Columbia Students Petition Against President’s Remarks

An e-petition is circulating among Columbia Students calling for the university’s President Lee Bollinger to explain and apologize for his blistering introductory remarks to a forum featuring Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the petition (see full text below), students insist Bollinger “disgraced the spirit of academic exchange and diplomacy that our institution promotes.” 

They also explain that the comments limited their ability to benefit from such a rare opportunity, adding “it is particularly distressing that [Bollinger's] inflammatory words were delivered at a time when dialogue with Iran is of the utmost importance in an effort to forestall war.”

The students are right.  As a fellow Columbian, I was shocked at the nature of the introduction.  I believe that while politics is a driving force in our society, it should be left outside the doors of such a forum which claims to promote open academic discourse.

For more, click here to read my article on the Washingtonpost.com news forum PostGlobal – “Columbia Students and Iranian Academics Respond to Bolinger.”

See below to read the entire petition written by Columbia students:

*********

October 1, 2007

Dear President Bollinger:

We, the undersigned students of the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, express our deep concern over the nature of your recent introductory remarks addressing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

As members of the school that hosted this event, we believe that you disgraced the spirit of academic exchange and diplomacy that our institution promotes. The World Leaders Forum, created to enable the Columbia community to “examine global challenges and explore cultural perspectives,” is an important platform for students to engage with divergent and pressing worldviews. Your remarks limited our ability to fully benefit from this opportunity. It is particularly distressing that your inflammatory words were delivered at a time when dialogue with Iran is of the utmost importance in an effort to forestall war.

In the past Columbia has welcomed many world leaders of all political stripes while maintaining proper decorum. But by introducing Columbia’s invited guest, the president of a sovereign nation, with disparaging and invidious language, you have done a disservice to our academic community.

As you stressed in countless announcements preceding the event, Columbia is a university committed to free speech and academic freedom. President Bollinger, when you speak in the name of Columbia University at an event sponsored by our school, we expect you to speak on all of our behalf. It is our concern that your disrespectful language was delivered primarily to appease certain individuals and groups at the expense of vigorous intellectual discourse.

We feel our values were grossly misrepresented and that SIPA’s reputation as a training ground for public servants has been tarnished. As future diplomats we will undoubtedly be tasked with repairing damage that remarks like yours cause.

We the undersigned represent people of many countries, creeds and political views. Despite our differences, we all agree that you must explain and make amends for your unfortunate actions. We call on you to hold a forum to explain these actions to our SIPA community and account for your statements.

We look forward to working with you to bring a dignified resolution to this issue.

Sincerely,

Coatsworth: “[Bollinger] was fulfilling an institutional function”

NEW YORK – It’s not everyday that one has the opportunity to hold a lively Question-and-Answer session with one of the world’s most notorious leaders.  For John Coatsworth, Dean of Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, coming face to face with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was a rare opportunity to put this controversial leader on the hot seat with regard to a number of issues ranging from his views on the Holocaust, to Iran’s nuclear armament and more.             

Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia this week sparked an international debate over whether a man who has referred to the Holocaust as “a myth” and has called for the “elimination” of Israel should be granted an invitation to such a prestigious university.  Columbia went ahead with the program, but to many, the concerns of Ahmedinejad’s critics were satisfied during the blistering introductory remarks delivered by the university’s President Lee Bollinger.             

In this exclusive interview, Coatsworth discusses with Vivian Salama his debate with Ahmedinejad, as well as the controversy surrounding his visit, and Bollinger’s equally controversial speech.   

Vivian Salama: What was your overall impression of President Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia? 

John Coatsworth:  There was indeed a debate that seemed to involve principally a relatively small number of people that were unhappy that Columbia had invited President Ahmedinejad.  Even if that number is small in relation to the population, it was a group that was extremely unhappy with what we had done.  The group itself included some people who were related to the Armed Forces.  I got several emails from people who were either in the Armed Forces in Iraq, related to people in Iraq. A much larger number of emails were from people who were concerned about Ahmedinejad’s views on Israel and the Holocaust.  Then there were a number of emails from people who had strong feelings based on some patriotic sentiments.

 Q: What’s your overall assessment of the exchange you had with President Ahmedinejad during the Q&A portion of the program? 

