VIDEO: Western Delegates Walk Out As Ahmadinejad Spews Racism In Geneva
H/T David Dreilinger
Netanyahu, Sharansky, Dershowitz, Peretz and a host of other neocons are always hollering that nothing has changed since 1942 and that "the whole world" is anti-Semitic.
This clip shows the truth. Ahmadinejad takes to the podium at the Geneva conference on racism and as soon as he starts attacking Israel and the Jews, half the place walks out. (And neither the Americans nor the Israelis were even there).
Would that have happened in 1942? Or even 1972?
I doubt it. But it happened today.
I wish this type of reaction was inflicted on every racist demagogue in the world. But this is nice in and of itself. Sweet, like the Spanish indictments against the Feith/Addington/Yoo cabal.
It just puts the lie to all the fear-mongers who devote themselves to scaring money out of Jews by telling us that anti-semitism is on a rampage, that Europe is a hotbed of Jew-hatred, and that criticism of Israel policies is just a cover for anti-Semitism.
Well, this video shows the truth. The world has changed. I only wish Palestinians, Darfurians, Tibetans, Burmese and other peoples who experience hatred and abuse would get to experience such sympathy and solidarity in the face of pure hate.
But this is wonderful all the same. On Holocaust Remembrance Day 2009, we saw demonstrated in Geneva that the Holocaust is really over. At least, the one directed against Jews.
Bravo.
As for Ahmadinejad, I'll bet this is the most popular youtube in Iran (topping even Susan Boyle). What joy it must be for Iranians to see the Iranian boob ridiculed like this. Ridicule is a marvelous weapon.
MJ, what's the story on the two rainbow-wigs who got escorted out as the speech began?
April 20, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds,
the three young men wearing rainbow wigs have been identified as three Jewish French students from the Union of Jewish French Students (UFJ). They wore the bizarre wigs "to show that this speech and the entire conference is a circus," they said. They had also thrown a couple of red objects at Ahmedinijad, none of which hit him.
April 20, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'll bet plenty of people in Iran -- perhaps most -- would be thrilled to see their loathsome President embarrassed this way"
One has to wonder whether you are a truly evil manipulator and liar...or simply deranged.
The May issue of the Atlantic features a whole host of books showing that the German people were overwhelmingly aware of, and wholeheartedly approved, the Final Solution. The same thing could be said of the Muslim peoples today.
Yet useless idiots continue to peddle your line of tripe.
April 20, 2009 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why? The media's consensus is that he has lots of opponents.Presumably they're pleased to see him stumble. For all I know MJ is truly evil. But I don't see why calling a spade a spade is proof of that.
I'm sure that's true and thought that ever since I saw the photos of emaciated prisoners marching down Dachau's Hauptstrasse past chatting housewives and commuters hurrying with their briefcases to catch the 8 05 to Munchen. Maybe.Or not. I believe the photos showing that everybody knew.And I'd believe a 1938 poll that showed that everybody approved. If there were one.But there isn't. Of course if I felt like believing it I could believe it anyway.
"I could summon spirits from out the misty deep"
"Yes, and so could we all. But would they come"
Anything can be said. But does that make it true.
.April 20, 2009 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't claiming that most Muslims support genocide a blood libel? .
April 21, 2009 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Blood libel seems to be an Israeli (or perhaps Jewish) term of art. Dunno whether it applies here.
I do know that it is a dehumanizing failure of imagination to think that 1938 Germans ,or 1947 Zionists or 2009 Palestinians cam be chacterized with a single adjective.
I recall the video clip of the Israeli negotiators arriving in Taba. Small talk about the weather , and solicitous questions about one anothers families.
Amazing how much like one another they seemed. Except not amazing.
And Saab Erekat saying that during the 90s he complained to Perez that they weren't getting any place. And being impressed by the rightnes of Perez'reply " Yes. But meanwhile no ones dying".
It really isn't absolutely necessary to choose sides.
April 21, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadinejad Spews The Facts In Geneva
I had some difficulty following the translation but I didn't hear him say anything that was factually incorrect. I thought the walkout was politically puerile and pathetic, and even worse than the spectacle made by the clowns in wigs who preceded it. I admired the way he went right on.
