HERE is Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush.

Since the Bush Administration seems bent on pushing us into confrontation and possible war with Iran, we all need to read this correspondence and draw some independent judgment about its author. (Condi Rice has already rejected any followup on the letter even before having it translated). In some ways the letter is an accusation of a list of crimes by the US against Iran similar to those raised by some of us on the left. In other ways it is an indictment of Bush's invasion of Iraq. In still other ways it is a religious appeal from one powerful religious (some would say fanatical) person to another supremely powerful one that professes a strong religious belief.

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?

1. The letter provided an insight to the way of thought of its author. Since most people have only heard Ahmadinejads phrases about wiping out Israel and denying the holocaust, it offered some deeper understanding of the reasons behind his statements. He appears to be somewhat less radical in his letter, but I would not go so far that I have a different opinion of Irans President due to this letter. In the end, his action speak for his character.

2. The timing of the letter and the debate in the Security Council is unfortunate if the letter was meant to be sincere. It does seem like a distraction from the issue of Irans nuclear ambitions. However, the fast rebuff BEFORE reading the text of the Western leaders provide Ahmandinejad with a pretext for arguing that the West is not interested in diplomatic negotiations. [I dont know if that was actually done by the US delegation and/or Mrs. Rice, but I have read in my newspapers that a couple of European politicians reacted that way. If that were true, it shows a frightening lack of interest in the resolve of the crisis.]

3. The USA have a number of stains on their history vest. Recently, the administration was able to manage to add quite a few more, however, the US is a democratic country and balancing its foreign policy between idealistic aims and pragmatic self-interest. No country can be totally altruistic.

4. That is the silly part. The US is still not interested in direct negotiations with Iran. I would argue that this should be the point where more pressure could be applied than through the difficult talks about resolutions in the Security Council. These SC talks can also be held if direct negotiations between the US and Iran fail to bring an acceptable solution for both sides. It seems strange to me that the US is not talking with Iran only because of what has happened 30 years ago. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" is a common phrase in US foreign policy, but I doubt it should be applied where so much is at stake, barring a discussion if it could actually be applied to this case.

I'm blown away by this letter. A direct attempt at communication? How can the US turn this down? Are we too good to talk to these people? The arrogance of Condi refusing a reply before it was even translated... Suddenly the US is looking an awful lot like a Hollywood bad guy.

There's so much potential for great leadership, and great diplomacy here, and instead we get big stick waving and arrogance out of all sides of this administration. Truly, Bush's presidency will be viewed historically as a very, very dark time for the US, if his admin can't formulate a decent reply to this very civilized letter. We answer a call for communiation with threats? I know that many aren't going to be on the same page as me on this, but this makes me very very sad, and even ashamed to be an American.

Obviously, I don't agree with a lot, or even most of what he says, but he's presenting his arguments in a calm, peaceful manner. Just because he's on the wrong side of this argument, we refuse to talk to him? These countries are not children. They are a great threat to peace on this Earth, and they cannot be brushed aside, and this is a great oppurtunity to engage with these people and disprove a lot of what is currently beleived about this absurd administration.

Iran is now the most advanced arabic country in the Middle East, if we can't negotiate with them, who can we negotiate with? Is it the long-term NeoCon plan to conquer all of the Middle East?

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

It puts his positions in context, and shows there's a lot more to this guy then him being a simple villian with evil, anti-semetic intentions.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

Does it matter? It's presented as such, and it's the US's responsibility to attempt to engage in the dialogue.

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

Obviously he presents a lot of facts here. Perhaps apologies for some of the more agregious incidents by the US would go a long way? Who knows, we don't have to sacrifice anything for an apology, so why not? It's certainly cheaper than even one bomb.
And if the Iranians turn around and demand imprisonment of past presidents or something, then they look like the insane arrogant ones (as they did over the cartoons.)

4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?


Bush? Heck no. He's demonstrated a complete unwillingness for diplomacy. This president is not insane, and while it has yet to be seen if he can reason, why not give it a try?

Since the primary argument for Iran about the Nuclear development is that it's the Western World holding them back, why not offer to build them non-nuclear power plants? Offer them free technology or aid? Whatever it is, I can gaurantee it will be significantly cheaper than any sort of war effort, even if it fails.

Wow I was very impressed with the words in that letter, if it really is from the person we're told it's from. The impressive part is it's moral simplicity equal to the innocence of a child. He wrote against moral duplicity and against hypocrisy. A child would wonder, 'why and I being told to not fight when the ones telling me that are always fighting themselves?'. He nailed it right on the head when he said that WMD were the only pretext for the illegal invasion, and he was morally just when he condemned the high civilian body count the US leaves in its wake. How could that ever be considered evil, irregardless of who is saying it? He admits Hussein was an evil tyrant, who the hell wouldn't, but he also pointed out that it was the US who was supporting the tyrant during its war with Iran. I particularly liked the cloaked reference to the water sources and agriculture being destroyed as it's exactly what Israel does to the Palestinians on a daily basis.
Summary:
*Do not be hypocritical. If you preach peace, act with peace.
*WMD was the motive and it was proven false.
*Hussein was an evil tyrant, but an evil tyrant the United States fully supported with extremely sensitive and highly classified support systems.
*Everyone to get along.
What upsets me is the way the US didn't want to even know what was in that letter before basically tossing it aside along with what Bush called 'that scrap piece of paper'.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Condolee...ed_to_0509.html
Keep in mind her words were being said while knowing the translation hadn't even been done yet. That's a striking commentary on the general US public. Rice tells the US public that the Iranian letter had nothing in it...while not knowing what it even says hence the lack of any translation. Good God it's insane! Why doesn't anyone rise up and say "Gee Ms. Rice. How can you tell us what the letter says if you haven't had it translated yet? If you don't read Arabic and haven't seen the translation, that would mean you're not in a position to tell us that the content of the letter was meaningless garbage, wouldn't it?".
Here's another way to look at it:
ADMIN is busy sparring with a Chinese businessman over some chopsticks the ADMIN claim are owed. The Chinese businessman sends a letter, in his own language of course, explaining what exactly happened to those chopsticks. He may feel vindicated. Then, the Chinese businessman wakes up to read about how he's guilty of stealing or losing or breaking those chopsticks. What is that Chinese businessman or any American or any sane human being on earth going to feel and say when they find out the ADMIN didn't even bother to translate and read his letter before publicly telling the ADMIN followers that the Chinese businessman's letter contained nothing which would exonerate or clear or aid him in any way? Let's keep the proper perspective here.

