See the Q&A with President Ahmedinajad, all the four videos, and make your comments. Try to provide serious analysis of his answers and comments on the controversy surrounding his invitation to Columbia. How do you think President Bush would do at a University in Iran, or even in Europe. Here is an interesting article in the Guardian about Iranian reations to the event. Looks like we have bolsterred Ahmedinajad's otherwise sagging support at home.
Here is an interesting commentary on the European laws that prohibit Holocaust denial and BTW if Ahmedinajad wishes to do more research on the Holocaust, he could apply for a visiting fellowship at the Holocaust Museum, the stipend is pretty decent too. Here is an interesting Muslim perspective on the Columbia circus.
20 Comments:
First off, I found this question series highly entertaining, because as usual, the hypocritical nature of U.S foreign policy is publicly unveiled (i.e his response to the question regarding terrorism, and his example of U.S aiding Iraqi terrorists in Iran).
In regards to the 1st question: Do you seek the Destruction of the Jewish State?
The President gave a lengthy reply: discussing international influence on the Palestinian issue, suggesting a solution (that being a referendum and self determination) and going so far as to say that Iranians are ‘friends of the Jews’. I believe Ahmadinejad used a strategy that we could expect from any American politician, diffusing attention from the real question. I believe the commentator was rude when he requested a “yes or no” answer. Would the commentator have given such a request to President Bush? The President of Iran was not asked to come because they really wanted to hear what he had to say, instead, they wanted to attack him. I laughed out loud when Ahmadinejad said, “you want an answer the way you want to hear it” because this repartee between the commentator and the Iranian President is a reflection on current U.S and Iranian discussions, or lack there of. What they wanted to hear was a response that fits the image the U.S is so desperately trying to sell: Iran is a hostile and uncompromising state. They wanted him to say, “Yes, we seek the destruction of Israel and we will give any aid we can to the situation”. Yet, Ahmadinejad used much more passive rhetoric, like ‘humanitarian’, and democratic. Now, I know this all sounds like I’m playing Iran out to be the victim and I’m probably going to get slaughtered by the rest of your responses, but I can sympathize with the position Iran is in. We wave our ‘Big Stick’, we want others to submit to our interests. I think it’s a much more democratic world if nations start challenging the Western powers, through means other than the military. Although the idea of a nuclear Iran scares me, I believe that most of my fear is the result of the propaganda I’ve been subjected to for years. I feel we haven’t even given Arab nations, like Iran, a chance to appear less hostile because we are constantly putting them on the defense. As we’ve talked about in class, we associate certain traits with Arabs- anyone remember that day with the ‘suicide bomber’ discussion that ended in an uproar? I agree with Ahmadinejad that Palestinians should get a chance to resolve the issue themselves, and a referendum is a good idea… however this I feel would only have worked at the start, and now it’s too late. Whether or not it should’ve been an international issue/decision, it is now, and we have to figure out a way to resolve this in the UN (that is in the theoretical ‘unbiased’ ‘problem-solving’ UN). I’ll say real quick that in regards to Holocaust question, yes, research on history never ends, but he lost credibility when he started talking about different sides to the story. I'm morally against some of the things that are going on in Iran, but I feel that the U.S is equally responsible for the breakdown in communications. I have more to say, but this is long already, and I’m going to let you guys respond before I hang myself further. Let the games begin…
-Tendrup
From Steven Gold:
I agree with what Tendrup said about US foreign policy that was mentioned numerous times by Ahmadinejad. The President of Iran mentioned that the US has nuclear capabilities, what not his country. This is very similar to the US's reaction to Iraq's nuclear capabilities, and look where that got us (regardless of the reason for the war). It has just been announced that the Russians have what is supposed to be that largest non-nuclear bomb in the world (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6990815.stm) but the US hasn't even noticed.
President Ahmadinejad kind of dances around the question about homosexuals being prosecuted in Iran (granted he was trying to lead up to his answer before he was cut off). And based on his interpretation of the law, it is illegal by hanging (regardless on your views on homosexuals). Thus to him law is law, and that is it. If you look into the Alabama, the last state to allow interracial marriage - commonly called miscegenation - in 2000 (http://archive.salon.com/books/int/2001/03/08/sollors/index.html). Granted it was unconstitutional until 1967 in the case of Love v. Virginia by the Supreme Court, but it took until 2000 for Alabama to fix their own constitution.