Ahmadinejad is largely a dick — by which I don't mean he has a big one. But he's right to target Israel as the criminal, racist state it is.
April 20, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the translation in the provided video was terrible.
I think that attacking with offensive broadsides is not a good way to begin a dialog. I don't know where in the agenda of the meeting his speech fell, but it was way over the top, factually correct or not. His speech only confirmed the worst expectations for the meeting, that it is a sham.
April 20, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ-
Once again you distort ahmadinejad's words.
He said nothing that was anti-semitic. He said some things that were anti-zionist, but objective truth proves that zionism is racist and criminal.
April 20, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's in a name?
Were I an Israeli concerned with my safety, I think I'd have a lot of difficulty discerning a practical difference between anti-Semitism (a dead dog) and anti-Zionism (a live cat).
April 20, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's easy to tell a dead dog from a live cat.
also, sometimes the dog is really dead and sometimes the dog is just playing dead...meow
April 20, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
That a real dog of a metaphor.
April 21, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'm an Israeli and I have no problem discerning between the two. Anti-Zionism is a political theory that claims that whatever one thinks about Israel's origins and the needs it might have served decades ago, there is no reason anymore to preserve its preference for Jews (in terms of immigration rights, land distribution, etc.) today. It calls for ending Israel's self-definition based on ethnic terms (based on the European model) and replacing it by non-ethnic definition (based on the ideals of the US model, for example). That is, whether one rejects it or not, its a legitimate political program that has been debated here in Israel for many years now.
Antisemitism, on the other hand, is a racist, paranoid, conspiracy theory that has many faces and practical consequences, one of which is Ahmadinejad's claim that the Holocaust is an invention of Jewish control over the world media and his calls for the annihilation of Israel.
Unfortunately, anti-Zionism is often confused with opposition to Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories, which have nothing to do with each other. It is crucial to keep the differences between all those terms clear, so we could know what we're debating about.
April 21, 2009 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadinejad strikes me as anti-Zionist and anti-exaggerations of the Holocaust.
If Israel renounced Zionism, would A. still call for its annihilation?
April 21, 2009 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
If by "anti-exaggeration" you mean denying its mere existence, claiming it's an invention of imperialist Europeans and American Jewry who control the media, I guess that you're right. All those claims have been raised in the past by Ahmadinejad himself or other Iranian officials and state media. It's unclear whether such statements come from deep conviction, because they infuriate Western public opinion, or because they're supposed to undermine the support for Israel, but that's not extremely important.
As to the idea that Ahmadinejad's rhetoric has something to do with Israel's inner politics or its intellectual debates, though I'm not a specialist on Iranian politics, I find the idea laughable. Other than being a repressive regime in itself, Iran never showed much interest in the fate of the Palestinians, either Israeli citizens or those under occupation. If the heads of the regime had any interest in promoting solutions to the problems of the region, calls for annihilation of entire nations is usually not the place to begin.
And lastly, your insinuation that the standard discussion about the Holocaust's victims is an "exaggeration" is not only offensive and ignores every serious historical study, but in Germany it would also be illegal. So keep that in mind if you plan on traveling there.
April 21, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have they finished burying all those Palestinian children in Gaza yet? I was just wondering. As soon as they do, maybe we should start talking about the Holocaust. Not before.
April 21, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen [which exists only in your overheated imagination]"
Insinuation? "If"? Etc.
Yikes.
April 21, 2009 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
the us and israel sees good holocaust deniers and bad holocaust deniers. mahmoud ahmadinejad is the rejected, bad denier. mahmoud abbas is the accepted, good denier. why is that?
April 20, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Abbas is a Holocaust denier? Evidence and references, please.
April 20, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
read about the doctoral dissertation of mahmoud abbas.
April 20, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Criticism is not denial. Exaggeration is correctly criticized in serious matters (while welcome in vaudeville and the like).
You asked "why is that?" Abbas is working for peace.
April 21, 2009 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
how convenient the double standard is.
will abbas be demonized as a holocaust denier if he restarts armed resistance against israel? he does not rule it out.
in 2008....
April 21, 2009 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably. People who shout, "Holocaust denier!" also probably have something to hide.
