“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.
Saturday, 20 November 2010
Friday, 19 November 2010
European blood libel and lie of the day
This serves to show that it is virtually impossible to turn the anti-Israel/Jewish trend in Europe and that Jews like George Sluizer play an important part in the demonization of Israel process in Europe. The media are only too eager to spread stories like these. Sluizer, until now unknown to the vast majority of Europeans, has become instantlly a famous man, a celebrity.
Source: Elder of Ziyon and Haaretz
"Dutch media this month published articles accusing Ariel Sharon of murdering Palestinian children in Lebanon. Former officials who worked with Sharon said the publications were false. The Israeli foreign ministry called the claim "a modern blood libel".
The claim first appeared in the Volkskrant, the third largest paper in the Netherlands, in an interview with the well-known Dutch-Jewish director George Sluizer. According to Sluizer, 78, he witnessed Sharon killing two Palestinian toddlers with a pistol in 1982 near the refugee camp Sabra-Shatilla while filming a documentary there.
"I met Sharon and saw him kill two children before my eyes," said Sluizer, who lives in Amsterdam. Sluizer repeated the accusation in an interview for Vrij Nederland, an intellectual magazine, published on November 13 ahead of a screening of his film at the prestigious International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam. "Sharon shot two children like you shoot rabbits, in front of my eyes," he said.
The children, according to Sluizer, "were toddlers, two or three years old. He shot them from a distance of 10 meters with a pistol that he carried. I was very close to him." Sluizer added he thought this happened in November, when Sharon was Israel’s minister of defense, but he was not sure of the month.
His account was published in a special Volkskrant supplement for the film festival, which opened on Wednesday. The festival featured Sluizer’s fourth and most recent film about Israel, in which he is filmed telling a Sharon effigy that he wished Sharon would have died at Auschwitz."
Source: Elder of Ziyon and Haaretz
"Dutch media this month published articles accusing Ariel Sharon of murdering Palestinian children in Lebanon. Former officials who worked with Sharon said the publications were false. The Israeli foreign ministry called the claim "a modern blood libel".
The claim first appeared in the Volkskrant, the third largest paper in the Netherlands, in an interview with the well-known Dutch-Jewish director George Sluizer. According to Sluizer, 78, he witnessed Sharon killing two Palestinian toddlers with a pistol in 1982 near the refugee camp Sabra-Shatilla while filming a documentary there.
"I met Sharon and saw him kill two children before my eyes," said Sluizer, who lives in Amsterdam. Sluizer repeated the accusation in an interview for Vrij Nederland, an intellectual magazine, published on November 13 ahead of a screening of his film at the prestigious International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam. "Sharon shot two children like you shoot rabbits, in front of my eyes," he said.
The children, according to Sluizer, "were toddlers, two or three years old. He shot them from a distance of 10 meters with a pistol that he carried. I was very close to him." Sluizer added he thought this happened in November, when Sharon was Israel’s minister of defense, but he was not sure of the month.
His account was published in a special Volkskrant supplement for the film festival, which opened on Wednesday. The festival featured Sluizer’s fourth and most recent film about Israel, in which he is filmed telling a Sharon effigy that he wished Sharon would have died at Auschwitz."
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Israel Bashing: A Multicultural Conference in Belgium Hijacked By Islamists
Source: Brussels Journal (A Multicultural Conference Hijacked By Islamists, by Luc Van Braekel)
During the last weekend of October, a conference in Antwerp got a lot of resonance in the Arab world. The same conference was virtually ignored in Belgium, even within the local Muslim community. "The place of Islam in the new Europe" was the title of the conference which was widely reported on Al Jazeera (see video below this article) and the Moroccan newspaper Le Matin. In Belgium, only Gazet van Antwerpen published a short article on the local pages in three of its six regional editions. Make no mistake: this was a conference to promote multiculturalism and mutual understanding between the Islamic world and Europe. The conference was organized by the Institute for Moroccan and Mediterranean Studies of the University of Antwerp, abbreviated as "IMaMs".
