if they've archived it online yet, but they will. I'll post it when they do.

 

Cori C

coriac@gmail.com

 

Three concluding paragraphs consisting of smearing his feces on the walls of this discussion board are what prompts Ismail to instruct others in the art of toilet training.

No one's wiggled out of anything. Just because other points were raised (that you apparently lack the intellectual honesty to address) doesn't mean that your point wasn't acknowledged. It was. Amply enough. I realize that such acknowledgments are something you can't feel comfortable about because your arguments typically only include a single, and usually simple-minded point.  But you should really learn to.  Throwing in wildly fun and irrelevant passages, condescension and that stand-by predilection of yours for scatology really doesn't make your comments any more elaborate or intelligible. And enduring your adjectival nonsense is boring enough without having to hear your hundredth use of the world "Procrustean". Learn a new word and be as proud to trot that one out as you are your piece of shit poodle. No offense to her, mind you. I'm sure she's adorable in some way.  

Now go apply the distinction between singular and plural nouns to your own references of Cori's work.

Oh. And learn what it would mean to raise an objection to it. Or to my qualified defense of it.

Or don't. In which case, you'd be much better off going to electronicintifada.net (or worse, we know your side has a lot to pick and choose from on that score) and engage in the brotherhood of vitriol offered by your fellow Intifada-holics.

P-A decries "...that stand-by predilection of yours for scatology..."

and goes on to the following:

"...smearing his feces on the walls..."

"...your piece of shit poodle."

Am I the only one detecting some inconsistency here? Are we in Wonderland?

By the way, I pointed out that my pooch is only part poodle. Still smarter than you, since she would have noticed and remembered that.

Glad you're familiar with the excellent Electronic Intifada website, to which I suggest all Jewcy readers pay a visit.

Otherwise, a less entertaining post than your usual. I give it a 3.8.

Just trying to accomodate your own natural form of discourse.

And the inconsistency noted was originally your own. Do try to come up with your own observations rather than inverting those you ripped off from others. 

As for the language you speak with your dog, I would be intrigued at how it became complex enough for her to convey issues of pedigree. Well, I would be if your statement wasn't just some obviously sloppy, garbage comeback. No wonder you avoid addressing the concerns that attend the task of translating human languages. Except for one.

Not that I'm the grand adjudicator of Jewcy debates or anything, but I'm so glad P-A showed up here. Even though I disagree with Ismail's original premise (this time) -- that is: while there's possibly a conflict of interest with Cori C's work, I don't think Israel's historical records have much chance of getting any closer to what would be considered a satisfactory level of fairness (by Ismail).. And further, she seems to be pretty positive about the task and not entirely unqualified. -- I think his opponents "arguments" only provided more and more [hilarious] grist for his mill.

P-A seems to actually have an interest in addressing the debate at hand, like Ismail, and I salute that! Barbs and all!

There's no real debate Craig. It seems certain parties here are more interested in invective than in addressing anything relevant. I'll restate my case as it were. Cori correctly noted that piguah means any kind of attack, but due to its recent usage is often mistranslated by native English speaking Israelis to mean "terrorist attack." Similarly, the word Palestinian, as Cori again correctly noted, poses difficulties given that its meaning has changed again and again over time. This isn't an issue of politics or ideology - it's a simple issue of the historical record and hardly merits the sort of smarmy chastisement that's been dished out at her. I'd be happy for this discussion to progress in a civilized manner... but, well, we'll see I guess.

---------------------------------

I saved it on CD-ROM at Jewlicious.com

I note the following:

Eighty-year-old Vegas stripper still does it 'classy'.

Now that's some civilization we can all agree on.

Getting back to the topic at hand, Jewlicious is right.

And I appreciate knowing that some attempts at humor aren't lost in translation, especially for you, JewcyCraig.

As I've stated here and elsewhere, unwarranted personalization and excessive emoting obscure debate - despite the fact that even inveterate antagonists addicted to those devices can still manage to entertain and actually enlighten (even if not always in regards to what appears to be, for them - let alone for anyone else - the actual issue at hand).  As I've also said, though, when one's argument is so weak that the mere act of acknowledging it embarrasses said person by exposing its paucity, then, well, that's noteworthy.

What Cori is doing brings up a whole host of topics worthy of further exploration. But for some people conversation begins and ends with an advertisement for their own personal Rohrshach test results.  