April 21, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he's now "moderate," i.e., he uses his own policemen to defend the occupation, so we will overlook any unpleasant details.
As soon as he makes any real demands on his Israeli masters, everyone will know he about his dissertation.
April 21, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
do you hear any drums?
April 20, 2009 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
427 dead Palestinian children is "appropriate" force.
The People Who Chose Themselves have apparently nothing to offer the rest of us on the morality front.
April 21, 2009 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, though I usually support your ideas and attempts to push public opinion in the right direction, I don't think it's useful to reduce your opponents' argument to a caricature in order to contradict them. Most neocons' argument is not that the whole world is anti-Semitic, but that anti-Semitism is still a strong political force in some countries that needs to be taken seriously and that could not be overcome by persuasion, but only through intimidation. For these neocons, what remains important is not what some delegates in a convention do as a symbolic gesture, nice as it may be, but what Ahmadinejad's aims are when he claims that Israel has to be wiped off the map and when he tries to achieve nuclear weapon.
Now it's of course nice to see that the US, Germany, Italy, Australia and many other countries boycott a convention where the head of a fundamentalist, repressive regime preaches about minorities' and human rights, but it does not prove that anti-Semitism is a laughable element in world politics or that neocons are wrong in their assessment of Ahmadinejad. As said, I personally support any form of dialog with Iran, and hope for Obama to force Israel to end the occupation, but this goals will not be achieved if we just dismiss the other side's arguments.
April 21, 2009 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comments are the best and most insightful on this post.
April 21, 2009 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Discussions of these topic tend to heat up fairly quickly and lose their focus, so I try to do my share in promoting discussion.
April 21, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Har har! [the sound of breaking glass due to stone throwing lingers in the background]
"don't think it's useful to reduce your opponents' argument to a caricature in order to contradict them"
What, it's useful to dismiss them but not to contradict them? Or did you not make a caricature in response to my short comment above?
April 21, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior commenters make or infer some valid and pertinent critical points: that the whole convention is basically a travesty to begin with, that A-Jad is a buffoon not a statesman whose off-the-shelf demagoguery deserves little attention and zero respect, that his remarks here -though rudely irrelevant to the supposed conference theme- were not Anti-Semitic in the strictest sense of the word (although they were certainly deeply and stupidly biased against Israel -to which a proper AMERICAN rejoinder is NOT, however, to be deeply and stupidly biased in favor of Israel).
The take-home message of this video for Americans (other aspects are more important for people elsewhere), as MJ very rightly emphasizes, is how the mass walkout repudiates the Warsaw Ghetto mentality of West Bank settler fanatics and their US neo-con tools and mouthpieces (not that that mentality amounts to much more than paranoid lunacy anyway, however).
April 21, 2009 4:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
This looks like a pre-planned walkout to me.
April 21, 2009 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya think?
Look on the bright side: Everytime Western Countries sabotage internatinal fora it makes it easier for other nations to holding meetings without us.
April 21, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If true, seems to me that would have probably been at the encouragement of the UN organizers, who have gotten so very tired of the traditional hijacking of the intent of their conference, to the point where many countries see it as a joke and don't even attend, and whereby the attendees feel their years of work end up being treated like they don't matter.
From the New York Times report, my highlighting:
So after reading that, I went to the UN New Service site. And I found that Sec. Gen. Moon and High Commissioner Pillay had a post session press conference yesterday,
where Moon made it fairly clear that he warned Ahmadinejad in a morning meeting about the appropriate topics of the conference.
Moon:
And Pillay said:
April 21, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I have to say that Moon offers a rather tendentious definition of what constitutes racism. Apparently, it only occurs when its targets have some sort of distinctive skin coloration.
Ultimately, the issue all comes down to what one thinks of Zionism as put into practice by the Israeli government, does it not? If you think those practices include racism, then you are likely to ask what better and more appropriate forum for airing the charges then a conference on racism? If you don't think Israeli Zionism involves racism, then you are likely to think that using the conference to make these charges is to engage in a disruptive and distracting sideshow.
Apparently the world is divided on the question, since many walked out of Ahmadinejad's speech and many others stayed.
April 21, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
Sure -- if it were a genuine conference, dedicated as it should be to constructive criticism and institutional reflection. But as with Durban, Geneva is rapidly developing into the familiar pile on.