I applaud Ahmadinejad's use of the terms: Jew, Israel, and Zionism. He realizes that they are not one and the same (unlike many people in the US). In his theocratic republic (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html), he allows Jews to have a voice in Irani Parliament, even making exceptions for them to be apart of it (lessening the percentage requirement, from part one of the video). When he is talking about Israel specifically he wants all parties to work together to be involved including the Palestinians (Jews, Muslims, and Christians). If he was referring to Palestine as Israel (and the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights) is debatable. But since there are many Palestinian Jews, they would be allowed into Israel under the Law of Return (anyone who is 1/4 Jew is allowed into Israel and became a citizen). So thus I think he was referring to historic Palestine (pre-1948). He wants the people of this land to decide what to do, not other countries. Thus the land can be divided up the way they want to, if that is the peace plan the Palestinians go for or having it as all one country. I did find it funny that he mentioned that after their civil war, that they did not talk to the 'Zionist regime,' even though he let many come to his 'Holocaust denial' conference (http://www.bangitout.com/photos/viewphoto.php?a=2243). Since many 'true' Zionists do not believe in having an Israel as I said in class, because the (Jewish) Messiah has not come.
To get back to my first point, I think the video shows the stubbornness of the US. The moderator (the President of Colombia University) would not allow President Ahmadinejad to finish many of his answers, especially if he was leading up to the actual question. Especially his demand for a yes or no answer was very rude, and would NEVER be asked to Bush. It has also showed me and proved there is an pro-American and unrelenting Pro-Israel propaganda in the news. For example his Holocaust denial answer, that he wanted to 'research' it more, (I do believe the Holocaust happened) I did like his rebuttal, that everything has been research, some for over 800 years.
But does anyone think it is funny that we are butting heads with a country that is a republic? We as a country are a democratic republic, and the US says there are no democratic nations in the Middle East. Yet, Ahmadinejad even talks about women voting in Irani elections in his theocratic republic.
--Steven Gold
I have to agree with the previous posts that this question/answer session was definitely conducted the wrong way. It’s understandable that the questions asked were going to be controversial, but they way in which they were asked could have been done in a more polite manner. I do believe that we are definitely interested in what Ahmadinejad has to say, but as such a controversial figure, the things we want to know and the biases we already hold definitely had a negative effect on his visit. I just think the questioning was a bit ridiculous. What was the point of repeating the destruction of a Jewish state question? Did we really expect him to answer with a simple “yes”? I think, just like he said, we were trying to force the answers that we wanted to hear and were getting annoyed when he was trying to say something different or less controversial.
I do think that his explanation of the Holocaust was very clear. (I DO believe it happened, I’m not trying to offend anyone with this) It’s understandable why his stance is being attacked as a denial of the tragedy since any question of the event indicates doubt in its authenticity, but denying isn’t what he was doing. I don’t believe that his analogy of new science erasing what was once an absolute is one that he should use again because I do feel that it signifies he believes that eventually new information on the subject may surface which will change our current believes. I do not think that there will ever be information researched that leads to an entirely different conclusion than what we have today. The Holocaust did happen and there is evidence; however, I agree that just because we have solid facts does not mean that door should be closed on all research. Just because we have evidence of the tragedy occurring does not mean that we know everything there is to know. I think his comment was terribly misinterpreted and his analogy made it a bit confusing, but overall I started to feel bad for the way in which he was being attacked. I did notice that for many of the questions, he avoided answering what was specifically asked. Though I know this is true of many leaders who are asked controversial questions, I think it helps to explain why the questions were asked and repeated rather rudely. For example, the question regarding homosexuality had to be repeated twice because he was completely shifting the scope of the questions to address something new (drug trafficking). I’m not saying that the manner in which the questions were asked was acceptable, but I understand why they came out in such a way when the question is deliberately being avoided. In addition, his decision to answer the question with “In Iran we do not have homosexuals,” was a ridiculous and a complete cop out.
I also have to disagree with the two posts saying the Bush wouldn’t be asked questions in such a manner. I think, if given the chance, there are plenty of individuals who would conduct a question/answer session with Bush in the very same way. I’m not saying that they too wouldn’t be criticized for being disrespectful, but I think it is a definite possibility. President Bush is extremely controversial and there is currently widespread disapproval for many of his policies, I really cannot think of a better time then now that he would be subjected to questioning like Ahmadinejad was at Colombia.
