US to boycott racism conference

[Buffett and Colbert]

And it will continue to be run by racists, if the non-racists don't show up.

Given the prevalence of Arab states in the conference, showing up won't change that. Not showing up will prevent the conference from gaining the legitimacy it craves.

But only nations like the US can keep it from being completely useless. If all the western nations were to go, they could probably pump out a decent, worthwhile working paper and probably even pass it.

[New Unsociety]

The US and Israel walked out of that meeting over a draft resolution that criticised Israel and equated Zionism with racism.

The United States will not participate in the upcoming conference because the Durban process "included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism", Joseph E. Macmanus, acting US assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today.

How is criticizing a STATE(not the people) and jewish NATIONALISM(Zionism) the same as criticizing ALL JEWS in general(anti-semitism)?

[Vecherd]

The US and Israel walked out of that meeting over a draft resolution that criticised Israel and equated Zionism with racism.

The United States will not participate in the upcoming conference because the Durban process "included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism", Joseph E. Macmanus, acting US assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today.

How is criticizing a STATE(not the people) and jewish NATIONALISM(Zionism) the same as criticizing ALL JEWS in general(anti-semitism)?

Saying that Jews want to live in a said area is racism just because they are Jews is antisemitism.

[Dododecapod]

The US and Israel walked out of that meeting over a draft resolution that criticised Israel and equated Zionism with racism.

The United States will not participate in the upcoming conference because the Durban process "included ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism", Joseph E. Macmanus, acting US assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, wrote in a letter to Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today.

How is criticizing a STATE(not the people) and jewish NATIONALISM(Zionism) the same as criticizing ALL JEWS in general(anti-semitism)?

Ideally, it wouldn't. But many (I want to say most, but I can't back that up) of the opponents of Israel just don't make the distinction. Thus we get such absurdities as HAMAS bombing Jewish meetings in South America to get at Israel.
Like it or not, anti-Zionism largely has become anti-semitism.

[Laerod]

Given the prevalence of Arab states in the conference, showing up won't change that. Not showing up will prevent the conference from gaining the legitimacy it craves.

But only nations like the US can keep it from being completely useless. If all the western nations were to go, they could probably pump out a decent, worthwhile working paper and probably even pass it.

Buffy, someone as well-versed in the UN as you should know that this isn't true. Western democracies are vastly outnumbered in the UN.

[Southern Patriots]

It was a state created via imperialism for theocratic and racial reasons. Addressing the problems of zionism wouldn't make that state go away, so we shouldn't tip-toe about afraid to deal with it.

But Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state in Palestine. Thus by definition, anti-Zionism means opposition to the existence of the state of Israel. Indeed, if one looks to the broadest definition of Zionism- the belief in a Jewish national home in Palestine- opposition to that means making Palestine an Arab state and taking measures to de-Judaise Palestine. Ultra-Zionism- the claim that Jews are superior to Arabs and so should annex the whole Eretz and drive the Arabs out- is a problem, but Zionism itself is not.

Good grief, I've just thought. Britain did walk out when the US and Israel did, and isn't attending this time, right? Please tell me it's so.

Zionism is a problem in that it allowed a state to be created for the wrong reasons and in opposition to the people native to the area, but that ship has sailed. Trying to "eliminate" Israel is a very bad idea. The modern generation aren't to blame for what their ancestors did in creating the state.

But like you said, aspects of Zionism (the "ultra" version being a good example) are dangerous and racist and should be addressed. We shouldn't pretend Zionism hasn't been used for racist purposes in the past and may be used for such in the future. Didn't the UN classify it as racist for a period, only overturning that to get Israel to come to peace talks?

[United States of America]

Good, At least America has some sense left.

Thank you!

[Southern Patriots]

Good, At least America has some sense left.

A shame it doesn't apply said limited sense to something more worthwhile than this.

[Buffett and Colbert]

But only nations like the US can keep it from being completely useless. If all the western nations were to go, they could probably pump out a decent, worthwhile working paper and probably even pass it.

Buffy, someone as well-versed in the UN as you should know that this isn't true. Western democracies are vastly outnumbered in the UN.

By who? By Islamic countries? No they aren't. By simply non-western countries? Sure, but I don't think many African countries south of the Maghreb care about Jews. They have their own ethnic troubles. But that's besides the point. A conference like this doesn't produce anything binding, or really impacting. The only difference between a working paper and a resolution, in this case, is pure politics. I think it would be worthwhile for Western nations to sit together, and produce good papers, whether they do get passed or not. Being able to say, "While those assholes produced that pile of dog poo, look at what we tried to pass!" is important.