I wonder if Mahmoud surfs ? If so, then, Mr President, You have got to be joking!




Phenomenon? He makes Israel sound like a supernatural mystery.

Personally, I'm far more concerned with the phenomenon of Iran where reason seems to have been replaced with religious insanity.


...assume?

Why? If Mahmoud doesn't believe that the Holocaust took place then why should he want to assume it does?


Hell yes!

If the establishment of Turkey on the Anatolian peninsula is an accepted fact of life then so too is Israel. Let Islam give back the lands it stole from the Christians and then we can talk about 'the principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets' (what ever that means).

The only difference betwen Turkey, Syria, Egypt and Israel is that Israel is the youngest.. unless you count Turkish Cypress. Odd that Mahmoud didn't mention Cypress... I guess he forgot about that tiny little speck of land when his mind was so taken up with the insurmountable phenomenon of Israel.


Why indeed?

Why are we supporting the Palestinians? Why does Denmark send financial support to Syria? Why does the USA support Egypt and Saudi Arabia? ...and why doesn't Mahmoud wonder upon that state of affairs?

Why are we in the west obliged to subsidise nations and peoples that act and sponsor terrorism against us?

Why do we support Israel? Because Israel is a free, democratic nation, under seige by hypocritical religious fanatics who double speak about murdering Jews amongst themselves whilst complaining about Islamophobic cartoons and books.


1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

Nope. It confirmed my opinion that he is a simple minded religious fanatic who is being used as a tool by the clerics who actually control Iran.


2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

Not in the least. Its a joke. Its an effort to make Mahmoud look good to the rest of the simple minded religious fanatics.

Whats especially amusing is how much this idiots words mirror whats being said by the socialist left in Europe. His words regarding South America and Africa read like some of the miserable complaints that come from the European left.


3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

Of course they are. How else is Mahmoud going to gather support from the millions of people who love to hate GW Bush unless he throws them a bone?

The rub is, he's so busy whining about Africa, but neglects to look at what his fellow prophet worshippers have been getting up to in Darfur.

He mentions America detaining people without trial even as his own guys in black shades are putting Ramin Jahanbegloo into hospital for the serious crime of... well actually they haven't bothered to charge him of anything yet.

We have a saying in Denmark. Sweep before your own door before you deal with the neighours doorstep.


4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?

I doubt it. The people who control Bush understand full well what this letter is meant to accomplish and I doubt, seriously if they'll be stupid enough to fall nto the trap of replying.

...and I doubt GW Bush gives a toss.




edited to add a few missing words.

It most certainly is a pehnomenon. What else could it be labelled as? Here you have a people who do dastardly deeds against unarmed populations and yet they gain and maintain the world's support through the clouds of enforced anti-Semitism. They even see laws created which force people to believe what it is they say you must believe. And for such a tiny spot of land on this vast planet. The US firepower they are given only serves to emphasize and further the phenomenon called Israel. Through awe inspiring politically tactical maneuvers, they have made themselves practically invinsible. They go on about evil scary nuclear weapons in the middle east, yet they keep under wraps (and control the information about) the fact that they are the ones with the evil scary nuclear weapons, not Iran. To exercise the amount of control and power they have over this planet and especially particular regions, all the while being (seemingly) an ant surrounded by elephants.

Since you (obviously) consider Iran your enemy, moif, don't misunderestimate your enemy. What good will come of it? This is a first direct attempt at communication in 25 years, sincere or not. This is a real opportunity to engage the enemy on the intellectual level, and that is the best we can offer, name calling and ridicule? Let me tell you a story: back in the 1980s when perestroika just started, Margaret Thatcher visited the Soviet Union with a state visit. At some point she agreed to participate in an interview/debate which was shown on live TV. She was confronted (quite aggressively) with several seasoned soviet journalists, who peppered her with various questions on Britain's position in nuclear disarmament (someting of that sort); her performance was so magnificent that her star opponents looked ridiculous even for soviet audience and her interview was a subject of talks around the country for many weeks to come.



She didn't accuse her interviewers with being puppets of the regime; instead she prove her point so well that at the end of the evening there was no doubt who won the debate. This one TV broadcast has done what Reagan with his stupid posturing and "evil empire" statements couldn't do. Reagan antagonized Russians and brought them together; Thatcher won hearts and minds of many.

For what it's worth, Iran is not an Arab country.



No and no. This letter exists for one purpose and one purpose alone, reestablish support within his own country. THis is exactly the sort of joe-everybody tone that Ahmadinejad used to get elected. For someone to write this sort of letter would require either spectacular ignorance about American politics (in which case it can't be taken seriously) or a complete disregard for how it is received in the United States (in which case it can't be taken seriously.)

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?
No. Not even a little bit.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?
Evidently some people are impressed by Ahmadinejad's (or his mullah approved handlers) words, but I don't see this as diplomacy, it is propaganda. The purpose of this letter is for media consumption, with the added bonus of allowing more airtime for Ahmadinejad to question the holocaust and the right of Israel to exist. That certainly plays well to some segments of our society.


Yet conveniently forgets the prisoners and the executed in his own country, subjected to brutal torture and grisly deaths........


Yet has, and continues to support Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad to name a few. We're way beyond pot and kettle already.


In a country that bans satellite dishes and other independent forms of media.


Perhaps your days are numbered then?

This letter is nothing more than religious fanaticism and lecturing, with scraps thrown to every conceivable enemy or critic of the US. If some are gullible enough to be taken in by Ahmadinejad's slick prose, more power to them.

Even though I agree with the trust of statement, I would like to point out that Iran has made several efforts to communicate "about all outstanding security issues between the two countries" over several years. (See Iran Pushes for Talks). It is the US that refuses to engage in any direct talks with Iran either of a bilateral or multilateral nature. They are fearful of being put into a position where they can be "blackmailed." Instead they are trying to force Iran to kowtow to US power and give up its right to enrich Uranium under the NPT without offering anything in return. They did allow the E3 to negotiate and offer economic concessions but these efforts broke down without the involvement of the US and an offer to weaken sanctions and an offer of believable security guarantees to Iran.