I don’t know very much about women’s issues in Iran, but I did find this article if anyone cares to look
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/world/middleeast/06iran.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations%2fH%2fHuman%20Rights%20Watch
It’s from March, and I don’t know if anything has changed since then, but it paints a very different picture of women’s lives than Ahmadinejad did at Colombia.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
This whole affair has been such an accomplishment for Ahmadinejad from start to finish. Had he simply spoken at Columbia without being massively defamed in the press, and then butchered by the introductory speaker, his presence and remarks would pass as yesterdays news, lost in the increasingly short memory of the American public. Also, the Iranian public would have viewed his trip as one among many public relations tours their President has conducted since his election.
So what makes this particular speech stand out so much?
It is obviously the dispicable treatment of President Ahmadinejad by America at large-- not just the press or Columbia. Search google video for this man- the second video is a parody of him parading around with Iranian shuyuukh like monkeys.
We are a joke. In an effort to cut this person down, we have become the laughing stock of the world. Our nasty treatment of President Ahmadinejad has created yet another reason for Iranian solidarity. We have demonstrated how foul we have become. We are better than this- we have the potential to be the most enlightened nation on planet Earth. To become informed, will we really succumb to consuming media products that are choc full of ad hominem attacks and overblown smear campaigns? Is the average American no longer capable of independent historical research and comparitive political analysis?
WE ARE COUCH POTATO SCHOLARS.
We have shown how stagnant our intellectual community has become. As if the Columbia audience needed a brainwashing pep talk before the speaker to guard them from "propaganda." As if the American public needs to be told what to think by OPINION based news articles. The press should be covering the news- that's it. Not pumping our minds full of so much slander and hate that we lose all sense of objectivity with regards to international affairs.
Ahmadinejad was eloquent.
Ahmadinejad was candid and realistic.
Ahmadinejad was convincing.
Are we going to let Israel drag us into war with his country? Dr. Khan seems to dismiss that notion, but I vehemently disagree. The overblown, proposterous, and venomous nature displayed by our people towards Ahmadinejad is a clear sign that "something is in the water."
How dare we treat someone so viciously? Do we think the entire world won't find out? This is gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. Remember: This person travels all over the world giving similar speeches and presentations. He is gaining extensive momentum of worldwide support and empathy. He will use this as another example of America's arrogance and disregard for respectable conduct on ALL fronts, not just speaker's venues.
Like the Iraq war, this will certainly get international blood boiling, fueling hatred and violence toward America for years to come. The only question: Are those behind such daringly stupid activities TRYING to destroy our country (or exploit their power so much that America's destruction is the result?) Or like our false perception about the motives behind the Iraq war, are our leaders so naive and reckless that they don't think before they act? More and more now I am having contempt for the latter argument and a strange faith in the former.
Bush and the pro-war camp are terrorists, whether it be physically, intellectually, or spiritually. The latest victim: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
"Chavez said he was proud of Ahmadinejad's courage while under hostile questioning at New York's Columbia University. "An imperial spokesman tried to disrespect you, calling you a cruel little tyrant. You responded with the greatness of a revolutionary." "
and..
"Together we are surely growing stronger, and in truth no one can defeat us," the Iranian leader said through an interpreter. Apparently referring to the U.S., he said, "Imperialism has no other option: Respect the peoples (of the world) or accept defeat."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/28/AR2007092800118.html
My claim is already verified.
The claim reiterated from the previous post, touching on Ahmadinejad's speech:
"How dare we treat someone so viciously? Do we think the entire world won't find out? This is gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. Remember: This person travels all over the world giving similar speeches and presentations. He is gaining extensive momentum of worldwide support and empathy. He will use this as another example of America's arrogance and disregard for respectable conduct on ALL fronts, not just speaker's venues."
I am not sure that I follow the controversy regarding Ahmadinejad’s wish to further investigate the Holocaust. Are we really this insecure? Are we actually afraid that someone may do research that indicates it did not happen? Of course it did! Personally, I believe that a continuing and renewed interest in the Holocaust is a commendable endeavor now that many of the survivors are passing away. Current and coming generations would surely benefit from a global discussion of the issue. I am well aware that Ahmadinejad would love to find “facts” that either distort the reality of the issue or place blame in inappropriate areas, but I say let him do so. There is no way to lessen the significance and tragedy of the Holocaust; false or skewed research will not be that powerful. Instead of using our nation’s universities and public forums to trash this man, let him do it to himself by engaging him in a real conversation. Unlike the Columbia fiasco, he will not emerge with either sympathy or credibility.
