Ahmadinejad completely blew up the U.N. Conference on Racism. Why Did He Do It?

[cali]

There's slight chance that the U.N. conference on racism and related issues, can be redeemed after the hateful outburst by nutjob Ahmadinejad. So why did he do it? Does he really think this will help him within Iran? It sure won't help him outside of it. Ban Ki Moon spoke privately with him before he spoke and implored him not to use the kind of rhetoric he did, in fact, employ.

This conference is reflective of the utter failure of the UNHRC and its members. It's shameful and its a missed opportunity.

Obama got this right.

[LakeSamish706]

1. I think you answered your own question right here: "nutjob Ahmadinejad". n/t

[HopeOverFear]

2. That racism conference is useless and they need to stop holding it

[yardwork]

13. Maybe we should have a conference on sexism instead.

[Vanje]

27. Call it, "Sexism and an Era of Responsibility" nt

[yardwork]

37. I like it!

[jazzjunkysue]

47. Or a conference on dumbism.

[Bicoastal]

3. "Racism is rilly rilly bad...

...especially when it comes from THOSE people! They're all racists, every last stinkin' one of 'em! The stupid, dirty, sons of..."

Yah, I can see where this sort of thing could be a problem.

[Cha]

15. Do they like when bigots are

racists against the Iranians?

[MADem]

4. Because he's an asshole who is desperately looking for "headlines at home."

He thinks that's the way to do it. He's "appealing to his base" and his base just love to blame "Da JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ!!!!" for all their problems.

If they had free elections in Iran, that shitbird would have gone the way of the dodo long, long ago. The younger generation doesn't buy that stupid crapola.

[LooseWilly]

33. They do have free elections in Iran.

Just not for the very topmost positions.

President, in Iran, does not equate with our near brush with "unitary executive".

And I'm pretty sure the poor economy in Iran does bode ill for Ahmadinejad's chances in the upcoming election. I'm personally rooting for Khatami (and hoping he runs). With Obama in power here in the US, a reformer like Khatami might be able to make some real progress normalizing relations... unless AIPAC manages to derail all such efforts.

If that happened, I might even have a chance to meet my cousins...

[MADem]

35. Yeah, after the "Council" and the "Supreme Leader" scrubs and approves the ballot.

I'd love it if Bush and his cabinet decided who was allowed to run for House and Senate seats (you're on the ballot! You're off!!!)....wouldn't you? That's about the level of "freedom" there are in those elections.

The "President" in Iran has less power than Hillary Clinton. He's supposed to serve as a figurehead, a mouthpiece for the Supremes, a guy to trot to neighbors and grip and grin...he can't even call out the Armed Forces or spend money willy-nilly from the treasury. He's the Mayor of Teheran with a following outside the city, for all intents and purposes.

Last time Khatami tried to run, he got thwarted at every turn. He's considered a threat to the status quo, because he is, in his minor (better than nothing) way, a reformer.

I'd like to see a little secularity creep into the government, but that's unlikely to happen. They're stuck on Cult of Khomeini.

[LooseWilly]

38. More like having Rick Warren and his ilk scrub the ballots.

... I'll admit. And yes, the president hasn't got much real power. Khatami actually stepped down in '05 because of term limits. And, needless to say, with W in office, a hard liner like Ahmadinejad really got a boost.

Khatami's as far "left" as the theocracy will allow anywhere near power. And, unfortunately, it seems like the rural poor are still supportive of the theocracy. Kind of like the US, really (W's base...).
The cities are more Westernized, and more secular. More engagement can only further that trend. Less embargoes. Less saber rattling and knee jerk anti Iran rhetoric. And engagement that isn't designed around exploitative control of their oil.

In the meantime though, they seem to be the "boogeyman d'jour".

[MADem]

39. Even the rural poor though, are victims of the high gas prices and the

rationing, because they do affect other things, like food prices and so on. When I lived in Iran, gas was like five or seven rials a LITRE. It ain't that now.

[LooseWilly]

45. I'd heard that a troubled economy was liable to work against Ahmadinejad.

And rising prices for the rural poor could really become a problem for him, I would imagine.

Ironically, that very phenomenon would also support the argument that Iran is making that it is developing nuclear power for civilian purposes. Energy is becoming more expensive, and they want to sell as much of the oil as possible.
Maybe, with less sabre rattling, they might not feel spooked enough to feel the need to develop nukes to be sure they aren't "Iraq'd"...

[MADem]

49. Iran has serious infrastructure issues. They haven't painted a government office since Shah left.

They need to build a few refineries in situ. That's the cheap, easy, and short-term solution to their energy shortfalls. The reason gasoline costs so much (and is being RATIONED, really) is only because they have to IMPORT it--they send their oil away, and then buy gas with the money they make. Why? Because the refineries they have are pieces of shit, that haven't been properly maintained since Shah left. They also sell their oil to keep the wolf from the door, to pay for all of these social programs they've created to keep the religious poor both religious, and poor (but better off than they were, so they think--maybe not better than they would have been in a freer market society, though).

