Ahmadinejad Jihad

I would very strongly urge my regular readers, as well as anyone who may stumble across my blog, to take some time out of their day, go here, and read the transcript of the speech delivered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad at Columbia University yesterday.
All the better if you can read it all the way through. The first half, roughly, seems so completely and surprisingly sensible that you may be (or at least I was) tempted to think a rational and credidble person is talking. I even give the man points for his immediate complaint that the person who introduced him insulted him in the process. This drew applause from the audience, and rightly so. To invite someone to speak in a prestigious forum, then insult him before he even opens his mouth, is appallingly bad manners. Instead, the president of the university would have done well to wait a few minutes.
Because roughly halfway through, things take a turn for the surreal. The rug is yanked out and Ahmnadinejad's speech reveals a nightmare on two legs.

It started with the Holocaust denial.

Oh, he doesn't come right out and say it didn't happen. He says (all quotes through translator)

My first question was if -- given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?

To an academic audience, that seems a logical question. Except of course there has been, arguably, more research done on the Holocaust than on any other period in recent human history. Not to mention the fact there are still thousands upon thousands of people alive who lived through it. What "different perspective" could possibly be required? I think we all know his thoughts on that: it didn't happen, or if it did, it was greatly exaggerated, and even if it wasn't, the stinking Zionist vermin deserved it anyway so what's the big deal already?

Now, he's smart enough not to actually say this out loud--while Jew-bashing is more than welcome on some American campuses, such views are a tad extreme even for them--but we must keep in mind this is the same man who, not all that long ago, held a Holocaust denial conference.

The Palestinian question he raises next again seems so rational, so reasonable, on its surface:

And my second question, well, given this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?
The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.

It is fashionable in the West these days to take Ahmadinejad's side on this. I can certainly sympathize with Palestinians whose land was, after all, appropriated. And I don't have any answers as to why it was decided (a) a Jewish "homeland" was necessary (it didn't exist pre-World War II, unless you go waaaay back into Biblical times) and (b) why it had to be there, exactly.
However.
It was decided, it is there, and by and large Israel's done a damn sight better at accepting the Palestinians in its midst than vice versa. Israel the geopolitical entity has existed for 60 years itself, now, and it's been beset from all sides almost since the day it was born. All Israel wants is to be left alone in peace. All its surrounding nations want is for Israel to be cut to pieces, the pieces ground up and pulverized, and the whole thing thrown into the Red Sea. Which seems to you the better way?

The Iranian President then brings up--I'll try not to read too much into the juxtaposition--his country's nuclear ambitions, repeatedly stressing he wants nukes for energy, for "peaceful" purposes only.
Hmmm.
As the author Dan Simmons noted on his forum yesterday, "And please explain to me, again, exactly why some of the poorest, most politically backward countries in the world -- in terms of human rights -- who happen to be sitting on the majority of the world's OIL (which works pretty well as an energy source, if memory serves) need NUCLEAR power?"
Good question, Dan. Moving right along...

Ahmadinejad is asked why he supports terrorists. His answer is predictable: he doesn't. Iran is a "peaceful" nation that "loves all nations"; his country has itself been the victim of "terrorist" attacks. This brings to mind that old saw about one man's terrorist being another man's freedom fighter. They're only terrorists when they're attacking you, and never mind what you may have done!

The rights of women and gays are then raised. Ahmadinejad first says, on women,

Freedoms in Iran are genuine, true freedoms. Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedom.
We have two deputy -- two vice presidents that are female, at the highest levels of specialty, specialized fields. In our parliament and our government and our universities, they're present. In our biotechnological fields, our technological fields, there are hundreds of women scientists that are active -- in the political realm as well.

That may well be true, but it still doesn't explain why
--women must be accompanied by male relatives everywhere they go
--death by stoning is a common sentence for "sexual misconduct"
--everything from women's dress to their occupation is severely restricted
--a woman's inheritance is one half that of a man
--health care is segregated by gender: since there are very few female physicians permitted to practice, this means vastly inferior health care for women

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

I found it very interesting that the President said--twice--there are no homosexuals in Iran. I suppose, strictly speaking, this is actually true, since under Islamic law, homosexuals are subject to execution. I wonder if they're all dead yet.
There certainly were homosexuals in Iran. From ancient times up until the last century, the culture of Persia has been replete with homoerotic poetry. The last Shah even held a same-sex wedding for two members of his court; the Islamic revolution of 1978 was partly a backlash to it.

Finally, Ahmadinejad insists several times, and in varying ways, that his country is all about peace, only wishes to negotiate, to talk to other countries, and to be left alone to pursue its ideals. Which would be fine, I guess, if the ideals stated in Islamic law didn't call for perpetual jihad against those who think differently.

It has been some sixty years since we here in the West were confronted with a real and present threat in the form of one man. We've forgotten what that was like. We've come to believe, with all our hearts, that people everywhere think as we do--their thoughts may be different, may even be diametrically opposed, but they're no less valid for so being.
Ahmadinejad, for all his friendly banter at Columbia, does not think like we do. He is not our friend. He has no desire to be our friend. Israel's seen what friendly overtures accomplish with these people: they trade land for peace, only to get less land and more war.

Someday I predict we'll be lamenting that nobody thought to plant a sniper in that crowd at Columbia University.