Coatsworth:  I was asking questions on behalf of students.  I wasn’t able to cover all the questions.  I felt President Ahmedinejad to be like many politicians who preferred to answer questions that you don’t ask rather than the ones you do.  I was quite prepared for that and not at all surprised when he responded with an answer that was either inappropriate or off the point.  When he did, it just prompted me to ask the question again.

 Q: What would you liked to have asked him that was not asked or addressed in the forum? 

Coatsworth:  If the forum had been limited to just us, I probably would have asked more about Iranian relations and conditions under which [Ahmedinejad] would be willing to cooperate with United States in achieving peace and stability in the region. I think we could have gotten into a discussion that would have gone on longer but one in which we would have had a more clearer idea of how the Iranians want this whole thing to evolve – so that was a disappointment if you will. 

Q: Many people have criticized Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger for the rather tough remarks he made during his introductory speech.  What’s your take on it? 

Coatsworth: There are three things I can say to this. 

First, we did prepare the Iranians for the fact that [Bollinger] would be sharply challenging the policies of Ahmedinejad at the very outset of the talk

Second, I think the President of the university felt an obligation to distinguish between the invitation we had extended to the speaker on the one hand and endorsing his views on the other. Columbia’s institution does not endorse the views that he sighted in his presentation.  That was an important point for the President to make

Third, I think President Bollinger’s introduction was directed not so much to the people in the auditorium, but to those who had raised objections to the talk itself.  Those were the people he was addressing with those remarks.

Q: Do you think that was fair? 

Coatsworth:  The issue that was raised in most of the comments we received following the event and in the newspapers and emails was the question of courtesy.  I think the comments had been divided between those who believed he was confronting President Ahmedinejad and those who felt his remarks were discourteous – undermining the civility of the event. 

It was meant to be a forum for exchange of ideas.

There were certainly concerns of both sides.  [Bollinger] was fulfilling an institutional function and his approach was appropriate given the circumstances.  It is not my place to second guess him

Q: Do you think the event was a success – especially given the hype before and after the forum? 

Coatsworth: I think it was an educational success in many ways.  It certainly provoked discussions on campus about free speech and how important it was.  It also raised awareness with regard to the nature of US-Iranian relations and what kind of regime Iran is and how we should deal with it in the future

It certainly was an interesting experience for students who feel there is a need to engage those kinds of ideas – especially for those who may go on to hold government or policy making positions in the future.

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

The letter below is a brilliant rebuttal from the Iranian academic community in response to the blistering introductory remarks by Columbia’s President Lee Bollinger to a talk given by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad on Monday afternoon.  Below this, I posted my remarks following the forum with regard to Bollinger and the controversy surrounding the invitation to Columbia’s World Leaders’ Forum. 

For anyone who is interested, you can also refer to the following links to read my coverage of the event:

Newsweek: President Ahmedinejad Goes to Columbia

Washington Post/PostGlobal: Ahmedinejad Provokes Important Discussions

[exerpts from Bollinger's introduction]

Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions

TEHRAN – Seven chancellors and presidents of Iranian universities and research centers, in a letter addressed to their counterpart in the US Colombia University, denounced Lee Bollinger’s insulting words against the Iranian nation and president and invited him to provide responses for 10 questions of the Iranian academicians and intellectuals.The following is the full text of the letter.

* * * *

Mr. Lee Bollinger
Columbia University PresidentWe, the professors and heads of universities and research institutions in
Tehran , hereby announce our displeasure and protest at your impolite remarks
prior to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent speech at Columbia
University.

We would like to inform you that President Ahmadinejad was elected directly by
the Iranian people through an enthusiastic two-round poll in which almost all
of the country’s political parties and groups participated. To assess the
quality and nature of these elections you may refer to US news reports on the
poll dated June 2005.

Your insult, in a scholarly atmosphere, to the president of a country with a
population of 72 million and a recorded history of 7,000 years of civilization
and culture is deeply shameful.

Your comments, filled with hate and disgust, may well have been influenced by
extreme pressure from the media, but it is regrettable that media policy-makers
can determine the stance a university president adopts in his speech.

Your remarks about our country included unsubstantiated accusations that were
the product of guesswork as well as media propaganda. Some of your claims
result from misunderstandings that can be clarified through dialogue and
further research.

