Our generally pathetic government got one thing right when it decided not to attend the UN hate-fest. The Iran president is certainly a nasty little dwarf.

The most disconcerting thing seen on TV was the number of yahoos and savages still cheering and clapping after the Western delegates walked out.

My apologies to everyone.

I had taken the Holocaust reference from the
article in "The Guardian" (UK) tabloid that I
mentioned in my first post.

It appears that the mention of the Holocaust
was dropped from the original text in Farsi,
prepared by the Iranian Government on the
advice of UN officials. You can google -
"Ahmadinejad - Holocaust," and get the full
story from various websites, or go to:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30323549/

I hope this clarifies things for you.

However, I still stand by my initial comments.
Using a Conference based that is supposed to be a demonstration
of international solidarity behind sentiments everyone
could agree on such as, tolerance, understanding
and respect - to launch an attack on Israel was not
appropriate.

As Pericles pointed out - stirring further hatred
achieves only more division and hatred.
And, that's not what the Conference was supposed to be
about.

As usual Pericles' logic has shone through...exactly old son exactly.
Csteele also has a valid point if you look closely there are elements of both religious and racial discrimination in Israel. Some is de facto institutionalised. (See BBC special a few weeks ago on insight “in search of the life of Jesus", four corners. My daughter who lived in east Jerusalem attests to land discrimination)

In this context a nation is made up of two parts the first is its constitution/laws the second is how well those laws are obeyed/enforced.
When the police side with or don't enforce laws evenly then there is an inherent problem.
Let's not forget the politics that were played out here. Like all political speeches it holds a grain of truth but most is for domestic consumption.

The idea that if you don't agree with Israel stance you are then either Anti-Semitic or a terrorist is preposterously simplistic.
Notwithstanding none of the above doesn't excuse the excesses of Iran etc.

Max
I would suggest a bit more reading on the origins of Jerusalem and the original owners of the land. Likewise a more in-depth look at the diaspora its reasons its problems and why.
One should be careful of the Israeli spin on all this. Then consider the demographics of Israel. About 40% are “secular” (want religious/racial tolerance) and just want to get on with life most have other agendas including the 30% who describe themselves as Fundamentalist Jews and want an exclusively Jewish nation that incorporates Palestine. Hence they have a parliament in which the extreme right has disproportionate say i.e. their foreign minister.

My 2c for this thread is that akin to reading the so called Holy Books, it can be an error to take everything literally and, I do not believe that any of the parties can claim to be "Holier than Thou" all factors considered.

To play Satan's Advocate, I would remind people that when the likes of n.america supported s.africa and classified Nelson Mandela as a Terrorist, the Iranians were one of those who supported him. As for the arming of Saddam with biological WMD's. Oh dear!

The wheel turns but I can't as of yet dismiss this nagging feeling within me that as a collective humanity seems destined to repeat in principal the issues of the past over and over until we get it right.

The prez of Iran seemed to gain some mirth from all the hoo har. Mayhaps "we" can work with that.

..

As to substance, we had the ex prez of Iran on Al Jazeera in a what appeared to be a rehearsed interview this morning. To cut to the chase, and if I do not misinterpret, he appeared to affirm that the Iranian position in relation to Hezbollah and Israel was that there would be no peace as long as the Yahoodees occupied Palestinian land. Further definition was not provided.

..

Hmmm .. Bazza Obama may do well to consider that sometimes to do less is to do more. I for one would like to hear many different views in terms of solutions from here on, as currently we hear from too few of the players in this afair and thereafter, engage the Collective. Bazza could do a further expression of consumate statesmanship by seeing to it that everyone is heard.

P.S.

Heavy Metal in Islam. That's beautiful!

Examinator, I don't think you're right, full stop, I'd suggest YOU read a little more.
To dismiss opposing views as "Israeli spin" is disingenuous, I could as easily dismiss your views, but won't.
I'm no supporter of Jewish interests, and readily admit they do many provocative things, and have their own extremists, I just see no reason to deny their territorial claims on the basis of some sort of humanitarian rubbish. The Iraqi rant is a clear statement of the Arabs attitude, and until you can change that, and put a stop to their cowardly terrorism, Israel has every right to perform whatever action is necessary to protect it's citizens.

When Britain first divided the land, some for Jews and some Palestinians in 1920, there was no such thing as “Palestinian Arab people” All Muslim Arab voices protested the concept of a Palestinian nation as they considered people west of the river Jordan to be Jewish/Christian and not Islamic, even “repugnant”.

From 1920 until 1930 the Jewish-Arab conflict included bickering over the Western Wall, the 1928 Day of Atonement with British action against the Jews, the 1929 Palestine riots, the Hebron massacre of Jews and in 1930, the League of Nations Commissions’ declaration that Jews had the right to “free access to the Western Wall for the purposes of devotion at all times”.

In 1948, at the end of the British mandate and before the founding of the State of Israel, the Arab Liberation Army (ALA), lead by King Abdullah I of Jordan, launched war against the Jews in the west bank and Jerusalem. The ALA comprised troops from Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Libya. The Jordanians then occupied Jerusalem, and for 19 years refused to implement article VIII of the 1949 Armistice Agreement giving Jews access to the Wall in spite of Jerusalem being under UN administration.

As a direct consequence of the Jordanian lead ALA invasion of the UN Administered Jerusalem in 1948, 10,000 Jews and 750,000 Palestinians were displaced. The end of the 1948 war saw the formation of the “State of Israel”?

Again in 1967, in addition to Egypt, who attacked through the UN forces protecting Israel’s southern border, Jordan, with troops from Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria joined the attack on Israel and got a sound “smacking” for their trouble.

You see the problem here? My generation has a different historical view of the Middle East and therefore different context for today’s Middle East. I can’t support Israel for not withdrawing from Gaza/West bank after the six day war, or condone the building of settlements however, the Arabs started hostilities twice and now keep it going with proxy armies and the support of Have-your-dinner-dad.