It is better to post disclaimer first, so here it is- I am not a fan of Ahmadinejad. As you know, that does not mean I hate him. More about it at the end.
DOWNs
First issue westerners have with him is that- he seeks destruction of Israel. His answer, people have the impression, and they are right, was very ambiguous. It requires a lot of circumstantial information to understand what Ahmadinejad said.
There was a hint about what he meant in -”why should the Palestinians pay the price for what the Europeans did?” In it, he signaled the unhappiness the Muslim world share about the creation of Israel, a powerful military machine- second most sophisticated after the US, and fourth largest army in the world. All the Arab countries could not defeat it in 1973. Moreover, it’s backed by the most powerful country in the world. Ahmadinejad, along with all the Muslim world, knows that they can not ‘wipe Israel off the map’. If they try, they’ll be wiped out. They saw the price a country has to pay for opposing US in Iraq. Ahmadinejad set out on a charm offensive precisely because he knows what is at stake.
Even though he does know he can not afford to fight Israel, he can not say that in public. He’s a leader of a country, and a proud one. He can not say in public- look I’m weak, so please don’t hit me. Nor can he publicly say Israel is a legitimate state, given Israel’s justifiable unpopularity. He’ll lose the next election, then.
About holocaust, I don’t understand why should a Iranian president be worried about holocaust is a reality or a story. He didn’t really say that it is a story. He said that more research is needed about it. Yes, we can not close the books on any event, but what business is it of you, O Ahmadinejad, to question the holocaust? Leave it to the Europeans. Unless, of course, you are trying to make a point about European double standard on free speech. In that case, say it loud and clear. Why leave it at “we need to research the holocaust from different angles?”
Then, he was on a really low grounds on Homosexual issue. With all likelihood there are homosexuals in Iran. It’s difficult to believe that he could be so naive about it.
Bollinger, too could not have extolled Ahmadinejad. He lives in USA, land of CNN and FOX. He could not even have said neutral words. His institution is a private one. If the businessmen become angry, his institution will go to dogs. I also have the impression that he believes what he said to Ahmadijad (i.e. he was sincere). The fact that he gave Ahmadinejad a platform to speak out, was very impressive. Allowing opposing voices is not that common. Bollinger could have done better, but then…
Some Iranian academics are angry with Bollinger, but they should understand that he too had some constraints.
UPs
He was on high ground about Iran’s nuclear program. He emphatically rejected any suggestion that he’s aiming for nuclear bomb. He said his program is completely legal, which many in the US do not know.
He was on strong grounds when he said the palestinians should not have paid the price for something they had nothing to do with.
And he was good when he invited his audience to Iran.
*Now, my objection about the man-
Simple, he could do little to solve the economic problems of his country. Moreover I don’t see the point in asking for research about holocaust at the cost of being called a holocaust denier- a very risky proposition in today’s world.
I’m impressed by your check. Well written. Thank you, may Al-lâh enforce you and yours.
Thanks abenysuf
Indeed, very well written!
I do support your argument over Iranian president views on holocaust, though i find it very interesting how Europeans treat it as a direct threat and come to think of it, i remember i read it somewhere that in Europe whoever deny holocaust is actually punished for it! don’t know whether its afab or truth..
Lubz
I am happy that you agreed.
They do prosecute- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4710508.stm
The Holocaust question actually refers back to the question of Israel. His calls for the apparent “destruction of Israel” are actually calls for regime change. He never said anything about wiping Israel off of the map. He said that the Zionist regime should be erased from the pages of history. Israel has long been calling for regime change in Iran, and of course we know that the U.S. wants regime change all over the world. Politicians say things like that. It should have little importance to other countries. It is an internal political device.
At any rate, Zionists use the Holocaust to justify the occupation. Israel’s creation, the maintain, is intrinsically linked to the oppression they suffered at the hands of the Nazis. It is, for them, God’s justice. Unfortunately, a psychologist would say that the abused has become the abuser. Perhaps that is what Ahmadinejad is trying to do, albeit not with much tact.
