Netanyahu Condemns U.N. for Allowing Ahmadinejad to Deliver Address
- Thread starter Aleenik
- Start date
That's a pretty unproductive implication, however. Ahmadinejad is the internationally accepted leader of Iran, and is internationally tolerated as such. It not as if the leader of Hamas is being asked to speak. Ahmadinejad is a bona fide world leader, whose legitimacy has already been recognised through engagement in negotiations with. Of course, engaging in negotiations shouldn't really imply recognition as an official government so much as a de facto one, but using the same diplomatic logic as that which would deny him a right to speak at the UN out of fear of legitimising him, it's a double standard.
It is in a way. And that's the way it is, it's not going to change any time soon.
Ecofarm
Deity
Not really, the Clerics have the real power.
Not really, the election is rather widely accepted as full of crap.
Not really, when was the last time a US president spoke with him or anyone in Iran.
Yes, but Ahmadinejad is the face of the regime. Even if he is a mouthpiece, he still represents Iran on the world stage.
Yes, but Ahmadinejad is recognised as the leader of Iran on the world stage. Legitimate in the sense of acknowledgement of power.
So Obama hasn't been opening up to dialogue? Was I just imagining this?
Ahmadinajad still have significant power. Given that the clerics don't usually leave the country for UN summits, Ahmadinajad de facto represents the IRI leadership.
Election fraud is not unique to Iran.
I know this might come as a shock to you, but the United States alone does not set the standard for diplomatic relations.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
Ecofarm
Deity
That's rasist.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
"What a disgrace," Netanyahu said. "What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations."
That's rich coming from the country which has commited more offences against the UN charter than any other. Its a bit like Mussolini complaining on behalf of Hitler to the league of nations after Chamberlain stood up and gave a speech condemning the German takeover of Czecho-Slovakia (a hypohtetical situation).
"What a travesty," Netanyahu said. "Israel justly defended itself against terror."
He said the latest report presents a test to the international community: "Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?"
What terror, I didn't know that defrenceless women and children huddling in schools and hospitals had the ability to inspire terror in one of the most highly armend countries in the world. No wait I know where he got it from, it is from the fear of "What will ever happen to us if the oppressed throw off the shackles and gain power for themselves?"
Netanyahu drew applause only when he talked about the need for a Palestinian state and when he finished his speech.
I can imangine Netenyahus Palestinian state, an impoverished Bantustan, existing in the most unproductive areas of the Palestinian countries and the dirtiest most crowded ghettos of the palestinian towns, with only the power to to carry out his diktats in full.
"America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." That phrase should have read "America does not accept the legitimacy of any Israeli settlements on Palestinn soil. The other thing I find distasteful about continued Western "condemnation" of Israeli policy is that America and the EU are in a postition to force Israel to come to the table and deal fairly with Palestine. America through it's massive funding of Israel (under Bush fully half of the US overseas aid budget went to Israel) the EU through a smaller funding and trade agreements which gives Isreal better deals than almost any other non-EU nation.
Now I have no love lost for Ahma-whatever, he is a horrible little man who is in need of some serious psychological therapy, and the regime of which he fronts is even worse, but if you are going to throw stones, you'd better make sure you don't live in a glass house.
That's rich coming from the country which has commited more offences against the UN charter than any other. Its a bit like Mussolini complaining on behalf of Hitler to the league of nations after Chamberlain stood up and gave a speech condemning the German takeover of Czecho-Slovakia (a hypohtetical situation).
"What a travesty," Netanyahu said. "Israel justly defended itself against terror."
He said the latest report presents a test to the international community: "Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?"
What terror, I didn't know that defrenceless women and children huddling in schools and hospitals had the ability to inspire terror in one of the most highly armend countries in the world. No wait I know where he got it from, it is from the fear of "What will ever happen to us if the oppressed throw off the shackles and gain power for themselves?"
Netanyahu drew applause only when he talked about the need for a Palestinian state and when he finished his speech.
I can imangine Netenyahus Palestinian state, an impoverished Bantustan, existing in the most unproductive areas of the Palestinian countries and the dirtiest most crowded ghettos of the palestinian towns, with only the power to to carry out his diktats in full.
"America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." That phrase should have read "America does not accept the legitimacy of any Israeli settlements on Palestinn soil. The other thing I find distasteful about continued Western "condemnation" of Israeli policy is that America and the EU are in a postition to force Israel to come to the table and deal fairly with Palestine. America through it's massive funding of Israel (under Bush fully half of the US overseas aid budget went to Israel) the EU through a smaller funding and trade agreements which gives Isreal better deals than almost any other non-EU nation.
