thought it was a pro-racism event.
Following on Kalash’s post…
The orgasmic outrage against Ahmedinejad’s speech is a farce. The diplomats who walked out and boycotted the conference are the same who propagated lies and based invasions on them. Even worse, they come from countries enriched by and built on legacies of racism. Yet, they care so deeply about holocaust-denial. Why? Because they deny the ones they perpetrated. Israel’s hypocrisy is that is wants to be a Jewish state and NOT be perceived as racist. Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways.
In 2003, when then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented to the United Nations Security Council the proof of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, none of the states standing against the conference, raised a peep of protest. It was full of more falsehoods and inaccuracies than Ahmedinejad’s, yet it was met by applause and criminal complicity. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have paid with their lives. That is the most recent holocaust the West denies.
Many of the states that boycotted the conference or walked out, joined in the subsequent invasion, and are still in fact occupying Iraq and/or Afghanistan. In other words, they are too full of shit, too discredited to have any credible position on ethnic hatred — the war on terror has been racist to its core, privileging Western lives over brown, Muslim ones. British and American “security” was deemed worth the lives of untold numbers of Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis, and so on. That is essentially racist.
Most of the outrage came from the most racist countries in history — none of which have really done anything about their legacies of enslavement, colonization, and imperialism. And the reality of present-day racism is something they cannot even discuss.
Spain raped and massacred the natives of the Americas, as did the British. The British, the French, and the United States were grotesque in their racist butchery all around the world — from the Americas, to India, Algeria, Vietnam, and the list goes on much longer. The British were so damn racist, they even hated, killed and tortured the Irish and the Scots. Australia boycotted, as well. What a surprise! Just ask the nearly extinct aborigines about Australian racism.
I am starting to think they all took advantage of the Israel problem as a pretense to not show up. After all, the framework was narrowed dramatically to exclude any discussion of Israel-Palestine and the Palestine-related side events were canceled two weeks ago. In other words, the Zio-farts got what they wanted, and several western states still didn’t show. The slightly more liberal ones, like France did, and just walked out when Ahmedinejad spoke. The French ambassador actually defended the conference in general, to be fair.
So the Iranian leader, as oppressive a system as he represents, is in a much more credible position than any of the boycotters to speak on matters of racism. And that is ultimately why the rest of the world — the people who actually suffer from racism and therefore know it best — will nod when Ahmedinejad speaks and show disdain towards their former masters.
The lunacy of denying that Zionism is racist is that this conference comes literally days after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. How can a state that rules over a heterogeneous population be for just one of the groups and not be racist? This is especially so when the Jews were less than 10% of the population a century ago. They came to be a majority by colonial settling, forcing the natives out, and creating a state system to privilege themselves. This is pretty much the prototype of racist behavior.
And the Israeli leader has the gall to suggest that isn’t racist? What a joke! When Bibi said that, it was like an admission of racism. But it is too convenient to pretend it ain’t so.
Perhaps you will say Arabs and Jews are not different races, but that is not the crucial point since it is debatable and the real problem of racism is the oppression and chauvinism part. After all, Palestinians and Israelis are as different racially as the Dalits in India and the Roma in Europe, yet both of the latter groups are included in the conference.
The West and their media flotsam express outrage and disgust as they misrepresent Ahmedinejad’s points about the Jewish holocaust. They say he denies it. He does not, he says it does not justify the establishment of Israel (a point that inherently recognizes the holocaust happened). Whatever, Ahmedinjad is a scummy dude and shouldn’t be exploiting Palestinian suffering anyways. I wish he would have done the world a service and spoke about the imprisonment and impoverishment of African-Americans in the United States.
Instead, he gave credence to the United Nations’ cowardly exclusion of Palestinians from participation in a conference that they should be represented at. It shouldn’t dominate the agenda, since racism is a real problem almost everywhere. But excluding them strikes me as…. racist.
Related posts:
- US to Boycott Durban II: Obama Proved Racism is Dead, Anyways
- The Inherent Racism of Zionism
- Anti-racist? EXTREMIST!!!
- Arafat Still Shines
- PSM: Racist Protesters Fail to Provoke Conference Attendees
I just watched the entire speech – change my mind completely. even my awesomeness has its moments of weakness.
Posted by Sana | April 25, 2009, 7:04 pmThere not verses from the Qur'an BCell. Its not even a case of mistranslation.