At best one could accuse him of being too simple and idealistic to be the leader of a country, but then again, he’s not the leader of his country (and certainly not a dictator as Bollinger claimed).
Both men are wrong.
Bollinger because he gave bad courtesy, no matter how ‘wrong’ do you feel about some President, the diplomatic and ethical boundaries required him to speak in a tone which could have been somewhat pacified yet critical.
Iranian President because he is on a wrong track of contention. Previously he has given more hostile comments on Israel. In this new world, everybody is supposed to bring out the positive of themselves and work towards facing the challenges we face as mankind today. The top ones being the global climate change and vice of poverty, illiteracy and injustice!
Israel has done a lot of wrong but more destruction is not a solution to destruction, you don’t clean shit with shit! We expect better solutions from the leaders of world now. Ahmedinjiad is as wrong as Bush for attacking on Afghanistan and Iraq!
Tavis
Yes, that is a legible explanation.
Rakesh
While I agree with you that two wrongs don’t make a right, Ahmadinejad wasn’t really calling for destruction of Israel. What he said is a plausible and just solution to the problem- hold a referendum. Blind supporters of Israel are twisting his words.
About Bollinger, yes, he could have fared better. However, you have to understand how much strain he was working under. That statement gave him his ‘legitimacy’ back.
I dont find the need of adding a disclaimer when bloggers are writing an article on the Iranian President.
aMmar
It’s not for regular readers. For the random man/woman who might have strayed. The disclaimer keeps him/her from getting disturbed immediately.
i am now more confused with this statement of yours. There is nothing NSFW disturbing in your article.
aMmar
Lot of things that are obvious to you, may be disturbing to some random visitor, and unless he reads the full post, he may have wrong impression about what I am trying to say.
Asalamu alaikum wa rahmatu Allah.
Thank you for a well written commentary. I consider the president’s statements to have all been well thought through and very diplomatic. He was actually doing very well as a poltician (scoring points in iranian politics) and an looking very good as an academic as well. These are two roles that GW Bush has no chance of ever doing successfully, certainly not on one (hostile) podium. Let us remember that Bush would have only agreed to take the stage if all the questions were vetted before hand by his advisers. He would never have taken a question dealing with homosexuality either.
Ahmadi Nejad’s comments about homosexuality simply mean that such sexual deviance is a social problem and it’s incidence is not the same as it is in the usa. This should only surprise those who have become convinced that it is natural behaviour and not conditioned behaviour. Why should everyone have to start from the same premise, that it is “normal human behaviour”, and that it is a “human rights issue”, something which Bollinger’s argument assumed as a given. He subtly made reference to it being a crime, by choosing to address the issue of women in Iran instead, saying that it is “not a crime to be a woman” and that Iranians even “kiss the hands of women”. This response ensured he did not insult Iranians by talking about social ills (homosexuality) that are very rare in Iran, airing dirty linen as it were from a foreign podium. He skillfully created an opportunity out of this sticky situation, and used it to address the recent scandal where he kissed his teacher’s hand in public. I think he is brilliant. All compliments to Iranians for electing someone like this. It is only a shame that academics like Bollinger and leaders like Bush still have some respect in this world.
If Ahmedinijad were to articulate his point in a civilized manner – within the bounds of UN resolutions on Palestine, perhaps he would not face such stiff opposition in a world where Zionists have embedded themselves. By chanting the ‘destruction’ mantra he actually diverts the world attention from the plight of suffering Palestinians.
The issue is not destroying Israel but arguing and advocating the Palestinian cause – their rightful demand for a homeland and end to an illegal and self-righteous occupation based on biased interpretations of ancient texts and a senseless and brutal solution to the suffering of Jews at the hands of Europeans!
About Bollinger – you are right – he is a product of the environment where he lives and works. And let us not forget that a considerable section of the US academia is in service of power (Said, Chomsky have said it time and again) and we ought to recognize these hard facts..
Still, we have to protest at the undiplomatic and unbecoming behaviour of someone who claims to head an academic institution – he was more of a cheer-leader for the Zionist angst..