Heuchelei, Hass und der Krieg gegen den Terror

Heuchelei, Hass und der Krieg gegen den Terror

    "Wenn die Angriffe auf die Vereinigten Staaten ein Angriff
    gegen die "Zivilisation" waren, wieso sollten Muslime den
    Angriff auf Afghanistan nicht als einen Krieg gegen den
    Islam betrachten?'

von Robert Fisk

                   The Independent - London, UK
                   Donnerstag, 8. November 2001

              (ZNet http://www.zmag.org/weluser.htm)

"Luftkampagne"? "Koalitionskräfte"? "Krieg gegen den Terror"? Wie viel
länger müssen wir diese Lügen noch ertragen? Es gibt keine "Kampagne"
-
nur eine Bombardierung des ärmsten und gebrochensten Landes der Welt,
durch die reichste und am weitesten entwicklte Nation. Keine MIGs
haben
sich in die Lüfte erhoben um sich mit den amerikanischen B-52 oder
F-18
eine Schlacht zu liefern. Die einzige Munition die in die Luft über
Kabul aufsteigt, stammt aus russischen Luftabwehrgeschütze, die um
1943
herum hergestellt worden sind.

Koalition? Alle mal die Hand hochhalten, die die deutsche Luftwaffe
in den Himmel über Kandahar gesehen haben, oder die italienische oder
französische Luftstreitkräfte über Herat. Oder zumindest die pakista-
nische Luftstreitkräfte. Die Amerikaner bombardieren Afghanistan mit
ein paar dazwischengeworfenen britische Raketen. Von wegen
"Koalition".

Dann gibt es da noch den "Krieg gegen den Terror". Wann machen wir uns
daran die Jaffna Halbinsel zu bombardieren? Oder Tschechenien - das
wir
bereits Vladimir Putins blutigen Händen überlassen haben? Ich kann
mich
sogar an eine massive terroristische Autobombe erinnern, die 1985 in
Beirut explodiert ist - die Sayed Hassan Nasrallah zum Ziel hatte,
den spirituellen Vater der Hizbollah, der nun wieder auf Washingtons
Mordliste zu stehen scheint - und Nasrallah verfehlte, aber 85
unschul-
dige libanesische Zivilisten ermordete. Jahre später enthüllte Carl
Bernstein in seinem Buch 'Veil' ('Schleier'), dass die CIA hinter der
Bombe steckte, nachdem die Saudis sich einverstanden erklärt hatten
die Operation zu finanzieren. Wird also US-Präsident George Bush die
darin verwickelten CIA-Mörder jagen? Einen Dreck wird er tun.

Also wieso um alles in der Welt, rattern dann alle meine Kumpel bei
CNN
und Sky und der BBC weiter über die "Luftkampagne", "Koalitionskräfte"
und den "Krieg gegen den Terror"? Glauben sie dass ihre Zuschauer
diesem Unsinn glauben?

Die Muslime tun es mit Sicherheit nicht. Eigentlich muss man nicht
viel
Zeit in Pakistan verbringen um dahinterzukommen, dass die
pakistanische
Presse eine unendlich wahrheitsgetreuere und balanciertere Berichter-
stattung über den "Krieg" liefert - indem sie Artikel lokaler Intel-
lektueller, Historiker und Oppositionsschreiber zusammen mit Taliban-
Kommentare und regierungsfreundliche Statements sowie westliche
Mainstream-Analysen veröffentlicht - als die New York Times; und das -
man erinnere sich - in einer militärischen Diktatur.

