‘DURBAN SO-CALLED “ANTI-RACISM” CONFERENCE’: EPITOME OF ARAB RACISM, ISLAMIC BIGOTRY AND UN’S HYPOCRISY
TOWARD: ‘DURBAN I’
Do Not Attend Racist Conference In Durban
[...] the World Conference Against Racism due to take place in Durban later this month will be a gathering of “hypocrites” intent only on condemning Israel in the name of “freedom of speech” while ignoring the myriad atrocities committed around the world.
Board of Deputies, do not attend the Racist Conference in Durban, for that is indeed the name of the dog.
‘DURBAN I’ – REALITY OF ARAB-ISLAMIC HATEFUL LOBBY HIJACKED UN – TURNS INTO A CONFERENCE ‘FOR’ RACISM
“Robinson in Durban: I am a Jew”
Herb Keinon, Janine Zacharia
August 30, 2001
The Jerusalem Post
Waving a book of anti-Semitic cartoons distributed at the anti-racism conference in Durban, UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson – in a dramatic act of identification with the Jews vilified in the pamphlet – declared “I am a Jew” at an NGO dinner there Wednesday night.
Shimon Samuels, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris, said that after he showed Robinson the booklet, she stood up, waved it and said, “This conference is aimed at achieving human dignity. My husband is a cartoonist, I love political cartoons, but when I see the racism in this cartoon booklet, of the Arab Lawyers’ Union, I must say that I am a Jew – for those victims are hurting. I know that you people will not understand easily, but you are my friends, so I tell you that I am a Jew, and I will not accept this fractiousness to torpedo the conference.”
Samuels, head of the Jewish caucus at the anti-racism conference, said that the booklet, which he said contained vile anti-Semitic cartoons, was handed out at registration, and that several of the Jewish groups in Durban had complained about it.
Meanwhile, less than 24 hours before the Israeli delegation’s plane to the UN anti-racism conference in Durban is scheduled to take off, no decision has yet been made on whether it will participate, or at what level.
“We’ll have to decide in the morning, because our last plane out is tomorrow evening,” one Foreign Ministry official scheduled to attend the conference said Wednesday night.
The US announced Wednesday it is dispatching Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Michael Southwick and a small delegation to South Africa to try to amend language in a proposed final communique that is offensive to Israel and Jews, before the conference opens tomorrow.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Southwick could leave Durban before the conference’s official opening, if the language singling out Israel is not taken out.
The State Department announced earlier this week that Secretary of State Colin Powell would not attend the conference because of the anti-Israel clauses.
President George W. Bush said last week that the US would not take part at all if the conference “picks on” or denigrates Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.
“We felt it was necessary for us to have representatives out there to do what the president asked us to do, and that’s to work to eliminate this language,” Boucher said Wednesday. “If we can do that, then we can make the further decisions on how we participate.” If Southwick remains, Israel will have to decide whether to send Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior or dispatch a lower-level official.
Some American Jewish leaders, who lobbied Powell not to attend, are said to have urged Melchior not to go.
One Foreign Ministry source said if a delegation is sent, it should be at a level that will enable it to be as effective as possible.
Attempts by the US to have the anti-Israel language taken out of the proposed resolutions have not yet yielded any fruit, Israeli officials said.
A source briefed on the US plans said UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had persuaded Powell that the language – including clauses describing Zionism as a movement based on racial superiority and others describing Israeli actions as ethnic cleansing – could be struck from the document only if an American delegation were present to support such a move.
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley said he still hasn’t decided whether to attend and that Canada has “very serious” concerns about a push to single out Israel.
Echoing earlier comments by Powell, Manley said, “The purpose of this conference should be to set a mark for countries to observe in trying to eradicate racist practices. It shouldn’t be targeted at any countries. The text such as it is that I’ve seen goes much too far in singling out one country, in this case Israel.”
According to a report received by the Foreign Ministry, a group from the World Union of Jewish Students, which set up a booth Wednesday at the non-governmental organization part of the conference, was confronted by Palestinian students chanting anti-Israeli slogans.
According to the ministry, the Jewish students sang: “All we are saying is give peace a chance.” The Palestinians responded by chanting, “We will redeem Palestine through blood and fire.” This was only one of many complaints registered by Jewish groups about harassment at the conference, though conference director Moshe More said no serious incidents have been reported so far.
“I feel besieged, there’s anti-Semitism and hate literature at the world racism conference. It couldn’t get much worse,” said Anne Bayefsky, a professor from New York’s Columbia University Law School. “Some of the Jewish delegates are hiding their accreditation badge because it identifies them as from Israel or as Jewish. Some are considering leaving Durban altogether.” More said “protesters can express their views, but we have a strong contingent of police. There have been no physical attacks on anyone.” Stacy Burdett, representing the Anti-Defamation League, said some of the 200 Jewish representatives in Durban were shocked by their treatment, and felt unfairly singled out.
