Iranian Calls Israel Racist at Meeting in Geneva

The New York Times

Published: April 20, 2009

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

President of Iran, Mahboud Ahmadinejad, made a speech in the platform of a United Nations conference in Geneva, in which he called Israel as a 'cruel and repressive racist regime'. The disparaging speech prompted delegates from European nations to leave the meeting.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said, "following World War II they(the Allied) resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering. And they sent sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palesine." During his speech, diplomats representing European nations deserted the hall in protest to Ahmadinejad's racist remarks. 

Today's meeting is the first meeting on combating racism after the disputes in the very first United Nations conference on the same issue in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. In 2001, the purpose of the conference to address racism was flawed by a few anti-Israel nations' derailment to focussing on maligning Israel rather than on the global problems of discriminations. Expecting only to see the replay of the similar disputes in 2001, the United States and many other nations such as Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Australia had opposed today's gathering.

As expected and thus boycotted by many nations, the conference on combatting discrimination and racism turned out to be another failure. This, once again, clearly demonstrates the long-standing difference in perspectives of the West and the rest of the world as to view Israel's treatment of the Palestinians under occupation as discrimination or not.

The speech also prompted Security General Ban Ki-moon's uncommon criticism. He said, "I have not experienced this kind of destructive proceedings in an assembly, in a conference, by any one member state." He continued, "I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian president to accuse, divide and even incite."

Many expressed condemnation towards the president's speech. Navi Pillay is the United Nations high commissioner for hunan rights. She was deeply disappointed at President Ahamdinejad's racist speech as she expected some ways to combat discrimination. She said, "this is what I would have expected the president of Iran to come and tell us: how he is addressing racial discrimination and intolerance in his country." Also, Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, the deputy permanent representative for the United States, was critical of the speech. He said, "it shows disregard for the organization to which he is speaking -- the United Nations -- and does a grave injustice to the Iranian nation and the Iranian people."

Opinion: First of all, I think it is not right that President Ahmadinejad called Israel a rascist government at a United Nations conference before diplomats from all different nations. He nelgected the ultimate purpose of the conference and insisted his perspectives by maligning Israel once again after the Durban meeting in 2001. This was an act that overlooked the organization and diplomats who had willingly attended the meeting to come up with some ways to combat discrimination. However, there is one more thing we should not forget, and this helps understand what had made the president of Iran make such a contentious speech. In Iran's perspectives, the world's powers such as the United States purposedly established a racist government after the Second World War in Israel by sending Jewish immigrants. Iran also denounces that the United States and other world's powers are appeasing Zionists' violent movements like the attack on the Gaza Strip. From this realization, I can understand the president's speech although I still believe that he should have taken some other ways to share his perspective. Second of all, I find it very disappointing and sad that the recess for 8 years since the disputes in 2001 still has not narrowed, if not closed, the gap between the perspectives of the West and the rest of the world. I find it pathetic that many world powers who should hold responsibility in global issues boycotted the conference and did not attend the gathering. Also I cannot believe that the diplomats just left the hall without even a try to share ideas with the president. The larger the gap between two different beliefs is, the more they should try to narrow the gap by more communication. I think they are the ones who should step up to make this world a better place for everyone to live. And without their efforts, the gap will lead to violence after violence which would cost more and more lives of people.