During his speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad answered a number of your questions and
those of students. We are prepared to answer any remaining questions in a
scientific, open and direct debate.

You asked the president approximately ten questions. Allow us to ask you ten of
our own questions in the hope that your response will help clear the atmosphere
of misunderstanding and distrust between our two countries and reveal the
truth.

Why did the US media put you under so much pressure to prevent Mr. Ahmadinejad
from delivering his speech at Columbia University? And why have American TV
networks been broadcasting hours of news reports insulting our president while
refusing to allow him the opportunity to respond? Is this not against the
principle of freedom of speech?

Why, in 1953, did the US administration overthrow the Iran’s national
government under Dr Mohammad Mosaddegh and go on to support the Shah’s
dictatorship?

Why did the US support the blood-thirsty dictator Saddam Hussein during the
1980-88 Iraqi-imposed war on Iran, considering his reckless use of chemical
weapons against Iranian soldiers defending their land and even against his own
people?

Why is the US putting pressure on the government elected by the majority of
Palestinians in Gaza instead of officially recognizing it? And why does it
oppose Iran ’s proposal to resolve the 60-year-old Palestinian issue through a
general referendum?

Why has the US military failed to find Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden even
with all its advanced equipment? How do you justify the old friendship between
the Bush and Bin Laden families and their cooperation on oil deals? How can you
justify the Bush administration’s efforts to disrupt investigations concerning
the September 11 attacks?

Why does the US administration support the Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO)
despite the fact that the group has officially and openly accepted the
responsibility for numerous deadly bombings and massacres in Iran and Iraq? Why
does the US refuse to allow Iran ’s current government to act against the MKO’s
main base in Iraq?

Was the US invasion of Iraq based on international consensus and did
international institutions support it? What was the real purpose behind the
invasion which has claimed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Where are the
weapons of mass destruction that the US claimed were being stockpiled in Iraq?

Why do America’s closest allies in the Middle East come from extremely
undemocratic governments with absolutist monarchical regimes?

Why did the US oppose the plan for a Middle East free of unconventional weapons
in the recent session of the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of
Governors despite the fact the move won the support of all members other than
Israel?

Why is the US displeased with Iran’s agreement with the IAEA and why does it
openly oppose any progress in talks between Iran and the agency to resolve the
nuclear issue under international law?

Finally, we would like to express our readiness to invite you and other
scientific delegations to our country. A trip to Iran would allow you and your
colleagues to speak directly with Iranians from all walks of life including
intellectuals and university scholars. You could then assess the realities of
Iranian society without media censorship before making judgments about the
Iranian nation and government.

You can be assured that Iranians are very polite and hospitable toward their
guests.

Ahmedinejad to Columbia

I usually post my articles on this site but this time, I’d like to discuss here is what is NOT addressed in either my Newsweek article or my Washington Post op-ed.  As a graduate student at Columbia University, my emotions were running high on Monday just like those of my fellow students.  Personally, I was extremely excited to have Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad speak on campus – not because I agree with his views, because in most cases, I don’t – but because I was proud to be a part of such a rare forum where ideas – good and bad – chould be exchanged in an intellectual environment, free from the political clutter that often prevents us from getting a well-rounded scope on international affairs.  I love a good debate and I cannot remember the last time anyone sparked the kind of multilateral discussion that resulted from Ahmedinejad’s visit to New York this week.

My issue, however, is not with Ahmedinejad because in reality, he holds very little power in Iran and so his rhetoric is more so a case of “sticks and stones” and less so a real threat.  My gripe – and I know many of my fellow Columbians share this view – is with President Lee Bollinger’s introduction to Ahmedinejad.  Much of what he said was legitimate, I’ll give him that.  But if the plan was to verbally assault him, then why invite him at all?  I knew Bollinger would raise several points in his speech with regard to Ahmedinejad’s comments regarding the Holocaust and wiping Israel off the map, but his introduction was more a listed indictment than an introduction.  Many students gasped in horror when Bollinger stormed off the stage without so much as acknowledging Ahmedinejad, his guest. 

