Belgian UN hunger expert investigates Canada

"De Schutter does not want you to know that Havana’s Communist government created his post, nor that the co-sponsors included China, North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe. [...] "De Schutter has repeatedly made one-sided attacks on Israel lacking any nexus to his mandate. Last July, he issued a pre-emptive attack against his own boss, in a press release titled “UN Special Rapporteur opposes Ban Ki-Moon’s conclusions on flotilla.” De Schutter was outraged that a panel appointed by the UN chief found that Israel’s blockade of Gaza, to stop Hamas importing Iranian missiles, was actually legal — contradicting what De Schutter’s human rights council had said the year before."

Source: Hillel Neuer: As much of the world starves, a UN hunger expert investigates Canada, National Post (May 4, 2012)

“There is no food and no clean water, nothing,” Mahmoud, a 12-year-old boy from Homs, Syria, told Reuters Thursday. “There is no shop open and we only have one meal a day. How can we live like that and survive?”  According to the World Food Program, half a million people don’t have enough to eat in Syria. Fears are growing that the regime is using hunger as a weapon.  This is the kind of emergency which should attract the attention of the UN Human Rights Council’s hunger monitor, who has the ability to spotlight situations and place them on the world agenda. Yet Olivier de Schutter of Belgium, the “Special Rapporteur on the right to food,” is not going to Syria.  [He is a professor at the Catholic University of Louvain.  In 2006 he wrote this report for a Belgian human rights NGO: Failing the Palestinian State : The human rights impact of the economic strangulation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory ]  Instead, the UN’s food monitor is coming to investigate Canada.

That’s right. Despite dire food emergencies around the globe, De Schutter will be devoting the scarce time and resources of the international community on an 11-day tour of Canada—a country that ranks at the bottom of global hunger concerns.

A key co-ordinator and promoter of De Schutter’s mission is Food Secure Canada, a lobby group whose website accuses the Harper government of “failing Canadians … and [failing to] fulfill the right to food for all.” The group calls instead for a “People’s Food Policy.”

I asked De Schutter if his time wouldn’t better be spent on calling attention to countries that actually have starving people.  “Globally, 1.3 billion people are overweight or obese,” he responded via his spokesperson, “and this causes a range of diseases such as certain types of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases or (especially) type-2 diabetes that are a huge burden.”  In other words, the hunger expert is not even that interested in hunger, but the opposite. Sure, we should all eat less fries, but do Canadians need a costly UN inquiry to tell us that?

Berlin still has not pulled out of ‘anti-Israel’ Durban III

“Germany’s behavior toward the UN’s Durban III conference raises serious questions about its commitment to combat modern anti-Semitism. As an event which will commemorate the hatefest held in Durban in 2001, and its Durban Declaration, which singles out only one country on Earth – the Jewish state – it is shocking that Germany has not refused unequivocally to withdraw in solidarity with Israel, the United States, Canada, Italy and other European nations.” Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Source: JPost by Benjamin Weinthal

Germany’s Foreign Ministry is moving forward with preparations for the September Durban III anti-racism conference in New York City, a UN-sponsored event that presumably will single out Israel for attacks, as have previous “Durban” events.

In addition, speaking last week in the UN Security Council, a German Foreign Ministry undersecretary blasted Israel for its construction of settlements in the West Bank.

When asked if Germany planned to participate in Durban III, a German Foreign Ministry spokeswoman told The Jerusalem Post on Friday that the federal government “will decide on its participation in the celebrations of the 10th anniversary of the international racism conference in light of the ongoing preparatory negotiations.”  The spokeswoman added that the German government was “against racism and all other forms of discrimination.  In the context of the international racism conference, [Germany] works to ensure that no individual countries are separately pilloried.”

Last April, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and German Chancellor Angela Merkel sought to repair relations that had been strained by Berlin’s criticism of the way Israel has been addressing the Middle East peace process. There were also reports of heated exchanges between the two leaders.

Prof. Christian Tomuschat, German Israel-basher heads GOLDSTONE II

"Tomuschat associated the military practices of the Jewish state with the “barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II.” Israel, wrote Tomuschat, “overruns a country like a steamroller,” and “butchers everything in its way.” Accusing Israel of classifying civilian targets as military, Tomuschat said its actions could be regarded “as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II.”"