 

 
Jewlicious-- that's exactly it. My job is not to interpret historical events.  Perhaps I didn't succeed, but this article was supposed to raise issues associated with translation, and how a language barrier and other linguistic issues can influence public record, etc.  My qualifications (as far as history is concerned) are irrelevant here-- my job pertains to language, and language alone.  I'd be very interested in discussing this, and  this alone.

Cori C

coriac@gmail.com

 

In his defense, as far as concerns the issue that our friend spent post after post blowing his tiny wad on, the historical record is concerned with the identities and potential interests of individuals involved in translating primary source documents. But that knife cuts both ways. Accusations of bias can become an endemic and never-ending process in academic history. Ironically enough, no objection was raised to the shortcomings of those who originally attempted to translate the documents. If revealing a more accurate meaning of those documents was such a pressing concern, someone could have at least acknowledged that a demonstrated lack of basic proficiency on the part of the original translators was what required the strongest corrective. But it probably wasn't.  One gets the impression that someone thought it wasn't even worth addressing. And that is especially funny given the number of times I've been corrected on matters of word choice by certain anal-retentive people here after stumbling into Jewcy late one night and loudly and imperfectly expressing myself in one of my stupors of intifadaholic rage. I hope that person wasn't sneakily inserting his political bias into his suggestions. Maybe he was though. 

Time to catch up-

Anon 7/12 4:22 and 4:38 (P-A?) says nothing interesting, but does it in an amusingly clumsy way. Restate in a coherent fashion and I'll be happy to reply.

Craig, whose former words of encouragement to me showed him to be a man of great discernment and taste, now (shudder!) applauds  P-A and (gasp!) disagrees with me! The vile turncoat! Craig, the jig's up. I'm now going to spill the fava beans-Jewcy's critics have been right all along. We at Islamofascist Central have been subsidizing the so-called Jews running this place for years! Ha! And that's not all! Longtime readers may know that Craig's former photo showed him in oversized sunglasses borrowed from Izzy. But did you know that his Izzywear is not restricted to shades? He also likes to wear her dresses and lingerie! Take that, Craig! Now let's see you disagree with me again...go ahead, as long as you're sure you want the world to know about the incident involving the 9 year old Hindu boy and the mayonnaise.

jewlicious does a 180 and offers a meaningful and intelligent rebuttal of my argument, to which I am happy to reply. The sole specific example Cori provided was the mistranslation of piguah. If she says that this word, unmodified, may refer to various kinds of attacks, but that relatively naive or recent speakers of Hebrew may think it refers only to suicide attacks, who am I to argue? I have no problem with this. As I alluded to earlier, though, I wonder about the specific context in which this linguistic problem arose. Was an IOF document mistakenly translated to suggest that an IOF unit committed a suicide bombing? Or did it cast a justified Palestinian counterattack as a suicide bombing? In other words, were the faulty translations unfair to the IOF or the Palestinians? If the IOF, then that hapless translator is deficient in more than Hebrew; he/she would have to be a recent interstellar arrival to accuse the IOF of a suicide attack, one of the few crimes of which the IOF is innocent. If the Palestinians...well, who's kidding whom? I think we can all agree that Cori and her unit are not interested in correcting unjust depictions of Palestinians.

As for "Palestinian", has its meaning really "...changed again and again over time"? Again, specifics would be helpful, but it's hard for me to imagine that some translator's error wound up confusing a member of the yishuv circa 1925 with an Arab woman forced to give birth at a checkpoint in 2008.

I'd be willing to bet that Cori's idea of the fluidity of the word "Palestinian" has more to do with right-Zionist fantasies of generic Arabs flooding into Palestine to parasitically feed off the labors of the Jews who brought that desolate place to flower than to the fact that, for a time, both Arabs and Jews were (sometimes) called by the same name. After all, she does refer to the bits of historic Palestine remaining more or less (mostly less) in Arab hands as Judea and Samaria, which suggests that she believes they belong to Israel, which would further denature the Arab claim to the land and efface the very notion of a Palestinian (no Palestine, no Palestinians). 

I will await her clarifications re these matters.

Jewlicious' larger claim-that there is a strict division between ideology and linguistics-is palpably false. We all know that equally able bilinguals may disagree about the proper rendering of a passage from one language to another. Translation in this sense more closely resembles a legal argument than a mathematical proof-one side presents reasons why his/her account is more accurate, the other rebuts. Very ordinary process.

Palestine Rulez gives us some unremarkable boilerplate about being nice but seems to succumb to what he condemns-I don't detect any argument in his post, just assertions about my unknowingly revealing my flaws, etc, etc-pointless dollar-book Freud, done without panache or erudition.

