Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Interview

"One thing Ahmadinejad seemed most proud of in the interview is that Iran has not attacked another nation in over 200 years."

Well sure, if you discount its attempts to export its revolution to its neighbors throughout the 80's, its six year excursion into Iraq after repelling Saddam from its borders in '82, its support for various Kurdish militias against Turkey and Iraq, Kohbar towers...

"His letter to Bushie is remarkable. He kinda reminds me of Gorbachev when he first came on the scene. It would be nice to hear a lot more from Ahmadinejad. "

I cant really tell if you are being serious. I would like to hope not. However, if pretty words on a letter (which was obviously designed for public consumption) convinces you that you understand the character of the man, while the policies he is actually responsible for creating do not...well, lets just say you are a despots dream constituent.



Edit:

"It can just as easily be argued that the disturbing adulation for Bush by some posters in this thread is completely antithetical to Conservatisms intellectual and historical foundation"

Well I was referring more to Liberalism in the traditional Lockean sense, which 99.9 percent of Americans, "liberal" or "conservative" believe in. I just made a note of being especially baffled at modern liberals who support the Iranian president because of the great concern that modern liberalism's antecedent of the same name had for natural rights and the value of representative government (of which most claim to still believe in strongly). Both of which Ahmadinejad is culpable in rolling back in his own country.

Brookings, Bushie has proven his madness. I understand his character all right. Ahmadinejad is the new kid in town. I would like to hear a lot more from him whether he is a new Hitler or a new Gorby.

If you follow Iranian politics, Ahmadinejad has proven his maddness as well. In spades.

..edit: If there was any Iranian politician analagous to Gorb. it would have been the last president, Khatami...but the hardliners, the current president included, emasculated the reform movement pretty well. The "reform" candidate this time was Rafsanjani...real reformist right there but he still woulda been a boat load better than their current leader.

Brookings, Ahmadinejad won a fair election in a landslide. Perhaps you can enlighten me to what you consider to be his madness in Iranian politics. I think his denial of the holocaust is a bit mad. But his main point is why blame the Palestinians for a holocaust carried out by Europeans. I think the expulsion of the Palestinians was a crime against humanity that continues today even worse than it ever was. I dont believe most Americans have any idea what has been done to the Palestinians then and now. I do believe that most Americans would fight to the death anyone who treated them the way the Palestinians have been treated by the Israelis even if they had to throw stones at Apache helicopters. I look at Gaza and Lebanon and think that Israel in face to face combat do much better against a dehydrated and malnourished people than they did against Hezbollah.

Brookings, Well I was surprised Rafsanjani lost and he was progressive for Iranian politics. Obviously Ahmadinejad was savvy enough to win over 60 some percent of the people without the support of the powers that be. I'm surprised also at some of his opinions especially on nuclear non-proliferation. El Baradei has a close eye on the situation. His view is America should be leading the world towards non-proliferation and towards disarmament. Ahmadinejad says "The problem that President Bush has is in his mind he wants to solve everything with bombs. The time of the bomb is in the past. It's behind us. Today is the era of thoughts, dialogue and cultural exchanges." I agree with that 100%. But does he mean what he's saying or is he another Bushie who would bomb a nation with no Air Force to bits. Only time will tell. He did arm Hezbollah but then I never saw Hezbollah as being anything but a resistence defending their own homes. They have as much a right to defend themselves as anyone else. I read PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses and think that is as scary a blueprint as you'll find. They not only planned an Iraq invasion long ago whether Saddam was dead or alive but they clearly said a new Pearl Harbor would help their cause no end. Ahmadinejad's blueprint to this point is a push for a nuclear free ME which is a nice idea supported by many nations. In the past even Israel has expressed an interest in that idea.

"Brookings, Ahmadinejad won a fair election in a landslide"

A "fair" election in which all candidates were filtered by the supreme religious council. In a political system whose parliament (majlis) is similarly filtered, and which holds no real legislative autonomy. As i said, the only "reformist" candidate offered was nothing of the sort, though certainly less extreme than the man they ended with.

"Perhaps you can enlighten me to what you consider to be his madness in Iranian politics."

Well lets see, immediately upon his election Ahmadinejad appointed two notorious figures to the two most important cabinet positions (the Interior ministry and the Intelligence ministry), Mostafa Poor Mohammadi and Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ezhei respectively. The two aforementioned clerics have been accused of participating in the mass execution of thousands of political prisoners during 1988. They are also accused of having taken part in the political assassinations of key reformist leaders during President Khatami's time in office.