CHAOTIC
The conference was announced as a big event, but its course was chaotic. Jacques Attali was announced as the keynote speaker, but he didn't come. The program and the panelists were very different from what was announced in the invitation, and a complete schedule was distributed on paper only halfway through the conference. What should have been a conference on an academic level, turned out to be an event with very few high-level scholars and with very few references to scientific studies, statistics or serious references.
REFERENCE TO NAZI SCIENTIST
Already at the opening session, the first blunder was heard, even though most of the audience never noticed it. Speaker Muhammad Bensalah highlighted the contribution of Islam to European civilization, and suggested that few Western scholars fully recognized the Islamic contribution without covering it up. He named three: the American John Esposito, the German Sigrid Hunke and the Belgian George Sarton. Now, Sigrid Hunke was an employee of the scientific department of the SS under the Nazi regime, where she was researching racial psychology. In that position she came in contact with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who openly advocated the extermination of the Jews. In her book "Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland" ("Allah's sun over the Occident") she asserted that the roots of European civilization were not Christian, but are a mix of Islamic, pagan-Celtic and Germanic elements. She illustrates this argument with now discredited theories like the sea map of Piri Reis allegedly used by Columbus, and the fact that in German and Dutch one does not say "twenty three" but "three twenty" (Dreiundzwanzig, drieëntwintig), because in Arabic, one reads from right to left.
RANTING AGAINST ISRAEL, INDIVIDUALISM AND THE HEADSCARF BAN
During the panel discussions, more than once some members of the audience started lengthy invectives against Israel. The moderators did not intervene to stop or shorten these rantings. Antwerp alderman Robert Voorhamme intervened firmly, stating that it was improper to import the conflict in the Middle East into our countries and into this conference.
It may surprise some that a conference that had the ambition to enhance the mutual understanding between Islam and Europe had invited people like Yacob Mahi [he is fond of quoting Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and signed an appeal to have Hamas removed from the European list of terrorist organisations (Belgique: un autre professeur de religion islamique cite Garaudy et défend le Hamas)], who literally states that "liberalism is the murderer of human freedom". Or imam Yussef Ibrams of Geneva, a member of the European Council of the Fatwa, who claimed in 2004 that "stoning, although not necessary in Switzerland, may absolutely not be brought in disrepute".
During the last weekend of October, a conference in Antwerp got a lot of resonance in the Arab world. The same conference was virtually ignored in Belgium, even within the local Muslim community. "The place of Islam in the new Europe" was the title of the conference which was widely reported on Al Jazeera (see video below this article) and the Moroccan newspaper Le Matin. In Belgium, only Gazet van Antwerpen published a short article on the local pages in three of its six regional editions. Make no mistake: this was a conference to promote multiculturalism and mutual understanding between the Islamic world and Europe. The conference was organized by the Institute for Moroccan and Mediterranean Studies of the University of Antwerp, abbreviated as "IMaMs".
CHAOTIC
The conference was announced as a big event, but its course was chaotic. Jacques Attali was announced as the keynote speaker, but he didn't come. The program and the panelists were very different from what was announced in the invitation, and a complete schedule was distributed on paper only halfway through the conference. What should have been a conference on an academic level, turned out to be an event with very few high-level scholars and with very few references to scientific studies, statistics or serious references.
REFERENCE TO NAZI SCIENTIST
Already at the opening session, the first blunder was heard, even though most of the audience never noticed it. Speaker Muhammad Bensalah highlighted the contribution of Islam to European civilization, and suggested that few Western scholars fully recognized the Islamic contribution without covering it up. He named three: the American John Esposito, the German Sigrid Hunke and the Belgian George Sarton. Now, Sigrid Hunke was an employee of the scientific department of the SS under the Nazi regime, where she was researching racial psychology. In that position she came in contact with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who openly advocated the extermination of the Jews. In her book "Allahs Sonne über dem Abendland" ("Allah's sun over the Occident") she asserted that the roots of European civilization were not Christian, but are a mix of Islamic, pagan-Celtic and Germanic elements. She illustrates this argument with now discredited theories like the sea map of Piri Reis allegedly used by Columbus, and the fact that in German and Dutch one does not say "twenty three" but "three twenty" (Dreiundzwanzig, drieëntwintig), because in Arabic, one reads from right to left.
