“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.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query durban. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query durban. Sort by date Show all posts
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Thursday, 5 March 2009
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
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
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
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
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
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
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.""
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.""
Thursday, 20 November 2008
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
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Is Germany a true friend of Israel?
Next month, Chancellor Merkel faces the easiest human rights test in Germany’s post-war history. The Germans can continue to embarrass themselves by supporting a UN-sponsored anti-Semitic lynch mob in the guise of a rally against racism, or they can walk out.
See also: Berlin still has not pulled out of ‘anti-Israel’ Durban III, Anne Bayefsky
German parliament continues to court Israel’s most despicable foes in Tehran, by Benjamin Weinthal
Next month, New York will host an event marking the 10th anniversary of another dark hour, the notorious UN-sponsored Durban world conference on racism, which became a platform for some of the world’s worst human rights abusers to call for Israel’s destruction.
On September 22, the UN will welcome representatives from 186 of the 193 member countries for the third meeting of the Durban process. At the second Durban conference in Geneva in 2009, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and proclaimed the Jewish state “illegitimate” and “criminal.”
He called for the obliteration of Israel and Zionism, declaring "Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradicating this barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism." Iran's despot used his UN stage to voice his oft-repeated denial of the Holocaust, saying that Israel was "created on the pretext of Jewish suffering from World War II." Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he is expected to speak again next month in New York.
While the United States, Canada, Italy, Australia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and naturally Israel have declined to attend an event whose participants call for the elimination of a UN member, Germany will send its diplomats to the third Durban conference, as its parliament continues to court Israel’s most despicable foes in Tehran.
See also: Berlin still has not pulled out of ‘anti-Israel’ Durban III, Anne Bayefsky
German parliament continues to court Israel’s most despicable foes in Tehran, by Benjamin Weinthal
On September 22, the UN will welcome representatives from 186 of the 193 member countries for the third meeting of the Durban process. At the second Durban conference in Geneva in 2009, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust and proclaimed the Jewish state “illegitimate” and “criminal.”
He called for the obliteration of Israel and Zionism, declaring "Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradicating this barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism." Iran's despot used his UN stage to voice his oft-repeated denial of the Holocaust, saying that Israel was "created on the pretext of Jewish suffering from World War II." Sadly, but unsurprisingly, he is expected to speak again next month in New York.
While the United States, Canada, Italy, Australia, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands and naturally Israel have declined to attend an event whose participants call for the elimination of a UN member, Germany will send its diplomats to the third Durban conference, as its parliament continues to court Israel’s most despicable foes in Tehran.
Saturday, 25 October 2008
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."
Friday, 25 July 2008
Durban redux? Vitriol may follow Israel to Geneva
The European Commission's very European idea of fighting anti-Semitism at the forthcoming Durban II conference. The JTA has the facts:"While it's too early to tell which groups hostile to Israel will show up at the follow-up conference to Durban, at least two hint at what treatment awaits the Jewish state in Geneva.
At the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, the rabid activism of numerous anti-Israel nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, virtually drowned out much of the world's other ills.
Last month in Brazil, at the first regional meeting to determine the substance of next year's conference, one group hinted at what to expect. (…)
It's too soon to know which funding agencies will help send NGOs such as BADIL and the Wall Campaign to Geneva, but one watchdog suggests European money will likely be involved.
"European aid agencies give tens of millions of euros per year to very political, in some cases radical, anti-Israel NGOs, and these groups are the most active in the Durban process," sa
id Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, which recently detailed these links in its report "Europe's Hidden Hand".
"There are many officials in those agencies who come from an anti-colonialist, anti-American, anti-Israel political ideology," Steinberg said, "and they have almost no supervision, almost no open discussions in their parliaments over these budgets."
European Union officials told JTA that none of its grants are explicitly for NGOs to attend conferences, like the Durban follow-up, but rather are directed toward specific projects.
Beyond the Durban process, the EU officials say a grantee's words - like branding Israel as apartheid or endorsing boycotts - are the "sole responsibility" of the grantee and do not reflect EU positions.
