Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Park Life

U.N. racism conference blighted by fear of Israel?

Recommended Posts

Diplomats have walked out of a speech by the Iranian president at a UN anti-racism conference after he described Israel as a "racist government".

Two protesters, wearing coloured wigs, briefly disrupted the beginning of the speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but he continued speaking.

Shortly afterwards a stream of Western delegates walked out when he attacked the creation of the state of Israel.

Some of those who stayed clapped as Mr Ahmadinejad continued his speech.

The walk-out is a public relations disaster for the United Nations, which had hoped the conference would be a shining example of what the UN is good at - uniting to combat injustice in the world, says the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva.

UN dismay

The walk-out happened within minutes of the speech starting on Monday.

Moments earlier security guards escorted two protesters from the conference hall after one threw an object at the Iranian president and they yelled "racist, racist" as he stood at the podium.

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued his speech and was applauded by many

Mr Ahmadinejad, the only major leader to attend the conference, said Jewish migrants from Europe and the United States had been sent to the Middle East "in order to establish a racist government in the occupied Palestine". :nufc:

 

 

It's all politics, people are irrelevant.

 

 

Muslims supporting Zionism

 

In 1873, Shah of Persia Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore, during his journey to Europe. At that time, the Persian king suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people.

 

Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca, a forebear of Jordan's current royal family and leader of the Arab resistance against the Ottoman Turk imperialists (alongside the Jewish anti-Ottoman resistance), stated circa World War One that, "The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants" as they bring technology from Europe, and called the Jews abna'ihelasliyin ("original sons" of the land). In the never-consummated 1919 Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, his son, Emir Faisal, signed a statement that "the surest means of working out the consummation of their [Zionist] national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab states and Palestine". Faisal also said: "The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement....We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home....We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. ...Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other" The editor of the newspaper al-Ahram (which still exists today) put it only slightly differently from Faisal: "The Zionists are necessary for the country: The money which they will bring, their knowledge and intelligence, and the industriousness which characterizes them will contribute without doubt to the regeneration of the country".

 

Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, the leader of Italian Muslim Assembly and a co-founder of the Islam-Israel Fellowship, and Canadian Imam Khaleel Mohammed find support for Zionism in the Qur'an. Other Muslims who have supported Zionism include Pakistani journalist Tashbih Sayyed and Bangladeshi journalist Salah Choudhury. Choudhury has been imprisoned since 2003 and is facing a death sentence.

 

On occasion, some non-Arab Muslims such as some Kurds and Berbers have also voiced support for Zionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet your avatar went over Danny's head btw.

 

Its all been noted.

So what? :nufc:

 

Haven't you heard I am a shoe in to make admin?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I bet your avatar went over Danny's head btw.

 

Its all been noted.

So what? :nufc:

 

Haven't you heard I am a shoe in to make admin?

Cobblers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008657.stm :nufc:

 

 

Dunno what the UN thought they were going to achieve having him make the opening address though. :wacko:

 

No shit. Here's the real question- what the fuck was the point?

 

I don't care if you're talking white/ black, jew/ arab, or whatever. People will always find reasons to hate one another. And if they can't find any reasons lying about, they'll make new ones.

 

Honestly, aside from trying to give all the participants a case of the warm fuzzies, what the fuck is the point of having a conference on racism? Did it help people heal? Did it build new bridges?

 

Fucking waste of time. There's nothing that can be said or done in some conference to suddenly make Ahmadinejad not hate Jews. It'd be like inviting me to a conference on why L.A. Kings fans should get along with Anaheim Ducks fans. Or Geordies and Mackems. Or Red Sox and Yankees. I realize I'm trivializing in the name of making an analogy, but it's true really- nothing can be said, no evidence presented that can change the way he and some other people feel, so why waste people's time? Why give him yet another podium to spew hate from? Why give Israel another excuse to say, "See! They do hate us!", and bomb the shit out of somebody else.

Edited by Cid_MCDP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008657.stm :nufc:

 

 

Dunno what the UN thought they were going to achieve having him make the opening address though. :wacko:

 

No shit. Here's the real question- what the fuck was the point?