They're just, well, really shitty and corrupt managers of the resources they do have. Part of that is because a lot of "vigorish" is going to the ulemi. Everyone has their hand out and their beak in. Meet the new bosses, same as the old bosses.

Instead of working on refineries and things of that nature that will pay off down the line, they're spending way too much money keeping the poor pacified, trying to extend their reach to Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, and wanting to gin up what is plainly a "dual use" agenda with the nuke stuff.

Plus, they're still paying the bills for the Iran Iraq War, which killed millions (and left a bunch of widows who need pensions to survive and --now grown--children who needed welfare). There are also buckets and buckets of people who LIVED after going to the front lines--and they need medical care and pensions and help, because a lot of them are very messed up.

It's really a fucked up place now. Not the people--the people are swell. The government, though, is a load of stinking shit. I really think that most of the people over the age of, say, fifty, who marched in the streets against the Shah regime, and who believed that oh, "my group" be they women/kurds/students, whomever, would have a greater voice in government, if they could go back in time, would be out in the streets protesting FOR Shah.

Not that he was any great shakes, but if you're going to be repressed and your political rights abrogated, it's way more fun to be repressed and be able to go out to a disco in your white suit or miniskirt, or take a date to the Intercontinental Hotel dining room for a fancy meal and maybe pop into a wine bar for drinks afterward or a watering hole for a whiskey.. You just can't live that way any more. You'll be smartly beaten in the street if you don't conduct yourself "Islamically," or dress "Islamically," and woe to you if you smartmouth the morality police (the Vice and Virtue blowhards). You could disappear and never turn up again. It's a scary place nowadays, people are still finking on others, but about stupid things (he had unIslamic, corrupting music videos--she accessed GOOGLE on her computer!!!) and I am always stunned when I see the cheerleaders for that shithead midget Mayor here who don't get how BAD it is over there. He's a jerk. He's the opposite of "democratic" and/or "progressive." He's an authoritarian shithead. I don't see Iran coming out of the shadows, though, for a long, long time. It's a pity.

[LooseWilly]

61. My family there has to always keep their blinds shut...

... lest the neighbors see the black market whiskey deliveries. But, there are black market whiskey deliveries. And there is at least some elementary google. And a whole lot of other shit, from what I can tell. And there is always a trip to Dubai.

Unless, of course, you're poor. I have no idea how bad that might be... but I doubt that it's any worse than under the Shah.
Actually, my family over there were great fans of the Shah. They think Ahmadinejad is an ass, and are just trying to outlast him and the theocracy.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to keep my mouth shut when people here post what seems to be knee-jerk anti-Iranian NeoCon crap. I'm all for criticizing Ahamadinejad (you've got a nice little string of adjectives for him)... but I'd prefer he be criticized for what he does and says... and not for some media regurgitated out-of-context snippet of sensationalism.
That would be like picking one sound bite from Pat Buchanan, taking it out of context, and then criticizing him over and over for that bite, when there's so much more he could be criticized for.

That "wipe Israel off the map" comment, for instance, was just his sensationalistic way of wording his version of the "one state solution", as I heard it in a speech. Meanwhile, he presides over and supports execution for homosexuality. And he denies its existence.
Yet I never hear him criticized for that. It's always the out of context "wipe Israel off the map" bit.

He's an ass, and the top clerics of the Theocracy are absolutely awful... but I can't help but think that if Truman/Eisenhower hadn't taken foreign policy advice from BP, these assholes would never have been able to come to power. US extremism helped shape the milieu that formed these assholes...

[MADem]

62. I always got my booze (beer, wine and the odd Johnny Walker bottle for company)

from the Armenians. I got my bacon from them, too!

Unfortunately, some of those guys were murdered by the Pasaradan. Those were ugly days.

There have been discussions here of the "no gays" remark back when it was first made, and how the theocracy hangs gay kids and "moral criminals" from drott cranes in the town square, as well as the recent crackdown on "sloppy chador wearing" where women were being beaten bloody in the street. But there's never a great deal of outrage--it's almost as though some don't want to believe "that stuff." They only react (with fist pumping delight) if the midget tweaks Uncle Sam's nose.

It's a shame that we blew the opportunity way back when to help Iran craft a sustainable internal and foreign policy. If we'd stayed out of the equation, though, the USSR would have promptly inserted themselves...and they may have done it at the point of guns. It was a difficult time. If we'd had better dialogue with Mossadeq, who knows what the downstream result would have been?

I'd love to go back sometime. It's just not in the cards anytime real soon, I think. That poor young woman being held as a spy (please! How asinine!) is like the canary in the coal mine. If you're carting a blue passport, you're not terribly safe over that way yet.

[LooseWilly]

64. I've been trying to get over there to see family for 20 years.

Hmm, come to think of it, I think I have to call my niece once I'm done composing this post (I'm probably on the NSA lists as a result of calls like this).

