By attacking Israel, Europe commits suicide, Fiamma Nirenstein

"The representatives of almost all the European countries were actually mirroring the image of what was happening in the European squares, where marches took place, sometimes so incredibly aggressive to choose as slogan "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas", as it has happened in the Netherlands."

"In general, through the Barcelona Process, Europe fuels the conflict by funding all the organizations that call Israel a regime of apartheid and accuse it of war crimes."

Key-note speech at the inaugural event of the European Forum of the Knesset, by Fiamma Nirenstein, Vice President of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Italian Chamber of Deputies
Jerusalem, July 28, 2009

"[...] Europe is today damned by an incredible increase of anti-Semitism episodes, only in England the Community Security Trust, that provides security for the Jewish community have recorded 609 anti-Semitic crimes from January to June, while last years in the same period they were 276. The worst happened during the operation Cast Lead; the bias on Israel, I don’t have to tell you this, are the basic reasons of the growth either of anti-Semitism and political parallel positions against Israel in Europe. Nathan Sharansky has written about the double standards that show the anti-Semitism inside antisraelianism. [...]


In my fresh experience as a member of the Italian parliament and as a deputy president of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I found myself delegated as a member of Strasbourg’s Council of Europe, precisely at the Political Committee and its derivate, the Middle East Committee. The first plenary discussion about the Middle East that I have attended was for me a real shock. It was held at the end of January about Operation Cast Lead. I expected a generic sense of pain toward the civil population involved in the war, accompanied by the understanding of the unbearable situation of the people bombed by Hamas from Gaza; and therefore I imagined that there would have been a thoughtful, problematic discussion about the question of asymmetric war, an army fighting against the terrorist Hamas’ decision of aiming at civilians hiding beyond civilians. Nothing of this kind. I heard a long string of speeches, from the Swedish to the Spanish, from the British to the Russian representatives, who chose to focus not on the clash in itself, but rather on the supposed Israeli war crimes, the Palestinian suffering, and the occupation - as if Gaza were still occupied. I think that only the Canadian observer and myself voiced a different opinion. The rest expressed a deep antipathy toward the Jewish State, even beyond the expected. The representatives of almost all the European countries were actually mirroring the image of what was happening in the European squares, where marches took place, sometimes so incredibly aggressive to choose as slogan "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas", as it has happened in the Netherlands.


In Italy, I will say it with pride, the Italy-Israel parliamentary friendship association, that counts a membership of more the 200 MPs, has been able on the contrary to organize a spectacular, courageous exit toward the square to support the Israeli right to self-defense; thousands of citizens were waiting for us in the square with Israeli flags, and the President of the Parliament, Gianfranco Fini, came out to greet us. The same attitude Italy has had about the Durban 2 conference in Geneva: our Parliament has been the first to vote unanimously for deserting the Conference, and our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Franco Frattini, has guided the little group of European countries (Germany, Holland and Poland) that declared the impossibility of joining the so called antiracism conference. But we cannot ignore that while standing and making a nice exit from the hall where Ahmadinejad was again calling for the extermination of the Jews, the European nations, except the Czech Republic, came back quickly into the Geneva assembly after he finished his speech.

The estrangement of Israel from Western Europe in my view is one of the most outstanding moral and diplomatic markers of our era. On the disintegration of any moral sympathy toward Israel, you can read the disintegration of Europe. The relations between Europe and Israel, do not only constitute a geostrategic axis that is aiming at the survival of a plurimillenary construction of democracy, and also at the physical survival of our civilization. It’s also the indicator, with other markers like low birthrate, aging population, fear and surrender in front of imported values that dismantle the conquers connected to the status of women and of sexual and cultural minorities, of the profound lassitude, the end of civilization weariness that holds in its grip the EU nations. It is also, as Ambassador John Bolton has written, the desire of being liberated forever from conflicts, war, from any problem that will recall the disgust and horror for itself that Europe felt after the Second World War. Since that time onward, Europe considers like a mistake anything connected to its own culture, to its own most intimate structure, its economic, familiar, national, juridical structure, its own civilization. Israel, felt as Europe rib, is a refused member of the family.

Moreover, the fact that religion has become a questionable, sometimes even laughable motivation, makes the State of the Jews become only an annoying incident. The Old Continent has a fantasy of having moved beyond history, and nowadays this attitude is enhanced by the USA new attitude. Sweden, which took over EU presidency on July the first, has been financing, according to “NGO-Monitor”, a precious watchdog organization of NGO activities, a radical NGO in the guise of human rights and humanitarian aids. Its activity is very relevant: Diakonia, Sweden’s largest humanitarian NGO, receives 9,3 million Euros and it distributes this money to some of the most radical centers, like the Alternative Information Center ("working with Peres Center for peace is morally disgusting") and Sabeel ("Israel places Jesus on the cross again, with thousands of crucified Palestinians everyday") [Swedish Christian NGO Diakonia's anti-Israeli activities, Swedish government funds fuel Mideast radical NGOs]. In general, through the Barcelona Process, Europe fuels the conflict by funding all the organizations that call Israel a regime of apartheid and accuse it of war crimes.

The Palestinians Center for Human Rights receives funds not only from the European Commission, but also from single countries like Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland. This and a lot of other foundation program their appearances in public with booklets and researches so as to feed in coordinated times, always through funds that should encourage a peace culture, the culture of hate and war. I see this problem as a field of hard work for parliaments: discuss here where the citizens’ money go.The greatest confusion reigns in allocations of European programs, the names and possible conflicts of interest are hidden, the European Union deleted data in giving information to NGO Monitor. Lately a protest of the Israeli Ambassador to the Netherlands has brought the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs to claim they will stop funding the organization "Breaking the silence", that we know is financed also by England and Spain: just one of the many organization of opposition on the Israeli soil financed by European nations. Here I cannot but underline, with respect with every opinion, how much whenever any intellectual, NGO, famous writer speak against the morality of Israel this become an enormously amplified argument, widely used for extreme and damaging statements all over the net, the media, the political spectrum of power and public opinion: sometimes you really have the impression that no sense of responsibility seems to be taken in consideration in front of the need of expressing one’s opinions and sometimes even simple impressions.

This attitude is perfectly consonant with a sort of categorical European imperative to help the Palestinians, however and whatever: in spite of the international boycott called on when Hamas won the elections, aid to Palestinians grew from about 1 billion in 2005 to more than 1.2 billion in 2006, and billions of dollars are arriving now, after three billion dollars have been raised at the conference of Sharm el Sheik following the war of Gaza. Arab country promised 1.65 billion dollars, the US 900 millions, the EU 436 millions. Now, after a conference on the 12th of July, held between the UNDP, the UN Agency that supervises the distribution, and the UNRWA, it came clearly out that several mechanism permit the funds to arrive in the hands of Hamas itself. Actually, I don’t think that all this generates more than a formal eyebrows rise.

Europe was stopped by watering down the Quartet’s three condition for dealing with Hamas and making the dialogue possible, only by the speech of Netanyahu at Bar-Ilan on June 14th. The same happened with a Belgian proposal that was about to introduce a EU clause in its resolutions saying that East Jerusalem should be the capital of a future Palestinian state. Nowadays, Europe is fascinated by the "settlement complete freezing" way chosen by Obama and feel encouraged on its traditional way, again expressed by Javier Solana last surprising speech that saw in the Israeli "occupation" the source of almost all the troubles of war, much more than Iran and Afghanistan. [...]

The dramatic diffusion of hate against Israel is directly connected with the loss of the most important principles of freedom, a Judeo-Christian conquer. You cannot forget it while working with Europe."