 

I don't care if you're talking white/ black, jew/ arab, or whatever. People will always find reasons to hate one another. And if they can't find any reasons lying about, they'll make new ones.

 

Honestly, aside from trying to give all the participants a case of the warm fuzzies, what the fuck is the point of having a conference on racism? Did it help people heal? Did it build new bridges?

 

Fucking waste of time. There's nothing that can be said or done in some conference to suddenly make Ahmadinejad not hate Jews. It'd be like inviting me to a conference on why L.A. Kings fans should get along with Anaheim Ducks fans. Or Geordies and Mackems. Or Red Sox and Yankees. I realize I'm trivializing in the name of making an analogy, but it's true really- nothing can be said, no evidence presented that can change the way he and some other people feel, so why waste people's time? Why give him yet another podium to spew hate from? Why give Israel another excuse to say, "See! They do hate us!", and bomb the shit out of somebody else.

 

 

Strange thing is at the last one in South Africa again there was a poor turnout.

 

I for one think that it should be an open and frank forum and it should be taken seriously by all. Of course if it was a debate about MEP's pay rises or summat they'd all be there and marathon taling sessions into the night would occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008657.stm :nufc:

 

 

Dunno what the UN thought they were going to achieve having him make the opening address though. :icon_lol:

 

No shit. Here's the real question- what the fuck was the point?

 

I don't care if you're talking white/ black, jew/ arab, or whatever. People will always find reasons to hate one another. And if they can't find any reasons lying about, they'll make new ones.

 

Honestly, aside from trying to give all the participants a case of the warm fuzzies, what the fuck is the point of having a conference on racism? Did it help people heal? Did it build new bridges?

 

Fucking waste of time. There's nothing that can be said or done in some conference to suddenly make Ahmadinejad not hate Jews. It'd be like inviting me to a conference on why L.A. Kings fans should get along with Anaheim Ducks fans. Or Geordies and Mackems. Or Red Sox and Yankees. I realize I'm trivializing in the name of making an analogy, but it's true really- nothing can be said, no evidence presented that can change the way he and some other people feel, so why waste people's time? Why give him yet another podium to spew hate from? Why give Israel another excuse to say, "See! They do hate us!", and bomb the shit out of somebody else.

 

 

Strange thing is at the last one in South Africa again there was a poor turnout.

 

I for one think that it should be an open and frank forum and it should be taken seriously by all. Of course if it was a debate about MEP's pay rises or summat they'd all be there and marathon taling sessions into the night would occur.

 

 

It should be (although it was never going to be, too much politics).

 

But I still think the only two people* worse to make the opening address would be Mugabe or Hitler. :wacko:

 

 

 

* yes Fop knows Renty/manc-foplite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question of Islam has also been a major one.

 

During the negotiations leading up to the meeting, there was an attempt by some Islamic countries to introduce the concept of "defamation of religion". This would have had the effect, western and other critics argued, of restraining free speech.

 

That's a worrying part too.

 

Anything can be said and done in the name of "religion", never mind just protecting freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8008657.stm :D

 

 

Dunno what the UN thought they were going to achieve having him make the opening address though. :razz:

 

No shit. Here's the real question- what the fuck was the point?

 

I don't care if you're talking white/ black, jew/ arab, or whatever. People will always find reasons to hate one another. And if they can't find any reasons lying about, they'll make new ones.

 

Honestly, aside from trying to give all the participants a case of the warm fuzzies, what the fuck is the point of having a conference on racism? Did it help people heal? Did it build new bridges?

 

Fucking waste of time. There's nothing that can be said or done in some conference to suddenly make Ahmadinejad not hate Jews. It'd be like inviting me to a conference on why L.A. Kings fans should get along with Anaheim Ducks fans. Or Geordies and Mackems. Or Red Sox and Yankees. I realize I'm trivializing in the name of making an analogy, but it's true really- nothing can be said, no evidence presented that can change the way he and some other people feel, so why waste people's time? Why give him yet another podium to spew hate from? Why give Israel another excuse to say, "See! They do hate us!", and bomb the shit out of somebody else.

 

 

Strange thing is at the last one in South Africa again there was a poor turnout.