Brussels "cannot be held responsible" for these statements, nor can it "oblige them to refrain" from making them, said David Kriss, a spokesman for the European Commission delegation to Israel.
"The Commission is respectful of freedom of expression as a key feature of a democratic society," Kriss wrote in an e-mail from his office in Ramat Gan, Israel. "An open debate over political issues is indispensable on the way towards better mutual understanding.
"At the same time, the Commission is firmly committed to the fight against incitement to hatred between ethnic or religious groups as well as to the expressions of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and will continue fighting these deplorable phenomena.""
At the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, the rabid activism of numerous anti-Israel nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, virtually drowned out much of the world's other ills.
Last month in Brazil, at the first regional meeting to determine the substance of next year's conference, one group hinted at what to expect. (…)
It's too soon to know which funding agencies will help send NGOs such as BADIL and the Wall Campaign to Geneva, but one watchdog suggests European money will likely be involved.
"European aid agencies give tens of millions of euros per year to very political, in some cases radical, anti-Israel NGOs, and these groups are the most active in the Durban process," sa
id Gerald Steinberg, the executive director of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, which recently detailed these links in its report "Europe's Hidden Hand"."There are many officials in those agencies who come from an anti-colonialist, anti-American, anti-Israel political ideology," Steinberg said, "and they have almost no supervision, almost no open discussions in their parliaments over these budgets."
European Union officials told JTA that none of its grants are explicitly for NGOs to attend conferences, like the Durban follow-up, but rather are directed toward specific projects.
Beyond the Durban process, the EU officials say a grantee's words - like branding Israel as apartheid or endorsing boycotts - are the "sole responsibility" of the grantee and do not reflect EU positions.
Brussels "cannot be held responsible" for these statements, nor can it "oblige them to refrain" from making them, said David Kriss, a spokesman for the European Commission delegation to Israel.
"The Commission is respectful of freedom of expression as a key feature of a democratic society," Kriss wrote in an e-mail from his office in Ramat Gan, Israel. "An open debate over political issues is indispensable on the way towards better mutual understanding.
"At the same time, the Commission is firmly committed to the fight against incitement to hatred between ethnic or religious groups as well as to the expressions of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and will continue fighting these deplorable phenomena.""
.
Related:
Durban II: Just Say "Non", Judeosphere
Sunday, 31 July 2011
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.
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.
Monday, 1 September 2008
UN Durban II pre-meeting confirms fears of anti-Semitic agenda
Source: StandWithUswww.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
Thursday, 27 November 2008
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." )
Thursday, 30 October 2008
The Durban II Draft Declaration: Even Worse Than 2001
Source: UN WatchThe 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
Tuesday, 4 March 2008
Durban II: Just Say "Non", Judeosphere
Judeosphere makes this appeal - you can sign the petition by sending an email to Ligue Internationale contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme (LICRA) licra@licra.org"On Feb. 27, a petition was sent to the French newspaper Le Monde, signed by such prominent figures as Alan Finkielkraut, Claude Lanzmann and Elie Wiesel.
The letter denounces the rise of anti-semitism in public forums and urges Western democracies to follow the example of Canada and refuse to participate in the second UN-sponsored conference against racism known as Durban II.
You can read the full text of the letter and the growing number of signatories here. Some excerpts:
"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.""
Let’s be reminded of the role played by some European NGOs at Durban, namely the Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP), a Brussels based association of NGOs cooperating with the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, headed by a Belgian Pierre Galand, who is still busy demonising Israel. Pierre Galand is the Chairman of the Belgo-Palestinian Association and, amazingly, in 2006 was appointed Chairman of the Belgian francophone secular movement (Centre d’action laïque) , a member of the International Humanist Ethical Union (IHEU)!!!
NGO Monitor Special Report: "Pierre Galand (Belgium) Using Political NGOs to Promote Demonization & Anti-Semitism in the UN & EU"
Philosemitism: "Israel on trial in Brussels - a prelude to Durban II?, The latest in a long list of initiatives in Europe to demonise Israel"
Thursday, 16 April 2009
"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).
