Israeli ambassador criticizes U.S. for granting Iran`s leader a visa
"I ask myself if the American administration didn't have an opportunity, even at the expense of violating its agreements with the UN, not to give an entrance visa to this man," Gillerman told Israel Radio."
It is interesting to see how Israel expects the U.S. to violate international agreements [violating international agreements is what makes one a rogue nation] in the interests of Israel. Click here to read the entire article and make observations about the various politicl dynamics at this weeks UN summit in New York
23 Comments:
It's no surprise to see Israel requesting that U.N. agreements be violated in order to advance their interests; they violate them themselves by building illegal settlements in the West Bank.
This article reminded me of our discussion in class yesterday of how it is pointless to refuse to negotiate with anyone who disagrees with you. I doubt many people share the Iranian president's position on Israel and the Holocaust, but that still doesn't mean that he shouldn't be allowed to address the United Nations. Although I usually disagree with the position taken by Ahmadinejad, I do believe there is some validity to his statements on the Western Nations influence on the Security Council and how it affected the Israel-Lebanon conflict. I also agree with King Abdullah's statements about ending the occupation and giving the Palestinian's an independent state, although I don't see how this will ever occur as long as Israel has the backing of the United States. Israel has no reason to stop their behavior when they have the support of the most powerful nation in the world.
It would appear that both Bolton and the Israeli delegation to the UN are feeling a bit childish about the whole situation.
What is surprising is that anyone would be surprised that Israel wants the US to violate international law regarding visas for the UN members; Israel is likely accustomed to the US bending and breaking international law in its favour, and it must have come as a shock for the US to obey any UN procedure.
I also agree with Jennie Fantastic that US-Israel will only 'debate' with those who agree or come close, and a radically different viewpoint is even more frightening than labour unions and any local election involving a 3rd party combined
I was happy to read that Ahmadinejad was present at the council. I don't really like the guy, at all, but Iran is a country, and should be allowed to attend; especially since there is so much to be negotiated with them. It will certainly be interesting to see what is to come for Iran's nuclear energy plan, if at all they ever recieve the capabilities.
Also interesting were the comments left by King Abdullah II of Jordan, suggesting that the only way to resolve conflict with Palistine and Israel is "[unilateraly]", that is, a hault of Israels "occupation of Palestinian lands". I guess I agree with him, but it is hard for me to make an inference on how likely it is to see Israel leave these Palestinian lands any time soon.
In the interest of promoting peace and a dialog between nations, the US must not deny any leader the right to speak at the UN. If Ahmadinejad had been denied his visa then it would have undermined the UN's authority because it would give the appearance that the UN only wants to hear certain opinions. This is similar to the League of Nations, where certain nations were excluded from post WW1 talks and thus rose up again in anger at their treatment by the victors.
Similar to calls to not allow Ahmadinejad to come to the UN is the former president of Iran Khatami coming to Harvard. The governor of Massachusetts denied Khatami state police protection, calling him "a terrorist." Even if the governor disagreed with Khatami's views, he should still have been given state police protection in the interest of protecting free speech. If the KKK and Neo-Nazis can get police protection to have parades through towns then Khatami should have been protected by the state as well (even if he isn't an American citizen, it's the duty of police to protect people, not just US citizens).
This post has been removed by the author.
Ahmadinejad had every right to be at the UN Council. It doesn't seem to me that there should even be a controversy about it. Nobody can expect peace talks to even BEGIN if everyone involved is not present. I may not agree with anything he says or believes but that doesn't mean that he should not be there. I think that it will benefit Israel and the United States to have Ahmadinejad there. They, along with the other countries, will be able to hear what he has to say. I think that it is a big immature of both Ahmadinejad and Bush, along with the Israeli's, to be avoiding each other. The least they can do is sit down and talk to one another. Nothing may be accomplished but atleast they started the communication process.
I think it is very interesting what Jordan's King said. He said that "We must make peace a priority. And we must do so now. No session of this great institution could make a greater contribution to a future of justice and hope." I think this is a very good quote for this situation. I don't think that anyone is really looking at peace anymore. They are just fighting about what each other says or does and is losing sight of what's really important. I believe what's really imporant is the peace, and making sure that more people aren't getting killed, by either side, and that one day they can live peacefully next to each other.