I am not defending Ahmedinejad in any way because the man certainly has his faults.  What I am saying is, Columbia took a stand against those who try to suppress academic discourse.  By inviting the Iranian leader, the university put politics aside for a moment giving students the opportunity to formulate their own impressions based on Ahmedinejad’s words and NOT by information which has been filtered through the government, intelligence or the media.  Instead, politics reigned in an ugly form.  I think the introductory remarks insulted the intelligence of students by assuming they are unable to approach Ahmedinejad’s speech objectively and formulate their own opinions.

Click here to see some photos from Ahmedinejad’s visit to Columbia.

“Military Hegemony does not a Democracy Make”

by Vivian Salama

POSTGLOBAL (Washington Post/Newsweek Blog) 

There are numerous countries with strong militaries that are a far cry from democracies. One factor to consider is the order in which the two develop: in other words, if democracy comes first and military strength develops later, perhaps the two can develop and coexist more harmoniously than if the opposite were true.

Let’s look back at a vintage example. When Gamal Abdel-Nasser and his Revolutionary Command Council (RCC) overthrew the Egyptian monarchy in 1952, it was, for many, a rebirth of a nation free from imperialism and on a path to self-determination and democracy. However, RCC insiders including Abdel-Nasser believed that the post-revolutionary regime was too fragile to be contested right away. Martial law was implemented and the military maintained a firm grip on the country’s internal operations. Crackdowns against dissidents – most of all the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood – grew harsh. Hundreds were sentenced to death and thousands more were imprisoned.

Fast forward more than 50 years. The country’s current President Hosni Mubarak has ruled for 26 years and many believe the elderly president, whose health has been the subject of debate in recent weeks, is prepping his elder son to take over. When Mubarak’s predecessor Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981, the Emergency Law was implemented and remained in effect until a recent referendum changed the law to a so-called Anti-Terrorism Law. The new law essentially puts a muzzle on most political activity and grants the military the right to flex its muscles when it sees fit. Amnesty International called the new law the “greatest erosion of human rights in 26 years.” Opponents called the referendum a “constitutional coup” by the Mubarak regime and say it has only made Egypt’s old Martial Law permanent.

Granted, a strong military is usually required to deter conquest. But it can also increase the chances of a military coup if the leader abuses authority, and thus requires a delicate balancing act. Mubarak need not worry as he is a top US ally and any threat to his regime is taken very seriously in Washington. (It is worth noting that Egypt is the number two recipient of U.S. economic and military aid, second only to Israel.) The Muslim Brotherhood is extremely powerful and has an enormous following in Egypt, which is why the Egyptian National Guard can now be spotted on the streets in growing numbers. Many Egyptian leaders argue that the military must be mobilized to prevent a descent into chaos. Be that as it may, military hegemony does not a democracy make.

A strong military and democracy are not codependent. There are democracies around the world which function despite having less than impressive militaries. There are countries with strong militaries that exercise undemocratic practices, such as China. The United States is probably the best example of a democracy with a strong military, but democracy came long before military strength (and I would argue that when America’s military strength is put to the test, the noose tightens on democratic liberties).

Turkey is another interesting case. The military plays a dominant role in Turkish society, which has seen three coups over a span of 20 years. But the Muslim nation is certainly a democracy. Given the recent developments in Turkish politics, it would appear that the military is trying to play the role of silent actor – at least during the country’s campaign for EU integration.

The problem with governments like that of Gamal Abdel-Nasser, Pakistan’s General Pervez Musharraf, and even that of the late Saddam Hussein, is that when military power is justified as necessary for the survival of the regime, it often comes at the expense of democracy. Loss of liberty at the hand of a strong military is usually a recipe for disaster.

It reminds me of a quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” If only Ben Franklin could see the world now.

Educating, Offending at the Same Time

Click here for WSJ article

[El Sawy Culturewheel]

CONTROVERSIAL CAMPAIGN: A poster in Egypt warned that anyone’s mother could be a target of sexual harassment. An ad campaign in Egypt is triggering controversy, underscoring the challenges involved in navigating sometimes-competing cultural sensitivities in the Arab world’s most populous country.