• 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]"
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Durban II - Israel Launches Bid To Discredit Racism Parley
From an article in the The New York Sun:
"…Israel and its supporters in America cited Libya's chairmanship of a U.N.committee planning the anti-racism conference - convened to follow up on a similar conference held in 2001 at Durban, South Africa - in order to alert Western countries of the perils of funding and attending the event.
While no country, including Israel, has explicitly declared its intention to boycott the 2009 conference known as Durban II, American-based organizations, as well as planners at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, have launched a campaign to convince countries such as Canada, Australia, and members of the European Union to avoid the conference. Israel's Foreign Ministry plans to host a February meeting in Jerusalem to plan the campaign.
"No decision was made" as to whether America would be represented at the racism conference or at what level, a spokesman for the American mission to the United Nations, Richard Grenell, said. "Currently what we are focused on is trying to fix the funding issue." America, as well as some of its European and other allies, argues that the conference should be funded by its supporters and not through contributions imposed on U.N. member states according to their wealth.
America cited a $6.8 million allotment for the racism conference in the U.N. biannual budget - which according to estimates may reach $5.2 billion — as its reason for separating from the rest of the U.N. members last month, when it cast a rare opposing vote against the secretary-general's proposed budget. America is responsible for 22% of the U.N. budget, while supporters of the racism conference come mostly from poorer countries. Its planning committee includes, in addition to Libya, such countries as Cuba and Iran.
"The choice of Libya as head of the planning committee tells you everything you need to know about Durban II," the deputy director-general for international organizations at Israel's Foreign Ministry, Aharon Leshno Ya'ar. "If the planning continues in the direction we think it will, I hope European countries will join us" in avoiding the conference.
The European Union, for now, "remains on board" as a Durban II participant, a Western European diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, said. "But there is still a debate, which we are following very carefully, on the modalities and agenda" of the conference. Other western diplomats also said it was too early to decide on attendance. …
The 2001 Durban conference, convened to highlight the perils of racism and related discrimination, became entangled in anti-Western and anti-Israel politics, prompting a walkout by the American and Israeli officials in attendance."
"…Israel and its supporters in America cited Libya's chairmanship of a U.N.committee planning the anti-racism conference - convened to follow up on a similar conference held in 2001 at Durban, South Africa - in order to alert Western countries of the perils of funding and attending the event.
While no country, including Israel, has explicitly declared its intention to boycott the 2009 conference known as Durban II, American-based organizations, as well as planners at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, have launched a campaign to convince countries such as Canada, Australia, and members of the European Union to avoid the conference. Israel's Foreign Ministry plans to host a February meeting in Jerusalem to plan the campaign.
"No decision was made" as to whether America would be represented at the racism conference or at what level, a spokesman for the American mission to the United Nations, Richard Grenell, said. "Currently what we are focused on is trying to fix the funding issue." America, as well as some of its European and other allies, argues that the conference should be funded by its supporters and not through contributions imposed on U.N. member states according to their wealth.
America cited a $6.8 million allotment for the racism conference in the U.N. biannual budget - which according to estimates may reach $5.2 billion — as its reason for separating from the rest of the U.N. members last month, when it cast a rare opposing vote against the secretary-general's proposed budget. America is responsible for 22% of the U.N. budget, while supporters of the racism conference come mostly from poorer countries. Its planning committee includes, in addition to Libya, such countries as Cuba and Iran.
"The choice of Libya as head of the planning committee tells you everything you need to know about Durban II," the deputy director-general for international organizations at Israel's Foreign Ministry, Aharon Leshno Ya'ar. "If the planning continues in the direction we think it will, I hope European countries will join us" in avoiding the conference.