Man muss nur wenige Wochen im Mittleren Osten und auf dem Subkontinent
zubringen um dahinterzukommen wieso alle Tony Blair Interviews auf Al-
Jazeera und Larry King Live´s nicht die Bohne ausmachen. Ein hochge-
priesener Leitartikel der Tageszeitung As-Safir aus Beirut, fragte,
wieso ein Araber, der die Wut und die Erniedrigung Millionen anderer
Araber zum Ausdruck bringen wollte, gezwungen war dies aus einer Höhle
in einem nicht-Arabischen Land aus zu tun. Die Schlussfolgerung war
natürlich, dass dies - eher als die Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit
am 11. September - der Grund für die Entschlossenheit der Vereinigten
Staaten ist Osama bin Laden zu liquidieren. Viel überzeugender sind
eine Serie von Artikel in der pakistanischer Presse, über die
empörende
Behandlung von Muslimen gewesen, die nach den Greueltaten in September
festgenommen wurden.

Ein solcher Artikel sollte genügen. Unter der Schlagzeile "Tagebuch
des
Opfers eines Hassverbrechens" in den Lahore Nachrichten, beschrieb er
die Leiden von Hasnain Javed, der am 19. September mit einem ausgelau-
fenen Visum in Alabama festgenommen worden ist. Im Gefängnis von
Mississippi wurde er von einem Gefangenen zusammengeschlagen, der ihm
auch ein Zahn ausschlug. Dann, lange nachdem er den Alarmknopf für den
Wächter gedrückt hatte, wurde er von noch mehr Männern gegen eine Wand
geschlagen, mit den Worten: "Hey bin Laden, das war die erste Runde.
Es werden noch 10 Runden wie diese folgen." Es gibt Dutzende solcher
Geschichten in der pakistanischen Presse, und die meisten davon
scheinen
wahr zu sein.

Erneut sind Muslime von der Heuchelei des angeblichen westlichen
"Respektes" vor dem Islam empört worden. Wir haben nicht vor - so
haben wir der Welt mitgeteilt - die militärischen Operationen in
Afghanistan während des heiligen Fastenmonats Ramadan einzustellen.
Schliesslich ging der Iran-Irak Konflikt 1980-88 während des Ramadans
ja auch weiter. Genau wie die arabisch-israelischen Konflikte. Das
stimmt schon. Aber wieso haben wir dann eine solche Schau daraus
gemacht, die Bombenangriffe am ersten Freitag der Bombardierungen
im letzten Monat, aus "Respekt" vor dem Islam einzustellen? Weil
wir damals respektvoller waren als jetzt? Oder weil - da der Taliban
weiterhin ungebrochen bleibt - wir beschlossen haben diesen ganzen
"Respekt" zu vergessen?

"Ich kann verstehen, wieso ihr bin Laden von unserer Religion trennen
wollt," sagte mir ein Journalist aus Peshawar vor einigen Tagen.
"Natürlich wollt ihr uns erzählen, dass dies kein religiöser Krieg
ist, aber bitte, Mr. Robert, bitte hört auf uns zu erzählen wie sehr
ihr den Islam respektiert."

Es gab noch ein anderes beunruhigendes Argument, das ich in
Afghanistan
gehört habe. Wenn, wie Mr Bush behauptet, die Angriffe auf New York
und Washington ein Angriff auf die "Zivilisation" waren, wieso sollten
Muslime einen Angriff auf Afghanistan nicht als ein Krieg gegen den
Islam betrachten?

Die Pakistanier haben die Heuchelei der Australier schnell
durchschaut.
Während sie darauf brannten in den Kampf gegen Mr bin Laden zu treten,
haben die Australier Truppen ausgeschickt um mittellose afghanische
Flüchtlinge aus ihren territorialen Gewässern zu vertreiben. Die
Aussies
wollen Afghanistan bombardieren - aber sie wollen keine Afghaner
retten.
Pakistan, sollte man hinzufügen, beherbergt 2.5 Millionen afghanische
Flüchtlinge. Unnötig zu sagen, dass diese Diskrepanz auf unsere TV-
Kanäle nicht viel Sendezeit erhält. Tatsächlich, habe ich noch nie
zuvor
so viel Wut gegen Journalisten gesehen, wie in den letzten paar Wochen
in Pakistan. Noch bin ich davon überrascht.

