2009 UN Racism Conference

As long as an invidual is expressing his racists beliefs in a manner that doesn't conflict the rights of individuals towards which that racism is directed (like starting a racist hate website, for example), then it shouldn't be a problem. However, if that same individual expresses his beliefs in a manner that DOES conflict with the rights of those individuals (like a burning cross in the yard, defacing their property, etc.) then yeah that's definitely a problem and there should be action taken in that case. Also, incitement to action which conflicts with the rights of the indivduals (calling on people to cause harm to property or person) should be restricted.

Can we please stop feeding Sgt. Troll like we do every time he pipes in, please? Getting back to the Conference (you know, the topic of this thread), my question is how should the UN handle these talks? It seems to me you have to invite both sides, but may be not give them a forum since they cannot behave themselves? Maybe have them speak last so the UN can have talks about all the other topics on the agenda? This seems like a really important topic, but it just immediatly tailspun into a pile of shit. What do you all think could be done to make it better next year?

For starters, less of this inflammatory crap.

Knowingly inviting a head of state that has been outspoken about the extermination of another country is, oh, I dunno, perhaps a bad way to hold an anti-racism summit?

i can't believe i actually have to spell this out. the problem is that the phrase "i'm fine with racism" does not indicate support for the right to hold and express racists beliefs; rather, it indicates a support for racism. when i see someone expressing racist beliefs, i work to change their beliefs. i support their legal right to express those beliefs, but i do not support their beliefs. you, by saying that you are "fine with racism", are showing support for racist beliefs.

Do you really need to ask?

We're getting down to splitting hairs here, but if you reread what I posted, I was making the case for a person being allowed to think and say what they want, even if it's racist. And what are you going to use to change their beliefs, electroshock therapy? I mean look at England, where we've got school girls being arrested for asking to work with people who speak english. Can we really have an honest discussion on race where people have to walk on eggshells and fear being labeled and ostracised because they mispoke?

Please don't operate on the assumption that other users here think that anyone should be disallowed to hold and peacefully espouse racist views.

That position suggests that the rest of us are unconcerned with Freedom of Speech.

Back on-topic, I really don't have an inkling of how a global anti-racism convention could go well. I feel like on one end of the spectrum you could have the most "enlightened" from each nation attend, but that wouldn't necessarily be representative. Measures agreed upon would likely be decried as "one-world gummint socialism" by many in this country. I'm sure the reaction would be just as swift and irrational elsewhere.

However, how inclusive do you get? I mean, we seem to be at consensus that having Ahmadinejad speak was a bad call, but do you start telling people they can't come to the anti-racist convention? And if so, what's the reasoning? This is important because I feel that the entire point of a UN anti-racism convention is to do something to ameliorate the situations fostered by men like Ahmadinejad. So if you exclude them, how do you reach out to their better nature?

it's not splitting hairs! there's miles of difference between being "fine with racism" and supporting free speech! there's no possibility of having an honest discussion if one party is going to be that clownishly inept at communicating clearly. it's also impossible to have a honest discussion if one party is going to accuse the other of wanting to electrocute people. that's two counts against the possibility of having an honest conversation with you, so i think i'm done trying.

i don't think topics related to Israel can be discussed in combination with any other topic, especially at the international level. it's just too inflammatory. at the same time, these topics need to be discussed, both because they're worth discussing and because many countries will seek to discuss them even if doing so disrupts other important discussions.

what might work is simply creating a separate convention to discuss Israel and antisemitism. it's important and divisive enough that it really requires its own set of discussions anyway. of course, we'd have to take it seriously, and we'd have to accept the fact that the guys on the other side of the table are going to be spouting horribly racist shit.

but of course, this will never happen. us Zionist conspirators would view the very suggestion as being antisemitic; because it implies that Israel is not absolutely correct in every thought and deed.

Well, this thread has proven the great need for racism education.

Ahmadinejad isn't an Arab, he's Persian.

