Mohammad of Vancouver writes:
The 23 countries that walked out of the Geneva Conference during Ahmadinejad’s speech are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
The 27 EU members are the above plus Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, which had already decided not to send delegates at all. The other 5 countries which had already decided not to send delegates at all are Australia, Canada, Israel, New Zealand and the US.
So the formula for the bloc claiming that Ahmadinejad is ‘racist’ is: EU, plus Israel, plus the surviving ‘Anglo-Saxon’ or ‘English-speaking’ — i.e., white colonial — states: Australia & New Zealand, the USA & Canada. It seems then that this bloc is no more nor less than the white, western colonialist and imperialist nations, with Israel acting as their convenor, and that to be opposed to white, western colonialism and imperialism is the real definition of ‘racism’ in their eyes.
-
-
- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate 36
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses PennBDS conference 7
- Dershowitz justifies war on Iran (and Iraq? again?)– and Mort … 14
- Alumni donor threats and more Nazi analogies as the world … 18
- Sullivan says passionate American supporters of Israel create a ‘problem,’ … 12
- Spanish gov’t builds solar renewable-energy project for Palestinian village — … 2
- Israeli officials say Iran’s ‘existential threat’ is– braindrain of 200,000 … 23
- Barghouti: Attacks on the Penn BDS conference reveal panic that … 11
-
- Israeli soldiers drive tractor over worker’s legs to stop Palestinians … 309
- Halper vows to rebuild Palestinian home destroyed five times by … 101
- The antiwar movement must rise again. Now 92
- ‘Invented’ Palestinian confronts Gingrich at GOP debate 88
- ‘Center for American Progress’ censors references to Israel from piece … 83
- Three things to consider before mourning for Sheikh Emad Effat 80
- The great book robbery 76
- Israel demolishes homes in Hebron, Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley 75
-
- New additions to the Mondoweiss comments policy 333
- ‘NYT’ gives Israelis its magazine to make an attack on … 143
- Chris Hayes stunning ‘Story of the Week’ featuring Sheldon Adelson 102
- The antiwar movement must rise again. Now 100
- ‘Tablet’ says writers who talk about Israel Firsters are channeling … 90
- Iran sanctions backlash– oil buyers ditch dollar 78
- Abunimah and Woolsey debate BDS in the ‘Philadelphia Inquirer’ 75
- Isikoff expose of Gingrich backer — ‘All we care about … 73
-
Recent Comments
click link to see last 100 comments- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate (36)
- Jabberwocky: Israel firster is a perfectly descriptive term and rightly brings up the issues of loyalty. Pressing...
- kalithea: One more thing about trying to find a “politically correct” substitute for Israel Firster: I...
- Kevin R. Vixie: Reading the article and the comments, I have to agree with RoHa … it is a storm in a teacup....
- Archbishop Desmond Tutu endorses PennBDS conference (7)
- seafoid: The is link to the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism and Research Center Surely they must have...
- So the U.S. military doesn’t want to attack Iran and neither does Israel. Who does? (75)
- Dan Crowther: sarcasm roha sarcasm – come on now, whaddaya take me for!?! :)
- Dan Crowther: Sean – American is right, we are talking past each other. And It’s because we are indeed,...
- Chaos4700: They’re going to fail. Israel always wins at this game, and they’ll sink aircraft carriers...
- Dershowitz justifies war on Iran (and Iraq? again?)– and Mort Zuckerman rides shotgun– in fresh attacks on BDS conference (14)
- anonymouscomments: also here http://www.physics.harvard.edu /~wilson/NYTimes1948.pdf i always found it amazing how...
- Israeli officials say Iran’s ‘existential threat’ is– braindrain of 200,000 ‘best and brightest’ (23)
- Charon: Agreed. It’s an existential threat to Israel because almost (if not) 1/4 of Israel proper is not...
- Alumni donor threats and more Nazi analogies as the world awaits Penn BDS conference (18)
- Chaos4700: Remind me how Jewish interests controlling the agenda of major institutions by manipulating financial...
