Ahmadinejad at Durban II. Racism and the Old World Order (Long)

Unfortunately this will end up as a series of posts. Hopefully someone will take the time to read it 🙂. This post is an intro, the second is most of the speech, the final is my sort of analysis.

The Wiki for Durban II:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Review_Conference

The World Conference Against Racism was held in 2001, ending just days before the 9-11 attacks. The goal of the conference was to address international issues of racism. Of particular note was compensation for slavery and increased “racial” policies of the Israeli government.

Before the end of the conference, both America and Israel backed out, being the only nations to do so, amid criticism from within their own governments (Jesse Jackson and Shimon Peres respectively). Ostensibly, the withdrawal was triggered by perceptions from both of these nations about the “singling-out” of Israel for criticism, ignoring the racism of smaller developing nations, though some believe America was unwilling to face its history in the slave trade. With respect to slavery, many European nations agreed to an apology that was written specifically to avoid the possibility of reparations.

Most nations ended the conference with negative sentiment. Nations like Canada and Australia felt the meeting was a waste of time with too much bickering, while Arab states felt that the conference was slanted against them, as their desire to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people as racist was left out of the final document.

Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Durban_Declaration_and_Programme_of_Action

News Article with summary/reactions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1530976.stm

Now, we can all disagree on whether Israel is supported or demonized internationally, and who holds greater responsibility or who is a more racist power in that part of the world. However, backing out, for simply being the target of international criticism, hardly seems like something nations interested in international negotiations would do. Not to play my own hand too quickly, but it probably shouldn’t be surprising that in my own opinion, this reflects the idea, from America, that they own the world and are above internationalism, and from Israel, that they are a religiously chosen people. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive and are certainly seen on both sides.

However, with this in mind, a second conference, to review the first, was just carried out. Even before this, however, items regarding Israel were taken out of the conference:

References to the Palestinian territories -- that led Western countries deeming them anti-semitic to threaten a boycott of a UN racism conference -- have been cut from the meeting's draft declaration.
Passages relating to so-called defamation of religion were also dropped. The text on this subject had been included after Islamic countries lobbied for them following a 2005 furore over Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.
…
The EU presidency earlier cited at least five offending paragraphs on the situation in the Palestinian territories, such as an assertion that "in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, (Palestinians) have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture."

Rabbis affiliated with the Israeli army urged troops heading into Gaza to reclaim what they said was God-given land and ''get rid of the gentiles'' -- effectively turning the 22-day Israeli intervention into a religious war, according to the testimony of a soldier who fought in Gaza.
Literature passed out to soldiers by the army's rabbinate ''had a clear message: We are the people of Israel, we came by a miracle to the land of Israel, God returned us to the land, now we need to struggle to get rid of the gentiles that are interfering with our conquest of the land,'' the soldier told a forum of Gaza veterans in mid-February, just weeks after the conflict ended.
…
The testimonies indicated that the army, despite repeated claims that it was protecting civilian lives, was not instructing its troops to that effect.
One soldier, identified only as ''Aviv,'' said he was bothered by open-fire orders given to his unit for an operation that was later canceled.
''We were supposed to go in with an armored vehicle called an Ahzarit, break into the door and start to shoot inside and simply go up floor by floor. . . . I call this murder . . . to go up floor by floor and every person that we see we were to shoot,'' he said. ''Aviv'' served as a squad leader with the Givati unit in the Gaza neighborhood of Zeitoun.

The US channel CBS News reported that Israeli aircraft carried out the strike in January after Israeli intelligence discovered the trucks were intending to deliver arms through Sudan and across Egypt to be smuggled into Gaza. CBS said this account was the "semi-official American version" and said 39 people traveling in 17 trucks were reportedly killed.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/sudan-arms-strike-israel

Agree or not with the strike, it is clear nobody would support such action by Palestine or Syria against American arms manufacturers or dealers who supply the Israeli military. In this way, we see a world where only certain nations have rights. Those who support America, who owns the world (of course), have rights. The right to defend themselves, the right to engage with each other for talks, and the right to refuse to be part of the international community. Other nations are relegated to the “Axis-of-Evil” for such “unsociable” international behaviour.