Take Action : Urge UN to Remove Biased “Goldstone II” Official

Source: UN Watch - Report: German Professor Heading U.N.’s ‘Goldstone II’ Committee

Accused Israel of World War II 'Barbarism', Removal Urged

Prior to Chairing U.N. probe, Christian Tomuschat said Israel was "State Terrorist" uwilling to inestigate

GENEVA, Oct. 21 - The German law professor heading the U.N. committee to enforce the Goldstone Report has a history of comparing Israeli actions with the "barbarism" and "inferno" of World War II, and should be removed for lack of impartiality by the U.N. Secretary-General and the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said a report submitted by UN Watch today to the world body's Geneva office. Click here for summary and full report.

In his September 27 report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Christian Tomuschat, a professor emeritus at Humoldt University, faulted Israel for failing to investigate allegations of war crimes by the country’s senior leadership, specifically naming Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni, who was foreign minister during the 2009 war with Hamas. The Tomuschat Committee will report to the council again in March 2011.
However, according to “Goldstone II,” the 29-page report by UN Watch, a Geneva-based monitor of the world body, Tomuschat’s credibility is severely impaired by his prior legal work for PLO leader Yasser Arafat, which Tomuschat said he “could not recall,” and by a series of public statements and writings that show his lack of impartiality on the Arab-Israel conflict.

Based on newly-translated materials, the report reveals that in German academic essays published in 2006 and 2007 on the Lebanon war, Tomuschat associated the military practices of the Jewish state with the “barbarism which was the particular hallmark of World War II.” Israel, wrote Tomuschat, “overruns a country like a steamroller,” and “butchers everything in its way.” Accusing Israel of classifying civilian targets as military, Tomuschat said its actions could be regarded “as a relapse to the Inferno of World War II.”

Tomuschat also said that “the observer gets the impression that the Israeli armed forces inconsiderately geared itself toward the overall concept of the Totalen Krieges.” This concept is most famously associated with Goebbels' 1943 "Total War" speech delivered under a giant banner.

Other key findings from the report:
• In a 2002 essay, Tomuschat singled out Israel as a prime example of “state terrorism,” a charge he repeated in a 2007 interview, in which he added that killing terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden would be “absolutely illegal under international law.”
• Prior to heading the U.N. inquiry to assess Israel's system of investigations, Tomsuchat had already made up his mind, saying in 2002 that Israel ordered the “systematic commission of war crimes,” and that “in such instances, there is little hope that the judicial system will conduct effective investigations and punish the responsible agents.”
• When a German academic journal featured a debate on the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, Tomuschat was the one chosen to present the side opposed to Israel."

Other examples of Tomuschat’s statements on Israel include:
• Israel is bombing “entire families”;
• Arab nations rightly feel that Israel receives “far better treatment”;
• Israel targets U.N. peacekeepers;
•Israel seeks “to reduce humanitarian law to irrelevance”;
• Israel’s policy is to “bomb a country out into a lunar landscape”;
• Israel’s peace concessions are a cynical plan for “dominance.”

Durban III: Anne Bayefsky criticizes Belgium lead role on behalf of the 27 European Union countries

“Is Germany going to stand side-by-side with a Holocaust denier [Ahmadinejad] having genocidal ambitions and claim this is the right forum by which to combat racism and xenophobia?”

"Responding to Bart Ouvry’s [a spokesman for Belgium’s Foreign Ministry] statements, Bayefsky told the Post that some EU states had opted not to participate in Durban II before Ahmadinejad speech.  Those states, Bayefsky said, “did not leave only as a consequence of Ahmadinejad. They pulled out in advance because they recognized that the Durban Declaration and its followup processes harm the cause of combating racism...” [...] Bayefsky said Belgium was pushing the Durban Declaration against Israel and the commemoration event. If Belgium sought to fight racism, “there would be no need to make any mention of the Durban Declaration. They could adopt a statement against racism and refer to the convention on the elimination of all forms racial discrimination,” she said."