I've read that Truman wanted to work a deal with Mossadeq, but that BP advisors advised against it, and that Truman was afraid of jeapardizing the new US/UK alliance in the face of the "Soviet Menace".
If the book is to be trusted, ARCO is essentially to blame for half of all current tensions in the Middle East. On the other hand, they have cheaper gas than Chevron...
If Truman would've told BP to blow it out their asses... I suspect the US relations with Iran would've been something of a cross between US relations with Saudi Arabia, and those with Israel.
Of course, that would've meant the military industrial complex types would've needed to come up with another boogey man.... but I'm sure they've got several in the wings.

I guess I won't be meeting my cousins face to face any time soon... unless we arrange to meet in Dubai or something.

[MADem]

65. Kermit (aka Kim) Roosevelt was the real troublemaker, though.

The Shah loved him, for obvious reasons. Who else could hire every orange cab in the city to ferry paid poor folk from southern Teheran (some of whom waved their cash at the demos) to pro-shah protests?

I'd meet in Dubai if I were you. It's just not "optimal" right now, IMO. Things are tough there, too--you might be able to get a sweet deal on a hotel suite. Watch out for the poops and buttwipe on Jumeirah beach, though--they've been having some sanitation/sewage issues lately.

[LooseWilly]

67. Hehe... yeah, I seem to remember the name of Kermit Roosevelt.

Might well have been the boots on the ground.

Dubai is definitely the sensible plan. A part of me would really like to have a chance to work on my farsi though. Of course, with earrings and tattoos, as a male... now might be a very bad time to be wandering the streets of Tehran.

[MADem]

68. He was the Mastermind. Really. A relative of FDR, and as spooky as they come.

You'd have trouble with earrings and ink. Really. Unless the ink can be hidden and the earrings removed...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. To impress Jodie Foster. n/t

[Phoonzang]

9. You win the thread. nt

[LooseWilly]

34. Hmm?

And here I thought that he needed to be issued a green card and work for a couple of years as a cabbie here in the States before the "Bickle Effect" set in...

:think:

[MADem]

50. ~~~!!!~~~

:rofl:

[Aloha Spirit]

6. He and his supporters consider his speech to be a precise, strategic move

As the most prominent head of state in attendance, I don't see how the Sec Gen could deny giving him a platform for his "message."
Ahmadinejad thinks it's strategic weakness to be transparent or obvious.
But if I had to take a realllly wild guess as to what's up, I'd say motivating the conservative elements in the Islamic world was his general goal, with a more specific goal of disrupting any helpful dialogue on the israel/palestine issue because that would be bad for the conservative elements.

[MarjorieG]

7. Racism is a subjective judgment call used to blame, and no country blameless.

Blew it up because he could, and for a back home audience. The UN needs to tackle what it can and should first to problems of hunger, war, without trying to assign the reasons for it that are circular.

[Median Democrat]

8. Smart Move To Boycott This Train Wreck Of A Conference

Then again, what Iran's President did is not too different from what John Bolton would do.

[cali]

11. yeah, that decision is looking good about now.

and yeah, Bolton was a horrendous creep.

[Raineyb]

75. Funny, we sent John Bolton to the UN

So only this country is allowed to send blowhards who lob verbal grenades?

Boycotting this conference allowed it to become the circus you decry. And frankly our country has no business boycotting any conference on racism. We have too much baggage in that department to do so credibly.

[kestrel91316]

10. Because he's a total douchebag. And I almost never call anybody that.

[LooseWilly]

12. Last I knew, he was trying to re-frame the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

I'm guessing that lectures from Ban Ki Moon regarding UN resolutions to revoke the equivalence of zionism with racism just sounded like more "STFU" talk from Western Powers to Ahmadinejad. Of course, that is essentially what it is... as the US and Israel were probably instrumental in revoking the equivalence resolution.

If anyone were to take the time to really think about it from Ahmadinejad's point of view... the obvious reason to buck "instructions" would be to show, once again, that Iran will not bow to "Imperialist Western Powers". Iran's been looking down the barrels of Uncle Sam's guns since they threw out the guy the CIA had put in place. Railing about the US, though, isn't nearly as tangible in the Muslim world as railing about Israel. So Ahmadinejad rails about Israel, in order to rally together as many allies as possible, and cement a National Pride at home at having "bucked" the US.

Sure he's a little bit batshit insane. Sure he's more a man of the right there, and not a reformer. Sure, lots of Iranians think he's an ass. But being told, as a nation, to "STFU" seems to create a similar reaction to that caused here at DU.
Of course, the translations of his comments are also routinely taken completely out of context by the US Media... and he's really not quite as batshit insane as the Media would have us believe. I'd say he seems a little more reasonable that Pat Buchanan. And a little more scholarly too.

[cali]

16. what apologist crap.

the equivalence statement was wrong. And it's hardly just the U.S. or Israel who object to it. And Ahmadinejad is a vile and virulent bigot. His remarks were, as many delegates said, plainly anti-semitic. There's no justifying that, particularly at a conference on racism.