The intent of this post, however, is not to condemn in particular America or Israel, but to rather draw attention to facets of the international order which promote the dominant world order. America is right, and will refuse to even debate with those who do not assume that part of the equation. Once everyone agrees with America, they are willing to negotiate.

However, all other nations are entirely complicit in this. They are not victims of the power of the “Great Empire”, rather, pawns in its game.

And Israel. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the West is entirely incapable to ending unwavering support for a nation with such flagrant human rights violations. To speak with Canadians, anti-American and leftist to the core, who smile with delight while describing Israeli bombing raids and do mental cartwheels to defend the walling in of Gaza, is such a mind ****. It is like “our” dark secret, though I tend to think the psychology is much less theatric. Israel is the material manifestation of the struggle people are told the West has. Ideas like “the clash of civilizations” and other such memes play into conceptualizing the “other” as so different from us, and desiring that which is so different from what we have, that killing them is seen as an affirmation of our own way of life.

What is most interesting, and this will come out in the next part with Ahmadinejad’s speech, is that, even though the president of Iran will come out and blast American liberty and capitalism, it is these things that the people in Tehran clamor for. Not in the design of American freedom, but certainly in terms of personal liberty, which raises another interesting point: While it is obvious that this demonization of the other, and in the modern political context Iran, benefits the dominant order, there are advantages both ways. Iran’s government, which opposes personal liberty, is strengthened by this “clash of civilizations”, as they are constructed as a civilization with the military and social power to contest the Western world, while in the west, they play the role of international boogey-man, who, like the USSR during the cold war, is entirely incapable of defending themselves in realistic terms (hence their drive for a nuclear weapon).

And in this context the second conference was held, boycotted by Canada, Israel, America and Italy, among others.

I’ve pulled the main parts of the speech, especially those pertaining to Israel and Zionism, parts of the speech which provoked members assembled to walk out of the meeting. One person even dressed up in a clown wig and threw things at Ahmadinejad.

Full Speech:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/president-ahmadinejads-full-speech-durban-review-conf

In the Medieval Ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade. Innocent people were taken captive in their millions and separated from their families and loved ones to be taken to Europe and America under the worst conditions. A dark period that also experienced occupation, lootings and massacres of innocent people.

Many years passed by before nations rose up and fought for their liberty and freedom and they paid a high price for it. They lost millions of lives to expel the occupiers and establish independent and national governments. However, it did not take long before power grabbers imposed two wars in Europe which also plagued a part of Asia and Africa. Those horrific wars claimed about a hundred million lives and left behind massive devastation. Had lessons been learnt from the occupations, horrors and crimes of those wars, there would have been a ray of hope for the future.

The victorious powers called themselves the conquerors of the world while ignoring or down treading upon rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us take a look at the UN Security Council which is one of the legacies of World War I and World War II. What was the logic behind their granting themselves the veto right? How can such logic comply with humanitarian or spiritual values?

…

The council is the highest decision-making world body for safeguarding international peace and security. How can we expect the realization of justice and peace when discrimination is legalized and the origin of the law is dominated by coercion and force rather than by justice and the rights?

…

Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, 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.

The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes.

Dear friends, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. What are the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq anything other than the arrogance of the then US administration and the mounting pressures on the part of the possessors of wealth and power to expand their sphere of influence seeking the interests of giant arms manufacturing companies affecting a noble culture with thousands of years of historical background, eliminating the potential and practical threats of Muslim countries against the Zionist regime or to control and plunder the energy resources of the Iraqi people?

Why, indeed, almost a million people were killed and injured and a few more millions were displaced? Why, indeed, the Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars? And why was billions of dollars imposed on the American people as the result of these military actions? Was not the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then US administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing countries and the possessors of wealth? Did the invasion of Afghanistan restore peace, security and economic wellbeing in the country?

