Lol, what does that mean? I am just saying that we need to support Israel 100%, because without Israel, America ceases to exist.

Bitty, you make a number of point, so I'm going to try and go through them one by one.

First I want to state that I disagree with equating criticism of Israel and it's policies with Anti-Semitism. Israel is a Secular government furthermore even if they weren't if someone disagrees with a particular action or policy that Israel has done does not mean it is a wholesale hatred of Jewish people.

I agree wholeheartedly. Equating criticism of Israel with A-S is wrong. But then you have to also concede that equating Zionism (also known as people who want to have israel as a safe place for jews) with racism is equally wrong. ou cant have one without the other, and that is where a lot of people show their true feelings. There are certain actions that the Israeli government does that I might not neccessarily agree with and obviously Im not an A-S. But attempting to equate zionism to racism is the equivalent of equating all religion to racism.

Your second point was about the original Durban 2001 text and why the US boycotted. You wrote:

Secondly the Obama Administration did not boycott the Summit because Ahmedinejad presence or speech. The US chose to boycott because of some segments in the UN Resolution on Racism. The small section that pertained to Israel was the following:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion; We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Granted I can understand why Israel might disagree with this document but the United States where exactly is the Anti-Semitism or the defamation of the state of Israel in this statement?

Firstly, the US and Israel left the conference "with regret" long before this minimally reconciatory draft that you quoted. Im linking to Wikipedia so I cant guarantee the veracity of the info. Heres what it says.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Conference_against_Racism_2001#Final_text_and_subsequent_reaction

The draft documents had stated "deep concern" at the "increase of racist practices of Zionism and anti-Semitism" and talked of the emergence of "movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas, in particular the Zionist movement, which is based on racial superiority". Alternative proposals, which the U.S. had supported, from Norway, acting as a mediator, and Canada were rejected by Israel.[5][9][1]

Despite Colin Powell's denunciation of the "hateful language" that "singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse" in the draft text and U.S. delegate Tom Lantos's statement that the conference had been "wrecked by Arab and Islamic extremists", some saw the U.S. delegation's withdrawal as not being entirely related to the language on Israel, but attributed it also, in part, to a reluctance on the part of the U.S. to address the issue of slavery

As you can see, the document is directly equating zionism to racism. This is probably where the practice started. The US and Israel boycotted. The text was changed, but obviously not enough to placate, as the original text was still circulated and the implicit references to what could not be written are, in my opinion, obvious.

At this point I want to add another part from the same wiki page

In the end, the Conference delegates voted to reject the language that implicitly accused Israel of racism, and the document actually published contained no such language.[10]

Several countries were unhappy with the final text's approach to the subject, but all for different reasons. Syria and Iran were unhappy because their demands for the language about racism and Israel had been rejected by the Conference, the latter continuing its insistence that Israel was a racist state. Australia was unhappy with the process, observing that "far too much of the time at the conference [had been] consumed by bitter divisive exchanges on issues which have done nothing to advance the cause of combating racism". Canada was also unhappy.

I think Australia's attitude here should be applauded by all and sundry, and I lamant the fact that noone had as much common sense as the Aussies.

Your next point was about allowing Ahmedinejan to speak. You wrote:

Thirdly I'll borrow the words of the Israeli statesmen and General Moshe Dayan, "If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies". So yes I agree Ahmedinejad is an Anti-Semitic A-hole and a nutcase; but that does not negate the fact that he is still the President of Iran. As such a more preferable way of dealing with someone like him is talking an open World Summit versus the possible alternatives.

I do not dissagree at all. I believe it is vital to try to talk people like Ahmedinejan round to a normal societal view of the world. Whether it would ever work or not is another story, but we should certainly try. But I would suggest that the time and place for that trying is not at an International Conference against Racism. Why would you invite someone who believes racism is a good thing to speak at a conference AGAINST racism? It is a non-sensical approach.

A conference against racism should in essence be the entire world getting together, agreeing that racism is a bad thing and all standing up and saying that they qill not tolerate it anymore. Instead, the UN asked a racist to speak. What did they want, an opposing view? "Actually guys, lets listen to this guy. He reckons we got it wrong. Lets stick the black back in the cotton fields, the jews back in the ghettos, the gypsies back in the forest and the Darfurites back under the boot".

They must have known what they would get, noone is that stupid.

Your last point:

My last point is that I disagree with some of the Islamic nations who want to curtail free-speech by making it illegal to insult the Islam religion. Their complete intolerance towards anything that remotely criticizes Islam is something that at most should be dealt with their own domestic laws. However I do think there should be a General Statement in which the UN condemns any and all religious intolerance or persecution.

Agreed entirely.




I am not of the opinion that people should back Israel just because theyre not Iran. Thats not a good enough reason. The reason countries should back Israel is because they have done nothing to say that they do not want to be a part of civilization. The infux of modern Jews into Israel arrived in the 1800's. They turned a desert into a thriving economic power by the swear of their own backs. Anyone was and still is welcome. Israel is populated by Jews, Muslims and Christians. The Israelis only ask one thing. Dont try to kill us.

The Palestinians have been in the West Bank and Gaza for a half a century and yet they still rely almost entirely on the Israeli economy for survival. Its easy to play the victim when you dont want to pull yourself up. Im sure that Israel have done some not great things in the past. But, having lived in Israel, I can tell you this much. If an arab, Palestinian, Iranian whatever came and lived in an Israeli city, worked hard like anyone else, he would live, prosper and grow. If a jew came and lived in a Palestinian city he would die the first day. Then burnt. Then strung up on the lampposts.

This tells me that there are two different ways of living. You can either get on with your life, move on and up or you can sit in the dust expecting someone else to do it for you. The ones sitting in the dust are pathetic and they are deserving of our pity. We will help them if they need it. We just ask one thing. Dont try to kill us. Is that really too much to ask?

[Edited by - firefly on 05-01-2009 11:25 AM]