I am in agreement with previous posts that Iranian President Ahmadinejad had the right to attend the UN General Assembly, although his presence and comments causes much anger and tension among the member nations, especially Israel. Of course, one must be aware that the article is published by a Jewish website, Haaretz.com, meaning there is a pro-Israeli bias.
Western nations needed to hear what Ahmadinejad believes even though some of what he had to say was offensive. Understanding is crucial in fostering a workable peace. If Ahmadinejad is a threat to peace, now the Western world has a better understanding of that threat, and how it operates. The West is so clueless about the Arab and Islamic world that when we hear the voices of rulers or extremists, we get very angry and have trouble understanding why they hate us. But that is the key to peace. We need to come to an understanding of why the non- Western world hates us so much.
As David Brooks, a New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, stated in a column last Thursday entitled "Lessons from UN Week," "...millions of Americans believe the pope has nothing to apologize for. They regard the vicious overreaction to his speech, like the vicious overreaction to the Danish cartoons, as another sign that some sort of intellectual disease is sweeping through the Arab world." He is right. The American public does not understand the Arab World, and see it as a hostile and threat to peace. The Iranian President does not have any incentive to cooperate with the West if what he says is not considered or understood.In fact, he just has a greater incentive to be more angry, and extremists have a greater need to cause more violence. Thus the vicious cycle of Western misunderstanding and Arab/Islamic terrorism continues.
This post has been removed by the author.
I agree w/ president Chirac, that in the interest of promoting peace, “dialog must prevail”. These are adults let alone presidents who should be dealing with critical issues more maturely and prudently, however their actions prove them to be a bunch of four -year olds in which one says no he shouldn’t have been granted his visa to attend or participate in the meeting, and the other (president Bush) irrationally makes every attempt to keep avoiding Ahmadinejad’s presence !!!
If peace is their real goal (and not an excuse to justifying future actions) then NEGOTIATION and AGREEMENT from both sides is crucial … so long as theirs intolerance… they would never reach a decent and an impartial solution!!
Israel knows that the UN Security Council is the only reason no meaningful international action can be done against it. It can say whatever it wants as long as the US supports it, and the Security Council remains the way it is. Ahmadinejad was perfectly correct that the Security Council can at times be hypocritical and a tool for the western powers.
Then again, the UN Security Council members hold the majority of power in the world. Even the other posters on this blog show their mistrust or dislike of Ahmadinejad. I think the majority of US citizens would be in opposition of removing the S.C. or adding members to it. I would equate it similarly with the fight in US History between the power of the federal government and each state. I'm sure large powerful states like New York didn't like the idea of Delaware of having equal power so we have two representative houses instead.
These public games of ignoring each other's speeches are counterproductive and not in spirit of the UN. The US, as the sole super power, is playing a vicious game of part of "us or one of them" that has been increasingly only making enemies. Not only do foreign powers no longer trust what we say and value, but even the US public is rightfully distrustful and wanting change.
The US would gain more more credit and trust if it tried to prevent real problems like Katrina and solve existing terrible ones like Uganada or Dafur rather than just creating more in self-interest of wealth and power.
Ahmadinejad’s statements rejecting the Holocaust and Israel’s right to exist have only heightened tensions and complicated diplomacy. The impact of Ahmadinejad comments is illustrated by the Israeli ambassador questioning the U.S.’s decision to grant the Iranian President a visa. To the rest of the world, Mr. Gillerman’s request for America to deny a head of state’s entry into the country to speak at the U.N. seems ridiculous. However, this request also denotes the reality of the matter; Ahmadinejad’s comments have produced resentment if not downright hatred among the Israelis. These comments have made relations between the two countries more personal and increasingly more difficult.
Irrespective of their intent, ANY remark that can be construed as religiously motivated criticism will be, as the Pope recently found out. Bush was heavily criticized for once using the term “crusade” while referring to the war on terror; bin Laden himself has recognized Bush’s choice word and used it as evidence to promote his theory of America’s war on Islam. Point being, leaders must choose their words carefully. Their statements consequently shape the perceptions of others. To reject an historic event as undeniable and powerful as the Holocaust simply stirs the region already in unrest. Similar to Hugo Chavez’s “Devil” remarks, Ahmadinejad’s calls for public debates with Bush, Western criticisms, and recent American TV interviews have been nothing more than theater. But to dismiss his comments as mere words does not give them the weight they deserve. The Israel ambassador’s request is a result of the highly personal attacks of Ahmadinejad. If Ahmadinejad wants constructive and reasoned talks, he should not make additional and unnecessary stresses.
