Will the real America please stand up!

When it was announced that Columbia University had invited President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to speak when he was in New York City, I was supportive of this effort to engage in dialogue with one of our many adversaries rather than continuing the saber rattling. Even in this fear obsessed post 9/11 country we should not be afraid to hear a point of view that differs from our own. Similar sentiments were expressed by author and progressive radio host Thom Hartmann.

Columbia University Shows True American Values
by Thom Hartmann

Columbia University, by inviting Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, has shown confidence in the wisdom and adultness of their students and our republic.
Ahmadinejad is the president of a major nation in a vital part of the world, and we should have enough self-assurance and belief in our own system of government, and in the intelligence of our college students, that we can let them (and our larger public) evaluate his words, whatever they may be.
To be terrified of his speaking there (or, for that matter, laying a wreath at Ground Zero) is behavior one would have expected from a fragile régime like Khrushchev's USSR or Burma's military junta, not the bold, brave, and fearless USA.
We are the nation whose President Nixon reached out to and met with China's Mao Tse Tsung at the same time Mao was funding and arming the North Vietnamese to kill our soldiers in Vietnam. We're the nation whose President Reagan confronted Soviet President Gorbachev, who at the time had thousands of nuclear warheads armed and pointed at us and was actively funding and arming proxy wars we were fighting in more than a half-dozen nations. We're the nation whose President Roosevelt said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
And let's also remember that the people of Tehran, Iran, produced one of the largest candlelight vigil demonstrations in the Muslim world in support of the USA the day after 9/11, repudiating the act and actors of that event. We still have the ability to make an ally of that nation, and shouldn't blow it by fear and bluster (or bombs). America is better and stronger than the nervous Nellies and chickenhawk war-mongers who currently have control of the Republican Party (and a few Democrats, apparently).
As JFK said: "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values; for a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
We are not afraid. We are Americans!

I was, however, appalled at the behavior of Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. Not only was he rude to an invited guest and displayed complete ignorance of Iran and its government, but he also played right into the hands of the publicity seeking Iranian president. Common courtesy would dictate that when you invite someone into your home you treat him with respect. His ignorance of Iran is inexcusable as he has one of the foremost experts on modern Iran on his faculty, Gary Sick. A brief conversation with Mr. Sick would have allowed him to ask some very difficult questions in atmosphere of civil dialogue. As an Iranian blogger said: “A taxi driver in Tehran could have asked more difficult questions for President Ahmadinejad to answer.” Most of what President Ahmadinejad said in his speech was geared to his domestic audience and the “Arab street”. By aggressively attacking the Columbia event and organizing demonstrations attended mostly by Jews the American Jewish lobby allowed Ahmadinejad to portray the conflict as one between Iran and the “occupying Zionist regime”. Pictures of demonstrators in yarmulkes were all over the Arab press. This allows Ahmadinejad to portray Iran as a protector of the Palestinian cause against the “occupying Zionist regime” which plays very well on the “Arab street”. (Commentators in Israel have bemoaned the actions of the Jewish lobby. To see an example click here.) How do supposedly intelligent people do these things?

I hope that I am wrong

As those of you that have been reading my ramblings in this space for a while know I have about given up on the viability of a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. My rational has been that there is no overlap between the positions of the two parties and therefore no room for a negotiated settlement. Today, during a conference call with Ambassador (ret) Phillip Wilcox, President of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, I asked him his opinion. He expressed that in his opinion, backed up by polls; there is considerable support within the Israeli and Palestinian polities for a two state solution within the framework outlined by the Geneva Agreements or the Arab Peace Initiative. The problem he said was that the two governments do not reflect the views of the people and most reasonable people have given up on their ability to influence their government. The Israeli government has been captive to the Israeli military and the settler movement for a long time. The Palestinian government is not strong enough to confront the rejectionist parties. The catch 22 is that it is virtually impossible for Palestinian institutions to develop in an environment of Israeli occupation where security is defacto in the hands of the Israeli military. As we move closer to the Middle East Peace Conference (now being downgraded to a meeting) called for by President Bush, Secretary of State Rice is pushing hard for the two parties to agree on a “political horizon” prior to the conference. This is a step forward since, up to now, all of the focus has been on the process rather than on the end game. It is, however, very unlikely that the two parties can, by themselves, come to an agreement in six weeks on something that they have been unable to agree on for 60 years. Ambassador Wilcox feels, and I agree with him, that the only chance for a “political horizon” to come forward is for the President of the United States to articulate a proposed agreement that addresses the issues of borders, settlements, refugees and status of Jerusalem. This will require an enormous amount of political courage on the part of the Bush administration, something that this administration does not seem to have in great supply. There clearly is not unanimity within the administration as to what the “political horizon” should look like. Many strong voices within the administration are advocates for the Israeli right wing position of “no compromise with terrorists”. One potentially promising event occurred within the last week when Israeli Vice Premier Ramon floated a trial balloon proposing that Israel give up their occupation of Arab East Jerusalem as part of a peace deal. (For this story click here.) Ramon is a Labor party member of Olmert’s Kadima led governing coalition and may or may not speak for Olmert. It may, however, indicate that Olmert is beginning to think pragmatically. I am not optimistic that anything positive can come from all this. I hope that I am wrong. The good news is that I have been wrong before.