Really, it's disgusting to see DUers justifying this shit.

[LooseWilly]

26. I don't suppose there are any links yet?

I'd be curious to see a translation of what Ahmadinejad actually said today.

I'm basing my judgements of his "Anti-Semitic" statements on the speech he gave at the UN the last time (when I had cable and was able to actually watch it). Admittedly, his "we don't have the Gay in Iran" was bigoted bullshit. But his statements about Israel, while couched in some hyperbole, seemed to me to be at least worth considering.

He said Israel should be wiped off the map. He then went on to say, essentially, that the swath of dirt that is currently called Israel should be renamed Palestine... and then he concluded by saying that everyone in the territory, the "Country" should be given equal voting representation, a new democratic government should be formed based upon that voting.
In other words, he advocates changing the name back to Palestine, and giving Palestinians an equal vote.
I would bet that Palestinians would be willing to have it go on being called Israel if they had equal rights, no longer had to stop at checkpoints regularly, were no longer blockaded, etc.
I think it's essentially the "One State" solution, minus the current heinous mistreatment of the Palestinians... with a "Catchy" hyperbolic headline- a headline which few people seem to want to read past.

I disagree that criticism of the behavior of the Israeli State is anti-Semitic in and of itself. My opinion of Israel was largely formed by an Israeli who related much of the history to me. And she was a huge critic of the settling of Palestinian territories. And I doubt that she would disagree that Israeli behavior with regards to the Palestinians has many parallels with the behavior of Apartheid South Africa once upon a time.

The Israeli Settler's propaganda machine is strong though... so I don't expect many to even take a moment to consider what I'm writing.

Ohh, before I forget, yes I agree Ahmadinejad is an ass. A homophobe, certainly. That is why I compared him to Pat Buchanan. It's an insult to Pat, and an insult to Ahmadinejad... it's win win.

[Aloha Spirit]

32. See post # 24, or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ZI_uPNM7w

I'd transcribe it if i thought enough people were interested.

[LooseWilly]

36. Thank you.

Well, giving the JTA source of the footage the benefit of the doubt (there seemed to be a cut about 2/3 of the way through, which, after the thorough footage of the Rainbow Wig protesters, seems hard to explain away as just another disturbance...) ... I think Ahmadinejad was just being Ahmadinejad.

The point of the Jews using the racism of Europeans to justify taking over a large swath of what was Palestine by force seems to be a valid criticism to me. A "just" response to the horrors inflicted upon the Jews by the Nazis would've been to give over a chunk of Germany for the Jews to make into a state.

The point that Israel is a racist state is debatable. Are Palestinians a race? I suppose that's the heart of the question. If Israelis are polite to Egyptians and Saudis, but blockade and starve Palestinians, are they really racist?
If I like Germans and shoot the French, am I a racist? Or just a land grabbing opportunist?

And, of course, from there Ahmadinejad goes on to give essentially a hot-off-the-template speech blaming the US for everything.

Of course, in giving that speech despite all the pressure not to, he is trying to show himself as a champion for all who would like to stand up to the bullying of Uncle Sam.
No surprise. The Republicans stick to the formula they know, and Ahmadinejad as well.

[Better Believe It]

14. The United States has lost credibility in the world on fighting racism.

Let's hope the Obama Administration has enough sense to keep quite on this.

They shouldn't comment on an anti-racism conference they are trying to undermine and weaken.

If they were not boycotting, the Obama administrations views on Iran and all other subjects could be presented at the UN Conference and would be listened to by the delegations and the world community.

As it stands, only Israel leading the United States and a handful of white European governments are boycotting the conference.

So their views on racism should be and will be all but ignored by the world community.

Even the right-wing Bush government did not boycott the conference. They walked out after delegates dared to criticise the racist policies of the Israeli regime.

Today's government in Israel is even more right-wing, extremist, reactionary and racist than the regime that held power during the first UN World Conference Against Racism.

Danny Glover got it right.

The Congressional Black Caucus got it right.

Nelson Mandela got it right.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund got it right.

The National Coalition on Black Civic Participation got it right.

Africa got it right.

Asia got it right.

Latin America got it right.

Asia got it right.

Most of Europe got it right.

But the Obama administraton got it wrong.

The United States and a few other governments bowed down to Israel's right-wing regime and got it wrong. But an overwhelming majority of the worlds nations and people refused to cave-in to racism .... even racism in Israel.

The United States government sure can't offend any racists in Israel .... unless you're one who believes that Israel is free of racism and racists.

The conference shall continue and be successful without the participation of Israel and the United States.

Isn't it wonderful being outside of the world-wide struggle against racism? I don't think this is the kind of change we can believe in or supported during the election.

Now the spin doctors and apologists for Israel's right-wing extremist regime can respond.

I'm listening.

[cali]

17. they've already commented and they have every right to do so.

and those doing the undermining of this fucked up conference are countries like Iran, Sudan, Zimbabwe and others. The U.S. quite rightly stayed away from this circus.