Pamphlets circulated at the NGO meeting caricatured Jews, and posters carried slogans overlapping the Star of David with the swastika. Many pro-Palestinian delegates wore T-shirts with a slogan equating Israel with apartheid and colonialism, and calling it an occupying power that kills civilians. “There is a real sense of hostility toward Jewish people,” said Karen Pollock, director of the London-based Holocaust Education Trust. “We are being intimidated.” The South African police have said that the safety of the 7,000 delegates attending the meeting is a high priority, and more than 3,000 police and soldiers have been deployed.
2001 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents
Patterns of Prejudice in Canada
SECTION 6: CHALLENGES AHEAD — A POST-DURBAN AGENDA
ANTI-RACISM AFTER DURBAN
by David Matas
Senior Legal Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada, delegate to the World Conference Against Racism and Rapporteur for the Jewish Caucus in Durban
The world meetings in Durban, South Africa this past summer were supposed to be meetings against racism. Yet, they turned out to be forums for racism.
There were two overlapping meetings, a non-governmental Forum, August 28 to September 1, 2001 and an inter-governmental World Conference Against Racism, August 31 to September 8, 2001. The meetings became venues for attacks against the Jewish community, a focus for global antisemitism. The concluding documents of both meetings were troubling reflections of this anti-Jewish reality.
Canadian non-governmental organizations were present in Durban in large numbers. Many of those attending were financed by the Government of Canada. A number of non-governmental follow-up meetings to Durban have been held in Canada.
Canadian delegates of the Jewish faith were subjected to a daily diet of antisemitic abuse and harassment, while antisemitic pamphlets such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as well as T-shirts and posters with racist slogans, were openly distributed under the very eyes of the organizers. I have already described the antisemitism endemic at Durban in a previous report.
Many Canadian human rights activists were appalled by what happened at Durban and said so…
The Big Lie and the Media War Against Israel: From Inversion of the Truth to Inversion of Reality
by Dr. Joel Fishman Published March 2007 Jewish Political Studies Review 19:1-2 (Spring 2007)
The significance of Durban is yet to be appreciated fully, particularly because the malicious intentions of its sponsors-Egypt and the Palestinian Authority, which are supposedly at peace with Israel, and those of Iran-have not been fully acknowledged. Their excesses even surpassed Resolution 3379. At one time, those who advocated reinstatement of the original “Zionism is racism” resolution argued that opposing Zionism was not anti-Semitic. Now, after Durban, all pretenses vanished. Anti-Semitism in the name of Palestinian justice became acceptable. A condition of “convergence,” to use Jeffrey Herf’s term, had been reached. That is, Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism merged, probably for the first time since the Nazi era.
According to Anne Bayefsky and Rabbis Cooper and Brackman, some of the propositions which found expression at Durban were:
- Denial of anti-Semitism as a human rights issue of our time.
- Acceptance of anti-Semitism in the name of fighting racism.
- “Antisemitism is not a manifestation of contemporary racism.”
- Recognition of the Palestinian people as victims of Israeli racism.
- Expropriation of the term Holocaust.
- Approval of terrorism-or “armed struggle”-as a means to combat racism.
- Exclusion and isolation of the Jewish state in the name of multiculturalism
THE UN WORLD CONFERENCE AGAINST RACISM: A RACIST ANTI-RACISM CONFERENCE
by A Bayefsky – 2002
Sep 9, 2010 … racism of an anti-racism world conference and the future anti-racism …..
The UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa
(August 31-September 8, 2001)
By Elihai Braun
The United Nations World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance met in Durban, South Africa from August 31 to September 8, 2001. The UN General Assembly authorized the conference in Resolution 52/111 in 1997, aiming to explore effective methods to eradicate racial discrimination and to promote awareness in the global struggle against intolerance.
Yet the noble goals of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism were undermined by hateful anti-Jewish rhetoric and anti-Israel political agendas, prompting both Israel and the United States to withdraw their delegations from the conference. Participants revived the scurrilous charge that “Zionism is Racism” and used false and hostile allegations to delegitimize Israel.
In the weeks prior to the conference, the United States had warned organizers that it would withdraw from Durban if the early anti-Jewish charges and the condemnations of Israel remained unchallenged. After four days of fruitless negotiations, the U.S. delegation withdrew on September 3, midway through the conference, unable to turn the focus of the conference back to its original goals. The aim to combat discrimination and intolerance worldwide was ironically superceded by a bigoted campaign to single out one nation for criticism.
The September 3 statement of withdrawal of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell read:
Today I have instructed our representatives at the World Conference Against Racism to return home. I have taken this decision with regret, because of the importance of the international fight against racism and the contribution that the Conference could have made to it. But, following discussions today by our team in Durban and others who are working for a successful conference, I am convinced that will not be possible. I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of “Zionism equals racism;” or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world–Israel–for censure and abuse.
Copies of the anti-Semitic work, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, were sold on conference grounds; anti-Israel protesters jeered participants chanting “Zionism is racism, Israel is apartheid,” and “You have Palestinian blood on your hands”; fliers depicting Hitler with the question, “What if I had won?” circulated among conference attendees. The answer: “There would be NO Israel and NO Palestinian bloodshed.”
On September 3, in the Israeli official proclamation, delivered by Head of the Israeli Delegation Ambassador Mordecai Yedid, Deputy Foreign Minister Rabbi Michael Melchior wrote:
Racism, in all its forms, is one of the most widespread and pernicious evils, depriving millions of hope and fundamental rights. It might have been hoped that this first Conference of the 21st century would have taken up the challenge of, if not eradicating racism, at least disarming it: But instead humanity is being sacrificed to a political agenda. … Can there be a greater irony than the fact that a conference convened to combat the scourge of racism should give rise to the most racist declaration in a major international organization since the Second World War?
In addition to the UN government conference against racism, Durban simultaneously hosted a UN conference of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The NGO conference, according to the UN, aimed to publicize the “voices of the victims.” In this forum, the Jewish Caucus proposed that Holocaust denial and anti-Jewish violence caused by Jewish support for Israel be labeled forms of anti-Semitism. The proposal was almost unanimously defeated. Anne Bayefsky, a NGO participant, and a representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, commented. “The only group that voted for it was the Jews. Of all the ‘voices of the victims’ put into the resolution, only one voice was deleted – the Jewish voice.”
Bayefsky reported, “Like all Jewish participants, I felt concern for my safety. The Jewish Center in Durban was forced to close because of threats of violence.” During an NGO discussion on Palestinian issues, representatives of human rights organizations asked Bayefsky to leave: “They explained to me that as a representative of a Jewish organization, I was biased and couldn’t be counted on to act in the interest of general human rights.”
The representatives at the NGO conference removed a key paragraph on anti-Semitism by unanimous vote, prompting a Jewish Caucus walk out. The removed paragraph read:
We are concerned with the prevalence of Anti-Zionism and attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel through wildly inaccurate charges of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, as a virulent contemporary form of anti-Semitism leading to firebombing of synagogues, armed assaults against Jews, incitements to killing, and the murder of innocent Jews, for their support for the existence of the State of Israel, the assertion of the right to self determination of the Jewish people and the attempts, through the State of Israel, to preserve their cultural and religious identity.
Soon after the American and Israeli pullout, the Jewish Caucus formally withdrew from the NGO conference.
The final resolution of the NGO conference, which was overwhelmingly adopted, called Israel “a racist apartheid state,” guilty of the “systematic perpetration of racist crimes including war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing … and state terror against the Palestinian people.”
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, called the allegations accusing Israel of war crimes “inappropriate and unacceptable,” but did not reject the document. She mentioned that the NGO resolution included constructive proposals on hate crimes, indigenous peoples, and caste issues. In traditional UN practice, the Secretary-General of the conference officially “recommends” the NGO resolution to the government conference, but Robinson said she “could not recommend the document to the government delegates in its entirety.”
Major human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Lawyers for Human Rights, and Physicians for Human Rights also expressed criticism of the anti-Jewish language of the NGO resolution, but raised their concerns two days after the conclusion of the NGO conference. Overall, they endorsed the resolution. Amnesty International said, “Although not accepting or condoning some of the language used within the NGO Declaration, Amnesty International accepts the declaration as a largely positive document which gives a voice to all the victims of racism wherever it occurs.”
The UN government conference, stalled over references to the Middle East situation, concluded on September 8, a full day past its scheduled end date, with an adoption of a “compromise” proposal between the European Union and the Arab countries. The chair of the conference, South African Foreign Minister Zuma, asked delegates to leave complex Middle East issues aside and to “focus on not doing anything to cause this conference to collapse.”
But Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara insisted on adding language explicitly condemning Israel’s “foreign occupation.” Brazil proposed a “motion of no action” suggesting that conference not address issues on which it would not agree. The “motion of no action” was approved by a vote of 51-38. Arab and Muslim states voted against the proposal.
The final declaration of the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance included the following passages relevant to Israel:
63. We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon all States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion;
64. We call for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region in which all peoples shall co-exist and enjoy equality, justice and internationally recognized human rights, and security;
65. We recognize the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge all States to facilitate such return;
151. As for the situation in the Middle East, calls for the end of violence and the swift resumption of negotiations, respect for international human rights and humanitarian law, respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering, thus allowing Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom.
Trading in slavery: UN Racist Conference
in Durban Sep 8, 2001 … But in Durban it became clear that anti-racism has shrivelled into the modern world’s most acceptable form of racism — anti-white. …
Demonization in Durban: The World Conference Against RacismFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
by HO SCHOENBERG
Related Intolerance (WCAR), held in Durban, South Africa, to de- monize Israel. Powerful voices at the conference sought to brand. Israel as a racist state, …
UN World Conference Against RacismStatements by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan,President George Bush and others expose the anti-Semitic nature of the Zionism as Racism formulation.
Racists cry racism at U.N. conference … At the Durban debacle, racists cried racism and anti-Semites paraded their bigotry while condemning Israeli …
CULTURE OF HATE–JIHAD RACISM ACROSS THE WORLD – The Durban World Conference Against Racism where the culture of hate was … This Arabization and Islamization of the Bible thus robs not only the Jews …
Arab Regimes, Not Israel, Are Guilty of Racism – Opinion – Arutz Sheva At the conference on racism, in Durban, Arab delegates and their allies accused Israel of racism and … Black Africans are also the victims of Arab racism. …
UN World Conference Against Racism But the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist campaign is not uninformed bigotry, it is conscious politics. …Further, this fact of world politics creates altogether …
There They Go Again, Those Arab Racists… No, as Arabs, they are part of the greater Arab Nation…
There They Go Again, Those Arab Racists By Ariel Natan Pasko
Jul 5, 2004
There they go again. The story is so old already. Arab militia or Arab army or Arab terrorist attacks non-Arab. Or was that Muslim fanatic attacks non-Muslim? This time it’s happening in Sudan.
While we’re sitting and talking probably a few hundred more black Africans in Sudan have starved to death, or been brutally killed, raped, enslaved, or simply pushed off their land by 7th century Arab imperialist invaders, or more rightly “Arab Settlers”.
Oh yes, that’s right “Arab settlers”…
Like the ones Saddam Hussein brought into Kurdistan – i.e. the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq in the 1970′s – to displace the indigenous Kurds, during his forced Arabization campaign. Forcibly relocating many Kurds from the Kurdish heartland in the north, he razed all Kurdish villages along a 1,300-kilometer stretch of the border with Iran.
Now Sudan is doing the same thing.
While Arab militiamen known as the Janjaweed, rape, slaughter and drive out over a million black Africans from their homes in western Sudan… The Janjaweed have killed about 30,000 people and left some 2 million in desperate need of aid, or there will be humanitarian disaster. The Janjaweed has been described as an Arab Islamic group that has targeted mostly black Christians. According to some reports, the Sudanese government itself armed and paid the militia of Arab raiders, and authorized them to slaughter and drive out members of the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur tribes…
A typical UN do-goody, Egeland seems to have overlooked the fact that the Sudanese government might have deliberately caused this problem. It’s a typical Arab/Muslim land grab. It’s happened in Iraq, it’s happened in Lebanon with Syria occupying Lebanon and persecuting the Christians there, and it’s happened in Israel, where 7th century Arab imperialist invaders and 20th century Arab squatters have tried to displace the indigenous Jewish population.
Arab Settlers, and they’re violent at that…
Describing the pogrom-like atmosphere, one woman told how the Janjaweed entered the village. She said, “The Janjaweed shouted, ‘We will not allow blacks here. We will not let Zaghawa here. This land is only for Arabs.’”…
Non-Arab and Non-Muslim minorities live throughout North Africa and the Middle East. Contrary to the propaganda that the region is Arab/Muslim, these minorities are remnants of the indigenous peoples, before the great Arab imperialist wars of the 7th century, and “Islamicization process” that followed. Non-Arab Muslims like the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran; the Berbers – known as Amazighes – in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, have all resisted Arabization for over 1,000 years. Non-Muslims like the Assyrian Christians in Iraq – who argue that they are not Arabs – the Copts in Egypt, Christian Lebanese – many who claim not to be Arab but Phoenician – the Christians in Sudan, and other Christians throughout the region, have been persecuted minorities, since the rise of Islam. Others like the Druze and Jews have also been persecuted by Arab/Muslim regimes throughout history…”
“Only Israel, the Jewish State, has fully liberated itself – in the political sense – from this Arab/Muslim oppression, although it still suffers from physical violence against her people. Israel should take the lead – in it’s foreign policy – to support democratization and regime change throughout the region. Israel shouldn’t wait until countries of the region reform, but should pro-actively support the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed minorities of North Africa and the Middle East, and build alliances with them.”…
I haven’t yet mentioned the so-called “Palestinians,” and I won’t beyond saying, that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Aren’t they an oppressed minority? No, as Arabs, they are part of the greater Arab Nation who since the 7th century has conquered, oppressed, and occupied everyone else in the Middle East and North Africa. As radical Muslims, everyone can see that Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the other terror groups are continuing down the same path as Bin Laden. In fact, not long before his assassination, Hamas “spiritual leader” Sheikh Yassin had begun speaking about the “Global Jihad” in Bin Laden and al-Qaeda type terms. Hezbollah has also been working in the “Palestinian” administered territories for a while already, as evidenced by Israel’s recent capture of a Hezbollah cell in Gaza. So, they are part of the regional oppression network, not the future liberty and freedom alliance that Israel should work to build with other minorities in the area.
Like that Arab murderer in Sudan who said, “This land is only for Arabs,” the late Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi said not long before his demise, “We will continue with our holy war and resistance until every last criminal Zionist is evicted from this land. By G-d we will not leave one Jew alive in Palestine. We will fight them with all the strength we have. This is our land, not the Jews.” Most of the so-called “Palestinians” agreed with him…
Arab racism marches on…
Anti-Semitism [and the conflict & on 'anti-Zionism]
…Zionism is no more than self-determination for the Jewish people. Regrettably, opponents of Zionism suggest that of all people on this earth only Jews are not entitled to self-determination. They portray the Jewish nation as perpetrators of some ongoing evil. Their tune has its obvious historical forbears.
When one selects out a particular people as ineligible for the right of self-determination, one is engaging in active racism. An anti-Zionist is someone who opposes self-determination for the Jewish people. The anti-Zionist would not be racist if the idea being pursued was opposition to self-determination for all peoples, but truth be told, they oppose it only for Jews. They are engaging in racism against Jews, and the name for such racism is anti-Semitism.
But distinguish these from the critics of Israeli policies who genuinely address harsh realities and suggest better ways to achieve Israel’s goal of peaceful coexistence with her neighbours, including a new Palestinian state, without the overhanging threat of daily terrorism.
Israel of course is the only operative democracy in the Middle East. It is the only nation in the region whose very declaration of independence guarantees rights for Arab and Jew alike. Both Hebrew and Arabic are official languages. Both Jew and Arab can and do own property, operate businesses, enjoy healthcare and public education, and importantly exercise the right to vote. Unsurprisingly, Mr Heywood-Smith failed to note these realities, and omitted also to mention that that there are Arab members of the Israeli Parliament.
Now contrast Israel with the Arab nations which surround it. They exclude the rights of Jews to practice their religion, to live freely and to enjoy basic rights.
To this day the Palestinian leadership has suggested that while all Palestinian Arabs should be allowed to live within the borders of Israel, no Jews should be allowed to live within the borders of a new state of Palestine. Israel offers equity, and her neighbours offer exclusion in return. In an Orwellian twist, Mr Heywood-Smith reverses the democrat and the demagogue.
In the course of many decades of conflict, both Jews and Palestinian Arabs were variously displaced and expelled. The harsh reality was that close to equal numbers of refugees left Arab countries to live in Israel, and left Israel to live in Arab countries. In the first few years after Israel’s birth as a nation, Arab countries expelled or displaced their Jewish populations.
Hundreds of thousands of Jews, many of whom had no particular desire to move to the newborn Jewish state, were forced to go. Israel was required to provide planes and ships to transport them from Iraq, Yemen and North Africa. These expulsions were retaliation for the displacement of Arabs from the Jewish portion of the British Mandate of Palestine.
The reason that there is no ongoing claim in relation to the Jewish refugees who fled from Arab lands is that Israel resettled them. Palestinian Arabs who fled, and their descendants, have not enjoyed any similar benefit. Their Arab brethren have refused to accept responsibility to settle them.
Both Jews and Arabs lived in the British Mandate of Palestine and numerous partition proposals were put forward to accommodate both Indigenous groups. Mr Heywood-Smith’s further submission that Israel removed the Indigenous inhabitants of Palestine from their lands in 1948, suggests that Jews were not Indigenous inhabitants of the land before it became Israel. This is another falsehood, used to make Jews the “other”. The Jewish claim for equal rights and indeed emancipation is twisted into a claim of inequality and exclusion. This tool of propaganda also has its obvious historical forbears…
One of the accusations which the various Arab countries (including Egypt and Jordan which have peace treaties with Israel) often make against Israel is that “Zionism is racism”. Defining Zionism, the national liberation movement of jews, the victims of racism, as racism is particularly cynical, yet it seems that the Arabs have succeeded to convince the leaders of some nations, themselves victims of racism, to support this vicious accusation. The latest attempt to define Zionism as racism was at the 2001 UNESCO conference which was held in Durban, South Africa. The resolution which was initiated by Arab countries enjoyed the support of most participants.
Especially painful was the support of such African leaders as Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu. Some Western countries, however, notably Australia and Canada, objected and accused the conference of hypocrisy. The Canadian delegation, for example, issued the following statement: “Canada is still here today only because we wanted to have our voice decry the attempts at this Conference to de-legitimize the State of Israel and to dishonor the history and suffering of the Jewish people. We believe, and we have said in the clearest possible terms, that it was inappropriate – wrong – to address the Palestinian-Israel conflict in this forum. We have said, and will continue to say, that anything – any process, any declaration, any language – presented in any forum that does not serve to advance a negotiated peace that will bring security, dignity and respect to the people of the region is – and will be – unacceptable to Canada.”
It was for that reason that both Israel and the United States under the leadership of Secretary Colin Powell, himself no stranger to racism, pulled their delegations from the conference. The final text adopted by the conference drops all direct criticism of Israel, but does recognize the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and expresses concern at their plight under foreigh occupation.
That was only the latest attempt to define Zionism as racism. In November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” In December 1991, the General Assembly rescinded this resolution through Resolution 4686.
All those years the Arab countries continued to promote this false notion. It is therefore of interest to check how different things are on the other side of the fence, namely in the Arab countries. Even though there are many blacks who live in those countries the question whether they are subject to racism was academic for a long time and one had to resort to circumstantial evidence in order to answer it. One well-known fact is that most Arabs refer to blacks as “Abed” which means “slave” in Arabic. This seems to say something about the situation of racism in the Arab world. Today, due to the recent events in Darfur and the active role that the Arab Janjaweed play in the slaughter of black Africans there, this question has become more urgent and relevant than ever before. It is time for the UN and the whole world to fight it NOW
Antisemitism And Racism Equating Zionism with racism and Nazism is not a new motif in the Arab …
['Palestinian' Arab racism even among its "moderates"] Canadian MP: Mahmoud Abbas Purveys Anti-Jewish Incitement Israel – …He also met with PA officials and told them that “hate breeds hate.” Saying that Hamas, with “their charter with its genocidal objective, anti-Semitic …
Durban & Islamo Arab Apartheid
The Bigotry of Jihad, They stand ? admirably ? ever-prepared to expose that bigotry to the light … the prejudice that animates anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment
THE REAL WORLD
A Tyrants Club
The U.N. Human Rights Commission is worse than a joke.
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
[The Wall Street Journal]
Among those who value liberty and justice, the United Nations’ choice of Libya to chair this year’s session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has been widely described as a defeat. By some lights it’s a defeat for the U.S.–which protested giving this post to an emissary of terror-sponsoring tyrant Moammar Gadhafi. By U.S. standards it’s a
defeat for the Human Rights Commission and the entire system of international justice the U.N. pretends to promote. All of which sounds bad, but comfortably abstract; just one more round of folly at the U.N.
It is a betrayal of millions upon millions of people living under governments so brutal–from North Korea to Turkmenistan to Iraq–that most citizens do not dare to demand the freedoms that belong by right to all human beings.
It is absurd, in fact, to describe the exaltation on Monday of Libya’s Ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji to head of the Human Rights Commission as the product of a “vote.” That implies there was some sort of democratic process at work… Among the 33 governments that voted in favor of Libya were almost certainly the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home..
It’s much worse than that. Putting Libya in a spot to set the U.N. agenda on human rights is not simply a defeat of justice and human dignity. It is a betrayal.
Go ahead! Compare real Arab racism with Israel
Let’s compare Arab racism with bogus anti-Arab racism charges on Israel
Report Details “Racism“
Arutz Sheva, Israel – Dec 9, 2007
Similarly, the demand that Arab government ministers and MKs must pledge allegiance to the Jewish State is considered “racist,”…
OK, I don’t know about you, but I think I had enough of Arab racists and Israel’s radical left’s beating Israel up with charges of “racism”.
Let’s make a run down on racism, who is who, who is what.
Israelis overwhelmingly 1) give a right for one more Arab state, and 2) give Arab ‘Palestinians’ a right to exist though 3) not a real democracy by any standard.
Arabs are [thus far] mostly racist and 1) do NOT give the 2) only one Jewish state a right to exist, even though in fact it is a 3) free democracy and equal to all.
Israeli Arabs are at least 20% of its population, many achieve high roles in Israel’s democratic pluralistic society, (ironically the Arab members of Israel’s government use it to stab Israel in the back and still demonetizing it for being “discriminatory”, imagine that) the number of Jews in [racist ethnic cleansing] Arab “Palestinian” called area = exactly zero!
