Israelis are justifiably incensed by President Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric regarding the Holocaust. Harsh rhetorical exchanges between Tel Aviv and Tehran have been the norm rather than the exception in the past 15 years, but the questioning of the Holocaust has raised the rhetorical volume to unprecedented levels.
But within Iran, there is a variety of views on this topic, as exemplified by a popular drama series on Iranian state-run TV about – lo and behold – the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.
As understandable as the focus on Ahmadinejad is, there is a great danger in solely listening to the most extreme, radical notions coming out of Tehran. At a minimum, such a focus deprives Israel from identifying and exploring openings that can prove vital to its national security.
In a short op-ed published today in Israel’s most popular news site – Ynetnews.com – I present this argument in greater detail.
Check out my new article posted on Tony Karon's (of Time Magazine) popular blog, Rootless Cosmopolitan. The article deals with Netanyahu's 180 shift. Whereas he today compares Iran with Nazi Germany and opposes dialogue with Iran, he took a radically different position only 10 years ago...The article can be found here./trita
What a circus! Those who – against all odds – expected to be educated by President Ahmadinejad’s appearances at Columbia and the National Press Club were predictably disappointed. Ahmadinejad did what he does best – dance around the issues, change the subject or defend his government’s record by bringing up American flaws. Yet it was surprising to see that Columbia University’s President managed to make Ahmadinejad look good by beginning the introduction by insulting the very same person he himself had invited.
I am agnostic as to whether Columbia should or shouldn’t have invited Ahmadinejad. But I sure do believe that Columbia does itself and America a big disfavor by extending an invitation – only to insult the guest even before he or she has been given a chance to speak. It sends a signal of weakness, of lack of confidence – and most importantly – it takes attention away from the real issues: The deteriorating human rights situation in Iran, Ahmadinejad’s abysmal economic performance and the many other problems involving Ahmadinejad’s government.
I am not sure how Columbia University’s President Lee Bollinger achieved it, but his introduction enabled Ahmadinejad (!!) to present himself as a defender of academic integrity and freedom of speech. That’s quite an achievement!
Helene Cooper’s article in the NY Times may provide a useful hint of how Mr. Bollinger came up with his introduction of Ahmadinejad – apparently, AIPAC circulated an email shortly after the event containing a transcript of Mr. Bollinger’s introduction…