That's out of line and frankly quite juvenile of Gillerman, par for the course, basically. Ahmadinejad may not be the nicest guy in the world, but if you aren't going to let him speak, how is anything going to get done? It isn't. If you want to straighten out your differences, they must first be put aside. That is common knowledge among most rational individuals, but obviously not Israeli politicians. I love the article's ham-handed rationalization of the protest; saying that Ahmadinejad "wants to wipe Israel off the map and dismissed the Holocaust as a myth," as if that egregiously violates international law and ought to preclude him from showing face in the UN. Backward as those views may be, he is an important member of the global community. Barring the President of Iran from addressing the UN for any reason at all is irresponsible at best.
Granted, Ahmadinejad didn't say anything particularly groundbreaking, but denying him the right to speak or appear at all would have done more harm than anything he could have reasonably been expected to say, no matter how inane. Clearly, John Bolton was going out of his way to make it clear that he doesn't put any stock into anything Ahmadinejad says with the "junior note-taker" (not a note-taker, a junior note-taker) and "charming seminar" comments. Not the most diplomatic things I've ever read, but that's Bolton for you.
The aspect of Israel’s lamentation that the U.S. did not reject Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a visa to address the UN General Assembly that interests me the most is that I feel such a demand would be a major set back for the formation of a new peace process in the Arab-Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
As we have discussed in class, the formation of the new peace process will most likely rest highly upon the actions of the U.S. Although no one can do more than speculate at what these actions will encompass, there are certain aspects of American power which will contribute to the process no matter what specific actions are taken. The subject I am addressing is the concept of American soft power as perceived by the actors in the Arab-Israeli conflict and the rest of the world.
Soft power is a very broad subject encompassing numerous concepts, but in general it can be defined as the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants through the ability to attract and co-opt rather than force and coerce. (Nye – Soft Power). Soft power stems from a country’s culture, political ideas, and polices. One major factor that affects the strength of American soft power is the perceived legitimacy of U.S. policies and actions. When a country’s policies are seen as legitimate, that country’s soft power will benefit. Conversely, if that said country’s policies are seen as illegitimate or hypocritical, the effectiveness of their soft power will be bruised. As Professor Khan has pointed out during class, the U.S. has broken more treaties than any other nation, and due to current foreign policies our perceived legitimacy has suffered greatly.
If the U.S. had done as Israel wanted, and “at the expense of violating its agreements with the UN” rejected the Iranian President an entry visa, the perceived legitimacy and soft power of the United States would have taken another blow. The willingness of the Israeli’s to jeopardize the growing opportunities for a peace process is very disappointing and I feel does not bode well for the future. Hopefully the Israeli’s can silence demands for illegitimate action in the future even if they have to endure the insults from adverse nations.
I've been searching for actual transcripts of what Ahmadinejad actually said about the Holocaust and wiping Israel off the map. Sadly, I don't read the original language he said it in, and many of the English translations are pretty inconsistent.
What seems true is that Ahmadinejad only said this a few times yet it is always brought up whenever any article or discussion is brought up about him. Yet, do we ever bring up Bush's failure to find WMDs every time we talk about Iraq? Do we always bring up the Axis of Evil he talked about with Iran and Korea? Why does this administration keep accusing Iran of nuclear weapons without full proof, making the public automatically believe it, even if it's true, there's no solid evidence. As Clinton recently said in a Fox interview. If you're going to apply one standard one on side then you have to do the same on our side.
Ahmadinejad brought up valid points in his full discussions that the Holocaust has gotten such a high status among westerners. It is exactly the same about the anti-semitics discussion we had in class. I highly doubt that Ahmadinejad truly doubts that the Holocaust happened, he just wanted recognition and for the Muslims to rally behind him. As the Western powers continually put a blind eye to Israel, saying such comments do no doubt makes him the leader of region. He has a valid point that the Holocaust happened in Europe because of German Nazis, not Palestines. So why did all the Jews have to come to the Muslim owned lands? Isn't it because Europeans are anti-semitic so Jews recognized they would never be accepted in Europe and took their ancient homeland instead?