…

Mr. President, Ladies and gentlemen, Racism is rooted in the lack of knowledge concerning the root of human existence as the selected creature of God. It is also the product of his deviation from the true path of human life and the obligations of mankind in the world of creation, failing to consciously worship God, not being able to think about the philosophy of life or the path to perfection that are the main ingredients of divine and humanitarian values which have restricted the horizon of human outlook making transient and limited interests, the yardstick for his action. That is why evil's power took shape and expanded its realm of power while depriving others from enjoying equitable and just opportunities of development.

The result has been the making of an unbridled racism that is posing the most serious threats against international peace and has hindered the way for building peaceful coexistence in the entire world. Undoubtedly, racism is the symbol of ignorance which has deep roots in history and it is, indeed, the sign of frustration in the development of human society.

It is, therefore, crucially important to trace the manifestations of racism in situations or in societies where ignorance or lack of knowledge prevails. This increasing general awareness and understanding towards the philosophy of human existence is the principle struggle against such manifestations, and reveals the truth that human kind centers on the creation of the universe and the key to solving the problem of racism is a return to spiritual and moral values and finally the inclination to worship God Almighty.

…

World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face. However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all the resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime and to maliciously diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime.

This is not simply a question of ignorance and one cannot conclude these ugly phenomena through consular campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there have been literatures and statements in support of Zionists and their crimes. And it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.

It should be recognized that boycotting such a session as an outstanding international capacity is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism. In defending human rights, it is primarily important to defend the rights of all nations to participate equally in all important international decision making processes without the influence of certain world powers.

…

I also want to lay emphasis on the fact that Western liberalism and capitalism has reached its end since it has failed to perceive the truth of the world and humans as they are.

It has imposed its own goals and directions on human beings. There is no regard for human and divine values, justice, freedom, love and brotherhood and it has based living on intense competition, securing individual and cooperative material interest.

Now we must learn from the past by initiating collective efforts in dealing with present challenges and in this connection, and as a closing remark, I wish to draw your kind attention to two important issues:

Firstly, it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However it must be noted that this could be only achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world. My participation in this conference is because of my conviction to these important issues as well as to our common responsibility of defending the rights of nations vis-à-vis the sinister phenomena of racism and being with you, the thinkers of the world.

Secondly, mindful of the inefficiency of the current international political, economic and security systems, it is necessary to focus on divine and humanitarian values by referring to the true definition of human beings based upon justice and respect for the rights of all people in all parts of the world and by acknowledging the past wrong doings in the past dominant management of the world, and to undertake collective measures to reform the existing structures.

In this respect, it is crucially important to rapidly reform the structure of the Security Council, including the elimination of the discriminatory veto right and to change the current world financial and monetary systems.

So, before getting into the controversy, I want to address a couple of things from the speech.

1st: The idea that the modern international order is a byproduct and continues to support racism is not something that Ahmadinejad came up with, nor is it something that Arabs came up with. Quite frankly, the first portion of his speech could have come from “Black Sexual Politics”, or any other sociological text exploring the post-slavery African community. Not to mention, the work of post-colonial authors in African and South-Asian nations come to similar conclusions. My personal opinion is that there is an emphasis in these areas to remove local responsibility for modern problems (ie: attribute everything to colonial powers), though even with that excluded, it is fairly obvious that America and Europe have benefitted from, and cemented this privilege through, international institutions more than developing nations.

2nd: The speech is largely more political/nationalist than racial. The accusations being thrown against Israel are NOT those of race (aside from the accusation of benefiting from the racist construction of the international order). In fact, Ahmadinejad imho makes a very soft case against Israel. High ranking military officials have certainly made racist comments against the Palestinians, military policy is highly indiscriminate with regard to civilians, and the religious imputes to much of Israel’s policy in the occupied territories are entirely glossed over. In 2008, Matan Vilnai, Israels then Deputy Defense Minister, warned:

his country was close to launching a huge military operation in Gaza and said Palestinians would bring on themselves a "bigger shoah," using the Hebrew word usually reserved for the Holocaust.