April 22, 2009 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
And, of course, Bar Kafka, you sum up with precision what everyone knows to be true. It is of course legitimate to challenge Israeli discrimination against its Palestinian citizens and as well as its treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. In fact, this was the subject of a vibrant discussion at my family's seder table this year, featuring the commentary of David Grossman as the touchtone of our discussion.
But, of course, in Geneva, as in Durban, if the Jews of Israel are the only thing or the dominant thing on the agenda, the conference is a farce, and the objective among us know that to be true. Remember that the Durban I manifesto has been ratified at this conference and in Durban I there is only one nation mentioned, and that nation is Israel. Hypocrisy cloaked in the flag of the United Nations, and it still smells like dung.
Indeed, there can be no discussion of the Syrian Alawite minority's chokehold-like discrimination toward the Sunni majority in that country (some of us know all about Hama and how it made Gaza look like a walk through the daisies!). And, of course, what of the Kurdish minority in Syria, as well as in Turkey and Iran? Indeed, there is no discussion in Geneva of what is happening in Sudan, or to the B'hai in Iran, or to the indiginous populations in much of the Americas. Shall we turn to Africa? India? Russia? Of course not, too hot button-like, and no consensus. But among the so many of the courageous attendees at this conference, there is consensus on one people, and only by coincidence that one group of people are the Jews in Israel. I know, I know, it's just a coincidence that history repeats itself (thank heavens for smart, faux progressives to remind me that it's not about the Hebes).
I say if the UN wants to have yet another conference on the State of Israel, go for it, pile it on, and come what may. But don't couch this conference as something other than what it is: another joke, another folly, but ultimately yet one more justification for some of us for the necessity of the Jewish State.
And, finally, perhaps you were correct months back BK. Perhaps we should have gone to say what President Obama said with such eloquence; what a bunch of hypocrites at Durban and now in Geneva. Bloody friggin' hypocrites of the basest order.
Parlor games and hypocrisy; alas, once upon a time the United Natins could have been a contender.
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
April 22, 2009 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - All the points you make about the hypocrisy of Durban and it's emphasis on Israel are absolutely true. That makes it all the more difficult for me to understand why Israel doesn't just get the whole issue to go away by figuring out a way for a peace agreement to be signed with the Palestinians.
Will this make all the anti-semetism in the world go away? No, of course not, but just as anti-semitism has slowly gone away in the US (my parents sure felt it's sting in the 30's,40's and 50's) I believe it would ebb in most of the world without the Palestinian scab waiting to be picked.
April 22, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the many things we can agree on is that the status quo is intolerable, and that people like Netanyahu and, worse yet, Lieberman exacerbate the problem. Perhaps where we disagree is that I believe that that reality has little, if anything to do with much of the vitriol toward the Jewish State around the world. But, in the end, where we might disagree has nothing to do with aggressive pursuit of a peace settlement along the lines of what is supported by J Street.
http://www.jstreet.org/page/israel-palestine
I am encouraged by the One Voice survey about which I received an e-mail today, reflecting that more than 75 percent of Israelis and Palestinians are in favor of a two-state solution.
http://onevoicemovement.org/programs/documents/OneVoiceIrwinReport.pdf
In my world JD, one can crave peace, be an unabashed zionist, and loathe the Liebermans the Ahmadinejads and their respective apologists of the world. And I reject the linear thinking as hogwash and tripe that is reflected in much of the commentary on these issues.
April 22, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zionism is racism.
There is no logical argument that counters that simple fact. The best argument that Zionists can make is that its "a necessary crime."
That's a quote from the founder of this page.
The walkout was staged. Ahmadinejad is a putz. Israel and the US partner with anti-Semites all the time. But they're "our" anti-Semites.
As'ad AbuKhalil (in one run-on paragraph as always)
April 21, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This might be getting off topic...
"Zionism is racism.
There is no logical argument that counters that simple fact."
It's not a fact, it's an allegation or attribution.
QED
Zionism might have racial or even racist consequences or corollaries. Some Zionists might also be racists, and Zionism in the collective sense might have racial components.
