Off Topic · UN summit against racism (page 1)

I spend a lot of my day interacting with you guys and I really want to know how you all percieve this.

So, the UN wants to have a summit against racism. Great news, right? Who can argue with the basic need. Imagine the picture, the world coming together, united against a common evil. Racism will be defeated, followed by light, happiness and dancing in summer fields. Right? Wrong.

The UN in its genius decided to single out one group of people (race?) in its original summit in Durban 2002. With apartheid coming to an end, slavery abolished and steps being taken to force racism out of the workplace, what better time to bame it all on the Jews?

So, the US, Britain etc. boycott the original summit on account of it being racist. But this is 2009 now, a black man is in office in Washington and things will of course be better. Right? No. The decision is made by the nations of the world to base the 2009 summit on the declaration made in 2002, which I should remind you was branded as racism.

So the usual suspects boycott. The lesser moral-fibred (UK, France) attend but only with lower level officials. And what does the great UN do? The harbinger of peace and goodness to the world. The organization that sends "peace-keepers" to all corners of the globe. What do they do? They arrange for Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak on the first morning of the summit. I ask you, what precisely do they expect?

Of course, dozens of people walk out( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/... ) and Ban Ki-moon expresses his disappointment that the world will not come together to tackle the heinous spectre of racism.

Im not angry at the US. They didnt show. Not angry at Ahmedinejad either. We know what to expect from a poisonous snake like him. Not angry at the other diplomats from many nations who walked out. They did what was necessary to show they were not a part of it.

But what about the UN? What did they think would happen when they asked a known denier of the Holocaust, and a man who has professed on camera to wanting to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth to be keynote speaker at a summit against racism. And the people who stayed and applauded as Ahmedinejad demanded the Jews be blamed for all the ills Islamic nations find themselves in today.

My opinion is that anti-semitism is alive and well. What better place to hate Jews they at an anti-racism summit. You can tell the world "we hate racism, but hating Jews isnt racsim, is just common sense". By their actions the UN have defined hating Jews as not racism. They are normalizing it, just like it was normalized in the 1930's.

Time and again, given the opportunity, the average man on the street has shown their anti-semitic streak. The Palestinians we given elections for the first time in their history and who did they vote it? The party whose platform was "if you vote for us, we woill kill the Jews". The Freedom Party in Austria is a part of the govornment coalition. And today in "neutral(hah!)" Switzerland, elected govornment officials felt comfortable enough in their constituants feelings on the matter to stand and applaud as the biggest racist on the world stage brought out his party trick.

But this is nothing new. Im a jew and very, very proud of it. I know that people hate me for what I am. I see it on the street daily. I have had people spit at me for being Jewish, physically abuse me for my religion. This Sunday, I took 3 of my childrem to the library in civilized London, where a group of students derided the length of my nose and managed to include the word Nazi in every single sentence that I could hear. My kids asked me what a Nazi is and I told them that they were people who lived a long time ago who just wanted to kill Jews. But dont worry, I said, they're not around anymore. Maybe I was wrong.

I know people hate me for what I am. I just wish they could explain why.

In the far more eloquent words of Mark Twain.

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-e...

The final paragraph...

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent. of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star-dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

Well this is certainly something to tackle, and I don't have the time now. But I will later. So let this response act as a 'bump'. Very interesting stuff.

Nothing? Nobody cares?


Dont mean to bump unnecessarily, but im really interested in what you guys think about what happened yesterday. I promise not to take it personally.

i think what happened was a total tragedy and a mock of what the purpose of this summit was about. the UN embarrased themselves by this display, maybe their intent was good, but they should have thought a bit more about who they chose to open the summit. i mean c'mon, what did they think Ahmedinejad was going to say, something positive about racism, the need to brdige differences for the common good, etc? wrong, the guy is a racist himself and a tyrant - they should have chosen a more representative person of peace and unity.

Agreed. It makes me wonder about their actual purpose, or who they allow to derail their stated purpose ie to try and bring the world together.

I strongly support Israel but isn't the UN all about happy-happy? Shouldn't leaders be allowed to say what they want?

