Ahmadinejad in New York

So far I’ve heard of two cases about what’s acceptable during Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York. First of all there’s the decision to prohibit him from laying a wreath at ground zero, which he has been prohibited from doing. Though the objective consequences of this decision will likely be slim, it is almost impossibly unreasonable. What could be a problem with him placing a wreath? Are we afraid that a conciliatory gesture would slow the run-up to war? (To my mind, it is actually strange that Ahmadinejad would make such a gesture, since he usually seems as bellicose as the Bush administration). Perhaps the thought is that Ahmadinejad might somehow himself be in danger, but that would not explain John McCain’s thuggish claim that “he should be physically restrained if necessary.” McCain inhabits a fantasy world in which Ahmadinejad would personally charge ground zero shoving heroic firefighters out of the way. McCain himself would be at the rim of ground zero, wrapped in an American flag and would tackle Ahmadinejad, finally preventing him from detonating his explosives into a big hole in the ground.

Back in the real world, there’s an interesting case involving Columbia, which has offered Ahmadinejad a chance to speak and answer student questions. I’m of two minds about this but (novel phrase for me approaching), I may actually agree with William Kristol that this is a bad decision. Columbia’s president plans to ask difficult questions before Ahmadinejad speaks, but one wonders what good it does to publicly challenge Ahmadinejad on the issue of whether the holocaust happened. Does it serve the purposes of Columbia as an educational institution to have a lively debate on the subject? I think not.


4 responses to “Ahmadinejad in New York

  1. But Ahmedinejad does not maintain the holocaust never happened – that’s western press blarney. He maintains that the holocaust has been used in an improper way to justify Zionism. Persian does not translate easily to English, and the MSM has not done its homework on A’s many statements. He is not wise about what he says, true; but he does not say what has been maintained. You might enjoy reading A brief history of Iran-US relations, Part 2: Ahmedinejad, Nukes, and Weapons

  2. hyperpapeterie

    I’m quite a fan of Juan Cole, and my understanding is that he has criticized Ahmadinejad for his holocaust denialism. I would, however, appreciate anything that improved my view of the situation.

  3. Muslims Against Sharia condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the decision of Columbia University to provide a speaking venue for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently letting Akbar Rafsanjani speak at the National Cathedral was not the height of American Dhimmitude, because providing a venue for the world’s foremost anti-Semite, whose proclaimed goal is the destruction of the USA and Israel, definitely takes the cake. What is surprising is that we don’t hear any complaints from Columbia alumni who should be ashamed of their silence.

    More on the subject: Why Does Columbia host Ahmadinejad?

  4. hyperpapeterie

    It is indeed true that most of the Dhimmi called their rulers “petty and cruel tyrants,” making your application of the term quite reasonable. They also laughed at their rulers for claiming gays did not exist.