The current Iranian government may not be to the liking of Western democratic people but we should all remember that it is a country with thousands of years of history and cultural achievement and is not likely to cave in to threats. We should also remember that most of the list of wrongs suffered by Iran and listed in the letter at the hands of the US are true. In particular, we should remember that our government (at the time respected and trusted by the Iranians), at the urging of the British government, overthrew a liberal democratically elected regime in Iran and installed the brutal Shah. That hardly positions us to be arbiters of regime change in Iran now.

We may all disagree about how evil the current regime in Iran is and about how dangerous it would be to have them armed with nuclear weapons; however, given the consequences to everyone if the US bombs, we all should insist that the administration first negotiates directly with Iran and seek a serious compromise on the issues. The diplomacy the administration has conducted thus far is a sham designed to influence our allies not reach a comprehensive mutually acceptable agreement with Iran.

Silly Ahmadinejad! To think that he would expect to get a response from G.W. Bush for the letter he wrote! If he were an American, he'd know that Bush doesn't even answer letters from Congressmen.

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

No, although he did make some good points about the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of Bush's actions in light of his avowed devotion to Christianity.

I just don't think that his Allah (PBUH) should advocate the destruction of a people, even the people of Israel, if he is a good and a just god. Bush is not the only inconsistent leader when it comes to religious values.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

I really don't think so. I agree with other posters that it was probably a "Hey, look what I said to Bush" propaganda piece. But it is significant in that he did make an effort to communicate with the President.

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

There needs to be some truth to it for it to have some credibility. The hands of our leaders are not clean and have not been clean in the past.

4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?

Bush? Write??? I can't see him doing that for someone he likes!

I think this Iranian is off the wall about destroying Israel--that is totally unacceptable. Excepting the trash talk about Israel, though, I think it would be good for Bush to go through channels and tell this leader that if he is serious about addressing other issues, there are other ways to communicate. Totally snubbing the leader of another country is not going to do anybody any good. I don't want to see another invasion go down if diplomacy can prevent it.

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?
Not one iota. The man is a religious fanatic and has proven to be a deranged lunatic.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?
Nope, just a propaganda ploy. If he was actually sincere his first step would be to return US territory that has been used as a terrorist training camp for more than 20 years now.

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false? Totally false. The Iran's religious leadership turned on the United States after President Carter ended the payments to Ayatollah Khomeini before the overthrow of the Shah. If we did one tenth of the deeds that are claimed Iran would not be a theocracy today.

4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?
Can I see President Bush declaring war on a third country while writing a letter to that nutcase? Heck no. They have done just about everything possible to make that impossible. There is not a single point that start at.

President Ahmadinejad makes President Bush look like a genius in comparison. Frankly that man should not be in public without his keeper.

No wonder you were very impressed with the words in Mahmoud's letter. You appear to share the same anti Israel bias.

What else could it be labelled as? How about 'a nation' for that is all Israel is. It is not a 'phenomenon'. It was created in exactly the same way that all the nations of the region were. The only thing that seperates Israel from its neighbours is that the Israeli's have built their nation stronger and better.

As for the level of control and power Israel has over the planet, all I can say to that is, what power? What control? Israel is a nation under seige from all sides and its only power has been to defend itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


English Horn



I have no illusions or misconceptions regarding Iran EH. I am well aware of the long game been played by the clerics who run that country.

And I would be so bold as to suggest that the Islamic Republic of Iran is not just my enemy. She is also yours. Whether you wish it or not.

Thanks for the link and info on Margret Thatcher. I was not aware of her performance on Soviet TV.

Unfortunately there is a fundamental flaw in your example. The Soviet Union, though it was a serious threat, was still prepared to use diplomacy to avoid confrontation and this is why people like Thatcher were able to bridge the gap.

Iran does not use diplomacy. On the contrary, it spurns diplomatic means and to all those who think this letter is some sort of diplomatic overture I wish to say: Wake up and understand that open letters regarding religion do not constitute diplomacy, no matter how many points you think the author scores against the USA.
This letter is a ploy designed to make the USA look bad by throwing mud. Nothing more.

Even if you agree with the points being raised, you must not fall into the trap of thinking that because Mahmoud has raised these points, they are some how valid in context of the relationship between Iran and the USA.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TedN5



And do you actually wonder why? Allow me to draw your attention to this article:

Link.

Mahmoud Ahmedadinejad was one of those 'students'.


This may be a some what pedantic point, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is not the same as 'thousands of years of history'. Iran as it is today is only 27 years old. Iran as a state is only 71 years old. Not even the Islamic bit constitutes 'thousands of years'.

Lets not kid ourselves here. We are not facing some ancient insurmountable power. What we are facing is an ideological tyranny that is only different from communism or national socialism in the details.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is not interested in diplomacy. As its founder declared, and as the logo of the Sepah (The Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) proudly states “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power”.

Them being the enemies of Allah.

Or in other words, the non Muslim world.

Us.

The Sepah slogan comes from the opening of verse 60, Sura 18 of the Koran and reads like this:

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

Yeah. Before he was just a talking head. Now he's a verbose talking head.

I'll add that he is a religious verbose talking head with a measure of anger directed at US policy abroad. So make it an angry religious verbose talking head trying to be polite. Okay, he's a polite angry religious verbose talking head who has studied history.

A history-studying polite angry religious verbose talking head is he.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

No, it's a typical rant against US policy that we citizens do quite well already. Oh, and thanks for the sympathy about 9/11. I feel worlds better already. I'll be waiting for the foreign aid check. A coupla hundred grand will sooth my tortured soul.

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

Pretty much true. US policy under Reagan supported Saddam. That has got to sting, but Reagan is dead and so is the 20th century. World War II is over, but if he wants to play this way, see below.

4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?

Sure. It might go like this:

Hi!

Hey, remember those hostages you guys took back there in the 1970s? That sure helped get Reagan into office, didn't it. Or how about that little thing about Nazi Germany wanting to conquer your tushes? Keeping in line with your historical payback system, here's the bill, adjusted for inflation:

$934,773,510,398,417.53

We accept MasterCharge and Visa. No personal checks.