After viewing this video it upsets me to realize that some of the glaring contradictions about our countries character might be actually true. The glaring disrespect that was shown to Ahmadinejad was very unsettling. Also in this video it presented the nature of our foreign policy. Our foriegn policy always seems to be brought into question and this video helped to show and prove this. When the destruction of a Jewish state came into play it seemed as if Ahmadinejad didnt want to directly answer the question, possibly for good reason. He did pose a plan that would possibly help the palestinians but he seemed very nervous of the question. It also seemed as if the commentator was trying to bate the President into his own self destruction through a highly controversial issue. I think that the United States truly needs to look in the mirror and view our on problems before we are so quick to judge other countries. We are truly ignorant to what is actually going on in the middle east because we are not there. We only see it though the eyes of CNN and MSNBC. If we were in the position Iran was in I have no idea how we would react. I think that we should look at our actions in that state that we live in. Look at how bad we have messed up Iraq and that was by our own choice. These countries dont go looking for problems we provoke these problems and at times are the leading cause of the problem. The President showed that our arogance is known and has been accepted by other countries. They simply take our sh#t because they have to . They dont choose to. The question that should be posed is how would we react to some country trying to tell us what to do or more importantly imposing our values and beliefs upon them.
Tyson Loverro
I'm going to have to hop on the bandwagon and personally state how disgracefully President Ahmadinejad was treated. He did everything he possibly could to stay civilized and answer politely, something that cannot be said of the moderator. To be rude to any guest is wrong on many levels, but to be rude to a prominent leader, and yet on national television, is just unforgivable.
Malcolm Friedberg of the Huffington Post wrote on this issue, stating, “What's a little confusing is that after deciding to let the Iranian President speak as a way to promote debate, he nails the guy to the proverbial cross with his searing introduction. On the one hand, Mr. Ahmadinejad appears to deserve nothing less for his hateful positions and policies. But if that's the case, then why invite him to speak at all?” Rather, as Friedberg noted, the moderator’s “introductory remarks included referring to him [Ahmadinejad] as ‘exhibit[ing] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator,’ calling him ‘ridiculous,’ and questioning whether he ‘will have the intellectual courage to answer [Bollinger's] questions.’"
Nonetheless, while I do not agree with how the debate was conducted, I also disagree with most of what the President had said, especially pertaining to questions that involved the Jews and the State of Israel. Only twelve days before the debate at Columbia, as noted in the Introductory speech, President Ahmadinejad stated that Israel “cannot continue its way of life.” Additionally, he had made many such statements in the past, such as in October 2005. It was then that the President stated the following:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime “[Israel] must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.”
Yet despite his above mentioned remarks regarding the destruction of Israel, when the moderator questioned him regarding the subject, Ahmadinejad stated that he “love[s] all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran, leaving peacefully, with security.”
Furthermore, during the debate in Columbia, Ahmadinejad stated that the reason he wants more research to be done regarding the Holocaust is only because researching a phenomenon is never finished. He completely side-stepped the real question at hand, of whether or not he believes the Holocaust is a myth. There is no purpose to this question, since the President had already outright denied that the Holocaust ever happened during the speech in October 2005, stating:
“They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets. The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets, (it) deals very severely with those who deny this myth but does not do anything to those who deny God, religion, and the prophet.”
Another problem that I had with the President’s answers during the interview was his stance regarding the existence of a gay community in Iran. I don’t live in Iran, I’ve never been to Iran, and I don’t even think I know any Iranians, but I am fairly confident in the existence of the homosexual “phenomenon” in Iran, just as it exists in most other nations. Ahmadinejad might have been aware of this had homosexuals living in Iran had the freedom of expressing their preferences, which is contrary to his statement that “Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free.” Apparently they aren’t as free as he thinks, because the odds of there not being a single homosexual are slim to none. Nonetheless, I’ll agree that this is debatable, since I have no concrete facts to back this up.
Bottom line, The President should not have been disgraced by the lack of respect given to him during the interview, but in no way do I believe this was a successful interview for him in terms of the answers that he gave. However, I think his terrible answers were downplayed, and even somewhat ignored altogether, putting the focus on the lack of respect by the mediator.
