Perfil en LinkedInIt was just days before the 9/11 attack that Amir, circling the concept of Justice, wrote and posted this article that I find, curiously enough, quite interesting to re-read right now.
Friendly Stance
By Amir
August 20, 2001
The Iranian
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2001/August/Israel3/
What goes on along that Mediterranean coastline, is far from toping the list of Iran's most important national priorities. Israel is not a threat to the national interests of Iran. But I would even go further: a friendship with Israel could benefit the national interests of Iran in real terms.
A friendly stance towards the Israelis would not only buy lobbying power and influence for Iranian interests in Washington, but as the most advanced technological country in the region, open trade and relations with Israel might score Iran further technological know-how, such as desert irrigation and agricultural developments.
Iranian culture and history has forever been connected with the Israelites going back to ancient times. As Semitic friends, they are the better and older allies than Arabs could ever be.
The problem, however, is that whereas the relationship between the Jews and the Iranians (Mede-Persians,) has always been cordial and based on mutual respect and deference to one another's religions, the relationship we have had with their Semitic cousins, the Arabs, has been one dominated by master-servant narratives and feelings.
There are many Iranians who not only have Arab prejudices brought on in terms of blood and religion, (many Iranians for instance consider themselves direct descendents of Arab tribes of old,) but also have not been spared the general anti-Jewish propaganda that is accepted the world over (overtly or covertly).
These latter prejudices are in many instances nothing more than an intensification of xenophobia and fear of the intelligent "Other", mostly propagated by, but not limited to, the Europeans who confronted the migrating Jews as a multi-national threat to their own isolationist stances at the outset of their nation-buildings.
Having said all that, let me say the following: the Israelis by no means enjoy the moral or ethical right in terms of their conflict with their neighbors. As a matter of fact, their nation-building efforts in the past fifty years is proof that they are not in possession of any moral high ground despite the troubles Jews -- as a people -- encountered in Europe and elsewhere.
Israelis have simply repeated the cycle of abuse and have treated the "Other" in the same way they themselves were treated as the "Other". Therefore they have shown that they have no moral superiority over anyone else, and have given real force to the post-Nazi German claim: "This could happen anywhere."
However, as Iranians our most pressing national issues are not correcting the world's wrongs, by marching of our armies, or by all encompassing moral declarations. Rather, our primary objectives should be dealing with troubles in Iran. Positions should be taken as a result of dialogue, not one of active disengagement or animosity based on already-decided factors.
It is along the same logical vein that the European powers have chosen to engage the government of Iran, rather than punishing its population for its government's transgressions -- through imposition of sanctions and such.
It is through trying to learn about each other's history and personal stories that we might come close to standing under the weight of each others' problems and only then can we attempt to break the age-old cycles. No one has a monopoly on truth.
In the end, if there is to be a resolution to any conflict, it cannot come about by perpetuation of anger, hurt and violence. It is most important to give force to the Persian word "daad" not only in terms of exclaiming -- and listening to -- its "call", but also in terms of seeing the "giving" in it. Only then can we come close to its higher meaning: "justice".
July 11th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I am featured! (author blushes and starts plucking his right earlobe)
July 11th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
I read that when Zizou headbutted an opponent for the first time a few years ago (and got ejected as a result) it was because of a racial slur directed at him.
Upon reading this it occured to me that on the field there is no protection against any kind of verbal malice; any player can just walk by you and, in a covert and inconspicuous manner, insult you in the most hurtful way without any referee ever being able to take notice let alone prosecute the culprit.
It seems that there is only one thing that makes Zidane, this graceful, gentle, quiet, never protesting or shouting, almost shy player lose his temper and that thing is racism.
I bet that Materazzi knew what it takes to make Zidane’s blood boil and deliberately went after his most sensitive spot so to speak.
I wonder why Zidane does not make public Materazzi’s remark - why does he stay silent? Is there some code of ethics such as “What happens on the pitch stays on the pitch” ?
