20070922 We hear from a reader on President Ahmadinejad

We hear from a reader on President Ahmadinejad.

Aryeh Amihay has left a new comment on your post "20070921 Columbia won't cancel Ahmadinejad speech":

I think the issue is not so much his views, as is his ability to implement them.

In other words, he's not invited to Columbia because he wants to destroy Israel, but because he might have the power to do so.

Not any antisemite in the US, interested in the destruction of Israel would receive the same invitation from CU. Therefore, it's not a matter of which views are being represented, but which views are actually shaping our world, affecting Mideast politics and US foreign policy.

More on this on my blog:

http://mostlyonisrael.blogspot.com/2007/09/some-comments-on-iran-ahmedinejad-and.html

_____

Thanks for your comment Mr. Amihay.

Thanks for calling to my attention your blog. I took a quick tour of your web site and I’ll be placing a link on my blog to your site the next chance I get. I’ll look forward to checking-in as frequent as possible.

As a journalist, if I had a chance to attend the presentation of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - I would. For me, his right to free speech in our country is not the issue.

It is wonderful that he have the forum to prove, once he opens his mouth, that his positions are not in-line with a just and peaceful world.

Free speech is rather important to me as it should be to all Americans and as much as I am concerned, to say the least, about what it is that the Iranian president has to say – or the power to do; my problem is more with Columbia University’s persistent inconsistencies.

The esteemed institution piously, self-righteously, if not - condescendingly proclaims to be the standard-bearer for a “long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate.”

Yet anecdotally, that is not its track record. The wonders of information dissemination by way of the internet allow us to be aware that the esteemed university does not extend meaningful invitations to those for whom, the university appears to collectively - not agree.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Columbia University were to extend an invitation to all Americans of varying political ideologies the courtesy that it so easily extend to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

With all due respect sir, for me the wheels come off the cart in your commentary when you misuse Spragens Political Theorem in your fourth paragraph; by utilizing conclusions in your equation that are certainly not agreed upon as facts.

Please read: “19981216 President Clinton explains Iraq strike.”

It was disconcerting how quickly your otherwise intelligent commentary was compromised when it drifted from President Ahmadinejad to diatribes about President George W. Bush.

First things first.

There is no firm foundation for a scholar to simplistically buy-in to the notion that because attempts at nuclearization in the Middle East are occurring on President George W. Bush’s watch; it is because this president “has managed to secure” it. The slow and steady desire of Middle Eastern nations to acquire nuclear capability began long before President Bush’s term in office. (“…The attack of the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor in 1981…”)

Suggesting that the war in Iraq, promulgated in an attempt, in part, to stop the de-stabilization (and nuclearization of the region,) has, in affect, caused a phenomenon which had already begun antecedent to the U. S. intervention in Iraq is logically suspect, if not simplistic and presents itself as agenda driven.

(As an aside, I can criticize the conduct of the war with the best. Please see "The Crocodile Dundee Factor." Or “Iraq: Into the Heart of Darkness.”)

But that does not mean that I am opposed to challenging the global forces of terrorism with force. Or that I don’t yearn for peace. No more than you when you wrote on September 1, 2007, that you “will criticize Israel more often and in more detail than other parties of the conflict. This does not mean that I think Israel is more to blame in the conflict than anyone else. As an Israeli, I have a better understanding of Israeli politics than of politics of any other country.”

Like you, my ideal, in spite of how often I come-up short, is “Above all, this blog is concerned with the truth, not in taking sides.”

However with that in mind, what was particularly disconcerting for me is to read is that a PhD student in the Dept of Religion at Princeton University is presenting a scholarly commentary that includes the phraseology, “contrary to the pubic image of a complete idiot, George W. Bush…”

Of no doubt, any well-read person has seen President Bush characterized as such. Nevertheless, that is usually where I stop reading. I am unaware of any definitive research that allows me to know what “the public image” is with the exception of that tired canard being trotted out in the lexicon of folks who wish to monopolize the dominant narrative by repeating such a baseless conclusion ad nauseum until the less informed accept it as a “fact."

Fundamentally, your argumentation that a “connection between the war in Iraq and the rise of oil prices has been noticed by many,” is equally suspect. No doubt, the price of oil has been affected by the hostilities in the region.

However there is a preponderance of information that an historic (see 1973 oil crisis and 1979 energy crisis) destabilization in the price of oil would have persisted in the face of the unchecked continued radicalization of Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq.

Ultimately, any continued United States foreign policy based on our continued dependence on foreign oil is a ticket to failure.

Finally - blaming the phenomena of the erratic fluctuations in the price of oil; the Middle East’s appetite for nuclear proliferation; the continued inability of the šī at Alī (Shias) and ahl al-sunnah wa-l-jamaa (Sunnis) to get along; and the rise of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad presents as a manifestation of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” at worst (as defined by Dr, Charles Krauthammer – or click here.)

Or in the least, it smacks of the “… problem … (in) that it once more captures the over-simplistic dichotomy in which many people conceptualize politics, namely the "bad guys" vs. "good guys" view,” (a college freshman’s Hagel’s Dialectic Progression) for which you decry.

Generalizations that all the ills of a dangerous world lay at the feet of President Bush are abusive and contribute to a dangerous polarization for the purpose of bankrupt political expediency such as what characterized the dysfunctionate appeasement in the 1930s that preceded the military defeat of France in 1940 and a world in grave peril.

Meanwhile, thanks again for the feedback. As always, your thoughtful consideration is appreciated regardless of the outcome on any particular issue. Whether we agree or disagree, always find my door open for friendly civil and constructive dialogue. I’ll be up at Princeton in several times this fall. Lunch is on me – isn’t there an Indian restaurant near the intersection of Chestnut and Nassau Streets?

####