President Ahmadinejad and the Distortions of Politics
Ray Hanania, Arab News

IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came to America this week to address the United Nations and found himself the center of an American media storm.

The Iranian president is routinely demonized in the United States for allegedly “denying the Holocaust” and calling for the “destruction of Israel.” Ahmadinejad has also been criticized for oppressing Iranian citizens, persecuting women and dissidents including members of the Bahai’ faith and homosexuals.

President Bush has used Ahmadinejad and Iran as a distraction to redirect American anger from the lies he used to justify invading Iraq and the increasing American casualties.

Columbia University and its president, Lee Bollinger, came under extreme criticism for inviting the Iranian president to address the faculty and students.

Disgraced former House Republican Majority Leader Newt Gingrich and other American politicians urged the university be punished by being denied federal and private funding.

Somewhere in all the frenzied American hyperbole, rhetoric and emotion is the brutal truth, truth brutalized by all forms of political opportunists who have distorted facts in order to promote their own agendas.

Ahmadinejad scored many points in his speech at Columbia on Monday, rebutting the charges and wondering aloud why American politicians are not held to the same standard when it comes to involvement in international war crimes, terrorism, oppression and the denial of free speech.

Though not a great speaker, Ahmadinejad clearly established himself as an Islamist, spending most of his initial remarks ruminating about religion and Islamic philosophy.

He did a poor job of responding to the harshest charges, but he did respond none-the-less and the accusations against him are not as clear-cut as his critics might have you believe.

Ahmadinejad unequivocally denied “denying the Holocaust” adding fuel to the charges that the accusation is less the result of his own words and more the result of media manipulation in the United States. Everyone knows the American mainstream news media is biased, unprofessional and one-sided.

The Iranian president acknowledged “five million” (rather than the six million) Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. But he said his main contention is the Holocaust is exploited to silence critics of Israel.

He did not name the list of victims, such as Norman Finklestein, who was forced from his job at DePaul University recently when he became the target of a hateful campaign of lies and distortion by Alan Dershowitz. Finklestein, the son of Holocaust survivors, criticized Israel’s defenders who silence criticism of Israel by hiding behind the Holocaust as an excuse.

Ahmadinejad was asked point-blank if he or his nation called for the “destruction of Israel.” He responded the way many Arabs and Muslims respond to Israel, arguing that although it was 60 years ago, an injustice was committed when Israel was created as a Jewish state at the expense of Christian and Muslim Palestinians who lost their homes, properties and rights.

Supporters of Israel have rejected these claims as being “anti-Semitic,” effectively denying Palestinians any rights to their pre-1948 lands and homes.

I understand Ahmadinejad’s position, although I do not agree with it. Palestinians must accept reality and negotiate on the basis of a compromise that accepts Israel’s existence in exchange for a Palestinian state in the lands occupied in 1967.

But extremist supporters of Israel, like Dershowitz, have rejected reasoned arguments, casting aspersions on anyone who argues Israel’s creation in 1948 caused a great injustice to all Palestinians.

What is the truth behind all these issues? Well, the truth is that this battle is not really about the rights of women in Iran, or the rights of the Bahai’s or even homosexuals in Iran. It’s not about the Holocaust or Israel destruction. It’s all about politics. On both sides.

Americans argue Iran has executed scores of Iranian civilians, but Ahmadinejad pointed out the United States leads the world in executions. He even argued there is no distinction between the method of executing the guilty — lethal injection, electrocution and hanging versus beheading.

In response to charges that Iran supports terrorism, Ahmadinejad rightly noted that the United States supported terrorism in Iran, backing the regime of former dictator Shah Reza Pahlavi. The Shah tortured and executed thousands of innocent civilians while the United States sat back and said nothing.

At the end of the controversial visit, Columbia University looked far worse than Ahmadinejad. Bollinger was unprofessional and even spiteful in his hypocritical attacks against Ahmadinejad. Bollinger used the controversy to bolster his own failing popularity.

In the end, the facts mean nothing. What really matters is the extent to which people will go to lie in order to advance their causes and deflect criticism from their own crimes.