I think that was part of the sarcasm.

Just makin' sure.

I applaud.

Part of the problem here is that Jewishness is not easily defined. It seems to overlap between a racial grouping and a religious grouping, depending on who you ask. Is a convert to Judaism Jewish? (Zionism, AFAICT, is a political position.)

Motorfirebox: The essential problem, in my opinion, of creating a seperate conference on Israel would be that it, in exactly the same manner as the Durban conferences, could easily be hijacked and serve as nothing more than a sounding board for hatred and bigotry. In fact, this may only be magnified as such a conference would solely be about Israel and nothing else.

Also, it would probably stir up a lot of anger in that you would basically be singling out a particular country, or at least people would feel as such, since it could be argued that much worse shit goes down in many countries and no international conferences are held for those countries. I mean, what would you tell Sudan? Hey guys, sorry but the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is more CNN-ible, maybe next year?

Also, I don't really know what the hell you mean by US Zionist conspirators (sounds like a made for tv movie to me - like X-Files and The Smoking Man or some shit). And speaking AS what I assume is some kinda Zionist Conspirator, and incidently a proud cog in the Zionist Military Machine (tm), I resent your ridiculing our views as what amounts to a stereotypically hysterical Jewish grandmother whose chicken soup got cold. You would do well to read commentaries from Zionists all over the world who bend over backwards to state "criticising Israel is not anti-Semitic" (Thomas Friedman) or more to the point "the big lie being repeated all over the United States, especially on college and University campuses, is that anyone who is critical of Israeli policies or of the [Israeli] government will automatically be labeled an anti-Semite. It would be terrible if this were true, since criticism of Israel is important, as is criticism of any imperfect democracy (Alan Dershowitz, The Case For Israel - basically one of the bibles of modern American Zionist activism)." In fact, Dershowitz put up a monetary prize to find an influential Israeli or Zionist activist who actually said that criticism of Israel equals anti-semitism which was never claimed.

Hell, read Amos Harel, a military analyst for Haaretz who is currently criticising the IDFs probe into claims from the Gaza war, or Yossi Melman who wrote an editorial in Haaretz about the need to leave Mordechai Vanunu (the nuclear whistleblower) alone and let him leave Israel. There's Amos Oz, one of the most famous and popular Israeli writers and a staunch advocate of the two state solution, one of the first supporters of the Oslo agreements, was a founder of Peace Now, and strongly identifies himself as a Zionist. In fact you should read Oz because he is considered the most eloquent spokesman of the Zionist left and his writing can be truely inspiring.

Not every Zionist is a fist-and-star waving, Kiryat Arba supporting, loudmouth shmuck...despite what our many detractors and our own poor PR would have you believe.

Sockpuppet: there have been many books written on the subject of who is a Jew, you've perhaps unknowingly touched on an argument that stretches back nearly 2 000 years and is the most complicated topic in Judaism, yes even more than whether matza is a food or a component of good concrete.

And Zionism is more than just a simple political movment, its a self-determination movement that runs the gamut from secular left to orthodox right.

it definitely would, at least at first. the current state of affairs is such that no large-scale discussion of Israel is ever going to start out reasonably. but if we stop trying to progress towards reason, then no progress towards reason will ever be made.

Sudan doesn't an insanely massive chunk of geopolitics hanging around its neck. arguably no other country in the world is so central to so large a conflict as Israel is. when Sudan has a problem, people in Sudan die. when Israel has a problem, people around the world die. sorry, Sudan--maybe next year.

the 'Zionist conspirator' crap is not to be taken seriously or literally. i talked about it in my first post. i'm demonizing both sides as a comment on how each side views the other--which is central to understanding why attempts to resolve almost any issue related to Israel frequently dissolve into name-calling and the UN equivalent of trolls flaming each other.

Actually, he's Aryan. Persian is, historically, a nationality, not a racial or ethnic group. Academically, it refers to people of a common ethnolinguistic origin, and refers to people from fourteen different modern countries.