 

I for one think that it should be an open and frank forum and it should be taken seriously by all. Of course if it was a debate about MEP's pay rises or summat they'd all be there and marathon taling sessions into the night would occur.

 

That's what you'd think, assuming that the people involved actually want to fix the problem and not just prolong it for their own selfish and egotistical ends.

 

It's just like when the Republicans get up on their high horse about abortion over here in the States. Roe v. Wade has been on the books since 1973- nearly 40 fucking years and in all that time you couldn't get a President, House, and Senate to overturn it? Give me a break.

 

Truth is, it's the drug companies line- there's more money in the treatment than the cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
I bet your avatar went over Danny's head btw.

 

Its all been noted.

So what? :D

 

Haven't you heard I am a shoe in to make admin?

'Shoo' tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
Every right minded person has critised the speach Parky including the head of the UN.

 

Sheep.

It would appear people walked out at the mention of the word 'Israel'. Of the few quotes I've seen, a lot of what he said appeared to be correct as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Every right minded person has critised the speach Parky including the head of the UN.

 

Sheep.

It would appear people walked out at the mention of the word 'Israel'. Of the few quotes I've seen, a lot of what he said appeared to be correct as well.

 

Aye. It was all prepped. Might as well have given them starting blocks. Cowards and sheep, letting down all the people they represent. Countries it seems these days aren't allowed to think or debate/discuss issues for themselves for fear of Amerika/Israel backlash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

:razz::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

:razz::D

 

No you're right Alex, you and Parky are bang on, everybody else is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

:razz::D

 

No you're right Alex, you and Parky are bang on, everybody else is wrong.

:razz:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

:razz::D

 

No you're right Alex, you and Parky are bang on, everybody else is wrong.

You haven't even got an argument, as usual. I'm not defending everything this person has said in the past because I find a lot of what he has said to be abhorrent. What I find ridiculous is that people were walking out just because he mentioned Israel and referred to it as a racist state (which it is, in many ways). How is a conference like this supposed to achieve anything if you can't even discuss issues like that? That's a rhetorical question anyway since I'd guess this was nothing more than cosmetic exercise anyway. Presumably you had China objecting to any mention of Tibet, Turkey any mention of the Kurds etc., etc. Pathetic. Is it just about talking about nice things and saying we'll all hold hands and be friends then?

And if they didn't want this to be the issue it has become they shouldn't have scheduled it (and this speech in particular) to coincide with Holocaust memorial services. That in itself suggests to me there is some agenda at play in order to undermine anything that was going to be said by him rather than a criticism of what he actually did say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I heard was definitely inflammatory and unconstructive to say the least. He knew what reaction he would get. Am I right in thinking the man is on the record as being a holocaust denier? If that's the case I have some sympathy with Danny B's point that nothing he has to say has any positive value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't matter what he said. The conference was not to be used as a platform for bashing one state or another.

 

He knew the effect would be decisive and has turned attention away from the real issue.

:razz::D

 

No you're right Alex, you and Parky are bang on, everybody else is wrong.

You haven't even got an argument, as usual. I'm not defending everything this person has said in the past because I find a lot of what he has said to be abhorrent. What I find ridiculous is that people were walking out just because he mentioned Israel and referred to it as a racist state (which it is, in many ways). How is a conference like this supposed to achieve anything if you can't even discuss issues like that? That's a rhetorical question anyway since I'd guess this was nothing more than cosmetic exercise anyway. Presumably you had China objecting to any mention of Tibet, Turkey any mention of the Kurds etc., etc. Pathetic. Is it just about talking about nice things and saying we'll all hold hands and be friends then?

And if they didn't want this to be the issue it has become they shouldn't have scheduled it (and this speech in particular) to coincide with Holocaust memorial services. That in itself suggests to me there is some agenda at play in order to undermine anything that was going to be said by him rather than a criticism of what he actually did say.

 

I'm honestly not sure it's possible to have meaningful dialogue with a holocaust denier who wants nothing short of the complete destruction of the Jewish state, how would you even start? Mind, I admit I'm not fully clued up behind the politics of the situation between Iran and Irsrael, perhaps there's more to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×