Was sollen wir schliesslich über den sogenannten "liberalen" amerika-
nischen TV-Journalisten Geraldo Rivera denken, der gerade dabei ist zu
Fox TV zu wechseln, ein Murdoch Kanal? "Ich fühle mich patriotischer
denn jemals zuvor in meinem Leben, und brenne nach Gerechtigkeit,
oder vielleicht nur nach Rache," verkündete er diese Woche. "Und diese
Katharsis die ich durchgemacht habe, hat mich dazu gebracht, das womit
ich meinen Lebensunterhalt verdiene in einem neuen Licht zu sehen."
Das ist wahrhaft schauerlich. Hier ist ein amerikanischer Journalist
der offen enthüllt, dass er möglicherweise "nach Rache brennt".

Unendlich viel beschämender - und unethischer - waren die schändlichen
Worte des CNN-Vorsitzenden Walter Isaacson an seine Mannschaft. Den
Elend Afghanistans zu zeigen hiesse zu riskieren feindliche Propaganda
zu fördern, sagte er. "Es scheint pervers sich zu sehr auf die Todes-
opfer oder die Leiden in Afghanistan zu konzentrieren... wir müssen
mehr davon reden wie der Taliban Zivilisten als Schilde benutzt, und
wie der Taliban die Terroristen beherbergt hat, der für den Tod von
fast 5.000 unschuldigen Menschen verantwortlich gewesen sind."

Mr Isaacson war ein fantasieloser Boss des Time Magazine, aber diese
Worte werden der angeblichen Objektivität der CNN mehr schaden, als
alles was in den letzten Jahren gesendet worden ist. Pervers? Wieso
pervers? Wieso stehen die afghanischen Verluste in Mr Isaacsons
Mitgefühl so tief im Wert? Oder befolgt Mr Isaacson nur die
Richtlinien,
die Ari Fleischer, der Sprecher des Weissen Hauses, vor wenigen Tagen
für ihn festlegte, der dem Washingtoner Pressekorps so bedeutungs-
schwanger verkündete, dass in Zeiten wie diesen "die Leute darauf
achten müssen was sie sagen und was sie tun".

Unnötig zu sagen, dass sich CNN der Forderung der US-Regierung gebeugt
hat, Mr. bin Ladens Worte nicht ungeschnitten zu versenden, da sie
"verschlüsselte Botschaften" enthalten könnten. Aber das Fernsehen
versendet jede Stunde verschlüsselte Botschaften. Sie lauten "Luft-
kampagne", "Koalitionskräfte" und "Krieg gegen den Terror".

* * *

(übs. von Dana)
http://www.talknet.de/~helmut_fiedler/

taz 12.11.2001

US-Angst vor dem Weltgericht

von CHRISTIAN RATH

Die USA sehen mal wieder alles ganz anders. Während weltweit nach dem 11. September die Notwendigkeit für einen Internationalen Strafgerichtshof so deutlich empfunden wird wie nie zuvor, wollen die Vereinigten Staaten weiter gegen dessen Einrichtung kämpfen. Sie riskieren damit sogar den Streit mit ihren europäischen Verbündeten. In einem der taz vorliegenden Brief von Ende Oktober bat Außenminister Joschka Fischer seinen "lieben Kollegen" US-Außenminister Colin Powell, die US-Position zu "überdenken".

taz Nr. 6598 vom 12.11.2001, Seite 4, 262 TAZ-Bericht CHRISTIAN RATH

November 10, 2001

Interview With President Khatami

he following is the full text of President Mohammad Khatami's interview with The New York Times on Nov. 9,2001, as translated jointly by The New York Times and the United Nations Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Q: Iran is an Islamic republic, a theocracy. Afghanistan is a theocracy. Yet the mentalities are different and American audiences may not understand the differences between your version of Islamic rule and the Taliban's version of Islamic rule. Please explain the differences.