US doesn't support UN plan to hold Durban III next year
By BENJAMIN WEINTHAL AND JORDANA HORN, TJP

10th anniversary event mooted for Sept. in NY at UN headquarters; ADL, pro-Israel NGOs appalled by idea of celebrating ‘notorious’ 2001 meeting.

A commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Durban I antiracism event is slated to take place in September 2011 at UN headquarters in New York, a source familiar with the plans told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.

But Patrick Ventrell, a spokesman for the US Mission to the UN, told the Post on Thursday, “The US does not support the decision to hold the 10th anniversary of the Durban I Conference in New York City in September 2011. We do not believe it would be an appropriate time and venue.”

According to the UN insider, “Negotiators Tuesday spent time arguing about the date. Western states tried to object to September 21 on the basis that there were plans for other events already that day and GA [General Assembly] resolutions are never specific about dates so the issue should be left to future negotiations.”

Next year’s conference is intended to honor the initial Durban I event in South Africa and the follow-up Durban II review conference in Geneva last year. [The US, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Poland walked away from Durban II because the event was tainted by anti-Semitism and disparate treatment toward Israel.]

Officially known as the World Conference against Racism 2001, Durban I was marred by anti-Semitism and attacks on Israel’s right to exist. Last year’s Durban II showcased Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tirades against Israel as well as his denial of the Holocaust.

According to Natalie Kohli, senior adviser for the UN’s Human Rights Council Review, opposition to the commemoration is expected from the US, Israel, Canada, Australia and others.

Belgium is taking a lead role in negotiating on behalf of the 27 European Union countries regarding Durban III.

The Post learned that South Africa is pushing for a September 21, 2011, date, when most heads of state would be in New York for the annual session of the US General Assembly.

When asked whether Germany planned to participate in the Durban commemoration event, a German Foreign Ministry spokesman told the Post via e-mail on Tuesday, “The discussions on the annual UN anti-racism resolution and the questions raised in this connection regarding a commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the Durban conference are currently still taking place in New York. Therefore, the outcome of the discussions cannot be anticipated at this time.”

The spokesman added, “The federal government is working actively within the UN against the misuse of the justified issue of the international fight against racism. This is also its position during the current negotiations.”

After considerable public pressure and media editorials urging Germany to boycott Durban II in 2009, then-foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier pulled the plug on Germany’s involvement in the Geneva Durban II event at the eleventh hour.

Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and an expert on international human rights law, told the Post on Wednesday that the German Foreign Ministry’s statement was “shockingly misleading.”

“Last year, Germany voted against the resolution which decided specifically to hold a ‘Durban III,’ which nevertheless passed handily,” Bayefsky said. “Last year’s resolution also decided the event would be held in September 2011 in New York City, and would be scheduled during the opening days of the General Assembly so that heads of state and of government could be pressured into coming.

“The bottom line is, Germany has followed the decision to hold Durban III and the process of fleshing out the event details closely,” she said. “It is fully aware of precisely what can be anticipated from the current negotiations, since it knows full well that those meetings are fiddling at the edges and have no bearing whatsoever on the decision to have the event, which has already been made. Germany voted with their feet at Durban II, and voted against the resolution on Durban III last year.

“So why is Germany feigning ignorance days before they have to cast a vote on the details of the same meeting to which they objected the year before? Germany knows that Iranian President Ahmadinejad opened Durban II and that he will certainly come to Durban III along with his usual participation at the opening of the General Assembly.

UNESCO is an international U.N. organization where Israel is singled out

"While the themes were within UNESCO's mandate for protection of cultural heritage, the singling out of Israel for criticism is not."

Source: American Thinker (Israel and UNESCO, by Véronique Chemla)

It has become quite a routine. For more than thirty years, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)'s Executive Board has adopted, by consensus during each of its two biannual governing body meetings, biased decisions singling out the State of Israel for criticism.

Several Arab or Muslim countries have regularly presented draft decisions that deal with safeguarding the Old City of Jerusalem and education and cultural institutions in the Arab-occupied territories.

While the themes were within UNESCO's mandate for protection of cultural heritage, the singling out of Israel for criticism is not.

In April 2010, five items were introduced by those states on the agenda at the 184th session of UNESCO's Executive Board.