Ahmadinejad may not be a champion of human freedom, but he sure makes a good point when he questions American hypocrisy.

American culture is driven by racism against people of color, and especially against Arabs and Muslims. They would believe the lies they have never heard but only read in the biased, one-sided mainstream American media, rather than accept the truth of words said to their faces.

Ahmadinejad stood up to his biased American detractors, although clearly, he was not the most talented person to speak out on the issue of exposing hypocrisies.

Each side is guilty of hypocrisies in their own different ways.

— Ray Hanania is an award winning columnist and author, and can be reached at www.hanania.com

Phil, re you wrote"

"For my guess, I think the university president will be just fine, but he has to live with his own words. Some of those words were that he would invite Hitler to speak (before the holocaust of course). I don't think even he would invite Hitler after the holocaust. So it is a rich tradition of tolerance. Long line tolerance. But to play a part in popularizing a hateful message is wrong. To play a part in covering hateful actions by letting someone stand and tell bald faced lies and platitudes is also wrong. In any case it does not help. I just think he is over the line. "

It seems like you think it would have been wrong to have invited Hitler to speak here in the US before the holocaust? I tend to disagree, I think that (from what I have read, obviously I was not alive) people in this country were largely unaware/uninformed of Hitlers true objectives and intentions until well after the holocause... perhaps if he had come here to speak prior to the war people might have paid more attention to what he was doing... and I would like to think that knowledge would have led to earlier and stronger opposition to what he was doing...

An invitation to speak is not always a sign of assent with or enthusiasm for that speaker.

I posted the Arab News article because I do believe in free speech and I always like to know how Al Zazeera and the Arab News portray events of consequence effecting the middle east... I rarely agree with the opinions in these papers but I think only reading the US news keeps us from understanding how other countries view the issues...

Does anyone remember "ARMS FOR HOSTAGES"? Where do you think Iran got their weapons? "The Iran Hostage Crisis?" I haven't heard anyone bring that up. Yeah, they're real quiet. Quiet as a Soviet Spy. Present tense intended.

Fanta: No I don't think we should stay in the United Nations. They don't like us. They take our money, stack the deck against us, and treat us like scum.

Philospher: I don't know what polyanna means. If you don't tell us I will be forced to take the long trip over to Encarta just to find out.

I am mostly a conservative, conspiriatorial nut who is very upset over the behavior of our wonderful President Butt, er....... I mean Bush. What has he done with his brain?

About Dubyas Brain ???

Dose anyone remember that he was said to be Demonically Possed before he became President ???

Well I tend to think that his stay in the Big White House, has not made he any less Demonically Possesed, and he NEVER was all that Bright...

Poppy GHWB has been acting president for the past 30 years, Dubya is just a pupet, all he has to do is sign exsecutive orders that are prepared by his staff and other Corprate entities...

Oh and about last night???

I hang out on other web-sites and sometimes I get all fired up on their Disinformation and Spew...

Any intelligent person knows the value and the importance of advertising and marketing.

When one group advertises it takes attention away from another group. Hitler promoted his agenda with a marketing campaign, spreading his word as far and wide as possible. It was instrumental in his success.

When you give Ahmadinejad the pulpit, you bolster his advertising and marketing campaign. So this amounts to support. It may be inadvertent support, but only because you were too stupid to understand the subtleties. If you think it was only bad publicity he gained remember the adage that all publicity is good publicity. Also look at the media today and you will see that his speaking bolstered his support and his status at home.

My Iranian buddies tell me the Mullahs are well known to be homosexual. They tell me everyone knows the Mullahs are f-cking each other all the time in their little mullah center. Apparently for the 'in' crowd it is ok.

Anoasis, would you like to have been responsible for bolstering Hitler's support just because you didn't realize the ramifications of giving him the pulpit. Before the holocaust Hitler had already invaded Poland and U-boats were rampantly attacking vessels in the Atlantic.

'philosopher',

Stretching the same point you have made clearly in your opening post, does not help or enrich this debate.

