Lost In Translation: Ahmadinejad And The Media Options

[illriginal]

Lost In Translation: Ahmadinejad And The Media

By Ali Quli Qarai

First I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: "We do not have homosexuals in Iran of the kind you have in your country." The American media conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as something redundant.

Obviously he was not saying, We don't have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran--something nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication, he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! --something which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him to be saying.

What he was saying is that homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring them under a common caption would be misleading. "Homosexuality is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society." This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.

Homosexuality in the US is a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor, in the last two presidential elections which paved Bush's way to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.

By contrast, homosexuality is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible. (It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during the last two decades)

By contrast adultery and homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.

There was also a subtle hint in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that "You can rest assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect."

Iranians, being linguistically a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and often as primitive.

(In general the Persians, like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)

Mr Bollinger's hostility towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations and interpretations of his earlier--also world-famous--remarks about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked, the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News.

- Unfortunately for more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his critics to demonize him and attack Iran's foreign policies. Although he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly meant.

It is a basic linguistic principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable and upright interpretation for someone's remark, it should not be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says, it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people who hold different opinions. This is particular necessary when such statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.

When Ahmadinejad repeated Ayatullah Khomeini's words that "Israel baayad az bayn beravad," (which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand these words of their president. I don't think any mature Iranian with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating some kind of military objectives against Israel. By citing the example of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad, too, has clarified what he meant by 'Israel ceasing to exist.' By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker's clarification concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements. In this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.

As for his statement that the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word "myth" has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is "A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology" (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have--what he considers to be legitimate--doubts about its exact extent, doubts which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions different from main-current historiography. What he basically appears to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives--something which most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine. Why should the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.

The savants of the media are free to interpret Ahmadinejad's statement with the purpose of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations, and to an objective like this should institutions like universities, including Columbia, contribute.

I hope that Mr Bollinger will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people, like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.

[illriginal]

Dialogue with the deaf

BY AIJAZ ZAKA SYED

29 September 2007


I'VE never been an ardent admirer of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There was a time when I had watched with great interest his dramatic transformation from a little known academician-politician into the leader of one of the biggest and most important countries in the Middle East.

He looked like someone who could lead his nation through these trying times, to attain its deserved status as a great Muslim civilisation with rich energy and human resources.

Those hopes turned to disappointment as the Iran leader got himself entangled in the web of rhetoric he weaved around himself.

Yet watching Ahmadinejad face his hostile audience at Columbia University and field questions with a grace and dignity seldom seen these days, one was filled with unrestrained admiration for the man.

There he was - a simple, ordinary guy pitted against the collective might of the American empire with its powerful global alliances, a myriad think tanks and mighty media establishment.

It was a contest of David and Goliath. Ahmadinejad, a true underdog, was no match to what he faced in the land of the free.

It was a nice welcome they had organised for him. Columbia boss, Lee C. Bollinger, who had acted as if he had to go through fire and had put his entire career on the line for inviting Ahmadinejad to speak at the university, was very thoughtful in his welcome speech.

He said, "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated."

Ahmadinejad, seated 10 feet away from him on the stage, continued to smile. The anti-Ahmadinejad portion of the audience, about 70 per cent of it, jeered and booed.

Bollinger praised himself and Columbia to glory for the magnanimity of inviting the Iranian president.

He said it was "well documented" that Iran was a state sponsor of terrorism, accused Iran of fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq and questioned why Iran has refused "to adhere to the international standards" of disclosure for its nuclear programme.

"I doubt," Bollinger concluded, "that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions." So much for the fabled traditions of tolerance of Columbia and America.

If this is the face of liberal and tolerant America, I wonder how they would treat a Middle Eastern or Muslim leader in the US South, the heartland of middle America!

Is this how the Land of the Free treats its guests? Is this how you deal with the elected leader of a country with 3,000 years of history? Ahmadinejad was not there only as the president of Iran but as a representative of the Muslim world. This is perhaps why they rolled out the red carpet for him.

First, Columbia president took almost half hour of the time for the guest to attack him, reading from a script that would have been the envy of the 'fair and balanced' Fox News or Richard Cheney's office in the White House.

