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.

Abbas is a Holocaust denier? Evidence and references, please.

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.

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:

The speech prompted the normally mild-mannered Mr. Ban and other top United Nations officials to voice uncommon criticism of the leader of a member state. “I have not experienced this kind of destructive proceedings in an assembly, in a conference, by any one member state,” Mr. Ban said.

“I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite,” he said, urging members to “turn away from such a message in both form and substance.”

Mr. Ban also criticized members of nongovernmental organizations for heckling Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad for “grandstanding” from a United Nations dais and said his performance should not be an excuse to derail the important topic of the conference.

She also made a not-so-subtle dig at Iran’s treatment of its own minorities, after noting that the president’s remarks were outside the scope of the conference. “This is what I would have expected the president of Iran to come and tell us: how he is addressing racial discrimination and intolerance in his country,” Ms. Pillay said.

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:

Ladies and gentlemen,

I want to take a few moments to tell you about something that seems especially sad to me right now. In the world that we are living in today, we have children that are growing up thinking that they are inferior simply because of the colour of their skin or the shape of their features.

And yet, it is not their stories that are being brought to the forefront now. In this regard, I deplore the use of this august platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite. This is the opposite of what this Conference seeks to achieve.

This makes it significantly more difficult to build constructive solutions to the very real problem of racism.

It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian President. At my earlier meeting this morning with him, I stressed the importance of the Conference to galvanize the will of the international community toward the common cause of the fight against racism.

We must all turn away from such a message in both form and substance.

We must join hands and work together to achieve a constructive, substantive agenda to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.

It has been painful to see divisiveness where we should have had unity and a common sense of resolve. Racism is truly a global issue, and we need it to be discussed at a global level, however sensitive and difficult that may be.

I always believed it is far better being inside the room, making one's case, than standing aside and depriving others of additional perspectives and approaches. That is what the United Nations is all about – people coming together from all walks of life to engage in dialogue and find common ground so that all members of our global community can live in peace and dignity. And that is why I am here today.

I appeal to all to see this as the beginning of a process. It is not an end. Obviously, we have much work to do. We need to build on the progress we have made and grow beyond the divisions that prevent us from moving ahead.

I will now give the floor to High Commissioner Navi Pillay and I will be very happy to answer your questions afterwards. Thank you.

And Pillay said:

....I want to join in the comments made by the Secretary-General on the address made by the President of Iran this afternoon. I join with the Secretary-General in utterly deploring the speech. In my view, I think it is improper for a United Nations forum to be used for political grandstanding and I find this totally objectionable. Much of the speech of the President of Iran was clearly beyond the scope of the Conference, which is, as you all know, racism, racial discrimination and action plans to implement the undertakings made by the States eight years ago.

That is the scope of the Conference. And this would have been clear to you as you followed the speeches made by the large number of Ministers who addressed the Conference, and are still doing so, after the President spoke. Each one of these Ministers showcased how they had addressed these problems in their own countries. And this is what I consider as the scope of the Conference. And this is what I would have expected the President of Iran to come and tell us: how is he addressing racial discrimination and intolerances in his country.

It also clearly went against the longstanding United Nations position adopted by the General Assembly with respect to equating Zionism with racism. We have always urged that we respect United Nations General Assembly positions and United Nations positions with regard to recognition of States and statehood, and of course the names by which we call States.

However, here, I want to emphasize that to me the best riposte to this type of event is to reply, to correct, and not to walk away; not to withdraw and boycott the Conference. If that happens, who is going to provide a rational response to what had been said?

Fortunately, we have some very good examples of other speakers....

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.

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.