"Inflammatory Remarks"

You know, it is a peculiar thing to wake up to various people demanding the expulsion of an Iranian diplomat for remarks he made at a private gathering about the state of Israel.

I mean, correct me if I'm wrong about this ... but it was not Iran which boldly threatened a state of war with our country only a few months ago, now, was it.

I have not viewed Secretary Ghahremani's speech in its entirity, and am running off the quotes which have been extracted therefrom to bedeck the sensationalist Sunday newspapers all breathlessly seeking to cover this story.

But going off these, I can only ask where, exactly, it was that he erred?

Was it with the contention that Israel has been 'fuelling terrorism' in order to advance its geopolitical objectives? Surely not. After all, the Israelis themselves admitted to actively assisting Al-Nusra [better known as the local franchisee of Al-Qaeda operating in Syria]. Perhaps it was his comment that the state in question frequently attempts to "deceive the world" with the ever-widening gulf between its rhetoric of enthusiasm for peace and diplomacy ... and a litany of transgressions even in recent times I hardly need to list for their familiarity.

Maybe there is objection to the Israeli state's policy and impetus being designated "anti-human" ... and yet it seems pretty plainly apparent that on everything from the [now thankfully officially discontinued] involuntary sterilization of its black citizenry through to the ongoing illegal blockades, incursions, detentions, airstrikes, etc. etc. etc. that it is rather avowedly anti *some* humans at the very least.

It is true that Secretary Ghahremani's remarks may, in their now public disclosure, be regarded as "inflammatory". But unless there is something significantly salacious in the rest of his speech that has as-yet gone unreported, I am not entirely sure I would suggest that anything he has said is manifestly counter-factual.

And we do enter into a rather .. odd situation if historical truths and contemporary realities are unable to be voiced because they may potentially be deemed "inflammatory".

I mean, the pathway that takes us down, I might find myself subject to censure & vilification for simply pointing out that the pattern of Israeli-Kiwi relations over the past two decades has been characterized by an ever-escalating series of incidences more befitting outright foes than nominal 'friends'.

Or is it "inflammatory" to mention such things as the Israeli passport-harvesting for overseas espionage at the expense of people such as a profoundly disabled tetraplegic New Zealander; the alleged activities of similar personnel in Christchurch in 2011 with the target of our national policing computer-system; or even the not-quite-Declaration-of-War from the Netanyahu Government late last year.

In any case, I do not seek to support nor exculpate the remarks uttered by some of the other speakers Secretary Ghahrameni shared a stage with back in June. Those can be considered on their own relative merits [or lack thereof].

But it is not the accountant from Mt Albert, nor the visiting Cleric whom I am seeing the loudest calls for expulsion from our country in reference to.

Instead, these are being foisted in the direction of a diplomat clearly articulating the long-held position of his Government, on the occasion of a solemn commemoration and solidarity-extension to an oppressed and marginalized people.

With that in mind, I can only wonder whether the opprobium presently being heaped in Secretary Ghahremani's direction has less to do with what he said .. and more to do with some people being profoundly uneasy with the progressive normalization of both our relations with Iran - as well as the escalatingly positive role that the Iranians have found themselves playing with regard to the broader security situation in the Middle East these past few years.

Who knows. "Haters", as they say, "gonna hate".

Although it would be a pretty unctuous & unfortunate situation if this man WERE to be banished from our country for speaking in support of a people we have previously pledged to help, his only 'crime' that's thus far been made out in any detail, the remarks of some of those who happened to be in the room with him at the time.

Some might even call such a move ... "inflammatory"....