Kedar - The Suffering of Africa - Sins of Europe - Guilt of Israel

Dr. Mordechai Kedar..
08 June '12..

Those Africans who enter Israel illegally in order to find work are a very small part of the general global problem of emigrants from Africa who are searching for a new land that will allow them to live, even with only a minimum income and standards of living, and the main thing that drives them is survival. Their poor condition, in Israel, in Europe, in North and South America and in Asia, raises the question: how did an entire continent, where a billion people live, about one fifth of the world population, arrive at such a low condition, and how, among the 61 states and entities that it comprises, not even one offers its citizens security, education, health and welfare at a reasonable level. How did it happen that a whole continent is torn by never-ending wars, mass murders costing millions of lives, and famines that still threaten the residents, most of whom want only to flee from it.

The one answer to all of these questions is: Europe, or more accurately, the greedy lust of the European peoples in previous centuries, which was reflected in colonization, and the way in which the Europeans related to the peoples of Africa when they ruled it and in the way that they left Africa and abandoned it to its suffering.

Puddington - The Wages of Durban

Arch Puddington
Commentary Magazine
November 2001

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-wages-of-durban/

In the wake of the horrific attacks on New York and Washington by fanatical Islamic terrorists, the world has all but forgotten the conference on racism sponsored by the United Nations in Durban, South Africa. But in the days just prior to the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) was very much in the news, and for reasons that are altogether relevant to the mass murder that took place on September 11.

While there are many reasons to deplore the WCAR proceedings, three dominant themes deserve particular attention in the light of subsequent events. First and foremost, Durban provided a platform for the expression of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatred. Although this was not the first UN venue to single out Israel for special attack, it was perhaps unique in the virulence of the language employed, and in its underlying assumption that Israel deserved not simply to be condemned but to be destroyed. A coalition led by regimes that persecute their own people—and in some cases harbor international terrorists—sought by formal declaration to delegitimize the Jewish state, demonize its people, and mobilize a global movement against its existence as a country. This coalition would itself have had little difficulty in justifying and even praising acts of terror against Israel.

A second theme was anti-Americanism. While the most abusive treatment was reserved for Israel, the United States was singled out for attack on a number of counts, most notably as a society that treats darker-skinned peoples with contempt and where new manifestations of racism are emerging everywhere. For most of those present at Durban, America was a country to be condemned, not admired—an attitude only strengthened by Washington’s decision to withdraw from the WCAR in solidarity with Israel.

Third, Durban represented a repudiation of liberal democracy. Although the anti-democratic bias was most vividly on display in the debate over the payment of reparations for slavery and colonialism, it was inherent in an agenda that highlighted the problems of the democratic world, where countries have adopted elaborate mechanisms to root out discrimination, and minimized or ignored the much more serious and in some cases lethal ethnic and racial crises that afflict non-Western states.

From Israel - Tense Time

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
18 September '11

http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/current-postings/2011/9/18/september-18-2011-tense-time.html

There are always tensions here. But this seems a time in which we're facing several troublesome issues at once.

Right now, the date on which PA President Mahmoud Abbas says he will submit a request to the UN is this Friday, September 23. Originally it had been anticipated that he would do so earlier.