A: I think that the differences are very clear and we don't really need to elaborate too much about them. In this world today, we must understand that humanity requires freedom and demands progress and development so one cannot have a view of the world that limits the freedom of humanity, including in the realm of governance.

Democracy is a principle accepted by the world today although even from the western perspective democracy has its own problems but humanity in its history has reached the conclusion that democracy is perhaps the best and t least costly system by which humanity can live in peace with each other. Democracy requires freedom as well as freedom of expression and freedom of understanding various points of view. Therefore democracy requires governments that are empowered by the will of the people. In order to promote religion in our days we must make it compatible with this understanding.

In the context of Islam itself we have a similar opinion about mankind a person that has the freedom to express what he wants. Our constitution explicitly states that absolute power belongs to God and it is God that has made man the ruler of his fate. Nothing and no one can take this right away from humans. This is a view of Islam which results in a system based on the rule of the people, a free system, a democratic one, and a system based on the rule of laws which themselves have been accepted and approved by the people.

We believe our country has suffered from imperialism and from dependence on foreigners, and for certain, in such a situation we must be independent. Therefore, the kind of Islam that we offer is the kind of Islam that leads us to independence. To remain on the scene, we need to be powerful. And to be powerful means we need progress and progress is based on scientific and technical achievements as well as other developments. We have to pave the way for this kind of progress and development in various fields. This is what we aim at achieving. No doubt in achieving our goal of having an optimal system of government based on the will of the people as well as on ethical values.

We face problems, numerous problems, but regardless of these problems we maintain that we have made good progress in our society and I think that following the Islamic Revolution could create a good model for all Islamic countries that want to have their religion but at the same time move towards further democracy and freedom.

Q. So Taliban rule is not one that has the model you say you have in Iran.

A. Allow me to talk about concepts not groups, individuals. We're talking about how we interpret our understanding of religion and democracy. God willing, in the interfaith dialogue that we have for today I'm going to say that there are two ways to look at religion. One is the extremist, narrow-minded approach to religion which is inhumane and the second is an interpretation of Islam based on wisdom. God willing, as God has wanted for us, all of us, Christians Jews, Muslims, everyone, can interpret religion in a free manner based on wisdom and foresight to protect our religion as well as to provide peace for our region, God willing.

Q. Would you explain your vision for a future Afghanistan. Is there a role for the Taliban and is there a role for Zahir Shah?

A. Afghanistan is a very complex issue. For many years we've been warning the world community about the situation there not only for the country as well as for its people and the problems that will arise from that part of the world for the rest of us. But it has been overlooked. We're still continuing our warnings.

We're saying that wide-ranging military attacks on Afghanistan would actually lead to more suffering and pain for the people of Afghanistan and will not yield to results we are looking for following the tragic terrorist attacks on September 11. There has been a lot of sympathy to fight against terrorism. But if the suffering and pain of the people of Afghanistan continues as a result of war, these sympathies may wane and wither away slowly and the terrorists may even take advantage of this.

When we're talking about Afghanistan we're thinking about two processes. The first process which is the main one is to pave the way for the people of Afghanistan from all groups and ethnic minorities to engage in decision-making for the future of their country to create an administration based on the will of the people. But we're talking about people who are suffering, who are in pain, who are displaced. They may not be ready to engage in this process at this point.

We believe in a transitional period that will be created by the international community under the sponsorship and supervision of the United Nations so that all groups in Afghanistan based on their representation, their weight in society can participate and engage in the transitional government and this government, this transitional system allow me to call it, would pave the way for the ultimate engagement of the people of Afghanistan.

I also hope the people who have victimized these poor people, those who have created such pain and suffering also be stopped and what matters is that the final government in Afghanistan should not be forced from outside. It should be a form of government that engages all groups, all ethnic minorities, and we hope that at least Afghanistan after twenty years of displacement and of poverty of suppression and war and aggression in the near future we will see peace and stability in that country both for the sake pf the people of Afghanistan and for the sake of us, as neighbors of this country.