W (ES&D)

There is substantial doubt on this conclusion. (See this CNN Article on CIA Conclusion).



Moif, both you and Mark Steyn's article distort and simplify the chaos that was the Iranian revolution in order to support your contention that radical Islam and Iran in particular is an existential threat to the West. The American Embassy and its occupants were seized by students largely because of the CIA's role in overthrowing the Mossadegh government in 1953 and suspicion that the agency was operating out of the embassy again. During the coarse of the crisis the students painstakingly pieced together shredded documents that substantially supported this contention. To be sure, it would have been better for both countries if the Iranian government had intervened quickly and released the American diplomats and operatives but the revolution was unconsolidated and the composition of the ultimate government was still in doubt. What to do about the students and the hostages became a bone of contention between various Iranian factions. There is at least plausible evidence that some Reagan supporter's may have helped delay the resolution of the crisis until Reagan was in office. (See the Gary Sick NYT Article from 1992).





I was trying to stress the character of the Iranian nation, not its government. If I made the same point about France or Russia I doubt that it would be misunderstood. Histories have meaning in the present and we need to be sensitive to them in dealing with other nations. Support for the Iranian nuclear program is widespread among both supporters and oponents of the current president.

I don't know what you mean by "the state is only 71 years old." The beginning of the Pahlavi era was 1925 - 81 years ago. However, Persia existed before that under the Qajar Shahs and before that back to preclassical times under various dynasties. Certainly their self rule was interrupted by Arab and Mongol invasions and put in jeopardy by great powers like Russia and Britain but the nation always managed to reassert itself.

Many ADers are so anxious to demonize Iran that they won't engage with the fundamental issue: Should we be willing to make concessions to Iran on sanctions, non interference in internal affairs, and security guarantees in return for restriction on their nuclear activities that go beyond anything required by the NPT? Which is worse, the consequences of another war or a little give and take with someone we despise?

Classic good cop / bad cop. While she enthralled the Russian audiences, Reagan planted missles in Western Europe and Turkey. It's a good point, but not applicable here. A better parallel would be if Margaret Thacher imaged her Russian television audience were 'unable to blink their eyes' as they were mesmerized by her celestial green holy aura while she spoke.

...For those of you that don't get the above reference - Here is the "president" that you would have the US seriously negotiate with...




PE - would you agree that real statesmen don't write 18-page rambling letters to each other? If George Bush wrote an 18-page letter about his relationship with Jesus and how Iran is a "phenomenon" and all sorts of other junk, wouldn't you dismiss him as a freak?


Neville Chamberlain said something very similar I believe...

Yes, except for that talk about **destroying Israel **and the fact that he's seeking Nuclear weapons to do so, he's really worth communicating with. Do you hear what you're saying here?

** Israel, whom Mahmoud called a 'one-bomb state' meaning that one bomb would wipe out the Jews, but that bombs in the Islamic world would not have similar effect due to population...


May I ask why? Forget the fact that the nation sits on vast oil reserves, and has so much natural gas that they burn it off at the tap, making one wonder why they would need a nuclear program...

Why would the same people in the US who would argue to their death against anything nuclear in the US want Iran to have a nuclear program?

Why would supporters and opponents of the president want Iran to have a nuclear, um, 'power' program? Seriously. Why?

Strange that you would mock him knowing that our President said God told him to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.



The name calling... it's sad really. It is an attempt by yourself to de-humanize him. He's a freak. He's crazy. Tell yourself whatever you want to convince yourself that you must go to war with him.

Are there are any words that this man could write or say that you would give validity to. He asks many questions. He points out Bush's reasoning and critiques it with his actions. He points out plainly that his actions and his rhetoric are inconsistent. It's only rambling because you perceive him as a crazy man instead of a human being.

Look at your terms that you use: junk, rambling, freak. The guy doesn't have a real shot at convincing you of anything.

The man is trying to communicate. That is as positive as it gets. Yet you dismiss it so easily with no factual justification.



He has never said they are pursuing a nuclear weapon, it has always been nuclear PROGRAM. They kicked out the CNN journalists after they mistranslated the terms. The Iranian President has made it clear time and again that they are pursuing nuclear energy, not weapons. It is the United States that has fabricated the weapons ambitions, not the Iranians. Besides, even if they did want nuclear weapons, we are hypocrits for suggesting they should not have them since we have them ourselves. I don't know what it is about people like you who have no clue about objectivity. Do you refuse to recognize the blatant hypocrisy in our policy? Hey Iran, sign this Non-Proliferation Treaty while we create Bunker Busting Nukes.


Maybe you should ask Henry Kissinger.

I am not going to fall into the trap of trying to expound on what "real statesmen" do. Leaders do what they do, period. It doesn't really matter what I think about it--witness the invasion of Iraq and the "evidence" on which it was based.

Calling Iran's leader a freak is really not going to remedy the situation. The fact is that, whether we like it or not, a Muslim extremist is in charge. If he writes long letters, he writes long letters. That does not mean that he should be ignored.


I know what I wrote.

I know that the USSR developed nukes, and the Peoples' Republic of China developed nukes, and we didn't stop them. Our government counted the cost and concluded that it would be a bloody, hellacious conflict where it would be uncertain whether there would actually be a victor when the smoke cleared.

Neither did the U.S. intervene militarily when India and Pakistan developed nukes.

Now, while we're engaged in a bloody, protracted occupation of the nation next door, a country is developing a nuclear program. So we're not supposed to try negotiating, but just trying forcing the country to somehow stop?


Since you seriously asked, I will seriously answer. I don't want Iran to have the power, but I don't think it is up to me or my government, either. Whether or not we feel the Iranian president is worthy of our respect, however, we need to treat him respectfully. Why incite further problems?

Have you ever tried to talk with someone you felt did not respect you? It probably hampered what you were trying to say to some degree. With any luck, you didn't have to have a serious conversation with the person.

Alternatively, carlito, what would YOU suggest? That we treat Ahmadinejad like an enemy until we finally invade his country? If you'll recall, at one time all Muslim countries vowed to destroy Israel. What happened? We didn't invade all of those countries; we couldn't. Politics changed and, thankfully, cooler heads prevailed in many of those countries to the point where the rhetoric ceased altogether in some cases.