The wording has it popularly that he said Holocaust was a myth. When in the real language, it's more like legendary or to such a high holiness that it's unquestioned and untalked about.
Do you take it seriously when the Republicans suddenly talk about terrorism again before elections? And do we call them liars and terrible politicians for lying like this? No, it's a tool and we recognize both sides do it.
Getting stuck on just a few lines of what a leader says makes it impossible for real discussion. Just like this UN meeting showed. It'd be like if I talked to the Pope and kept saying that Jesus came with a sword to break families.
It's the same thing as the message boards where people keep saying Clinton is just a liar and can't be trusted because he had an affair in office. We're all human.
It makes sense to me that Iran wants nuclear capabilities. The US currently occupies Afghanistan and Iraq; two countries that border Iran. In order to assert their independence and prevent the US from invading, Iran must distinguish itself as an equal. Nuclear capabilities would force the world to take Iran seriously. The US is too aggressive. Chirac said he encourages dialogue and does not want to see sanctions imposed on Iran. Sanctions will only fuel the fire. If Ahmadinejad thinks he is being held to double standards now, just wait for his reaction when the US imposes sanctions. While a nuclear program should not be exploited and used for terrorism, it is unfair that so many western nations are allowed and other “hostile” nations are not.
I cannot say whether Iran is truly a hostile nation because of the limited media and the limited information. Even if it is though, I do not understand how the US thinks that by restricting Iran’s expansion and controlling Iranian action that the US will receive anything positive. The US does not use its nuclear program for strictly good things. We are still developing new weapons and new forms of defense with our nuclear program. So why is it okay for us to develop our program and not anyone else? Doesn’t the US government understand that other countries, particularly nations in the Middle East feel threatened?
I do not know what a good answer might be. However, in order for the US to gain credibility and to gain trust, we need to stop advancing our nuclear program, we need to engage with other western nations and encourage them to do the same, and we need to start acting multilaterally. Until the US’s double standard policies stop we will not make progress and instead will continue to be ignored.
It is shocking to me that Ahmadinejad would think that anyone would want to grant him permission to continue his uranium enrichment program after all of the comments he has made. When the US is such an important player in the UN and Ahmadinejad is giving seminars on the world without the US and then expecting the UN to allow him to produce uranium that would eventuall be assumed to be used for creating nuclear technology is ludacris. If he really wanted to get permission to do so and not be stopped he wouldnt make other comments like Israel should be wiped off the map when Israel is on of the US's biggest allies. Also saying that the western states have nuclear techonology so he should be able to also is crazy since he hasnt shown any reason why he should be allowed to produce them and not use them as his pleasure to perhaps rid the world of the US and Israel and whoever else he may not favor as he has suggested in his speeches. He should know there would be no way the UN would allow him to get away with his programs after all of these comments. Since he thinks the halocaust never occured perhaps he believes if he too kills as many people as was done then, perhaps then this wouldnt "really exist" and he could get away with using his nuclear technology and not believe he did any harm. If he wanted to be a strong leader and make more points and bring more people to his side he should have kept this comments to himself and not given the UN and important states reasons to not trust him and to want to take away his nuclear capabilities as soon as possible.
"Dialogue must prevail." This, in my opinion is the reason for many hostilities between the Bush administration and the Iranian administration. Ahmedinedjad claims that his country is looking just for peaceful nuclear power and not weapons, and that it is adhereing to the NPT. There are scores of UN and IAEA representatives in the country monitoring the situation, are there not? The only reason that there has been no progress on this issue is the US failing to, and fighting against, a dialogue. I think that the Iranian leader was correct in saying that key Western countries (the US) were using the UN to press their own agenda. There will be no progress until either the Bush adminstration stops acting like a spoiled brat, or there is a shift of power and support within the United States away from Bush and the neocons, which looks to be forthcoming in November.