Posted by orangeblobman:

I strongly support Israel but isn't the UN all about happy-happy? Shouldn't leaders be allowed to say what they want?

Leaders are generally leaders because they are voted in by the public, or at worst reflect the majority views of their country. Im all for freedom of speech and long may it continue, but giving the keynote speech on the first day of a racism conference to a know racist, the leader of a country who dont even allow Jews in is like asking a KKK Grandmaster to speak on MLK Day. What is the point? The UN knew he wasnt going to speak about blacks, gays, 911, Iraq, Afghanistan or anything else. He was only ever going to say one thing and the UN must have known that. What can you infer from that?

[Edited by - firefly on 04-21-2009 12:03 PM]

Maybe it was set up to highlight how racist the Iranian people are.

Maybe it was set up to highlight how racist the Iranian people are.

Posted by orangeblobman:

Maybe it was set up to highlight how racist the Iranian people are.

Interesting but doubtful. Its not like the world needs more evidence. Translating any of his speeches given weekly would have had the same result. Why put him in a room, invite other world leaders and ask him to speak on racism of all things when their mere presence would have been tacit approval of his hate?

Posted by orangeblobman:

Maybe it was set up to highlight how racist the Iranian people are.

the UN doesnt operate in this context - they would never try to "set someone up" like that - they are about peace and harmony, but dont always think about the scope of some of the decisions that are reached.

I really think there is a reason why these things are 'allowed' to happen. Maybe we will see what results from this and then we will now.

I thinjk they let him speak to be poster boy for what we have to deal with in Iran.

June 12th is the presidential election in Iran.

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cf...

Nalod, if that is the case then that is one of the most catastrophically dumb political maneuvers in the history of politics.

5 minutes after the walkout, Ahmedinejad was hailed a hero by the Iranian media. He's seen as the superstar of the summit by the Iranian people. The effect of this in Iran is only to make them more contemptuous of the West, and gives Ahmedinejad a shoo-in at the elections. I can't believe the geniuses in Geneva wouldn't have seen that coming.

So the usual suspects boycott. The lesser moral-fibred (UK, France) attend but only with lower level officials. And what does the great UN do? The harbinger of peace and goodness to the world. The organization that sends "peace-keepers" to all corners of the globe. What do they do? They arrange for Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak on the first morning of the summit. I ask you, what precisely do they expect?

the way the system is set up, he has an inherent right to speak as a leader of nations & he seized the opportunity... i'm not so sure it was a speech that the other nations wanted to hear particularly, in fact the UN head had asked him to refrain from any inflammatory or anti-Semitic remarks... obviously he wasn't going to heed any warnings, but their hands were sorta tied as to what they could do about his speech.

can't blame the UN for 1 madman's radical stance on a topic... that's like blaming the US gov't for allowing the KKK to hold their demonstrations & gatherings.

[Edited by - TMS on 04-21-2009 12:10 PM]

Posted by TMS:

So the usual suspects boycott. The lesser moral-fibred (UK, France) attend but only with lower level officials. And what does the great UN do? The harbinger of peace and goodness to the world. The organization that sends "peace-keepers" to all corners of the globe. What do they do? They arrange for Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak on the first morning of the summit. I ask you, what precisely do they expect?

the way the system is set up, he has an inherent right to speak as a leader of nations & he seized the opportunity... i'm not so sure it was a speech that the other nations wanted to hear particularly, in fact the UN head had asked him to refrain from any inflammatory or anti-Semitic remarks... obviously he wasn't going to heed any warnings, but their hands were sorta tied as to what they could do about his speech.

can't blame the UN for 1 madman's radical stance on a topic... that's like blaming the US gov't for allowing the KKK to hold their demonstrations & gatherings.

[Edited by - TMS on 04-21-2009 12:10 PM]

You're wrong about this. He might have a general right to speak at the UN, but this was a special summit conference arrsanged by the UN Head of Intl Race Relations. There were invitations and everything. A schedule was set out, agreed and re-agreed. This wasnt a free for all where anyone could just stand up and do their thing. He was invited by the UN organizers to be the designated speaker at that time. I certainly dont blame the UN for Ahmedinejads racist stances but I do blame them for picking him to keynote their so-called Racism Conference.