- Both sides are wrong in the ‘Israel Firsters’ debate (36)
Our Writers
- Philip Weiss
- Annie Robbins
- Today in Palestine
- Adam Horowitz
- Kate
- Matthew Taylor
- Alex Kane
- Philip Weiss and Adam Horowitz
Blogroll
What kind of logic is this? Why should any party that he didn't challenge walk out? He blamed the West mainly via Israel for all the evil of the world up to the point of using the old apocalyptic devil imagery. He is simply the "neocon's" (to simplify) Janus face.
He reduced the history of the West to the killing of scientists and slave trade. If you consider this all there is to say and see in the history of the West, why did you move to Canada? Why do you bother at all to write to people who seem to be predominantly "white". Did any of us choose the color of his skin? What do you suggest. The West should commit collective suicide so the world can become be the utopia Ahmadinejad paints?
You have to explain why none of the other countries of the world joined this small group, LeaNder.
I am a white born and raised American woman who converted to Shia Islam, and I totally understand where Mohammad's viewpoint comes from, which is shared by many people of color with different backgrounds, that have come from countries that have been colonized….
You have to try and put yourself in their place, by understanding their perspective on history and events, to understand how most people of color viewed the walk out in Geneva…
"Did any of us choose the color of his skin? What do you suggest. The West should commit collective suicide so the world can become be the utopia Ahmadinejad paints?"
not our skin color but we do choose our crimes and the crimes we/you choose to support.
collective suicide would be a start at utopia or at least some sort of life for all others.
i'm a canuck and i am disappointed in canada's boycott… with a premier who is a known bootlicker for the usa, it doesn't surprise me, but i am still disappointed in it and it is not an accurate reflection of all canucks..
meant to say prime minister – harper…
Chris Berel et al feel that the goys need to just recognize Likud Jews have the best interests of the world in mind, when they do what they do. If not, why–you're just an "anti-semite."
Notice that Christian Russia is absent from the walkout list. It seems that secular-extremist left-liberalism, which is how the vast majority of those listed are governed (other than Israel), is just a new level of sophistication to cover the materially-corrupted West's racism and soullessness.
All that expensive socialism has got to come out of someone's hide; may as well be the brown man, say the liberals. Quick, let's usher in a black-American emperor as the face of the West to keep the world from noticing for awhile longer. After all, cosmetics "change" is the easiest way of preserving our self-righteous cred without disturbing the status-quo. The brownies will be quickly appeased, and are too stupid to notice it's all a ploy, anyway.
Meanwhile, Barack and Michelle continue to attend their fairy tale parties and full dress balls in Washington and around the world. Seems they’ve left the little brown people behind. But what else did you expect from the Zionist-owned Democrat Party?
Citz, the fact that you are an antisemite has nothing to do with your feelings about Likud.
Norway is not on the list?
D: I have to explain why only "the West" walked out? Well obviously only the West did, they were the ones attacked collectively. But as Western masses the non-Western parties both witnessed the troubles leading up to Durban II, and that these troubles mainly emanated from Israel or pro-Israel-hawks, and they knew that Iran is the most discussed next target on the list on the axis-of-evil and that this emanates from the same parties. Now shouldn't you expect an event under these conditions? He surely had a basic sympathy from the world, diplomatically he missed this chance. But considering his reelection he may well have won. Let's see. It's an attractive message for the masses.
All the world's evil emanates from the West, especially Israel and the US.
I am not even so sure if the walk-out wasn't carefully planned before, that is, if the representives had orders to walk out the moment Israel was mentioned. Strong pictures and a strong media message.
Times of change makes orientation very difficult, the old shows cracks, the monolithic or neo-monolitic world views don't really work anymore.I often experience these whirlwinds of change in my own mind. What offers hold in these fast-changing and chaotic times are always simple black and white narratives, that seem to offer a stable perspective, a solid ground.
This is only Bush's mirror face, why the hell should I applaud it.
This isn't only a critique of Israel, the US, the West you have to look carefully at the larger pattern of this message. It's the selection, combination and juxtaposition that attracts people to it.
Not me, I am sorry.
Well,
The speech was as much an anti-European tirade as much as an anti-Zionist. There were two articulated and implied jists in that:
1. Why should ANY in any part of the non-European world (even those that border or are near Europe) bear any consequences for any event that originates in Europe?