But if we inflame the Iranians by treating their leader like crap and imposing all kinds of sanctions, the prospects for a change in their leadership shrinks as the current regime capitalizes on all the hardship experienced by the people thanks to the people of the United States. Defiance mounts. It becomes a rallying cry for those on the fence to jump down and strike a blow against the "Great Satan."

We've seen it before.

To be fair, the Iranians supplied their own English translation, which is the one most of us have been reading:


TruthMarch misread this too:



I'm guessing that Ted and TM were both misled by the sensationalist "Rice admits" headline in the Raw Story article that TruthMarch linked to. But if you actually read the transcript, you'll see she is not ignorant of the letter's contents:


(Emphasis added.)

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

I have a higher opinion of his political acumen. This open letter was designed to appeal to the anti-American left as much as it was to Islamists. I think it's found its audience.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

It's more of an attempt to turn other countries against the US, preventing the US from gaining an international consensus to control Iran's nuclear program, and prevent their acquisition of nuclear weapons.

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

There's only one paragraph that actually refers to the US's past behavior toward Iran. It's at least half true. The CIA's participation in Mossadegh overthrow in 1953 is well documented. The shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane in 1988 is a legitimate grievance, though it was not deliberate.

4. Can you see our President writing a similar letter or proposing direct talks with Iran to seek resolution of outstanding issues between the two countries?

No. Our President isn't much for public diplomacy.

I didn't miss read the article. I was well aware of the status of the translations. The point I was making was the speed with which Rice dismissed the letter. Normally when countries in confrontation communicate on a high level great care is taken to do your own translation in case some meaning was lost in the original translation. The fact that this was not done and the letter was dismissed contemptuously speaks volumes. I would suggest a comparison with the Cuban missile crisis when Khruschev's letters were translated and studied in detail before a reply was drafted. The crisis was partially resolved by replying to one of his letters reflecting a deliberate misreading which was accepted by Khruschev. In this case no thought was given on how to make something positive out of Ahmadinejad's letter. Even a religious response leading to a dialog between these two religious fundamentalists might have been productive. The whole reaction is just farther proof that the administration is not serious about a negotiated solution.

My apologies. I should not have assumed that you (or anybody) agreed with TruthMarch.

Your analogy to the Cuban missile crisis is interesting. My first thought was that this letter was meant more for a global audience, quite different from the private communiques in the Cuban crisis. Once the Iranians' translation appeared in the press, the press naturally expected a public response from the US administration.

But according to Wikipedia, at least some of the Cuban crisis was played out publicly as well:



...not that I'm expecting Jeb or Neil to get sent over with a back-channel deal.

1. Did the letter change your view of Ahmadinejad?

Hardly.

2. Is the letter a sincere effort to begin a serious dialog with the US?

Hardly.

3. Are the criticisms of the US's past behavior toward Iran largely true or false?

Fine, we participated in the '53 coup, but of course, what the left and the other anti-Americans always leave out is that we didn't do it alone and so it simply cannot be denied that a rather large and prominent role was played by Iranians themselves.


And can someone please tell the miscreant for me that if he's looking to rationalize and/or justify the phenomenon that he calls "Israel," well, let me simply say that if he's Persian, maybe he ought to read up on Cyrus the Great. A rather rich irony, yes? Of course, he was at least smart enough to use the phrase "recent memory," since maybe that will veer us away from ole Cyrus the Great.

This statement was truly the "gem" of the whole letter:

"Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime?"

Does the man not know that he himself is the one who did the portraying and the translating, considering again his remarks re Israel's right to exist?

2nd gem of the letter is that part about not showing mercy to children. I don't suppose that he's asked himself how much mercy there is in wiring one's children to self-detonate. And never mind that his own state just hanged two 13 year old boys.

And sorry to have to get biblical, and to remind some once again to consider the source, but this letter is the absolute and quintessential instance of pointing out the toothpick in your neighbor's eye and forgetting all about that 2 x 4 in your own. I mean, for him to speak of human rights when I'd rather be a cockroach in Ashkelon than a citizen of his state, well, there simply aren't words that truly describe his letter. I suppose that the best that can be done is to simply state that the letter, considered in context, is obscene.

And sometimes one says more than one knows, or will admit to, and so, with that in mind, my favorite part of the letter:

"History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive."

Yes, and here's to hoping that he and his regime meet a very swift end.

Oh, and please note the usual Islamic practice, going back to Mohammed, of the appeal for "reversion" to Islam.

And, hopefully, the paragraph preceding the appeal for "reversion" to Islam will finally open the eyes of some on the "left" in the West. The man just declared war on your liberal democracy [or more correctly, relegated your liberal democracy to the dustbin of history]...sorry, take that back, just read some subsequent posts and I see that some are blaming Bush and/or Rice for having no desire to even sit down with someone whose apparent end goal is the destruction of all that we hold dear.

Oh, and Barnaby, could you possibly be more naive? Not only should we not allow the miscreant to have anything to do with things nuclear, we also ought to not allow the miscreant to have anything to do with industrial equipment/machinery:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/reynalds/iran/hanging.jpg
http://www.kevininscoe.com/pub/050316_iran...med.vmedium.jpg
http://www.kvinnonet.org/jpgif/hanging01.jpg
http://www.deathrowspeaks.info/photogallery/h006.jpg

Yeah, so he's only going to build a nuclear power plant, just like he said that those machines were only going to be used to dig some dirt.

Oh, and Ted, if the cost is the murder of children and the relegation of women to subhuman status, I vote for skip the negotiations and if we must have war, then war it is. As the late Yerucham Amitai once said...in the end, we may have to choose action that might pull down the Temple of Humanity itself rather than surrender even a single member of the family to the executioners. Survival in other circumstances is not survival at all, and all of us, whatever our race, won't be worth a damn if we buy our lives at the cost of our conscience...

"The left and other anti-Americans..."

Then two posts earlier, from Jobius...

"This open letter was designed to appeal to the anti-American left"

So, are we back to the stage where anyone who does not agree with Bush Jr is a traitor again? The left, for being on the left, are Anti-American?