He is a hero to government controlled media?

Or he has set his platform in the face of economic domestic problems and a population scared that he will lead them to war?

War is always a great distraction for a failing regime. Or a depressed economy.

Iran is coming to a head. Its important that his stance becomes clarified which can justify a military action against them. The neighboring arab world, some whom actually might support a peace with Israel can at least logically polarize Iran as they might not agree with this course.

Blame Israel and blame the U.S. only has so many legs in a reasonably educated population like Iran.

One can only hope logic prevails the the Iranian people can prevent their leader to walk them into a military conflict they cannot really affort to enter into.

Posted by firefly:

Posted by TMS:

So the usual suspects boycott. The lesser moral-fibred (UK, France) attend but only with lower level officials. And what does the great UN do? The harbinger of peace and goodness to the world. The organization that sends "peace-keepers" to all corners of the globe. What do they do? They arrange for Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to speak on the first morning of the summit. I ask you, what precisely do they expect?

the way the system is set up, he has an inherent right to speak as a leader of nations & he seized the opportunity... i'm not so sure it was a speech that the other nations wanted to hear particularly, in fact the UN head had asked him to refrain from any inflammatory or anti-Semitic remarks... obviously he wasn't going to heed any warnings, but their hands were sorta tied as to what they could do about his speech.

can't blame the UN for 1 madman's radical stance on a topic... that's like blaming the US gov't for allowing the KKK to hold their demonstrations & gatherings.

[Edited by - TMS on 04-21-2009 12:10 PM]

You're wrong about this. He might have a general right to speak at the UN, but this was a special summit conference arrsanged by the UN Head of Intl Race Relations. There were invitations and everything. A schedule was set out, agreed and re-agreed. This wasnt a free for all where anyone could just stand up and do their thing. He was invited by the UN organizers to be the designated speaker at that time. I certainly dont blame the UN for Ahmedinejads racist stances but I do blame them for picking him to keynote their so-called Racism Conference.

it was my understanding after reading the news article on Yahoo on the summit speech yesterday... the article also stated the UN Head had meeted w/the Iranian leader to specifically request that he refrain from any inflammatory remarks, but that he didn't listen.

Firefly,

First I want to state that I disagree with equating criticism of Israel and it's policies with Anti-Semitism. Israel is a Secular government furthermore even if they weren't if someone disagrees with a particular action or policy that Israel has done does not mean it is a wholesale hatred of Jewish people. Another example of this is I think all of us would agree that Saudia Arabia has some of the worst laws in governing their people but that in no way means we hate Muslims.

Secondly the Obama Administration did not boycott the Summit because Ahmedinejad presence or speech. The US chose to boycott because of some segments in the UN Resolution on Racism. The small section that pertained to Israel was the following:

We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion; We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security.

Granted I can understand why Israel might disagree with this document but the United States where exactly is the Anti-Semitism or the defamation of the state of Israel in this statement?

Thirdly I'll borrow the words of the Israeli statesmen and General Moshe Dayan, "If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies". So yes I agree Ahmedinejad is an Anti-Semitic A-hole and a nutcase; but that does not negate the fact that he is still the President of Iran. As such a more preferable way of dealing with someone like him is talking an open World Summit versus the possible alternatives.

My last point is that I disagree with some of the Islamic nations who want to curtail free-speech by making it illegal to insult the Islam religion. Their complete intolerance towards anything that remotely criticizes Islam is something that at most should be dealt with their own domestic laws. However I do think there should be a General Statement in which the UN condemns any and all religious intolerance or persecution.

Just my two cents. Nalod will tell you we've had a few discussions about Iran and Israel and we don't exactly see eye to eye on it but I think we do need a more open dialogue on these issues.

Here is a dialogue. We are on the side of Israel. You cannot live in America and take advantage of what it has to offer if you are not on the side of Israel. This is the way IT SHOULD BE. It's us versus them. Period. We must win.