How dare Europe impose any consequences on "Islamic land"?
2. Zionism is the worst in articulating an competing "narrative" to the logic of Islamic waqf?
Muhammed's interpretation that it was an abuse based on color (or harboring color as unspoken motivation) is a failure to read.
The first presumption is that Iran, and the Arab Muslim world is not intimately linked to every part of the world, especially those it trades with and is the beneficiary of its very lucky possession of oil. The rest of the world bears the consequences of conflicts that occur in the expanding Islamic world (terror incidents based on conflicts between Shia and Sunni, sharia and cosmopolitans, Christian and Islamic).
As Iran speaks on behalf of the Islamic waqf and not solely in defense of Iran, it is relevant to consider the extent of Islamic expansion vs Zionist.
The speech described Zionism as the forward edge of European colonialism/expansion. In truth, European colonialism is in great decline relative to the period when the US, Great Britain, Netherlands literally controlled nearly every aspect of the supply chain of petroleum. It doesn't now.
And, extremely importantly, rather than respond to Obama's olive branch in kind, Ahmenijidad chose to respond by antagonism. The head of state of the US is not white. (And, the Mediterranean European states look more Mediterranean – similar to Hezbollah in Lebanon, than Nordic.)
It appears that Barack Obama is to liberal advocates of a color-blind future what George W. Bush was to Christians and conservatives: a bait and switch politician who in actuality is working for the two-party regime, which is an Orwellian Big Brother that rigs its own "opposition", both sides of which dwell within an extremely narrow political spectrum, and dish out goodies to the Inner Party and Outer Party membership, sticking us Proles and our children and grandchildren with the bills.
It looks like Orwell was also right about the world breaking up into powerful blocks or spheres, which are likely to be at perpetual war with one another as in 1984.
Way to go, post-Christian West. You should write an instruction manual: How to Squander Cold War Victories and Steer a Way of Life Into the Ditch via Atheist Corporatist-Socialism in Record Breaking Time.
collective suicide would be a start at utopia or at least some sort of life for all others.
look, 5. d. slomos, one thing I like a lot about Phil, is that he is a "cockeyed optimist", I am surely not. The post war period over here thought me to turn into a cynic, and mainly flee into books and theories. Patrick Lang puts it in a nutshell: Life isn't fair.
The point about utopias is that none of all the people over the ages ever managed it, although they surely all thought about it. And when anybody tries to sell it to me one, I get rather suspicious. I have studied the utopia literature carefully, there are always points were it turns into a dystopia.
There are two basic "racisms": One that poor people are ethically deficient and the people of ages gone are mentally deficient. …
Utopias are usually sold for the benefit of a group who turns into tyrants just as easily as their predecessors, they fight.
Well reasoned. Bravo!
Let’s see. LeaNder is an anti-Bush, Obama-supporting Judeophile liberal, so that would put her in the Emmanuel Goldstein camp and in opposition to O’Brien. And if she weren’t so brainwashed, she might have realized by now that both of them are working for Big Brother.
chris berel loves LeaNder. The German girl who keeps on giving, no matter what his type does or says. Witty too. Let's keep those German reparations coming, milking each German generation. The USA to do the same. Jews are immune
from collective guilt, the other condition. Anyone seriously dispute this? PC uber alles. Sort of like Phil Maher attacking his
goy side, immunizing his jewish side. We are not suppose to notice. Why should we? Pals pay the direct price, average
US families the indirect price. A win-win, no?
No question that the Shoah is used to blunt average Americans awareness of both sides of the I-P situation; the result is
we pay literally in tax dollars and the blood of our young soldiers for this manipulated ignorance. The Fourth Estate has
totally failed us, as has our Congress and White House. Uncle Sam has been blinded by Izzy & his money bags.
no, sorry Ed, no "Judeophile", that is neither a philosemite nor an antisemite. I don't care what ethnic background somebody has. I am only interested if s/he lives in my mental universe. If his tune resonates with me or not. Our frequencies surely have very different wavelengths and amplitudes, thus they'll never meet.