Source: Fiamma Nirenstein blog

Europe Reimports Jew Hatred, by Daniel Schwammenthal

European Christians remember Evian 1938

"Let the spirit of Evian 2009 symbolize our commitment to learn from history and to stand up for the Jewish people at this critical time. Let Evian no longer only be known as the place which paved the way for the Holocaust but a place which is known for bringing peace and justice to the world" (Tomas Sandell)

Recommit to the security and safety of the Jewish people in Evian 2009

Evian les-Bains 24 April, 2009 – Christians from many European nations, and from from countries as far away as Australia, USA and Israel, crossed the Lake Geneva on Tuesday from the European UN headquarter in Geneva to Evian, to commemorate the failed Evian conference in 1938 [photo above]. In Geneva the Iranian president Ahmadinejad had been allowed to speak at the World Conference against Racism on Monday, calling Israel a "racist state". In Evian the delegates were reminded of a similar conference in 1938 where leaders of the 33 nations had gathered to deal with the consequences of Nazi annexation of Austria and the growing number of Jewish refugees in Germany and Austria.

"Hitler wanted to test the nations if they were willing to receive the Jews so he forced a Jewish man to go to the conference with the offer to sell Jews for 250 USD per person, otherwise the first 40,000 Jews would be sent straight to the concentrations camps. The man was ridiculed and thrown out of the conference and no nation opened their borders", said the Mayor of Evian, Member of French Parliament, Marc Francina, who greeted the international guests to the event.

Among the guests were Member of European Parliament, Hannu Takkula of Finland and Member of Swedish Parliament Mikael Oscarsson. Other parliamentarians, from the House of Commons in London and the parliament in the Netherlands, had sent their personal messages to the event.

"Though Finland did not take part in the conference as such the government adapted the same negative position as the conference did", said MEP Hannu Takkula of Finland. "When a ship with 53 Jewish refugees tried to disembark in Helsinki on August 17, 1938 they were simply not allowed in to Finland though they had all their papers in order. On the ship was a mother who had just been given birth to a baby but the ship was sent back to Hamburg and the passengers were taken to concentration camps and ended up in the hands of the Nazis", said Takkula who as an elected leader of Finland asked for forgiveness on behalf of his country.

"Please remember that these men and women were no different than any of us", said former minister of the French government, Georgina Dufoix, referring to the delegates which gathered in Evian in 1938 and rejected the Jewish refugees. Ahmadinejad is no fool either, he is an intelligent man but he is influenced by the most vicious spirit of racism there is, namely anti-Semitism. "This is not just another form or racism but something much worse. We only have to look at all the great disasters in Europe over the last centuries to understand the true nature of this spirit", she said.

"The question is not whether the spirit of anti-Semitism will return to Europe or not, it is already here and we need to do something about it now while there is still time", said Eliyahu Ben-Haim from Jerusalem. "The question in 1938 is the same question that we are asking ourselves today. Would anyone be willing to stop Hitler where there were still time? The answer in Evian in 1938 was "no". But will Christians in Europe do anything to call their governments to stop Ahmadinejad today while there is still time? This is the question wee need to ask ourselves today in Evian 2009" , he said.

The gathering issued a strong call to the governments of Europe to understand the seriousness of the rise of anti- Semitism in Europe and the existential threat of Israel and to learn from the mistakes of Evian 1938.

In a private written message to the meeting the Italian Foreign minister Franco Frattini said: "We cannot underestimate the challenge of anti-Semitism, as the Western World did in 1938 at the Evian conference; we cannot allow ourselves to hesitate in firmly reacting to any indication that anti-Semitism is gaining ground. History clearly shows us that any hesitancy can pave the way to horrible tragedies."

"Our voice must be strong and uncontroversial about the new forms of anti-Semitism, that commonly manifest themselves in the guise of opposition to Zionism and the existence of the State of Israel", he concluded.

"May there be another voice coming out of Evian in 2009, one of determination and recommitment to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel", said the event organizer Tomas Sandell of the European Coalition for Israel. "Let us declare once and for all that Evian shall no longer only be known as the Evian of 1938 but as Evian of 2009."

"Let the spirit of Evian 2009 symbolize our commitment to learn from history and to stand up for the Jewish people at this critical time. Let Evian no longer only be known as the place which paved the way for the Holocaust but a place which is known for bringing peace and justice to the world", he said.

Source: European Coalition for Israel (a Christian initiative promoting European-Israeli Cooperation)

Related:
Evian 1938 - Geneva 2009, Tomas Sandell

Evian 1938 - Geneva 2009, Tomas Sandell

"In 1938 the world was said to be divided up in two categories, those nations which Jews could not enter and those which wanted to expel them. The promised Jewish homeland was not even considered as an option for resettlement since it was believed to create more tension in then British Mandate Palestine. A few years later there would be six million Jews less to accommodate but then, finally, the urgency of creating a Jewish homeland was realized by the world community. But the prize to pay was far too high."

Source: article by Tomas Sandell in TJP

"It is less than three quarter of an hour by car from Geneva to its much smaller sister city Evian-les-Bains on the French side of Lake Geneva. What Evian lacks in size and political importance, it makes up in history and style. This rather sleepy, but healthy, town at the foot of the Alps can boast with one the grandest fin-de-siècle resort hotels of its kind as well as the bottled water which bears its name.

But Evian has a less friendly side which has left its mark in history. Simply Google "Evian" and you come up with a resort, a water and a conference which by some historians has been called "Hitler's green light for genocide." Last year marked the 70th anniversary of the Evian conference on the future of the Jewish refugees, but it was effectively forgotten as France at the time chaired the European Union.

As President Nicolas Sarkozy hosted the conference which was to launch a new era of cooperation around the Mediterranean Sea, the last thing France wanted to be reminded about was Evian 1938. You cannot blame it. Evian goes down as one of the darkest chapters of modern European history when appeasement was the mode of the day and anyone who did not believe in "peace in our time" was simply disregarded as a warmonger.

It is not only the proximity between the two cities which is striking but also the zeitgeist of Evian 1938 and this year's United Nations Conference against Racism. Whereas the original UN conference against racism in Durban in 2001 spiraled out of control with its obsession with the Judenfrage, there are no guarantees that this year will not be a repeat. Western governments have been paying lip service to their commitment to withdraw from anything that would resemble the hate fest in 2001, but words will be cheap when the commitment of the Western nations to stand true to our universal values is tested.

BACK TO EVIAN in 1938. As Hitler had annexed Austria and hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were seeking a safe haven outside of the Nazi-controlled areas, the free world knew that something had to be done. It was the US president Franklin Roosevelt who finally called together the conference with the objective of seeking a solution to the Jewish refugee problem. Thirty-two nations were invited to participate. It soon became clear that the conference was not going to solve anything, as one country after another explained that they all agreed that this was a major humanitarian problem which needed to be solved, but that their respective country could not do anything about it. Others were less diplomatically skilled.

"Our country is simply not big enough to receive any Jewish refugees," said the Canadian representative. When asked how many refugees Canada could receive the answer was, "One is too many." "Australia has no racial problem and we are not desirous of importing one," is a quote which today is on display in Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.

The list of obscenities does not stop there. A proposal to rescue the refugees by simply letting 10 countries receive 25,000 Jews each was flatly rejected. While these tragic decisions were made, which would ultimately have consequences for millions of Jews, some historians note that pleasure cruises on Lake Geneva were very popular among the delegates, as were tennis and golf in the fresh mountain air.

PERHAPS IT is again the allure of cosmopolitan Geneva and the same mountain climate which makes it so difficult for Western diplomats to simply say no to the UN conference which singles out only one country, Israel, as the racist state of the world and calls its policies "apartheid." What makes this conclusion even more surreal is the fact that the working group, which has been drafting the text, consists of human rights champions such as Libya, Iran and Cuba. The language in the draft resolution has been unacceptable for many, still the decision to withdraw seems difficult to make. At the moment only a few governments beside Israel has decided to boycott the conference, namely the US, Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Italy.