July 11th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
The thing is: by virtue of being a royal, Zidane is not a nationalist, although he is the driving force behind a “national” team. I however don’t think in anyway he was really trying to hurt the guy in a malicious way. It was purely a show of outrage, which may have been a bigger statement to make than would be to win a championship for a country, a big portion of him, really in their heart of hearts, don’t think of him as their equal… and interestingly enough, he isn’t, he is worth more than all of the French and the Italian players on the pitch put together… France lost, because of France… Zidane won and didn’t carry a grudge… just answered the problem right away, and made the whole world take note. He did not do what was expected of him to do, because it is about something else.
But I am not sure if it was in fact a racial slur… I would imagine it to be something much more precise than a run-of-the mill racist comment… It was probably a personal one. Also there was no coach in whom Zidane could have confided. Zidane was the coach of that team, and it might have just appeared to him for a split moment that it all is not really worth it after all.
Also, I would not be for instituting any sort of legal protection of players on the pitch from racial slurs. I think they are big enough to protect themselves if they so choose, through cunning, meditation, or any other method. I think Zidane chose to do what he did, even if the decision seems to have been made on a split of a second; I don’t think he lost control. Had he lost control, so to say, Mr. Mazaratti would have been roadkill, or at least properly, physically hurt. As the an English reporter noted, Zidane’s “headbutt” really missed its mark; if it were a “headbutt” - it wouldn’t hit the chest!
I think the discussion he’s provoked is pretty pretty good! And I think Zi Frenchies and the Italians should go fuck themselves… or have the Germans do it for them…
Thanks for the blushing okay;)
July 12th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Hitting a fist with a fist
(some sophistry for the English reporter:)
Ein Faustschg ist ein Schlag mit der Faust, and a headbutt is a butt (?) with the head- I don’t see why the head has to be both agent AND target.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:42 am
The point is, there is no point in using your head against someone’s chest. The headbutt is a headbutt because something hard hits against a sensitive spot… as it was it was probably much less hurtfull than if he would have kicked the ball to the guy’s chest… He would’ve done more damage with his foot, or his fist for that matter… hitting someone with the head, unless it is against their unsuspecting head, is just funny, it is not a “headbutt,” but a sort of “ramming” - but without horns… it is playing a bull without being a bull… That’s the point.
July 12th, 2006 at 11:40 am
what about “a chestbutt executed with the head” ?
here is my theory: Zidane was so enraged that he wanted to headbutt Materazzi’s head, but wisely changed his plan within the last second and lowered his torso so as to convert a dangerous butt into a much less harmful ram. by the way: if you are being hit full on in your sternum/solar plexus by someone’s head you will be gasping for air like a fish on land because all the wind is knocked out of your pipe. let’s ask dr. chema.
July 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
No need to call a medical witness, I agree with you on the complications resulting from a hit on the sternum/solar plexus. Yet even then, this hit could be best delivered by a Karate chop, a punch, or even a rightly placed kick… headbutt would be one of the last options for this. And so in your theory, you ultimately agree with the Brit that this was - for reasons you provide, or perhaps because of other ones, - a failed “headbutt,” a badly delivered one that could only bring out some Marcello Masteriani moves in someone like the Mr. Spagetti in question… I think as the matter of fact I personally would have a much harder time dealing with myself if I were in Mr. Spagetti’s shoes than in Zidanes… But again, this is because the coach of the French squad was Zidane and he was perhaps right when he tried to take himself out of the game, but he was overrulled by some idiot that was the representative of zi gran republik on the field…
July 13th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Ok. I won’t participate as a medical witness on the chestheadbutt thing. But as a Spaniard and as Bull-connaisseur I can affirm beyond any reasonable doubt that Zizou’s headbutt is not bullish at all.
The move of Zidane is a Roar. It is not a punch or a kick or something done with the intention to really hurt the big guy: It is a Roar -the sort of thing Lions do when they do not want to fight.
And following Amir, Zizou leaves very clear with his action what is and what is not important (no matter what, he was probably as bored with the game as everybody else).
A kingly roar anyway, no doubt about it.