…

"The more Qassam fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he said, in a telephone interview with army radio yesterday morning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/01/israelandthepalestinians1

Arab residents of Israel also complain of harassment in everyday life.

For instance:

Arab Citizens of Israel – Discrimination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Arab#Discrimination

Anti-Arabism – Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism#Israel

This simply being evidence of a more nuanced political statement being made by Ahmadinejad, which reflects his early and later remarks. He is trying to build an international system in which, at the very least, America and Israel are not the central authorities.

3rd: Babies and bathwater. A lot of what Ahmadinejad says is appealing. Much of it is lifted directly from American leftist academia. Related to his appeal to a new global order is this type of universal anti-American rhetoric. If you look closely, his appeals to the Chomskyian left are also coupled in the rhetoric of theocratic conservatism. A cynical man may say he was attempting to appeal to those who are dissatisfied with the current international system using their own rhetoric, but disguising Islam within it. However, this is very similar to the Islam of the Iranian Revolution, where anti-American economic and social ideas were tied directly with religious expression (such as in the sexual identity politics of veiling).

The most interesting part of this, as mentioned above, is that this is not the type of reform that Iranians themselves are clamoring for. Female professionals look for cosmopolitan reforms, residents of Tehran look for more personal freedom and economic opportunity. The order that Ahmadinejad presents here is one that will not even work in his own nation, which makes it all the more clear that this is an attempt to move Iran closer to other nations, re: Venezuela, which do have such socialist ideals. A form of theocratic socialism might be the end result of such a marriage, and one that has the potential to spread as anti-Americanism through the entire developing and second world.

The Controversy

Important to note, many nations which are now in an uproar about the speech had already boycotted the conference because of earlier perceptions of anti-western sentiment. From many of them, this could be explained as fulfilling prophecies, but this minimizes the significance of Western sensitivities to criticisms of Israel. Not to play childish games of who-said-what, but that Iran should be censured for offensive things they say, internationally, about Israel is completely ignorant of the talk from Western governments about Iran that is broadcast on TV every night. This is important, because it is evidence of the “new cold war”. During the height of the real Cold War, proper military analysis would show that, without nukes, the USSR was entirely incapable of going to war against America, and that a full nuclear conflict would by pyrrhic for them, at best. However, the “reds” and “communism” fueled international politics for years. Iran is now this international demon, fueling “extremist Islam”. It is irrelevant that Iran still is lacking is subsequent technology to create and launch nuclear arms, nor that their standing army is little larger or more powerful than Saudi Arabia’s (not a weak army by any means, but certainly not a threat to NATO allies). They are being used by the West as a new USSR. A reason to be patriotic and not question your own government.

And herein lies the heart of the controversy. It was irrelevant what the Iranian president had to say. Most western nations had already decided it was better not to attend, or to just send low-level delegates, so the act of walking out in the middle of Ahmadinejad’s speech was entirely ceremonial in itself. It was like an exclamation point. Not only is the world being told to play by America’s rules, if they attempt to go along without America, all its allies will make a mockery out of what you have to say. What is ironic is that, were these words coming from an academic sociologist, they might have access to cross-continent speaking arrangements in North America or Europe.

Much of the news reports following the speech have focused on the most accusatory lines of Ahmadinejad’s speech. The dominant rhetoric is that “crazy” Ahmadinejad “hijacked” the proceedings with his own “racism”. Few, if any, Western reports give any credit neither to the substance of Ahmadinejad’s words, nor to any other point he makes. In fact, it is assumed that his accusation of racism toward the Israeli government is, itself, racism (which creates an amazing loop of infinite regression if applied to both sides in the equation, though it violates the “America runs the world” clause of the conference):

His speech produced exactly the kind of language that they feared, which had also caused Canada and Israel to announce months ago they would stay away.
"Following World War Two they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," Ahmadinejad told the conference, on the day that Jewish communities commemorate the Holocaust.
"And 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," he said, according to the official translation.