I went with Persian because I couldn't get a bead on anything more specific than that. (I found one place arguing for Azeri Turk? I'm not going to pretend to have any idea what that implies.) The point is, he's not an Arab, and Arabs are an ethnic minority in Iran, which is one reason why that country's position in the Middle East is rather unique.

it definitely would, at least at first. the current state of affairs is such that no large-scale discussion of Israel is ever going to start out reasonably. but if we stop trying to progress towards reason, then no progress towards reason will ever be made.

Well, we don't have to stop progress towards reason but perhaps we have to realize that a top down solution, even by the UN, won't really work. If the international community devolves into petty squabbling and name calling when it discusses Israel and the Palestinians, it therefore cannot be expected to exert any kind of influence or even provide a coherent opinion as a whole and is thus not very helpful. In the end what you get is some countries (like Iran) arguing that the solution is to destroy Israel, you get some countries (like Canada and the US) pledging their support for Israel, and you get other countries (like Syria) pledging their support for the Palestinians. Then you get calls for boycotts, counterboycotts, etc etc etc.

Even if by a miracle the UN didnt act like a bunch of pissy kids on the issue, you have to ask yourself what could they possibly agree upon? The UN International Conference on Israel and the Palestianians would reach the conclusion that...what? It's a bloody, tragic mess that both sides and their friends are embroilled in and that it should stop?

Could the UN International Conference on Israel and the Palestinians tell us anything that multiple state analysts, politicians, editorials, previous UN resolutions and brokered peace negotiations between the two actors haven't clearly stated ad nauseum?

Then you have to ask yourself how the two actors themselves would feel if a solution or a recommendation were reached by the UN, whom they have a poor view of in any case (Israel with justification, as it has been the target of numerous biased resolutions, and the Palestinians with justification, as many member states pledge support for Israel openly). Likely, this would be seen as being pushed onto the people involved (one of the essential problems with a top down solution) and would foster resentment. Israelis would see it as another attack on their existence, the Palestinians would see it as just another denial of their rights to self-determination by foreign state actors.

In the end, as painstakingly slow and bloody as it is, the only realistic solution is the bottom up approach, that is the solution can only come from dialogue between the actors themselves. It will take time, and there will be many wars and setbacks in between, but its really the only way this thing can be resolved, and this is perhaps more important to spend time gently fostering than creating an international forum where nations can throw their two cents around.

Sudan doesn't an insanely massive chunk of geopolitics hanging around its neck. arguably no other country in the world is so central to so large a conflict as Israel is. when Sudan has a problem, people in Sudan die. when Israel has a problem, people around the world die. sorry, Sudan--maybe next year.

What I believe is the problem with your argument here is that you are confusing the actual conflict within Israel, which is relatively small, with the inordinate international focus on Israel, which is high.

The reason the focus is so high has less to do with the conflict per se than the international power politics that surround it. Many Arab nations, for instance, have an interest in keeping this particular conflict in the hearts and minds of their populace in order to keep their minds off domestic repression and poverty. It has been a traditional way, dating back to 1948, of easily rallying their population especially in the early days of Arab nationalism and has continued through the years.

Ahmadinejad, often facing domestic political problems, resorts to anti-Israel demagoguery that is well known to bolster his image with the general population.

The US government appeals to lobbyists on both sides, for various political reasons depending on their military-political situation at the time. Clinton, for instance, publically attempting to broker a peace deal during a period of great domestic political fallout, GW Bush pledging support for Israel during periods of low political support for his government, Obama reaching out to try and improve US-Islamic state relations by publically wanting to be seen as a politician who will not take a "business as usual" stance towards Israel, etc etc.etc

Because the difference between the actual conflict and the noteriety and power politics of the conflict is so great, I have trouble with anyone justifying spending the UN's limited amount of money and time focusing on it rather than conflicts that play a lesser role on the international stage but involve greater bloodshed and tragedy.

