Madrid’s World Conference on Dialogue
Islamic, Christian and Jewish leaders Friday called for an international agreement to combat terrorism, at the end of a landmark Saudi-organised conference.
The representatives of the world’s great monotheistic religions also appealed for a special session of the UN General Assembly to promote dialogue and prevent “a clash of civilizations.”
“Terrorism is a universal phenomenon that requires unified international efforts to combat it in a serious, responsible and just way,” participants at the three-day World Conference on Dialogue said in a final communique.
“This demands an international agreement on defining terrorism, addressing its root causes and achieving justice and stability in the world.”
A UN session to promote dialogue and prevent “a clash of civilizations” and terrorism? With the Saudis?? Well, looks like the UN has other plans in mind…. But ehh, has the UN a definition of terrorism?? (no, in fact, it has not agreed on one at all). It actually seems to be inciting to commit acts of terrorism… if those terrorist acts are against the Jooooooooos…
Lastly, as ADNkronos international notes, no Israeli took part in the conference.
NOTE: I translated differently at first the name of the Conference. In Spanish “Conferencia Mundial para el Diálogo”, means exactly “World Conference FOR Dialogue”, meaning that there is a final goal of the Conference. International media -and I guess that that was the real name of the conference) have, however, translated it as “World Conference ON Dialogue”, meaning they are just speaking about dialogue but not really trying to reach one, something which is much more appropriate with what the expectatives of the Conference were: none. From the first moment, no solution was the objective of the Conference, as there were so many aggrievances between Islamic countries and the West (for example, that important problem of the Islamic cartoons and a much more important one: the persecution of religious minorities in Islamic countries… ohh, no, this latter is not an important problem: it would mean discussing “religious sensitivities”).