[Laerod]

Buffy, someone as well-versed in the UN as you should know that this isn't true. Western democracies are vastly outnumbered in the UN.

By who? By Islamic countries? No they aren't. By simply non-western countries? Sure, but I don't think many African countries south of the Maghreb care about Jews. They have their own ethnic troubles. But that's besides the point. A conference like this doesn't produce anything binding, or really impacting. The only difference between a working paper and a resolution, in this case, is pure politics. I think it would be worthwhile for Western nations to sit together, and produce good papers, whether they do get passed or not. Being able to say, "While those assholes produced that pile of dog poo, look at what we tried to pass!" is important.

It's all about legitimacy. Whether it's binding or not, it's a signal. There is literally no point to giving credibility to this conference if all that's going to come out of it is the opinion of the anti-Israel bloc, whether said criticism is warranted or not. At the very least Western countries still have the clout that it matters for the credibility of the conference if they attend or not, but they won't achieve what is necessary if they don't.

[Hamiltonya]

I really don't follow her logic here, we can't hold anti-American sentiments in New York now if its anywhere near the 11th?

Probably because it's an emotional rather than a logical argument.

Well, it may well be an emotional argument but I do agree. Is it not a slap to the US's face when the same people that protected your attacker then decide to go to the crime scene so near it's anniversary? I believe if the members of the Durban III conference had any class at all they would simply move the conference, either to another place or another date.

Side-note: Zionism is comparable to white supremacy, which isn't exactly racism. Racism is singling a group out due to their race and believing them to be lesser. Zionism is believing that one is better than everyone else. So, I could see how it may be thought of as racism but no one suffers due to zionism. Plus, it's a common belief for members of anything to believe they are better than others. Like, as an American I believe my country is the best. Well, because I believe America is the best then it must also mean I think other countries are lesser. Therefore, I am a "zionist"( Yes, I know zionism is referring to jewish people, I am merely making a point.). I don't think it's far of a step to assume that these countries truly are being anti-Semitic. Most countries and races believe they are the best but does that mean they should be ridiculed and "taken down a notch". I would say no.

[Laerod]

Well, it may well be an emotional argument but I do agree. Is it not a slap to the US's face when the same people that protected your attacker then decide to go to the crime scene so near it's anniversary?

I have severe doubts that either the Taliban or those Pakistanis directly responsible for hiding bin Laden will be attending the conference.

[Forsakia]

It was a state created via imperialism for theocratic and racial reasons. Addressing the problems of zionism wouldn't make that state go away, so we shouldn't tip-toe about afraid to deal with it.

But Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state in Palestine. Thus by definition, anti-Zionism means opposition to the existence of the state of Israel. Indeed, if one looks to the broadest definition of Zionism- the belief in a Jewish national home in Palestine- opposition to that means making Palestine an Arab state and taking measures to de-Judaise Palestine. Ultra-Zionism- the claim that Jews are superior to Arabs and so should annex the whole Eretz and drive the Arabs out- is a problem, but Zionism itself is not.

Good grief, I've just thought. Britain did walk out when the US and Israel did, and isn't attending this time, right? Please tell me it's so.

Isn't zionism is the advocation of a JEWISH state in Palestine. So anti-zionism isn't necessarily against the existence of Israel, but against it being a specifically Jewish state rather than a multi-whatever one.

[Serrland]

Well, it may well be an emotional argument but I do agree. Is it not a slap to the US's face when the same people that protected your attacker then decide to go to the crime scene so near it's anniversary?

I have severe doubts that either the Taliban or those Pakistanis directly responsible for hiding bin Laden will be attending the conference.

...but...but...9/11...terrorists...brown people...arabs...9/11...

[Angleter]

But Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state in Palestine. Thus by definition, anti-Zionism means opposition to the existence of the state of Israel. Indeed, if one looks to the broadest definition of Zionism- the belief in a Jewish national home in Palestine- opposition to that means making Palestine an Arab state and taking measures to de-Judaise Palestine. Ultra-Zionism- the claim that Jews are superior to Arabs and so should annex the whole Eretz and drive the Arabs out- is a problem, but Zionism itself is not.

Good grief, I've just thought. Britain did walk out when the US and Israel did, and isn't attending this time, right? Please tell me it's so.

