ABC’s This Week program today featured an extended interview, conducted apparently last Wednesday, with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. (A/N) Here’s the full transcript, and (H/T to Nader) here’s a new link to the full video.
As usual, it seems the western media is missing the significance of what he said. The discussion on ABC’s “This Week” after the interview is even worse; They essentially ignored what Ahmadinejad said. ABC had a scoop on their hands, they sat on it for several days, and flat missed it!
But contrary to VOA and AFP headlines, I don’t think it’s at all clear that A/N has added “preconditions” for US-Iran talks. At one point in the interview, yes, he indicates that any talks should have a clear agenda, and that should be worked out ahead of time. But he isn’t about to do so in public for ABC. Is that so shocking? (And it’s light years different from the old Bush/Rice position that Iran had to stop enrichment first, then we could talk about it.)
In any case, at another spot in the interview, Ahmadinejad insists: “We are always ready to talk… with no preconditions.” (so no headline there)
Second, yes, A/N does comment on the holocaust, its ramifications for the Middle East, and its study. Readers can read the passage for themselves. While grating, I don’t see any holocaust “denial” here, per se.
Most newsworthy, and of surprise to those who subscribe to the Ahmadinejad as “Hitler” motif, the Iranian President had this to say about a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine.
STEPHANOPOULUS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s all I’m asking.
AHMADINEJAD: It is the right of all human beings.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that’s fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel’s existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’ll ask them. But I’m asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?
AHMADINEJAD: Can I ask you questions as well?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m not part of the American government. I’ll put that question to the American government.
AHMADINEJAD: I’m asking that people vote.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But I have a question for you as president of Iran.
AHMADINEJAD: That’s fine!
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.
Quick Observation:
Shocking as this may sound, Ahmadinejad’s comments are quite in line with a long train of statements by Iranian leaders, from Leader Khamene’i to former Presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani, to former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi. Whether perceived as “reformist” or hardliner, it hasn’t mattered. The bottom line has long been that Iran does not want to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians. In the past, such statements came with the hedge that Iran did not believe that a just solution for the Palestinians was possible with Israel, even as the refrain would then add, if the Palestinians indeed could cut a deal with Israel, and if the Palestinians were ok with it, then Iran would be too.
The headline here then is not so much the substance, (which is quite in line with previous statements) but that Iran’s current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad no less, has repeated it, without hesitation, before an American TV audience.
Did he say that Iran would accept a two-state solution? No, not explicitly. (Then again, how about the current Israeli government?) In any case, Ahmadinejad did not rule out a two-state solution either. If I were in the Obama Administration, I’d flag this interview for further study, contemplation, and testing.
Why are Ahmedinejad’s statements about the Holocaust “grating”? All he said was that the history of Jewish suffering (which he did not deny) has been used to justify the establishment of a racist apartheid state in Palestine. This is plainly factual and only “grating” to someone who doesn’t want to face the truth.
Understood Craig — I should have worded that more carefully, say “grating to many.” (who don’t want to hear that his comments have any rhyme, reason, or internal logic to them) My original draft read simply — readers are invited to read the text and draw their own conclusions. :-}
Racist apartheid, blablabla. Yawn
There is 10 times more racism in America than in Israel.
Racist apartheid, blablabla. Yawn
There is 10 times more racism in America than in Israel.
Scott Pelley’s Interview With A/N, Sept. 23, 2007, 60 Minutes:
PELLEY: If the Palestinians reach an agreement with Israel for a two-state solution, will you then recognize Israel as well?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, the decision rests with the Palestinian people. This is exactly what I’m saying.
PELLEY: What would you do, sir?
AHMADINEJAD: What I’m saying is that you should allow — oh, please, let me finish my thought. What we are saying, our solution for Palestine is a humane one. We are saying that you should allow the Palestinian people to participate in a fair and free election and determine their own fate. Whatever decision they take, everyone should go with that.
PELLEY: And if that decision . . .
AHMADINEJAD: No other party must interfere. We are not telling the Palestinian people what decisions they should take. Let them make their own decision. Whatever decision they take, we will go for that.
PELLEY: And if that decision is a two-state solution, you’re good with that? You could support a two-state solution?