Why, simply put, should we allow the UN to provide a forum for countries the world over, in the guise of international peace and justice, to use the Israeli/Palestinian conflict for their own Machiavellian political benefit when there are bloodier and more tragic conflicts going on that may have even greater far reaching consequences of which we may be presently unaware (e.g. the violence in Somalia, and its more recent conflict between Islamists and warlords, which has directly led to massive civilian death and the problems of piracy and international trade in the region).

i disagree completely. a bottom-up solution would be nice, but it's simply not ever going to happen so long as the current situation persists. what possible impetus is there for anyone in the region to soften their stance?

that's exactly why the UN should be involved. the UN wasn't created so that countries could work out their differences separately, on their own. quite the opposite, in fact:

moreover, even if you believe that discussion in the UN won't solve anything on its own, the simple fact is that many countries will continue to seek to bring Israel up in any and every discussion they partake in. creating a separate discussion for issues related to Israel, even if that discussion doesn't actually solve anything directly, may at least allow other discussions to continue unhindered. there's no guarantee, of course, but at least when the next racism conference comes around, any attempt to bring up Israel can be dismissed with "we've got a separate conference about that, let's get back to the other issues we're here for." they're not stuck between either discussing Israel then and there, or walking out--there's a third option available that may allow the conference to proceed.

I disagree with you on this one, I think that, while snail's pace, you have seen significant softening of stances on both sides that has come from the bottom up.

30 or 40 years ago people in Israel would have laughed at you if you told them that we would be talking with Palestinian leaders, and the general population would have said you were crazy if you discussed the possibility of a Palestinian state. Today, in general society its a given that one day there will be a Palestinian state, with the exception of a few demagogues on the right and left, its the borders that need to be finalized.

On the flip side, 30 or 40 years ago, the PLO was still trying to "drive the Jews into the sea," even 15 years ago with the Oslo and Wye agreements people were in shock that the PM of Israel was talking with Arafat (and he was assassinated for this).

You could say that this was because of international pressure and the involvement of the US, but the reality is that it was a slow process of change within Israeli society beginning with the roots of Amos Oz and the Peace Now, through to the exhausting First Lebanon War (and the televisation of the Sabra and Shatila massacre by Christian Phalangists) that provided social acceptance for the ideas that were fostered in the agreements.

On the Palestinian side, from the very beginning there was a widespread rejection of Israel. No matter how many times Arafat was visited by world leaders, or even pressured, he refused to change his stance or charter calling for Israels destruction and his people followed suite. Decades later, after much bloodshed and destruction the PA (and the Arab neighborhood's) way of thinking slowly changed to realize that Israel was here and had not only not been driven to the sea but gotten much stronger and they began warming to the idea of discourse.

In fact the Oslo Accords, the first face to face meeting of Israeli and PLO representatives occured not by the UN or even the US cajoling both sides into agreement, but by secret and illegal meetings between Yossi Beilin and Ahmed Qurei that shocked US negotiators when it was presented to them.

The "top down" approach (by the Soviets, the US and hosted by Spain) was simultaneously being attempted in Madrid. Both sides felt forced into it and were rather paranoid about the whole matter and basically refused to talk to each other.

Today, after two Intifadot and a whole lot of bloodshed, the Israeli government is in routine contact with the Palestinian authority. Trust me, there is still no love lost between the two sides, but the PA's forces work alongside the IDF on certain matters and both now share responsibility for maintaining quiet in the West Bank.

Now if you want to look at Hamas, there's a clusterfuck of top down interference despite the fact that, at first glance, Hamas seems like a complete grassroots terror organization. Bolstered by weapons, support and training from Iran and benefactors in Saudi Arabia, this offshoot of the Egyptian Brotherhood began wrestling control from Fatah in Gaza and attacking Israel. They became popular enough to win control of the Palestinian parliament until the 2007 Battle of Gaza (Israel, the US and Western allies backing Fatah, and Iran, Saudi Arabian fundamentalists and Islamic charities backing Hamas), when they were isolated to the Gaza strip and proceeded to fuck that place up.