Two items covered Jerusalem's Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate and the city's cultural heritage. Two others expressed their "concern about the harmful impact of the Separation Wall" on the "activities of [Palestinian] cultural and educational institutions" and of "the blockade of the Gaza Strip" on the reconstruction of Gaza. The fifth draft resolution urged "the Israeli authorities to remove" the "two Palestinian sites of al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs in al-Khalil/Hebron and the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem" from "its national heritage list." That last draft decision was sponsored by seven Arab countries and was a response to the Israeli government's February 2010 decision to include the Biblical matriarch's tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in its national heritage list. That inscription aimed at justifying the connection of the State of Israel to its land and at renovating both sites, but it was condemned by President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas and Hezb'allah leaders, and many Arab and Muslim countries, as well as the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference).

UNRWA Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd’s biased discourse, by Véronique Chemla

On October 15, 2009, the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East) Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd gave a biased press conference at the CAPE (Foreign Press Centre) headquarters, in Paris (France). She generally underlined Israel’s responsibility for Gazans’ difficult life under “blockade and occupation”. She also drew a revisionist parallel between Israel’s Cast Lead Operation and the Holocaust. She generally presented the Palestinian narrative as the truth.

On October 15, 2009, I hurried to attend UNRWA Commissioner-General Karen Abu Zayd’s press conference in Paris.

Oops! I arrived about ten minutes late. The audience was scattered.

“Blockade, occupation” and revisionism

Ms Abu Zayd was raising the alarm over the 7 million dollars’ deficit gap which corresponds to its general expenses (education, health and social services). With about 29 0000 employees, UNRWA is “responsible for 4.6 million refugees in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the occupied territory”.
Read the whole report HERE

Related :
- EU MPs urged to rethink Palestinian refugee issue and UNRWA policies
- Japanese lawmaker calls for reduction in funding to UNRWA

US Congress rejects Goldstone report - Jewish group lobbying European governments

"The fact that the person who is pushing the Goldstone Report onto the General Assembly agenda is the Libyan President of the General Assembly, Ali Abdesselam Treki, speaks volumes about the so-called concern for human rights. Nations like Libya, Iran and Pakistan, who are ranked among the worst offenders of human rights and racism, fight for power and control in the United Nations system not to serve humanity, but to deflect any criticism aimed at their authoritarian leadership." (Moshe Kantor)

Hopefully the lobbying is successful and Europe follows the U.S. in its rejection of the Goldstone report.

1. US Congress condemns UN Goldstone Report, 344 to 36; full text & voting breakdown
(UN Watch)
______
2. Jewish group lobbies European governments to vote against Goldstone report at UN

PARIS (EJP, article by Maud Swinnen)---The European Jewish Congress (EJC) is actively lobbying European governments to vote against the Goldstone Report on the Gaza war when it is discussed on Wednesday in the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

The EJC, which is a body representing Jewish communities across Europe, called on European and other democratic nations to challenge the ‘automatic tyrannical majority’ in the UN.

Thus far no European nation has voted for the Goldstone Commission Report, either during the resolution for its mandate nor when voting for its ensuing resolution in the United Nations Human Rights Council.

"I hope that this trend will continue and that Europe can enlist like-minded nations to ensure that no democratic nation votes for a resolution on the Goldstone Report," EJC President Moshe Kantor said. "We need a coalition of decent democratic nations to combat the automatic tyrannical majority that can impose its views at will by sheer weight of numbers and nothing else," he added.

The EJC said it is "deeply concerned" that the United Nations structure is being hijacked by nations who want to use their voice to suppress true human rights.

"The fact that the person who is pushing the Goldstone Report onto the General Assembly agenda is the Libyan President of the General Assembly, Ali Abdesselam Treki, speaks volumes about the so-called concern for human rights," Kantor said. "Nations like Libya, Iran and Pakistan, who are ranked among the worst offenders of human rights and racism, fight for power and control in the United Nations system not to serve humanity, but to deflect any criticism aimed at their authoritarian leadership."

The EJC feels that many of the United Nations institutions like the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and the Durban process do not serve the purpose they were built for. "Unfortunately, the original and moral mandate of the UN is being hijacked for political agendas at the cost of millions of people who desperately seek its help."

