Dear Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,
On Wednesday, you will speak before the United Nations General Assembly in Manhattan. As you approach the stage, many of the world’s leading diplomats will rise from their seats and leave the hall. I have a proposal for how you might proceed.
I am a Jew. When I was in high school, realizing my own ignorance toward the Islamic tradition, I worked with a Muslim friend to start a Muslim-Jewish dialogue.
During the program, Jewish and Muslim teenagers in Los Angeles spoke candidly to one another. The overarching response was that of relief and satisfaction: we discovered that we have more in common than not.
I am, in American political parlance, a liberal. I believe that the government can serve an active and key role in the lives of its citizens.
But I find myself sifting through the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page and listening to Bill O’Reilly nonetheless, because I’m 18 years old; my views are malleable.
I don’t know all the answers. I have something to learn from the “other side.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad, I believe in the value of face-to-face interaction; I believe in engagement; I believe that those who disagree should pursue open discourse and that opinions serve best when heard, not when quelled.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, you do not.
Some will argue that the community of nations should lend you its spotlight if only to make known your inflammatory views and your toxic aspirations, your deplorable history and your frightening and ever-manifesting plans for the future. But those who walk out are right to walk out.
The Irish poet and cynic Brendan Behan was on to something when he noted that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” For you, Mr. Ahmadinejad, I propose an apt and only slightly inverted iteration of Behan’s adage: for lethal dictators – for you – there’s no such thing as bad publicity, period.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, the United Nations first lent you its lectern in September 2005. Less than a month later in Tehran, you delivered a speech during which you made clear, for any remaining doubters, your views regarding the modern State of Israel and your wish for its inhabitants. “Our dear Imam (the Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map,” you declared, “and this was a very wise statement.”
When you were invited to speak again at the General Assembly in 2006, you pressed other member states, “Who, or what organization defends the rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is the seat of global justice?” – implying that such values aligned with yours.
In your speech in 2007, as debate over your country’s unstable and misguided nuclear program escalated, you proclaimed that “the nuclear issue of Iran is now closed,” blocking any remaining diplomatic options.
Last year, granted time and audience on a seventh occasion, you asserted that world powers “still use the Holocaust after six decades as the excuse to pay (a) fine or ransom to the Zionists.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad, you don’t seek “the seat of global justice”; you murder Iranians who don’t share your religious ideology and you actively support Bashar al-Assad’s iron grip and savage brutality.
Your abandonment of civil discussion over your nuclear program has isolated you further and further from the community of nations and only amplified suspicion. And, Mr. Ahmadinejad, the systematic murder of six million Jews was not, is not, and will never be an excuse for anything.
Mr. Ahmadinejad, the United Nations – be it effective or impotent, productive or gridlocked – is our stage for compromise.
Such compromise necessitates concessions on both sides; your sides seem limitless and your concessions are imagined. With you, there is no middle ground. For you, there is no rationality. To you, we grant no credibility.
We have heard enough; we know what you are going to say; we have no need to hear it again.
We have treaded beyond compromise. We have moved beyond listening. You, Mr. Ahmadinejad, never considered either. I’ve seen what you’ve done to your own people. I’m tired of hearing your plans for mine.
On Wednesday, where will I be? In synagogue, for the holiday of Yom Kippur, repenting for my sins, seeking to change my ways, and begging forgiveness of my Creator. At that formidable lectern, I suggest you do the same.
Ami Fields-Meyer is a College freshman from Los Angeles, Calif.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
well said, great writer
Well done although I have an issue with the following, “Your abandonment of civil discussion over your nuclear program has isolated you further and further from the community of nations and only amplified suspicion.”
It is my belief that as the Islamization of north Africa, parts of Asia and the entire Middle East flourishes {sic} that Hitler-like leaders such as Ahmadinejad actually become more mainstream and less isolated.
The facts, ugly as they are, should not be misinterpreted. Many Jews did misinterpret the facts in the 1930s. You should not do the same again. Never again, eh?
I would also suggest you revisit your understanding of Islam. The Quran, hadiths and Sunna are literally filled with hatred of Jews. Mohammed led the battle of Qurayza in which over 600 Jewish men and boys were beheaded and the women and girls taken as slaves. Islam’s core tenets concerning Jews is not a pretty one.
You might try reading books by people like Ibn Warraq, Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer to get a fuller understanding of Islam, and Andrew Bostom has written some remarkable books and articles on the history of Islamic anti-Semitism.
