WHISPERS that Iran's Holocaust-denying president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University prompted calls from some elected U.S. officials and presidential candidates to cut offfederal funding to the private university and, illogically, for his indictment under the Genocide Convention. Alarmingly, most, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, agreed that they would engage in the anti-democratic practice of barring Ahmadinejad from speaking at all.
While the candidates and officials tried to squeeze political capital out of the spectacle, Columbia Univerisity President Lee Bollinger attempted to balance the promotion of free speech with abhorrence for a demonized figure. But even Bollinger's remarks were filled more with emotionally charged rhetoric, calling Ahmadinejad "simply ridiculous", and "a petty and cruel dictator." Meanwhile, few seem to have picked out some legitimate political questions that the Iranian president raised. Most have been anxious to exercise or defend their free speech, while closing off their ears to some important and provocative political contradictions and realities to which he has rightly pointed.
At both the National Press Club and Columbia University, the Iranian president skirted the question regarding his outright denial of the Holocaust. But his responses were at least worthy of some rational political examination. In response to the questions, Ahmadinejad proceeded to say that even if the Holocaust did happen, "What did that have to do with the Palestinian people?" And "why were the Palestinians forced to give up their land?" These comments echoed his previous speeches in the past, which have been glossed over in favor of his more infamous comments about "wiping Israel off the map."
Scholars have spent decades studying the same question Ahmadinejad posed of how Jewish prosecution in Europe led to the seemingly illogical wresting of land from Palestinians in the Middle East. The complex question has a complex answer that historians and political scientists have answered with evidence of military conquest, intense pro-Jewish political lobbying, leadership and complicated territorial agreements. If this is a legitimate point, why do we ignore and demonize Ahmadinejad instead of separating the important political points he raises from all his fiery rhetoric?
On a related point, Ahmadinejad's comments regarding the treatment of Israeli issues, from Palestine to nuclear programs, highlight double standards and hypocrisy that are often confused or fused with anti-Semitism in our society, but in fact constitute legitimate contentions. Questioning why, for instance, the United States and other nuclear powers have assisted in the construction of Israel's nuclear program, while trying to ensure that other nations in the Middle East do not possess one, is valid. Ahmadinejad is fighting for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East -- a worthwhile goal that we should at least think about, but is often downplayed because it is seen as "anti-Israeli."
Ahmadinejad was also right in questioning why scholars are imprisoned in some European countries like Britain and Germany for denying the Holocaust. Any reasoned observer could argue that this circumvents free speech and academic freedom, and many have done so.
The argument goes something like the this: The way to combat Holocaust deniers should not be to imprison them, but to engage them with informed debate. What good is democracy if we cannot use our free speech to undermine misguided arguments with reason and must resort to depriving others of their freedom? And if indeed the Holocaust is the most documented atrocity in human history, there is surely plenty of factual material to dispel these conspiracies anyway. When evaluated for its actual merit, this practice appears as morally unsound as the imprisonment of homosexuals in Iran.
The Iranian president was also certainly not alone and not without precedent in questioning who were the actual perpetrators of September 11th. Tomes have been written about how the Russians masterminded the assassination of JFK in the United States, despite extensive rational evidence to the contrary. And conspiracy theories shroud the watershed events of our time, from Pearl Harbor to the sinking of the Lusitania. 9/11 does not deserve any special anti-conspiracy shield.
Furthermore, before dismissing Ahmadinejad as a deranged, misinformed idiot, we would do well to know that conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 are extremely popular around the world. 9/11 skeptics and deniers are easy to find in the Middle East. And this is not just limited to "the Muslim world" either. To quote one example, French author Thierry Meyssan's book "The Horrifying Fraud," which alleged that 9/11 was masterminded by the US military-industrial complex to justify increased military budgets, was the leading bestseller in France during spring and summer 2002. So, instead of name-calling, the more interesting scholarly question should be: Why are these theories so popular despite their inherent irrationality? The answer has much less to do with psychological disorders than it does with rampant anti-Americanism in many parts of the world today.
Granted, Ahmadinejad's claims that he saw a divine light during a speech at the U.N. and that "there are no homosexuals in Iran" make it tough to take him seriously at times. His denials that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and his exaggerations with regard to its compliance with international nuclear safeguards are equally laughable. But his healthy skepticism of Israel's "special status" in the West -- whether it be in the case of Palestine or the lack of commotion about its nuclear program -- his questioning of 9/11, and his charismatic stand against "The Great Satan," represent popular anti-American sentiments that deserve our attention.
Instead of spewing anti-democratic rhetoric for short term political gains or propagating elementary school name-calling for simplicity, citizens and leaders of a mature democracy should win arguments through reasoned debate with facts and history. And while we can criticize others for what we deem inappropriate remarks, it would not hurt to actually open our ears and compare what they are saying to what is going on around the world. A "dictator" may have a lesson or two to teach us about our freedom and democracy.
Prashanth Parameswaran's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at pparameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 5 hours agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 4 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