One thing is clear. The UN conference in Geneva, which starts today and runs through Friday, will not be a friendly place for any of us who sympathize with the Jewish cause. But things could be worse. In 1938 the world was said to be divided up in two categories, those nations which Jews could not enter and those which wanted to expel them. The promised Jewish homeland was not even considered as an option for resettlement since it was believed to create more tension in then British Mandate Palestine. A few years later there would be six million Jews less to accommodate but then, finally, the urgency of creating a Jewish homeland was realized by the world community. But the prize to pay was far too high.

It is of course the irony of time that a conference dedicating itself to fighting racism, the very disease which lead to Hitler's Holocaust, is currently paving the way for a legitimizing of Jew hatred and Israel bashing around the world.

Let us hope that the world will have learned its lesson this time. When only one people's state is singled out as racist in the whole world, we are awfully near to Evian 1938. On the second day of the UN conference, Tuesday, April 21, which also happens to be Holocaust Remembrance Day, a commemoration event will be held in the small synagogue in the city that hosted the fateful 1938 conference."

The writer is the founding director of the European Coalition for Israel (a Christian initiative promoting European-Israeli Cooperation)

- European Coalition for Israel director calls for broad coalition against anti-Semitism
- European Parliament conference vows to fight anti-Semitism
- "Do not let Israel become the Sudetenland of today", Hanna Orgonikova (ECI)
- European Coalition for Israel warns against surge of anti-Semitism in Europe
- "Are we using European tax money to promote peace or hatred?", asks ECI director
- European Coalition for Israel on working visit to Paris

Holland, Australia boycott 'Durban II'

"Australia has decided not to participate in the Durban Review Conference. The 2001 Declaration singled out Israel and the Middle East. Australia expressed strong concerns about this at the time. Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views." (Stephen Smith, Australian Foreign Minister)

"(...) The US, Italy, Canada and Israel will also boycott the meeting, to protest language in the final document that they say could single out Israel for criticism and restrict free speech. (...)

Hours after the US said it would boycott the UN conference over objectionable language in the meeting's final document that could single out Israel for criticism, Australia and Holland followed suit on Sunday morning, saying they were concerned the conference would be derailed by some countries to issues other than human rights.

"Australia has decided not to participate in the Durban Review Conference," Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said in a statement. "The 2001 Declaration singled out Israel and the Middle East. Australia expressed strong concerns about this at the time."

"Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views," he continued.

Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen later issued a statement saying his country was boycotting the conference because some nations were using it as a platform to attack the West. Verhagen said these countries were planning to use the summit to put religion above human rights and rein in freedom of speech. He called the proposed closing declaration "unacceptable."

On Saturday night, the State Department said that the Obama administration would "with regret" boycott the conference. It followed weeks of furious internal debate and fierce lobbying by Israel and Jewish groups against US participation.

A final draft of the statements, released late Friday, made changes to sections that had referred to a "hierarchy" among forms of racism, but left intact sections that the US had said would cause it to boycott the meetings.

The conference's planning has been dominated by efforts by Arab nations to prioritize concerns about Islamophobia and "anti-Arabism" - widely interpreted as a thinly veiled code for the treatment of Palestinians.

Some revisions - including the removal of specific critical references to Israel and problematic passages about the defamation of religion - were negotiated, for which State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the administration was "deeply grateful."

But he said the text retains troubling elements that suggest support for restrictions on free speech and an affirmation of the "findings" of the first World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001 that the US cannot endorse. (...)

Israel, Canada and Italy had already said they would not attend the conference under any circumstances because of the tenor of the debate surrounding the planning, and due to the politicized nature of the event itself.

"The text is not the only or even the main thing to consider," Israel's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Aharon Leshno-Yaar, said Saturday. "The general mood is a very negative one and everybody is ignoring the main question, which is, 'Does this do good or bad to the fight against racism?'"

Leshno-Yaar said the conference would be "only about politics," adding that there would be "nothing about the fight against racism."

American officials had already said in February that they would not accept a final document that reaffirmed the text endorsed during the first World Conference Against Racism in 2001. The US and Israel walked out of that conference over a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and likened Zionism to racism.

The US had joined Israel in objecting to any further such references, as well as to language declaring that "incitement to racial discrimination" is illegal, something US officials fear would limit free speech.

The changes released on Friday retained language reaffirming the program of action adopted at the original conference.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) welcomed the Obama Administration's decision to boycott the meeting.

"President Obama's decision not to send US representation to the event is the right thing to do and underscores America's unstinting commitment to combating intolerance and racism in all its forms and in all settings," AIPAC said in a statement. (...)"

Source: article by Allison Hoffman and Hilary Leila Krieger in TJP

"Amnesty ... let the Jews down in Durban", Simon Wiesenthal Center

"Amnesty ... let the Jews down in Durban." (Shimon Samuels, Simon Wiesenthal Center)

"An Amnesty press release handed out during the NGO conference cited several examples of racism and human rights abuses around the world, but mentioned only Israel by name." (JTA)

Source: Extracts from NGO Monitor "Durban II Resource Guide"

"Jewish representatives were subjected to verbal assaults and threats of physical violence throughout the conference. Major international NGO superpowers Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International failed to speak out against the harassment and were even complicit in the exclusion of representatives of Jewish non-governmental organizations."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Durban I NGO Forum Final Declaration:

"The NGO Forum’s final declaration was a concentrated indictment directed at Israel. This document asserted that the "targeted victims of Israel’s brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women, and refugees" and called for:

"a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state ... the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, the full cessation of all links (diplomatic, economic, social, aid, military cooperation, and training) between all states and Israel."

The NGO declaration also condemned Israel’s "perpetration of racist crimes against humanity including ethnic cleansing, acts of genocide." It redefined antisemitism to include "anti-Arab racism." Noticeably absent from the declaration was any reference to Palestinian incitement to genocide and terror, or to the Palestinian policy of deliberately endangering its civilians through the use of populated Palestinian areas as launch pads for attacks on Israel.

While some groups, notably the Jewish and European Caucuses, protested the adoption of the declaration, international human rights NGOs either kept quiet or actively supported it. Later, once the NGO declaration was criticized, leaders of HRW and Amnesty attempted to distance themselves from the declaration and the antisemitic atmosphere. However, the record shows their complicity in Durban’s outcome: One journalist noted that "[a]n Amnesty press release handed out during the NGO conference cited several examples of racism and human rights abuses around the world, but mentioned only Israel by name." (...)

The Forum’s declaration has become an action plan – the Durban Strategy – for the radical pro-Palestinian NGOs that helped draft the document, as well as for many of the international NGOs that supported it."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Durban Strategy:

.
• Promoted false allegations of a "massacre" in Jenin (2002).

• Lobbied on behalf of boycotts and lawfare in the Ariel Sharon-Belgium (2001) and Caterpillar (2005) cases.

• Calls for arms embargo against Israel.

• Unjustifiably accused Israel of "war crimes" and "deliberate attacks on civilians" during the Second Lebanon War (2006), relying on Lebanese "eyewitnesses" to allege that Hezbollah did not operate in population centers.

• Disproportionately singles out Israel for condemnation during the Gaza conflict (2007-2009), manipulating terms such as "collective punishment," "occupying power" and "indiscriminate force," and ignoring more severe human rights violations in the region.

Complicity in virulent NGO Forum in 2001:

• "An Amnesty press release handed out during the NGO conference cited several examples of racism and human rights abuses around the world, but mentioned only Israel by name." [JTA report from the conference]

• "Contrary to some media reports, Amnesty International did not walk out of the NGO Forum, remaining at the conference throughout. Although not accepting or condoning some of the language used within the NGO Declaration, Amnesty International accepts the declaration as a largely positive document which gives a voice to all the victims of racism wherever it occurs, including those seldom heard such as Dalits and refugees." [Press release, September 2001]

Statements to UN Human Rights Council:

• "The patterns of human rights violations carried out by the Israeli authorities against Palestinians in the OPT are deeply entrenched in the normative and institutional structure of the state. The Israeli authorities contend that measures which violate human rights of
Palestinians in the OPT are necessary for Israel’s security. Within Israel, discriminatory laws and practices undermine the rights of Israeli Arabs in particular with regard to economic, social and cultural rights, and lack of due process undermines the rights of asylum-seekers and migrants." [Submission to Universal Periodic Review of Israel, July 2008]"

- Amnesty’s obsession with Israel

- European NGO Amnesty International: relentless and disproportionate focus on Israeli "violations"

- Amnesty International: Abolishing Israel's Right to Self Defense

- NGO "Lawfare": Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict

"Do not let Israel become the Sudetenland of today", Hanna Orgonikova (ECI)

"Do not let Israel become the Sudetenland of today." (Hanna Orgonikova, Czech member of Parliament)

European Coalition for Israel (ECI) marked the 70th anniversary of the Munich Treaty in Prague.