Always easy to dress yourself in the cloth of a wise men–George Orwell–pretending to be up to his grasp. If we three will ever meet on cloud nine, we can ask him what he thought about our dialogs. Till then you have to content yourself with your judgment orgasms.
yes, Alice from wonderland, the poor of mind will inherit the earth.
We whites never used to have to do silly performances to show the world that we rule – hey, we could even wage total war against each other, slaughter each other in the millions, and still no one dared to challenge our dominance. Now, in response to a relatively powerless 5-foot-one brown guy, we have to do a drama queen number to prove to ourselves that we’re still on top. Think we’ll ever get the message?
Hardly. Your biggest worry is that the American people know exactly what is happening and why, that they support Israel and the Jews because they know you and your Palestinian friends are intent on genocide.
So, Delia would rather the west show its displeasure for the racism exhibited by Dinnerjacket by blowing up Iran?
Interesting admission.
I, of course, rather those nations stand up and turn their backs, with Dinnerjacket fully aware that if he attacks, he signals his acceptance of the collective suicide of the Iranian people.
I think not. The combined might of Nato is not a small group. Rather the racist regimes must answer to why they didn't join Nato in disapproval of ImaDinnerjacket.
What an incoherent response… what are you trying to say?
re your distillation —
1. i don't think ahmedinejad said islamic world, merely the rest of the world. I'd like to think that if Israel was set up in Uganda, or Argentina (among the original choices) there would be as much protest.
The west is not bearing the consequences of other region's internecine conflicts, only those it helped create, foment, or sustain… which happens to be most of them. Sunni-Shia battles have no consequence for the West, and wouldn't for the U.S. if it hadn't set up shop in Iraq.
2. i like the attempt to compare the islamic waqf concept to zionism. there is no comparison. Palestinian muslims are not seeking to claim land long lost, but their present homes.
Obama's olive branch was made with toxic plastic that kills you. it was made in Israel. give us a real olive branch and make sure you didnt steal it from the Palestinian land.
Of course Obama's olive branch was sincere. It was conditional though, not unconditional.
It wasn't a statement "I agree with everything you've ever or will say".
It was a statement, "If you drop your aggression (funding, arming terror cells directed at UN member states – currently Israel, Egypt, likely historically Argentina), we will treat you as a peer.
The down-side of not accepting the offer is to PROMOTE the closer relationship between Israel and the US, including defending it if proxies with any link to Iran attack it. So, for example, every time a Qassam with Farsi written on components is discovered in a Sderot neighborhood, its a BAD sign.
Its important. Iran is saber-rattling. It is in no way a victim. In fact, it is an enormous beneficiary of US military efforts in Iraq. It no longer has a staunch enemy to its immediate west.
But they are not. The definition of a palestinian refugee is any arab who lived in the area from 1946. This was written in because the Arab leadership knew that a significant number of Arabs living in the region had come within the last decade, attracted by Jewish money.
I don't know if LeaNder is lovable or not, but she certainly has good ideas and a good knowledge base.
Israel is not saber-rattling? Shrub didn't saber rattle for 8 years, and worse, stick in the saber? When's the last time Iran
attacked anyone like the USA or Israel has done under their preemptive strike doctrines? To the extent it's not a victim is the extent it kicked out the Shah and fought off
Iraq, both USA proxies at the respective times. Witty, you ignore this and expect anyone to take your seriously? And, further, to the extent it has benefited from the USA mess in Iraq is the extent that Iran has been smart about this foreign aggression in its region of the world. Our special ally in the region should be Iran. That's the travesty on the American people, thanks to AIPAC et al.
from Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference on Racism:
"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. "
http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=1379
I think he's got a good point, and objective.
No, he doesn't.
Great rebuttal Barrel-roll.
Witty, Iran would get vaporized twice if it was as serious about confrontation as you suggest. It's surrounded by the world superpower and has the regional superpower threatening it with war.
The idea that Iran would want a war w/ Israel (and the US of course) is pure propaganda. Saber-rattling? You spew this garbage after Israel just killed 1400 people in 3 weeks.
Iran is certainly saber-rattling. Why your blinders?
When they announce that they have enough nuclear material for a bomb, when the video-tape a test missile capable of reaching Greece (though the test failed), when they fund and arm militias intended to militarily attack a UN member state, they are frankly more than saber-rattling.