If he means by "...their own personal Rohrshach (sic) test results." another iteration of "Ismail's just revealing his own inadequacies/hatred, etc", well, thanks for the consultation, but, how about addressing my points and refraining from doing horoscopes?

If you want to talk psychoanalysis, though, I have a thought. I'm sort of astonished at the level of certainty many of my critics demonstrate re their fantasies about me-I'm an indolent pauper who beats his wife, I attack Jews, my poor life is animated only by spitting venom at others; one guy even insisted, on no evidence whatsoever, that my offhand mention of my political work in the '60s was a lie! Just because!

Alert readers will be put in mind of the psychoanalytic notion of transference, in which the analysand's fantasies re his analyst are held to be indicative of his own unanalyzed conflicts or needs.

If I am to continue as Jewcy's resident transference object, I must insist upon payment. Insurance accepted.

 Cori congratulates jewlicious for hitting it on the nose, which my comments above show he surely did not do, but I understand a maiden's fondness for her defender. She then goes on to reiterate her belief that the domain of language is entirely separate from the realm of context (in this case, political beliefs). I clearly disagree. I really can't understand how Cori continues her assertion. She does, after all, have clear political leanings which bear on the matters she's translating. She is also doing this work as a paid agent of the IOF. But she insists that this poses no problem.

Well, Cori, let me ask you this: suppose I present to you a Palestinian whose command of modern Hebrew you agree is impeccable (maybe he's a former guest of the Israeli prison system. As you know, many such folks learn their Hebrew-the modern variant-quite well as guests of the state. But maybe you'll disqualify him since he's been certified by the occupying force as a criminal, so never mind). Furthermore, this fellow believes in the Palestinian narrative as devoutly as you embrace the Israeli one.

So I nominate him to translate the archives. Remember, language is language, so his politics shouldn't matter. Will you second the nomination? Unless you make the obviously indefensible argument that you are, of course, objective, but he...well, we all know what drives them; unless you want to assure us that, somehow, you alone transcend your ideological lenses, then what reason would you have to demur?

Intifadaholic (P-A again? You must work on that identity disorder of yours) makes the useful observation that men are not angels and that their interests factor in acts like translating politically charged documents. He further suggests that the folks Cori's "correcting" may themselves have been led more by their political passions than by God's-eye accuracy (something of a stretch, imagining a bunch of yeshiva buchers poring over IOF documents with an eye towards fairly representing Palestinian interests, but OK.)

The problem here arises when we get specific. P-A (?) talks about the  "...demonstrated lack of basic proficiency on the part of the original translators (that) required the strongest corrective." Demonstrated by whom? Cori? Precisely not the case. She surely asserts that this was the case, and she provides the generic "piguah" example, but we can't make an informed decision about whether or not the IOF archives are rife with serious mistranslations unless we see what she's talking about.

My position is this; Cori's said she interested in making sure the IOF is not calumnified by future scholars (she's pointedly not concerned with those bad translations whitewashing their actions, on the other hand). She works for the IOF. In freaking PR, fer chrissake! She seems to be located pretty much right of the Israeli center. Knowing all this, is it really so odd that I see the assumption that the originals were "bad translations" rather than "unflattering (but maybe accurate) depictions" as at least undemonstrated?

Sorry this turned out so long. I had originally planned to write two or three brief paragraphs of senseless invective, but chastened by your many calls for civility and trying to respect the efforts of those who offer actual arguments (and not wanting to leave anyone out)... and, to be honest, having nothing else to fill my empty and bitter life, well, I guess I just got carried away. 

 

Wow Ismail. I'm impressed. That's nearly just a few exclamation points shy of being one of the most dispassionate renderings of events I've seen you relate to us.

You really must make a distinction between engaging psychobabble and merely not being tone-deaf. There's a difference, you know. Even when you don't perceive it in yourself. I jokingly used the term "Rohrschach test" not in reference to the former, but precisely because of the reactive yet unwitting way in which you throw your own biases all over the place. It's a metaphor, and something which I would suppose you should therefore allow for, given your self-proclaimed status as a prodigy of language. It's also very pertinent to this discussion.

Speaking of which, "identity disorder"? Please. You entice me to wonder if there should be a coded diagnosis for a deficiency in following a basic argument.