Posted by Arayus | April 28, 2009, 12:13 amLet me get this straight… Hamas created a new manifesto, but they have to change the old one they don't use anymore. Give me a break. They already agreed to the 2 state solution based on the 67 borders. Lets go make a peace deal already and get this conflict over with.. wait.. oh yea… Israel has no interest in doing that. The only peace deal Israel will accept is that of the Palestinians accepting a state on small disconnected bantustans in the West Bank and Gaza, surrounded by fortified Israeli settlements. Meanwhile, the Palestinian state will have no borders (just like Israel has no defined borders), and will not be allowed to have a meaningful military (thus being at the whim of the IDF), and will not be allowed to interact with other sovereign nations unless Israel allows it to. This is on top of the fact that the Palestinians will be forced into the worst parts of the West Bank, while Israeli settlers proceed to take all the water and arable land (like they currently do).
Posted by Arayus | April 28, 2009, 12:17 amThe Palestinians have no nation, that is the problem. Nations do not need to be represented by states at the UN. That is your opinion. Will thought the Palestinians should be represented at the U.N. And yet they have no nation. So you are quite mistaken. Just saying that the Palestinians have a nation does not make it magically appear. By the way, where do you think the Palestinian identity came from? The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is credited with signifying the birth of the Arab Palestinian identity.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 12:20 amThe Palestinians have no nation, that is the problem. Nations do not need to be represented by states at the UN. That is your opinion. Will thought the Palestinians should be represented at the U.N. And yet they have no nation. So you are quite mistaken. Just saying that the Palestinians have a nation does not make it magically appear. By the way, where do you think the Palestinian identity came from? The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is credited with signifying the birth of the Arab Palestinian identity.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 12:20 amThe Palestinians have no nation, that is the problem. Nations do not need to be represented by states at the UN. That is your opinion. Will thought the Palestinians should be represented at the U.N. And yet they have no nation. So you are quite mistaken. Just saying that the Palestinians have a nation does not make it magically appear. By the way, where do you think the Palestinian identity came from? The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is credited with signifying the birth of the Arab Palestinian identity.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 12:20 amThe Palestinians have no nation, that is the problem. Nations do not need to be represented by states at the UN. That is your opinion. Will thought the Palestinians should be represented at the U.N. And yet they have no nation. So you are quite mistaken. Just saying that the Palestinians have a nation does not make it magically appear. By the way, where do you think the Palestinian identity came from? The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is credited with signifying the birth of the Arab Palestinian identity.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 12:20 amShafiq wrote about Tu Quoque, and then "xyz" provided an example. How funny.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 12:32 amAnd Israel has continually denied the existence of the Palestinians. Israel does not deny the existence of the Palestinians? Why do the Palestinian have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state Because Israel is a Jewish state, it is their neighbor, and it is not going away (despite their efforts to destroy it). As for attacks, Hamas can't even come close to drawing as much blood If Hamas could, they would. Israel is the superior military power. (What do you think would happen to Cuba if it attacked the U.S.). And despite your assertions to the contrary, there is a difference between terrorism and military operations. The fact is that Palestinians attack Israel, there is no denying it. Even though it hurts them, they still do it. You made the statement that Israel had a monopoly on violence. Why did you lie? I provided you with information to correct your error, even though I knew it was intentional. You operate in the realm of half-truths and lies, and of playing semantics with words. You try to rationalize. You try to equate things that are not the same.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 12:45 amActually, the Palestinians do have a nation, what they don't have is a state. And Palestinian identity came 100 years prior to the date you linked. The 1834 Palestinian Arab revolt against the Ottomans is credited as the beginning of Palestinian nationalism. You really do need to brush up on your history skills.
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 8:56 amOh, you'd be surprised at how many Israelis have said 'the Palestinians don't exist' Israel is a state, the Palestinians should recognise it as a state but not as a Jewish state. Was MLK required to recognise the US as a white state before civil rights negotiations could commence? Do white people in South Africa have to recognise it as a black state? No. There isn't much difference between military operations and terrorism. Both claim civilians but only one is a war crime, the other is 'collateral damage'. If you gave Hamas the same weapons as Israel, they'd be the same as the IDF.