We have suffered a lot of pain because of the situation in Afghanistan in terms of drug trafficking and in terms of security so I am looking forward to that peace and security.

Q. You are supporting the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in a military campaign. You are supporting them with money, with weapons, with advisors on the ground. The U.S. military campaign is also working with the Northern Alliance. Could you describe in detail your assistance to the Northern Alliance. Aren't you indeed already involved in the military camp?

A. You know that Afghanistan has a legitimate interim government right now. The Northern Alliance is present in the U.N., headed by Rahbani and has embassies in many countries. If there is a relationship between us it is between us and a legitimate government.

When it comes to the future of Afghanistan we need to be more comprehensive than we are now. We have not denied that as far as we could, based on our own security and the interests of the people of Afghanistan, we have cooperated with the Northern Alliance. And I believe that we have been able to converge on issues.

Hopefully we can make that turn into the formation of a more widely accepted transitional government. Obviously there might be some differences of opinion about the nature of that transitional government. in the negotiations of the 6 +2 forum [a United Nations sponsored forum on Afghanistan] in addition to our negotiations with the U.N. and with the U.N. representative, we have tried to reach more consensus on the future and we are continuing our cooperation with all nations interested in the future of Afghanistan. So we're looking forward to more comprehensive cooperation in this area.

Q. But you don't deny Iran's involvement in the military campaign in your support of the Northern Alliance?

A. Of course the military strife is inside Afghanistan between various factions in Afghanistan. I believe that many countries have tried to be involved and intervene in their affairs. We have not in any way been directly involved militarily with any group in Afghanistan.

Q. If you look at Afghanistan, both you and the United States support the Northern Alliance. Both you and the United States oppose the Taliban. You are both sitting down, your diplomats are sitting down in Geneva actually discuss planning for the future of Afghanistan. Does this mean you are moving towards a broader dialogue with the United States?

A. For the time being the most immediate matter is the question of Afghanistan and perhaps a more important question which led to the military attack against Afghanistan, that is the barbaric attacks of September 11 event which we condemned.

What matters to all of us now is to first find more logical ways of fighting terrorism. We do not want to resort to actions that might in the end actually help the terrorists in a way that they would take advantage of them. We also believe that the military attack against Afghanistan must stop as soon as possible while at the same time we need global consensus to find ways of fighting terrorism, its root causes. This can only be done with mutual agreement so Afghanistan is the major issue. We have to free people in Afghanistan from their suffering and pain, hopefully we will see a viable government in that country, a stable one and we hope that we can do as much as possible and play a role in this area.

Q. Some members of your parliament have called for dialogue and normalization with the United States. How do you see the evolution of relations with the United States with the Bush administration?

A. Your question is repetitive and naturally as the situation does not change substantively, the answer to that question will be a repetition of what I have said. And I don't think it would appeal to your readers.

Q. As a former journalist you are very aware of readers.

A. You know well that there are historical reasons for the disagreements between Iran and the United States. We need to change this atmosphere and we need to of course address the problems as well. In my previous interviews I said we need to take practical steps. It is not the US that has been a victim of this, it is Iran. We too have been victimized. So we have the right to expect to both see changes and practical steps in this regard and also be anxious that these changes do occur.

Until then, maybe our nation and our government do not feel ready to risk something else. In my previous talk right before you I said that in the previous administration some positive steps were taken. Had they continued in some way, it could have been very positive for our relations. The previous administration explicitly said that in regards to Iran, they had made mistakes and that their policy was faulty.

It wasn't explicitly said that they supported and actually conducted the 1953 coup in Iran or did not explicitly express their involvement in the Iran-Iraq war, nor have explicitly talked about sanctions. But the expectation was that owning up to the fact that U.S. policy towards Iran and the Middle East was faulty would be the first step. This first step would then be followed up with practical steps, which unfortunately did not happen, and we are still under the same kinds of pressure and seeing the same accusations against Iran.