"The historical lesson of the Munich treaty in 1938 is clear. Appeasement does not lead to peace. Those forces which in 1939 invaded Czechoslovakia but ultimately wanted to exterminate the Jewish people can be compared to those powers of today that have as their ultimate goal the complete destruction of Israel and promise the world community peace if only Israel is sacrificed. But appeasing these powers will not lead to peace just as betraying Czechoslovakia did not bring peace but war."

This was the message of the European Coalition of Israel during a three day working visit to Prague which ended on Thursday. Prague is the current seat of the rotating EU-presidency which is now held by the Czech government. The message resonated well with those members of parliament and of the Czech government with whom the ECI met. "Israel cannot become the Sudetenland of today", warned Czech member of Parliament Hanna Orgonikova, who urged all people of good will in Europe, elected members of Parliaments as well as members of civil society, to work together in order to raise awareness about the current existential threat to Israel and the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. (Sudetenland was the part of Czechoslovakia which was given to Hitler in the Munich treaty in an attempt to appease him.)

The same message of support for Israel was echoed also by other members of parliament who commended the recent Czech appeal by Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg to withdraw EU participation from the upcoming UN world conference on racism in Geneva as a protest against the slanted anti-Israel agenda. The message from ECI was the same: "Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past by letting a UN lead conference single out one nation as the root cause for international conflict, namely Israel." A growing number of EU member states now support a boycott of the Durban II conference.

At an emotional meeting with the vice-president of the Czech senate, Peter Pithart, Harald Eckert, a Christian leader from Munich and a board member of the European Coalition for Israel, presented a letter from the office of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel which affirmed the historical role of Nazi Germany in the Munich treaty and the invasion which followed. The meeting between ECI and the vice-president took place in the exact same room in the senate building where the Munich treaty was announced to the Czechoslovakian government in 1938. This week also marked the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Czechoslovakia on 15 March 1939 and the ECI delegation, consisting of both German and British representatives, together acknowledged the guilt of their governments in betraying Czechoslovakia in order to appease Hitler. In the framework of the ongoing United Nation Year of Reconciliation Harald Eckert of Germany and David Noakes of Great Britain asked the Czech vice-president of the Senate for forgiveness for the role of their countries in the betrayal of Czechoslovakia and the invasion which followed.

Apart from meeting with political leaders the delegation also visited an exhibition in the National Museum where the original Munich treaty in four languages is on display, borrowed from the four signatory countries, Germany, Britain, Italy and France. Prior to the political meetings the ECI delegation met with local Christian leaders in Prague for a reconciliation event. A similar people-to-people reconciliation event with representatives also from France and Italy is planned for later this year."

Source: ECI - A Christian initiative promoting European-Israeli Cooperation

- European Coalition for Israel warns against surge of anti-Semitism in Europe

- "Are we using European tax money to promote peace or hatred?", asks ECI director

- European Coalition for Israel on working visit to Paris

Durban II:Jewish group warns against attempts to present new text as "wolf in sheep’s clothing"

"Rather than participating in a rigged and politicized process, Europe should exercise its leadership on human rights issues in the UN and work to ensure that the fundamental issues facing humanity be dealt with in a serious and responsible manner, instead of entrusting this issue in the hands of those who are using this important topic for political reasons." (Moshe Kantor)

European Jewish Congress President Moshe Kantor has warned European nations "not to fall prey to false attempts to manipulate the European community into participating in a mockery of human rights", in a reference to the upcoming "Durban II" United Nations conference on racism in Geneva.

The appeal was made on the eve of a summit meeting of the 27 European Union heads of state and government in Brussels under Czech presidency.

While commending recent statements by numerous European leaders who have raised serious concerns about the conference, the EJC has called upon the EU Presidency and European leaders to withdraw from the gathering "immediately, and without hesitation".

Moshe Kantor said conference planners Iran, Libya, Cuba and their allies "are attempting to pull the wool over the world’s eyes".

"We call upon the EU to categorically and unequivocally announce their withdrawal from Durban II without delay. By doing so, the EU would prove to the world that it is a moral beacon for human rights and that Europeans are unwilling to participate in this assault on freedom", Kantor stated.

Kantor also raised the prospect that the chief conference planners, including Iran, Libya, and Cuba might attempt to avert the growing pressure to boycott the conference by presenting a so-called moderated text that would actually be "a wolf in sheep’s clothing".

The EJC president called this possibility a "bait and switch tactic to gain Western legitimacy and support", urging the European presidency and European leaders to "take a moral stand and immediately reject the conference".

"Rather than participating in a rigged and politicized process, Europe should exercise its leadership on human rights issues in the UN and work to ensure that the fundamental issues facing humanity be dealt with in a serious and responsible manner, instead of entrusting this issue in the hands of those who are using this important topic for political reasons", Kantor stressed.

Official UN documents and declarations, especially ones that deal with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, should not arbitrarily choose between conflicts or target specific countries, including one UN-member state (Israel) or one regional conflict (Israeli-Palestinian), he added.

Kantor noted, "We all remember the catastrophe that was Durban I. Europe must heed the lessons of our past as we attempt to build a more tolerant future.

"European leaders have an obligation to assert their moral leadership in the eyes of the world by rejecting this cynical attempt to cloak anti-Semitism and racism in the guise of a conference ostensibly dedicated to its eradication".

The EJC, together with the Czech Presidency of the EU, the European Parliament and the European Commission will organize a symposium on March 30 at the European Parliament in Brussels on eradicating racism and anti-Semitism and fostering tolerance throughout Europe."

Source: article by Maud Swinnen in EJP

Related story:
Text on Israel cut from Geneva UN racism conference draft

EU Czech presidency: strong call to withdraw from 'Durban II' conference

"The EU will probably send its own suggestions. If the conference papers will realign with these suggestions then we will stay, otherwise there is a strong call to withdraw." (Karel Schwarzenberg)

"BRUSSELS (EJP)--- The Czech EU presidency said Monday there is a "strong European call to withdraw" from the upcoming 'Durban II' Geneva UN conference on racism if final documents do not take into consideration the EU suggestions.

At a press conference after a meeting in Brussels of the 27 EU Foreign Ministers, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg (photo) declared: "We had a thorough discussion about the Durban II conference. The main voices were very skeptical about the direction of the final documents which are prepared".

He added: "The EU will probably send its own suggestions. If the conference papers will realign with these suggestions then we will stay, otherwise there is a strong call to withdraw".

The Geneva conference is scheduled to take place April 20-24.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini has already announced that his country would not attend the Geneva gathering unless "radical changes" were made to the draft final text, which includes what he has called "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements."

The United States, Canada and Israel have also announced they will boycott 'Durban II'.

On Monday, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned the Geneva meeting "might be abused to produce one-sided statements" about the Middle East peace process and European and American policy in the Muslim and Arab world.

"I am in favor of canceling participation in the conference, unless the documents are changed substantially within the next hours and days," he said."

Source: article by Yossi Lempkowicz in EJP

Durban II: EU still negotiating before decision on participation

"Maxime Verhagen, Foreign Minister of Holland, told the Dutch parliament earlier this week that the "document is unacceptable." "I am aiming for a joint withdrawal of all EU ministers, unless the document is not changed. If this does not succeed, then I am not afraid to unilaterally withdraw from Durban," he said."