Your disgusting comments about "white countries" don't get any less disgusting how ever many times you use them. If someone described a group of African countries as "black countries" they'd rightfully be called out on it. People are more than their races and not everything is attributable to race. Using "white" as a perjorative, to indicate that the nations boycotting are racist and that's why they're doing it, is beyond the pale, though for you, it's quite typical.

The British Government has used the harshest of terms to describe Ahmadinejad's bigoted rant. And they aren't alone.

Fortunately the like of you are wrong. The U.S. is hardly irrelevant here, nor are the 9 other countries boycotting or the 23 that walked out in disgust.

And little genius, this isn't a conference about Israeli bigotry (no, it's not racism, it's bigotry rooted in religion), it's a conference to tackle racism and oppression of minorities the world over. Duh. YOU seem to think that anti-semitism is just dandy.

Disgusting. Really disgusting.

You really are a piece of work.

[Better Believe It]

19. Of course racism doesn't exist in Israel. Thanks for the info!

Sure happy to learn that. All the while I thought an extremist right-wing regime exists in Israel. I just didn't know that a bunch of progressive left-leaning, racist fighting liberals were running Israel.

So I'm really pleased to learn from you that Israel is free of racism and that the leaders of Israel just love the Palestinian people.

I bet some of their best friends are Palestinians!

And some dare claim that Palestinians are oppressed by Israel! Such nonsense!

Do you have any more golden nuggets of wisdom you'd like to pass along?

[cali]

22. It's bigotry. It's every bit as bad as racism, justs as anti-semitism is every

bit as bad as racism, but it's bigotry rooted in religion, not race. Israelis after all, come in all colors- including black.

don't fucking dare twist my words. I've said clearly over and over that Israel is oppressing the Palestinians.

You are truly beyond the pale. And you're lying.

[Better Believe It]

31. I oppose all forms of bigotry including anti-Semitism

Which makes we wonder why you support Israel's boycott of the UN Anti-Racism conference if you're really against all forms of bigotry.

You're taking sides with Israel rather than supporting American black leaders, organizations and most of the world.

That is in total contradiction to your alleged opposition to Israel's oppression of Palestinians.

You have to take sides pal.

You can't be both for and against the policies of the extreme right-wing Israeli regime and be for fighting against racism while you support and defend Israel's opposition to the United Nations international conference against racism.

Do you think the United States and Israel can or will organize such a conference? Hardly anyone would attend. It would lack any credibility now that the Obama administration is supporting Israel's right-wing fanatics.

We have enough apologists for Israel in both major parties who dance to whatever tune is played by the Israeli lobby.

I'm tired of them acting like foreign agents for a government hostile to civil and human rights.

[cali]

40. I support the U.S. boycott. I'm not really interested in what Israel does

re the conference. Like Obama, I was on the fence, despite the fuck up that was Durban, but after researching and reflecting, I came down on the side of boycotting- and not because of criticism of Israel, but because it was shaping up to be a circus dominated by members of the HRC like Zimbabwe, Sudan, Iran and others with horrible human rights records. It was clear that these countries planned to stonewall some of the worst abuses currently taking place, and the business about equating criticism of religion with human rights abuse, is also anathema to any liberal... sweetiepie.

And I'm taking sides with Barack Obama, pal. Or doesn't he count as a black leader, dear? And I'm taking sides with Susan Rice, or do you discount her as well, honey?

YOU are an apologist for hate and bigotry and yur scuzzy comments about "white countries" are repulsive. ]

your posts are simply repulsive.

[RollWithIt]

70. The US has lost all credibility on racism? NEWSFLASH, OUR PRES IS BLACK!

Just thought I'd point that out.

[Raineyb]

72. What the fuck does that have to do with facing up to our racist past

or battling current racism now?

I don't see either of these things being done.

We have no credibility when it comes to dealing with racism.

[RollWithIt]

76. Ummmm

Electing a black President has a lot to do with "owning up to our racist past."

[Raineyb]

79. It does no such thing. We still like to pretend it doesn't exist.

But apparently one black man getting into the White House is supposed to erase all that? Well it doesn't. Sorry to burst your bubble with a bit of reality on that one.

Regards

[Algorem]

18. what did he say that was inaccurate?

all i see is a bunch of posters getting all huffy and puffy,no quotes,nothing.

[cali]

20. really? you think 40 delegates walking out is posters getting huffy?

You think the Norwegian delgate saying that it was incitement to hate, is huffy posters? How about Ban Ki Moon's denunciation? Or dozens of others who called it anti-semitic and hate speech.

Here's some of it:

English translation of excerpts from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. racism conference:

"Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering. They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. In fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

___

"It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide, while the awakened, conscious and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and bombardments of civilians of Gaza."

[Algorem]

23. i obviously was referring to posters on this thread.

[LooseWilly]

43. Delegates walking out doesn't mean that Ahmadinejad is vile.

It means that they strongly disagree with him, in my opinion.