Obviously, I don’t think Mr. Ahmadinejad was being racist. I do not agree with a lot of his political rhetoric or policy conclusions, and I certainly react strongly against his position about including religion in government, and quite frankly, I don’t agree with his stand-offish positions against the Western world, though on these last I don’t see him as being uniquely responsible among the relevant actors. However, questioning the morality of displacing an entire culture of people through the initial creation of an Israeli state, and accusing internationally condemned military policies, which have clear religious motivations and are highly indiscrimate, of racism are not valid reasons for any nation to leave the conference.

It is not even that Ahmadinejad was being offensive, it is that he doesn’t have the right to question what he is. For Iran to participate internationally, they have to accept that America’s way is the only way.

Ahmadinejad's accusations certainly don't seem racist to me. In fact he comes off more as outraged by Israel's actions than disliking Israelies or Jews. Setting aside his religious and political views the social criticisms he makes don't look like ones that should be boycotted or ignored.

The cynic in me wonders what he intends to gain from this, probably the support of developing nations and anyone else who dislikes America, the West and Israel.

Hahaha, look at the Ahmadiniejad apologist. *points and laughs*

Srsly someone needs to tell Acme... Israel is The land of opportunity, overflowing with peace and love

& Milk

&

Honey -

NO - Money

Much Money for Guns & Ammo.

& Tolerance

Originally posted by shiv
Srsly someone needs to tell Acme... Israel is The land of opportunity, overflowing with peace and love

It could be, only if the world would stop interfering with it's Jew-hate and let Israel ride itself of those pesky Arabs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Ahmadinejad's accusations certainly don't seem racist to me. In fact he comes off more as outraged by Israel's actions than disliking Israelies or Jews. Setting aside his religious and political views the social criticisms he makes don't look like ones that should be boycotted or ignored.

I've seen really little attention to his political statements actually, and most countries boycotted before they heard his speech.

Apparently, he was supposed to say something about Holocaust denial, or saying the holocaust wasn't as bad as it is made out to be, but Ban Ki-Moon made him change it because one of the tenets of the Conferences Against Racism is an end to antisemitism.

To be honest, maybe something like that would be inappropriate, possibly only given the circumstance of being at an anti-racism convention, but hardly something Western nations should walk away from. God, thinking about it, it is so close to an admission of guilt, just to totally refuse to speak about something like Israeli racism and leave the room with the metaphoric "fingers-in-the-ears".

Its so weird. We are the good guys because we act like 5 year olds, at an international forum, and walk out when the "other" guy is engaging in open and honest dialogue aimed at the EXACT SAME ****ING GOAL as ours, but just happens to say something we don't like... ah, I won't rant again, but I wish it made more sense to me. I mean, I can understand realpolitik and symbolic gestures and all that, but to not even try to engage in a marketplace of ideas, to not even prove that your ideas are better than the other guys, to just snub them... and then claim the moral high ground?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The cynic in me wonders what he intends to gain from this, probably the support of developing nations and anyone else who dislikes America, the West and Israel.

My wonder is if Islam or some form or religious conservatism might also rise in these places if he is successful in getting their ear.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hahaha, look at the Ahmadiniejad apologist. *points and laughs*

I'll laugh at you from on top of 72 virgins

Originally posted by inimalist

I'll laugh at you from on top of 72 virgins

Meh, they're probably all children, pedo.

Originally posted by inimalist
I've seen really little attention to his political statements actually, and most countries boycotted before they heard his speech.

Apparently, he was supposed to say something about Holocaust denial, or saying the holocaust wasn't as bad as it is made out to be, but Ban Ki-Moon made him change it because one of the tenets of the Conferences Against Racism is an end to antisemitism.