Now I have no love lost for Ahma-whatever, he is a horrible little man who is in need of some serious psychological therapy, and the regime of which he fronts is even worse, but if you are going to throw stones, you'd better make sure you don't live in a glass house.
Bibi was never involved in the storming and occupation of an American embassy. I know where my sympathies lie.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Ahadinejad was never involved in the assassinationof a democratically elected head of state (even indirectly), various US governments have, as well as various British governments. We could go on like this forever, the fact of the matter is that one very nasty little piece of work has come out an unilaterally decided that for the good of humanity another equally nasty little piece of work should not be allowed to speak in public ever again.
Ecofarm
Deity
"Involved in the assassination of a head of state"
Citation Please
Citation Please
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Salvador Allende, the CIA were heavily involved in training Pinochets torture squads and army units involved in the coup, and Kissinger (the then US secretary of state) even went so far as to publicly green-light it. Now there is some doubt as to whether he shot himself or a member of the coup did, but I'm of the opinion that when your back is against the wall and you have only one bullet left, and you are up against an opponent who is fond of hot coals sharp knives and electrocution, shooting youself is the same as having the other side put the bullet in. The CIA were also involved in the coup against Mossadeq in Iran in 1953 as the Anglo-American oli didn't want to lose their lucrative and tax-free wells in that country. (You can see where that coup lead to, its called blowback in the business)
Oh lovely let's bring up Musaddiq again, because telling half of a story isn't disingenuous at all.
I don't have a problem with letting Ahmadinejad say stuff to the United Nations. I suspect Netanyahu doesn't either, because it helps him appeal to the audience's emotions.
...but at the same time, speeches do actually matter?
I don't have a problem with letting Ahmadinejad say stuff to the United Nations. I suspect Netanyahu doesn't either, because it helps him appeal to the audience's emotions.
dirtyparrot
Upholding Brannigan's Law
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,841
Yes for the first 2, no for the last. In theory, all leaders of state deserve a place in the UN, whether you like them or not.
I wonder if Netanyahu is ready for Israel to recognize the Armenian genocide, which the US and Israel has steadfastly chosen not to. Why is it that it's so bad to deny the Holocaust, but OK to deny other genocides when it's not convenient for some countries to do so?
I have a feeling that Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust is simply because he feels that it strengthens whatever arguments he wants to put forth. However, I think that the better argument would have been to say that the Holocaust does not give one license to do as they please.
Israel already did that
- of course it was not a high key speech - but they have not denied it being a genocide since - though they try to side step the question.http://www.umd.umich.edu/dept/armenian/facts/genocide.html said:
the US has not yet officially recognized the genocide as what it was - though a House resolution did pass the Foreign relations committee 2 years ago - and the current President has pointed to his earlier expressions of his views (when he was not president he called it a genocide) when asked about this question on his trip to Turkey. Still no denial - though more candid expression would probably be a good thing.
The row about the Armenian genocide even though a disgrace is not a denial of what happened in any case - there is a difference between avoiding a certain descriptor for events that are being accepted as fact and denying that certain events took place.
Thoughtful Thug
Deity
dirtyparrot
Upholding Brannigan's Law
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 1,841
Maybe I should have used the term "officially recognized," but the point remains: the recognition of things like genocide have more than do with a country's self-interest than it has to do with morality. I can still remember the question asked to a US spokesperson of how many acts of genocide constitute genocide when the Clinton administration wanted to avoid intervening in Rwanda.
point would still be that Israel did officially recognize it as a genocide though they try to avoid repeating this recognition in a more high key manner and the US have officially recognized the mass killing and victimization of millions of Armenians in the late 1980s - they just have never called this fact a genocide - I do agree that in this and other cases especially with things that are ongoing at the point of time at which they are discussed the definition of genocide is mostly a political one (its not a well defined category anyways - and the definition keeps changing). However Ahmadinejad is not doubting the categorization of this event as a Genocide - but rather calls it having occurred a myth (or tries to obfuscate like in his NPR interview this week were he calls it a historical fact and at the same time dismisses accounts by people who lived through those times as unsubstantiated claims) - of course he is using this denial for political purposes - but it has nothing to do with the question of whether one calls a genocide a genocide - and more with the attempt to discredit Israel by denying what he views (rightly or wrongly) as the basis for its claim to legitimacy.