As to your quotes ironically I think that they are, in essence, the most accurate parts of his speech.

"Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering. They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine. In fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."

Ok, there's some hyperbole there. The entire nation wasn't made homeless... many Palestinians were allowed to keep their homes. As a nation however, they were made "homeless", insofar as they no longer had a nation of their own (Can't blame the Jews for taking an attitude of "better you than me" toward the Palestinians after the Nazi Experience, I suppose).
The "They sent migrants..." part sounds like conspiracy theory. If it was just a mistranslation of "They brought migrants...", on the other hand, then it would be correct. Israel did bring migrants from Europe and the US, and even some from North Africa (I once met a nice Morrocan Jew who was brought to Israel by the Israeli government).
Of course, in order to provide for all these immigrants, well, settlements had to be built. Palestinians were, I'm sure, allowed to grab whatever belongings they wanted before the Israelis took their houses, or bulldozed them, or what have you. In the beginning anyway.
(Better you than me...)
As you have decided to define it though, that's not racism, that's just bigotry. And, I would add, land grabbing opportunism. So you are right, Ahmadinejad has again engaged in "vile hyperbole", having conflated bigotry with racism.


-----
"It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defend those racist perpetrators of genocide, while the awakened, conscious and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and bombardments of civilians of Gaza."

Ok, I've reacted to the racism charge. "perpetrators of genocide"? Hmm, well, if the Palestinians are defined as not-a-race, then obviously the Israeli policy of systematic land grabbing and displacement is not genocide. On the other hand, if they are defined as an "ethnicity", well... then I think we are talking about genocide.

From Merriam-Webster:
geno·cide
Pronunciation:
\ˈje-nə-ˌsīd\
Function:
noun
Date:
1944

: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

Is what's going on in Gaza and the West Bank systematic destruction? I'd have to say it looks suspiciously close, though there might be room to quibble.

"while the awakened, conscious and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and bombardments of civilians of Gaza". Uhh, seems to me that most of the world did in fact condemn the Israeli aggression and bombings in January... and that the US and several Western powers were conspicuously absent when condemnations were being made.

All in all, I think the points you quoted are relatively accurate. That delegates should get up and walk out on him as he made these comments seems to me to be an attempt to diplomatically pressure Ahmadinejad to just STFU about Israel's behavior, and join the "cool countries" who don't talk about these things.

If you really want to beat up on Ahmadinejad's rhetoric, I suggest you use later portions of the speech and hold them up for comparison to the rantings from the Worker's World contributors. Of course, beating him up for oversimplifying international history, rather than turning to knee-jerk reactions to publically internalized AIPAC talking points, is so much more intellectual, and so much less satisfying in the end.

[cali]

46. well, many of them said that his speech was vile and an incitement to hate

I heard it and read it and I agree with them. The passages you quote aren't just hyperbolic, they're bigoted and ugly and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. There's nothing accurate about claiming that western powers "sent" Jews to Palestine. First of all, Jews had been migrating to Palestine of their own volition for decades. By the turn of the 20th century, for instance, Jerusalem was a majority Jewish city. Nor was an entire nation made homeless. Whatever one thinks of the creation of Israel, there was already a sizable population of Jews there. The U.N. partition was refused by the Palestinians. Now, it can be argued that the British had no business there, but the same can be argued of the Ottoman Empire which controlled that land prior to the British.

The phrase "pretext of suffering" is also a pretty inaccurate as well as ugly statement.

I'm not going to bother going on. Anyone who can defend a bigot, a holocaust denier, a homophobe and more, is just not going to see things with any humanity or perspective. I find your apologist defemse of Ahmadinejad limp.

What troubles me most about folks like you, is you really don't seem to care about any of the oppression and racism that occurs by those who aren't israel- unless it's the U.S.

And no, Israel hasn't committed genocide. That's why no legitimate organization nor the U.N. have ever leveled that charge. What they have done re the occupation, land theft and Gaza are bad enough, but genocide under the Geneva Conventions, it's not.

[Better Believe It]

52. Why do you defend and support the extreme right-wingnuts that presently run Israel?

And have nothing good to say about progressive Israeli's who oppose this fanatical regime?

[LooseWilly]

63. You amaze me with your clumsy analysis.

The passages I quote are the passages you quoted.
I will, for the present, ignore all the blustering about your agreement with whatever, your blanket judgements of ugliness, bigotry, and rocket science.

If you read my post I did, in fact, say that it was hyperbolic at best to claim that Western powers "sent" Jews to Palestine. I then pointed out that, if it was just a mistranslation of "sent" vs. "brought" then it would've been accurate... as the Jews did indeed "bring" immigrants to Palestine. There may've been a legitimate community of Jews who were just living in Jerusalem and the rest of Palestine, but there was just as surely a cadre of Jews with every intention of laying the groundwork to take over. It's Israeli history taught to Israelis... else I'd never have been told this by an Israeli.