Does this make sense?

As part of their campaign to justify invading Iraq, the US government maintained that Saddaam Hussein’s government was aiding Al Qaeda and would provide them WMD from their non-existent stockpiles. I believed the assertion that Iraq had WMD; after all it was a “slam dunk”. (Silly me) However, the Al Qaeda claim never made sense to me. Al Qaeda’s ultimate goal is to establish a Sunni Muslim caliphate in the Middle East and more ambitiously in the world. Saddaam Hussein was secular Baathist Socialist. The last thing he would want to see was an Islamic government in the Middle East. Now, in making the case for war in Iran, the US is accusing Iran of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan and aiding insurgent groups in Iraq. The Taliban claim also makes no sense to me. The Taliban is a long standing supporter of Al Qaeda and also wants to see a Sunni Islamic caliphate. Iran is a Shia country and considers the Taliban a dangerous adversary. Based on this view, Iran aided US efforts to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan. Iran also has poor relations with Pakistan, a supporter of the Taliban, and an ally of the US. (Huh??) As an Iranian government minister said after Pakistan exploded is first nuclear weapon, “That was a Genii that would have been best left in the bottle”. Why would Iran want to support the Taliban efforts to reestablish an enemy state right on its borders? It makes no sense to me. In terms of Iranian activity in Iraq, the Shia groups that Iran has the most influence are the SCIRI and al Dawa. Both of these groups are part of the US supported government of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki. Muktada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army has more of an Iraqi nationalist agenda and is probably not a strong client of Iran. Although weapons may flow across the long and porous border between Iran and Iraq and the Iranian government has many factions with different agendas, it is hard to imagine that the Iranian government would support insurgents fighting against a government made up of the people with whom it has the best relations. Perhaps one of the lessons learned from the Iraq war debacle is that if it doesn’t make sense, perhaps it isn’t true no matter how many times the US government says it.

Back to School

The Khalil Gibron International School, NYC’s first ever Arabic dual language school, opened quietly this week with arrival of 55 sixth grade students. This quiet opening occurred despite the angry furor surrounding the school. (For an article, click here) The mission of KGIS is:
“to prepare students of diverse backgrounds for success in an increasingly global and interdependent society. Our focus is on holistic student development and rigorous academics. Through our multicultural curriculum and intensive Arabic language instruction, students graduate with the skills they need to become empowered independent thinkers who are able to work with cultures beyond their own. Students graduate with a deep understanding of different cultural perspectives, a love of learning, and a desire for excellence, with integrity preparing them for leadership in today’s constantly changing global world.”
This seemingly desirable objective, to create students who are comfortable in and knowledgeable about a part of the world that is important to understand in the 21st century, has brought a barrage of attacks from Jews, Christians and ad hoc anti Arab groups. Daniel Pipes, columnist for the NY Sun and Jerusalem Post, AIPAC leader and founder of Campus Watch, an organization dedicated to monitoring the portrayal of Israel in educational institutions, led the charge from the Jewish community. (Here, here and here) The Christian attack has been led by the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative legal center started by Thomas Monaghan, the conservative Catholic founder of Domino’s Pizza. They have been joined by the ad hoc “Stop the Madrassa Coalition” (To see who these guys are, click here) The effort has had some success as the Principal designate Dhabah Almontaser has been forced resign for refusing to condemn the use of the word “intifada” (literally “shaking off”) and has been replaced by Danielle Salzberg, a Jewish woman who speaks no Arabic. As I listen to the attacks on Arabs generated by KGIS and the Dubai Ports controversy as well as the general anti immigrant discourse surrounding the immigration reform bill, I wonder what happened to the country of immigrants that took great pride in its ability to deal with and to find strength in diversity.