RANTING AGAINST ISRAEL, INDIVIDUALISM AND THE HEADSCARF BAN
During the panel discussions, more than once some members of the audience started lengthy invectives against Israel. The moderators did not intervene to stop or shorten these rantings. Antwerp alderman Robert Voorhamme intervened firmly, stating that it was improper to import the conflict in the Middle East into our countries and into this conference.
It may surprise some that a conference that had the ambition to enhance the mutual understanding between Islam and Europe had invited people like Yacob Mahi [he is fond of quoting Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and signed an appeal to have Hamas removed from the European list of terrorist organisations (Belgique: un autre professeur de religion islamique cite Garaudy et défend le Hamas)], who literally states that "liberalism is the murderer of human freedom". Or imam Yussef Ibrams of Geneva, a member of the European Council of the Fatwa, who claimed in 2004 that "stoning, although not necessary in Switzerland, may absolutely not be brought in disrepute".
Jewish group calls Paris exhibition on mutilated people in Gaza 'propaganda work'
Well, nobody is responsible: the City of Paris is not responsible and the Museum of Modern Art is not responsible. What about the museum's generous patrons Carmignac Management's responsibility ?
PARIS (EJP)---The umbrella group of French Jewish organizations, CRIF, denounced the inauguration of an exhibition about mutilated people in Gaza by German photojournalist Kai Wiedenhöfer at the Museum of Modern Art in Paris.
The photographer, who often works in the Middle East, is the winner of the Carmignac Gestion photojournalism award.
His exhibit, “Gaza 2010”, which runs until December 5, shows pictures taken in the aftermath of Israel’s Operation Cast Lead against Hamas in Gaza in early 2009.
In a statement, CRIF stressed that the photographer "is known for his violent anti-Israeli position." "He does not want simply to show victims of operations of war as there unfortunately are in all armed conflicts. He makes a propaganda work", the Jewish group said.
"The focus against Israel is a political militant act that the Museum of Modern Art, which is under the responsibility of the town of Paris, shouldn’t accept."
"We are surprised that the museum shelters an exhibition as political as this one because this is clearly not its vocation," Marc Knobel, a researcher at CRIF said, adding however that the group doesn’t have as a practice to denounce exhibitions.
Asked by Agence France Presse (AFP), Museum Director Fabrice Hergott explained that the exhibit "is not part of the museum’s programme. It takes place within the framework of a contract with Carmignac Management, the museum’s patron. We don’t intervene in the content," he said.
- Exhibition at Paris Museum of Modern Art: parallel between Nazi camp/Gaza Strip
- Berlin exhibition (Kai Wiedenhöfer) singles out Israel's security barrier
- Paris art museum promoting Israel-bashing propaganda (Elder of Ziyon)
'Ottawa Protocol' draws the line on anti-Semitism, by Norma Greenaway
Full text of the Ottawa Protocol HERE
Source: National Post
Stepped-up efforts within Canada and around the world are needed to combat rising anti-Semitism, says an international declaration designed to stamp out the "most enduring of all hatreds."
The declaration, known as the Ottawa Protocol, was released yesterday after a two-day meeting of parliamentarians and experts from about four dozen countries in Ottawa.
"We are alarmed by the explosion of anti-Semitism and hate on the Internet, a medium crucial for the promotion and protection of freedom of expression, freedom of information and the participation of a civil society," the declaration says.
Irwin Cotler, chairman of the international coalition and a noted human rights activist, told a news conference the protocol breaks new ground. For the first time, it provides detailed definitions of what constitutes anti-Semitism and puts in writing what the group sees as the distinction between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of the state of Israel, the Liberal MP said.
"Let it be clear: Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is wrong," the protocol says. "But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium -- let alone denying its right to exist or seeking is destruction -- is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest."
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
UNESCO is an international U.N. organization where Israel is singled out
"While the themes were within UNESCO's mandate for protection of cultural heritage, the singling out of Israel for criticism is not."
