The Persian guy delivered a speech, and the Europeans walked out. This is what the summary of the Iranian president’s appearance at the Geneva anti-racism conference, dubbed “Durban II,” looked like to Israeli viewers. A great diplomatic victory.
Yet while it was certainly diplomatic, it was not necessarily a victory.
First World countries indeed shunned the conference or walked out immediately. Yet the dignified delegations from the Second and Third World remained seated when Ahmadinejad delivered his speech.
The authorized representatives of the vast majority of humanity, 80% of it, attentively listened to his speech, with the United Nations logo in the backdrop. The speech was also broadcasted to the homes of hundreds of millions of people. The parade of those walking out of the conference hall was indeed broadcasted too, briefly; white diplomats in custom-made suits. Only white ones.
In his speech, just like in his previous public appearances, Ahmadinejad presented an orderly doctrine that would lead to a comprehensive and original solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His argument is outrageous and sounds phony, distorted, inflammatory, and anti-Semitic to us (and to the majority of enlightened global public opinion, for the time being.) However, to others, far away from Europe, it sounds like the voice of repressed justice.
Partition decision fundamentally unjust
Here is the essence of the Iranian president’s narrative, and we would do well to become closely familiar with it: Whether there was a unique Jewish Holocaust during World War II or not – and we can likely assume that it didn’t happen, and certainly not to the extent described by the Zionists – the Jews exploited it and used it cynically and slyly in order to justify the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland. Through malicious manipulations and wealthy lobby groups, the Zionist Jews exploited the sense of guilt felt by the USSR, US, and European states, prompting them to support one of the greatest robberies in history: The UN partition plan and the Jewish State’s establishment.
This UN decision, as it was tainted by fundamental injustice to begin with, is null and void in moral terms. The Zionist entity established in Palestine sinfully has been characterized from the very beginning by racism and exploitation, which only grew with the passage of time. This entity turned itself into the focal point of global evil and to the ultimate factor undermining global stability.
Now, with the changing global balance of power, the time has come to formally annul the disgraceful 1947 partition decision, which granted Arab land to a handful of Jews. Instead, the UN should adopt a new decision, premised on the following: A referendum among all “people of Palestine” on its future. The people who will be invited to take part in the referendum are the Muslims currently residing there, the Muslims who resided there before the Zionist occupation, their descendents, and the Christians and Jews born in Palestine itself.
Change UN voting procedures
The peace-seeking Iran pledges to accept the majority decision in the above-mentioned referendum. Therefore, this is not about nuclear sabre-rattling or a declaration of war on the Zionists, but rather, a just and democratic solution that will be achieved peacefully and with international consensus.
If, as result of the referendum, the Jewish state will be abolished, the Jews would not be threatened with extermination or a second “Holocaust.” They will be allowed to integrate into the great Palestinian state as a religious element with recognized civil rights, even beyond the rights given to Iranian Jews. The Muslims, as opposed to the Nazis, will do everything to protect the Jewish minority to be left in Palestine in the wake of the referendum results’ implementation.
All that is left is to change the UN’s voting procedures: The four billion people residing in the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America are the majority, and they deserve to be recognized as such. Iran will serve as their mouthpiece; that is, Ahmadinejad’s mouth.
Time is running out
The Iranian president’s narrative is not perceived as delusional or crazy in the Second and Third World (and also among the radical European Left.) On the contrary, it is perceived as legitimate within the confines of post-colonial discourse – the amelioration of a historical injustice caused by the UN in 1947; a solution of peace, co-existence, and democracy. It also features certain similarities to the agreements in South Africa and the former Yugoslavia. And as to the sanctity of international agreements, wasn’t the Yalta Agreement on Europe’s division annulled?
This time around, Israeli diplomacy managed to make Iran’s president feel slight discomfort and prompted First World states to reject him and his messages. This is something, but it’s very little. What can the Israeli government do at this time in order to fundamentally curb the “Ahmadinejad solution?” It can take advantage of the window of opportunity in order to secure peace agreements with the Palestinians and with moderate Arab regimes, in order to safeguard the State of Israel.
Just look at who stuck around to listen to Ahmadinejad in Geneva and you’ll realize that time is running out.