To be honest, maybe something like that would be inappropriate, possibly only given the circumstance of being at an anti-racism convention, but hardly something Western nations should walk away from.

Good thing he listened to Ki-Moon, the speech as given (or as translated) at least steers away from the "raving lunatic" angle. If he had gone off on the Holocaust it would not only have been fairly racist but also would have undermined his point. The Holocaust isn't relevant to what modern Israel has done, denying it is meaningless and throws a lot of what he says into question.

Originally posted by inimalist
God, thinking about it, it is so close to an admission of guilt, just to totally refuse to speak about something like Israeli racism and leave the room with the metaphoric "fingers-in-the-ears".

It certainly comes off as an admission of guilt, but I assume that the boycotting nations meant it as a way of showing frustration with a Ahmadinejad's policies and additives in general which then backfired when he made valid points I can see why delegates would be irritated by the "Western liberalism and capitalism has reached its end" line and ones like it.

Originally posted by inimalist
My wonder is if Islam or some form or religious conservatism might also rise in these places if he is successful in getting their ear.

If they connect his other stances with his religion that's certainly possible, and definitely very bad for the West. On the other hand they might oppose him on religious grounds instead.

Aw hell no im not reading all that.

Interesting read. I'll post up my comments later.

Originally posted by inimalist
Unfortunately this will end up as a series of posts. Hopefully someone will take the time to read it 🙂. This post is an intro, the second is most of the speech, the final is my sort of analysis.

The Wiki for Durban II:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_Review_Conference

The World Conference Against Racism was held in 2001, ending just days before the 9-11 attacks. The goal of the conference was to address international issues of racism. Of particular note was compensation for slavery and increased “racial” policies of the Israeli government.

Before the end of the conference, both America and Israel backed out, being the only nations to do so, amid criticism from within their own governments (Jesse Jackson and Shimon Peres respectively). Ostensibly, the withdrawal was triggered by perceptions from both of these nations about the “singling-out” of Israel for criticism, ignoring the racism of smaller developing nations, though some believe America was unwilling to face its history in the slave trade. With respect to slavery, many European nations agreed to an apology that was written specifically to avoid the possibility of reparations.

Most nations ended the conference with negative sentiment. Nations like Canada and Australia felt the meeting was a waste of time with too much bickering, while Arab states felt that the conference was slanted against them, as their desire to describe Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people as racist was left out of the final document.

Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Durban_Declaration_and_Programme_of_Action

News Article with summary/reactions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1530976.stm

Now, we can all disagree on whether Israel is supported or demonized internationally, and who holds greater responsibility or who is a more racist power in that part of the world. However, backing out, for simply being the target of international criticism, hardly seems like something nations interested in international negotiations would do. Not to play my own hand too quickly, but it probably shouldn’t be surprising that in my own opinion, this reflects the idea, from America, that they own the world and are above internationalism, and from Israel, that they are a religiously chosen people. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive and are certainly seen on both sides.

However, with this in mind, a second conference, to review the first, was just carried out. Even before this, however, items regarding Israel were taken out of the conference:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g5fbrP6bp0x8g06_7zf78fDbpg9A
Though the “defamation of religion” stuff is agreeable to me, both of these things are clearly Western requests, being placated to simply to get Western nations to come to the table. Apparently Israel is so delicate, that to even speak with its allies, one must placate to its God-given right to be above international law. At this point, denying the existence of abuses from the Israeli military in Gaza is quite narrow-sighted, as many Western governments have themselves criticized various Israeli tactics, as have Israeli soldiers themselves:

http://www.miamiherald.com/457/story/960764.html
Another clear example of this Western mentality surrounding Israel comes from recent bombings in Sudan, likely carried out by Israel, against arms smugglers allegedly supplying Hamas with weapons:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/26/sudan-arms-strike-israel

Agree or not with the strike, it is clear nobody would support such action by Palestine or Syria against American arms manufacturers or dealers who supply the Israeli military. In this way, we see a world where only certain nations have rights. Those who support America, who owns the world (of course), have rights. The right to defend themselves, the right to engage with each other for talks, and the right to refuse to be part of the international community. Other nations are relegated to the “Axis-of-Evil” for such “unsociable” international behaviour.