His latest projection -- which, quite obviously, is subject to change without notice -- has him delivering a speech to the General Assembly and then submitting a letter requesting full membership in the UN to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, which would be turned over to the president of the Security Council.

~~~~~~~~~~

Keep in mind that:

1) If this path is followed it will take days of processing and there will be no immediate results on outcome.

2) The US has committed to vetoing this request.

Abbas is currently making noises directed at the US regarding how bad it would be to veto. In a speech in Ramallah yesterday, he said that a veto would "destroy" the two-state solution. This man is a world-class master with regard to shifting responsibility for his actions on to other (usually Israeli) shoulders.

3) The Security Council does not create states, but only considers applications of states that already exist. This whole PA gambit is thus more than a bit amorphous with regard to diplomatic legalities. I may have more to say about this when next I write. Or we may not know how this will play out until it plays out.

3) The PA/PLO has made it clear repeatedly that if a state is recognized by the UN, it will not affect "right of return."

That is, "refugees" in PA areas would still be considered just that -- they would not become citizens within the Palestinian state, and would not be issued passports, but would still be awaiting "return" to Israel.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be-citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1YIrv8ypo

(With thanks to Dave A. and ElderofZiyon)

The PA is saying that the "right" (which actually does not exist) pertains to GA resolution 194, while the founding of a state pertains to SC resolution 242 (which in actuality called for negotiations and never required Israel to pull back to the Green Line).

(Video) Neuer Tells UN Debate: "Durban III is a Fraud

UN Watch Briefing
Latest from the United Nations
Vol. 307
Sept. 18, 2011



U.N. Bars UN Watch From Monitoring Durban III "Anti-Racism" Meeting

In an unpredecented development, the United Nations has decided to block UN Watch from attending and monitoring this Thursday's Durban III "anti-racism" meeting. See full story below. This is the first time in history that UN Watch has been officially excluded from a UN proceeding. In response, UN Watch filed an urgent complaint with UN rights chief Navi Pillay, the leading figure in the Durban process, asking her to denounce this act of discrimination. While her office pledged to pass on the complaint to the General Assembly President, High Commissioner Pillay is so far refusing to speak out. Watch the video below to see what UN Watch intended to say at the Sept. 22 UN gathering.

=============================================


Uploaded by HumanRightsUN on Sep 14, 2011

http://www.ngosummit.org Human rights dissidents to gather for major summit in New York on September 21-22, 2011: "We Have A Dream: The Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution." Taking place next to UN Headquarters in New York at same time as opening of the UN General Assembly and the commemoration of the Durban conference on racism.

Bringing together human rights activists from countries with some of the most abysmal human rights records—including China, Syria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran—the conference will produce draft UN resolutions for world leaders to adopt on governments that commit genocide, torture, discrimination, and systematically violate civil, religious and political freedoms.

Mariane Pearl, an author and vocal advocate for the rights of women in conflict zones, and the widow of slain Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, will headline the summit's session on empowering women.

The stellar line-up of summit presenters also includes Yang Jianli, a senior Chinese human rights activist and veteran of the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising; Rebiya Kadeer, the voice of China's oppressed Uyghur minority; Jacqueline Kasha, a courageous defender of LGBT rights in Uganda; Grace Kwanjeh, a Zimbabwean women's rights activist tortured by the Mugabe regime; Ahed al Hendi, a Syrian writer jailed for opposing the Assad regime; and John Dau, a survivor of genocide in Sudan.

Prominent dissidents, former prisoners of conscience, and cyber-activists from Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Egypt, Vietnam and Burma will also participate. http://www.ngosummit.org

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Khaled Abu Toameh - The UN's Durban III Conference: An Arab View

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
13 September '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2415/un-durban-conference

Arab dictatorships and Muslim fundamentalists will get a morale boost next week when the United Nations hosts its "Anti-Racism" Durban III conference in New York. But it is not only Israelis and Jews who eventually pay the price for this type of incitement -- it is also the few remaining moderate Arabs and Muslims.

As in the past, the conference will serve as platform for all those who hate Israel and Jews and seek to destroy the Jewish state. The UN conference's anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages and rhetoric will once again be used by the enemies of peace and compromise in the Middle East to justify their violence against Israel and Jews.

The mob that attacked the Israeli embassy in Cairo last weekend will undoubtedly use the messages coming out of the conference to justify their crime.

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Hamas and Hizbullah proxies will say that the conference proves that their right when they for the elimination of Israel. By hosting speakers like Ahmadinejad, the UN is helping spread his message of hatred and anti-Semitism. Ahmadinejad and his allies are always happy to exploit such gatherings to promote their denial of the Holocaust and desire to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

This year's UN conference is being held at a time when anti-Israel sentiments, especially throughout the Arab and Islamic world, are on the rise. It also coincides with a "diplomatic intifada" that the Palestinian Authority is waging against Israel in the international arena.

Bayefsky - Anti-Israel Durban Declaration to be Reaffirmed

Anne Bayefsky
info@eyeontheun.org
09 September '11

On Thursday, Western negotiators at the U.N. caved in to the demands of envoys from Islamic states to renew a modern-day form of the decades-long U.N. smear campaign alleging that the Jewish state is racist. Diplomats agreed on a new “anti-racism” declaration that went public Friday at noon. The document is intended to be adopted by all the heads of state and government in attendance at the U.N. “Durban III” conference to be held in New York City on September 22. So far, nine democratic countries, including the United States, Israel, and Canada, have decided to boycott the event and will not agree to the racist “anti-racism” manifesto.

The final sticking point in negotiations, conducted at U.N. headquarters over the last two months, was whether the original Durban Declaration adopted in 2001 in Durban, South Africa, would be reaffirmed. Passed just three days before 9/11, with the enthusiastic participation of Yasser Arafat, the Durban Declaration grossly discriminates against Israel — the only one of 192 UN members charged with racism in the document.

On Thursday, Islamic states led by Benin, as well as South Africa and the rest of the bloc of developing states called the G-77 — which constitutes a majority of UN members — held firm to their demand to reaffirm the whole message of the 2001 declaration. Western opposition fell apart. The document therefore reads: “We heads of state and government … reaffirm our political commitment to the full and effective implementation of the Durban Declaration.”

The document also catapults the Durban Declaration and its racist-Israel libel into the center of the U.N.’s “anti-racism” agenda. It “reaffirms” — actually for the first time — that the Durban Declaration is “a comprehensive framework and solid foundation” for combating racism. It downgrades the relative status of the U.N. racism treaty, which has been on the books for 46 years; negotiators refused to repeat even the 2009 Durban II statement that the treaty was “the principal international instrument to prevent, combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” or to call for the treaty’s universal ratification. Non-parties to the U.N. racism treaty include the likes of Angola, Malaysia, North Korea, and Burma/Myanmar.

Kushner - From Israel: UN Issues

Arlene Kushner
Arlene from Israel
02 September '11





I want to concentrate today on the UN, and the up-coming Durban III. What's encouraging here is the enormous response against Durban III that is being mounted. While there is much ugliness in the world, there seems to be far less passivity with regard to it. This is a hopeful sign

~~~~~~~~~~

Eye on the UN, the organization headed by Anne Bayefsky, has put out a short new video regarding "Durban III and the Perils of Global Intolerance": http://www.durbanwatch.com/ On this same page you can find backgrounders regarding Durban I and II.

~~~~~~~~~~

The date for Durban III at the UN is September 22. At the same time, there will be a counter-conference sponsored by The Hudson Institute -- with which Bayefsky is associated -- and Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel.

What a line-up of speakers they will have, including: John Bolton, Mike Hukabee, Dore Gold, Ruth Wisse, Wafa Sultan, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Simon Deng.

There will be a live conference webcast and at the durbanwatch site above you can secure information for logging into that.

~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps even more important is "We Have a Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution.," sponsored by an international coalition of NGOs. This will be "a parallel summit to place urgent situations of discrimination and persecution on the international agenda, promote human rights and democracy, and give a voice to the voiceless."

The goal, quite simply, is to focus public attention on the genuine human rights atrocities taking place in the world, as counterpoint to the obscene and libelous UN charge that Israel is the greatest violator of human rights. At one and the same time it will put the lie to the Durban III charges and, as its PR indicates, "give a voice to the voiceless." It will call attention to genuine human suffering that is too often ignored.

The Summit will take place on September 21 and 22 on the UN Plaza across the street from the UN. And it will feature people such as a survivor of Tiananmen Square and president of Initiatives for China; one of the "lost boys of Sudan," as well as people connected to and fighting against human rights abuses in places such as Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan and Iran. There will be, for example, a spokesperson for the Uyghur people, a Chinese ethnic people that endures suffering at the hands of the Chinese government.

There will be a webcast of these proceedings as well, which you should be able to access at: NGOsummit.org.

(Video) Durban lll - Israel & UN Double-Standards

eyeontheun
18 August '11

The United Nations Charter promises that the organization's central principle is the equality of all men and women and of all nations large and small. The United Nations Durban Declaration and Durban conferences treat Israel differently than all other nations. The United Nations has violated that trust.



JOIN THE FRONT LINES AND OUR ON-LINE COUNTER-CONFERENCE

September 22, 2011, New York City

The Perils of Global Intolerance:
The United Nations and Durban III

A conference presented by The Hudson Institute and
Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust.

Go to www.DurbanWatch.com.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Baker - A Blast from the Past: The Upcoming Durban III Conference (September 2011)

Alan Baker
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Vol. 11, No. 13
15 August 2011



Click here for original link.

The 2001 Durban World Conference against Racism was abused by Muslim, Arab and other states and anti-Israel non-governmental organizations to single out Israel in what became an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate-fest, permanently tainting the name of the Durban conference. As such, the conference failed to deal with the genuine problems of racism.

The damage caused by the singling-out of Israel at the Durban conference laid the groundwork for a concerted campaign in the international community to delegitimize the State of Israel.

The UN and its High Commissioner for Human Rights have attempted to re-legitimize the Durban process through a Review Conference (Durban II) in Geneva in 2009, but the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist slanders were repeated at the opening session by the President of Iran, and several key states boycotted the conference. The conference outcome document reaffirmed the Durban I declaration, singling out Israel.

A further attempt to re-legitimize Durban will take the form of a ten-year anniversary commemoration of the Durban conference at the UN in New York on 22 September 2011.

This event will coincide with the Palestinian attempt to have the UN recognize and accept a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state, in violation of the peace negotiation process. This juncture of events confirms and endorses the inter-connection between the Durban process and the ongoing international campaign to delegitimize Israel.

Introduction

There is no doubt that the necessity to fight racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance is one of the major challenges of the organized international community. In fact, this has been a central and principal aim of the United Nations since its establishment, and is even enunciated in the first article of the UN Charter setting out the purposes of the organization as, inter alia, "promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."1 One might thus assume that this task would be taken seriously and handled by the organization with all due reverence and consideration.

However, one of the most regrettable, disappointing, and damaging phenomena of the first decade of the third millennium has been the utter failure of the international community in general, and the United Nations in particular, to deal in a genuine and sincere manner with the evils of racism.

Even more regrettable is the fact that the one attempt by the international community to deal with racism, at the 2001 Durban Conference, was allowed to be usurped, politicized, and manipulated into becoming a bitter, racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate-fest that left a permanent stain on any such attempts by the international community to deal with the substantive issue of racism.

But no less damaging was the endorsement given at the Durban event to a global campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel within the international community. This damage is immeasurable, and its effects continue to the present day.

Bayefsky - UN Negotiators in New York Produce New Durban III Outrages

Anne Bayefsky
Eye on the UN
For Immediate Release:
July 28, 2011



This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today on Fox News.


Member states of the U.N. General Assembly are busy hammering out how to slam Israel and restrict human rights like free speech at “Durban III” – the racist “anti-racism” event to be held in New York on Sept. 22.

With the recent pull-outs by the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands added to the previously declared boycotts by the United States, Canada and Israel, negotiations at U.N. Headquarters continued Thursday over how offensive the final declaration of Durban III can become without more countries following suit.

The Durban III conference will commemorate the 10th anniversary of the conference held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. That event produced the Durban Declaration, which accused just one country on earth of racism, namely Israel. No negotiations, therefore, can hide the fact that Durban III is a commemoration – in the words of the authorizing General Assembly resolution – of a conference and an outcome remembered most notably for its overt anti-Semitism.

Nevertheless, the U.N.’s idea is that since the General Assembly hall in September will be filled with heads of government already present for the Assembly’s annual opening, more than a hundred world leaders will embrace the Durban Declaration and its racist-Israel mantra for the first time. Durban I sported only a handful of such leaders – like Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro -- while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the only one to attend Durban II.

On the table Thursday was a draft of a “political declaration” to be adopted by the General Assembly at the end of the day on Sept. 22. Negotiations proved to be a toxic combination of U.N. members either pursuing a contorted cover-up strategy or preferring more open Israel-bashing.

The co-chairs from Cameroon and Monaco made the agenda painfully obvious. They insisted that the 2011 declaration will “not re-open previously agreed text” since their “mandate is clearly not to renegotiate the Durban Declaration.” On the contrary, Durban III will have the Durban Declaration “at its core.”

(Video) Trying to understand how the world's most important multinational forum lost the plot on racism, terrorism and the efforts to stop them

Frimet/Arnold Roth
This Ongoing War
13 July '11



http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/14-jul-11-trying-to-understand-how.html

This is a brief video, less than four minutes long. But it's well put together and it packs a message that ought to cause rational people to think (or re-think) their intuitive sense of support for the world's most important multinational forum. Something went very seriously wrong at the United Nations, starting in the mid-1970s. The starting point for re-channeling its efforts back to what its charter lays out comes with knowing what those seriously wrong things are. Worth passing along to people we know.



If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Wistrich: The myth of Zionist racism

Robert S. Wistrich
Israel Opinion/Ynet
12 June '11

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4081127,00.html

Op-ed: In past decade, no lie gained greater traction than charge that Israel is ‘apartheid state’

It is almost 10 years since the UN-sponsored World Conference against Racism in Durban, South Africa, inaugurated a new stage in the history of “anti-racist” anti-Semitism. The Durban gathering of August 2001, ostensibly devoted to commemorating the struggle against apartheid, was rapidly transformed by the assembled NGOs into a raucous hate-fest against Israel.

During the proceedings the Jewish State, to quote Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, found itself singled out as “a sort of modern-day geo-political anti-Christ.” A flood of anti-Semitic slanders mixed with savage criticism of Israel, Iranian-inspired conspiracy theories, leftist anti-Zionism and hecklers ranting at Jews under the banner of human rights, irrevocably poisoned the atmosphere.

One of the more scandalous and obscene flyers at Durban even bore a picture of Adolf Hitler with the pointed question: “What would have happened if I had won? The Good Things. There would have been no Israel and no Palestinian bloodshed. The rest is your guess.” The NGO Forum also made sure to insert deliberately relativizing references to genocides in general, holocausts (with a small “h”) and, above all, to highlight the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians, allegedly perpetrated by Israel. Needless to say, this abysmal spectacle did not deter the UN from making Durban the centerpiece for its future “anti-racism” agenda.

Under the circumstances, it was perhaps all too appropriate that the keynote speaker for Durban II in Geneva (held on April 20, 2009) was none other than the world’s leading Holocaust denier, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. By some macabre coincidence he spoke at the UN podium on Hitler’s 120th birthday, which also coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel. Brazenly abusing the misplaced honor he had been given, Ahmadinejad once again vilified Israel as a “totally racist state,” endlessly ranting on about the “Zionist racist perpetrators of genocide.”

For the Iranian leadership this is most certainly not a matter of mere rhetoric but a determined geo-political strategy. Hard-core Holocaust denial is an integral part of its policy to delegitimize and dismantle the Jewish State. It is also a thumb in the eye of those nations that helped in its establishment. Some of these more pro-Israel countries, led by Canada and the United States – followed by Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany and Poland – publicly refused to participate in the UN anti-racism charade. Canada and the US have already indicated that they will also be absent from the Durban III masquerade planned for this coming autumn.

In terms of de-legitimization, however, much of the damage has already been done. During the past decade probably no falsehood has gained greater traction than the big lie that Israel is an apartheid “racist state” – not only towards the Palestinians but in relation to the wider world. In retrospect, this canard can be seen as the greatest single triumph of Soviet propaganda in the mid-1970s, when the USSR and the Arab states masterminded the notorious UN Zionism=Racism resolution.

Cynical political warfare

Since then (and especially after Durban I), the charge has become solidly entrenched in many Western countries. Despite its obvious mendacity, it underlies the Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns against Israel on university campuses in the West and the accompanying “Israel Apartheid Week” events as well as many of the anti-Israel condemnations by NGOs and in the UN Human Rights Council.

The apartheid analogy and the myth of Zionist racism are classic examples of cynical political warfare aimed purely at stigmatizing or delegitimizing Israel out of existence. Such fabrications totally disregard the context and content of South African apartheid, based on an institutionalized discrimination anchored in a formidable array of strictly enforced racial laws.

From birth to death it was always skin color and statutory race classification that determined human and civic rights in white-controlled South Africa. The black majority (90% of the population) had no right to vote or to be elected; it could not freely choose its place of residence, work or occupation. Mixed marriages or even sexual relations across the race barrier were criminalized, there were separate benches in parks for whites and blacks, separate buses, hospitals, libraries, restaurants, as well as segregated places of entertainment.

Any person even casually acquainted with Israel’s vibrant democracy knows that there is not even the remotest comparison between its free and open society and the grim reality of South African apartheid. But then ideological delegitimization and slanderous misuse of the apartheid analogy is not about the “criticism” of Israel, let alone “learning the lessons of history” or achieving freedom for the Palestinians. The objective is not to help solve an intractable national conflict (made even more difficult by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism) but to demonize Israel as the embodiment of ultimate “racist evil” – an accusation designed to remove any moral grounds for its existence.

Those engaged in de-legitimization initiatives – whether Iran, the Palestinians, Arab states, left-wing militants or members of Western academic elites – are engaged in propaganda and politicide, not the pursuit of truth.

And while academics, activists and world leaders attempt to combat this evil, tenaciously pursuing the truth and trying to figure out if and how we can win the war against those who delegitimize Israel (as Canadian MP Cotler and his fellow panelists will later this month at the third Israeli President's Conference: Facing Tomorrow 2011 in Jerusalem,) I believe that the current success in defaming Israel is but a Pyrrhic victory. Like the repressive tyrannies and benighted theocracies in the Muslim Middle East, which are slowly crumbling before our eyes, their days are numbered. We will still be here after they are long gone.

Prof. Robert S. Wistrich is the director of The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (SICSA) and the author of A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The UN hatefest coming to New York

NGO Monitor
31 March '11

At the UN's 2001 Durban Conference, NGOs formulated a strategy of BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions), legal action ("lawfare"), and other attacks against Israel. Despite the exploitation of universal human rights values at that event and since, the UN has scheduled "Durban 3" for September 2011 in New York, to commemorate the ten-year anniversary of Durban (also the ten-year anniversary of 9/11).


The New York Post op-ed (see below) presents analysis of the damage caused by NGOs since Durban I, and NGO Monitor's successful initiative to prevent a repeat of the NGO Forum disaster at the April 2009 Durban II Conference in Geneva. The op-ed also outlines the dangers and benefits of holding a Durban event in New York

THE UN HATEFEST COMING TO NEW YORK

Jason Edelstein
March 29, 2011
New York Post

Will this September's UN anti-racism conference in New York be yet another anti-Semitic, anti-Israel hatefest -- or will it actually work to forward human rights?

Known as Durban III, the confab comes 10 years after the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa.

At Durban I, nearly 1,500 "nongovernmental organizations" -- NGOs, the term in UN-speak for activist groups of all kinds -- hijacked the language and values of human rights to turn the conference's NGO Forum into a prolonged Israel-bash, with huge dollops of anti-Semitism. The forum "declare[d] Israel as a racist, apartheid state," and "Israel's brand of apartheid" to be "a crime against humanity" and "call[ed] upon the international community to impose a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state."

Real international human-rights issues -- from the many African civil wars to the lack of women's and minority rights in large parts of Asia -- went largely ignored.

The NGO activists (including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International) left the conference with a "Durban strategy" -- coordinated plans to isolate and delegitimize Israel, using multiple international venues. More, they'd formed a strong and lasting network to do it.

In the years since, NGOs have methodically implemented their political war against Israel, questioning Israel's right to exist and invoking the rhetoric of "apartheid" at every turn. The strategy includes "lawfare" -- legal cases brought against Israeli officials in every conceivable forum -- as well as "BDS" campaigns, which promote boycotts of Israel, di vestment from Israel by foreign investors (especially such institutions as universities) and sanctions against the Jewish state for its supposed human-rights violations.

The groups work with institutions like the UN Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court to further isolate Israel. Typically, as the UN's embrace of the inflammatory and false Goldstone Report shows, most international bodies are willing to treat even wild NGO allegations as serious analysis.

The good news is that the 2009 Durban Review Conference, or Durban II, was not a repeat of Durban I. There was no official NGO Forum, and NGO events were mainly held in small rooms on the margins of the conference. Anti-Israel activists had to conduct their "Israel Review" the weekend before the official conference, at a venue far away from the UN complex in Geneva, Switzerland.

Most important, the virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic voices in Geneva were drowned out by a well-coordinated effort by Jewish groups from across the world. Activists on the ground held public rallies, participated in relevant sessions in the UN building and monitored NGO activities surrounding the conference.

Yet the "Durban process" continues. NGOs press the anti-Israel agenda at "mini-Durbans" -- UN-sponsored conferences and at sessions before the UN Human Rights Council -- and through lawfare campaigning.

New York City, the site of Durban III, is more accessible and visible than Geneva -- allowing radical activists, even those without official accreditation, to get media attention. Groups such as Adalah-NY, CodePink and Jewish Voices for Peace have already conducted BDS demonstrations in the New York area, and may exploit Durban III for further campaigns.

Happily, New York is also home to many pro-Israel organizations, capable of a strong and coordinated impact at the conference.

The most important step in avoiding a hatefest is for the UN to again forego an NGO Forum at Durban III. That raises the likelihood that real human-rights abuses will get the attention they deserve.

Durban III also is a chance for UN agencies to examine their own processes, and revamp their agendas and members as needed. If the United Nations addresses its own internal issues, NGOs and their funders will be marginalized.

The 10-year anniversary of Durban I should be marked with a conference that, in contrast to the earlier efforts, avoids the anti-Israel obsession and actually takes significant steps to end racism and human-rights abuses.

Jason Edelstein is communications director of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution that promotes account ability among NGOs that claim to protect human rights in the Middle East.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

How much antisemitism is too much?

Anne Bayefsky
January 16, 2011
info@eyeontheun.org

This article by Anne Bayefsky appears today in The Jerusalem Post.

Recent WikiLeaks cables reveal that diplomats at the United Nations are haunted by a thorny question: how much UN-driven antisemitism is too much? The original UN was built on the ashes of the Jewish people and owes its human rights foundations to the victims of the Holocaust. At today’s UN, we have now learned, diplomats hunker down near the General Assembly hall “listening outside with headphones on” trying to figure out the extent of the hate-speech that those on the inside should endure before walking out.

The particular subject of the WikiLeaks cable from US officials in Stockholm was a September 2009 Assembly speech of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Sweden held the EU’s rotating presidency, and it fell upon Swedish diplomats to decide when Ahmadinejad had crossed pre-arranged “red lines.” As it turned out, some EU members walked out of the speech, while Sweden stayed put. According to the cable, the Swedes were upset by the “embarrassing” “lack of EU coordination” – not by the bigotry broadcast over the UN global megaphone.

What had the Europeans confused would seem to be Jewish conspiracy theory 101. Ahmadinejad had used his UN platform to describe Jews as “a small minority [who] dominate the politics, economy and culture of major parts of the world by its complicated networks, and establish a new form of slavery…to attain its racist ambitions.” Yet this roused a mere eleven of the UN’s 192 members from their seats, including the United States. Israel had chosen not to attend.

Five months earlier in April 2009, Ahmadinejad had mounted another UN-provided stage in Geneva and began by denying the Holocaust, claiming that the "Zionist regime" had been created “under the pretext of Jewish sufferings.” At this “anti-racism” gathering (dubbed “Durban II”) he continued: “The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces.” This time UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon remained glued to their chairs. Nine states, including the United States and Israel, had decided to boycott beforehand, while the remaining EU states and a few others belatedly got up and left.

In September 2010 Ahmadinejad used his UN invitation to New York to suggest that 9/11 was an inside job – “segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack” for the sake of “the Zionist regime.” On this occasion seven countries, including the United States, headed for the doors. Israel had previously figured out it was not worth going.

Durban III Set for New York City in September 2011

Anne Bayefsky
The Weekly Standard
02 November '10

The United Nations is planning to hold “Durban III” in New York City in September 2011, marking the tenth anniversary of the 2001 Durban conference, and the non-governmental forum which preceded it, held in Durban, South Africa in 2001.

Durban I produced the infamous Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), which charges Israel with racism but names no other state in the world. Durban II, held in Geneva in April 2009, was headlined by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who saw the occasion as ideal for issuing another denial of the Holocaust and an endorsement of genocide against the Jewish state. Timing Durban III for the annual opening of the General Assembly is meant to guarantee the extensive involvement of presidents and prime ministers, most of whom eluded organizers of Durban I and II.

The U.N. will now be marking the 10th anniversary of Durban I at the same time and place as the 10th anniversary of September 11, 2001. Durban I, the platform for violent, pro-terrorist, and anti-Semitic rhetoric that included such speakers as Yasser Arafat and Fidel Castro, ended just three days before 9/11.

The intergovernmental working group charged with preparing next year’s commemoration session just wrapped up its first planning meeting in Geneva. It adopted a series of “conclusions and recommendations” and indicated that Durban III is intended to “reaffirm that the DDPA provides the most comprehensive UN framework for combating racism.” The U.N. General Assembly is now occupied with the delicate matter of finalizing “the modalities” of Durban III, and New York-based diplomats are hard at work negotiating the details.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The war on de-legitimization

Op-ed: We must name, shame hardcore anti-Israel activists who use façade of morality


Gerald Steinberg
Israel Opinion/Ynet
12 August '10
Posted before Shabbat

The political war aimed at delegitimizing Israel, and at preventing the IDF from acting to stop terror attacks, is now recognized as a major threat. These are not the sentiments of alarmists; this is the conclusion drawn by Eitan Haber, a close advisor to prime ministers, including Yitzhak Rabin (“IDF isn’t enough in face of global de-legitimization campaign faced by Israel.”)

Haber’s analysis only scratches the surface of the de-legitimization campaign waged against Israel. These efforts are not new; since the 2001 UN “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa – international NGOs and some within Israel have introduced into the public lexicon slogans referring to Israel as an “apartheid state” guilty of “war crimes” that does not have the right to exist.

The campaign is gaining strength, and as Haber notes the importance of mobilizing the Jewish people “to fight back against the ubiquitous de-legitimization process, against the indifference, and possibly also against the despair among us.”

Examples of NGO campaigns are, unfortunately, plentiful. The recent “Free Gaza” flotilla incident demonstrated the sophisticated use of the “humanitarian,” “peace” and “non-governmental” labels to cover a preplanned attack on IDF soldiers, resulting in injuries and deaths. Insani Yardim Vakfi (IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation) – a Turkish “charity” with close links to Hamas, jihadist groups, and the Turkish government – led the efforts in this instance.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

NGO “Apartheid State” Campaign: Deliberately Immoral or Intellectually Lazy?

NGO Monitor
22 March '10

-Labeling Israel an apartheid state is part of a larger strategy of political warfare that includes NGO boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaigns and “lawfare” cases against Israelis. It is the latest manifestation of the 1975 UN “Zionism is racism” resolution and the 2001 Durban Conference NGO Forum declaration.

-The only internationally recognized case of apartheid was in South Africa. Customary law is based therefore on those practices that were unique in apartheid South Africa. Since Israel does not share these practices, it cannot be defined as an apartheid state under international law.

-Many NGO claims and legal arguments equating Israel with apartheid South Africa originate with the PLO’s Negotiations Affairs Department and were developed for propaganda purposes.

-Many NGOs falsely portray the Arab-Israeli conflict as a dispute motivated by alleged Jewish race-hatred of Arabs, rather than one based on competing national and territorial claims.

-A significant portion of the organizations involved in apartheid based demonization receive substantial funds from the European Union, European governments, New Israel Fund (NIF), Ford Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute.

-NIF’s funding of such organizations is entirely inconsistent with a March 2010 statement by CEO Daniel Sokatch, that “apartheid” is “a historically inaccurate and inflammatory term that serves only to demonize Israel and alienate a majority of Jews around the world.”

(Read full report)
.

Analyzing the Durban II Conference

Interview with Gerald Steinberg

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg
Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
Published March '10
No. 96

From 20-24 April 2009, the Durban Review Conference took place in Geneva. It is also known as Durban II, a follow-up to the infamous "Durban I" World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in the late summer of 2001. At Durban I, an NGO Forum accepted what can be summed up as a declaration of war against Israel. Participating nongovernmental organizations adopted a strategy for the complete isolation of Israel through boycotts, divestment, and sanctions.

The Canadian Harper government was the first to announce in February 2008 that it would not participate in Durban II, followed nine months later by Israel. Other countries, including the United States, eventually followed suit in refusing to come to Geneva. The withdrawal accelerated when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced his intention to participate. Many funders that had provided large amounts of money for the Durban I NGO Forum, including Canada and the Ford Foundation, did not provide NGO support for 2009.

Although the nonparticipation of so many key countries made Durban II less of a diplomatic disaster for Israel than Durban I, it did not result in any erasure or renouncement of the anti-Israeli "Durban strategy" adopted at the 2001 NGO Forum.

Many UN-sponsored mini-Durbans promoting the indictment of Israel continue to take place, led by the same NGOs active in the Durban I hate-fest. In the dominant narrative, Israel is the world's worst violator of human rights and must be held accountable through investigations predetermined to find it guilty. Judge Richard Goldstone has become the patron saint of this "Durban process."

(Read full interview and analysis)
.

Israel Apartheid Week Comes to Town

Honest Reporting
Media Critique
03 March '10

The insidious analogy returns to college campuses as part of the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

The false analogy between apartheid South Africa and Israel - particularly since the UN's racist 2001 Durban Conference - has played a key role in the campaign to delegitimize Israel and threaten its existence. The strategy of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) is based on convincing the public that Israel is no more legitimate than the apartheid regime in South Africa, and can be removed with enough public pressure.

Now, this insidious delegitimization campaign has returned to university campuses around the world, including the US, UK and Canada, as part of Israel Apartheid Week.

As the Jerusalem Post states:

Problem is, if left unchallenged, proponents of the apartheid analogy are liable to stifle free speech and trample open debate on campuses by using intimidation and bullying tactics. They recently prevented Ambassador Michael Oren from finishing a speech at UC Irvine, and on the same day in Cambridge they interrupted Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, allegedly shouting in Arabic, "Slaughter the Jews." Meanwhile, Cambridge University’s Israel Society bowed to pressure from Muslim students to cancel a speech by historian Benny Morris.

(Read full critique)
.

Judicial jihad: Engaging a new battlefront

Shimon Samuels
Columns/JPost
14 December 09

On December 6, 2001, three months after the Durban hatefest, I attended the last meeting of its NGO Forum International Steering Committee in Geneva.

Though I had been successively elected and expelled, I now became privy to an eight-point plan attacking Israel as the last bastion of apartheid. It included educational, economic, cultural, diplomatic and legal campaigns to demonize, boycott, embargo and isolate the Jewish state.

Legal measures began with sporadic and - so far unsuccessful - attempts to arrest IDF reserve officers in countries of universal jurisprudence.

In 2005, I was charged with criminal defamation by a Franco-Palestinian charity, designated by the US as a terrorist organization. My sentence was one symbolic euro, which was politically too expensive. I won on appeal, and was taken to the French Supreme Court, where, this July, I was finally acquitted.

This long, agonizing and costly experience was emblematic of an epidemic of such suits designed to intimidate and silence pro-Jewish/Zionist activity. The charges against me were replicated against seven other targets - journalists, authors and a Christian Website. Parallel were the suits and countersuits relating to Muhammad al-Dura - the Palestinian child presented by French television as an IDF victim, in terms redolent of ritual murder.

Some denote such cases as "lawfare." Perhaps more appropriate would be "juridical jihad," due to the clearly Islamist context of the most litigious plaintiffs.

(Continue reading)
.