If they wish to change their approach, it would do the world a great favor.
Who surrounds them? Iraq (now an ally, formerly a bitter enemy), Pakistan (is there tension), Afghanistan (is there tension), Turkey, Armenia.
Are they afraid of Israel? I get how they would be, arming attacks on Israel, I would be afraid as well, as they should be.
"I have to explain why only "the West" walked out? Well obviously only the West did, they were the ones attacked collectively."
So there was no principle involved, it was just a matter of offensive manners? (Or are you saying that only white Western ex-colonialist states are capable of acting on priciples?)
"I am not even so sure if the walk-out wasn't carefully planned before, that is, if the representives had orders to walk out the moment Israel was mentioned."
Of course it was pre-staged. Why do you think they trotted out Elie Wiesel and his clown show?
you what else all those countries have in common they all have history of
antisemitism and some still are (didn't austria elect a nazi sympathizer couple of years ago.
I'm sorry if this has tripled posted. I don't think comments are moderated?
I'm putting this post up without the links as I think it is getting counted as spam, sorry:
Well, just nine days after Israel's war on Gaza, where 1400 people died, the international community applauded these words of Peres' at the Davos conference (posted below). There was no walkout by the international community, even though they Peres' words were blatant lies. Only the prime minister of Turkey voiced any opposition. I can see where Mohammad is coming from. Why didn't the international community get upon its ethical high horse in this situation? Or the western community, I should say. If they are against leaders being hypocritical, well, here was a perfect opportunity to be consistent in showing their chagrin.
Additionally, some such as Robert Baer, say that Iran has helped rebuild parts of Lebanon and brought some order to it. That's not to say that Iran is doing that out of the goodness of its heart, but what has Israel done to or for the area? And who supports Israel? By flouncing out of a conference on race the minute the word 'Israel' is mentioned, the western international community is indeed saying that there is one rule for some and another rule for others, and that fairness, diplomacy, and giving people a fair hearing is the domain of only a few.
Norway is on Dershowitz's (Tutu slammed at racism conference, April 20 2009, IOL)hit list, along with Desmond Tutu. So they probably did not walk out. Some of their lawyers are also attempting to pursue charges of war crimes against Israel over the Gaza onslaught, so it is no wonder. (Norwegian Lawyers Charge top Israeli Officials with War Crimes, IMEMC, 22 April)
Peres' words from Richard Silverstein's blog (Duking it out in Davos, Erdogan vs Peres, Jan 30, 2009).
( Here are a few of the stranger statements: he claimed that Israel could not accept the Saudi 2002 initiative because “there was a small problem of Iran” which wishes to rule the Middle East. Peres also claimed that Hamas did not win a democratic election. Rather Mahmoud Abbas DID win an election as president of the Palestinians. Peres also claimed there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; that Israel supplies all the water, fuel and electricity that Gaza needs; and that if there is a problem he would personally intervene to correct it.
He claimed that Israel never broke a ceasefire, never fired unless fired upon.
Read the comments for more of the porkers.
Also from this news video:Turkish Prime Minister walks off stage over Gaza, CNMC, Youtube (posted by Americanhummus)
Democracy is not about elections; it's about civilizations… [Journalist's comment: insinuating that just simply the fact the Palestinian people held an election through which they voted for Hamas, that does not make them a democracy...]
According to him [Peres], there was not one day of starvation in Gaza over the course of the last few weeks…
There was never a day of starvation in Gaza (Peres had expressed puzzlement as to why rockets might be fired, claiming there was no siege, after assertions by Erdogan that the Gazans lived in an open air prison, governed by the Israelis, cut off from the rest of the world).
None of the crossings between Gaza and Israel, vital crossings, were ever closed.
There is far more said, or not said in the whole conference (linked to in Richard's post).
Is denying one tragedy more acceptable than denying another?
nb: Wow, how do links work with this system? I'll look it up later. Sorry, I hope at least you can still access them.
My italics didn't work above. They usually do. Hope you can distinguish the quotes and the article titles.