Self-defense? Jacques Attali on the Goldstone report

"This report is also very revealing of the changing attitude of some international institutions with respect to Israel, who now want to deny Israel the right to self- defense: according to the International committee of the Red Cross, in charge of the laws of war, this right, recognized however by article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, could not be applied against terrorists who it would be necessary to arrest and to judge as common law criminals, and not fight as enemies."

Source: "Conversation avec Jacques Attali" blog

The report of a commission chaired by a respected South African judge, Richard Goldstone, arrived at the conclusion that "by launching, in some cases, attacks against civilians without military objectives" (during the Israeli military operation in Gaza in December-January) the Israeli armed forces have committed "acts comparable to war crimes and maybe by certain aspects to crimes against humanity." Terrible accusation, and if the report acknowledges that the Israeli army made " significant efforts to warn the civilians before attacks", it blames them for having been ineffective and it urges Israel to conduct an independent and honest national investigation within 6 months, failing to do so will have the Israeli officers sent back by the Security Council to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

The report rightly points out that there was in this battle, scandalous blurs on the part of the Palestinians and the Israelis (who opened fire at civilians and on their own soldiers and used phosphorous shells), but it is also full of errors, revealing a fundamental question for democracies.

Written at the request of a UN Human Rights Committee, where dictatorships dominate, it repeatedly refers to Israel as "the enemy" and it does not recall that the Hebrew state has withdrawn unilaterally; it does not say that Tsahal, before answering, had received 12,000 rockets fired from Gaza; it does not mention the testimonial of the inhabitants of Sderot, constantly bombarded, though questioned by the committee, but quotes at length the testimonials of Gazans all heard during televised broadcasts, that is to say in an atmosphere of terror, which leads them to deny that Hamas forced civilians to serve as human shields, which is what the leaders of this movement boasted about.

Moreover, the report dares to say, without fear of ridicule, that in Israel, the only democracy in the region, exists "a repression of dissent", demonstrating an incredible ignorance of the reality of a country where a Minister of defense and a Prime Minister have been forced to resign by a march of more than one tenth of the population of the country (can we imagine a march of more than six million French people?). And Israel will surely confirm it by appointing a Committee of independent inquiry which will sanction, once more, those who have made errors, or maybe even crimes in the conduct of these operations.

But this report is also very revealing of the changing attitude of some international institutions with respect to Israel, who now want to deny Israel the right to self- defense: according to the International committee of the Red Cross, in charge of the laws of war, this right, recognized however by article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, could not be applied against terrorists who it would be necessary to arrest and to judge as common law criminals, and not fight as enemies.

The other democracies should be wary: If they let Israel be treated that way, they will be the next victims of this jurisprudence, because it will be required also from them what cannot obviously be demanded from their opponents.

François Houtart, a Belgian anti-Zionist priest, awarded UNESCO prize for tolerance and non-violence

François Houtart, a Belgian priest and professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, has been awarded (shared) the 2009 UNESCO-Madanjeet Singh Prize for the Promotion of Tolerance and Non-Violence. The announcement reads (excerpts):

"François Houtart (Belgium) for his life-long commitment to world peace, intercultural dialogue, human rights and the promotion of tolerance, and in recognition of his outstanding efforts to advance the cause of social justice in the world.

Mr Houtart is an ardent promoter of North-South cooperation and the founder of the Tri-Continental Centre (CETRI), a non-governmental organization renowned for its work on development issues and in the International Council of the World Social Forum. Known throughout his life as a defender of human rights, he has contributed significantly to the advancement of the inter-faith and inter-cultural dialogue. As a noted sociologist of religions and theology, he has authored numerous publications and given lectures in over 100 universities around the world. An honorary member of the Academy of Sciences of Vietnam and Cuba and a member of the Commission on Struggle against Racism of the Ecumenical Council of the Churches, he has served as President of the Committee for Human Rights in Burundi (1986-1992); founder and director of the international review "Social Compass" (1960-1990); and President of the International League for People’s Rights (2003-2008)."