Source: American Thinker (Israel and UNESCO, by Véronique Chemla)
It has become quite a routine. For more than thirty years, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)'s Executive Board has adopted, by consensus during each of its two biannual governing body meetings, biased decisions singling out the State of Israel for criticism.
Several Arab or Muslim countries have regularly presented draft decisions that deal with safeguarding the Old City of Jerusalem and education and cultural institutions in the Arab-occupied territories.
While the themes were within UNESCO's mandate for protection of cultural heritage, the singling out of Israel for criticism is not.
In April 2010, five items were introduced by those states on the agenda at the 184th session of UNESCO's Executive Board.
Two items covered Jerusalem's Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate and the city's cultural heritage. Two others expressed their "concern about the harmful impact of the Separation Wall" on the "activities of [Palestinian] cultural and educational institutions" and of "the blockade of the Gaza Strip" on the reconstruction of Gaza. The fifth draft resolution urged "the Israeli authorities to remove" the "two Palestinian sites of al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs in al-Khalil/Hebron and the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem" from "its national heritage list." That last draft decision was sponsored by seven Arab countries and was a response to the Israeli government's February 2010 decision to include the Biblical matriarch's tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in its national heritage list. That inscription aimed at justifying the connection of the State of Israel to its land and at renovating both sites, but it was condemned by President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas and Hezb'allah leaders, and many Arab and Muslim countries, as well as the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference).
Source: American Thinker (Israel and UNESCO, by Véronique Chemla)
It has become quite a routine. For more than thirty years, UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)'s Executive Board has adopted, by consensus during each of its two biannual governing body meetings, biased decisions singling out the State of Israel for criticism.
Several Arab or Muslim countries have regularly presented draft decisions that deal with safeguarding the Old City of Jerusalem and education and cultural institutions in the Arab-occupied territories.
While the themes were within UNESCO's mandate for protection of cultural heritage, the singling out of Israel for criticism is not.
In April 2010, five items were introduced by those states on the agenda at the 184th session of UNESCO's Executive Board.
Two items covered Jerusalem's Ascent to the Mughrabi Gate and the city's cultural heritage. Two others expressed their "concern about the harmful impact of the Separation Wall" on the "activities of [Palestinian] cultural and educational institutions" and of "the blockade of the Gaza Strip" on the reconstruction of Gaza. The fifth draft resolution urged "the Israeli authorities to remove" the "two Palestinian sites of al-Haram al-Ibrahimi/Tomb of the Patriarchs in al-Khalil/Hebron and the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque/Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem" from "its national heritage list." That last draft decision was sponsored by seven Arab countries and was a response to the Israeli government's February 2010 decision to include the Biblical matriarch's tomb and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in its national heritage list. That inscription aimed at justifying the connection of the State of Israel to its land and at renovating both sites, but it was condemned by President Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas and Hezb'allah leaders, and many Arab and Muslim countries, as well as the OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference).
Monday, 15 November 2010
Jimmy Carter: Hamas wants an end to the violence, but not Israel
Swiss newspaper Le Temps has more on former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's views on Hamas and Israel. Translation of an excerpt :
"What do you say to Hamas leaders ? Do you trust Khaled Meshaal [a Hamas leader who is a refugee in Damascus] who is considered as a terrorist in your country?
Let's be reminded that he was not considered a terrorist until he won the elections in 2006. The United States insisted that elections be held, I was there.
When I meet with Hamas officials, they say clearly that they will accept any peace treaty negotiated between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas and which is to be approved by the Palestinian people through a referendum. Such a referendum is both a Hamas and a Fatah requirement. They also told us that they would not be opposed to an agreement based on the Arab Peace Initiative. I have been meeting Hamas leaders for many years. They have always stated that they would accept a truce [Carter confuses truce and peace] in the West Bank and in Gaza if Israel did the same. Israel has rejected this proposal because it does not want a truce in the West Bank. Hamas wants an end to the violence."
- Carter offers Jewish community ‘Al Het’
- Jimmy Carter to U.S. Jews: Forgive me for stigmatizing Israel
- Carter: Grandson’s race not reason enough to apologize ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