But that doesn't make it properly racism. Absent any argument from you to make a meaningful connection, you're simply spouting racist bull puckey.
April 21, 2009 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It's not a fact, it's an allegation or attribution."
The shape of the earth: opinions vary.
Equal representation under logic would state that people living on land for hundreds of years can not be not be justly removed and replaced by immigrants. There is no "right" of return after 2000 years that is not racist on its face. The Zionist left makes the arguments of the nativist European right elided by claims of Jewish exceptionallism: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Just bizarre.April 21, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get it now. All nationalisms are racist, but Jewish nationalism is more racist than others.
April 22, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I asked for a basis to say that Zionism is racism, period.
"There is no "right" of return after 2000 years that is not racist on its face. "
That doesn't begin to do it. That's your non-rational opinion, if not just hot air from you.
Zionism may be presumptuous, arrogant, and worse, but I don't get "racist" as essential.
April 22, 2009 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Zionism may be presumptuous, arrogant, and worse, but I don't get 'racist' as essential."
The Jews are an ethnic group. And being "presumptuous, arrogant, and worse" on the basis of ethnicity is the definition of racism. Josh Marshall thinks he has a "right" of "return" to expropriated land.
I think that thought beyond being offensive is just plain odd.
April 23, 2009 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jews are ethnically diverse. If a religious preference is racism, you're using the term far too broadly. That would be what's odd here.
April 23, 2009 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jews are a people, a nation (same word for either in Hebrew, am). To whatever extent Jewish identity is rooted in ancient and medieval theological narratives is by now beside the point.
April 23, 2009 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It amazes me how many people seem unaware of that.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769
April 23, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between a nation state (Israel, USA, ....) and a sentiment of commonality such as an ethos. The latter can be loosely called "a nation", like "the nation of Islam", but it's an equivocation in this context of distinguishing Zionism from racism.
April 23, 2009 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are established nation-states, and there are nations that are less well-defined. Tibetans, for example, retain their national character as Tibet maintains its government in exile in Dharamsala. The Jewish people retained its national character, determining its government in exile (if you will humor me the use of a modern notion to characterize an ancient and medieval chain of events) following a long and bitter dispute for leadership between the the Bnai Mikra (Karaites) and the rabbinic academies. As a Jew, I have a real problem with those who would impose arbitrary limits on Jewish identity, such as race or religion, in cynical efforts to delegitimize the national integrity of Jewish identity and heritage. Further, Jewish and Arab national rights are not mutually exclusive within the borders formerly known as British Mandatory Palestine.
April 24, 2009 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"There is a difference between a nation state (Israel, USA, ....) and a sentiment of commonality such as an ethos. The latter can be loosely called "' a nation.'"
Wow. So the German "state" is separate from the German "nation."
Why not just call them ethnic Germans? Duh!
Ok then, So Zionists want a state, Israel, to be controlled by the will of ethnic Jews. "The Jewish People" as right wing Germans want a German state controlled by the will of ethnic Germans. Do you follow me here? it's really pretty simple, even MJ Rosenberg could understand it. And he does.
It's all fine as long as Palestinians know their place.
Two state solution? Might be no choice. But its a racist ideal.
It's all so f'n simple except to zionists who want to call themselves liberal.
People are stupid
April 24, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why Germans? Would it have weakened your argument to choose any member nation of the Arab League as an example?
April 25, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because Israel is a state built on a myth, not a native population.
The natives were thrown off their land. Beyond that there was no holocaust in the mideast. That's a European crime.
You know and I know, when there aren't any Goyim around that that your argument will end with you saying: "But the Europeans didn't want us there!" and "But the Arabs are barbarians!" To which I'll reply: "And the Europeans helped us conquer them."
I had this argument with the man behind the counter at the 2nd Avenue Deli in 1983. It's boring. You're a barbarian but it's not you who annoys me. You're not really a hypocrite. It's the liberals who disgust me. I really think Marshall and Rosenberg believe that they're not racists, but that somehow they have a right to believe these racist arguments without being tainted by them.
1- Zionism is racial separatism
2-Israel was founded on expropriated land.
You know this and don't care. I respect that.
Others refuse to admit what you accept. For them I have nothing but contempt.