Educating, Offending at the Same Time

Egyptian Campaign
Against Harassment
Raises Awareness, Ire

By MARIAM FAM
September 13, 2007; Page B5

CAIRO — Earlier this year, ad-agency co-owner Mohamed El Sawy launched a public-awareness campaign against sexual harassment on the streets of Egypt, a problem that is drawing increasing attention here.Through a cultural center he founded, Mr. El Sawy put up signs along the streets of Cairo and nearby Giza. The ads warned men that if they didn’t take action to prevent harassment, their mother, sister or daughter could be the next victim.

Mobile-phone operator Mobinil provided funding, and in June, the ads began running in about 100 lighted boxes. Such boxes, essentially small-scale billboards, are used frequently by advertisers here.

The ads, in bright red-and-black lettering on a yellow background, played with four variations on a theme: If men don’t put an end to street harassment, women in their own families could be next. The phrasing, in Arabic, was the same in all four versions, except for one change: “your mother,” “your sister,” “your daughter” or “your wife.”

But the warning that one’s female relatives might be targeted was deemed too provocative by some. One version in particular pushed the envelope. It translated: “Your mother — refrain and stop others before it’s her turn.”

In Egypt, as in the U.S., “your mother” can have different connotations — some seen as inappropriate for public advertising, particularly in much of the Middle East, where a man’s honor can be tied to the reputation of his mother and other women in his family. The words can be said in more than one way in Arabic, and the particular phrase used in the signs — omak — can also be associated with an insult, as it can be in English.

A columnist for daily newspaper Al Akhbar blasted the campaign, saying the reference was offensive and warning that the signs might give tourists the impression that Cairo’s streets were unsafe.Cairo officials ordered the ads removed.

An employee of the governorate of Cairo says the city received complaints from ordinary Egyptians offended by the phrasing of the ads.Mr. El Sawy pulled all the ads. He says officials in Giza didn’t order the ads removed, but he took those down, too.

The controversy over the campaign underscores the challenges involved in navigating sometimes-competing cultural sensitivities in a place like Egypt. The Arab world’s most populous country, it is a pop culture and media hub for the rest of the region. But it remains socially conservative and religious.

Harassment — from catcalls and lewd remarks to indecent exposure and groping — is a troubling urban social ill here. A few recent high-profile cases have drawn more attention to the problem. Activists have accused the government of not doing enough to crack down on offenders.

“The message has to be provocative,” Mr. El Sawy says. “It is a serious issue.” He says some women came up to him to thank him for the campaign.But antiharassment campaigners need to tread lightly, says Nehad Abolkomsan, who heads the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights, a nonprofit group based in Cairo. Many Egyptians feel issues like sexual harassment aren’t pressing enough to warrant much attention in a country that suffers from poverty and unemployment, she says.

Elham Abu El Fateh, the Al Akhbar columnist who wrote about the El Sawy campaign, says that while the campaign’s creators meant well, it failed to accommodate the sensitivities of the audience. “We’re a religious society and we hold the mother in high esteem,” she says.”You feel a stab in the heart” when reading the “mother” sign, Ms. Abu El Fateh wrote in a column.

The campaign could scare women away from public places and give tourists a bad impression about the country, she wrote. “Have the streets of Cairo been transformed into a jungle of sick people harassing women?” she wrote. “Of course not.”Hala El Khatib, a spokeswoman for Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism, says it is the harassment — not campaigns against it — that could hurt tourism. But she is no fan of the wording of Mr. El Sawy’s “mother” ads either. “It’s a bit shocking,” she says.

Mobinil, the sponsor whose name appeared on the ads, didn’t return calls for comment.

Mr. El Sawy’s center has spearheaded other public-interest campaigns against smoking, wasting water and honking horns unnecessarily. But he wasn’t expecting the reaction he got with the antiharassment messages.Still, he says, he is determined to carry on. He wants to produce antiharassment TV spots to air on Egyptian and Arab satellite channels. He worries that the black eye the campaign suffered may scare away potential sponsors but says that won’t deter him.

“It is not smart to hide our problems,” he says. “They won’t be solved unless they’re exposed.” 

FOR MORE ON THE RECENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN IN EGYPT, READ STREETS OF SHAME in AL-AHRAM WEEKLY, BY Karim El-Khashab

The Importance and Unimportance of Bin Laden Videos

My academic thesis focuses on questions like this one.  The release of a new Osama bin Laden video commemorating the 6th Anniversary of the September 11th attacks is raising questions as to the significance of such videos.  – VS

 

Left, Osama bin Laden in an a video broadcast in 2004. Right, he appears in a recent banner advertisement on an Islamic militant Web site.