It is obvious that in order for your question to not be repetitive and for my answer to not be repetitive either, and for your readers to not be bored, conditions need to change and then we can say newer things. So, they also need to add to that the policy of the United States towards Iran and the Middle East is wrong and this would be a practical step.

Unfortunately it has not been taken yet. We need to see more of that but what we see instead right now is the same pressures, the same accusations against Iran so in order to not repeat the questions and answers we need to change the situation so that we can talk about newer things.

Q. The United States claims that Iran is a state that sponsors terrorism. What do you say in response to that accusation?

A. This is one of the injustices of the United States against us. To see a change in our ties, we have to change this perception. No! Iran is one of the biggest victims of terrorism. To this day terrorists are resorting to all sorts of acts against Iran. They attack us, they target us, we have suffered a lot from terrorism. We also believe there is state terrorism. There are few governments that would come out and say we actually kill our opponents. But we know that these things do happen, these are things that we see in the world. At the same time a lot of these governments. are legitimized. They are supported by the West or in some form but at the same time they accuse us of supporting terrorism, of state terrorism. I hope we can change these perceptions in reality. Do you know of a state that officially says we will assassinate our opponents and then goes and assassinates them? But in Israel we see this on a daily basis and unfortunately, those movements and governments are accepted and supported. And then a country, a people, a government that itself is a victim of terrorism is accused of supporting terrorists and terrorism. We hope this mentality changes and that along with it we will see practical changes.

Q. With all due respect in your speech today you say you have proposed a meeting of heads of state to combat terrorism, yet it is also claimed that several leading perpetuators of terrorism either are or have recently been living in Iran. Among them are Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil, Hassan Izz-al-Din, Ali Atwa and Imad Mughniyah. President Clinton even wrote you a letter asking for your help in apprehending those who murdered 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Could you explain your country's reluctance to surrender these people?

A. As the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I want to state that under no conditions will we allow any terrorists, as individuals or groups to enter Iran. There are no terrorists in Iran.

The list that you gave me requires evidence and proof to show first of all that they were engaged in acts of terrorism. Just to claim that they were is not enough. We too can claim that many groups and people are terrorists and have resorted to acts of terrorism, what matters is the evidence that we put forth. The list that you provided, those people are not present in Iran, they are not in Iran, and we believe we are responsible to participate in a world coalition to combat terrorism under the supervision of the U.N. based on a fair and rational definition of terrorism. My suggestion at the U.N. as you will hear is to create a coalition of peace based on justice that would replace the coalition of war.

I believe that terrorism itself is a kind of war. War must not create war. We must find other means to put an end to war. Iran has been a victim of terrorism itself and not a supporter of it. The issue about Mr. Clinton, the one that you mentioned, we had no involvement in the Khobar tower incident. The other side in this issue is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has said as well, that the claim made by the United States has no backing by evidence, we were not involved at all and we don't know of the people who were involved either.

They are not in Iran so rest assured that if we find terrorists, we will fight them.

Q. Mr. President, why is someone like Osama bin Laden, why is his message so powerful in the Islamic world? Why does it resonate on the streets of the Muslim world?

A. I don't believe that his message really resonates strongly in the Muslim world. Public opinion in the Muslim world in general wants peace, security, and stability and the right to defend their religion and their freedom. As long as there is oppression, suppression, as long as people are humiliated and no one hears their cries, we will have a kind of feeling among the humiliated and desperate people, a kind of feeling among them that make them susceptible to extremist views or perceptions. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to address the root causes, the issue of poverty to eliminate that, to assist people in pain. Once we assist them, we can help humanity but if we don't there will be people who will endanger themselves and humanity so this is a threat to all of us, we need to eliminate extremist statements in all directions. We need to need to combat desperation, injustice and oppression so that extremists' words and actions would not have a place to grow and expand.