"EU Foreign Ministers are likely to discuss Monday in Brussels the question of whether the EU should withdraw from the upcoming UN conference on racism scheduled to take place in Geneva April 20-24.

But according to a spokeswoman for the EU Czech presidency in Prague, the parties in Geneva are still negotiating about the conference draft final conclusions.

"After that, the EU will take a decision," Zuzana Opletalova, told EJP, without giving a precise deadline.

Italy became last week the first EU country to announce its withdrawal from the Geneva conference. Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said that his country would no longer participate due to "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements" in the conference's draft final document.

Maxime Verhagen, Foreign Minister of Holland, told the Dutch parliament earlier this week that the "document is unacceptable."

"I am aiming for a joint withdrawal of all EU ministers, unless the document is not changed. If this does not succeed, then I am not afraid to unilaterally withdraw from Durban," he said.

Mark Malloch-Brown, Britain’s Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations, told the Human Rights Council in Geneva that "A change in…direction will be required for any outcome document to gain our support."

"The UK will find unacceptable any attempt to use the Durban process to trivialize or deny the Holocaust, or to renegotiate agreements on the fight against anti-Semitism," he said.

A German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said last week that Germany intended to continue its participation in negotiations over the text of the resolution, while France appeared to be pressing for a common European decision about whether to attend.

Israel has called on all European Union countries to follow the exemple of Canada and the U.S. and boycott the conference, a follow-up to the first conference held in Durban, South Africa, in 2001.

The U.S. and Israel at the time walked out of the parley because of harsh anti-Israel resolutions that compared Zionism with racism."

Source: article by Yossi Lempkowicz in EJP

- Dutch Foreign Minister deplores revived antisemitism in Europe
- European Jewish group: EU parliament fails to denounce anti-Semitic attacks in Europe

Durban II: "Germany must boycott this anti-Semitic and anti-Western spectacle" says MP

"Germany must boycott this anti-Semitic and anti-Western spectacle. Either together with its EU partners, or if necessary alone. We are not the fig leaf for Iran's Islamist and anti-Semitic activities" (Kristina Köhler, Christian Democratic Union MP)

Source: article by Benjamin Weinthal in TJP

Pressure is rising on Germany's Social Democrat-controlled Foreign Ministry to walk away from the so-called Durban II meeting - the UN's World Conference Against Racism - which opens in Geneva on April 20.

When asked about Rome's decision to pull out of Durban II because, as Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said, the preparatory document and negotiations are filled with "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements," a German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told The Jerusalem Post on Friday that Germany had not changed its position and would participate in "the text negotiations."

Germany remained undecided on whether it would take part in Durban II itself, the spokeswoman said.

"Germany must boycott this anti-Semitic and anti-Western spectacle. Either together with its EU partners, or if necessary alone. We are not the fig leaf for Iran's Islamist and anti-Semitic activities," Christian Democratic Union MP Kristina Köhler said in a statement on Wednesday.

Köhler's statement represents an unusually sharp break with a unified German position to stick with Durban II. According to the spokeswoman, the Foreign Ministry "took notice" of Köhler's statement but did not want to "assess" the MP's remarks.

Responding to the draft Durban II final document, Köhler said, "These passages exude the spirit of Teheran, not the spirit of freedom and human rights. Anti-racism is to be misused in the fight against Israel, the fight against the West, and not least the fight against freedom of opinion and the press.

"The United Nations is to be misused to give universal validity to the Islamic anti-blasphemy concepts in countries like Iran. That is unacceptable."

The German Foreign Ministry is run by the Social Democratic Party, considered more amenable toward the Iranian regime than its coalition partners, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union.

Dr. Johannes Gerster, a former CDU MP who heads the German-Israeli Friendship Society in Germany, said in a statement on Thursday, "Anyone who permits states - like the Islamic Republic of Iran - in which violations of human rights are an everyday occurrence to set themselves up as judges of democratic states - like Israel - on the international stage mocks the religious minorities and oppressed women in Iran and encourages those for whom human rights violations are routine to continue practicing their ugly craft."

Observers in Israel, Germany, and the US view Germany's position to not pull the plug on its Durban II involvement as politically embarrassing in light of the German-Israeli "special-relationship."

"The German government is even more obliged than the governments of Canada, the US and Israel that are boycotting so far, for historical, political, and moral reasons, to boycott the nasty looming spectacle of Durban II," said Gerster, who was director of the CDU's Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Jerusalem between 1997 and 2006.

"If Israel's right to exist is part of Germany's national interest, the period of testing, thinking and deciding should have been enough," he said, in a clear reference to Chancellor Angela Merkel's speech in the Knesset last March, in which she declared Israel's security to be an overriding priority of her administration.

The head of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald S. Lauder, praised Italy's decision to boycott Durban II on Friday and urged Germany, France and Britain to follow Italy's example.
"The EU countries have promised to give an unambiguous and united response on this issue. We hope that it will soon be forthcoming," he said.

"We will continue to try and convince governments that a lackluster response to the looming repeat of the 2001 Durban anti-Israel forum would seriously undermine their impartiality and credibility in fighting human rights abuses in the world.

"The World Jewish Congress will continue to urge world leaders not to send delegations to the Durban Review Conference, because they would lend credibility to the efforts by some states to single out Israel for criticism, restrict freedom of expression and distract from the very real problems of state-sponsored racism in their own countries," Lauder said, mirroring the concerns of many German critics of Durban II.

German gov't slammed for not following US lead to stay away

Italy pulls out of "Durban 2" conference, Fiamma Nirenstein, Italian Chamber of Deputies

"Italy has kept its promise: it will not take part in an initiative spreading anti-Semitic hatred; and moreover, one that is promoted by the United Nations, which is unable to manage and monitor such hatred adequately."

Statement by Fiamma Nirenstein, Vice-president, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Italian Chamber of Deputies

"Italy’s decision to pull out of the forthcoming UN conference against racism, which is set to be held in Geneva on April 20-24, fills me with pride and satisfaction. This is in fact a courageous decision. It is the first coming from a European country, after those of Canada, Israel and the USA. We hope this decision will lead the way to a joint European position, against a conference that seeks to elevate anti-democratic and anti-Semitic hatred.

The decision taken by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini not only completes, but also puts into effect the resolution which, under our initiative, was voted on unanimously by the Italian Parliament on December 4, 2008 - the first time a country in Europe has taken such action. The resolution bound the Government to monitor "Durban 2" preparatory process. The documents formulated during this process have confirmed the worst expectations: as for the first Durban conference in 2001, Israel is being again slandered and defined as a racist state of apartheid, while every other effective case of racism and discrimination is being completely ignored.

Italy has kept its promise: it will not take part in an initiative spreading anti-Semitic hatred; and moreover, one that is promoted by the United Nations, which is unable to manage and monitor such hatred adequately. This gesture by the Italian Government is an important contribution in that it attempts to rescue the UN from the hands of those countries that - like in this case Iran, Libya and Cuba, who are among the States involved in the preparatory process of Durban 2 – are holding this institution hostage with their partisan and discriminatory positions.

On March 12, we will hold a conference in the Italian Parliament, promoted by the Italy-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Association, that will host lectures by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini, Prof. Gerald Steinberg (Bar-Ilan University, Director of Ngo-Monitor), Pierluigi Battista (Deputy Director, Corriere della Sera), Piero Ostellino (columnist, Corriere della Sera) and the board of the Italy-Israel Parliamentary Friendship Association (Enrico Pianetta, President, Rossana Boldi and Gianni Vernetti, Vice-presidents and me)."

