The Persian guy delivered a speech, and the Europeans walked out.
That is what the summary of the Iranian president’s appearance at Durban II looked like to Israeli viewers. A great diplomatic victory. Yet while it was 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 percent of it, attentively listened to his speech, with the United Nations logo in the backdrop. The speech was also broadcast to the homes of hundreds of millions of people. The parade of those walking out of the conference hall was indeed broadcast, 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.
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, United States and European states, prompting them to support one of the greatest robberies in history: the U.N. partition plan and the Jewish state’s establishment.
This U.N. 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 U.N. 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.
The peace-seeking Iran pledges to accept the majority decision in this 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 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.
All that is left is to change the U.N.’s voting procedures: The 4 billion people residing in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Latin America are the majority, and they deserve to be recognized as such.
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.
It also features certain similarities to the agreements in South Africa and the former Yugoslavia.
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.
Sever Plocker is a senior commentator for Ynetnews.com, an English language news and content Web site based in Israel.