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 9:01 amThe U.N. conference was about racism (not the Iraq war). Whether you support the Iraq war or not, does that make you obligated to sit and listen to an Islamofascist Holocaust-denier accuse the Jews of being racist? No it does not. So the walk-out was not hypocrisy. It was the right thing to do.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 3:42 pmWhy do people always veer into something else in some other part of the world when discussing Israel / Palestine? This situation is unique, it is not the same as other situations in other parts of the world. The U.S. State Dept has said that recognizing Israel as a "Jewish" state should not be a requirement. Israel should just be recognized as a state, not necessarily a Jewish state. But it is a Jewish state. Terrorism and military ops are completely different. This has been debated over and over again. Sending someone onto a bus full of civilians wearing a suicide vest, or going into a restaurant or nightclub and detonating a suicide bomb has nothing to do with military operation. And consider that terrorism fails on all levels, there is no tactical advantage or strategic advantage: every terrorist attack just makes things worse for the terrorists people.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 3:51 pmBecause, links have to be made to other situations for you to truly understand how stupid your arguments are. The U.S. State Department says one thing but then we hear completely different overtures from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. You're contradicting yourself when saying that Israel is a Jewish state and does not need to be recognised as such. By recognising it as a Jewish state, the Palestinians (wrongly) don't have a right of return. By recognising it as a state that's not solely Jewish, they do. I don't see the difference between a suicide bomber killing loads of civilians at a restaurant and an air force bomber killing loads of civilians at a restaurant
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 3:57 pmAs we all can see further down in the comments, you are completely mistaken about this.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 3:58 pmIt's funny, in a peculiar way, when a racist accuses others of being racist. And it's strange when a hypocrit accuses others of hypocrisy.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 4:00 pmRight. So Ahmadinejad denies what the Holocaust really was. Why has he inserted himself into this issue anyway? He is irrelevant.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 4:03 pmYou are mistaken. 'The tough rule and new reforms led to the 1834 revolt’s outbreak in the heart of the country, uniting dispersed Bedouins, rural sheiks, urban notables, mountain fellaheen, and Jerusalem religious figures against a common enemy. It was these groups who would later constitute the Palestinian people'. Baruch Kimmerling and Joel Migdal,The Palestinian People: A History, Harvard University Press, 2003 pp.3-20, p.7 There was no Palestinian identity at that time. The 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine is credited with signifying the birth of the Arab Palestinian identity.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 4:07 pm” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_national… Many historians seem to disagree with you
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 4:26 pm” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_national… Many historians seem to disagree with you
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 4:26 pm” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_national… Many historians seem to disagree with you
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 4:26 pm" target="_blank"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_national…” target=”_blank”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_national… Many historians seem to disagree with you
Posted by Shafiq | April 28, 2009, 12:26 pmYou're contradicting yourself when saying that Israel is a Jewish state and does not need to be recognised as such. Not at all. Requiring Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition to talks is not necessary. But they need to recognize Israel as a state. That does not contradict the fact Israel is a Jewish state. I don't see the difference between a suicide bomber killing loads of civilians at a restaurant and an air force bomber killing loads of civilians at a restaurant That is because you are a terrorism apologist and that does not help anything.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 6:52 pmIf you gave Hamas the same weapons… How Israel Foiled an Arms Convoy Bound for Hamas Monday, Mar. 30, 2009
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 8:26 pmIf you gave Hamas the same weapons… How Israel Foiled an Arms Convoy Bound for Hamas Monday, Mar. 30, 2009
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 8:26 pmIf you gave Hamas the same weapons… How Israel Foiled an Arms Convoy Bound for Hamas Monday, Mar. 30, 2009
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 8:26 pmLet me get this straight… See posts above to understand about the Founding Charter and the Manifesto. They already agreed to the 2 state solution based on the 67 borders. That is a moot point, because the 1967 border deal is not on the table. And why would Israel make deals with a criminal gang anyway? They want to put Hamas in jail or kill them. List of Hamas suicide attacks Hamas Pulling Back Into Crowded Cities, Beckoning Israelis Notice how many of THESE ATTACKS were committed by Hamas.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 8:31 pmLet me get this straight… See posts above to understand about the Founding Charter and the Manifesto. They already agreed to the 2 state solution based on the 67 borders. That is a moot point, because the 1967 border deal is not on the table. And why would Israel make deals with a criminal gang anyway? They want to put Hamas in jail or kill them. List of Hamas suicide attacks Hamas Pulling Back Into Crowded Cities, Beckoning Israelis Notice how many of THESE ATTACKS were committed by Hamas.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 8:31 pmLet me get this straight… See posts above to understand about the Founding Charter and the Manifesto. They already agreed to the 2 state solution based on the 67 borders. That is a moot point, because the 1967 border deal is not on the table. And why would Israel make deals with a criminal gang anyway? They want to put Hamas in jail or kill them. List of Hamas suicide attacks Hamas Pulling Back Into Crowded Cities, Beckoning Israelis Notice how many of THESE ATTACKS were committed by Hamas.