Source: Fiamma Nirenstein blog

Italy: Fiamma Nirenstein will be in the next Parliament

Germany draws criticism for not boycotting "Durban II"

"Since 2001, despotic states under the leadership of Iran have sat and dominated at the anti-racism conference, at which they instrumentalize Western achievements for their intolerance and hostility to Jews and against the principles of democracy and freedom. If Germany doesn't boycott the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, it must share historical guilt for the second time. It will be the end of Germany's credibility with regard to Nazi atrocities." (Nasrin Amirsedghi)

Source: article by Benjamin Weinthal in TJP

"The German government's decision to not follow the US lead and withdraw from the Durban II UN anti-racism conference before its scheduled opening April 20 in Geneva drew sharp attacks this week from German and Israeli critics.

The previous conference in Durban, South Africa in 2001 was marred by anti-Semitism and aggressive hatred of Israel, prompting the US and Israel to walk out.

In the wake of the decision by Israel, the US, and Canada not to participate in Durban II, observers in Israel and Germany have expressed frustration and disappointment with the Social Democratic Party-led Foreign Ministry's failure to confront global anti-Semitism and prevent the demonization of Israel.

Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, a German publicist and Middle East expert who heads the non-profit relief organization Wadi in northern Iraq, told The Jerusalem Post that Germany's decision to participate in Durban II is "simply scandalous. They should have long since taken a position and boycotted that thing. But their silence speaks volumes."

A spokeswoman for the German Foreign Ministry told the Post that the Germans are involved in the "text negotiations" and "efforts to prevent the misuse of the Durban processes."
When asked if the German government will participate in a conference infected by anti-Semitism and loathing of Israel, she said that a "decision has not been reached." She argued that the "German government is advocating a worldwide fight against racism."

But in an e-mail to the Post, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, chairman of the Department of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University, wrote: "Officials have repeatedly stated that given their history and what they call the special German obligation to fight racism, they must be present at a UN anti-racism conference.

"This is absurd - Germany should be the first country to denounce and stay away from any activity that is anti-Semitic, as is the case with the Durban process, and is based on the abuse of the rhetoric racism and human rights to promote hatred and the singling out of Israel. The German position, including the support of many anti-Israel NGOs and foundations that claim to promote peace and democracy, but instead are leading anti-Israel campaigns, is fundamentally immoral."

An Israeli Embassy spokesman in Berlin declined to comment on Germany's presence at Durban II.

An amalgam of German institutions combating anti-Semitism, including the Central Council of Jews in Germany, have appealed to the German government to stay away from the anti-Israel conference, asserting that the 2001 Durban conference was a precursor to the replicating of anti-Jewish hostility and hatred of Israel at this year's conference.

The Post has obtained a copy of a letter sent to German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in early September, which urged the Foreign Ministry to not participate in a "recognizably anti-Semitic propaganda event within the framework of the UN and in the process cooperate with such openly anti-Semitic forces like Iran."

The Coordinating Council of German non-Governmental Organizations Against Anti-Semitism, an umbrella organization unifying diverse NGOs, initiated the protest letter.

"Following the boycott declarations from Canada, Israel and the US, we expect a positive response to this request. Germany should give a clear signal, especially out of responsibility for its history, and should not take part in the 'Durban Review Conference,' in consideration also of the goals of the German Bundestag resolution of November 4, 2008, said Klaus Faber, a representative of the Coordinating Council and former state secretary in the eastern German state of Saxony-Anhalt.

"Only in this way can we prevent the predictable anti-Semitic diatribes at the Durban II conference from being legitimized by Germany," he told the Post.

Nasrin Amirsedghi, a German-Iranian intellectual who fled the Islamic Republic of Iran, told the Post that, "Since 2001, despotic states under the leadership of Iran have sat and dominated at the anti-racism conference, at which they instrumentalize Western achievements for their intolerance and hostility to Jews and against the principles of democracy and freedom.

"If Germany doesn't boycott the Durban Review Conference in April 2009, it must share historical guilt for the second time. It will be the end of Germany's credibility with regard to Nazi atrocities."

- France will not boycott Durban II

France will not boycott Durban II

So far, no European country - although expressing grave concerns - has, unlike the US, Canada and Israel, decided to boycott the "Durban II" UN conference.

A French optimistic "if"

The French PM indicated that "if Israel is again stigmatized", France will withdraw.

The conference draft outcome document that has prompted the US not to attend has had no such effect on the French Government : "Sadly, however, the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse, and the current text of the draft outcome document is not salvageable. As a result, the United States will not engage in further negotiations on this text, nor will we participate in a conference based on this text. A conference based on this text would be a missed opportunity to speak clearly about the persistent problem of racism." (US Department of State declaration)

Source: EJP

"French Prime Minister François Fillon said France would not hesitate to withdraw from the upcoming United Nations conference on racism in Geneva if Israel is again stigmatized.

Speaking at the annual dinner of CRIF, the umbrella group of French Jewish secular organizations, Fillon said: "I know that you have legitimate concerns regarding this conference."

"We will not accept that the state of Israel is stigmatized and that its policy is calumniated," he said.

"We will not hesitate to draw conclusions, in coordination with our European partners, and if necessary to withdraw from the conference," he added.

The Geneva conference, also dubbed "Durban II", will be held 20-24 April in the Swiss city. The conference was first held in Durban in 2001. Israel and the United States walked out on the fourth day of the conference in protest against attempts by Arab nations to adopt a resolution attacking Israel and equating Zionism with racism.

The US has decided last week against taking part in "Durban II". Israel and Canada are also boycotting the event.

Prior to Fillon's speech, Richard Prasquier, head of CRIF, called on France not to make any compromise on the "red lines" in Geneva. "Don’t let Iran, Libya and Cuba define what human rights should be," he said in his address.

According to Jean-David Levitte, diplomatic adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who attended Monday's dinner, France is currently concerting with its EU partners in order to find a common position on the conference. "We hope that we will be able to adopt a European position," he told EJP.
------------------------------------------------------
On Feb. 27, 2008, a petition was sent to the French newspaper Le Monde, signed by such prominent figures as Alan Finkielkraut, Claude Lanzmann and Elie Wiesel:

"At Durban, in South Africa, the global conference against racism was held under the auspices of the United Nations, in the very city where Gandhi began his career as a lawyer. It is in the name of human rights that "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" was chanted; and it is in the name of cultural relativism that there was silence on the discrimination and violence committed against women.

The great political crimes have always needed words to lend themselves legitimacy. Words presage action. From Mein Kampf ... to Stalin to Pol Pot, examples abound that justify the necessary extermination of the people’s enemy in the name of a race, in the name of the workers’ emancipation or in the name of some divine spiritual order. Totalitarian ideologues have replaced religions. … On September 11, 2001, several days after the Durban conference, it was in God’s name that the worst terrorist crime in history was committed.

Either democracies get their act together, following Canada's example, who just announced its refusal to participate in Durban II, recognizing that it risked being "marked by expressions of intolerance and anti-Semitism," and cease to abstain from or vote for resolutions contrary to the universal ideal of 1948, or religious obscurantism and its trail of political crimes will triumph under the good auspices of the United Nations. And when the hateful words are transformed into acts, nobody will be able to say: "We didn’t know.""

Hitler hand-out at the NGO forum at Durban I

- Durban II: Just Say "Non"

- Inside the Durban debacle

Six EU countries out of 27 voted against Durban II "carnival of hatred"

Six European Union countries out of 27 voted against the resolution claiming that Israel is guilty of apartheid, genocide and racism: Czech Republic, Denmark, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom. Norway voted for the resolution (Switzerland, which is not in the EU, also voted for), while sadly the other countries abstained.

Source: Eye on the UN

"European Union Capitulates to Islamic States on Durban II as UN General Assembly Committee Renews Support for the Conference and Calls for Additional Funding.

The UN General Assembly's Third Committee on Social and Humanitarian Affairs threw renewed support behind the Durban II Conference. Last year, the European Union voted against the Durban II resolution. This year they capitulated to the pressure of Islamic states and their allies.