While you definitely bring up points about the Islamic liturgy’s hatred of the Jews, there are equally violent things in Jewish traditions. But since Islam did not exist before Judaism, that same violence may have just been directed at other non-Jewish traditions (Phillistines, etc.).
Yet those notions of violence seem to have fallen behind the stronger call for peace between the faithful Jews and Muslims, as per Ami’s experience and my own. I think that the intellectuals who authored Islamic anti-Semitic works do not reflect the average Muslim’s opinion, especially not those who willingly solicit inter-faith dialogues. History informs the present, but it is not the present.
Good point Adam, but you miss the vital difference which is that the prescribed violence in the Quran is against all non-Muslims for all time while that found in the old Testament is for a specific people in a specific time.
Of course the population figures of these groups support this. As you point out Islam is a relatively new religion yet it numbers 1.4 adherents. Of course when looking at Sudan we understand how this occurred. Through forced conversions at the end of a gun (or sword as was the case) Islam has grown exponentially due to its core tenet that forced conversion thjrough whatever means are necessary is considered a good thing.
This also explains why we hear next to nothing from Muslims in protest of their actions in Sudan, Mali, Somalia, Nigeria, Southern Thailand and elsewhere.
Correction: 1.4 “billion” adherents.
you really need to read the Quran before making ignorant comments on open forums like this
A couple things:
The “wiped off the map” comment was never said that way.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/wiped-off-the-map-the-rumor-of-the-century/
Also keep in mind the ceaseless aggression of the United States (a nuclear-armed nation with literally thousands of long-range missiles at our disposal, ready to be launched at the drop of a hat) against Iran (a nation which is not, nor has been in almost the last decade pursuing nuclear weapons) [see no. 1: http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/?q=node/2093%5D. We overthrew their government in 1953. We have financially supported the former terrorist organization MEK. We supported an Iraqi war against them throughout the 80s. We killed nearly 300 of their civilians when we shot down a passenger jet of theirs in 1988. Today we continue drone missions into their territory, while sabotaging their (peaceful) nuclear programs [take a look at http://web.mit.edu/mitir/2009/online/us-iran-2.pdf%5D.
Contrast this with Iran, which has never invaded another country in its modern history.
Are there horrible humans rights abuses taking place in Iran currently? Yes. Is this enough to justify the current U.S. hostility toward the nation? There are arguments for and against, but it’s clearly not why we’re taking such an aggressive stance toward the nation.
You say you have something to learn from the “other side.” I urge you to do some further research into the subject. If I may recommend a couple starting points,
This interview with the man himself is particularly intriguing, if you will at least grant him a modicum of credibility and try to see things from his point of view:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-iranian-president-ahmadinejad-we-are-neither-obstinate-nor-gullible-a-618559.html
As well as this man’s views on the matter:
http://www.voterocky.org/iran
First of all, if this “open letter” was to any other President or Head of state, it would start with a title. So it’s “President” Ahmedinejad. Show some respect. you may think he’s a dictator, but that’s what the western media has pounded into your “malleable” head. Whether you believe his election was fair or not, you have to acknowledge that he is the President of the Iranian people.
I am not surprised that you exhibit such hatred for the man. After all, you have only bothered to listen to the western side of things. Let me ask, other than this man, who has stood up for Palestinian rights? May I bring your attention to the fact that last year, when Palestine pressed for the right of being recognized as a state, the STATE of Israel fought to get the USA to veto the proposal.
Also, if you care to look into what President Ahmedinejad says about all the controversial issues you outlined, you will see there is much more to it than the superfluous jargon you have cared to take note of.
I invite you to truly look into the issues that you outline in your letter, and see what this man is saying. You will find that a lot of what he says makes a lot of sense.
Not Surprised,
You can be selective about what you consider to be propaganda or brainwashing material all you like. However, dismissing Ami’s letter as simply biased or a result of that brainwashing is not helpful for your point; a mere and vague call for objectivity isn’t very helpful, either. I recommend arguments based on evidence, like what has been presented here.
Regarding your tangential statement about Israel, I recommend you “bring your attention” to a point made by Christopher Hitchens. He argues that your kind of talk about Israel should not only be regarded as completely irrelevant to the legitimate concerns about the Iranian regime, but making such comments as a mindless knee-jerk reaction to anti-Iranian rhetoric is morally irresponsible. Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBMz5mrJcFc
Great job, Ami! Very well written.