April 25, 2009
A WALK-OUT AT THE U.N.
Comment
By Uli Schmetzer
In their controversial endeavor to be politically correct our democratic
governments are frequently prepared to sacrifice some of our basic democratic
rights, among them the freedom of speech.
To kowtow to allies and mollify pressure groups our governments will not allow their
own codes to apply to ‘the others.’
A telling example of this hypocrisy has been the walk-out this month of the U.S.
and its main allies from a U.N. anti-racist conference. The allies were protesting
against a conference speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during
which he called Israel “the most cruel and repressive racist regime.�
Few people with any intelligence doubt that Ahmadinejed is a hypocrite himself and has
much to answer for on human rights. He becomes even more ridiculous when he denies
the holocaust happened, a statement he extracts from his repertoire each time he wants to
offend Israel and appeal to Arab anti-Semitism. And it always acts like a red cape for Israel
and its friends.
But to walk out on an important U.N. conference simply because we do not agree
with what the Iranian president said is like imposing censorship on what heads of
State are allowed to say in public and to pour fuel on Islam’s perception of
blatant pro-Israel bias in the West.
In any decent debate, whatever the opposition might represent, one has to listen to their
argument if there is to be any progress in improved relations.
Obviously it is not permitted that Ahmadinejed can call Israel repressive and
racist though it is permitted that Israel’s president Shimon Peres likened
Ahmadinejed to ‘Hitler the Nazi’ and “Stalin the Bolshevik.�
The walk-out case illustrates once again that in dealing with our ‘enemies’ or â
€˜non-allies’ our pseudo-democratic governments apply their own rules, often
designed for political expediency by the United States and followed immediately by its
allies.
By walking out on a conference attempting to minimize rampant global racism the major
western powers (with the courageous exception of France) struck another blow for rules
that seem to imply “unless you tow our line you are ostracized and we will not even
listen to your side of the story.�
This kind of attitude pre-empts any attempt at conciliation or rapprochement between
opposing sides.
There is no doubt also among thinking people that Israel has a lot to answer in
its treatment of the Palestinian people, its methods of collective punishment,
military occupation and illegal settlements. Whether this is ‘racist’ â
€˜expansionist’ or blatant ‘land-grabbing’ is up for argument.
By walking out the allied powers neutralized once again any debate or criticism
of Israeli methods and activities in the Occupied Territories which was, so one can
only deduce, the real objective of this counter-productive walk-out.
In this way the Israeli lobby has once again managed to slip out of a possibly
embarrassing situation at an international conference by convincing their powerful friends,
led by the US, that the conference would become an indictment of Israel’s
controversial actions. And these friends, afraid of losing votes and financial support at
home, once again quickly complied with Israel’s request.
If there is any chance to solve the growing rift between the West and the Muslim world
our ‘democratic’ nations must be seen to assert pressure on Israel to abandon its
confrontational policy vis-Ã -vis the Palestinians and make an honest effort to reach a fair
settlement.
An ‘honest’ settlement would take the sting from anti-Semites like Ahmadinejed
and deprive the escalating ranks of radical Moslems of their favorite grievance. (endit)
A WALK-OUT AT THE U.N.
Comment
By Uli Schmetzer
In their controversial endeavor to be politically correct our democratic
governments are frequently prepared to sacrifice some of our basic democratic
rights, among them the freedom of speech.
To kowtow to allies and mollify pressure groups our governments will not allow their
own codes to apply to ‘the others.’
A telling example of this hypocrisy has been the walk-out this month of the U.S.
and its main allies from a U.N. anti-racist conference. The allies were protesting
against a conference speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during
which he called Israel “the most cruel and repressive racist regime.�
Few people with any intelligence doubt that Ahmadinejed is a hypocrite himself and has
much to answer for on human rights. He becomes even more ridiculous when he denies
the holocaust happened, a statement he extracts from his repertoire each time he wants to
offend Israel and appeal to Arab anti-Semitism. And it always acts like a red cape for Israel
and its friends.
But to walk out on an important U.N. conference simply because we do not agree
with what the Iranian president said is like imposing censorship on what heads of
State are allowed to say in public and to pour fuel on Islam’s perception of
blatant pro-Israel bias in the West.
In any decent debate, whatever the opposition might represent, one has to listen to their
argument if there is to be any progress in improved relations.
Obviously it is not permitted that Ahmadinejed can call Israel repressive and
racist though it is permitted that Israel’s president Shimon Peres likened
Ahmadinejed to ‘Hitler the Nazi’ and “Stalin the Bolshevik.�
The walk-out case illustrates once again that in dealing with our ‘enemies’ or â
€˜non-allies’ our pseudo-democratic governments apply their own rules, often
designed for political expediency by the United States and followed immediately by its
allies.
By walking out on a conference attempting to minimize rampant global racism the major
western powers (with the courageous exception of France) struck another blow for rules
that seem to imply “unless you tow our line you are ostracized and we will not even
listen to your side of the story.�
This kind of attitude pre-empts any attempt at conciliation or rapprochement between
opposing sides.
There is no doubt also among thinking people that Israel has a lot to answer in
its treatment of the Palestinian people, its methods of collective punishment,
military occupation and illegal settlements. Whether this is ‘racist’ â
€˜expansionist’ or blatant ‘land-grabbing’ is up for argument.
By walking out the allied powers neutralized once again any debate or criticism
of Israeli methods and activities in the Occupied Territories which was, so one can
only deduce, the real objective of this counter-productive walk-out.
In this way the Israeli lobby has once again managed to slip out of a possibly
embarrassing situation at an international conference by convincing their powerful friends,
led by the US, that the conference would become an indictment of Israel’s
controversial actions. And these friends, afraid of losing votes and financial support at
home, once again quickly complied with Israel’s request.
If there is any chance to solve the growing rift between the West and the Muslim world
our ‘democratic’ nations must be seen to assert pressure on Israel to abandon its
confrontational policy vis-Ã -vis the Palestinians and make an honest effort to reach a fair
settlement.
An ‘honest’ settlement would take the sting from anti-Semites like Ahmadinejed
and deprive the escalating ranks of radical Moslems of their favorite grievance. (endit)