Link to Text of October 2005 Speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070
Link to Text of Interview in Columbia:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297930,00.html
- Rotem Peretz
I believe the best point the Iranian president made came when he gave his thoughts on the destruction / existence of Israel. The president made it very clear; the Palestinians should be the ones to make the decision on what should happen, and no one else. The decision on what to do with the land should be made by the people who live there currently and those who were kicked off the land. Who are we, as the United States, to jump and say who the land belongs too? We do not live there, and it is certainly not our land. The president calls for a referendum, which is consistent with the charters of the United Nations. If you look at it that way, it does not matter what the President feels about Israel. Whether or not he wants the country to be destroyed is irrelevant. The existence of Israel is a decision for those who are directly involved, not for the thoughts and opinions of the Iranian and US governments.
In terms of the President’s response regarding research of the Holocaust, I feel as if he made the moderator sound quite uneducated. We are all academics. Regardless of how big or how small an event, why should it be considered a crime to do research? Remember the example we used in class regarding who the first president of the United States. The answer is surely George Washington. But as Dr. Khan points out, maybe research will show that he was not really running the country and he acted as more of a figure head. Whether the above-for mentioned is correct or not is once again irrelevant. The point is, however, that people are getting real upset over the Holocaust situation just because of the emotions involved. It is never a crime or a bad idea to do research on history or science.
He is also asked about the treatment of women and the nuclear research in his country. RAINN, the Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, is the nations largest anti-sexual abuse organization. They report that every two and a half minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. Also, One in six American women are victims of sexual assault. As for the nuclear bombs, just look at our countries investment in atomic weapons. Abuse and mistreatment of women should never be tolerated. But why are Columbia’s students so worried about Iran when we as a country have a serious problem ourselves?
Overall, I give the Iranian president a lot of credit for keeping his cool. And like all those who posted before, I believe Columbia treated him incredibly disrespectfully. My question is, however, what is Columbia’s reason for inviting him? What were they trying to achieve?
- Greg Hakim
Question for Greg…
I’m just wondering how the statistics provided for American women are relevant. Do you have statistics on Iranian women that you are using as a point of comparison? It just seems like you are trying to imply that there is less sexual abuse in Iran, and if so I was just wondering where you might have found that information?
Actually, I looked but couldn't find anything. Maybe I did not make my point clear. The reason I brought it up was not to immply we had more, less or the same amount of abuse as compared to Iran. Rather, just to state that it is an obvious problem in our country too. With that said, why was the moderator going after the Iranian president when our country has the same problem. In my mind, the moderator was trying to put the USA above Iran. But this was one area where I didnt feel he has any basis for his claim.
I actually watched the speech of the Iranian president on CNN and it made me mad. And what made me mad were not some of the ridiculous arguments of Ahmadinejad (for example his claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran, or that women are fairly treated), but the fact that Columbia University made me sympathize with a person who I otherwise would not sympathize with. The way he was presented and made fun of, the sarcastic remarks, and the added bonus that he was actually INVITED to the “world leaders’ forum” made Ahmadinejad seem like the victim of an ugly plot (or an awful understanding of international politics and diplomacy) who came out from the whole thing almost seeming victorious!!! If the whole point of the forum was to boost Ahmadinajad poor ratings at home, and give Iranians yet another reason to distrust the US, well they succeeded. No matter how terrible he is on the home front, his speech (and mainly his decision to give his speech even though he was presented as a “petty dictator”) showed him at his best: resilient, but yet approachable, committed firmly to his beliefs, but yet giving the impression that he is willing to make some concessions. How did that happen??? Was it because in the midst of all the accusations he managed to transform himself into the inviting and welcoming host who encouraged all the students in the audience to visit Iran, where they will be allowed to stay in Iranian Universities and “freely” express their opinions, without being scrutinized or humiliated? Was it because his whole speech on reviewing history and re-examining events from the past (mainly the Holocaust) did not sound as radical and blasphemous, as it would have been if he out rightly denied the Holocaust (which most of us actually expected to hear)? Or was that his view on the Iranian Nuclear program which sounded more like a sad story of a country’s struggle on their path to development, whose economic growth has been impeded on by another country who is paranoid about nuclear weapons? All that Iran wants is more power to light more light bulbs in even more households, right? No matter what the truth is about any of these claims, one thing for me is sure: Ahmadinejad is very smart politician. He managed to turn around the whole speech and focus it on his victimized self, and in a way making it impossible even for his most ardent critiques not to agree on the fact that no head of state should ever, under any circumstances, when on official visits/invitation, be ever treated the way he was. Not because it is morally wrong, but because it defeats the purpose of presenting him badly on the first place. Was Ahmedinijad humiliated: he was, but did that hurt him? NO! It only made him more popular amongst his supporters and even those who do not support him. The only one who suffers is the image of United States as the champion of free speech, and Colombia University, whose forums are neither “worldly”, “diplomatic”, or “educational”.
