On the Other Hand
In an interview with the Palestinian Authority, Omar Abul Razeq, a former professor of finance and now finance minister of the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority (PA) says that “[The G-4] want to see a weak Palestinian government that would budge to Israeli dictates and American pressure.” When questioned about whether or not the PA would denounce violence and recognize Israel and the deals previously made he replied, “I challenge you to tell me where Israel's borders lie. Or do you want to sell me fish in the sea?
Let me think about that . . . .
OK, I’m done thinking. Sell fish whether you like.
Seriously though, the reply was by that of a practiced and hardened politician (you thought I was going to say something different?) As the old joke goes – you can tell if a politician is lying because his lips are moving. In this case you can tell because Razeq performed one of the oldest tricks in the book – redirect. There was no answer in the reply. His response was one to elicit emotion and not to settle the question tendered. Don’t take my word for it, here’s a link to the Aljazeera news web site were the interview is recorded. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/523624F2-0AB6-4BE9-A197-4D180CB78610
The web site also has information about the Iranian letter from their president to President Bush. Although I have not been able to find a posted copy of the letter, it appears to be a futile attempt by the Iranian president in the same fashion that President Regan made when he sent Iran a cake after the American hostages were taken in the Iranian Revolution. To which I can only reply, “What were they thinking?” Both attempts failed because the two sides knew nothing of the others social and (most importantly) religious perceptions. Regan thought he could return to the Sheik days and offer gifts in exchange for favors. Hello! This is the 21st Century. And Iranian President Ahmadinejad sends a letter that appears to chastise Bush for his inability to properly apply Christian principles to his administration. While that topic is an entirely different one, what is important is that you do not win support or seek an understanding by chastening and rebuking your opponent. Does this make any sense to anyone else out there? Dialogue means “two talking together.” A letter in the mail which slaps you in the face is hardly dialogue. There have been no refutes from Iran so we can only assume that what little we’re hearing is correct.
So, here are the players: The US and EU; mighty, big with 21st Century ideals but with 10 centuries of western baggage. To the rest of the world they appear as bullies for forcing their ideas on others and taking control of everything they can, regardless of local beliefs. And in the other corner, the much smaller third world countries – in this case we’ll limit them to Islamic influenced countries. They have a common history too in many ways and rail against outsiders telling them what to do. They also fail to recognize western style dialogue. What we have here is a failure to communicate. We also have leaders who stand up for their beliefs, avoid the tough questions and seek to emotionally energize their base support.
Gee, maybe they’re not so different after all!
Let me think about that . . . .
OK, I’m done thinking. Sell fish whether you like.
Seriously though, the reply was by that of a practiced and hardened politician (you thought I was going to say something different?) As the old joke goes – you can tell if a politician is lying because his lips are moving. In this case you can tell because Razeq performed one of the oldest tricks in the book – redirect. There was no answer in the reply. His response was one to elicit emotion and not to settle the question tendered. Don’t take my word for it, here’s a link to the Aljazeera news web site were the interview is recorded. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/523624F2-0AB6-4BE9-A197-4D180CB78610
The web site also has information about the Iranian letter from their president to President Bush. Although I have not been able to find a posted copy of the letter, it appears to be a futile attempt by the Iranian president in the same fashion that President Regan made when he sent Iran a cake after the American hostages were taken in the Iranian Revolution. To which I can only reply, “What were they thinking?” Both attempts failed because the two sides knew nothing of the others social and (most importantly) religious perceptions. Regan thought he could return to the Sheik days and offer gifts in exchange for favors. Hello! This is the 21st Century. And Iranian President Ahmadinejad sends a letter that appears to chastise Bush for his inability to properly apply Christian principles to his administration. While that topic is an entirely different one, what is important is that you do not win support or seek an understanding by chastening and rebuking your opponent. Does this make any sense to anyone else out there? Dialogue means “two talking together.” A letter in the mail which slaps you in the face is hardly dialogue. There have been no refutes from Iran so we can only assume that what little we’re hearing is correct.
So, here are the players: The US and EU; mighty, big with 21st Century ideals but with 10 centuries of western baggage. To the rest of the world they appear as bullies for forcing their ideas on others and taking control of everything they can, regardless of local beliefs. And in the other corner, the much smaller third world countries – in this case we’ll limit them to Islamic influenced countries. They have a common history too in many ways and rail against outsiders telling them what to do. They also fail to recognize western style dialogue. What we have here is a failure to communicate. We also have leaders who stand up for their beliefs, avoid the tough questions and seek to emotionally energize their base support.
Gee, maybe they’re not so different after all!
posted by genebko at
8:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home