TJP

Foolish Pride: Refusing to Engage with Adversaries

By Byron A. Ellis – September 24, 2009

It was arrogance and childish for Western diplomats to walk out on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Furthermore, it signaled that they are not willing to listen to adversarial points of view. So, why should adversaries listen to them?

The “We United Against Nuclear Iran” whose founders include Obama’s special envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke, and Middle East aid, Dennis Ross, argued that the recent Iranian election was not legitimate and therefore they should be shunned. However, many elections have been labeled illegitimate, even the Bush-Gore elections were believed to be illegitimate, but it did not stop Bush from claiming victory and governing for two terms.

“We United Against Nuclear Iran” also claims that businesses in New York should not be taking “blood money from Iran;” as if only Iran’s money is blood money. Israel latest incursion into Gaza killed many innocent civilians and according to reputable sources committed war crimes; on that count, their money is also “blood money.”

Many are upset because Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust. However, denying the Holocaust does not mean that it did not occur. For instance, many deny that slavery was not an economic engine for the United States, but their denial does not mean that it was not. Ignorance or other motives had led many to deny obvious truths.

The group founded by Holbrook and Ross also argues that Iran violates international law; and such argument has validity, but their context is one-sided. They conveniently ignored Israel and many other nations violations.

Therefore, it is difficult to see how Holbrooke and Ross could be impartial brokers with Middle East issues.

Procedural fairness should be the basis of all negotiations and the supply of information to the public. For instance, if faults of Israel are accentuated, so too should faults of Iran. Thus, if we argue that Israel is an occupying and apartheid nation that wants the world to recognize it as a Jewish state, even though more than 20 percent of its second-class citizens are not of the Jewish religion. We must also note that Iran sponsors groups that the West has labeled terrorists, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups opposed to Israel. And, that these groups have attacked Israel.

The label of terrorism, however, is often overused, particularly against non-uniformed fighters. When countries use uniformed fighters (their armies) to terrified and murder civilians; it is seldom labeled terrorism, except if the country is poor. Terrorism by countries with armies is often labeled self-defense.

It is this double standard of calling similar acts by different names depending on the nation that perpetrates it that gives the perception of Western favoritism towards certain countries. And, the prideful avoidance of face-to-face greetings by Western nations has prevented meaningful discussions whereby adversarial positions could be stretched and become less inflexible.

Why did Israel’s delegation, originally scheduled to stay at the Intercontinental Hotel, moved to the Regency Hotel when they found out that the Iranians were staying there also?

According to the Jpost “Based on the principle that Israel will not dignify the Iranian president with its presence at any forum where he may turn up, Israeli officials will be absent from a number of UN receptions over the next few days, and have even changed the accommodations of the massive Israeli delegation in New York.”

Embodied in this principle is Israel’s prideful belief that their delegation has the power to dignify Iran’s; is it because they’re better, more honorable, or less murderous than the Iranians?

It is this blind pride that prevents tradeoffs between conflicting parties in the Middle East. And, as long as one party believes than they are better than another, they will refuse to make tradeoffs.

Israel does not pay a cost for not making tradeoffs. In fact, Israel benefits from the status quo. Under the status quo it is able to expand settlements, softly coined natural growth. And, as long as their adversaries continue to attack them, the United States will continue to subsidize their military machine, which receives a subsidy of approximately $3 billion dollars a year.

The ethos of pride has even prevented the “Yes we can” President from talking to President Ahmadinejad. We may never know if the “No we can’t moment,” was a precious opportunity forgone.

Post Comment

SAVE DARFUR