He called, publicly, for the extermination of Israel.

He is actively seeking nuclear weapons.

hundreds of newspapers which were opened under Khatami have been forced to shut down.

He rejuvenated the enforcement of Sharia Law by "moral police"

Worst of all...he banned western music and dancing.

"denial of the holocaust was a bit mad"

Denial of the holocaust is just a "bit" mad for a statesman? Well if thats your criteria for a "bit mad", i dont find how you can be overly upset with anything George W. Bush has said publicly.

" But his main point is why blame the Palestinians for a holocaust carried out by Europeans. I think the expulsion of the Palestinians was a crime against humanity that continues today even worse than it ever was. I dont believe most Americans have any idea what has been done to the Palestinians then and now. I do believe that most Americans would fight to the death anyone who treated them the way the Palestinians have been treated by the Israelis even if they had to throw stones at Apache helicopters. I look at Gaza and Lebanon and think that Israel in face to face combat do much better against a dehydrated and malnourished people than they did against Hezbollah. "

Whatever your feelings are about Palestine are irrelevant. What has Iran done to help their situation? Iranian leaders, like every other group of Middle Eastern leaders, dont care about the plight of the Palestinians. They use public outrage about the issue to their own ends, and you are apparently buying into it. Its easy to pledge your support for the Palestinian people, every Middle Eastern leader does it, but how does that rhetoric translate into policy? It usually doesn't.

Brookings, I realize the man is a conservative religious fanatic. He's not allowing pizza to be called pizza. That reminds of the Christian Coalition and also freedom fries. Iran will have to deal with him like the Iraqis will have to deal with Sistani and his prejudices. But he hasn't bombed nearly defenseless countries as Bushie, Blair and Olmert have done. I'm most interested in his calls for a nuke free ME and international non-proliferation treaties. How far he'll go in that area remains to be seen. My guess is Bushie will do everything in his power to bring out the worst in the man. I certainly dont trust him but despite that he's more trustworthy than Bushie who has deliberately misled (lied) the world into war. I call for dialogue and more dialogue. The Israeli position is no talking to Hamas at all which is a formula for further disaster. Hamas is a duly elected government no matter how much Bushie and Olmert hate that. Olmert's plan is to unilateraly set Israel's borders and that is nothing more than a war whoop. This what the Palestinians are up against and it's deplorable and unacceptable and as far away from traditional Jewish teachings and beliefs as could be. "From New Orleans to Gaza"
Richard Harth in New Orleans - Sunday, 30 July 2006, 23:26 http://www.imemc.org/content/view/20456/116/

"The Israeli position is no talking to Hamas at all which is a formula for further disaster. Hamas is a duly elected government no matter how much Bushie and Olmert hate that."

You know how HAMAS can engage in a dialogue with Israel? If the god damn organization would honor treaties signed by the previous Palestinian Authority (Madrid and Oslo) and recognize Israel's freaking right to exist. Until it does that it is no wonder Israel refuses to deal with them. HAMAS's ridiculousness, not the Israeli's, bears the primary responsiblity for the breakdown of relations between the two parties.

"Olmert's plan is to unilateraly set Israel's borders and that is nothing more than a war whoop. This what the Palestinians are up against and it's deplorable and unacceptable and as far away from traditional Jewish teachings and beliefs as could be.
"
Perhaps the Palestinians have failed to offer a viable political partner for the Israeli's to deal with when negotiating the two state solution. And that Israel's pursuit of that policy was in spite of, not because of, a lack of a partner. Until HAMAS recognizes that the well being of their constituents is more important than the perpetual pursuit of hostilities against the state of Israel, it is unavoidable that the Israeli's will refuse to negotiate. Further, as long as HAMAS retains its own military capabilities separate from, and unaccountable to, the PA, they are not Democrats. When they publicly announce that its every Palestinians right to pursue violent aggression against Israel, they only show the Israeli's that they are incapable of being viable diplomatic partners.

The closest the Israeli's and Palestinians ever came to peace was after the PA recognized Israeli's right to exist. That is a prerequisite for real diplomatic progress. The ball is in HAMAS's court, if they choose to stick to their anti-semitic rhetoric they will only condemn their constituents to further hardship.