"Dialogue must prevail." This, in my opinion is the reason for many hostilities between the Bush administration and the Iranian administration. Ahmedinedjad claims that his country is looking just for peaceful nuclear power and not weapons, and that it is adhereing to the NPT. There are scores of UN and IAEA representatives in the country monitoring the situation, are there not? The only reason that there has been no progress on this issue is the US failing to, and fighting against, a dialogue. I think that the Iranian leader was correct in saying that key Western countries (the US) were using the UN to press their own agenda. There will be no progress until either the Bush adminstration stops acting like a spoiled brat, or there is a shift of power and support within the United States away from Bush and the neocons, which looks to be forthcoming in November.
In response to teresa knag. First of all, the media misquoted and misinterpreted what Ahmadinijad said in his speech about "wiping ISrael of the map of the world". If you read the persian text, no where in his speech does he mention, wiping out, or map for that matter. Secondly, who is Israel and US to deny another country it's right to have nuclear technology. What is the only country in the middle east that has nuclear technology and nuclear weapons, NOt surprisingly ISrael. Why should Israel be allowed to do so, but another country should not. Ahmadinijad might be crazy, but he is not crazy enough to bomb another country without forseeing the consequences. Secondly, Ahmadinijad cannot do anything without the permission of Ayatollah, and Ayatollah is not crazy enough to bomb Israel, which by the way is a holy site to Muslims as well. I think it is Ludacris for to come from an ambassador of a country who wants some other country to reject the UN rules and pursue an illegal act. If the same comments had come from Ahmadinijad, then the whole media would have been on that immediately, making a big fuss about it. So, teresa knag, don't believe everything you hear in American media!
btw, here is the link to his full speech in farsi text (if anyone can read it). I think you can also read it in english as well!
http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm
This post has been removed by the author.
"I ask myself if the American administration didn't have an opportunity, even at the expense of violating its agreements with the UN, not to give an entrance visa to this man.” While I am sure the Israelis attempted to pressure the U.S. into not granting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad an entry visa behind the scenes, I am not aware of any official request despite this critical comment made by Israeli Ambassador Gillerman. I think it is also important to note that this is an excerpt taken from an interview with Israeli radio, and not to American media. Nonetheless, I do not believe these types of comments to be profound given the history of the U.S. incubating Israel since its conception and then protecting the Jewish state from any ramifications for its actions against the Palestinians. The U.S. wielded its Security Council veto countless times in regards to United Nations resolutions against Israel, very often the sole dissenting vote. Also, hundreds of millions of dollars in both public and private aid flow into Israel from the U.S. in addition to the large-scale weapons deals between the two. Considering the history and intimacy of the aforementioned nations combined with the perceived threat by both from a potentially nuclear Iran, the comment from Ambassador Gillerman almost seems likely despite being completely unreasonable.
The speech given by Jordan's King Abdullah II appeared to be given out of sincerity and earnest, especially since he is the leader of only one of two Arab countries to diplomatically recognize the state of Israel. Despite these relations, he still considers Israel to be occupying Palestinian lands and severely mistreating the Palestinian people. While some may disagree with these comments, his belief that a just and peaceful settlement to Israel-Palestinian conflict will defuse much of the tension in the Middle East and remove much of the foundations upon which Islamic terrorism thrives appears logical. I cannot argue with his notion that the conclusion of violence and a political settlement that includes a Palestinian state will not make the world both and safer and better place. Of all the statesmen mentioned in the article, I believe him to be the most even handed player who actually seeks a peaceful solution to the problem.
I was not very impressed with President Bush’s speech. He reiterated his belief that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, but with those who pervert Islam to commit violence against the U.S. and her allies. Unfortunately for him and the people of the U.S., the foreign policies of his administration appear blatantly to belie these sentiments even if it not the case in actuality. Appearance is everything and the U.S., especially under George W. Bush, has shown an ugly face towards the world. Although he was likely correct when he was addressing the Syrian and Iranian people that their leaders deny them the fruits of their resources in order to fund terrorism, the policies of his presidency have likely done more to encourage extremism that then the combined administrations of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not to mention the cost of the Iraq war ranges in the tens of billions while much of New Orleans remains destroyed and its people dispersed. Bush’s inability to appreciate the concept that extremist are created by situations, much of which the United States can affect both positively and negatively, probably led this speech to be once again ineffective in persuading world opinion to the side of the U.S.
Post a Comment
<< Home