Isn't zionism is the advocation of a JEWISH state in Palestine. So anti-zionism isn't necessarily against the existence of Israel, but against it being a specifically Jewish state rather than a multi-whatever one.

The state of Israel is the Jewish state. If Israel were to absolve itself of its Jewish identity and become a multiethnic or even an Arab state, it wouldn't be Israel any more. Isratin or Palestine are the suggested names for such a solution.

But Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state in Palestine. Thus by definition, anti-Zionism means opposition to the existence of the state of Israel. Indeed, if one looks to the broadest definition of Zionism- the belief in a Jewish national home in Palestine- opposition to that means making Palestine an Arab state and taking measures to de-Judaise Palestine. Ultra-Zionism- the claim that Jews are superior to Arabs and so should annex the whole Eretz and drive the Arabs out- is a problem, but Zionism itself is not.

Good grief, I've just thought. Britain did walk out when the US and Israel did, and isn't attending this time, right? Please tell me it's so.

Zionism is a problem in that it allowed a state to be created for the wrong reasons and in opposition to the people native to the area, but that ship has sailed. Trying to "eliminate" Israel is a very bad idea. The modern generation aren't to blame for what their ancestors did in creating the state.

But like you said, aspects of Zionism (the "ultra" version being a good example) are dangerous and racist and should be addressed. We shouldn't pretend Zionism hasn't been used for racist purposes in the past and may be used for such in the future. Didn't the UN classify it as racist for a period, only overturning that to get Israel to come to peace talks?

I wouldn't like to get into yet another debate about who was in the right or wrong in Mandatory Palestine (although for the record I believe the British fooled the Arabs on a technicality that allowed them to make Palestine what it became, I believe the Jews were well within their rights to join an existing and large Jewish community where they faced comparatively little discrimination but that many of them were racist Biblical supremacists, that the Arabs were wrong to launch pogroms in response and the British in bowing to Arab concerns and imposing anti-Semitic immigration laws while Arabs could and did enter as they pleased, and that Partition was needed to prevent Palestine from Civil War), but as for the racism thing in the UN, it was characterised as such on the General Assembly majority of Islamic, Third World and Communist states. The fact that the resolution was overturned in 1991, although the Israelis demanding its withdrawal for peace talks to commence was a major factor, suggests that the status of Communism was instrumental in the 'Zionism is racism' resolution's fortunes.

[Conserative Morality]

Seems a bit iffy, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I trust the President if he says it was anti-Semitic.

Aye, same. He may not be an ardent anti-zionist like me, but I don't think he'd walk out if it was just 'Criticism of Israel'. He's done some of that himself.

[Caninope]

Maybe I'm just not worldly enough yet, but its hard to imagine many countries being more racist than the US.

Get anywhere outside the West and South America (most of which is pretty cosmopolitan), and everywhere is more racist than the US.

Let's not forget the rising ethnic/racial/religious tendencies in Europe.

[Laerod]

Get anywhere outside the West and South America (most of which is pretty cosmopolitan), and everywhere is more racist than the US.

Let's not forget the rising ethnic/racial/religious tendencies in Europe.

That's not likely to be the issue since it wasn't the issue last time either.

[Conserative Morality]

That's not likely to be the issue since it wasn't the issue last time either.

Ah, A Joke. Very good sir.

[Mahaj WA Seat]

The USA should just say 'we don't want the conference in our country'.

[Seperate Vermont]

I smell backroom diplomacy. It seems uncanny the US just walks out of a summit willy-nilly.

[Serrland]

I smell backroom diplomacy. It seems uncanny the US just walks out of a summit willy-nilly.

After what happened the last two years, why do you think it would be willy-nilly?

[Brandenburg-Altmark]

Yes, because an ideology that says "We're god's chosen people so arabs get out!" is totally not discriminatory in any way. Poor, poor Israel.

[Seperate Vermont]

I smell backroom diplomacy. It seems uncanny the US just walks out of a summit willy-nilly.

After what happened the last two years, why do you think it would be willy-nilly?

Perhaps I should have said "commonly".

[Hamiltonya]

Well, it may well be an emotional argument but I do agree. Is it not a slap to the US's face when the same people that protected your attacker then decide to go to the crime scene so near it's anniversary?

I have severe doubts that either the Taliban or those Pakistanis directly responsible for hiding bin Laden will be attending the conference.

Don't play dumb. It is common knowledge Pakistan and other taliban-related countries did nothing to try to find him and silence is as good as support.