People have as a global society, I believe, become so shocked and saddened by the bloodshed that they have become disillusioned and cyinical to the point where the extraordinarily slow process of change has been rendered nearly invisible to their eye. To that extent it becomes easy to say that nothing has or will ever change and thus something must be imposed on the people involved. What they ignore are two fundamental realities, that change is occuring, it is very slow but occuring at the fundamental roots of the conflict, and that the people involved are two very proud cultures (Jewish and Arab) who would (and have/will) reject solutions imposed on them from the outside but take great pride in their own breakthroughs.

The UN is a very admirable organization, and is effective to some degree in what it does. I also agree that in principle it should be involved to a greater degree in the Israeli Palestinian conflict. However because of its nature, and because of the inherent divisive nature and power politics surrounding the conflict, it cannot function in this particular area by reasons you yourself have stated.

The UN, being a body made up of the sum of its parts (countries), requires some kind of consensus or at least coherency in order to perform its above mentioned duties. Since the nations making up the UN cannot agree, and more to the point form coalitions supporting one side or the other, the results you get instead are often biased and condemned by fellow nation states who then claim that the UN is useless.

If nations (not Israel and the Palestinians) were more neutral and not entrenched by 60+ years of history (as well as culture, prejudice and political and economic needs/interests), then a conference on Israel and the Palestinians WOULD be a good idea in order to try and attempt to find common ground and form some kind of global message to send to both parties. The reality is that they not only won't, but because of the complex nature of this conflict (which I mentioned earlier) that intertwines into their own political/economic/etc interests, countries are pushed into taking sides and thus you have what we call in hebrew a balagan (mess) in the UN.

In the UN on a given issue, if you could reasonably expect the Arab states to side with Israel over the Palestinians on something, or Israel supporting countries the vice versa, then yes the UN would have a fighting chance at achieving its goals and being able to accomplish something important. Ideally, this would be nice, realistically its an impossibility for a host of reasons. So instead you get bickering and countries vetoing each others biased resolutions, which is NOT in the UN goals.

Also, I appreciate your idea of setting aside a place for Israel and the Palestinians, thus freeing up the UNs time for discussing other matters. Unfortunately, I believe that this issue is so complex and intertwined in so many isssues that you would have a hard time discussing much of anything. For instance, off the top of my head I could see you running into problems with:

- International terrorism, principles of state warfare (duh)
- Refugees and displaced people
- Nuclear weaponry and proliferation
- Use of civilian companies in warfare
- Blood diamonds
- Sudanese refugees
- Small arms trafficking and proliferation
- Human trafficking
- UNHCR/UNWA funding

Also, as I stated earlier in a more light tone, if you were to appropriate UN funds to a international Israel/Palestinian conference then you would have a host of countries clamoring for their own international conferences. And while I appreciate your stance vis a vis the visibility and ramifications of the Israeli Palestinian conflict in contrast to, say the Sudan Crisis, the principle of equality of nations dictates they be given a voice as well and, admittedly, if they made such a request it would be fairly reasonable. Unfortunately the UN has limited funds and time and would never be able to provide enough conferences to satisfy demand, and thats why it has to deal more with broad topics that effect all countries and peoples (Gender, Children's rights, Racism and Xenophobia) rather than specific topics that effect one or two peoples.

you're giving far too little credit to the top-down pressure applied by western military dominance--dominance which, to be blunt, will degrade significantly over the next decade unless there's a complete paradigm reversal at very high levels (and even that might not be enough). what you see as slow progress, i see as a change of tactics--rather than fighting directly, the bulk of Israel's enemies have chosen to act through deniable proxies. the fact that your enemy is trying to stab you in the back, rather than kill you in a stand-up fight, doesn't mean he's not your enemy anymore.

it has to function in this area, because--as the current conference on racism shows us--it cannot function well otherwise.