The European Union, for now, "remains on board" as a Durban II participant, a Western European diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity, said. "But there is still a debate, which we are following very carefully, on the modalities and agenda" of the conference. Other western diplomats also said it was too early to decide on attendance. …
The 2001 Durban conference, convened to highlight the perils of racism and related discrimination, became entangled in anti-Western and anti-Israel politics, prompting a walkout by the American and Israeli officials in attendance."
Thursday, 21 August 2008
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:
Friday, 13 March 2009
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
Sunday, 24 February 2008
Israel on trial in Brussels - a prelude to Durban II?
The latest in a long list of initiatives in Europe to demonise Israel
A so-called peoples' tribunal is convening in Brussels this weekend to put Israel on trial for crimes purportedly committed by the Israeli army during the 2006 Lebanon war.
The name of Pierre Galand, President of the French-speaking Belgian Secularist association (Centre d'Action Laïque, a member of the International Humanist Ethical Union (IHEU), the world union of Humanist organisations), features on the tribunal committee sponsorship list. He is a long-time rabid critic and demoniser of Israel.
This is how NGO Monitor described Pierre Galand in 2004:
"There are very few radical NGO activities in the United Nations or in Europe in which Pierre Galand does not actively participate. His rhetoric of hatred, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (disguised, as in the case of many other members of the political NGO community, in the language of human rights and sympathy for Palestinian victimization), includes references to Israeli "aggression", "war crimes", "colonization", "apartheid", etc. while referring to Palestinian terror as "heroic" and in need of international protection."
In 2001, Pierre Galand attended the UN anti-racist conference in Durban in his capacity as European Chairman of the Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP), a Brussels based association of NGOs cooperating with the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. At the conference, he called for the reactivation a peoples' tribunal to judge Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, and announced that he had the support of the Rossel and Danièle Mitterrand (the widow of French President François Mitterrand) Foundations, and that Nobel Prize winners would be associated with the tribunal. He had Desmond Tutu in mind.
The peoples' tribunal has finally come into being seven years later in Brussels this weekend. But the sponsorship committee list falls short of Mr. Galand's grandiose expectations. There is no trace of any foundation or Nobel prize winner. No religious leaders, no scholars, no universities either. And no trace of his fellow secularists, free thinkers, humanists, rationalists, atheists either. The media have kept mum about the event.
Altough the pseudo-tribunal is a farce, it would be unwise not to denounce it. It is a dire warning of what Durban II is likely to turn into - another exercise in the demonisation of Israel, with some Europeans taking the leading role. It proves that a small group of single-minded individuals and NGOs (Amnesty International and HRW will, according to the programme, participate) with a anti-Israel agenda are capable of collecting substantial funds and resources to put together an event like the one taking place in Brussels.
For them, the only rogue state in the world is Israel. They are not intent on bringing the Sudanese government on trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or worse: genocide, committed in Darfur.
"Inside the Durban debacle", by Michael J. Jordan, Salon:
"During one street rally, they saw a placard that read "Hitler Should Have Finished the Job" and heard someone yell "Kill the Jews." Nearby, a man was reportedly spotted selling the most notorious and conspiratorial of anti-Semitic tracts, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Inside the U.N. conference grounds and within its tents, the rhetoric and agitprop were also white hot. Fliers were found with Hitler's photo above the question: "What if I had won? There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed." A press conference held by the Jewish caucus was cut short by a rowdy group of Iranian women, one of whom screamed, "Six million dead and you're holding the world hostage!"
Israel's supporters, it should be noted, usually hold their own in the media and intellectual debate. But at the Durban conference, the Jewish side came armed with little more than position papers, books and other workshop materials, and was overmatched. Thrown on the defensive, they responded by quickly printing and handing out T-shirts of their own, one with a peace sign inside the Jewish Star of David under the slogan "Fight Racism, Not Jews" and a second with Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote: "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews."
And certainly they had their high-profile defenders. When U.N. officials appeared ready to tolerate inflammatory anti-Israel language making its way into a final conference report, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., the top Democrat in the U.S. delegation, said sharply, "What you have here is the paradox of an anti-racism conference that is itself racist." Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor sitting in Congress and a co-founder of its human rights caucus, blasted delegates from Western nations who he said were privately disgusted with the proceedings but refused to speak out."
