The recent UN conference on racism seems to have splintered nations and offended many with its dubious stance on the Israeli-Palestinian matter. The highlight of the five-day conference came on Monday, when President Ahmadinejad of Iran, fancying himself the champion of the Palestinian people, bombastically denounced the formation of a “totally racist government in occupied Palestine.”

Though the U.S. had boycotted the conference in advance, the controversial speech aroused the ire of protestors and spurred over 30 delegates to walk out (including the whole of the EU nations that had attended). Though Mr. Ahmadinejad did not go so far as to outright deny the Holocaust: indeed, he neither confirmed nor denied its existence in his speech: he did aggressively characterize Israel as a nation founded via “military expeditions and invasion.”

What sparked the initial boycott of the conference by the U.S. and Israel was a small, concise phrase that was like diplomatic hemlock to most Western nations.

This is the second UN conference on “Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,” the first of which occurred in 2001 in South Africa, and the latest having occurred last week in Switzerland; the participants in the recent conference agreed to the tenets of a document drafted in 2001 which includes the lethal phrase: “We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation.”

Of course, if one is Israel, or an ally of the nation (say, the U.S.), one may be tempted to avoid connections with this document like the plague.

But if one is the U.S.: particularly the U.S. under the Obama administration: what should one do? The matter is a touchy one, given that President Obama has bent over backwards to prove his fidelity to Israel, while still keeping the door open for renewed relations with Tehran.

Yet, Ahmadinejad doesn’t help matters much, with his flamboyant saber rattling and incendiary remarks that border on the absurd. Yes, Israel has acted disproportionately in the past, and yes, some of these actions should be seen as flagrant violations of international law, but, when the poster child of the movement to “bring justice to the Palestinian people” is someone who questions the existence of the Holocaust, then, obviously, there’s a bit of a problem.

Furthermore, the rise of Benjamin Netanyahu and his conservative Likud party within Israel doesn’t help matters much. It seems that Netanyahu views Iran as Israel’s chief threat, and thus, any actions or statements by Iran and its leaders to threaten or intimidate Israel must be dealt with swiftly.

To simply summarize, I have a feeling that the Obama administration would like to freshen relations with Iran and continue through the Mideast Peace Process, which includes advising Israel to temper its attacks, and act with greater prudence.
Yet, such a position is difficult to embrace when Ahmadinejad seems to foam at the mouth, employing prejudiced and militant rhetoric, in addition to other, more real threats (like funding Hezbollah), prompting Israel to ‘defend itself’ out of fear.

Ideally, more moderate leadership would be necessary in both nations, to spur dialogue and ensure a lasting, constructive peace.

Ideally.