It’s interesting that statistics about violence against women in the United States can be found in a matter of second on the internet but yet I looked for over a half hour to find something I felt to be legitimate statistics for violence against Iranian women and found nothing. But thanks for the clarification Greg I get where you’re coming from now. I understand that it’s an obvious problem in our country too but I took it as the commentator was trying to express that women here are better off and while I feel that might be an accurate statement I’m at a loss for statistical references.
This post has been removed by the author.
To start off, I want to say this class has definitely opened up my eyes to the situation in the Middle East. I had my own biased, naive perspective on the situation and I carried that with me for some time. Though this may seem like propaganda to get a better grade in the class, I do have a point. The way in which the questioning was conducted, and more specifically the opening comments, proves nothing more then the profound naivety and close mindedness of many higher echelon and influential people in our country, and the success of American propaganda. This speech, if conducted correctly, could have been exalted as a major stepping stone in Iranian-American relations. The questioning was, I thought, a way for the American people to better understand the situation in the Middle East, but instead, the focus of the questioning was to promote our close-minded beliefs that we have been fed everyday of our life. We preach equality and freedom in our country but refuse to allow others the right to exercise their own.
President Ahmadinejad did what he could with the questions he was being asked and you can’t expect a US politician to have answered any different. Ahmadinejad angered and frustrated me by not answering the question but I really can’t expect him to have seriously answered them anyway. I think one thing to understand is that Ahmadinejad is not that stupid, as many seem to think he is, he knew what his goals were for this interrogation and he accomplished them completely with barely answering any of the questions as they were asked. What were those goals? Gain support and embarrass the US. He must have known what he was getting himself into before he came to Columbia. He knew this was not about persuading the American people or trying to defend his positions; this was about gaining support for his cause and most of all support within his own country. He was speaking more to the Iranian people then anyone else. I don’t even feel analyzing his comments are even worth my time. He didn’t sign a contract and none of what he said can be taken too seriously given the situation he was put in. Ahmadinejad answered the questions in a way he knew the Iranian people would understand and agree with best. He had already increased his support just by coming to Columbia and allowing the US to do what it does best and create martyrs and heroes out of any situation, all he needed to do is not commit to anything and not say anything too negative, and the Iranian people will support him.
However, regardless of if I think Ahmadinejad’s answers are worth considering, he did make some good points. The US and other members of the UN need to stop looking like hypocrites. The question pertaining to Iran’s support of terrorist groups made me stop and consider what defines a “terrorist group.” There is the obvious definition of those who attack civilians to achieve political, social, or any number of changes and then there is the generalized version that many Western powers use to describe those who have no other means of attracting recognition of their plight. The Israeli military is cited in numerous incidents which, had they been perpetrated by say Hamas, would be interpreted as acts of terrorism. Now wouldn’t that mean that the US supports terrorism? Apparently not. We are merely supporting our ally in their struggle to achieve and now maintain statehood. Then what is Iran doing when it provides a Palestinian resistance group with support? Supporting terrorism. I think that Western countries need to start looking through the same piece of glass when considering an issue. Ahmadinejad is a prominent leader and deserves that same respect we would provide any other leader, even if to just help our image out. Now I have never been, and most likely never will be, a supporter of Iran and Ahmadinejad but I still believe he deserves to be respected at an event he was invited to.
As far as I'm concerned if Columbia wasn't going to let President Ahmedinajad say what he wanted to say they shouldn't have invited him to speak in the first place. We suposedly live in a country that values free speech but that's only when the speech is what we want to hear. Sure, Ahmedinajad didn't come out and give straight answers to the questions he was asked but what U.S. politician does?