Counterterrorism Blog

By Douglas Farah

Click here for the Counterterrorism Blog

There is an interesting debate ongoing over whether the mass media, and particularly Arab-language television, should broadcast and assign great importance to the videos of al Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden.

Do the broadcasts help create a mystique around a cult figure that inspires those who want to participate in the broader al Qaeda project, even on an ad hoc basis? Or are such broadcasts necessary for the general public to see and understand al Qaeda, to understand the enemy more clearly? Or both, and does it make any difference?

I think it is both, and that in the Internet age it matters little what is broadcast on air. Those who want to access the entire speech will be able to do so in a matter of hours, can download and forward it with great speed and efficiency. If there are hidden messages to followers, keeping the broadcasts off the air are hardly likely to be a deterrent or keep the message from getting through.

Broadcasting bin Laden’s speeches, in whole or in part, are far less dangerous than the radical, hate-filled sermons that fill many mosques in London every week, as the Times of London documents.

My full blog is here.September 7, 2007 01:32 PM    Print

Give and Take Can Strengthen Moderates

Washington Post/Newsweek – PostGlobal   

by Vivian Salama

The question facing the South Korean government, like many governments before it, is simple: does negotiating with terrorists excuse – or even encourage – violence?

(Above: South Korean hostages released by Taliban)

It is very difficult to call any negotiation “insensible” if it spares hostages’ lives, but the circumstances vary drastically in each case. To consolidate this response, I will treat all “terrorists” as one – though we can certainly break down the meaning of “terrorist” and further complicate a complex matter.

Western democracies’ logic is essentially never to bow down to violence, nor to reward terrorists for using it. But this is easier said than done. Governments have historically turned to terrorist organizations to further their political agendas. Israel signed the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinian Liberation Organization even though the PLO was considered a terrorist organization and refused to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Years earlier, the Jewish State also allowed Hamas to operate unhindered during the first Intifada in hopes that it would challenge, and weaken, the authority of Yasser Arafat. As a result, Israel faced a stronger Hamas during the Second Intifada.

More recently, Israel and the West have been criticized for resisting any kind of negotiation with Hamas after the group won an unprecedented victory in the January 2006 elections. This is a government democratically elected by the people of the Palestinian territories and East Jerusalem. By refusing categorically to negotiate with that government, Western governments and Israel risk undermining the democratic process that they – particularly the Bush Administration – have worked to establish in the region.

Refusing any and all negotiation eliminates the chance of finding common ground. On the other hand, agreeing to negotiate is often a bargaining tool, one that can stem violence and will often lead to a ceasefire. A classic example of such fruitful negotiation is the IRA’s 2005 pledge to end violence in its fight for a united Ireland. It was a lesson in persistence and persuasion by a government actor – in this case, the British government – in helping a terrorist organization consider peaceful alternatives.

Such an option may seem overly optimistic given the current climate in the “War Against Terror.” But a categorical refusal to negotiate can cloud the real issues at hand, leaving room for terrorists and their supporters to accuse the opposing government of undemocratic, oppressive or dictatorial practices.

Agreeing to negotiate often means taking the much longer view toward the immediate issue. In a 1998 interview with the Paris-based news magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, former U.S. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski insisted that the Carter Administration should not regret supporting Afghanistan’s Islamic fundamentalists in the late 1970s. He asked, “What is more important to the history of the world – the Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?”

Or consider North Korea, which is reportedly coming off the list of “terrorist” countries. It will be interesting to see what effect that has on North Koreans’ attitudes toward the United States, and whether it helps to speed up denuclearization. Of course, none of this would have happened without negotiation.

There’s no question that negotiations are give-and-take; nothing is guaranteed. In Hamas’ case, there was no way to tell whether, given Hamas’ political inexperience, negotiating with Western leaders might have strengthened the group’s moderate wing. These terrorist groups often lack internal cohesion. Given the opportunity, governments that are willing to negotiate may make considerably more progress by getting a foot in the door than by completely shutting terrorists groups out.