dude, Israeli issues do affect all countries and peoples, which is exactly why the UN should be involved. you just listed, what, nine international concerns that Israeli issues ramify into?

and again, whether you or i think it's a good idea or not, the fact is, Israeli issues will come up in the UN because anti-Israel nations will go to great lengths to make sure they're brought up. it is unavoidable. the only reasonable choice is to try to corral these discussions away from the rest of the UN's functions. heck, getting all these nations to stop using Israel as an excuse for bad policy is half the battle, here.

damn double posting

But of course there's been a change of tactic, although with regards to the Palestinians its less a change than an increase in professionalism, since they never went for standing army fights. Instead of bus attacks by guys with bomb belts they're aiming for more Hezbollah-style ambushes, especially Hamas, as I experienced in Gaza firsthand.

However, this is neither here nor there , while often interlinked, there still exists a large disconnect between the different terror groups and their goals, the civilian population's feelings towards their enemy, the political peace process and IDF military operations. What we were discussing was whether people in the region are too stuck in their ways to implement change on their own or if they need an imposition of peace.

it has to function in this area, because--as the current conference on racism shows us--it cannot function well otherwise.

That, I suppose is the crux of the problem. A fair global opinion is needed, but cannot be formed because the nature of the beast doesn't allow it.

The UN is involved, I never said it shouldn't be, but rather the opposite.

What I said was that the UN shouldn't create a conference exclusively for Israel because I don't think it would help, and if they did I don't think the UN is cohesive enough on this topic to do anything other than argue and veto like they do at the moment and it would make a lot of other countries with major problems that effect the international community jealous.

While I think its an admirable idea to corral the discussions away, given the limited funding and time the UN has I don't think the answer would be to create another conference that would just be a forum for fighting over Israel. It would use up a lot of money and anger a lot of other countries who are getting less attention.


And if your goal is to try and get these guys to stop slamming Israel and fostering hate, providing an exclusive forum to discuss Israel may create the opposite effect that you desire, one where (thinking differently) the criticism of Israel wouldn't be overshadowed by other topics, may have the opposite effect of making it easier for demagogues to rip into Israel and get their opinons in the paper and exposed to the masses since it wouldn't get sandwiched between extraneous topics.

Also, something else pops into mind regarding this, one of the main problems that the Israel/palestinian conflict has with regards to the UN isn't just the bickering and squabbling wasting time (which a seperate conference might alleviate), its the insanely disproportionate amount of UN resolutions passed with regards to Israel which clog up and blacken the UN's name.

I can only imagine that if you removed all the other things that take up the bulk of the time of UN conferences (like Womens rights, minorities, etc) and streamlined it just to focus on Israel, you might get the opposite effect, where you get more resolutions proposed before the UN against Israel since all they'd have to do the whole conference is babble and shout about Israel and form coalitions to vote on proposing said resolution without having to waste time debating things like Womens Rights, minorities, et al that tend to divide up those coalitions. It would be like turning a sit down restaurant into a McDonalds.

But until the UN comes up with a viable solution and implements it, people like you and I will just go back and forth, and I think the best thing to do is agree to disagree and go about enjoying our weekends since I go back on duty sunday and its nice out.

i certainly wasn't discussing the disposition of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples as a separate issue from the disposition of the rest of the middle east and the western world. i think it would be a mistake to view them as separate issues, since they feed into each other so much.

i don't know whether creating an exclusive forum could help reduce the amount of hate being fostered on either side. what i do think is that creating an exclusive forum may make it easier to keep the drama surrounding Israel from tainting other UN initiatives. if we have a special conference to discuss issues related to Israel and antisemitism, maybe the conference we've created for dealing with other race-related issues can move forward instead of becoming continually mired in shouting matches about Israel. resolving issues related to Israel would, in all honesty, not be the point of such a conference. the point would be to give the UN the ability to set aside issues related to Israel, so that other issues can be resolved.