Please stop making such absurd generalisations, or in the case of accidental comments of that nature (as Jobius' might have been) please be more careful.

Oh, and nobody is ignoring the fact that some Iranians participated in the '53 coup... what does that have to do with anything? The US led a coup to over throw the government of that country. You seem remarkably dismissive of the impact that would have of the people of a country, when dealing with browbeating from the US again, 50 years later...





Firstly, you might want to check out WHICH four nations on the planet still execute minors before you go throwing those stones.


Back to your point, yes, in terms of justics and the status of women, the nation of Iran is certainly far sub par. You seem to have chosen those two items to latch onto during your tirade, and not without some justification. After all the functioning of the justice system and the treatment of women in Iran is considered terribly backwards by the people of the West.

But then again, to the people of monarchical Saudi Arabia, the status of BOTH these things in Iran would appear quite enlightened, as our good friend Saudi Arabia lags behind Iran in both the application of justice and the treatement of women. Oh, and the head of state in saudi is not elected. Oh, and Saudi contributed more to anti-Isralei terrorism in the last 20 years than every other nation in the Middle East put together. Oh and Bin laden and Al Qaida are Saudi. Oh and almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Oh and the primary source of funding for Al Qaida today is the Saudi Royal Family.


But by all means, continue speaking about how your 'concience' dictates the necessity of war with Iran...



Nobody is going to deny that the current Presient of Iran is a bit of a nutjob. But I find it amusing how many people insist that Bush Jr is NOT America, and forget that a relative reformist was in charge of Iran, one who NEVER spoke out about destroying Israel and worked for change inside Iran (with, one admits, limited success), and he was removed primarily because Iran was suddenly put on the 'Axis of Evil', and moderation in Iran seemed to be the wrong way to go...

I am not exonerating Iran here, not by any stretch, but frankly your psudo-biblical call for some sort of 'moral crusade' against Iran is really no more realistic or helpful than The Iranian President's letter was.

Ah, the Nazi example... wins the argument immediately in any debate...
Fine, let's use Nazis. Let's go deeper - who was at fault that Hitler came to power? Blame Treaty of Versailles and Clemenceau in particular, who wanted to deal with Germany as harshly as possible under the circumstances (and, quite possibly, play some revenge after Germany stomped France during Franco-Prussian War). When you subject the country and its people to sanctions, when you look down upon them and humiliate them, nationalistic elements lift their heads. See any parallels with the current situation? This is a guy who barely squeaked into his office, and his popularity now is in the 70s. The more we rattle our saber, the more popular Mahmoud will become in his own country.


I don't know. Maybe they want to freeze part of their oil reserves for future generations, just like most of Western nations do?

And why wasn't Iran's large hydrocarbon reserves sufficient reason to prevent the US from backing the Iranian nuclear program under the Shah? And, no, we don't want Iran to have a nuclear program. However, we do recognize Iran's right to have such a program under existing international law and under the NPT treaty which they signed but nuclear powers like Israel, Pakistan, and India did not. Above all we don't want their nuclear program used as an excuse to bomb Iran and most assuredly not with nuclear weapons.



A much more serious threat from a much more well armed source than Khrushchev's "We will bury you" speech at the UN?



Of course, you would have followed General LeMay's advice in the Cuban Missile crisis and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. (See Word for Word: The Cuban Missile Crisis). Obviously, there are other ways of resisting tyrants and, in this case, an elected petty tyrant that will be subject to replacement in a few years.



Of course there are those who think using nuclear weapons on Iran has been part of the plan from the beginning. (See this long interesting article by Jorge Hirsch, a physics professor who has been monitoring US nuclear doctrine for sometime).

No, I didn't mean to imply such a thing. I don't think you're anti-American. Very few people on this forum are. I do think the "anti-American left" is a phrase that describes an identifiable group of people, though. Certainly not everyone on the left is anti-American, nor are all America-haters leftists. But the folks who made this book a best-seller, political cartoonists like Plantu and Serguei in Le Monde... they're members of the anti-American left. The late Jean-Francois Revel described them well.

I think the Ahmadinejad was aiming to persuade these folks with his laundry list of America's crimes. The religious appeal was probably genuine, but it's also tactically smart since his target audience already thinks Americans are religious nuts just as bad as the Islamists. ("Mullah George and the Jesus Jihad", "Christian Taliban", and similar poor analogies are quite popular.)

When I saw these references, I did think of the anti-American left. They are the people linked arm-in-arm with the anti-American right. You know, those people who want to destroy America to save it? Well, our form of government anyway.

Such as: single-party rule, elimination of civil rights, preemptive wars of aggression, world domination, intollerance and the list goes on.

I can see where old whosit's letter of condemnation might be taken up by the anti-American left, but they have such good ranters way over there, maybe not. The Iranian leader is a terrible wordsmith and an unimaginative composer. Or maybe it's just the translator. Might want to try outsourcing to a native New York City writer.

So I see. Thanks for the heads up.

I still think the argument is valid though. Iran's theocracy has consistently ignored the accepted norms of diplomacy, opting instead for an astute, but fundamentally dishonest play at geo-politics. Their ploy is to win time and power and whilst there is nothing wrong with that since all states do the same, what sets Iran apart from all other states is that the Iranians are not talking of defending themsevles. They are talking of destroying others.

Once the clerics have the upper hand, they will not extend the restraint or even the diplomatic courtesy all other states offer. They have already amply demonstrated their disdain for such non Islamic practices, both in word and in deed. Their end goal is domination and to that end thay are spreading both their influence and their military power.

Iran is a nation that fosters terrorism. Its material and ideological support of Hamas as well as the Shi'a mentality towards death, marytrdom and sacrifice is no secret. They proclaim these things as virtues all the time and I find it unusual that so many people in the west simply refuse to understand what they are hearing.

Link.


I'd accept that if the chaos hadn't lasted up until the present.

I found the Steyn article on an Iranian blog and the blogger accepted Steyns veracity. I have no reason to doubt an Iranian judging an exterior perspective on his own nation, but I do have reason to doubt your perspective. Considering some of the statements made by Iran's clerical leadership, I'm curious why it is that you don't seem to accept the existential threat Iran poses to the West.


