I just read the text of Iranian President Ahmed ibn Nejad's speech at Columbia University. After finishing reading the text of comments made by University Pres. Bollinger, the moderator, and the Iranian President, I came away feeling profoundly disappointed in my country. Columbia invited Mr. Ahmed ibn Nejad to speak, and yet treated him with scorn and contempt. They actually dared to make fun of him on a world stage. The moderator even got in his last words, making fun of the way that Mr. Ahmed ibn Nejad had avoided answers to certain questions.
How dare we treat a world leader in this fashion? I repeat: how dare we?? Have we lost all sense of respect for differing opinions, all sense of hospitality? How many politicians answer questions directly?? A diplomat always has a split personality; the burden of speaking cautiously and carefully. Why should we expect any President of any country or company to answer every question we ask directly? I defy that even Columbia University President Bollinger has always answered questions directly. And no matter what the case, how dare we deride a world leader, ANY world leader, this way?
Perhaps we view the President of Iran with suspicion, derision, etc. However, he was invited to come and share his views with us. His views are not all unreasonable. I thought he defended Iran's nuclear program quite well, in fact. We also allude to deficiencies in his culture, in treatment of women and homosexuals in Iran. Is the way to address these questions really to antagonize and mock a man who is the product of a country, culture and experience totally removed from our own?? Again, I say how dare we.
I am so disappointed in my nation, in Mr. Bollinger and in the black-and-white mentality that has surrounded issues of Middle East politics in recent years. We claim to want discussion and debate, democracy even. Yet on the issue of terrorism- you are "with us or against us." On the Israeli occupation of Palestine, we absolutely refuse to invoke condemnation for the practices of an abusive Israeli state. Even a bit of honest debate or discussion on Israeli policy would appease me at this point. Thus far I hardly even see that.
One side point that Ahmed ibn Nejad made, that I found interesting, was that after the 1979 Revolution, Iran recognized all nations in the world except Apartheid South Africa, and the "Zionist State" (Israel). In my opinion, the link between these two oppressive states is very strong! Iran, in reality, has a distant interest in both of these states, but out of principle refused to recognize either because of their repressive and racist policies. The Anti-Apartheid movement was able to gain international attention and support. Why has Palestine not been able to do the same?
When will we be honest about our hypocrisy, and at least admit our failures? We have caused so much distress in the Middle East, maybe it is time to try a new policy, a new mentality. First is a comprehensible, reasonable and rational policy in regard to Israel. Can we please view Israel through an objective lens!!!!!???? And, let us look at ourselves in an objective lens as well. The more we draw lines, promote derision and hatred, admit to blatant ethnocentrism and arrogance, and alienate ourselves from the rest of the world, the more we will regret the consequences. We might have started with being at least civil to an invited Iranian President.