The vote on the Resolution (orally amended, para. 55 deleted) was 130 votes in favor, 11 votes against and 35 abstentions. In 2007 the vote was 119 votes in favor, 45 against and 6 abstentions. The main change was the collapse of the EU.

The statement made by France on behalf of the EU, explaining why they abstained (instead of voting in favor), made no mention of any concern with the treatment of Israel in the draft outcome document now on the negotiating table. That document claims Israel is guilty of apartheid and genocide. It also manages to label only Israel as racist, while saying nothing about racism among the other 191 UN states.

The eleven states voting against were: Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Israel, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, United Kingdom and the United States. They alone were prepared to stand up to the intimidation and to recognize Durban II as an assault on human rights on a host of issues ranging from Israel to freedom of expression.

The resolution also calls for $3,754,800 to be spent from the 2008-09 budget on Durban II, in addition to the millions already spent.

The representative of Israel, Meirav Eilon Shahar urged other states to follow Israel's decision to boycott Durban II, as a matter of principle. In her words: "Foreign Minister [Livni] announced last week that Israel will not participate in another carnival of hatred and we similarly call on the international community not to legitimize the conference which seeks to legitimize intolerance and extremism under the banner of the fight against racism.""
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Apartheid Israel" Accusations by GA President (video of UN General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann's unprecedented attack on a UN member state. It took place on November 24, 2008 at United Nations Headquarters in New York during the UN "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People." )

Durban II UN conference: Israel to be declared an enemy of humanity?

"Geneva-based UN Watch, the leading independent monitor of the United Nations human rights system, issued the following statement concerning Israel's announcement today that it will join Canada in staying away from the UN's "Durban II" conference on racism, to be held in Geneva in April 2009:

The latest draft of the Durban II declaration seeks to portray Israel as an enemy of humanity, using language lifted verbatim from the notorious 2001 Tehran declaration that led up to the original Durban debacle. The countries that maliciously introduced this hateful rhetoric, and those who responded with moral indifference, bear full responsibility for Israel’s understandable decision today. When the forces of intolerance turn human rights into a political weapon, everybody loses.

In establishing red lines, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and other democracies have promised to disengage from the Durban process if they are unable to remove the objectionable language—provisions that assault Israel as well as basic human rights principles. We expect them to act accordingly.

For more on the 2009 Durban Review Conference, see http://blog.unwatch.org/?cat=3"

Livni: Israel won't attend Durban II, by Tovah Lazaroff

Related:
- Girding Up for Durban II, by Leslie Susser
- UN Durban II Regional Meeting Confirms Worst Fears of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Democratic Agenda, Stand With Us
- Boycott Durban II, by Pascal Bruckner
- Durban II: The Red Lines Have Been Crossed, by Anne Bayefsky

The Durban II Draft Declaration: Even Worse Than 2001

Source: UN Watch

The dominant thesis of the 88-page Durban II draft declaration ("Draft Outcome Document") is that the U.S., Western Europe, Israel, and other liberal democracies — their principles, institutions, policies, respective histories and national identities — are singularly racist, and, in addition, discriminatory against Islam. Free speech, wealth, globalization, security measures to combat anti-Western terrorism — all of these are attacked as causes of racism, discrimination, and the "defamation of Islam." Indeed, the new language seeking to distort human rights law for the purposes of Islamic censorship makes the Durban II draft even worse than the 2001 text. [more]

Related:
- Girding Up for Durban II, by Leslie Susser
- UN Durban II Regional Meeting Confirms Worst Fears of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Democratic Agenda, Stand With Us
- Boycott Durban II, by Pascal Bruckner
- Durban II: The Red Lines Have Been Crossed, by Anne Bayefsky

Will Europe stay away from Durban II?

Source: TJP

"With the U.N. follow-up conference on racism, dubbed "Durban II," just 7 months away, pro-Israeli NGOs are leading a move to persuade major European countries to stay away. When the first anti-racism conference, held in the South African city of Durban in 2001, degenerated into a festival of unabated Israel bashing, Israel and the United States walked out. Now, concerned that the follow-up conference slated for Geneva next April, will take on a similarly anti-Israel bias, the NGOs - backed by the Israeli government and Israel's supporters in the U.S. Congress - are urging European countries not to lend the event legitimacy by attending.

The agenda for Durban II is largely being shaped by Libya, the preparatory conference chairman, and the so-called "Friends of the Chairman," who include Egypt, Iran, Cuba and Pakistan. NGOs monitoring preparatory conference proceedings say the chairman and friends' work on a final statement suggests that Israel will be the only country singled out for racist practices, and that Western anti-terrorist measures will be excoriated as "Islamaphobic."

The way the wind is blowing can also be gauged by the fact that "The Palestinian Grassroots Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign," an umbrella organization dedicated to comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa, was accredited without debate, while some Jewish NGOs have been denied accreditation, such as the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.

Pro-Israel NGOs, like NGO Monitor and Eye on the U.N. are running a three-pronged campaign to lessen the impact of Durban II: Urging governments and charitable foundations not to fund its activities, calling for a wide-reaching boycott, and planning a strong pro-Israeli presence in the streets outside the conference hall.

They have had some significant successes. The Canadian government and the Ford Foundation, both of which made large contributions to Durban I, are not directly funding anything related to Durban II. In the U.S., Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the ranking Republican member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, has tabled a bill barring American funding of the Geneva event. Moreover, Canada and Israel have decided to boycott Durban II, with the U.S. and Australia likely to follow suit.

The battle now is over European participation.

"If Europe goes, Durban II will not be delegitimized, but if Europe stays at home, it will be exposed," says Gerald Steinberg, director of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor. In Steinberg's view, the French position will be key, partly because France currently holds the rotating EU presidency and partly because French President Nicolas Sarkozy may press for a boycott.

Last February, Sarkozy indicated that France might stay away, declaring bluntly that it would "not allow a repetition of the excesses and abuses of 2001." Steinberg, however, notes that Sarkozy's remarks were not coordinated with the French diplomats at the Quai d'Orsay, and that, on balance, the current tendency in Paris is to attend. That is also the case in Spain, Scandinavia, Belgium and Austria. On the other hand, Eastern European countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia favor a boycott. Italy would probably join them, according to Steinberg, while Britain and Germany remain undecided.

Steinberg will brief the European Parliament in November in an attempt to persuade member countries to stay away. He says much will depend on the position the new American president takes. "The Europeans will study the recommendations of the preparatory committee, which is due to finish its work in October. Then they will wait to see what the president does, before deciding by the end of next February," says Steinberg.

This time, Steinberg says, pro-Israeli groups will not leave the streets of Geneva to the Israel bashers as was the case at Durban I and he notes that one of the conference days coincides with Holocaust Memorial Day. "On that day, there will be appropriate public activities for Yom Hashoah outside the conference hall, which will highlight the contrast with the travesty going on inside," he tells The Jerusalem Report."

UN Durban II pre-meeting confirms fears of anti-Semitic agenda

Source: StandWithUs

www.eyeontheun.org

"Preparations for the UN Durban II racism conference are confirming the worst fears about the conference's anti-Israel and anti-democratic agenda, EYEontheUN reports. At the African regional meeting on Durban II in Abuja, Nigeria, which ended yesterday, UN member states "employed the old tactics of singling out Israel, ignoring egregious human rights violations such as genocide, and challenging fundamental democratic freedoms," said Anne Bayefsky, Senior Editor of EYEontheUN.org.

The Abuja Declaration adopted by the regional meeting "reiterates its [the UN's] concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations." No other country-specific victims are identified. The Declaration also calls on states "to avoid inflexibly clinging to free speech...with absolute disregard for religious feeling."

"The obvious result of mentioning only the Palestinians as victims of racism is to demonize the Jewish state," noted Bayefsky.