Hamas has moderated it's position a great deal since winning the election. They have expressed a willingness to accept a 2 state solution based on the 1967 borders as did Islamic Jihad. They've worked with a group of international religious leaders in a series of meetings that culminated in calling a press conference where Hamas desire to begin negotiating a settlement along those lines was to be announced. 2 Hamas government spokesmen were to be present to make it official. Israel was well aware of the meetings yet showed no desire to send a representative. The day of the press conference Israel stopped the 2 Hamas leaders enroute to the press conference. They were told not to attend and were later arrested. As a result the press conference was canceled. The next day Israel killed a Palestinian family enjoying a day at the beach in Gaza. That sent a message and set off the current escalation. The first "kidnappings" in this dilemma were the arrests of the Hamas government officials. Israel has made it clear that they are the ones who will not accept a 2 state soilution.

That is the problem with HAMAS, they will only recognize Israel's right to exist, thus providing the minimalist gesture to allow negotiations to occur, if Israel accepts HAMAS's conditions on where the borders should be, thus undercutting the point of negotiations. HAMAS needs to play by the rules of the game, which it should be emphasized were established by the Palestinians when their official representative, the PLO, signed the Oslo Accords, which recognized Israel and renounced violence.

By rejecting these conditions, Hamas undercut hard-won Palestinian legitimacy, setting back the Palestinian cause by decades.

"The first "kidnappings" in this dilemma were the arrests of the Hamas government officials"

As the elected government, Hamas has to demonstrate responsibility for the territory under its control. When elected HAMAS officials are responsible for terrorist activities, they are not given immunity by way of their public standing. Its the duty of Palestinian officials to abide by their previously agreed upon political obligations. The arrest of HAMAS officials is of entirely different nature than the firing of rockets into Israeli territory from Gaza, as well as the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers by an unaccountable substate militia.

Hamas also has not removed or changed precious articles like these in their Covenant:

Brookings, except Hamas has agreed to accept Oslo and all agreements signed by the PLO. Obviously the assassination of Rabin proved who did not accept Oslo. Many a Rabbi called for his assassination and based that on their interpretations of scripture. They rejoiced when it happened. Netanyahu gave many a speech before banners calling for the assassination and never admonished those bearing the banners. He won the election and Israel's warmongers have never looked back. But what of the article I posted on the water situation in Gaza? No comment? I say most Americans would certainly fight every way they could those who left them with sludge to feed their kids.

Brand X, Hamas willingness to accept a 2 state solution is enough acknowledgement of Israel's existence. By accepting that Palestinians are sacrificing a great deal of what was taken from them by force. I'm fine with their not wanting to say Israelis had a right to seize their property. Accepting a 2 state solution is enough. But not for Israel and their further imperialistic designs. The unilateral setting of Israel's boundaries proves their unwillingness to offer a dignified deal. Their Apartheit Wall seizes land not given them in any international 2 state solution. And it shuts Palestinians off from their last remaining access to clean water. It also pens them in and subjects them to Israeli checkpoints as they travel within their own territory. No nation would find that acceptable. Mr. Olmert tear down that wall.

"Brookings, except Hamas has agreed to accept Oslo and all agreements signed by the PLO. Obviously the assassination of Rabin proved who did not accept Oslo. Many a Rabbi called for his assassination and based that on their interpretations of scripture. They rejoiced when it happened. Netanyahu gave many a speech before banners calling for the assassination and never admonished those bearing the banners. He won the election and Israel's warmongers have never looked back."

Where has HAMAS, as an organization, agreed to uphold the Oslo accords? What IS evident from so many statements made by officials, and abundant in its literature, has been antithetical to the peaceful and accommodating spirit that Oslo brought to the table between the two parties. You can't paint a rosy picture here, HAMAS, to this date, has showed itself unwilling and even antagonistic to the idea of upholding its treaty obligations.

" But what of the article I posted on the water situation in Gaza? No comment?"

I dont post articles written by other people to supplement my posts, I dont respond to those who do. Its a boring way to carry out a debate. If you want me to respond to its points, argue them yourself.

As long as those articles stand in the Covenant of Hamas anything they say or agree too would just sound like, 'blah blah blah blah blah'....if I were an Israeli.

Israel, the state and its political institutions, rejected the Oslo accords because a member of a fringe Israeli orthodox group killed the premier which signed it? Certainly you cant be serious, there is a difference even in democratic societies such as Israel, between adopted state policy and public sentiment (where it should be noted, Oslo was still supported by a majority).

