Mandating, funding, legislating antisemitism at the UN. Over The New Republic here: (of all places)
Another Durban Conference: A Political and Moral Disaster
The whole idea of Durban 2 is a nightmare come true. A conference against racism became almost wholly a conference against Zionism and the Jewish State. The Ford Foundation finally repented its financial support for the sewer which the project had become. Now there's an appropriation before the United Nations to appropriate money for a second conference which, if the activities of the U.N. Human Rights Council is any precedent, will be another jamboree of hatred towards Israel. Apparently U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Zalmay Khalilzad, is pressing the State Department for instructions to vote such an appropriation. There is little time to prevent such an enormity. Khalizad is a fool, as was proven by his tenure in Iraq.
He's an Arab and a Muslim (not a fool) and so he votes with the Islamic organization of countries.
He should not be rewarded by being able to call the shots on this matter. Here's a question for the Democratic candidates: do they think that bloated and biased assemblies such as the one held in Durban deserve duplication? If not why don't they stand up and say so? Let's hear from Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for whom this query should not put them between a rock and a hard place. And, if it does, God save the Democratic Party.
Imagine going from John Bolton to Zalmay Khalilzad. Sort of like going from Carter to Reagan (in reverse.)
When I attended the conference: Hijacking Human Rights: The Demonization of Israel by the United Nations one of the main concerns was the virulent jew hatred that emerged at the UN world conference against antisemitism at Durban.
Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations, Simon Wiesenthal Center, outlined the rampant antisemitism at Durban. Samuels said;
As the only Jew elected to the NGO Steering Committee of the UN World Conference Against Racism in 2001, I there witnessed the birth of the new antisemitism.
In the years since that cataclysm in Durban, the blueprint turned the traditional charge of "all that is Jewish is evil" on its head to "all that is evil is Jewish", and a claim that the Holocaust had empowered the Jew in exonerating his multitude of crimes - the greatest being "the Naqba" of Palestinian misfortune.
Shimon Samuels: Hitler called the Jews unza "our misfortune". Then it was "Ungluck". Now it is "Naqba". The prelude to the Holocaust was sounded by the order "Kaufen nicht bei Juden" - "Buy Not from Jews". Today it is "BDS"... Protocols of Durban has replaced the protocols of Zion. Launch to campaign Durban -it is a racism, limit its funding, take the initiatiave of cacus of integrity. Operation pushback."
In September 2001, just a few days before 9/11, the United Nations held a conference in Durban, ostensibly to combat racism and xenophobia. ‘Durban’ became a vehicle for hatred of Israel and of Europeans who oppose the Islamization of their continent. Now, the UN are preparing a follow-up conference in early 2009. Though both the United States and the European Union criticize the biased aims of ‘Durban 2’ the West will probably vote in favour of the conference’s budget this week.
The UN Human Rights Council (the UN commission with the Allah logo) has scheduled a second “global anti-racism and anti-xenophobia” conference for the Spring of 2009. The conference is part of what UN diplomats call, the “Global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.” The venue of the conference has yet to be decided. The official title is the “Durban Review Conference,” but the conference is generally referred to as ‘Durban 2.’ The UN’s Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) Bureau for ‘Durban 2’ is chaired by Libya. Other human rights luminaries on the Preparatory Bureau are Iran, Pakistan and Cuba.
Prof. Gerald Steinberg wrote in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post that Durban 2
provides a rare opportunity for the governments that actually care about human rights […] to reverse course, and demonstrate that the lessons have been learned. If they succeed, this will mark an important step in the restoration of the values embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But if they fail, the Declaration, and the foundation of an international moral code based on a single universal standard, may never recover.
Unfortunately, there are indications that the opportunity will be missed and that Durban 2 will become another hatefest targeted at Israel and at so-called “Islamophobes” in the West. This week (or next week at the latest) the UN members will approve the budget for Durban 2. Guess who is probably going to vote in favour of funding the new hatefest? The US and the EU.
This website has explained how the European Union, a club of 27 free and democratic (or more or less free and democratic) European countries, abuses the “combat against racism and xenophobia” as an alibi to restrict freedom of speech, thereby silencing Europeans who express concern about the Islamization of their countries.
At the UN, a club of 192 predominantly unfree and undemocratic countries, 57 of whom are also member states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the situation is even worse. This became very clear during the 2005-2006 crisis over the Danish cartoons but also at the Durban conference. Non-democratic and Muslim countries impose their views about “racism” and “xenophobia” on the West by redefining “racism” and “xenophobia” as opposition to Islam. In this context Israel is the world’s most racist state and people defending the traditional culture of Europe are “Islamophobes.”
Anne Bayefsky, the editor of Eye on the UN writes that one of the things the UN aims to do at the Durban 2 conference is create a new UN body to fight “global Islamophobia” because, as Egypt stated at a recent meeting of the Durban 2 Preparatory Bureau: The “aftermath” of 9/11
saw a new and dangerous phenomenon in incitement to racial and religious hatred [...] [T]he highly defamatory cartoons published by a Danish newspaper [...] deeply hurt over a billion Muslims around the world, and threatened social harmony and peace, both nationally and internationally.
Last November 28th the US voted against the UN resolution concerning Durban 2. Even the 27 EU countries considered the UN aims to be so blatant that they voted against the UN resolution. The EU objects to a number of decisions by the Durban 2 Preparatory Bureau, chaired by Libya, including the decision that the questionnaire which would solicit comments from all states about the extent to which they protect their own peoples from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, will be drafted by the Bureau. Bayefsky:
The knees of the EU got a little wobbly at this point in time and Belgium (“in the spirit of compromise”) said “how about ‘under the guidance of the Bureau’ instead of ‘under the supervision of the Bureau’”?
The final result? The questionnaire will be drafted under the supervision of the Bureau. And responses will be sent back to the UN Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) – so that PrepCom Bureau members Iran, Libya, Cuba and Pakistan will review how other states implement anti-racism measures.
There's more go.
"[T]he outcomes of the [World] conference [held in Durban in 2001] were deeply flawed and divisive. The resolution now before us endorses that flawed outcome and is therefore itself seriously problematic...Durban follow-up activities are duplicative...[W]e do not support the continuation of such duplicative work...[W]e do not believe that the Human Rights Council should act as a preparatory committee for the Durban Review Conference...[T]he Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide for more substantial programming...rather than put its valuable resources into more conferences." (eye on the UN)
Are these states now going to approve the costs of Durban II from the regular budget of the UN – a cost which rebounds directly onto the backs of their own taxpayers?
The United States should object to the funding of Durban II from the UN's regular budget. This means calling for the vote in the Fifth Committee on the financing of Durban II and voting against. The vote is expected to take place within the next 2-3 weeks. Though the outcome of the funding vote would mirror the vote on the follow-up resolution itself (119 for, 45 against, 6 abstentions), it would send a clear and consistent message about the pernicious nature of Durban, its aftermath and its reincarnation. It would also set the stage for a concerted effort to resist the hijacking of the anti-racism agenda of the UN by the least tolerant members of the human family.