The intent of this post, however, is not to condemn in particular America or Israel, but to rather draw attention to facets of the international order which promote the dominant world order. America is right, and will refuse to even debate with those who do not assume that part of the equation. Once everyone agrees with America, they are willing to negotiate.

However, all other nations are entirely complicit in this. They are not victims of the power of the “Great Empire”, rather, pawns in its game.

And Israel. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the West is entirely incapable to ending unwavering support for a nation with such flagrant human rights violations. To speak with Canadians, anti-American and leftist to the core, who smile with delight while describing Israeli bombing raids and do mental cartwheels to defend the walling in of Gaza, is such a mind ****. It is like “our” dark secret, though I tend to think the psychology is much less theatric. Israel is the material manifestation of the struggle people are told the West has. Ideas like “the clash of civilizations” and other such memes play into conceptualizing the “other” as so different from us, and desiring that which is so different from what we have, that killing them is seen as an affirmation of our own way of life.

What is most interesting, and this will come out in the next part with Ahmadinejad’s speech, is that, even though the president of Iran will come out and blast American liberty and capitalism, it is these things that the people in Tehran clamor for. Not in the design of American freedom, but certainly in terms of personal liberty, which raises another interesting point: While it is obvious that this demonization of the other, and in the modern political context Iran, benefits the dominant order, there are advantages both ways. Iran’s government, which opposes personal liberty, is strengthened by this “clash of civilizations”, as they are constructed as a civilization with the military and social power to contest the Western world, while in the west, they play the role of international boogey-man, who, like the USSR during the cold war, is entirely incapable of defending themselves in realistic terms (hence their drive for a nuclear weapon).

And in this context the second conference was held, boycotted by Canada, Israel, America and Italy, among others.

tl:dr 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
I’ve pulled the main parts of the speech, especially those pertaining to Israel and Zionism, parts of the speech which provoked members assembled to walk out of the meeting. One person even dressed up in a clown wig and threw things at Ahmadinejad.

Full Speech:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/president-ahmadinejads-full-speech-durban-review-conf

tl:dr 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
So, before getting into the controversy, I want to address a couple of things from the speech.

1st: The .... In 2008, Matan Vilnai, Israels then Deputy Defense Minister, warned:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/01/israelandthepalestinians1

Arab residents of Israel also complain of harassment in everyday life.

For instance:

Arab Citizens of Israel – Discrimination:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Arab#Discrimination

Anti-Arabism – Israel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Arabism#Israel
...be the end result of such a marriage, and one that has the potential to spread as anti-Americanism through the entire developing and second world.

[b]The Controversy

Important to note, many nations which are now in an uproar about the speech had already boycotted the conference because of earlier perceptions of anti-western sentiment. From many of them, this could be ..., though it violates the “America runs the world” clause of the conference):

http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE53I0UT20090420?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

Obviously, I don’t think Mr. Ahmadinejad was being racist. I do not agree with a lot of his political rhetoric or policy conclusions, and I certainly react strongly against his position about including religion in government, and quite frankly, I don’t agree with his stand-offish positions against the Western world, though on these last I don’t see him as being uniquely responsible among the relevant actors. However, questioning the morality of displacing an entire culture of people through the initial creation of an Israeli state, and accusing internationally condemned military policies, which have clear religious motivations and are highly indiscrimate, of racism are not valid reasons for any nation to leave the conference.