You are correct. History does have meaning in the present, and not only when it fits into our own personal perceptions. Islam has made many attacks against Europe in the past for instance and history is filled with examples of Islamic powers turning their ambitions to the north. You might not think such an attack likely, but neither are you a high standing Iranian cleric... are you?

A lot of your posts, and those who have taken a similar line, have leant heavily upon your own preconceptions of what the Iranians want. Now you tell me that support for the Iranian nuclear program is widespread.
Why is it widespread?
And is it so widespread? The same blogger I refered to earlier has pointed out that many of the people at Ahmadinejad's rallies are holding up banners calling for jobs and food, not nuclear power or weapons.

The consensus on your side of this particular debate, shares Ahmadinejad's claims and puts a heavy share of the blame on the US government for its past crimes in Iran whilst largely ignoring the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been engaged in the exact same exersize in Palestine and Lebanon ever since it was founded.
Thus, if the Islamic Republic of Iran is some how justified in building nuclear weapons because of an unwelcomed exterior inteference, then so to is Israel.

From my perspective though I do not think you and your companions in this debate have understood the people of Iran. I think whats lacking in your perception is the understanding that the majority of these people, the Sepah and the clerics, these Iranians who support the 'nuclear program', that these people do not think as you or I do. They do not have the same idea's of what constitutes diplomacy, decency or respect. They have their own morality. Their own perception of diplomacy, decency and respect, and what we hold dear does not hold the same value to them as it does to us.
I don't know how much influence these people have inside Iran, whether they are a minority or a majority, but I know they are in power.

Furthermore, I believe they are, in their Islamic morality, trying to reach out towards us and trying to give us a chance to convert and 'be saved', but that we cannot reciprocate because to do so is to blindly accept their Islamic morality for they consistently ignore any other form of dialogue.


Really? I was not aware. I just typed Iran into Wikipedia and read what it said there:

Link.
I suppose one of you must be right, but I can't say it makes an awful lot of difference to me whether its 71 or 81 years...


No, because they will not make the same concessions in return. They will sign a piece of paper and simply lie to buy time and advantage just as their own prophet advises them to do and in the mean time they will continue to spread their influence and power as far and wide as they can.

You presume the latter will avoid the former.
This is a mistake. I am not anxious to demonize Iran, or any one for that matter. I am responding to what I see, read and hear, and when dealing with Muslims I am seeing, hearing and reading a lot of duplicity.

What you advocate will gain us nothing. The democratic nations, which Iran considers a failure, will be weakened. We will have offered concessions and received nothing in return whilst the Islamic Republic of Iran will continue its plans to build nuclear weaponry and will gain in strength as it continues to ignore its diplomatic obligations and agreements and works in the shadows towards its own Islamic agenda as it has done from the very day it was founded.

The Iranian President , I can't be bothered anymore to remember the spelling of his name, is nothing more than a messenger.

I agree with Jobius' analyses of this most because I think it was a political tool, and I do believe it was an outreach, but not to the president of the US. I think the image of America that some feel more familiar with or more joy of believing was being put forth in this letter. The Iranian govt. knows it's audience.

No loss on the American govt for rejecting this piece of anti-semitic nonsense. Where is the morality of those who believe we must overlook the actions of this government just because they have offered us a few meaningless words? The world doesn't work that way, and neither does the IAEA. If the Iranian govt. wishes to remain true to it's words then let's see the political prisoners set free, let's see Iranian women not worry so much about their state sanctioned "modesty", let's see the poor in Iran relived of their heavy burden, let's see the Iranian govt end it's support to Hezbollah and help do it's part to bring peace and security to the world. Or is the President of Iran now submitting this duty to the American govt solely?

Dude, it's an 18-page rambling letter. It's only rambling because it's rambling.

"Positive as it gets" - from this letter... let's see:


This letter was an invitation for Bush and us to "revert" to Islam. Which, depending on your interpretation of the Koran, is necessary before declaring war on infidels. Some believe that the prophet said the invitation to "revert" was necessary before making war against the unbelievers, smiting them at their necks and all. And check that signature - Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda. That phrase means "peace be upon the believers (muslims)" - in other words, no peace for you.


Yes, nuclear PROGRAMS, thanks. My bad. Ask the residents of Nagasaki how our "PROGRAM" made their skin feel in '45.

If you're trying to make a point, perhaps you should just make it. I'm not getting your cryptic references here.


Well, I never called him a freak so whatever. My question (still unanswered) was if Bush wrote a rambling 18-page missive about his faith in Jesus, and invited the President of another country to join him in his faith, would he be dismissed as a 'freak.' As a religious person, I think you know what the response in the global community would be. They already think that we silly Christian americans are rubes.

Again, *except* for wanting to kill the Jews, he's a guy we should deal with, the kind of guy we can do business with no doubt.

This is a government that begins and ends every official ceremony by chanting "Death to America." I really don't worry about "inflaming" them. They took our embassy, sovereign US territory, and hold it to this day. I don't think that our words are going to inflame them, nor do I wish a "serious conversation" with this genocidal lunatic.


As usual, we agree

TedN5:

Re the threat, at least Kruschev said or wrote something about his worrying about the wife and kids when going to sleep at night. I'm otherwise not aware that our man in Iran has said or written any such thing. But re the, we will bury you, maybe you can count the number of our dead in Korea, Vietnam, etc. So while he didn't bury all of us, he did bury some.

And I am not otherwise limiting my criticism to the human in question. The problem that the last reformer had, which Vermillion got wrong, was not us or anything external to Iran, the problem was that he promised reform and then couldn't deliver. And he couldn't deliver because men with beards who call themselves mullahs are the ones who call the shots in Iran and they didn't and don't want any reform [as that would betray the so-called Islamic Revolution]. And, yes, those mullahs alive today will be replaced. However, unless some things change, like attitude, they will most certainly be replaced by men who think very much like they do.

And to bring Vermillion into the discussion, rather than blaming Bush, Rice, and/or me, you might want to blame China and Russia [to name just two]. As the late Chaim Herzog so aptly put the matter in addressing the UN Security Council back in '76:

"If this body fails to take action, we call on all freedom-loving countries in the world to come together outside the framework of this body, establish accepted norms of behavior in relation to terrorists, and declare in no uncertain terms that each and every one of them will have nothing whatsoever to do with any country that violates these norms and encourages terrorism. Once hijackers have no country in which to land their planes because receiving such a plane would mean exclusion from the world community whether in the field of air transportation, trade, commerce or international relations, there will be no more hijacking."