Regardless, the point here is not about the specifics of Oslo, which had real problems, the point is that real diplomatic progress was made, and that it was made because the Palestinians recognized Israel's right to exist, and denounced violence. HAMAS refuses to do this, their refusal is allowing the Israeli's to set up a wall where they see fit, without the Palestinians having any say. HAMAS, as an organization, is acting like a childr. They are committed to a hate filled and unrealistic principle, and that commitment to the abstract is having real, material consequences for the Palestinian people. If they want to have a say in how the land is divided, which is in the interests of the Palestinians (and also the Israeli's, since a bilateral agreement will ultimately be much more stable), they need to engage with Israel. To do that, they need to honor the PA's former commitment to working within a peaceful framework.

And, I may have missed something in your post as I dont have my glasses on, but what is your point about an Israeli peace activist declaring that he has a solution which would be agreeable to HAMAS? Just because he is an Israeli does not mean that any solution he came up with would be acceptable regarding the security interests of the state. I know I wouldn't trust A.N.S.W.E.R. with any kind of authority to define US security policy.

Brookings, what you call an Israeli peace activist is really a great many well educated and widely respected peace activists and religious leaders from all walks of life around the world. To listen to you they're not relevent. Your statements are the statements of someone who feels superior to some highly qualified peace advocates. Maybe you'd be interested in reading the thoughts of those who brought Hamas to the point of acceptence that was to be announced at the press conference Israel squashed. More likely you wont even give them more than a casual glance. "Jerusalem Peacemakers" http://www.jerusalempeacemakers.org/home.html

"Brookings, what you call an Israeli peace activist is really a great many well educated and widely respected peace activists and religious leaders from all walks of life around the world. To listen to you they're not relevent. Your statements are the statements of someone who feels superior to some highly qualified peace advocates. Maybe you'd be interested in reading the thoughts of those who brought Hamas to the point of acceptence that was to be announced at the press conference Israel squashed. More likely you wont even give them more than a casual glance. "Jerusalem Peacemakers" http://www.jerusalempeacemakers.org/home.html "

After searching through the pages I didnt find any plan for a reconciliation between the Israeli's and HAMAS. I did read some of Rabbi Froman's articles, however, and they are undoubtedly written by a man who is passionate about peace. But as he states, he is not a policy maker, he is a Rabbi, his concerns are with reconciling Islam with Judaism.

Starting from that fundamental assumption about the roots of the current conflict wont lead you very far when trying to find a solution. Religious reasoning's can, and do, provide justification for any number of mutually contradictory positions. Religion is remarkably flexible, there is no one "true" interpretation. Religiously inspired political organizations are simply modern movements that select and reformulate elements of theology to meet contemporary political purposes. Therefore, no matter how much textual, and theological evidence can be unearthed to support the Rabbi's call for peace, it will fail to address the underlying problems.

This conflict isnt caused by any fundamental differences among the religions which the two sides adhere, rather, it's myriad causes are more closely rooted in two opposing nationalisms (and the myths that come with them), and rivalries among interested parties over concrete material and strategic interests.

That is my problem with "peace activists". Dealing primarily in the abstract, while avoiding the political and material realities, does not tend to lead to the end which they envision.

I think Froman's and the Peacemakers approach is right on. And effective. They had arrainged the announcement with Hamas spokesman present. This was the last straw for the Israeli/Bushie/Christian Zionists. A Hamas willing to negotiate a 2 state system and accept treaties signed by the PLO is more dangerous to them than a terrorist Hamas. The religious approach is certainly genious and logical and I aint surprised you slough it off. The Peacemakers are working with Hamas head Sheikh and others too in other countries. Seems to me these Sheikhs are more into the basic tenets of their religion than the world is led to believe. The Golden Rule foundation of all these religions involved. The sharing of the same God. Because the Golden Rule sentiment does really matter to many on all sides enough understandings were reached to bring a change. I wouldn't sell these people short and there's hope even after Israel's and America's nasty reaction to the election of Hamas in a legit election and the moderation of their position. The many Rabbis who warned of the dangers of an Israeli state from the beginning have been proven right. They warned an Israeli state would lead people away from the spiritual roots of their entire trip as a people. The treatment of the Palestinians from the beginning has been to murder and chase them away from their homes. Far from the Golden Rule for sure. The Palestinians were not responsible for the holocaust and it was absurd to just take away their homes. This is an ongoing argument among Jews everywhere. Rabbi Froman scares because he has a history of achievement. Israel would do well to listen to such people whose message is to return to your roots. Make amends with your G-D.