Likewise, I also said the entire nation made homeless was hyperbole... as I said I was certain that most Palestinians were allowed to stay in their homes, at least until Jewish settlers wanted the land.

The UN partition was rejected by the Palestinians. That is a point I had forgotten. The poor Palestinians apparently didn't think that the Jews would get the full backing of the British and the Americans to oust the Palestinians... so they foolishly thought that they should stand up to the UN and demand their land back from the Jewish Militias that had illegally seized it. Silly Arabs.

Your grabbing onto the term "pretext of suffering" seems to ignore the fact that it is a modifier... namely to condemn the notion that, on the "pretext of suffering" of the Jews at the hands of the Germans... that it was the Palestinians who should lose their homes and country.
It's not the suffering that is really being questioned in this construction, it's the "pretext" that that suffering justifies taking the homeland of a people, namely the Palestinians, who were not actually the perpetrators of said "suffering".
In other words, why wasn't it an Israel/Palestine sized chunk of Germany that was presented to the Jews... rather than Arab land?

Ahmadinejad may be a holocaust denier when it's convenient for him. He may call out Israel when it's convenient for him. He's definitely a homophobe... but none of that changes the underlying validity of a number of his critiques of Israel.

And the only reason that Israel escapes most criticism at the hands of the UN is because the US shields them. Genocide?... I think you're right... that Israel hasn't actually committed genocide... but I think they're walking a fine line on the edges at this point.


Ohh, and what amazes me about people like you is that you can "criticize" Israel, but you won't take a moment to consider criticism of Israel by those whom Israel has defined as her enemies. Ohh yeah, and thank you for flinging a boiled down version of the "Blame America First" epithet at me. I feel truly revolutionary now... and you sound like Pat Buchanan.

[cali]

81. justify and rationalize this.

An official Iranian text of Ahmadinejad's address to the conference on Monday referred to "the ambiguous and dubious question of the Holocaust". However, when the president delivered the speech he omitted the phrase, referring more vaguely to "abuse of the Holocaust". He also dropped a segment about Zionist "penetration" of western society
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/21/mahmoud-ahmadinejad-holocaust-speech
Many bigot pigs mix pieces of truth with their hate. Anyone defending Ahmadinejad or Avigdor Lieberman or David Duke has effectively joined forces with them and has earned the disgust and contempt of liberal society. Richlyl earned it. And thats' what you have done.

[Algorem]

60. hey,wait.both quotes are true.

[JayMusgrove]

21. Because he wanted to, and because he's a fool, a wise fool, but

a fool, and a waste of human talent.

My opinion only.

[Aloha Spirit]

24. Okay, this looks like a good video of the Ahmadinejad speech (youtube), 10 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1ZI_uPNM7w

About to watch it.

[Aloha Spirit]

25. oh M G basically, his speech contends that every ill in the world is due to Western white racism.

[rockymountaindem]

28. Surprised? n/t

[vaberella]

29. Well let's be honest.

A good portion of it was due to racism from White Colonial powers, that's just undeniable. Let's not forget in the US Blacks weren't considered even American until the late 60s. In South Africa not until the early 90s and they're still struggling. Plus no one talks about the racism heaped on East Asians to this day along with associated stereotypes. Not to mention the role of institutions like WTO and IMF...which does not really work for the non-White nation, seriously.

Other than that they're alright.

[vaberella]

30. I do have some issues with what he said...

This ideology that Israel is all at fault for everything that went down is silly. It goes both ways as to who holds the bucket in regards to the situation at hand. It's not solely on the Israeli's or the US's relationship with Israel. There are bits of truth in regards to some levels of racism.

His stance most definitely won't help him.

[LooseWilly]

66. Yeah, nuggets of truth...

... exaggerated upon. Nuggets of truth nonetheless.

"His stance most definitely won't help him."
Hehe... the irony is that, as a member of the "Axis of Evil" it would be extremely hard for any stance to help him. Obama might be willing to try to talk... but the US has a huge amount of "political inertia" that must be overcome before even Obama would be able to actually constructively engage any Iranian head of state.

It'll be interesting to see if any real efforts are made.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

41. And I thought this wank was going to chill out a bit. Oh well.

I was glad to see the EU reps. take a stroll when he started his lunacy.

[Number23]

42. Is anyone really surprised by his speech?

There are many Arab/Muslim nations that are furious with Israel. And whether any of us in Western cultures understands or agrees with it, that fury is compounded by every military strike that Israel engages in with US consent.

And I'm still not convinced that Obama did the right thing by boycotting this conference. Racism affects so many areas of global economics and politics and it would have been nice for the administration to use a forum designed to tackle racism to denounce it. No one expects miracles from this UN forum but an acknowledgement of what they were trying to do would have been appropriate.

[cali]

44. his rant was so unhinged that yeah, I was a little surprised

the anti-semitism was more explicit than he usually engages in in high profile speeches. This was as much about hating Jews as it was blasting Israel. So yeah, I was a bit surprised he decided to do this in this particular venue.