Or, in short form, once the world makes Iran a pariah, then the mullahs might change, and if not, then maybe the people of Iran will then see that it is in their best interest to rise up and sweep the existing system away. Which brings me to my next point...

And so good of you to bring into the discussion our prior position with respect to a nuclear Iran. Thank you for proving my point and otherwise making it rather clear to all concerned that the problem here is not with Iranians, Arabs, Persians, Muslims, whatever, but instead with the mindset of some, and never mind their ethnicity and/or faith/religion. And so, when some other Iranians, Arabs, Persians, and Muslims wanted things nuclear but had some other mindset, we said, fine, that sounds okay to us. Kind of like the difference between giving the gun to Hillary Clinton but objecting to giving it to our Beltway sniper friends [and I'm no "fan" of Hillary Clinton, but she can keep and bear arms, however, until further notice, our sniper friends need to be kept rather far away from firearms]. And, ironically enough, if the powers that be understood this thing that we call "propaganda," they would be pointing out to both Iran and the world that when different ideas were then held by those in power, that we didn't have a problem with nuclear power for Iran, so the issue here isn't Iranians, Persians, Arabs, and/or Muslims, instead, the issue here is some miscreants who would like to destroy all that we hold dear [that liberal democracy that our friend Iran has already relegated to the dustbin of history, or at least that's my reading of his letter].

And, Ted, I have already said here prior that we don't need to nuc and/or attack all of Iran. Only some key items need be degraded in order to degrade the entirety of the program. And I never otherwise said that we needed to use nucs to do so. I would otherwise suggest that you read up on Israeli operations inside Egypt during the so-called "War of Attrition." And here's to hoping that some in Iran come to the same conclusion as did the late Anwar Sadat.


Vermillion:

You said:

"The US led a coup to over throw the government of that country."

Sorry, but some Iranians led the coup. We merely provided some much desired aid and assistance.

And re the "anti-American," well, when some refuse to see the mullahs of Iran, the Russians, and the Chinese, as the main obstacles to some reasonable solution and instead foam at the mouth re Bush and/or Rice, well, what do you want me to think? Would you prefer that I report that in their rather irrational and rabid disdain of all things Bush and/or Rice that some simply cannot see the elephant standing in the living room? Or more simply, would rather I call you unpatriotic or an ignorant fool?

And, yes, we execute minors. For the intentional killing, with malice aforethought, of a fellow human or humans. And we otherwise recognize this thing we call "self-defense" and "defense of others," and so we don't hang the poor 17 year old girl who stabbed a man who reportedly wanted to rape her and/or her companion. But in Iran, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't, at least for women, so if you're raped, you'll be hanged as an adulterer, and if you resist and end up killing your attacker, you'll be hanged as a murderer. Sorry, but I don't see the two scenarios as being anywhere near equivalent, though it appears that you do.

And funny that you should mention Saudi. If you want to accuse the US government and/or Bush and/or Rice, of hypocrisy, be my guest, and then we can have the discussion on that matter. But in the interim, please know that with respect to something Dubya is so very fond of saying, he has a fellow believer in Saudi:

"Ironically, half the country’s college graduates are women. But they make up only 5 percent of the work force. There are no polls on how most of them feel about their situation, but one woman told 60 Minutes how she felt. She approached us while we were filming, and asked us to follow her. Our cameraperson, a woman, followed the woman into a ladies room, where the woman removed her veil. 60 Minutes obscured her face to protect her identity.

The woman began talking to us about what she wants: "I like to drive. Here, the woman cannot drive. And I like here to have a cinema…a movie."

And then, finally, she said: "I like to be free. All people want to be free.""

See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/...565_page2.shtml

Here's to the day when she won't have to go into the bathroom to say that. And if Dubya and I have our way, that day will be sooner rather than later. And not to get too religious on you once again, but our gal in Saudi wants to be free because she is the image of the self-actualizing God. And if Dubya thinks that God told him that, well, I won't speak to whether God told him anything, but I will say that if God did speak to Dubya, then no surprise that such is what God told him to say [since one must be free to live to one's potential].

Now back to hypocrisy, as I said, be my guest and then we'll have the discussion. But while you are ponderning whether you wish to make that accusation, let me simply provide you with what Dubya ought to be saying, by way of reply to our miscreant friend in Iran [and the world], with the necessary substitutions and additions, of course:

"To catalogue the crimes against humanity which are daily perpetrated by the despots and dictators who condemn us would require volumes. But since these countries have set themselves up to pass judgment on one of the freest and most advanced societies in the world today, a brief survey is in order. There is a saying in Arabic to the effect that no one knows your secrets except your God and your neighbors. And so we hear Algeria accuse Morocco and Mauritania of flagrantly abusing the rights of the inhabitants of the former Spanish Sahara. In 1975 Libya expelled 5,000 Tunisian workers and plotted to kill the Tunisian Premier. The Egyptian newspaper al-Gumhuriyya recently characterized Syria as "one big prison," and almost every Arab state deplored the terrifying conditions under Egyptian rule which existed in Gaza prior to 1967. As for Egypt itself, a distinguished Egyptian newspaper editor, Mustapha Amir, in his book My First Year in Prison has described the stark horror of Egyptian prisons and the torture applied there under Nasser. These states have for thirty years kept the Palestinian refugees in camps as political pawns in subhuman conditions. As they lecture Israel on human rights, Israel has absorbed, housed and educated over 600,000 Jewish refugees driven out of their homes in Arab lands. As for our non-Arab accusers, neither Cuba, with its thousands of political prisoners, nor Pakistan, with its rigged elections, nor Yugoslavia, which sends lawyers to prison for defending their clients, nor any other one-party system or military dictatorship is in a position to preach to Israel about respect for human rights.
***
The United Nations itself has taken these norms of hypocrisy and selectiveness to their cynical extreme in the deliberations of its Human Rights Commission. The London Sunday Times has published an alarming and horrifying s