An observed fact:
the more one stretches his one single point,
... the more 'positional' and divisive the conversation gets,
... the more insinuating insults start flying about the presumed 'adversaries'.
... the more the deadlock sets-in,
... the more the debate is robbed of an authentic and sincere exchange.

The debate IMO has long moved beyond your initial opening premise of censorship, to fundamentals of free speech. To keep arguing for censorship at this point is your privilege 'philsopher', but it is stalling the debate.

I said the debate had moved from your initial 'censorship' position to fundamentals of free speech. If people disagree with that reading of mine, I'll stand corrected.


Rules of free speech apply here too.

Well reread my original post then. In it I said nothing about censorship. In fact I was quite open about seeking other's opinions. I'm still interested in them.

I have not supported censorship throughout this series. Exclusion from a certain opportunity based on past activities is not unreasonable though. For instance, consider if you have a dog that always makes a mess on your sidewalk. You can only let the dog walk in the grass. That way your sidewalk stays clean. You are not preventing the dog from relieving himself, just preventing him from doing so on your sidewalk. Inside I'm laughing a little because my friend from Paris was telling me that was a particular problem.

As for free speech. It's pretty important. I may argue against him being invited to speak at the university, but when it gets down to the final day, if they are determined to have him speak I would accept their decision.

Now, I am seeing that in your reply you didn't mention my comment about advertising and marketing as applied to his situation. I think this was actually a different sort of commentary. Since you didn't respond to that am I to conclude that in fact you didn't actually read my comments before criticizing me for repetition?

As for whether the topic has moved on would you like me to address the US getting out of the UN or Arms for Hostages, or perhaps the demonic possession of Dubya's brain? I'm still interested in the original issues.

Anyway I still didn't get to read all of yesterday's responses. I'll have to follow up. I know some are off topic.

the last thing he needs is another open mike.
it is not censorship unless you actively try
to suppress him. there is no obligation to
give him a forum to spout lies and hate.

along the same lines...you have no obligation
to re-publish and distribute copies of "Mein Kampf"
plenty of copies are already readily available.

Phil:

RE: "Any intelligent person knows the value and the importance of advertising and marketing."

Yes but this was not advertising it was supposed to be a debate.

"When one group advertises it takes attention away from another group. Hitler promoted his agenda with a marketing campaign, spreading his word as far and wide as possible. It was instrumental in his success. "

Hitler did advetise, he did not debate. He did close universities and cut off debate so that only his advertising would be heard- not answers to questions.

"When you give Ahmadinejad the pulpit, you bolster his advertising and marketing campaign. So this amounts to support. It may be inadvertent support, but only because you were too stupid to understand the subtleties. If you think it was only bad publicity he gained remember the adage that all publicity is good publicity. Also look at the media today and you will see that his speaking bolstered his support and his status at home."

All publicity is said to be good publicity for actors and other performers. But even then it's not a uniform rule- do you think the publicity about Brittany Spears has helped her career? Michael Jackson? OJ Simpson? Publicity about misbehaior or actual wrongdoing may seem benficial in the short term but in the long run I think publicity about truly unacceptable behavior will tend to have a negative result.

I'm not sure what action could have been taken here to weaken his position at home re this visit. Because if he had been denied the ablility to speak the stories in Iran would have talked about how the evil american empire didn't allow their president to speak... which also would have increased support for him at home.

"Anoasis, would you like to have been responsible for bolstering Hitler's support just because you didn't realize the ramifications of giving him the pulpit. Before the holocaust Hitler had already invaded Poland and U-boats were rampantly attacking vessels in the Atlantic."

I will assume this is a rhetorical question.

I was actually torn over whether he should be allowed to speak here or not, but whenever I'm uncertain a about a question of free speech I will err on the side of freedom... In the end I think his speaking hurt his image in most of the objective press but of course that was not guarenteed in advance.

'anoasis',

Exactly the point about free speech!

You wrote:
"... I was actually torn over whether he should be allowed to speak here or not, but whenever I'm uncertain a about a question of free speech I will err on the side of freedom..."