What the announcement leaves out is that François Houtart is a staunch anti-Israeli/US militant :

* he signed an appeal launched by Nadine Rosa-Rosso to all candidates for the 736 seats in the European parliament to remove Hamas from the EU terror list (International List Of Hamas Supporters Published, Harry's Place);

* he is a member of the Russell Tribunal for Palestine, concocted by another Belgian, Pierre Galand (Brussels: Launching of the "Russell Tribunal" on Palestine) the third such mock tribunal cooked up in Belgium ...;

* he is the chairman of the BRussells Tribunal - Peple vs Total War, that is co-chaired by Jean Bricmont, professor at the Catholic University of Louvain. Pierre Klein, professor at the Free University of Brussels is the secretary; and

* he is a member of the "People's Court" in which "individuals of concience" tried Israel for "crimes committed by the Israeli army in Lebanon during the summer 2006 [which] are a violent affront to the universal human conscience"(Israel on trial in Brussels: Iranian and Syrian Ambassadors give standing ovation to judges and Lebanon war mock tribunal condemns Israel and U.S.).

[1] On the Centre Tricontinental (CETRI), one can find : 17 articles on Palestine, 0 article on Burundi (in spite of the fact that, according to the statement, the UNESCO prize was awarded for the priest's commitment to the advancement of human rights in Burundi), 3 articles on the Congo, 0 article on Soudan, 9 articles on Sri Lanka etc. It's strange the little attention Burundi, the Congo et Rwanda receive because they were Belgian colonies, and there is a mutually strong link between citizens of these countries and Belgium.

We had a look at the sources of the articles posted on the CETRI blog and we were not disappointed: Electronic Intifada, Le Monde Diplomatique, Counterpunch (surprise surprise Counterpunch ), Palestine Monitor, etc.


- Jean Bricmont and The De-Zionization of the American Mind - The anti-US ravings of an arrogant man

- Special Report: "Pierre Galand (Belgium) Using Political NGOs to Promote Demonization & Anti-Semitism in the UN & EU"

Ahmadinejad did not cross EU 'red line' with UN speech, says Sweden (EU presidency)

"Earlier this week, the European Union presidency issued a statement condemning Ahmadinejad for his statements on the Holocaust and on Israel, saying such remarks "encourage anti-Semitism and hatred"."

With such lack of coherence, no wonder there is huge disapppointment in Europe with the EU. It is impossible to know what Europe really stands for.

STOCKHOLM (AFP-EJP)--- Sweden, the country which chairs the EU, Finland and non-EU Norway stayed in the room when Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not cross the "red line" that would have prompted a walkout by all EU states in his speech at the United Nations, the Swedish foreign ministry said Thursday. "There were certain criteria set for when the EU would leave the room and those criteria were not fulfilled," spokeswoman Cecilia Julin said.

Sweden currently holds the rotating EU presidency. The criteria agreed in New York before the Iranian leader spoke included denying the Holocaust and calling for the annihilation of Israel, which Ahmadinejad avoided doing this time. Even so, a number of EU states did walk out when Ahmadinejad attacked Israel, including Britain, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary and Italy.
"We're not commenting on who left or who didn't leave," Julin said. "I think there were other reasons for other countries that decided to leave."

In his address, Ahmadinejad again took aim at Israel but without mentioning the country or Jews by name, referring only to the "Zionist regime." He accused Israel of "inhumane policies in Palestine," including genocide, and seeking to "establish a new form of slavery, and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the US, to attain its racist ambitions."

Suggesting there was a Jewish conspiracy, Ahmadinejad added: "It is no longer acceptable that a small minority would dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks." He accused Jews of seeking to "establish a new form of slavery and harm the reputation of other nations, even European nations and the US, to attain its racist ambitions."

Israel had called for a boycott of the speech, and was not present when the Iranian leader spoke.
Canada heeded the boycott call, while delegations from Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, New Zealand and the United States also left the room as Ahmadinejad began to rail against Israel, a European source said.

Earlier this week, the European Union presidency issued a statement condemning Ahmadinejad for his statements on the Holocaust and on Israel, saying such remarks "encourage anti-Semitism and hatred".