As for his statement about the Holocaust (which I do believe happened) I liked what he said about doing research because there is always something else to find out that we didn't previously know and the only way to do that is to research it, but at the same time I don't believe that there ever will be any evidence that the Holocaust didn't happen.
This whole thing with Ahmedinajad's talk at Columbia was really just an attempt to fit him into the schema that the U.S. has of Iran as being a malevolent and unsympathetic state and Ahmedinajad didn't allow himself to fall into that trap.
Watching the debate made me wish many things, two of which were 1) that I was an alumnus of Columbia University and 2) that I was filthy rich and a major doner so I could withdrawl my financial support in protest. Like everyone else, I was disgusted by Columbia's treatment of President Ahmadinejad. He was an invited guest and his treatment was not only disgraceful for Columbia but for the United States as a whole. It was not only a reflection of the bias and prejudice of the University but a further reflection on American attitudes in general. For some time now, Iran (which is Persian, not Arab) has been seen as the quintisential other to Americans. We have been taught that their religion, their culture, their political philosophy, and their morals are anti-thetical to those found in the U.S. Why then do so many Persians live happily in the U.S? Why is it that Australia, France, and Switzerland, and many other countries with close ties to the U.S., have diplomatic representation in Iran? Are they "evil"? Is there something about them that allows them to associate with "evil" people? It is the Swiss Embassy that represents U.S. interests in Iran.
Having traveled abroad to study the marginalization of minorities in Europe and the marginalization of women in South Asia, I was given the opportunity to also examine the problems in my own country. It is amazing how you don't see a problem because you are raised with it as a normal occurance, ie, the prevalence of rape, gun deaths, and violent crime in our society. May I also remind people that it is only recently that homosexual Americans could live openly without the fear of persecution and actually, there is a large portion of the country were homosexuals are still unable to live openly for fear of retaliation.
Though I am the first to admit that there are very serious human rights concerns in Iran (and also that President Ahmadinejad is a deplorable person—much like our own dear president), Iranian society is far less oppresive than we, as Americans, are made to believe. It is, for instance, far less oppressive than Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally. It comes down to a very simple and undeniable fact, the U.S. is willing to abide, and even push to keep in place, the most repressive, amoral governments that could be dreamed up, as long as that government supports the United States. The only way a country can get on the bad side of the U.S. is to publically denounce the U.S. The U.S. downplays the human rights problems in countries friendly to the U.S. so as to maintain its stance as the "moral leader" of the world. However, as soon as that country gets on our bad side, the floodgates are opened and those problems are allowed to surface.
For instance, in the Iraq-Iran war, Sadaam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians as well as the Kurds who aided them. The U.S. was good enough to supply the helicopters that were used to drop them. However, later, when the Iranian government tried to get the United Nations to condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons, the Reagan administration blocked their attempts. This is perhaps the worst example of U.S. hypocracy. It is okay for our "friends" to use such weapons on our "enemies" but not vice versa. Years later, when Sadaam was no loner a "friend" to the U.S., the United States condemned his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. This was used as an excuse as to why Sadaam Hussein was dangerous and not a friend of the U.S.
The relationship between the United States and Iran cannot, despite what President Bush and apparently the President of Columbia University think, be reduced to US Good, Iran Bad. Anyone even remotely educated knows that the US-Iranian relationship is shaped by a complex history and complicated geopolitical issues. The fact that it is not just the U.S. government perpetuating anti-Islamic/anti-Iranian propoganda but also our highest educational institutions is a sad reflection of how far removed our country has become from reality.
While he is very articulate and makes some very interesting points, its interesting to notice that pretty much everything he said directly contradicts pretty much everything the American media has reported about Iranian culture. I do agree that perhaps (myself included) westerners misunderstand the culture’s view towards women as being oppressive while some consider it empowering, but he covers a lot of other issues that seem ridiculous. True, who really knows what Iran really wants to do as far as nuclear capabilities go, but some of the other issues? There is no homosexuality in Iran, all religions live together in complete harmony, the Iranian media is much more open and free than American media, and the Iranian educational system is more open to innovation? I’ve never been to Iran, but coming from a man who is essentially a figurehead describing the only Arab State in the middle east to even have a voice that any first world country can hear (for a reason other than oil) as a global powerhouse of technology and ideology? After seeing this I can’t help but feel doubt as to whether or not the Iranian President has any credibility.
-David Schwartz
Post a Comment
<< Home