No, but a rebuke represents an attempt to curtail his speech (outbursts). Surely a simple presentation of the facts would be a more civilised, and less antagonistic, response from the UN. Maybe this guy really does believe what he’s saying.
If he refuses to believe otherwise, that’s his (and, to a certain extent, his population’s) problem and as long as the words don’t become sticks and stones (on the level at which he’s operating, any how) then they should be allowed: commented upon, sure, but not punished.
Isn’t that what free speech is all about?
It’s so strange…
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t look like a stand-up comedian.
At all.
No it doesn’t. If I tell you to shut up, am I curtailing your rights? A rebuke is nothing more than speech. You seem to have misunderstood the meaning of the right to fre speech - it deals with the relationship between a citizen and his government, and nothing else. It does not deal with the relationship of a person and a foreign government, nor does it have anything to do with the relationship betwen two seperate govenments.
Anyway, it’s besides the point. Ahmadinejad was not speaking as a private citizen, he was speaking as the voice of a sovereign nation. Iran was denying the Holocaust and threatening to destroy Israel, not any individual Iranian.
And when a nation speaks, other nations listen.
You’re kidding, right? I doubt he even cares whether or not what he’s saying is true - he’s saying it because it fits his purposes. He’s TROLLING. Have you noticed how low-key the official Israeli response has been? Sharon doesn’t want to feed him.
P.S. - I’m confused by your use of the word “punished.” How can anyone except his citizens punish a head of a sovereign nation? Only people with authority over you can punish you, and no-one has any authority over Iran.
You are trying to if there is a hint or threat of punishment (that word again); say sanctions, something that is being discussed.
You doubt – therefore, you don’t know for sure.
Again, if sanctions are not used as a punishment, what are they used for?
To suggest that this guy speaks for all Iranians would be akin to saying that Bush speaks for all Americans even though the majority now disagree with his Iraq policy.
The Israelies are going nowhere, but its always good for an Arab leader to say he hates them, just like its good for American/British leadership to say ‘terrorist’ every 2 minutes to rouse up support. Politicians tend to speak for whatever they think they will get a cheer from the from people around them.
European support for the state of Israel… Balfour Declaration?
Israel wanting everyone to live happily together …http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminne164736.html
Sharon’s views on property ownership…http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/arielsharo169859.html
Trouble is, when a people elect a man like Sharon into power they cannot expect the rest of the arab world to say, ‘Oh what a great choice, he will bring love and joy to all our people The people of Irael are serious about peace’, After all, Sharon is this man … http://www.rense.com/GENERAL8/BUTCHER.HTM. Isn’t this now the reason why Saddam is on trial.
Marky,
Certainly standards of free speech do not apply to others in his country, but that’s another matter. If you wish to apply our Western secular concept of free speech to him then remember that there is a line between free speech and hate speech. And that there are consequences for actions. Make it clear that you are an unstable person and do not be surprissed that people don’t want to deal with you.
Look, I’m not trying to defend this fool, I’m just wondering why he is being greeted with all this frothing at the mouth and threats of rebuke when all he’s really doing is expressing the views of whichever twisted group he thinks he represents or plays to. He may even believe what he’s saying.
The more the west howls the more kudos he accrues.
As Alessan has pointed out, Israel’s reaction has been muted - surely a frustration to Ahmadinejad that should be adopted by all. Politely point out the inconsistencies in his arguments, sure, just don’t get all worked up into a lather about them and issue threats and rebukes.
[QUOTE=kis simon
The Israelies are going nowhere, but its always good for an Arab leader to say he hates them,.[/QUOTE]
Yeah all those Arabs in Iran. What %age of Iran is Arab again?
“More than 3%” Is the best my google-fo can get
Jews have been forcibly removed their entire history. Aside from their forcible relocation during WW2 close to a million either emigrated (under duress) or were kicked out of their countries all over the world following the creation of Israel.
Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews that accepts them unequivocabally if they are being persecuted elsewhere. Removing that haven to another place would just be another insult to Jewish people.
IMO, Bush does speak for all Americans when he is addressing other nations. Same as this Ahmadinejad fellow does for his country. I don’t think the rest of the world stops and takes a poll of the people in a particular nation to see how they ‘feel’ about a stance their leader takes.
hotdarn!
They shot Ahmadinejad’s bodyguard.
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4931
You know I see a lot of misconceptions about how Israel was formed in this thread.
Jewish settlers who started moving into the region all the way back into the 19th century actually bought the land. The reason this pissed a lot of the Palestianians off is in general the Palestinians weren’t living on land that they owned, it was owned by major land owners who lived hundreds of miles away, and the Jews were buying up land from these land owners. In general however the Jews weren’t even buying up the land that the Palestinians actually lived on, but lands to which the Palestinians felt they had some sort of claim.
In general the Jews didn’t start taking land by force until they started responding to wholesale invasion of the lands they had bought and worked and developed for, at that point, around half a century.
But this presentation is not all that balanced, either. The reason that the Palestinians did not own the land was that they did not have the money to purchase it when the Ottoman empire handed it out to their favorites in Syrian and Egypt. The European Jews who bought it were (from the perspective of the locals) carpetbaggers–wealthy foreigners who used outside money to buy land from other foreigners who had not really purchased it, themselves, but simply taken it by conquest.
It may be shown that the Jews bought in good faith, but that hardly changes the situation for the Palestinians. A New Yorker who bought land in Georgia may have had little or no knowledge that his land was stolen from the Cherokee, but that would not make any surviving Cherokee happier to see him.
As long as we do not look too closely at Deir Yassan, of course.
I have never seen an accurate presentation that clearly blames one side or the other for the problems and nothing that exonerates one side or the other from guilt.
::: checks New York birth certiicate :::
::: notes current location :::
Oh, Lib! I need a favor…
I’m reasonably certain that the Jews were not the first people to inhabit that land. I believe the Semites came to that area after some earlier peoples and certainly their sense of national identity was formed much later. For example, during the wandering following the exodus. The Hebrews came back and took over the land of Canaan, sometimes killing the previous inhabitants. Futhermore, there were an number of further wholesale deportation under new imperial overlords (under the Assyrians and the Romans, I believe).
To say that they were there first and that that is the end of the argument doesn’t really work for me. People have been moving to new lands forever and history is positively full of groups of people moving, voluntarily or involuntarily, to new locales. To hold that the original inhabitants of a land have the sole claim to that land is not very practical and certainly oughn’t be the end of a debate. Furthermore, if you were to use that criterion, you’d still find someone there before the Jews.
I’m not saying that they don’t have claim to land in Israel/Palestine, I’m just saying the “they were there first” argument isn’t a particularly good one.
There’s no requirement to be persecuted…