A so-called peoples' tribunal is convening in Brussels this weekend to put Israel on trial for crimes purportedly committed by the Israeli army during the 2006 Lebanon war.
The name of Pierre Galand, President of the French-speaking Belgian Secularist association (Centre d'Action Laïque, a member of the International Humanist Ethical Union (IHEU), the world union of Humanist organisations), features on the tribunal committee sponsorship list. He is a long-time rabid critic and demoniser of Israel.
This is how NGO Monitor described Pierre Galand in 2004:
"There are very few radical NGO activities in the United Nations or in Europe in which Pierre Galand does not actively participate. His rhetoric of hatred, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism (disguised, as in the case of many other members of the political NGO community, in the language of human rights and sympathy for Palestinian victimization), includes references to Israeli "aggression", "war crimes", "colonization", "apartheid", etc. while referring to Palestinian terror as "heroic" and in need of international protection."
In 2001, Pierre Galand attended the UN anti-racist conference in Durban in his capacity as European Chairman of the Coordinating Committee for NGOs on the Question of Palestine (ECCP), a Brussels based association of NGOs cooperating with the UN Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. At the conference, he called for the reactivation a peoples' tribunal to judge Israeli crimes against the Palestinians, and announced that he had the support of the Rossel and Danièle Mitterrand (the widow of French President François Mitterrand) Foundations, and that Nobel Prize winners would be associated with the tribunal. He had Desmond Tutu in mind.
The peoples' tribunal has finally come into being seven years later in Brussels this weekend. But the sponsorship committee list falls short of Mr. Galand's grandiose expectations. There is no trace of any foundation or Nobel prize winner. No religious leaders, no scholars, no universities either. And no trace of his fellow secularists, free thinkers, humanists, rationalists, atheists either. The media have kept mum about the event.
Altough the pseudo-tribunal is a farce, it would be unwise not to denounce it. It is a dire warning of what Durban II is likely to turn into - another exercise in the demonisation of Israel, with some Europeans taking the leading role. It proves that a small group of single-minded individuals and NGOs (Amnesty International and HRW will, according to the programme, participate) with a anti-Israel agenda are capable of collecting substantial funds and resources to put together an event like the one taking place in Brussels.
For them, the only rogue state in the world is Israel. They are not intent on bringing the Sudanese government on trial for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or worse: genocide, committed in Darfur.
"Inside the Durban debacle", by Michael J. Jordan, Salon:
"During one street rally, they saw a placard that read "Hitler Should Have Finished the Job" and heard someone yell "Kill the Jews." Nearby, a man was reportedly spotted selling the most notorious and conspiratorial of anti-Semitic tracts, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
Inside the U.N. conference grounds and within its tents, the rhetoric and agitprop were also white hot. Fliers were found with Hitler's photo above the question: "What if I had won? There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed." A press conference held by the Jewish caucus was cut short by a rowdy group of Iranian women, one of whom screamed, "Six million dead and you're holding the world hostage!"
Israel's supporters, it should be noted, usually hold their own in the media and intellectual debate. But at the Durban conference, the Jewish side came armed with little more than position papers, books and other workshop materials, and was overmatched. Thrown on the defensive, they responded by quickly printing and handing out T-shirts of their own, one with a peace sign inside the Jewish Star of David under the slogan "Fight Racism, Not Jews" and a second with Martin Luther King Jr.'s quote: "When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews."
And certainly they had their high-profile defenders. When U.N. officials appeared ready to tolerate inflammatory anti-Israel language making its way into a final conference report, U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., the top Democrat in the U.S. delegation, said sharply, "What you have here is the paradox of an anti-racism conference that is itself racist." Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor sitting in Congress and a co-founder of its human rights caucus, blasted delegates from Western nations who he said were privately disgusted with the proceedings but refused to speak out."
Monday, 16 March 2009
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
Monday, 9 March 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
