Now that the dust has settled from the Durban II conference, (the envoys who walked out are mostly back home, the protestors silenced, the chatter waning), I think one question should now be put on the table: Was the decision to boycott the conference an effective diplomatic gesture ?

This  all depends on who you ask of course, and what is meant by the word "effective." On one level, it seems like the only decent thing to do. Boycotting is also an unequivocal gesture. No one can really misunderstand the meaning of a boycott in such a setting.

But I recently spoke with one of the envoys who walked out of Durban II during Mr. Ahmadinajed's hateful speech and he said something I thought was worth mulling: "The politics of the empty chair isn't effective, because it's much easier to say hateful things to an empty chair. But if the Israeli ambassador is sitting in front you as you say it, then it becomes far more difficult. Then everyone really sees you."

Now I don't know what the correct diplomatic response is to the Iranian President's persistent habit of spouting hateful, racist idiocies in international forums and I know there are some who will argue that he would only relish the chance to humiliate Israel to its face, but I wonder who would really be humiliated and discredited in a situation like that, the person who came to listen or the one who came to spout insults and lies? In other words, I wonder if Ahmadinajed doesn't feed off of these pre-emptive protests as a way of "demonstrating" to his allies that the West "mistreats" him.

 Is this is the case, would the the US and Israel's presence at these little occasions strip him of an important propoganda tool (or on the contrary embolden him?) Something to think about....