"But they are not. The definition of a palestinian refugee is any arab who lived in the area from 1946. This was written in because the Arab leadership knew that a significant number of Arabs living in the region had come within the last decade, attracted by Jewish money."
So you think if you post ancient Israeli propaganda ala' Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial" that you are making a point?
Sad.
As is your entire take on an issue of which you have zero understanding of reality…
That was meant for Chris Berel – thought it was just as relevant to Witty and Leander.
So what exactly is your problem, Leander? Is it that you don't agree that the West continues to ignore racism in it's own policies – or are you upset with the nerve of Ahmadinejad of pointing it out to the uppity, and arrogant zionist sympathizers?
Too many Muslims in Deutcheland for your liking?
And yes, Leander – it shows….
Are you stating that the definition of a Palestinian refugee, which differs from the definition of a refugee from any other conflict, stems from another reason? You can't deflect the truth by attempting to use Peter's flawed book, just because it did contain some actual truth about the situation.
Talk about zero understanding. Are you now admitting you know less then zero?
"Our special ally in the region should be Iran."
How so Citizen?
Here you go:
http://www.un.org/unrwa/overview/qa.html#c
Israel is certainly saber-rattling. Why your blinders?
When it is not part of the non-proliferation treaty (while Iran is) though it has long had the only nukes in the region, when they bombed out Iraq's nuclear facilities, ditto, apparently, Syria's embryonic site, make practice bombing raids over Iran, when they pen in an entire native people and attack them with the latest weapons fund by the lone superpower (who designated Iran officially Evil & whose top politicians threaten to wipe Iran off the map if it moves to protect itself, at will? Infiltrate Iran via Mossad; they are frankly more than saber-rattling.
If Israel & its client state, the USA, wish to change their approach, it would do the world a great favor.
Does world opinion view Israel & USA enabler as top threat to world peace? Yes it does, as well it should.
The entire walkout, which was unquestionably pre-planned, is just the latest example of the liberal post-Christian West's complete inability to engage in intelligent debate and argument instead of resorting to self-righteous posturing and politically correct, nose-in-the air boycotts of free speech. The entire imperialist/left-liberal atheist ethos is so filled with internal contradictions and schizophrenic double standards, whenever it is confronted with solid arguments against its operating assumptions and pseudo-enlightened, pseudo-intellectual, politically correct policies, all it can do is sputter indignation that anyone would have the temerity to raise the subject, and head for the exits.
If the atheistic left-liberal/imperialist establishment currently running the West were to be personified, could there possibly be a more unprincipled, materialistic, craven, shallow, self-absorbed and hypocritical person to have ever walked the earth?
Hell, even the Israelis are less loathsome. At least they maintain the pretense of worshipping God, and the accountability that that implies. The left liberals/imperialists have all of the worst characteristics of the Zionists, plus they’re so narcissistic and egoistic, they reject the concept of God to boot.
The game that Witty and many Jewish Zionists play is to simulate the enlightened principles of reason and logic that came out of Christendom and the Greco-Roman tradition, and employ them on behalf of Jewish supremacism. As Western Jews have for ages, Witty and his Zionist ilk exist with one foot in the Western world and one foot in the Jewish world (now centered in Israel), so they know how to appeal to the Western mind, simulate the Christian ethos of reasonableness, while at the same time working on behalf of the Jewish agenda.
That the post-Christian West is incapable of seeing this, of countering it — indeed, is incapable of preventing itself from being whored by this people and their methods — is proof that without its Christian foundation, it is incapable of warding off dangerous subversives and enemies, be they Zionists, Islamists, Communists, or any other.
Here is another angle… Which one of the countries that walked out on Ahmadinejad also sold Chemical and Biological weapons to Saddam Hussein to be used against Iranians/Kurds…
Norway did not walk out.
Those pesky Norwegians maintain their own views on things.
It caused some argument in Norway. I could translate some of it, if there is really an interest.
Good luck defending the Christian ethos of reasonableness as practiced through the last 1000 years of history. Do tell us more!
And please actually give us a history of how "the englightened principles of reason and logic" came out of Christendom. Don't forget to explain all those counterfactuals in Christian history.
Oh and let us know for which Christian traditions you are speaking.
And you speak of the games Witty and his Zionist ilk play?