It is not a personal opinion or preference issue. Asking ourselves whether we should allow, or censure is precisely where free speech shows up. Erring on the side of freedom, when we are in doubt (not our preference), is standing and defending this most fundamental value of ours.

In the end, there is no debate of opinions as to whether or not we like or agree with the person. Speak your piece, and defend his right to speak his, however much you might disagree with his position.

Anything short of that is a perversion of our freedoms. It's called censorship.

I tend to come down on the side of free speech as well. However I just wouldn't give him any advantage. (the pulpit)

He is saying now that the 200 or so students came to him and listened to him as a teacher, and they listened to him with rapt attention, and he was able to teach them about the things they didn't know already.

I differ in opinion about that, but obviously he is using the opportunity to enhance his image and his standing with others. So he got something I would not have given him. But as I said, it was the universities choice, not mine.

But Voil, can you not separate the two items, allowing someone free speech, and inviting him to speak in a particular place?

If you can not, then are you not personally guilty of censorship because you didn't invite Idi Amin, or perhaps Pol Pot to speak at your own university? By that criteria are we not all guilty of censorship every time we fail to invite a dignitary?

That certainly is not a perversion of freedom, freedom also means you don't have to invite someone you don't like.

he has a right to speak all he wants.
but has to use his own podium. he has one. i saw it on cnn.

And if Columbia University feels that they can extend an offer to him to speak and do so in a way that its students will learn something then that is the university's choice is it not?

And it is your right to criticize that choice...

sure. dumb choice. waste of resources.

actually it is worse than a dumb choice.

it is repugnant that an institution of higher learning
would use it's resources to help propagate hate speech.

he doesn't need any assistance in broadcasting misanthropic and blatantly false propagandized anti-Semitic rubbish.

a better use of money would have been to... well just
about anything. what kind of idyits are making these decisions?

Philosopher, You were not addressing me but you said:

"But Voil, can you not separate the two items, allowing someone free speech, and inviting him to speak in a particular place?

If you can not, then are you not personally guilty of censorship because you didn't invite Idi Amin, or perhaps Pol Pot to speak at your own university? By that criteria are we not all guilty of censorship every time we fail to invite a dignitary?"


IMO, if you ask someone to speak somewhere that you control, personally or by ownership, (then IMO) yes it is an attempt to squelch freedom of speech. For anyone to prevent them to speak is also a violation of your right to allow it!

Had he been invited to speak at the Capital, to an audience of public officals or to a public school full of minors, then I would have raised hell too. That would be our right and obligation as citizens as well as responsible adults!

To offer or not to offer a dignitary to speak in a legitimate debate is not a mandated responsibility. If they want to speak, and it is a proper forum like the UN it is their responsibility to ask. If it is a private forum like Columbia University where they were invited to speak (all adults and not forced), or even your house, and the neighbors protest to deny them the opportunity, (or right to accept) then yes, (IMO) it is a violation of freedom of speech!

This is the US, not Iran, or Russia, or Venezuela. To deny anyone the right to speak just because they do not allow their citizens that right is, IMO, Tit for tat, spiteful, and totally childish, unacceptable, hypocritical behavior!

the issue is why would they invite such an obvious idiot to address their school?

what next? lectures on why the world is flat?
public nose picking contests? lessons on proper lynching technique? instruction on how to conduct prisoner torture for most rapid breakdown and most reliable intelligence?

Yes but Slow, my understanding is that they invited him with the intent of asking him difficult questions, etc. to show that he was a poor leader, insincere, etc. And that seems to be the consensus of what occurred according to the US press...

I think that students learn a lot from seeing and hearing international leaders and figures in real life... regardless of whether they are in accordance with our country or not... I doubt if any of those students will ever forget being there and hopefully some will be moved to enter public service or diplomacy...

I went to hear Jane Goodall speak once when I was in college and although she was not controversial it was very meaningful and memorable for me...

As far as inviting an idiot... well I'm sure they invited some American politicians as well... I'm sure they are equal opportunity idiot inviters...