US 'concerned' with Goldstone report

"We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable." (Susan Rice)

Unfortunately (predictably), no such reservations and concerns about the Goldstone Report were voiced either by the European Union or by European governments.

Source: article by E.B. Solomont, TJP

The United States expressed grave reservations Thursday with the findings and recommendations of a UN report that accused Israel of war crimes during the Gaza conflict and left open the possibility of prosecution at The Hague.
"We have very serious concerns about many recommendations in the report," Ambassador Susan Rice, the permanent US representative to the UN, told reporters following a closed Security Council meeting.

The nearly 600-page report, presented on Tuesday by South African Judge Richard Goldstone, accused both Israel and Hamas of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity, and recommended that if no appropriate independent inquiry takes place in Israel within six months, the Security Council should refer the matter to prosecutors at the International Criminal Court.

"We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council," Rice said on Thursday, in the first official American response to Goldstone's report. "We have long expressed our very serious concern with the mandate that was given by the Human Rights Council prior to our joining the council, which we viewed as unbalanced, one-sided and basically unacceptable." [...]

Several members of Congress issued sharp condemnations of the Goldstone Report, which they said ignored Israel's need to defend itself against terrorism.

"In the self-righteous fantasyland inhabited by the authors, there's no such thing as terrorism, there's no such thing as Hamas, there's no such thing as legitimate self-defense," Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York, the chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said in a statement. "Certainly, the United States should do all that it can to ensure as little time as possible is wasted on this distraction from the real work of making peace," he said.

In a similar vein, a joint statement by Reps. Shelley Berkley of Nevada and Eliot Engel of New York staunchly defended Israel's right to defend itself against rocket and mortar attacks from the north and the south.

"Israel took every reasonable step to avoid civilian casualties," they wrote. "It is ridiculous to claim that Israel did not take appropriate actions to protect civilian populations."

- Goldstone Report: 575 pages of NGO "cut and paste"
- Goldstone´s sins of omission

Former UNESCO Director-General : Israel killed hundreds of children

"I'd burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt." (Farouk Hosni)
"Having killed hundreds of children they [?] have no right to criticize." (Federico Mayor)

More incitement to hatred.

Commenting on the opposition to the appointment of the Egyptian Culture Minister, Farouk Hosni, to the position of Director-General of UNESCO, Federico Mayor Zaragoza, a former Spanish Director-General of UNESCO from 1987 to 1999 said (translated from the French):

"I do not agree with these criticisms, which, incidentally, come from Israeli representatives. Who do they think they are to make such remarks. Having killed hundreds of children they have no right to criticize. It is impossible for them to criticize after what they did in Gaza. "

Source: Saphir News
------------------------------------------------
Farouk Hosni In His Own Words (ADL)

"Normalization? I know quite a bit about you, you have abilities that I hold in high esteem. I follow and am kept abreast. Believe me, I don't hate Israel and under no circumstances am I an anti-Semite. But cultural normalization? Not now."

Q: Why not?