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 28, 2009, 8:31 pmDid you just seriously link me to a Google document that you wrote? In any case Eagle, everyone is in agreement that any peace deal between Israel and Palestine based on the 2 state solution will revolve around the 1967 borders. There may be alterations here and there but this is the accepted solution by the international community. You better get used to it. And as usual you cite sources that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. When will you stop being a retard? Your no different from the people that defended South African Apartheid.
Posted by Arayus | April 28, 2009, 8:49 pmNot at all. Requiring Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition to talks is not necessary. But they need to recognize Israel as a state. That does not contradict the fact Israel is a Jewish state. It does matter seeing as the recognising of Israel as a Jewish state does a lot to decide the fate of Palestinian refugees, which is something that is an essential part of the negotiations. That is because you are a terrorism apologist and that does not help anything. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
Posted by Shafiq | April 29, 2009, 8:55 am” target=”_blank”>http://aristotleslackey.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/… you might like my change in perception
Posted by Sana | April 29, 2009, 10:45 am” target=”_blank”>http://aristotleslackey.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/… you might like my change in perception
Posted by Sana | April 29, 2009, 10:45 am” target=”_blank”>http://aristotleslackey.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/… you might like my change in perception
Posted by Sana | April 29, 2009, 10:45 am” target=”_blank”>http://aristotleslackey.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/… you might like my change in perception
Posted by Sana | April 29, 2009, 10:45 amThe U.N. conference was about racism (not the Iraq war). Whether you support the Iraq war or not, does that make you obligated to sit and listen to an Islamofascist Holocaust-denier accuse the Jews of being racist? No it does not. So the walk-out was not hypocrisy. It was the right thing to do.
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 2, 2009, 1:47 ameveryone is in agreement that any peace deal between Israel and Palestine based on the 2 state solution will revolve around the 1967 borders. As usual, you are wrong: Mideast Envoy Eyes Two-State Solution (RAMALLAH, West Bank) — President Barack Obama's Mideast envoy said Friday that a "two-state solution is the only solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting stark policy differences between the U.S. and Israel over the idea of Palestinian statehood. US stands by two-state solution Canadian Statement on the Question of Palestine Canada remains firmly committed to the goal of a negotiated two-state solution and a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. And I have linked you to a document that is correct. Are you disputing any of the listed attacks, or just making useless statements as usual?
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 2, 2009, 2:45 ameveryone is in agreement that any peace deal between Israel and Palestine based on the 2 state solution will revolve around the 1967 borders. As usual, you are wrong: Mideast Envoy Eyes Two-State Solution (RAMALLAH, West Bank) — President Barack Obama's Mideast envoy said Friday that a "two-state solution is the only solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting stark policy differences between the U.S. and Israel over the idea of Palestinian statehood. US stands by two-state solution Canadian Statement on the Question of Palestine Canada remains firmly committed to the goal of a negotiated two-state solution and a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. And I have linked you to a document that is correct. Are you disputing any of the listed attacks, or just making useless statements as usual?
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 2, 2009, 2:45 ameveryone is in agreement that any peace deal between Israel and Palestine based on the 2 state solution will revolve around the 1967 borders. As usual, you are wrong: Mideast Envoy Eyes Two-State Solution (RAMALLAH, West Bank) — President Barack Obama's Mideast envoy said Friday that a "two-state solution is the only solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, highlighting stark policy differences between the U.S. and Israel over the idea of Palestinian statehood. US stands by two-state solution Canadian Statement on the Question of Palestine Canada remains firmly committed to the goal of a negotiated two-state solution and a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. And I have linked you to a document that is correct. Are you disputing any of the listed attacks, or just making useless statements as usual?
Posted by eagle007blogger | May 2, 2009, 2:45 am