From the onset, I would like to unequivocally state that I am no admirer of Mr Ahmadinejad , a man with a grim human rights record, to say the least. Neither was I an admirer of yours when listening to your September 24th remarks meant to welcome your guest, the Iranian president. Your message, as if echoing Mr Bush's, was clear and offensive . "You are with us or against us" is a simplistic view of the world, of an "Imperial Presidency" which no fair minded or rational individual could possibly adopt. I might add that at this juncture, it would be more accurate to say "You are with me or--", considering that 70% of us, the people, have turned against the Iraq war.
The fact that none other than Abraham Foxman told you : " if you invite someone you have to be polite", speaks mountains of your lack of civility. The response of the Iranian University Chancellors is another proof that your remarks were indeed "unproductive". You certainly achieved the difficult and unprecedented task of rallying the chancellors behind their president. They felt the need to assure you that Iranians "are very polite to their guests", their implication crystal clear. By setting an insulting tone for the evening, you slammed the door in Mr Ahmadinejad's face , scuttling any possible dialogue, let alone a possible overture. You left him no choice but to lash back at you. Sureley you must have known how sacred hospitality is in Iran and the Middle East at large. Dismissing it so brazenly is either a sign of ignorance or plain malice. I leave the choice to you.
Allow me to respond to three points among the many you raised and to comment on your last remarks.
At a meeting with Christian and Muslim leaders called for by the Mennonite Church, Mr Ahmadinejad focused on the Holocaust's connection to the region and to Palestine in particular. He said that the Holocaust was a "European problem not a Palestinian one". The fact is rationally undeniable even though the word "myth" is morally outrageous. Being first and foremost a politician, one would expect Mr Ahmadinejad to err. As Machiavelli has taught us , politics and morality do not mix. However, by focusing on the word "myth" you gave your audience a truncated view of the connection Mr Ahmadinejad had made, (Israel/Palestine) and of the reality on the ground. As if one word had more weight than hard facts, as if ignoring the "ethnic cleansing" of 750.000 Palestininians , 40 years of occupation, illegal settlements and collective punishements, would strengthen your defense of Israel. Instead , ignoring the Palestinian narrative of dispossession and suffering , just like Mr Ahmadinejad had ignored the suffering of European Jews, you managed to sound like a politician. Both you and Mr Ahmadinjad assumed that your audience was bigoted or utterly devoid of any sense of justice. And that too I found offensive.
On wiping Israel off the map.
According to Stephen Zunes, a highly qualified academic on the Middle East who was recognized as Peace Scholar of the Year (2002) by the Peace and Justice Studies Association, Mr Ahmadinejad "never threatened to wipe Israel off the map". It seems that his often quoted statement is a "mistranslation" simply because "the idiom does not exist in Farsi". The reference was to the "dissolution" of the political regime not the "physical destruction of Israel".
On more than one occasion Mr Ahmadinjad has stated that "just as the soviet Union was wiped out--so the Zionist regime will soon be wiped out", his point being that a regime based on injustice cannot survive.
On Iran's refusal to stop its uranium enrichment program.
You said that Mr Ahmadinejad denial of Iran's nuclear program "hardly stands scrutiny" because he continues to militarily threaten his neighbors. Is a threat to be more feared than facts? According to experts, should Iran pursue its nuclear program, it would need nine years to acquire a bomb. Israel already has a nuclear arsenal. Don't you think that calling for a nuclear free Middle East would have been more sane, more just and therefore more convincing? At least for those seeking justice for Israelis and Palestinians alike? Don't you think that all peoples in the region deserve to live in peace and security, as if they were truly created equal? Why should Israel have nuclear exclusivity in the region when it already has the fifth (or fourth, depending on your source) most powerful army in the world?
On your final remarks.
"Today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express revulsion of what you stand for".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/15/2007 10:20 by Krim.
Today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express revulsion of what you stand for".
May I tell you how arrogant it sounds for a citizen of a young country like ours with a history heavily stained by ethnic cleansing and slavery, by the use of two atomic bombs, a country now fighting a war of choice waged on the basis of lies, how arrogant it is to speak of "civilized world" to a man whose civilization goes back thousands of years. Granted Mr Ahmadinejad might not be a good representative of Iran's civilization but neither are you Mr. Bollinger. As a politician, Mr Ahmadinejad's allegiance is to his constituents, he says what they want to hear. But from you, a university president, one would expect a different level of discourse, a different set of principles. Yet your lack of perspective and fairness was quite obvious to anyone familiar with the political history of the region, with its present situation. You too, it seems, had your constituents (or your donors?) in mind. Only two years ago, this September, you greeted another president at Columbia. These were your words: "Rarely do we have an opportunity such as this to greet a figure of such central and global importance. It is with great gratitude and excitement that I welcome President Musharraf " ! Is a single exclamation mark sufficient in this case? The Pakistani and Iranian files are strangely similar when it comes to human rights, nuclear ambitions and dictatorship. Is it enough for Pakistan to be "with us" to clear its president of any wrongdoing?
Coming after Mr Bush's remarks at the national convention of the American Legion, your attacks against Mr Ahmadinejad have thrown oil unto the fire. "I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities", isn't Mr Bush's statement ominous enough? Demonizing before attacking has become much too familiar, when will we learn? Shouldn't we all be doing everything in our power to desperately avoid another war, this time against Iran? Isn't one war obscene enough? Have we no conscience, no decency left ? Has might obliterated our sense of values? Coming a few weeks after Mr Bush's, your remarks have contributed to increase the divisiveness and polarization, both at home and abroad, when living together in peace and justice, with human rights for all, should be our only goal, at this dangerous juncture.
Mirene Ghossein
Mirene Ghossein is a member of WESPAC'S Foundation Board of Directors.
chargement...