April 25, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand why there appears to be some interest generated by the assertion of racism on the part of Ahmadinejad by the contributor. Candidly, from what I heard of that speech it was really no different than what is written by commenters and contributors on a daily basis at the Cafe. I'm genuinely not trying to be smug; indeed; I'm actually quite serious and posting this in good faith.
As DanK aptly points out, the walkout did have the appearance of something prestaged. I didn't hear any holocaust denial from the Iranian leader, for example, so I would be interested in hearing from anyone who could distinguish between what Ahmadinejad said yesterday, which the contributor--has called racist, and what is ordinary course commentary at the Cafe.
This is not a question directed to the commenter, as he has requested that I not direct any communication to him and it is a request that I honor as a courtesy. Instead I exercise the rights I have as a commenter at the Cafe to the rest of the audience, which includes my right to note for the record that the commenter has asserted that Ahmadinejad has "spewed racism" (quotations intentional and without the need for literary license).
Bruce S. Levine
New York, New York
April 21, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
mj and the diplomats are having a misapplied and incongruous "don't fuck with jews" moment against the designated hitler du jour. they can pat themselves on the back and all feel better that they stopped evil.
April 21, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Blue Pearl. Some might say that some of these folks are asserting anti-semitism for political purposes, particularly when what the guy said yesterday (I wouldn't have even sat in the same room with him but I'm a hopeless, unapologetic zionist and I think Ahmdinejad is trash, period (who still supports active engagement of Iran--imagine taht)) was really no different than the kind of stuff we see posted around here everyday, eh? Golly gee, one might posit that if Ahmadinejad was "spewing racism" yesterday, what would those people who post similar stuff be accused of by the contributor and those other diplomats (assuming this isn't just a big fat and juicy parlor game and things like consistency matter and stuff like that)? Curious ain't it?
Of course, perhaps I missed something. Maybe Ahmdinejad said things yesterday that were different in kind than what we read around these parts every day of the week. Maybe someone can point out the difference. I sure as heck can't.
April 21, 2009 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
bslev, you're right that Ahmdinejad did not say anything particularly outrageous yesterday. However, he and other seniors in his regime have said much worse things in the past, and more important, their policies put them in a very bad position from which to preach about discrimination or international justice. The walkout yesterday, I believe, was less about what the man said and more about the fact that there's something troubling listening to the head of a regime that assassinates its critics, hangs homosexuals, and discriminates its minorities, talk about human rights and ethnic justice. It's not much different than listening to the king of Saudi Arabia accuse Western discrimination against women in the workplace - which might be justified, but extremely hypocritical and for many offensive. The protest, that is, was not against a legitimate critique of Israeli policies, but of the person specifically.
April 21, 2009 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Adenauer. I do very much value your contributions to these discussions.
Bruce
April 21, 2009 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Our enemies keep getting smaller and smaller. You would think that Iran had an aircraft carrier patrolling the Hudson.
April 21, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the months of reporting on the "will they or won't they attend?" question focused in the main on the US role, the issues all revolved around tussles over the language. After countless meetings, there were changes made that satisfied US but I believe it was the ratification of the Durban I conference conclusion that remained the sticking point.
But now, it's morphed into being all about the putative leader of Iran.
How convenient.
This whole business is a stupid farce and the Obama administration is one of the main actors. There are also certain circles that are initiating witch-hunting expeditions tracking reps who didn't join the the Hypocrites on Parade and who had the temerity to allow that little Iranian putz to speak.
They're making their lists and checking them twice....
Some realists are raising the point that it's essentially chickenshit to avoid directly confronting the issues raised that are supposedly sooooooooo beyond the pale.
I stand with them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/20/ahmadinejad-durban-israel-united-nations
(*)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1079599.html
Not to mention the little fact that this Confederacy of Impotent Human Rights Poseurs have effectively demonstrated their flacid irrelevence before the world.
And we are supposed to cheer this counterproductive nonsense on while engaging in an orgy of back patting?
A pox on everyone involved in this "Cuckoo Song":
(*) "Laurel and Hardy's famous signature tune was The Cuckoo Song. A pompous and dramatic melody and an out-of-key harmony, with just two notes. Sounds like this benighted conference."
April 21, 2009 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink