It’s not surprising - especially when you recall that Canada announced its decision to pull out back in January - but Israel has finally confirmed that it will not participate in the UN’s Durban II anti-racism conference in 2009.
Israel’s foreign minister made the announcement during an address Wednesday to the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities of North America.
The Durban Review Conference scheduled for Geneva in 2009 is a follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance held in Durban in September 2001. The Durban I conference degenerated into a forum attacking Israel and called Zionism a form of racism.
“During recent months, we expressed the hope that the language of hatred will not repeat itself; we declared that we will not agree to the singling out of Israel, and we will object to incitement and condemnation of Israel,” Livni said. “Despite our efforts and those of friendly countries, for whose position we are grateful, the conference appears to be heading once again towards becoming an anti-Israeli tribunal, which has nothing to do with fighting racism.
“In view of this situation, Israel will not participate and will not legitimize the Review Conference, which will be used as a platform for further anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic activity. We call upon the international community not to participate in a conference which seeks to legitimize hatred and extremism under the banner of the ‘fight against racism.’ “
Attention will now to turn to the incoming Obama Administration’s position on whether to attend - or not.
I think Israel is making a mistake. Israel should go and make arguments. It should persuade diplomats. It should persuade bystanders. It should hold press conferences. It should build an international diplomatic coalition against anti-Zionism.
Boycotting Durban II is the ‘timid Jew’ approach.
Israel should go to Geneva and fight for its rights. It has strong arguments if it is able and willing to use them.
I understand Israel and the USA didn’t turn up to the last Preparatory Conference for the WCAR anyway. Their failure to attend is one of the reasons that the working declaration is so bad now.
The Israeli government has never been very good at fighting a propaganda war. They only recently started to take such efforts seriously. Previously, it was felt that since Israel was both strong enough to defend itself on the battlefield as well right legally propaganda was futile.
I was, therefore, afraid that Israel would attend a conference that was stacked against it as it did in Durban 1.
It’s all very well to say in the abstract that Israel should go there and make the argument against anti-Zionism.
However, when many of the organizers and NGO’s participants have already decided that Zionism is “an evil” it would be self defeating of Israelis to show up at a kangaroo court.
Yes, make the case loudly and forcefully, but not at Durban 2. Not showing up will send a strong message that the anti-Racism conference is actually an antisemitic conference.
To show up would have legitimated a racist and antisemitic gathering.
Another glaring example of the failure of the international community to truly enforce a universal standard for human rights.
Israel stepping aside may seem problematic to some, but with limited resources, and a hijacked system that continues to target Israel, it must focus its resources elsewhere … especially to confronting the growing problem of Iran.
To indulge a barely exaggerated analogy, suggesting Israel attend Durban II in order to forward arguments would be similar to suggesting mayors and criminal justice officials attend meetings with members of organized criminal syndicates in order to forward arguments favorable to upholding the law.
Given what occurred at Durban I, given the uses the UNRWA and UNHRC are put to and given systemic and deeply embedded corruptions at the U.N. in general (Bayefsky’s and others’ reports) that analogy is, arguably, no exaggeration at all.
Red lines Israel did not want crossed at the Durban conference final statement (2001):
l. No isolation of Israel - Jerusalem will not accept Israel being singled out as the only country specifically mentioned in the resolution.
2. No partial condemnation - Israel will also not agree to a “a partial condemnation,” such as eliminating the reference to Israeli “apartheid” while leaving a Zionism equals racism clause. “We will not accept a compromise built on our backs”.
3. No to hate language - Israel will not accept a resolution that uses forms of Holocaust denial or other terminology that are euphemisms for anti-Semitism.
“Europeans seek new formula in Durban”, Haaretz, by Yair Sheleg (5/9/2001)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=71143
Matthias Küntzel in the Weekly Standard, excerpting the opening graph:
“It is a topsy-turvy world: At the United Nations–an organization born out of the struggle against Nazi Germany and intended to embody the lessons of the Holocaust–a head of state openly spouts anti-Semitic propaganda in an address before the General Assembly. Granted, he takes the trouble to denounce “Zionists” and avoid the word “Jew,” but this dodge is transparent to any student of the Nazis. His speech is greeted with acclaim, and neither the U.N. secretary general nor any Western head of government bothers to object. The media are mostly silent.”
Iow - and this is not much of an exaggeration either, to help grasp the systemic and deeply embedded corruption at the U.N. - imagine Adolf himself in the same forum, the U.N., “an organization born out of the struggle against Nazi Germany and intended to embody the lessons of the Holocaust,” and being applauded.
David Hirsh writes above “Boycotting Durban II is the ‘timid Jew’ approach.”
I could not disagree more. Israel diplomats need to pick their issues. They do not have infinite resources, far from it. “Building an international diplomatic coalition against anti-Zionism” is just not feasible in the UN arena when so many countries are ranged against Israel.
You can argue that it would have made more of a news story to pull out during Durban2 rather than 5 months ahead. But there is just no point in expending time and resources in a ‘no hope’ debate. You’ve got to be realistic.
Hirsch writes,’I think Israel is making a mistake. Israel should go and make arguments. It should persuade diplomats. It should persuade bystanders. It should hold press conferences. It should build an international diplomatic coalition against anti-Zionism.’
Wouldn’t it be better to stop the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinians and obey UN resolutions by allowing them to return to their homes?
resistor “Wouldn’t it be better to stop the oppression and dispossession of the Palestinians and obey UN resolutions by allowing them to return to their homes?”
It would be better for whom, anonymous “resistor?”
Why would it better to create another country with an Arab majority leading to the destruction of the only Jewish State I the world?
In any case, minorities don’t do very well in Arab and Muslim majority countries. Ask the Christian in Lebanon or Iraq? Ask the Copts in Egypt?
Besides, U.N. resolution does not specify that Israel has to take in all the Arab refugees who had made war on the Jews in 1947 and 1948.
Yes Israel should end the oppression of the Palestinians. But that is only tangentially relevant to the antisemitism which erupted at Durban and to the antisemitism which is nurtured by the politics of antizionism.
“Yes Israel should end the oppression of the Palestinians.”
Wiser words were never spoken. The question is how.
This statement reminds me of a story I once read about a nineteenth century British rag that used to publish sensational novels in weekly serialized instalments. The story was written from one week to the next and only the author knew how he was going to resolve the knotty problems that he had set up himself in the week before.
On one such case, the author, ended his weekly chapter with a breath-stopping situation, his protagonist hanging with both hands in a pit, snakes snipping at feet, on one side a roaring lion, on the other two crooks with their guns aimed at him.
Then he failed to submit the next week’s chapter. As he was a known lush, everyone suspected that he had gone on one of his drinking sprees. The editor asked other writers to provide the necessary instalment but they were all stymied. They had no idea how to get the hero out of the pit, and away from the menacing snakes, lion and killers. The paper was issued with an apology to the readers for missing that week’s episode.
Finally the author shows up. Everyone flies at him, yelling and angry and predictably, at a complete loss as to how he was going to resolve the situation.
No problem, says the author. He inserts a sheet of paper into the typewriter and starts the next chapter:
“Once out of the pit, our hero…”
“Yes Israel should end the oppression of the Palestinians.”
Sure, but the main difficulty is getting the Plaestinians to go along with it. You’ll have noticed that Arafat rejected the deal giving the the Palestinians Gaza, the West Bank and Arab Jerusalem. He preferred a terrror war.
Unilateral withdrawal from Gaza was a bust, too. Hence, the unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank never went ahead.
Abbas might possibly sign a peace deal with Israel, but he only governs the West Bank with the IDF’s assistance. Once Israel actaully withdraws, any peace agreement signed now will prove worthless.
I am not utterly without hope. Perhaps Abbas will gain effective control of the West Bank. Perhaps then he’ll be able to hold up his end of a peace deal. But I don’t think it’s likely, not anytime soon.