UN member states gathered in Nigeria projected a clear commitment to democratic principles, calling on states to codify "permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression" and to elaborate "a voluntary ethical code of conduct...to address racism in the media and other modern information and communication technologies while taking into account fundamental issues, such as the right to freedom of expression..."

The Abuja Declaration also gives Islam special preference by calling on states to "pay attention to the serious nature of incitement to religious hatred such as anti-semitism, Christianophobia and more particularly, Islamophobia." (...)

The Abuja meeting is part of ongoing preparation for the Durban II conference, slated to take place in Geneva in 2009. The African conference is the second regional preparatory gathering, and the Abuja Declaration will be used to prepare the final outcome document of the Durban II conference itself. Canada, the United States, and Israel have been boycotting the meetings associated with the Durban II conference, recognizing that the forum has been hijacked by human rights violators to the detriment of human rights victims everywhere. "The Abuja Declaration indicates that continued participation by democratic nations in the Durban II process sends precisely the wrong signals to rights-abusing states and their victims," Bayefsky warned."

Boycott Durban II, by Pascal Bruckner

Boycott Durban II, by Pascal Bruckner

From Sight and Sound (via Augean Stables)

.

"In September 2001 the South African city of Durban played host to the third United Nations World Conference against Racism, which was aimed at achieving recognition for crimes related to slavery and colonialism. The event's organisers hoped that the whole of mankind would use this ceremonious occasion to face up to its history and chronicle events with equanimity.

.

These good intentions rapidly degenerated into one-upmanship among victims and bloodlust directed at Israeli organisations and anyone else suspected of being Jewish. The original intent, which was to heal the wounds of the past through a sort of collective therapy and arrive at new standards for human rights, twisted into an outburst of hatred which, in the wake of the September 11 attacks that followed only days later, disappeared from the public eye.

.

It's time we had another look. Against the wishes of the organisers, Durban became an arena where people screamed and hurled insults at each other in a re-enactment of the comedy of damned, in the face of the white exploiter. "The pain and anger are still felt. The dead, through their descendants, cry out for justice", Kofi Annan said on August 31 of the same year – an astounding choice of words for a UN secretary general and more a call for revenge than reconciliation. The delegates at the conference, particularly those from the Arab-Muslim states, also understood it as such and, together with the African group, they transformed the conference into a stage for anti-colonialist revenge. The West, which is genocidal by nature, should recognise its crimes, beg for forgiveness and pay symbolic and financial reparations to the victims of its oppression. Emotions ran high and anger was brought to the boil by coverage of the second antifada which was being violently quashed by the Israeli army.

.

Zionism was condemned outright as the contemporary form of Nazism and apartheid, but so was "white viciousness", which had caused "one Holocaust after the other in Africa" through human trafficking, slavery and colonialism. Israel should disappear, its politicians should be brought before an international tribunal similar to the one in Nuremberg. Anti-Semitic cartoons were circulated, copies of "Mein Kampf" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were handed out. Beneath a photo of Hitler were the words that Israel would never have existed and the Palestinians would never have had to spill their blood if he had been victorious. A number of delegates were physically threatened, there were calls of "Death to Jews". This farce came to a head when the Sudanese Minister of Justice, Ali Mohamed Osman Yasin, demanded reparations for historical slavery, while in his own country, people were being shamelessly thrown into slavery as he spoke. It was like a cannibal suddenly calling for vegetarianism.

.

One might think that this sinister comedy would give the UN second thoughts about repeating its mistake. But there is no underestimating the extraordinary determination of dictators and fundamentalists, who have transformed the UN Human Rights Commission into a platform for their demands. A Durban II (The Durban Review Conference) is due to take place in Geneva 20 to 24 April 2009, and it promises to be a repeat of Durban 1 (more information here).

.

The reports and projects which have been mounting up over the past six years reports do not encourage optimism. On September 14, 2007, Doudou Diene, UN Special Rapporteur for racism, xenophobia and discrimination held a speech in front of the United Nations in Geneva (available on this site under the nummer A/HRC/6/6 as pdf). ) In it he repeatedly blames Western countries for using September 11 to encourage the most perfidious forms of Islamophobia. He defines this Islamophobia as a form of racism which has its roots in the first contact between Islam and Christianity, notably the Crusades and the Spanish Reconquista. He does make mention of anti-Semitism, anti-Christian sentiment and other forms of religious suppression, but his main focus is "anti-Muslim racism". Throughout Europe and the United States intellectuals and politicians of all stripes are guilty of a wide array of offences against the religion of the prophet.

.

These include the principle of laicism, as championed by the French, the "ban on religious symbols in public schools", the "threatened ban on the burqa in England's public buildings" and stigmatisation of the veil and the headscarf: all signs of a resurgence of intolerance. Diene regrets that laicism has lead "to a general suspicion of religious belief" and he believes that "dogmatic secularism" is being used to "manipulate the freedom of religion". So it comes as no surprise to him that the West, as a "pillar of slavery and colonialism", is leading the way in a "systematic denigration of Muslim intellectuals" (here he is thinking particularly of Tariq Ramadan) and the idea of a "clash of civilisations" à la Samuel Huntington.

.

By contrast, as he sees it, the persecution of Christian minorities in the Middle East, Africa and India is the unfortunate consequence of the missionary work of Evangelical groups from North America, who are letting their religious brothers suffer for their own bigotry. All criticism of dogma, every questioning of religious belief is, Diene says, a form of racist insult and should be punished. Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius have become untouchable icons, who must be protected against criminal attacks. Should we reintroduce blasphemy as a criminal offence like the fundamentalists of the three monotheistic religions are suggesting – in a return to the Ancien Regime?

.

Unsurprisingly, Diene's report has the ardent support of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the majority of the Non-Aligned Movement where you can count the democracies on one hand. Because Doudou Diene makes it his policy to refrain from all criticism of authoritarian regimes in Asia, Africa and Latin America and reserves his munition for the States of Europe and North America, whom he accuses of fomenting pogroms against their minorities. It will also come as no surprise that in April 2007 Iran was nominated as vice president and Syria as rapporteur for the Disarmament Commission. This might be hilarious if it weren't so tragic!

.

In a nutshell: Anti-racism in the UN has become the ideology of totalitarian regimes who use it in their own interests. Dictatorships or notorious half-dictatorships (Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba etc.) co-opt democratic language and instrumentalise legal standards, to position themselves against democracies without ever putting turning the questions on themselves. A new Inquisition is establishing itself, which brandishes "defamation of religion" to quash any impulses of doubt, particularly in Islamic countries. And this at a time when millions of Muslims, particularly in Europe, want to distance themselves from bigotry and fundamentalism. In a reversal of values, anti-racism is being propagated by despots in the service of obscurantism and the suppression of women! It is being used to justify precisely the things which it was formulated to fight: suppression, prejudice, inequality.

.

In the hands of these powerful and organised lobbies, the UN is becoming an instrument of retrogression in the world, when it was created to promote justice, peace, and human dignity.

.

Europe must take a firm stand against this buffoonery: boycott it, plain and simple. Just as Canada has done. Perhaps we should also think about dissolving the Human Rights Commission or only letting truly democratic countries in. It is intolerable that in the year 2008 - like in the thirties - nations which recognise justice, the multi-party state and freedom of expression are being brought before the tribunal of history by the lobbies of fanatics and tyrants."

Pascal Bruckner, born in 1948, is one of the best known French "nouveaux philosophes". He studied philosophy at the Sorbonne under Roland Barthes. His works include The Temptation of Innocence - Living in the Age of Entitlement (Algora Publishing, 2000), The Tears of the White Man: Compassion As Contempt (The Free Press, 1986), The Divine Child: A Novel of Prenatal Rebellion (Little Brown & Co, 1994) , Evil Angels (Grove Press, 1987)

.

Related:

- Durban redux? Vitriol may follow Israel to Geneva

- Say No to Human Rights: the U.N. Versus Human Rights

- Israel on trial in Brussels - a prelude to Durban II?