It was like Spanish Inquisition and Ahmedienjad was tied there at stake to be burnt down as a heretic. But no, the Church did not read you the charges before they set you on fire.

It was more like a kangaroo court they show in Hollywood westerns dispensing summary justice without fussing too much about the innocence of the accused or fair play. And the leader of an immensely proud and cultured country was put on trial as if he was a petty thug captured from America's badlands.

This was the same when Ahmadinejad was interviewed by the CBS in Iran a day before his departure for the US. So much so the humiliating grilling by Scot Pelley forced the cool as cucumber Ahmadinejad to complain: "You are like a CIA investigator. This is not Guantanamo Bay. This is not a Baghdad prison! This is not Abu Ghraib! This is Iran. I'm the President of this country!"

To all the humiliation he was subjected to, Ahmadinejad came up with a response that would have made Gandhi proud: "In Iran, we treat our guests with more respect! The text read by the dear gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to the knowledge and intelligence of the audience here. In a university environment, we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed."

This harassment was not limited to Columbia. Outside the university, Zionist groups and other rednecks picketed comparing the guest to Hitler. And big names of the US political and media establishment vied with each other to condemn Iran leader as Satan himself. On the day of Ahmadinejad's arrival, the New York Daily News screamed: THE EVIL HAS LANDED!

Another tabloid warned New Yorkers: IRANIAN MADMAN WALKS AMONG US.

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News complained to his viewers about the evils of 'free speech' in the US.

On the other hand, presidential pretenders - from Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama and Rudy Giuliani to Mitt Romney - joined hands to take on the man from Iran condemning him as the evil incarnate himself. This is a telling comment on the extent of the Zionist lobby's influence on the US establishment.

Given the overwhelming nature of this witch-hunt, it's a miracle that Ahmadinejad kept his cool throughout the visit. He refused to be cowed down and bullied by the welcome his hosts had so graciously arranged for him.

He not only managed to say his piece at Columbia without moving an inch from his convictions, he took his battle to the United Nations.

The Iran leader responded to all the accusations hurled at him with utmost dignity. In fact, he put his hosts on the defensive once again by exposing the continuing dual standards on issues like Palestine, Iraq and nuclear proliferation.

It was a performance at once both defiant and conciliatory. He insisted: "If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, who are you to question other people who just want nuclear power." On the other hand, he said he wanted to visit Ground Zero to show his respect for 9/11 victims.

Ahmadinejad's passage to America only goes to show the impossible gulf that exists between the Muslim world and the West, especially United States.

Given the lethal mix of ignorance, prejudice and plain hostility that exists in the US and much of the West vis-a-vis Islam and Muslim world, even the mere thought of bridging this divide is daunting.

Yet we are left with no choice. If the Arabs and Muslims are keen to bridge this divide - as they indeed are - they must do everything possible to reach out to the other side. This is the only way to end the growing confrontation between the Muslim world and the West.

I agree this cannot be a one-sided affair. This cannot succeed unless our friends in the West do their bit. And this begins with an honest appraisal of the factors that divide us in the first place. That said, we can't claim we've done our best to clear the cobwebs that distort our image or the fair image of our faith.

How many Muslim leaders and heads of state have tried to engage the West in a meaningful dialogue?

Which is why one must commend Ahmadinejad's courage and persistence. This is his third visit to the US in the past two years. And every time he has tried to reach out to the other side.

Okay, you may not agree with his views. But give the man his due, even if his attempts to break the ice with the West haven't been exactly successful. At least, by taking his case to the intellectual heartland of West, he has made them sit up and take notice.

The Iran leader has managed to present the Muslim viewpoint where it matters the most. He left his hosts squirming in their seats by asking: "Even if the Holocaust happened, why should the Palestinians pay the price for the sins committed by Europe?"

Ahmadinejad made the Americans think ? for a change (just kidding!). But seriously, in a region where most leaders are cloistered away in their palaces, remote and distant from their own people, here is someone who has made use of every available opportunity to reach out and present his side of the story.

This is the way to go if the Muslim world wants to end its isolation. Even if this looks like a dialogue with the deaf for now!