There’s not one Arab Islamic terror attack on innocent Israelis that does not involve help from Israeli “loyal” Arabs, that seek attacks on Israeli Jews out of pure racism.
Arab racism enslaves & commits most horrific genocide in Sudan, Chad, etc. humanitarian Israel accepts African refugees.
There’s not one minority (including indigenous) that it’s exempt from oppression, discrimination in all of the racist Arab world: Kurds in syria, Iraq etc., Al Akhdam in Yemen, Berbers in [Arab] North Africa, indigenous Nubians in Egypt, the Copts in Egypt, Asians in Arabia…
Arabism Equals Racism … Those were the days of the United Nations’ infamous Zionism Equals Racism resolution. Arab and pro-Arab professors were already …
DURBAN ALERT 2007
Durban Alert, August 27, 2007 Aug 27, 2007 …This surge in racism adopted new forms
Israeli Arab explodes Mideast ‘lies’
Lebanese woman says she discovered freedom in Jewish state
“As a Middle Easterner brought up on this patent ‘Israel is a racist state’ propaganda, I discovered it is total hate-inspired nonsense,” she said.” I’ve seen with my own eyes what kind of society Israel is. I consider Israel to be one of the most multi-racial and multi-cultural countries in the world. There are no racial restrictions on becoming a citizen of Israel like there are in many Arab countries. Remember, Jews can’t live in the neighboring Arab Kingdom of Jordan or in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”
She explained that more than 100 different countries of the world are represented in the population of Israel.
“Consider how the Israeli government spent tens of millions of dollars airlifting more than 40,000 black Ethiopian Jews to Israel in 1984 and 1991,” she said. “Since 2001 Israel has reached out to help others taking in non-Jewish refugees from Lebanon, the Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, Vietnam, Liberia, Congo and even Bosnian Muslims. How many such refugees have the 22 states in the Arab league taken in? The Arab world won’t even give Palestinian refugees citizenship in their host countries.”
She added that more than 1 million Arabs are full Israel citizens, that an Arab sits on the Supreme Court of Israel, that there are Arab political parties expressing views inimical to the state of Israel sitting in the Knesset, that women are equal partners in Israel and have complete human rights.
“Show me an Arab nation with a Jew in its government,” she challenged. “Show me an Arab country with half as many Jewish citizens as Israel has Arab citizens. I’ll borrow some of your academic freedom now and say that Arab nations are the real racist and oppressive states.”
Palestinian Arab Muslims first class citizens in Israel whereas Israeli Jews are second class citizens
By Mindelle Jacobs [Feb. 2007]
A United Nations anti-racism panel is once again examining the human rights records of various countries and Israel, of course, is being characterized as particularly malevolent.
Last week, Israel was before the committee to answer to allegations of discrimination against its Arab citizens in areas such as education and housing, and the disparities in incarceration rates between Jews and Arabs.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also questioned Israel about accusations that the Jewish state doesn’t sufficiently protect sites considered holy by other religions.
This issue was prompted by a report to the committee by an Israel-based NGO called Adalah, which promotes the rights of Israeli Arabs.
Since 1948, about 250 non-Jewish places of worship have either been destroyed or made inaccessible because of neglect or security concerns, according to Adalah.
Some were razed because of development in the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv corridor and others have simply been left to crumble because of lack of funding, the NGO asserted.
“Jewish sites take high priority, Christian sites come second and Islamic sites a distant last,” Adalah declared.
[P.S. This 'Adalah' organization is basically an anti-Jewish Arab racist group that has its hands full mainly in constantly decrying Israelis' preocupation of terror [painting it] as “racism”. The Arab racism of playing Israelis’ fear of Arab terror as “racism”
The group also complained that tourism officials promote the city of Safed as the centre of Jewish mysticism or Kabbalah, even though the city also has a Muslim past.
Well, the Ottoman Empire is long gone and Israel is a Jewish country. It would be peculiar if it didn’t use Safed’s ancient link to the Kabbalah to draw visitors.
As for the destruction of non-Jewish places of worship, I suspect most were sacrificed for the sake of urbanization. ..
But let’s keep things in perspective. All citizens of Israel have full civil and political rights, including freedom of religion. Israel isn’t perfect but it is at least striving to improve.
And Israel has the rule of law to keep the country on its toes. Elsewhere in the Middle East, however, it’s racism as usual typically state-sanctioned.
In Saudia Arabia, for instance, all citizens must be Muslim and the public practice of other religions is banned.
Non-Muslims who gather in homes for religious practices are supposed to be protected. However, this right isn’t always respected, according to the U.S. Department of State’s 2006 International Religious Freedom Report.