It is not even that Ahmadinejad was being offensive, it is that he doesn’t have the right to question what he is. For Iran to participate internationally, they have to accept that America’s way is the only way. [/B]

tl:dr 🙂

Had to truncate to get it n here. 🙂 I actually could have read half of it if I would have spent all this time reading instead of making this post. hmm

Why would you take the time to say "too long; didn't read" to every section?

the thread has "long" in its title and I remark at the beginning about its length

yet still...

seriously, don't read it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would you take the time to say "too long; didn't read" to every section?

4 teh lulz. And I did read it...just ended up with a double post...got frustrated with trying to quote it and respond...so I gave up and posted something smartass instead. 🙂

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Good thing he listened to Ki-Moon, the speech as given (or as translated) at least steers away from the "raving lunatic" angle. If he had gone off on the Holocaust it would not only have been fairly racist but also would have undermined his point. The Holocaust isn't relevant to what modern Israel has done, denying it is meaningless and throws a lot of what he says into question.

I couldn't agree more. I even think the remarks about zionists using international sympathy (though probably not entirely incorrect) was a bit questionable as well, especially with regards to what it means for the modern context.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It certainly comes off as an admission of guilt, but I assume that the boycotting nations meant it as a way of showing frustration with a Ahmadinejad's policies and additives in general which then backfired when he made valid points I can see why delegates would be irritated by the "Western liberalism and capitalism has reached its end" line and ones like it.

I asked my parents about this, who both saw it on the news and claimed full support of Canada, for opposing what was clearly a "sham", though having no idea what Ahmadinejad was saying.

I honestly see it in a little more of a sinister light. While the anti-western rhetoric might have been bad, many nations do that frequently at the UN (Chavez talking about a smell of Brimstone). I can't shake that, in my head, this has more to do with Iran and being ostracized from the international community for not getting along with Israel, or even some last ditch effort to try and force an end to Tehran's nuclear program. I don't know, I don't think it was spontaneous outrage at the president's comments that got everyone upset though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they connect his other stances with his religion that's certainly possible, and definitely very bad for the West. On the other hand they might oppose him on religious grounds instead.

It will be interesting to see play out. I could see it being more possible in Africa than in South America, but he is very ambiguous with regard to what "spirit" or "God" he is talking about. The Catholics in Latin America, especially with the Revolutionary Theological tradition, might just eat that up.

I liked the speech, it said a lot of stuff that's true and needs to be heard and understood by many people in the West.
The US acted absolutely ridiculously in boycotting the conference. Though really, I am unsure about the amount of importance or value the conference has.

As a last comment, though I largely agree with what Ahmadinejad said, I think he ought to spend more time talking about racism in Iran against Baha'is, which is an issue he is probably much more capable of fixing.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I liked the speech, it said a lot of stuff that's true and needs to be heard and understood by many people in the West.
The US acted absolutely ridiculously in boycotting the conference. Though really, I am unsure about the amount of importance or value the conference has.

As a last comment, though I largely agree with what Ahmadinejad said, I think he ought to spend more time talking about racism in Iran against Baha'is, which is an issue he is probably much more capable of fixing.

While I'll agree, that is not racial problem though, but a religious one. It is problem nontheless considering that Baha'i people do pay with their lives.

lol, let me just clarify one point. I'm not trying to defend Iran's president, any of the racial/religious practices of Iran, or even point out Israeli violations at the expense of recognizing those of Iran.

All nations have problems with race or "outgrouping" of their own citizens, all nations have problems with treating some ethnicities as second class citizens, Canada included.

My point is, rather, that the West insists that the world conform to every one of its views, including explicit rules against criticizing Israel, before it will even come to the table to discuss things. Essentially, they must be assured to get their way before they will start negotiating, and the only way to interpret this, is, that America and its western allies feel they have a justified right to control and own the planet.

My second point, as a corollary to the first, is that we actually appear immature and completely insecure with our own beliefs (which we are told, defacto, are better than those of Iran. So much better in fact that we need not even listen to Iran). We are unwilling to face accusations from other people, and thus, we essentially justify the criticism. By not debating with Ahmadinejad, we essentially prove him correct.