Q. Doesn't Iran have a role in combating this message of hate in the name of Islam?

A. Just as the Crusades should not lead to a point of view that says Christianity was the reason for war, or for example, what is happening in Ireland or in the Basque region should not be blamed on Christianity. If there are extremist movements and terrorist movements around the world, we should not blame Islam for that. Islam brings a message of peace for humanity.

I think there are dirty hands involved that are trying to take advantage of this situation. They want to stir negative feelings against the west in the Muslim world and against the Muslims in the West. So we must strongly prevent a clash among civilizations and religions and the spread of hatred. We need to prevent the spread of this hatred which results from wrong perceptions, and we need to refocus our attention on the people who terrorize humanity.

Q. What specifically would you like to see the Bush administration do in the Middle East to try and stop the conflict there?

A. There is no solution to the problem of Palestine other than the official recognition of the rights of the people of Palestine, the return of all refugees to their land, the creation of a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, the recognition of the right of the people of Palestine, the people of Palestine regardless of whether they are Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, to decide their own future, and have a right to live, have security, and their rights given to them, is the main path to stable peace in the Middle East.

I hope the recent events and the things that are said that can be positive, that the West and the Americans are saying we must pay more attention to Palestine and Palestinians, I hope this is not merely a tactic to go through this particular stage but that it is a strategy, in any case, if refuges and people who have been repressed and humiliated are not recognized, the problems in that area will not be solved.

Q. Is this compatible with the existence of the state of Israel?

A. We of course do not recognize Israel and we believe that the land of Palestine has been usurped. But of course it is up to the people of Palestine themselves and it is they who have to decide what to do. I think that whatever all the Palestinians want must be accepted by the entire world.

Q. Iran's official position on Israel is opposed to its very existence. Several Iranian academics have recently floated the idea that Israel should alter its opposition to be more in line with some Arab countries which oppose Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands but accept its right to exist. Could you accept this?

A. We take a historical view on this issue, which is how and what events occurred for the state of Israel to be created, the vast repression, the killings, the terrors, the displacement of people from their own land, so from a human perspective, we believe a government founded on terror and killings is not an acceptable and good government. And of course as I said, in Palestine and Israel we take no practical initiatives and our exact suggestion is that all Palestinians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, both those inside Palestine and those displaced, have the right to return to their land and also have the right to make decisions about their land. As I said it is the people of Palestine that have the last word, and naturally when the Palestinians themselves accept an issue, the rest of the world will accept it too.

Q. So if the people of Palestine accepted Israel's right to exist that would be acceptable to the government of Iran?

A. If the Palestinians accept this issue, while from a moral standpoint we believe that a government founded on oppression is not an acceptable government, we will respect the wishes of the Palestinian nation.

Q. Mr. President, will you visit the site of the World Trade Center and do you have a message for the people of New York as you visit our country and our city?

A. I had seen the World Trade Center before. When I watched the tragic events on television I was deeply saddened. I was the first or one of the first heads of state who came out to express my condolences and the condolences of the people of Iran to the people of America. We were deeply saddened.

It will be terribly sad to visit that site. It is hard to see what anger does, the anger of the terrorists, destroys souls and lives. This anger was so extreme that we are unable to find the bodies, the remains of many of those victims. This is terribly saddening. I would like to once again use this occasion to express my deepest condolences to the nation of America and to the families of the survivors including the Iranians who lost their lives in that tragic event. We hope that the bitter event of September 11 will be the last and that we will see peace.

Q. Does Iran have evidence that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were behind the attacks through its own intelligence services? Do you accept that these were the perpetuators?

A. We have not been given and clear or written evidence in this regard. Some activities attached to these people or these groups have carried out acts that no doubt can be interpreted as acts of terrorism. But in this particular respect we have no evidence except this speculation that has been made and statements made about having evidence. We haven't seen it ourselves but no doubt extremist groups who resort to acts of terrorism and want to solve problems based on coercion, are the kind of people who can easily resort to future acts of terrorism. That's quite understandable.