In any event, I'm half-tempted to reveal to you one of the most basic things that it's become obvious you have woefully missed throughout this whole discussion. But watching you sputter like this is providing me with an internal test. It's almost too funny to stop and put an end to. But allowing it to go on is bordering on cruel Schadenfreude. (Did I spell that correctly, BTW?)

The right thing to do would be to poll the Jewcers on this one. What do you guys say? Is a lesson in etymology warranted? Specifics? Re: 1925 and 2008?

But Craig is right. You shouldn't leave. Not right now anyway.

And your participation is valued even when you're not becoming the butt of your own joke. At least in a theoretical sense it is.  

If I saw a headline like "עוד פיגועה עוד פיגועה עוד פיגועה ועוד פיגועה ", I would probably translate it: "Again an attack, again an attack, again an attack and again an attack."

Translating פיגועה as attack (in a military context) is generally a good way to avoid adding subjective connotation that was not present in the original text. Hebrew has perfectly good means to specify a suicide attack when specification is required.

Mere college-level proficiency in Hebrew is not enough to produce good translations of the type Chascione claims to intend to produce. One needs an excellent grasp of the changes in orthography, grammar, usage and meaning over the period from 1948 til today.

The Nadia Abu el Haj case at Columbia is typical. Her critics claimed that Professor Abu el-Haj's proficiency in Modern Israeli Hebrew was defective. In fact, the native language of all her critics and of Professor Abu el-Haj herself is not MIH, and in terms of 1950s usages Abu el-Haj was correct where her critics was wrong. (I know this analysis to be correct because I spent a long time in studying changes in MIH over the last 60 years.)

Jewlicious provides an excellent example to show why Chascione's translations are likely to be wrong.

He writes:

"The first official designation of Palestine as a geographical entity came to us thanks to Emperor Hadrian's attempt to render the region judenrein following the failure of Bar Kokhba's revolt in 135."

Exactly what official designation of Palestine as a geographical entity means in Roman terms is rather obscure, but I know at least one example of pre-Bar Kokhba epigraphy describes Samaria as part of Eretz Plishtim. There were multiple geographic definitions for the region and the meanings of Palestine and Judea change a lot from the 6th century BCE to the 4th century CE.

Using the term judenrein for the Hadrianic period is anachronistic, incorrect and propagandistic.

If the territory was judenrein, who wrote the Mishna and the Jerusalem Talmud?

When Jewlicious states sarcastically "there was never a Jewish temple on the site of Al Aqsa," he is expressing a truth that every honest scholar in the field accepts.

For example, Shaye Cohen at Harvard claims (I believe incorrectly) that Jewishness in the modern sense begins in the 4th century CE. (I put the beginning in the 10th century CE.).

In Latin one could refer to the Aedes Iudaeae, Aedes Iudaea and Aedes Iudaica to wit, the Temple of Judea, the Judean Temple, or the Judaic Temple with slightly different connotations in meaning but without the meaning of Jewish Temple in the modern sense.

A similar set of connotations applies to Rex Iudaeae, Rex Iudaeus and Rex Iudaicus.

Even without the issue of building essentialist, primordialist propaganda into a translation, creating a valid representation of a Hebrew text in English or an English text in Hebrew is often quite difficult.

I saw the one paragraph preamble to the US constitution translated into Hebrew with over a page of notes, and the issue does not arise because MIH is a semitic language (it isn't). There is no problem in rendering the preamble into Arabic, Mishnaic Hebrew or Classical Hebrew. In contrast, MIH Hebrew is for the most part a Slavic language or relexified Yiddish, if one prefers, and the concepts of people and nation in MIH are congruent with the associated ideas in German, Polish or Russian.

 

Q. "If the territory was judenrein, who wrote the Mishna and the Jerusalem Talmud?"

A. A lot less Jews than were in the area before. 

You really need to get out a bit more, Thors. A good part-time Nazi-sympathizer such as yourself should realize that there were Jews who even found a way to remain in Germany during the Third Reich. See the excellent movie Europa Europa for just one interesting example of this.

I'm intrigued by your assertion that Anglo-American colonists had an easier time relating linguistically to concepts of nationhood preserved in ancient Semitic languages than to those of modern Europe. But that wouldn't be incongruous at all with the well-known fact that the colonists were inspired by ancient Israel in declaring their independence and in consolidating libertarian (i.e. anti-tyranny) ideals into their own nation's laws. America, like, I suppose, ancient Israel, is considered to be a creedal nation, rather than one formed on the basis of an ethnic nationalism - the latter being largely the case across the world today.