Embattled Arabic School Set to Open in Sept.

By Vivian Salama

Forward Magazine  

NEW YORK – With only days until school bells around the United States signal the start of the 2007-2008 school year, much attention will be focused on one particular school in Brooklyn, New York. 

In so many ways, the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) is like any of its neighboring schools: it teaches math and science; physical education and art.  However, this middle school has introduced a curriculum with a feature unique to any other school in New York: Arabic language and culture.

In this city of 22 million, there are numerous schools focusing on particular themes, though few have generated as much controversy.  Even before a single student was enrolled, labels such as “public madrassa,” “segregationist,” and “jihadi” were associated with the school.  

Named after famed Lebanese-American poet Khalil Gibran, the school would be one of few across the United States that incorporates the Arabic language into its curriculum.  It joins 70 other dual-language programs, including Spanish, Chinese, Haitian-Creole and Russian, which already exist in New York City. The school’s advisory board is comprised of a diverse range of people from all walks of life, including three rabbis.  Currently 44 students of Middle Eastern descent are enrolled to begin classes in this month. 

Designated to the post of principal of this controversial school was 39-year old Debbie (Dhabah) Almontaser, a Yemeni-American veteran of the New York City public school system.  Having worked to bridge some of the cultural gaps that developed following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Almontaser fiercely defended the Khalil Gibran School saying it was in line with the basic public school requirements for grades 6 through 12. 

Then controversy came knocking on Almontaser’s door.  At a press conference last month in New York, Almontaser defended t-shirts linked to her work on which there was a printed message reading “Intifada NYC.”  Behind the t-shirt is an organization called the Arab Women Active in Art and Media (AWAAM) which printed the t-shirts as a show of solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  Sharing office space with AWAAM is the Saba Association of American Yemenis.  Almontaser is on the Saba board.

When questioned about the t-shirts, Almontaser explained that the Arabic word “Intifada,” literally means “shaking off.”  When further questioned a day later, she took back the comment, but the damage was done.  The president of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers slammed Almontaser for making comments she deemed inflammatory in a sensitive post-September 11th era.  In a statement made to the New York Post, UFT President Randi Weingarten explained “I’m very concerned about it…it’s not OK to explain away ‘Intifada,’ ” she said. “Maybe this was just a real error in judgment for which she has now apologized, or maybe, ultimately, she should not be a principal.”

Sure enough, it was only a matter of days before Almontaser stepped down.  Mounting pressure was not enough to close the school down but it was more than enough to dissuade Almontaser from assuming the role as principal of the academy.

“This morning I tendered my resignation to Chancellor Klein, which he accepted,” Almontaser said in a statement, referring to New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klein. “I became convinced yesterday that this week’s headlines were endangering the viability of Khalil Gibran International Academy, even though I apologized.”

The saga did not end there.

Within days of Almontaser’s resignation, the New York Department of Education announced that it had selected an interim principal to replace her.  To take her place is Danielle Salzberg, a woman raised as an Orthodox Jew.  All in all, the seemingly forced resignation of Almontaser coupled with the selection of Salzberg, a longtime educator at the nonprofit New Visions for Public Schools in New York, has been viewed by many as a victory for a faction of the Jewish community that had waged a months-long battle against the school.

         On August 20, some 200 protesters gathered in front of the headquarters of New York’s Department of Education calling for the reinstatement of Almontaser.  Their sentiments were expressed in a New York Daily News editorial written by Egyptian writer Mona Eltahawy.  She wrote, “In any language, a witch hunt is what led Debbie Almontaser to step down as principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy,” adding, “New York is not as free of hate and racism as I once thought.”

Still plenty of critics continue to speak out against the school, saying that it risks opening the door to extremist Islamic thought.  Conservative American commentator Daniel Pipes wrote on his blog danielpipes.org: “”In principle it is a great idea _ the United States needs more Arabic-speakers. In practice, however, Arabic instruction is heavy with Islamist and Arabist overtones and demands.”

In all likelihood, this Brooklyn middle school has not seen the last of controversy, but parents and administrators alike say the priority is providing a stable environment for its young pupils.  In the meantime, the 44 students currently enrolled in the Khalil Gibran International Academy are scheduled to begin classes – as planned – on September 4, 2007.