And this circus isn't about racism. the countries with the most influence over the agenda are some of the worst human rights abusers on the planet. In HRC meetings they stonewall any discussion of issues within their own countries. Same thing is happening in Geneva.

[Number23]

48. I hear what you're saying. But I still think that even "circuses" can do some good sometimes

In HRC meetings they stonewall any discussion of issues within their own countries.

Every country does that in every venue. But the meetings of the UN, NATO, OECD, OAS and others still continue, as I think that they should. I am personally disappointed in the number of countries that boycotted this conference. Like I said, no one expects much from this meeting, but even "circuses" can provide some relief sometimes. At this point, what other REAL options are there anyway???

[cali]

53. um, no. not to this extent. the UNHRC is infamous for it. That's why it was dissolved

and reformed a few years back. Unfortunately the same dynamics came back into play. Really, this whole thing is quite obscene. This isn't supposed to be only about Israel. And it sure shouldn't be about anti-semitism.

Obama made the right choice. So did nine other countries. And don't be at all surprised to see others walk out and not return.

[Number23]

55. I still think that there was a way for Obama to reject any anti-Semitic language

while still showing his support for eradicating, reducing or at the very least discussing the global impact of racism.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Raineyb]

73. I agree with you here.

In addition, it really doesn't look good for our country to boycott any conference on racism considering our history. Perhaps if our country had the ability to discuss its past but apparently most people are more comfortable pretending that everything is fine and have decided that if we don't discuss it, it will just go away. It's not healthy.

Quite frankly it just looks like the usual US posturing in that we're quick to tell other countries what is wrong with them but aren't terribly interested in hearing what is wrong with us because we're so darn special.

Regards

[Thrill]

51. I've heard the conspiracy theory on the radio today that, he did this for the US

to somewhat cover for them boycotting the conference. And he's also making his judges give the American Journalist a new trial. Both overtures to the US. Anyone buy that?

[cali]

54. nope.

ridiuclous to assume that given his history.

[Better Believe It]

57. The reactionary Ahmadinejad and right-wing Israeli regime serve each others political needs

But neither Ahmadinejad nor Israel have "blown-up" the UN Conference Against Racism as they had hoped.

The policies of both right-wing regimes have been rejected by authentic progressives in attendance at the UN gathering.

[Algorem]

58. noone high in the u.s. govt has ever plotted with iran before

oh wait

[Algorem]

56. so anti-zionism = anti-semitism?

[cali]

74. uh, no. anti-semitism = anti-semitism.

and it could hardly be clearer that Ahmadinejad is anti-semitic. You know, there really aren't any holocaust deniers who aren't anti-semitic, though he plays both sides with that- acknowledging the holocaust when it serves his purposes to bash Europe and then holding a holocaust denial conference. He's a flat out bigot, and anyone defending him is as disgusting as anyone defending Avigdor Lieberman who's an Anti-Islam bigot. no difference at all, dear.

[Algorem]

77. Uh,you're so superior,dear.

[amborin]

59. he's a certified idiot & whacko

[quaker bill]

69. Because he is a jerk

nothing about being an elected leader rules out being a jerk. The shunning he received was the appropriate reaction. Of course, the simple fact that a people have elected a jerk is not an excuse to bomb them.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

71. It is his typical hate-filled rhetoric combined with his milking of racist sentiments

To help him win his re-election. He really is a creep

This whole conference is a joke

[ShortnFiery]

78. Because of HIM, we have to allow Israel to bomb the hell out of Iran?!?

:sarcasm:

[cali]

80. the poster didn't say or impl anything of the sort

and who says the U.S. will allow or enable Israel to bomb Iran? The Obama admin has been warning them not to do so.

[ShortnFiery]

82. How many times do I have to request that you stop responding to me CALI?!?

You have your following and get plenty of attention without sniping at my posts. :(

[cali]

83. my thread.. You don't want me to respond to you, you shouldn't

post in my thread. And you didn't whine and cry when I responded in agreement with you this morning. I'll post where I wish to post. If you don't like it, I'm sorry, but you, as the saying goes, aren't the boss of me.

[ShortnFiery]

86. It's a gift! Hey, I'm sorry that I didn't realize that you OWN the thread.

I don't think you could be any more nasty if you tried. You have honed "haughty behavior" to an art form.

OK, I won't post on any threads that YOU OWN (start).

Then, just perhaps you won't have to snip at me for whatever reason makes you "happy." :eyes:

[scrinmaster]

84. Because some people take every chance they can get to rail against the evil Joos.

[Thrill]

85. The overblown threat of Iran is one the biggest jokes of the Bush Administion

What is he going to do blow up Israel? Isn't his country about 30% jews?

[cali]

87. you're correct, iran poses no threat. That's not what i was speaking to

in the OP. I was addressing his having blown up the conference on racism and querying what his motivation was? And no, Iran has very, very few Jews left. Less than 1/10 of a percent of the population is Jewish.