AHMADINEJAD: Well, why are you prejudging what will happen? Let’s pave the ground first for a free and fair choice. And once they make their choice, we must respect that. All the people, all the Palestinian people must be given this opportunity, allow them to make their own decisions. Let us not tell them what course of action they need to take.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/60minutes/main3286690_page5.shtml
Israel looks to enlarge settlement in Occupied West Bank
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: An Israeli Interior Ministry committee has recommended enlarging one of the largest settlements in the Occupied West Bank, army radio reported on Sunday.
Question : What will Obama, Clinton, and Mitchell have to say about that?
Answer : Nothing. They’ll duck. The Washington Post and NYTimes won’t bring it up. Therefore it’s not happening.
I am in love with Clare
Heroic ex-Cabinet Minister Clare Short was criticised over the Parliament’s invitation of Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to address MPs and Peers via a video-link up. Needless to say, Short’s initiative is the right thing at the very right time.
However, Israel’s response must be noted. It is either pathetic or amusing. I let the reader decide.
Israel’s ambassador accused those behind the event of delivering a “slap in the face” to moderate Palestinians “seeking a peaceful solution”.
A spokeswoman for the Commons authorities said the meeting would go ahead as “freedom of speech” issues were involved. Seemingly, Zionist terror didn’t manage to dismantle completely most fundamental Western assets.
A slap in the face to Elliot Abrams’ Contras.
I’m not in love with Barak or Hillary. I am in love with Michelle. I wish someone would ask her what she thought about the plight of the Palestinians.
Would she refuse to answer on the grounds that she was at odds with he husband? I don’t believe she would lie.
Scott, thanks for getting this important (re-)statement from A/N onto the blog. I would add that this position of “We’ll support whatever the Palestinian people express support for in a nationwide referendum” is one that is also shared by Hamas and Hizbullah.
For both those movements, it’s a position that has important implications. For Hamas, the implications are direct and obvious. For Hizbullah the clear implication is that this Lebanese Islamist movement does not seek itself to “liberate Palestine”, but its liberationist ambitions stop at [its version of] the Israeli-Lebanese border. And we have indeed, since 2000, seen them pursue policies in line with that position.
I have to admit that I don’t find Ahmedinejad very attractive or charismatic, but then I don’t understand Farsi, and I’m not Persian.
He is weasel-faced, unshaven (or can’t grow a proper beard), cross-eyed and squinting, and doesn’t wear a neck tie. My mother wouldn’t let him into the house.
And that’s a huge disadvantage to him.
But (unless he’s deliberately misinterpreted) he talks a lot of sense.
He doesn’t talk about Iranian Jihad on behalf of the Palestinians, but states, quite definitely, that they should decide their own future, if they ever get a chance.
There is not a snowball’s chance in hell that Iran would nuke Israel (too many Palestinians, too many holy sites, and a long way overland).
But whenever Iran (or any other Muslim or Arab state) gets the technology to wipe out Dimona in a first strike, even then, Israel has its submarine missiles to strike back.
Problematic material deleted. ~HC
Great posting Scott, and a fine point you’ve made. Perhaps it will be picked up by others and be publicized more widely (hint).
the western media is missing the significance of what he said
What he has said, repeatedly, doesn’t fit into the US/Israel propaganda model of Iran as a threat so they’re not recognized by those governments or by their media mouthpieces. The business of the media is not to report the news, but to advance the government position. The 2007 Pelley “interview” is a prime example. None better.
The problem, of course, is that Ahmadinejad does not say that the ISRAELIS have any say in the matter.
The problem is not that the man is mistranslated or misunderstood. It’s that he is an eliminationist bigot.
“The problem, of course, is that Ahmadinejad does not say that the ISRAELIS have any say in the matter.”
Since the question specifically concerns how Iran would respond to a Palestinian decision, it would be rather odd for him to say that the Israelis had any say in the matter (although the negotiation of a 2 state solution quite patently does involve the Israelis having a say in the matter). Of course your belief is that Palestinians as colonial subjects are not entitled to make any kind of decisions regarding their right to self-determination.
What a bizarre idea that the Israelis should have any say at all in what the Palestinians choose for themselves.
On the other hand, considering the source, that notion is entirely to be expected, isn’t it? I mean, who else but the Israelis should decide for the Palestinians?
I don’t find Ahmedinejad very attractive or charismatic,
Let not talking about how people looks simply because they didn’t chosen how they will be looked by themselves.
there are many charismatic people around the world that may were or are worse that Iran’s president.
Anyway let take a close look just few month before the election in Iran and how the Mullah doing for the next election: