President Barack Obama's decision to award Mary Robinson the Medal of Freedom Award justifiably caused controversy. Robinson was the High Commissioner for Human Rights who helped organize the UN's infamous 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban. NGOs like Amnesty International helped spearhead the Conference and hijacked the agenda to depict Israel as the world's most racist state and egregious human rights abuser. Their final declaration accused Israel of committing "war crimes" and "violations of international law" for anti-terror policies and also labeled Zionism a form of racism. Robinson's legacy will not be her Medal of Freedom, but the Durban Strategy, which lives on strong through various collaborators -- NGOs, UN committees, and international organizations.
Earlier this year, the UN hosted another Conference Against Racism, which resembled the original. And in July, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People met in Geneva -- it has been referred to as a "mini-Durban" -- to address the "Responsibility of the international community to uphold international humanitarian law to ensure the protection of civilians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in the wake of the war in Gaza."
Today, Amnesty and others NGOs work with UN committees, including the Human Rights Council (UNHRC), in the effort to de-legitimize Israel. In January of this year, the UNHRC convened its Ninth Special Session to address "the grave violations of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory including the recent aggression in the occupied Gaza Strip." Amnesty and Human Rights Watch, among others, stoked the flames by accusing Israel of "human rights abuses," and the UNHRC condemned Operation Cast Lead, saying it resulted "in massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people."
Amnesty also released a report in July disclosing the results of its "investigation" into the Israeli/Hamas conflict from last December and January. The report, titled "'Operation Cast Lead': Israel/Gaza: 22 Days of Death and Destruction," continues a predictable pattern of largely ignoring terrorism and human rights abusers, while accusing Israeli officials and soldiers of committing war crimes.
Amnesty seeks to portray itself as an independent, objective organization -- its website boasts that it is "Independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion." But reality tells a different story. Its latest 100-plus page report (pdf) -- a grotesquely misleading account of Operation Cast Lead -- reveals the organization's blatant bias. It is filled with blanket statements and unqualified military and legal conclusions, often without any attribution of sources, and relies primarily upon one-sided Palestinian "eyewitness" accounts after-the-fact. The report repeatedly accuses Israeli of deliberately targeting civilians, while at the same time acknowledging Israel's attempted to warn citizens in Gaza of impending military activity. Rather than praising Israel for its extraordinary efforts to save civilians lives, the report criticizes Israel for issuing too many warnings, saying, they "were too general and reached residents all over Gaza."
Amnesty frequently refers to its "delegates" who investigated Operation Cast Lead. However, it does not reveal who the delegates were, how many there were, or whether they had other affiliations. According to Bar Ilan University Professor Gerald Steinberg, who is also the executive director of the NGO watchdog, NGO Monitor, "After every battle, the 'researchers' come for a few days, collect unverifiable testimony from pre-defined victims (Palestinians, Lebanese, etc.), add some pseudo-technical analysis of weapons by a self-proclaimed 'military expert,' and embed the concoction in a bath of quotes from irrelevant legal documents."
Unfortunately, NGOs like Amnesty are treated seriously by international organizations and by much of the media. As the Amnesty report makes clear, their objective is to see Israeli officials prosecuted for war crimes either by an international forum or a country willing to exercise universal jurisdiction, and Amnesty is part of the cadre of organizations pressuring the International Criminal Court's prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, to investigate Operation Cast Lead and prosecute Israeli officials.
Amnesty International long ago betrayed its stated mission of protecting human rights by enabling and apologizing for terrorist organizations while demonizing the Middle East's freest democracy. As Amnesty ingratiates itself to international bodies that lend it credence and detest Israel, the rest of us should at least recognize the motives. Otherwise, we may watch a future President honor Amnesty for its work in promoting freedom and think it was well deserved.
« Dal Pakistan al Sudan, numerose Società islamiche sono infiltrate da un Razzismo ignobile e omicida. È ora d’abbandonare la nozione da medioevo di un’Inferiorità degli islamici non-arabi rispetto agli islamici arabi. I Paesi arabi e i Dirigenti delle Organizzazioni Non Governative arabe devono denunciare questa Dottrina, che ha condotto alla Discriminazione verso gli islamici di pelle scura nei Paesi con Governo arabo, tanto distanti fra loro come Dubai e il Darfur ».
Tarek Fatah è un Giornalista e Commentatore di Toronto molto conosciuto dai nostri lettori. È l’Autore di « Chasing a Mirage : The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State» (‘Inseguendo un Miraggio: la tragica Illusione di uno Stato islamico’).
***
Massacrati dai loro. Versione originale in inglese : Slaughtered by their own, di Tarek Fatah, National Post, 27 aprile 2009.
Adattamento francese di Jean-Marc Léger
Dal Pakistan al Sudan, numerose Società islamiche sono infiltrare da un Razzismo ignobile e omicida
Une tchadiana protegge suo figlio dopo essere stata obbligata a fuggire in occasione di un Attacco al suo villaggio da parte dei janjawid. (Marco Di Lauro, Getty Images) Il testo che segue è un estratto rivisto e corretto di un Discorso pronunciato la settimana passata alla Conferenza Durban 2, a Ginevra.
Mentre mi rivolgo a voi, sono profondamente deluso che la mia collega, Milly Nsekalije, sfuggita al Massacro dei tutsi in Rwanda nel 1994, sia stata impossibilitata a condividere la sua storia con voi tutti. Ragione: agli occhi di certi, è impossibile che lei sia stata vittima di Genocidio, poiché lei è una tutsi non al 100%.
Cosa pensare dello stato del Razzismo nel nostro Mondo dal momento che le stesse vittime di un Genocidio praticano l’esclusione le une delle altre sulla base di una pretesa Purezza di sangue maggiore e in base all’Origine etnica?
E c’è di peggio che l’esclusione dall’Avvenimento del giorno: il fatto che questa esclusione abbia avuto luogo nel quadro di una Conferenza avente per scopo di combattere il Razzismo. Come si vede, abbiamo sovvertito la nozione di Razzismo. Il Razzismo è più di una divisione fra bianchi e neri, è pure un cancro che pervade le Relazioni fra gente di colore – delle persone che condividono spesso la stessa Religione ma che hanno dei colori di pelle differenti, più o meno bruni o neri. Questo Razzismo interno, che divora dall’intero i popoli del mondo in via di Sviluppo in Asia e in Africa, è troppo spesso scartato dalle Discussioni sul Razzismo.
Questo pomeriggio, vorrei attirare un po’ l’attenzione su due Genocidi, uno che ha avuto luogo nel 1970/’71, in quello che è ora il Bangladesh, e l’altro che continua nel momento stesso in cui parlo nella regione del Darfur, in Sudan. In questi due casi, la radice del problema si situa presso un Gruppo di islamici che si percepiscono come razzialmente superiori alle loro vittime, comunque loro stesse islamiche. In questi due casi, la Dottrina della Superiorità razziale e la pratica del Razzismo istituzionale, non sono mai state messe in discussione, nemmeno dopo che le orribili conseguenze di questo Razzismo sono state viste da tutti.
Nel 1970, il Paese dove sono nato, il Pakistan, era diviso in due: una parte orientale, Oggi conosciuta sotto il nome di Bangladesh, e una parte occidentale, che è sopravvissuta a una Guerra ulteriore con l’India, che ha dato vita al Pakistan odierno.
Il Pakistan orientale era abitato dai bengalesi, una popolazione a pelle scura che costituiva la Maggioranza, che era messa sotto il Dominio di una Minoranza più chiara, venuta da quello che era il Pakistan occidentale. Nel corso dei primi 25 anni di Storia del Paese, la descrizione razzista dei bengalesi a pelle scura, come Esseri inferiori e incapaci, è divenuta un Dogma, mai rimesso in causa presso la Minoranza dominante. La Cultura dei bengalesi di pelle scura era descritta come non-islamica e influenzata dall’Hinduismo. Ci si prendeva gioco della loro Musica, della loro Cucina, del loro Abbigliamento, e la loro Lingua era proibita, ciò che ha condotto a numerose Proteste e a dei morti nel 1952.
Nel 1970, dopo aver sofferto 25 anni sotto la Dominazione del Pakistan occidentale, la popolazione del Pakistan orientale ha votato per un Partito installato nella sua Regione, e ha ottenuto una netta Maggioranza nel Parlamento nazionale del Paese. Ma poiché la visione razzista che considerava i bengalesi come incapaci di dirigere il Paese, o come traditori della Minoranza a pelle chiara del Pakistan occidentale, è stata avviato un Intervento militare, che ha dato luogo a numerosi Massacri su un periodo di 10 mesi.
Il Massacro dei bengalesi da parte dell’Esercito del Pakistan occidentale è finito solo con l’Intervento dell’India che aveva vinto le Forze armate pakistane, ma centinaia d’Intellettuali, Professori, Poeti, Autori e Pittori bengalesi erano già stati fucilati e massacrati. In totale, 1 milione di islamici erano stati uccisi da altri islamici in una frenesia d’Odio contraria agli Insegnamenti dell’Islam [vedi nota 1.1.] e del Profeta Mohammad [vedi nota 1.1.], di cui l’Autorità religiosa è stata invocata dall’Esercito pakistano.
Si sarebbe potuto sperare che questo Genocidio servisse da messa in guardia. Ma la triste constatazione è che il Razzismo è persistito dappertutto nel mondo islamico nel corso degli anni successivi. Ciò nonostante, tutto il Mondo lo nega, e non soltanto diversi Governi e Nazioni islamici, ma pure numerose Organizzazioni Non Governative e numerosi Gruppi della Società civile.
In Sudan, le Milizie di janjawid e il Governo arabo di Khartum hanno provocato la messa a morte di 500 mila islamici del Darfur, il cui solo sbaglio è d’essere neri e dunque considerati come inferiori dalle Classi dirigenti del Paese.
Il cattivo trattamento dei neri islamici da parte di chi si sente superiore in ragione della loro pelle più chiara, si ritrova lungo tutto il corso della Storia. Solo in Medio Oriente ci si può permettere di dire a un nero « Ya Abdi », che vuol dire « Tu, schiavo ».
Solo la Lega araba poteva scegliere di sostenere il Presidente del Sudan, un uomo incolpato dalla Corte Penale Internazionale per la sua Campagna omicida in Darfur. È ora d’abbondonare la nozione da Medioevo di un’Inferiorità degli islamici non-arabi rispetto agli islamici arabi. I Paesi arabi e i Dirigenti delle ONG arabe devono denunciare questa Dottrina che conduce alla Discriminazione contro gli islamici a pelle scura nei Paesi a Governo arabo, tanto lontani fra loro come Dubai e il Darfur.
Se siamo incapaci d’autorizzare ad una donna di parlare qui, perché è di sangue misto, allora tutto quello che posso dire è che, per riprendere le parole di Robert Frost: ‘La strada è ancora lunga prima di poterci riposare’.
Vedere anche :
Égypte - Moubarak solidaire du président soudanais génocidaire. Il veut bloquer le mandat d’arrêt de la CPI contre El-Bechir pour crimes contre l’humanité au Darfour (‘Egitto – Moubrak solidale con il Presidente genocidale. Vuole bloccare il Mandato d’arresto della CPI contro AlBashir per Crimini contro l’umanità in Darfur’) Soudan - Esclavage et nettoyage ethnique au Darfour (‘Sudan – Schiavismo e Pulizia etnica in Darfur’)
Dubaï, la nouvelle Mecque de l’esclavage (‘Dubai, la nuova Mecca dello Schiavismo’)
The Durban Review Conference held by the United Nations in Geneva last month featured peace offerings to radical Islam. Specifically, it provided a platform for the ignorant blustering of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and for an unsuccessful campaign by Saudi Arabia to criminalize critical expression about religion. Although Ahmadinejad framed his denunciations as castigation of all the world’s ruling elite, his favored target was Israel. And while the Saudi campaign against “defamation of prophets” is phrased as a defense of all the monotheistic religions, it is clear the effort, which will doubtless be ongoing, is intended to suppress discussion of extremism and other problematical aspects of contemporary Islam.
The Geneva meeting also enabled the dictatorships of Libya and Cuba, along with that of Iran, to usurp presumptive responsibility for the global defense of human rights. Some might leap to the assumption that the UN, and especially its Western European members, take such a position out of weakness in the face of an expansive and aggressive Islam. But UN pusillanimity when facing tyrannical arrogance is nothing new and did not begin with Islamic issues, notwithstanding the powerful influence in the world body of the Arab and other Muslim energy states.
The UN in Geneva has faithfully maintained the syndrome observed in its predecessor, the League of Nations; both were created to secure peace, rather than freedom. This reflects a dissonance between Europe, which historically favored peace over freedom, and America, which has supported freedom over peace. The American-European contradiction over freedom and peace has remained an unchanging paradigm, reflected in the failure of the League of Nations through appeasement of the fascist dictators, and the many and various misadventures of the UN.
In the name of peace, rather than the freedom of an elected liberal government, the League of Nations imposed a naval embargo on the Spanish Republic, contributing to its defeat in that country’s civil war. A desire for peace caused the French to surrender to the Germans. Love of peace drove the Dutch to provide the largest number of foreign volunteers to the Waffen-SS and hand over to Hitler’s minions the biggest national percentage of Western European Jews to die in the Holocaust. For the same reasons, Stalin was allowed to occupy half of Europe and granted three seats in the UN. As described in Geneva last month by my journalistic colleague, Khaled Abu Toameh, the UN and the European leaders of the so-called “international community,” by financing the corrupt Palestinian Authority, imposed a “peace agreement” on Israelis and Arabs that has failed to secure freedom for either nation.
But the evils of the UN in the Israeli-Arab chapter of Middle East history are old news. Everybody has heard of “war crimes” - but “peace crimes” can be more devastating, and more permanent. The UN has refused to act on Tibet, denying any assistance to a people demanding freedom from Chinese imperialism. During the Bosnian war of 1992-95, the Europeans and the UN reproduced exactly their attitudes toward the American and Spanish civil wars - they succeeded, in the interest of peace, in continuing the partition of Bosnia-Hercegovina and maintaining a mafia state, the so-called “Republika Srpska.” More ...
Slaughtered by their own: from Pakistan to Sudan, many Muslim societies are suffused with poisonous, murderous racism Tarek Fatah, National Post - Tuesday, April 28, 2009
The following is an edited excerpt of a speech delivered last week at the Durban Review Conference (Durban II) in Geneva, Switzerland. As I speak to you, I am deeply disappointed that my colleague Milly Nsekalije, a survivor of the 1994 massacre of Rwandan Tutsis, could not share her story with all of you. The reason: In the eyes of some, she cannot have been a victim of the genocide since she is not 100% Tutsi. What does it say about the state of racism in our world when the victims of a genocide practise exclusion on the basis of the so-called purity of blood lines and ethnicity? Worse than her exclusion from to-day's event is the fact that it has happened at a conference meant to combat racism. As this shows, we have turned the concept of racism upside down. Racism operates not just as a black/ white divide, but also as a cancer that affects relations between people of colour -- people who often share the same religion, but have different shades of brown or black skin. This internalized racism, which devours the people of the developing world in Asia and Africa from within, is too often left out of the discussion of racism. This afternoon, I would like to shed some light on two genocides -- one happened in 1970-71 in what is now Bangladesh; and the other that continues as I speak in the Darfur region of Sudan. In both instances, the root of the problem lay with one group of Muslims feeling they were racially superior to their victims, who also happened to be Muslim. In both cases, the doctrine of racial superiority and the practice of institutional racism went unchallenged, even after the horrible consequences of such racism were evident and for all to see. In 1970, my country of birth, Pakistan, was divided in two: an eastern part that is today known as Bangladesh and the western rump, which survived a subsequent war with India as the state we now know as Pakistan. East Pakistan was inhabited by the darker-skinned Bengali people who happened to be the majority community of Pakistan, but found themselves ruled by a lighter-skinned minority from what was known as West Pakistan. In the first 25 years of the country's history, the racist depiction of the darker-skinned Bengalis as an inferior and incapable people became the unquestioned dogma among the ruling minority. The darker-skinned Bengalis' culture was portrayed as un-Islamic and influenced by Hinduism. Their music, cuisine and attire were mocked, and their language was banned, leading to widespread protests and deaths in 1952. In 1970, after suffering under the minority rule of West Pakistan for 25 years, the people of East Pakistan voted to elect a party based in their region, and gained a clear majority in the country's national parliament. However, the racist view that Bengali people were incapable of ruling the country, or that they were traitors to the fair-skinned minority of West Pakistan, led to a military intervention and widespread massacres over a 10-month period. The killing of the Bengali people by the West Pakistan army stopped only when India intervened and defeated the Pakistan Armed Forces, but not before hundreds of Bengali intellectuals, professors, poets, authors, musicians and painters were rounded up and massacred.
All told, one million Muslims were murdered by fellow Muslims in an orgy of hate that defied the teachings of Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, whose religious authority was being invoked by the Pakistan army. One would have hoped that this genocide would have served as a cautionary tale. But the sad fact is that racism in the Islamic world has remained ubiquitous in the years that followed. Yet there is near universal denial about it, not just among the governments of Muslim nations, but also among many NGOs and civil society groups. In Sudan, the Arab janjaweed militia and the Arab government in Khartoum have caused the murder of 500,000 Darfuri Muslims whose only fault is that they are black and thus considered inferior to the ruling classes of that country. The mistreatment of black Muslims by those who feel they are superior because of their lighter skin colour has gone on throughout history. Only in the Middle East can one get away with addressing a black man as Ya Abdi, which translates as "Oh you slave." Only the Arab League would choose to embrace Sudan's President, a man charged by the International Criminal Court for his murderous campaign in Darfur. It is time that the medieval belief in the inferiority of non-Arab Muslims to Arab Muslims is laid to rest. Arab countries and leaders of Arab NGOs must denounce this doctrine, which has led to discrimination against darker-skinned Muslims by Arab governments in countries as far apart as Dubai and Darfur. If we cannot allow a woman to speak here because she is of mixed blood, then all I can say is that in the words of Robert Frost, we have miles to go before we sleep. - Tarek Fatah is the author of the recent book Chasing Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State.
Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Last week I came face to face with evil, as I stood just a few feet away from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We were both staying in the same hotel in Geneva. He was there to be the opening speaker at Durban II, a review and reprise of Durban I, the United Nations sponsored conference on racism that had turned into a racist hate fest against the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
I was there - along with Elie Wiesel, Irwin Cotler and others who have devoted their lives to combating bigotry - to try to prevent a recurrence of Durban I. I first set eyes on Ahmadinejad when he walked into the hotel and waved in the general direction of where my wife and I were standing. We looked back contemptuously as my wife let out an audible hiss. He was about to be welcomed to Geneva by the Swiss President who made a special visit to the hotel in order to greet a man who denies the Holocaust while threatening another one, this time with nuclear weapons. When the Swiss President was widely criticized for his warm and uncritical embrace of one of the worlds most evil and dangerous tyrants, he offered two justifications. First, ... More »
Shouldn't the UN be promoting human rights instead of racism as the organization's integrity takes a pounding?
The United Nations enjoys what is known as the "halo effect", whereby, because of its supposed humanitarian focus and promotion of universal values, it is insulated from scrutiny and is regarded as above reproach by the media, which often holds international bodies such as the UN to be a reference and a guiding moral light.
HonestReporting has regularly attempted to redress the balance, focusing on some of the long list of discriminatory actions by the UN against Israel and highlighting shortcomings within the international organization that the media failed to cover.
Sept. 2001: The first Durban anti-racist conference that descended into the most hate-filled festival of anti-Semitism since the end of WW2.
July 2004: The UN's International Court of Justice rules against Israel's security barrier, failing to even mention the Palestinian terrorism that prompted its construction in the first place.
Oct. 2004: Ignored by the media, the head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in Gaza admits that Hamas members are on his payroll.
June 2006: The new UN Human Rights Council is inaugurated. It quickly focuses on singling Israel out for condemnation while ignoring the worst cases of human rights abuses around the world.
Nov. 2006: "Special Raporteur on Palestine to the UN Human Rights Council" John Dugard writes that Israel "has many of the worst characteristics of apartheid."
Jan. 2009: UN staff in Gaza accuse Israel of shelling a UN school, killing 43 civilians. The story is later proven to be false and John Ging, UNRWA's operations director in Gaza is forced to admit that the mortar shells landed outside of the school and that nobody inside was killed. The UN's incorrect public pronouncements however, were responsible for letting the story turn into another anti-Israel libel.
In October 2008, HonestReporting updated you on the preparations for the Durban Review Conference currently taking place in Geneva, Switzerland. Led by a committee consisting of human rights violators such as Libya, Iran and Cuba, the writing was already on the wall for Durban 2.
But is the "halo effect" starting to dissipate? The UN's aura of high morality took a beating as Durban 2 gave a platform to Iran's President Ahmadinejad. As the Dallas Morning News mused:
After all, giving the Holocaust-denying fruitcake Ahmadinejad a platform to lecture the world about racism is like inviting Bernie Madoff to headline a global conference on business ethics.
While those countries that staged a walk-out during Ahmadinejad's vitriol are to be commended, many media outlets, particularly outside of the US and Canada, which decided to boycott the conference in its totality, have failed to grasp the significance of the final conference communique, which has been signed earlier than expected on Tuesday instead of the end of the week to avoid further controversies.
While there have been improvements in the communique, as now written, it would affirm the conclusions of the last one, implicitly still singling out Israel.
The United Nations conference can never have credibility, or value, if it is used to attack one country — Israel — especially when so many other countries have truly abysmal human rights records, including China, Sudan and Iran.
In stark contrast to the UN's tarnished integrity, The Australian noted that Australia's quest for a temporary seat on the Security Council could be damaged by its boycott of Durban 2. However, in stark contrast to the UN's tarnished integrity, the paper concluded:
Before Durban II, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said participants would "be judged harshly" if the conference failed. So they will be. Some nations, rightly, walked out as the Iranian President spoke. Whatever the cost of our non-participation in terms of votes for the Security Council, Australia was right to have no part of it.
Predictably, although there was almost wall-to-wall condemnation of Ahmadinejad, some media outlets expressed regret that his appearance had perhaps vindicated Israel's concerns. The Guardian wrote:
It makes whatever desire there is within the UN to investigate allegations of Israeli war crimes in Gaza that much harder to realise, as the UN as a whole is tainted by the Iranian leader's presence at one conference.
Other UK papers, such as The Times and Daily Telegraph admonished the British government for attending Durban 2 even before Ahmadinejad's outburst. (See HonestReporting UK for more details.)
Sadly, as Gerald Steinberg in the Wall Street Journal points out:
Once again, the obsessive focus on the Jewish state meant that the real problems of racism and genocide were largely ignored at this U.N. conference. Only outside the official U.N. antiracism conference, at well-attended "counterconferences" organized by NGOs such as U.N. Watch, did the real victims of racism and mass murder get the attention they deserved.
Only at those counterconferences could one witness moving presentations by victims of Iranian oppression, survivors of the Rwandan genocide and the continuing slaughter in Darfur.
Welcome to the masquerade where gross human rights violators lecture human rights champions.
By Jamie Weinstein
GENEVA – "For months we said that this conference is a circus, this conference is a masquerade," President of the French Union of Jewish Students Raphael Haddad told me at the UN Durban II conference against racism in Geneva, Switzerland on Monday. "When you see that there is someone who is racist with xenophobe, with anti-Semite, with negationist, with homophobe, and he is speaking at a conference against racism, it just means that this conference is a masquerade."
The someone Haddad was referring to was petite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who had just given a bigoted speech attacking Israel as "the most cruel and repressive racist regime." For good measure, Ahmadinejad excoriated the West for the entire world’s problems (both currently and in history) and for propping up that wicked Zionist regime. Unsurprisingly, he didn’t find time during his 40-minute speech to make any comments about his own country’s brutal treatment of gays and people of the Baha’i faith, among others. Read more ...
IRANIAN leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has unleashed international condemnation of his speech to the UN anti-racism conference, with Israeli President Shimon Peres likening him to Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin.
And despite a walkout during the speech by 23 EU delegates, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "the world sounds a weak voice against those who advocate erasing Israel".
Mr Ahmadinejad defied UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who had urged the Iranian President before he took to the podium not to use his address on the opening day of the conference to attack Israel.
Mr Ban said the speech had been a manipulation of the forum and "I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite".
"It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian President."
Mr Ahmadinejad told the conference in Geneva, dubbed "Durban II", that Israel was "the most cruel and repressive racist regime". In a reference to the Holocaust, which he has described as a "myth", Mr Ahmadinejad spoke of "the pretext of Jewish suffering".
While some delegates walked out, others shouted interjections and some applauded him.
Mr Ahmadinejad was taken aback when one demonstrator, a French Jewish student dressed as a clown, threw an object towards him, but he continued after calling the man "ignorant".
"Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," he said. "They sent migrants from Europe, the US and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine.
"The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses religious sentiments to hide their hatred."
The speech coincided with Holocaust Remembrance Day. In Israel, Mr Netanyahu told those who gathered at Jerusalem's Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial for a service broadcast nationally: "We will not allow the Holocaust deniers to carry out another Holocaust against the Jewish people. This is the supreme duty of the state of Israel. This is my supreme duty as Prime Minister of Israel."
Mr Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize-winner, said earlier that "among those who collaborated with the Nazis, and those who stood by and let the Holocaust happen, there are those who criticise the one state that rose to grant refuge to Holocaust survivors, the one state that will prevent another Holocaust.
"It is hard to fathom why despots such as Hitler the Nazi, Stalin the Bolshevik and Ahmadinejad the Persian chose the Jews as the main target for their hatred, their madness and their violence.
"Perhaps they targeted the Jewish people because of its spiritual power - a nation poor in material possessions, but rich in values - for he who is infected with megalomania fears the power of the spirit."
British Foreign Secretary David Milliband condemned the Ahmadinejad speech as "inflammatory and utterly unacceptable", but defended Britain's decision to participate in the conference.
United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon has criticised Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over a speech attacking Israel's "totally racist government" at a UN anti-racism meeting.
Mr Ban said Mr Ahmadinejad had ignored his plea beforehand not to make such comments.
"I deplore the use of this platform by the Iranian President to accuse, divide and even incite. This is the opposite of what this conference seeks to achieve," he said.
Mr Ban met Mr Ahmadinejad before the Iranian president was due to speak, to remind him that the UN General Assembly had "adopted the resolutions to revoke the equation of Zionism with racism and to reaffirm the historical facts of the Holocaust", he said.
"It is deeply regrettable that my plea to look to the future of unity was not heeded by the Iranian President."
When addressing a UN conference against racism, Mr Ahmadinejad criticised the creation of a "totally racist government in occupied Palestine" in 1948, calling it "the most cruel and racist regime".
His remarks prompted 23 European Union delegations to walk out of the conference room in protest.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay joined the condemnation saying she "utterly" deplored Mr Ahmadinejad's speech, describing him as "somebody who traditionally makes obnoxious statements".
"I condemn the use of a UN forum for political grandstanding. I find this totally objectionable," she added, reiterating that it clearly defied the UN's position by equating Zionism with racism.
"The best riposte for this type of event is to reply and correct, not to withdraw and boycott the conference," she added.
Mr Ban described the event as a "very troubling experience for me as a Secretary General".
"I have not experienced this kind of disruptive proceedings of the assembly conference by any one member state. It was a totally unacceptable situation," he said.
EU states are split on whether to follow a US-Australian boycott of a controversial UN conference on racism in Geneva, where Iran's president is expected to launch a verbal onslaught on Israel.
Germany became the latest country to announce it would not be attending the five-day Durban Review Conference, joining Australia, Canada, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands and the US.
But it did hold out the possibility of joining the event later in the week.
France, on the other hand, will attend, said a source close to President Nicolas Sarkozy's office.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Geneva Sunday, one of the few heads of state attending.
Mr Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and questioned the Holocaust as a “myth”, is to address the gathering later today.
Earlier yesterday, Mr Ahmadinejad, who is seeking re-election in June, was quoted by Iran's state broadcaster as saying “the Zionist ideology and regime are the flag bearers of racism”.
Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Yossi Levy denounced the event as a “tragic farce.”
The Geneva meeting is meant to take stock of progress in fighting racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance since the controversial World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, eight years ago.
But Mr Levy said: “Officially it is aimed at denouncing racism, but it has invited a Holocaust denier who has called for the destruction of Israel.”
Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said they could not be sure the conference would be used “as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views.”
US President Barack Obama said anti-Israeli language that was “oftentimes completely hypocritical and counterproductive” in the draft final communique had been the red line for his administration.
European Union governments were divided over whether or not to attend.
Belgium called for countries to attend after the Netherlands vowed to stay away because it feared the event would be abused “for political ends and attacks on the West.”
Britain, while expressing reservations, said it still intended to attend.
And a source close to Mr Sarkozy's office said: “France will go to Geneva... in order to articulate its standpoint on human rights issues.”
But Italy has confirmed its withdrawal.
The Paris-based European Jewish Congress kept up the pressure, calling on all EU states to boycott the event. Mr Ahmadinejad's presence meant the United Nations had “put the fox in charge of the hen house,” said EJC president Moshe Kantor.
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, an international Jewish human rights group, specifically called on Germany to pull out.
Germany will be staying away _ at least at first.
Their concern was that the conference would be “hijacked for other interests, as was the case with the previous one in 2001,” said Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Germany would be “a very attentive observer” when the conference got under way, he said, and he did not rule out their “returning to active participation a little later.”
Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz met Mr Ahmadinejad in Geneva late yesterday, his office said and raised the issue of jailed US-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi.
Switzerland has been representing US consular interests in Iran since Tehran and Washington broke off diplomatic relations in 1980.
Ms Saberi was sentenced by an Iranian revolutionary court to eight years in jail on charges of spying for the US during a closed-door trial, in a verdict unveiled at the weekend.
The meeting took place despite Israel's attempts to talk Mr Merz out of it.
Monday, as well as being the anniversary of Adolf Hitler's birth, also marks the start of Holocaust commemoration events, including a ceremony in Geneva attended by leading Jewish figures including Nobel peace laureate Elie Wiesel.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, said she was “shocked and deeply disappointed” by Washington's decision to stay away.
Campaigners Human Rights Watch said the boycotting states were “turning their backs” on victims of racism.
The Australian Government has decided not to attend a United Nations anti-racism conference in Geneva this week.
The Durban Review Conference is supposed to work towards reducing racism, xenophobia and discrimination.
But it has been mired in controversy since the 2001 meeting saw Israel and the US walk out over anti-Semitic comments made by some delegates.
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says he has decided not to go to the conference because he is concerned it will again be used to air offensive views.
"Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the review conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views," he said in a statement.
"Of additional concern are the suggestions of some delegations in the Durban process to limit the universal right to free speech."
Canada, Israel, Italy and the United States have already indicated they will not participate.
The anti-racism conference's success is also thrown in doubt after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced he would attend, sparking renewed fears the meeting could end in acrimony like the 2001 conference.
Mr Ahmadinejad, who has stirred outrage by repeatedly calling the Holocaust a "myth" and with anti-Israel comments, is the only prominent head of state so far scheduled to attend the conference.
Some believe that, as was the case at the last conference, talks could be dominated by the debate over Israel's policies in the Middle East.
"Unfortunately, it now seems certain these remaining concerns will not be addressed in the document to be adopted by the conference next week," the US State Department earlier said in a statement.
"Therefore, with regret, the United States will not join the review conference."
Negotiators in Geneva say Western and most Muslim states had agreed on a declaration for the UN anti-racism conference that ironed out the most controversial issues relating to religious discrimination, Israel and the Middle East.
On Monday, April 20, the United Nations will convene Durban II, a conference which purports to encourage efforts to end the scourge of racism that has driven much of the history of mankind.
Like everything that emanates from that disgusting international organization, it has no intention of living up to its Declaration on Human Rights. If it did, it is unlikely that Iran’s Mamoud Ahmadinejad would receive a warm welcome, nor that Iran would have been the vice-chair of the preparatory committee led by Libya’s representative.
When Ahmadinejad spoke at the UN General Assembly last September, he said: “The dignity, integrity and rights of the European and American people are being played with by a small, but deceitful number of people called Zionists. Although they are a miniscule minority, they have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the U.S. in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner.”
For Ahmadinejad, all of the Arab nations of the Middle East, and a large number of European nations, everything wrong with the world is conveniently explained by blaming the Jews. Durban I, held in South Africa, was such a hate-fest of anti-Semitism that the U.S. representatives withdrew and refused to participate.
Under the Obama administration, some of our diplomats tentatively attended planning sessions of Durban II despite knowing that it was going to be a repeat of Durban I. In doing so they signaled a degree of legitimacy for this most vile conclave. The Obama administration has decided to renew its membership in the UN Human Rights Council, something the Bush administration refused to do.
The previous UN Human Rights Commission was so vile that it had to be “reformed” into the present Council, but its membership includes the African and Asian groups, neither of which is famous for anything other than repression, corruption, and racism.
Member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference hold a majority in each of these groups, giving it the balance of power. Neither the U.S. vote, nor that of its “Western European and Others” group play any role in ameliorating the abject racism of the Council.
Durban II intends to criminalize any “defamation of Islam” based on a Pakistani proposal that only mentions Islam by name and ignores the other religions of the world such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, and, of course, Judaism.
Islam regards all other faiths as “infidels” or unbelievers and the Koran explicitly says they should be subjugated and that their adherents can be killed, especially if they are Jews. It is a crime in Islamic nations to speak ill of Islam and the punishment is death. Converting to another religion will get you killed as well.
In a statement to the April 17 meeting of the preparatory committee held in Geneva, Switzerland, Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN, said, “The eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating anti-Semitism, you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hatemongering on a global scale.”
When it convenes on April 20th, the birth date of Adolph Hitler in 1889, his spirit will dominate the proceedings of Durban II. The good news is that no U.S. diplomats will attend. One hopes other nations whose people suffered and died as the result of his genocidal hatred will not attend either.
Durban II is yet another example of the Islamic jihad, its centuries old war on all other faiths. Those that deny its existence will continue to suffer its consequences.
THE United States will boycott next week's United Nations conference on racism in Geneva because of "objectionable" language in the meeting's final document, the U.S. State Department said today.
"It now seems certain these remaining concerns will not be addressed in the document to be adopted by the conference next week. Therefore, with regret, the United States will not join the review conference," said State Department spokesman Robert Wood.
The United Nations organised the forum to help heal the wounds from its last such forum, in Durban, South Africa.
The United States and Israel walked out of that 2001 conference when Arab states sought to define Zionism as racist.
THE Holocaust remains the sole issue blocking agreement on the final declaration of a UN conference on racism, diplomats said.
Negotiators in Geneva are working against the clock to finalise a fresh declaration, with urgency added by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's stated intention to attend the proceedings, which start on Monday.
"There is just one lingering point, the question of the Holocaust. All the others are settled," a Western diplomat said yesterday after talks between ambassadors to prepare for the five-day Durban Review Conference.
Iran wants a reference to past injustices to be linked to a paragraph calling for the Holocaust - in which Nazi Germany killed six million European Jews during World War II - never to be forgotten, said an Iranian diplomat involved in the negotiations. But European diplomats dismissed that suggestion as "unacceptable", as they succeeded in rejecting two other thorny issues - the notion of a direct link between foreign occupation and racism, and the stereotyping of religions.
Both references - regarded by European UN member nations as "red lines" that would determine their presence at the conference - were deemed too explicit towards Israel and the defamation of religious faiths.
In the revised draft, "foreign occupation" was shifted to another part of the declaration where it would no longer pose a problem, while the reference about stereotyping would be about individuals, not religions, a diplomat said.
The Durban Review Conference will review progress and assess the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action, adopted in the South African city in 2001.
That declaration aimed to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, but the US and Israel walked out over a push to link Zionism with racism.
Thirteen days to go, and the draft declaration for ‘Durban 2’ – the vicious anti-Israel hate-fest being held under the auspices of the satirically named UN Human Rights Council on April 20, which I wrote about here, here, here, here, and here – still ‘reaffirms’ the 2001 Durban Declaration which singles out Israel alone for libellous vilification as a racist state – thus attacking it for the very crime of which it is not only wholly innocent but is actually the victim. This was one of the supposed sticking points which the EU, America and other so-called civilised nations said would be enough to stop them participating in Durban 2. But it’s still there and guess what – the EU, according to Anne Bayefsky, isn’t objecting and the US still hasn’t decided whether or not it will go to Geneva after all.
The very fact that any decent country or organisation has had anything to do with this wholly disreputable meeting is itself disgraceful. Supposedly going along with it in order to sanitise the language ‘otherwise we will withdraw’, all they have achieved is some minor cosmetic adjustments – and yet they haven’t walked out. Here’s the disgusting game that’s being played:
The OIC countries are locked in a struggle with EU states over the ability to stifle free speech (such as ‘defaming’ Islam) in the name of protecting religion. The Russian move helps the OIC nations by letting them use the antisemitism clause as a bargaining chip, to be played in exchange for the EU’s allowing free-speech restrictions. In a related issue, the Danish are unhappy with the mention of something the U.N. invented called ‘anti-Arabism.’ That phrase has been inserted in the paragraph about discrimination in the form of Islamophobia, Christianophobia and anti-semitism. But the rest of the EU has told the Danes to get lost, on the grounds that if the EU proposes deleting anti-Arabism, the OIC will insist on deleting antisemitism. As EU officials explain to observers, ‘We want to show restraint.’
Otherwise known as agreeing to an equivalence between truth and lies, the post-moral EU’s stock -in-trade. But the draft declaration remains what it was always going to be – a means of reactivating the Durban Declaration, and with it the smearing and delegitimisation of Israel: the Jew of the world which is being lined up for slaughter, with the west acting as mute accomplice.
A bipartisan group of seven House members is expressing its support for the Obama administration's decision to not attend the Durban II conference later this month in a letter to the president. The group includes the two chairmen of the Congressional Task Force Against Anti-Semitism, Reps. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), as well as Democrats Henry Waxman (Calif.), Shelley Berkley (Nev.), Alcee Hastings (Fla.) and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) and Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
"We applaud you for making it clear that the United States will not participate in a conference that undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda that questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state," writes the group of House members. The full letter is after the jump:
Dear President Obama,
We are writing in support of your administration’s decision to not attend the upcoming Durban Review Conference, which is currently scheduled to take place in Geneva this month.
In 1997, the UN General Assembly authorized the inaugural World Conference Against Racism, seeking to review best practices in eliminating racial discrimination and promoting consciousness of the global struggle against racial intolerance. When the Conference was held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, it was intended to mark an important recognition of the historic wounds caused by the transatlantic slave trade, oppression, and the ongoing racism and discrimination that are a consequence. Regrettably, the noble agenda of the Conference was overshadowed and diminished by a conference document and rhetoric that sought to single out Israel for criticism, and brand Israel a racist state, and by blatant displays of anti-Semitism and hatred for Jews in the Conference’s NGO Forum.
The Preparatory Committee for the 2009 Conference, led by Libya and Iran, has met repeatedly since 2007. At the instigation of the Pakistan-led Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Egypt/Algeria/Libya-led Arab League, and the Cuba-led Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the draft documents resulted in a distorted anti-Israel agenda that once again threatened to eclipse a much needed spotlight on racism, slavery and xenophobia.
While the United States made a sincere effort to restore the Durban Review Conference to its stated aim of assessing country commitments to combat racism, American delegates to a recent Preparatory Committee meeting saw that the situation was not salvageable. Even the latest revised draft outcome documents support restrictions on freedom of expression and reaffirm the principles of the 2001 Durban Conference, thereby implicitly endorsing anti-Israel bias. This is unacceptable and distracts from the many human rights violations that are being perpetrated around the world. We applaud you for making it clear that the United States will not participate in a conference that undermines freedom of expression and is tainted by an anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda that questions the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.
The world is looking to our country for leadership on many issues, and we thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to working with you to effect change and assert U.S. leadership and engagement in the global fight against racism and intolerance.
Sincerely,
RON KLEIN ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN ALCEE HASTINGS MIKE PENCE HENRY WAXMAN ELIOT ENGEL SHELLEY BERKLEY
The U.N. betrays human rights, and Israel, yet again
By Anne Bayefsky
Under the growing threat of a boycott by the United States and European countries, negotiators planning the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference made a new move in Geneva today. They released a modified version of a draft declaration that is expected to be adopted at the April melée. The draft jettisons much of the extra baggage Islamic states had piled on throughout the 10-month drafting process (for the sole purpose of "compromising" at the end). The improvements, however, do not meet the minimal conditions that the Obama administration delineated for U.S. participation. It is time to end the equivocation and get out.
Durban II represents a global showdown on the ideological battlefield between Democrats and anti-Democrats, between tolerance and intolerance. For years, the worst abusers of human rights have commandeered U.N. vehicles to trample rights and freedoms. Given the close relationship between spewing hatred and reaping violence--which the first Durban Declaration adopted on Sept. 8, 2001, made abundantly clear--the stakes are high.
Two weeks ago, the Obama administration set out four conditions for U.S. participation in Durban II. The new version of the Durban II declaration must be: "shorter," "not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration," "not single out any one country or conflict" and "not embrace the troubling concept of "defamation of religion." On some of these counts, the document makes substantial changes. It is somewhat shorter, removes grotesque allegations like calling Israel an apartheid state and deletes the words "defamation of religions."
But most important, it refuses to disavow the 2001 Declaration. On the contrary, it "Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism ... in 2001." That declaration says Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism--with Israel the only U.N. state found guilty of racism. And though today's draft divides provisions into the negotiable and non-negotiable, it announces that reaffirming Durban I is text which does not "remain to be negotiated."
This "new and improved" document, therefore, breaches President Obama's key conditions. It "reaffirms in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration." In so doing, it does not satisfy the demand that no country or conflict be singled out. Unsurprisingly, behind the scenes, Palestinian negotiators in Geneva are expressing satisfaction with today's result.
For Americans, to reaffirm the Durban Declaration is to affirm precisely what our government rejected on Sept. 4, 2001, when the United States--led by Congressman and Holocaust survivor Tom Lantos--walked out from Durban I in disgust.
The new draft is a textbook example of diplomatic double-talk. Diplomats often couch objectionable outcomes in superficially unobjectionable language, using a tool that lawyers call "incorporation by reference." Don't repeat the offensive words in the new document; just include them by referring to another document where they can be found--and which most people won't bother to read.
In plain language, here is exactly what it means to reaffirm the DDPA and its claim that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism.
For one, reaffirming the Durban document will set the priorities of the U.N. human rights system. As U.N. High Commissioner Navi Pillay--who is also the Secretary-General of Durban II--proclaimed earlier this month: "The focus on victims is the cornerstone of OHCHR's [Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights] work. The office pays particular attention to the protection of the groups of victims identified in the DDPA." Among them, of course, the alleged victims of the diabolical Israeli state.
Second, Durban I went forth and multiplied. The DDPA spawned: the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the DDPA, the Independent Eminent Experts Group, the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards and the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference and its working groups. In addition, U.N. High Commissioner Pillay has promised: "I will take the lead in encouraging mainstreaming of the implementation of the DDPA in the work of all relevant United Nations entities." In this case, mainstreaming is a U.N. euphemism for ensuring the cancer spreads to all parts of the body politic.
Driving the Durban committee dealing with "complementary standards" is the game plan of Islamic U.N. member states. They argue that existing standards on racial discrimination and related intolerance--which they ignore in practice--have normative gaps. What kind of gaps? Insufficient attention to the defamation of religions--Islam in particular.
There has been some push-back from other states on the concept of "defamation of religion," since Islamic governments would be both judge and jury on what counts as defamation. So this latest version of the Durban II declaration focuses on "incitement to hatred of religious communities." It "calls upon states ... to declare illegal and prohibit by law all organizations which ... attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form ..." It calls for more U.N. "workshops" on "the prohibition of incitement with a view to remedy any possible substantive or implementation gaps." It also insists that "any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination ... shall be prohibited by law ... and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression."
The United States has formal legal reservations to U.N. treaties that attempt to impose fewer limits on free speech than Durban II. Those reservations insist upon the primacy of stronger American constitutional protections. Signing on to anything looking like this Durban II declaration would therefore be inconsistent with American law.
Tuesday's development sent diplomats in Geneva scurrying off in different directions. The Netherlands decided to play hardball in the defense of democracy. The Dutch took the U.S. conditions seriously and publicly disseminated a complete alternative text two pages long in stark contrast to the U.N.'s 17-page draft. The Dutch draft is direct; it highlights in plain language that "freedom of expression is a cornerstone of our fight against racism;" it includes protection for discrimination against sexual orientation; and it does not reaffirm Durban I.
Some members of the EU were not pleased. The French and the Germans are insisting the European Union act with one voice and are intent on dragging the Dutch back into the fold. The Italians have gone silent after announcing last week they were going to boycott, apparently succumbing to demands for European unity. American state officials are busy drafting alternative texts behind the scenes despite the pretense of non-participation. NGOs are pressuring the Obama administration not to leave for any reason. The Australians have been apparently struck dumb until President Obama tells them what he'll do. The Palestinians are threatening to make the draft a lot worse if "reaffirming the Durban I Declaration" is removed. The secretary-general of the Conference Navi Pillay--a native of Durban who promised the mayor to rescue the city's good name--is helping Islamic states fight the forces that are serious about combating racism.
As for human rights? What does that have to do with anything? This is the U.N.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and editor of www.EYEontheUN.org.
Note: majority of users who have posting privileges on MASH blog are not MASH members.
Comments are slightly moderated. MASH does not necessarily endorse every opinion posted on this blog.
But is the "halo effect" starting to dissipate? The UN's aura of high morality took a beating as Durban 2 gave a platform to Iran's President Ahmadinejad. As the 
Posts
