Iranic?
May 31, 2006Here’s a fairly long interview with the president of Iran by a German magazine, but very interesting. Especially considering I am largely ignorant of the history behind the formation of the Jewish state. Anything to get me to do some research.
Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from.
If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.
Putting aside for a moment his questioning of whether or not the holocaust occurred, he raises what I think is a valid question. Again, forgive my ignorance, but how different is the formation of the Israeli state on what was Palestinian land vs. say the occupation of American Indian lands by United Statesians? I’m not calling for us to give land back to the Indians, but while it was all fine and good 200 years before, would our taking of their land been tolerated in the cultural climate of 1947? On the other hand at what point does the rights of statehood and ownership belong to the current occupants over the blood inheritors?
Ahmadinejad: Allow me to encourage a discussion on the following question: How long do you think the world can be governed by the rhetoric of a handful of Western powers?
Ahmadinejad: But the other side is that there are a number of countries that possess both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. They use their atomic weapons to threaten other peoples. And it is these powers who say that they are worried about Iran deviating from the path of peaceful use of atomic energy. We say that these powers are free to monitor us if they are worried. But what these powers say is that the Iranians must not complete the nuclear fuel cycle because deviation from peaceful use might then be possible. What we say is that these countries themselves have long deviated from peaceful usage. These powers have no right to talk to us in this manner. This order is unjust and unsustainable.
Look at this situation through the eyes of a smaller country (not necessarily Iran). It used to be there were two tough guys on the playground. The bully and the protector (some would say two bullies, but let’s go with the more positive outlook for now). Today the bully is defeated. And so there is only one heavyweight left. Mostly kind and benevolent, but very influential. And not always agreeing with the decisions you make. There is an inherent threat in that force existing at all. They could always knock your teeth in if they disagreed enough. Whether or not they would is irrelevant. The feeling is there. All nations want control of their own destiny. With a force like that out there, there is no feeling of control. How comfortable is that for the smaller nation? How much resentment builds up regardless of provocation? And how stable is that situation for either nation?
Now I don’t really believe much of what Ahmadinejad says here in this interview (or outside this interview for that matter), but I think he raises legitimate questions that we as a nation should address for ourselves as we move forward. We are the big guy in the playground. Bully or protector, we are viewed as a potential threat on some level by everyone smaller than us. Western nations at least have a lot in common with us culturally and so feel less threatened because they better understand our culture and morality than non-westerners do, but imagine how we would feel and act if China was the one power and we were small potatoes? Would we trust them to act correctly on our behalf?
Posted by Bradley