"We have political ties and economic cooperation. In my view, cultural ties are our weapon to pressure Israel into doing more on the Palestinian issue."
(Interview with Smadar Peri, Yediot Ahronot, June 13, 2008)
------------------------------------------------
"We cannot dance with them, sing together or watch a piece of theatre when there are bloody attacks every day against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."
(Interview with AFP, May 23, 2008)
------------------------------------------------
"I would burn Israeli books myself if I found them in Egyptian libraries."
(May 10, 2008)
------------------------------------------------
"They steal everything: musical heritage, cinema and even clothes and this is why they have to be treated with the same level of hate…"
(Interview to Al-Wasat, London, June 13, 2001)
------------------------------------------------
"My attitude towards normalization is known and so is my ministry's attitude: we oppose all kinds of normalization… The Ministry of Culture is practically the only official body that has a declared attitude against normalization…"
(Interview to Al-Mashahid as-Siyasi, London, June 10, 2001)
------------------------------------------------
"How would a normalization of this kind be possible, with such a culture that hates the other and robs its culture?"
(Interview with Al-Mashahid as-Siyasi, June 10, 2001)
------------------------------------------------
"The Israeli culture is inhuman. It is an aggressive, racist and arrogant culture, based on robbing other people's rights and the denial of such rights…"
(Interview with Al-Mashahid as-Siyasi, London, June 10, 2001)
------------------------------------------------
"Israel never left any eternal heritage for the civilization, in any period of time…" (From his statement in the opening of the Arab specialists gathering for the protection of antiquities in Arab countries
(Qatar News Agency, April 25, 2001).
------------------------------------------------
"Israel is known in the international arena as a state that steals everything and attributes it to itself…"
(Interview with Ruz al-Yousuf, April 21, 2001)
------------------------------------------------
"…They (the Zionists) do not want to commit a cultural invasion, they want to rob our culture and heritage…"
(Interview with the Lebanese As-Safir, December 7, 2000)
------------------------------------------------
"The Israelis do not stop claiming that they built the pyramids, and this is why we need to stand firmly and respond courageously… even if it leads to a crisis because those pirates are committing a robbery… The Israelis want everything…" "…This is the way the Israelis took Palestine… Now they use (this method) regarding the big pyramid. These are continuous projects – people come, steal your history and civilization. This proves that Israel has no history or civilization, since those who have history of their own do not need to rob the history of others …" "…Israel has many political goals… First of all, they steal your civilization and history. Second, they do not have any civilization, i.e. they do not have a country, and do not deserve a country. This is why they create a country by force…"
(Interview with Ros al-Yusuf, May 5, 1997, "Israel is Robbing the Pyramids as it Robbed Palestine")

- Spain's Jewish problem, by Michael Freund
- Spain to limit judges' jurisdiction; includes probe against Israelis
- Hay una carta para Zapatero (Desde Sefarad)
- EU-funded Palestinian NGO leading the 'Spanish inquisition'
- 46 per cent of Spanish have a negative/very negative view of Jews (52 percent in Spain have a negative view of Muslims)
- Catalunya government: a Palestinian holocaust is taking place
- Spanish and Basque NGOs Join Palestinians and AIC in Boycott conference
- Spain : a pacifist country but ... an arms exporter
- Spanish unique expertise on Jewish bankers' genealogy

Did HRW and Amnesty protest at giving Ahmadinejad a platform at Durban II?

"Prior to Ahmadinejad’s speech, international NGOs including HRW, Amnesty, and others did not protest the giving the Iranian leader a platform, despite his Holocaust denial and Iran´s dismal human rights record."

HRW and other NGOs press for US participation, ignoring the real problems of the conference

While Canada, the US, Italy, Holland, Germany, Israel and other Western democracies decided not to participate, having decided that the Durban process could not be salvaged, and the principles should not be compromised for political expediency, Human Rights Watch (HRW) condemned these countries for "undermining" the conference. HRW also claimed (without credibility) that there was "no justification for the decision," and pressed for "engagement." Prior to Ahmadinejad’s speech, international NGOs including HRW, Amnesty, and others did not protest the giving the Iranian leader a platform, despite his Holocaust denial and Iran´s dismal human rights record. HRW, for instance, merely stated that his attendance raised "concern" and blandly calling Ahmadinejad a "divisive figure" for his "controversial" statements on Israel and the Holocaust. This lobbying helped legitimize Ahmadinejad´s absurd presence at a conference against racism.

Even after his hate filled speech, while HRW admitted that it "contradicted the spirit and purpose of the conference" and "Iran´s record of repressing peaceful dissent does great injustice to the struggle against racism and discrimination," the NGO continued to advocate that governments "should respond by staying." This language echoes Commissioner Pillay´s attempt to downplay the impact of such language used under the façade of human rights.

Remarkably, HRW drew a parallel between Ahmadinejad and the Western democracies that did not attend, claiming that their rhetoric was similar, while reiterating that the conference "was earlier undermined by the refusal of the United States to participate, which prompted walkouts by Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Poland." They have thus confused effect (the walkout) with the cause, which is corruption of human rights, aided by the radical NGO network."

Source:
NGO Monitor: UN tries to avoid NGO incitement, but gives Ahmadinejad a platform

- Amnesty International: Abolishing Israel's Right to Self Defense
- Amnesty’s obsession with Israel
- European NGO Amnesty International: relentless and disproportionate focus on Israeli "violations"

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