In compensation cases, male Jews or Christians only get half of what male Muslims receive. Other men are granted one-sixteenth of the amount a Muslim gets.
And the government, which observes Sunni Islam, doesn’t finance the construction or maintenance of Shia mosques.
In Egypt, non-Muslims need a presidential decree to build churches and synagogues and the neighbouring Muslim community must give its approval.
The construction and repair of churches is typically delayed for years.
Israel’s missteps are mild in comparison, says Aurel Braun, professor of international relations at the University of Toronto.
“Among the tricks here,” he says, “is to set up a standard that no one can meet and then hold Israel alone to that standard.”
Israelis aren’t ‘racist’ – they’re worried
Only Racism Motivates anti Israel “racism” charges Constant campaign by racist Arabs
Anti Israel facsism: Holding Israel to a standarad, NO COUNTRY can.
Just after pluralistic multi racial Israel has nominated it’s Arab minister… [end of 2007].
No matter what Israel does — the very democratic Israel that is enabling for Arab-advocacy & Arab propagandists to flourish, such groups that have a job of ‘silencing real tracism, hatred & terrorism by Arabs inside/outside of Israel’, via crying ‘racism’ on ANYTHING, good hearted Israel that faces imminent danger from a sea of fascism, Islamofascism or plain Arab racism, usually both combined — it just can never “satisfy” the charges of “racism”.
The Arab racists know that, which is why they know they can go on & on & on about it.
“Palestinian” Arabs: If you dare defend yourself, I will call you a “racist”.
How can one expect to survive fascist Arabs inside Israel that conspire to slaughter innocent non-Arab Israelis?
How can anyone criticize indisputable vital needed security measures in the war on terror?
Why is it that a checkpoint on Jews is quite OK but a checkpoint for Arabs have to be connected to “racism”? Is this double standard not racist?
Last but not least, Don’t forget the good ol’ Arab occupied UN that jumps on any “racism” charge, old or new, the body that would never voice anything on real racism by the entire Arab world on ALL it’s minorities, without any explanation of ‘fighting terrorists’ insight.
‘DURBAN ALERT’ TOWARD: 2009
UN Plans Another Durban Racism Conference for 2009 – Eye on the UN
The resolution and the decision adopted December 8, 2006 now bring the total number of bodies born from the racist and anti-semitic Durban Conference to …
Will Durban II be a replay of racist Durban I? – Aug 4, 2008 … Is the United Nations’ follow-up to the racist 2001 Durban World Conference Against Racism headed for the same fate?
UN’s Durban II Conference Against Racism?
By: Sam Harari, The Bulletin
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly The Durban World Conference against Racism, organized by the United Nations and held in South Africa in 2001, was driven by noble and just ideals. Its stated hope was to achieve recognition and prevention of crimes related to intolerance, racial discrimination and xenophobia.
To the dismay of the many who shared the spirit of the conference’s goal, the debate degenerated into a festival of overt bigotry. According to the Canadian government, it spiraled into “a circus of intolerance.”
And now, in anticipation of Durban II planned for 2009 in Geneva, human rights advocates and government officials alike predict it will be just more of the same.
The first Durban conference’s condemnation of Western European colonialism became tainted when it omitted mention of far more recent colonial crimes, including that of Armenia, and China’s ongoing repression of Tibet.
Arab and Islamic states attempted to impose an agenda declaring Palestinian victimhood at the hands of Israeli “colonialism and oppression.”
Further, they attempted to equate modern Zionism, the belief in Jewish self-determination in their ancestral homeland, with racism.
The Sudanese Minister of Justice displayed perhaps the most overt example of the hypocrisy of the conference; representing a country guilty of ongoing slavery and genocide, the minister demanded reparations for historical slavery.
French philosopher and writer Pascal Bruckner put it best when he said, “It was like a cannibal suddenly calling for vegetarianism.”
At the NGO forum, hatred for Jews (and by extension for the U.S.) was not veiled behind politics.
Anti-Semitic cartoons were circulated. Copies of Mein Kampf and the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” were handed out. A mob screaming, “You are killers,” shut down the only session on anti-Semitism, one of the most ancient and virulent forms of intolerance. A number of delegates were physically threatened, amidst calls of “Death to the Jews.”
Australia and Canada issued statements condemning the conference’s hypocrisy. The Israeli and U.S. delegations walked out….
The U.N.’s Racist Conference On Racism – Forbes.com Dec 4, 2008 … Billed as an effort to fight racism, that Durban conclave focused instead on … is chaired by a Libyan ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji.
Smith should avoid racist conference | The Australian
Feb 26, 2009 … THE 120th anniversary of Hitler’s birth falls on April 20, which coincidentally is the day nations will gather in Geneva under the banner of the UN to discuss ways of dealing with the growth of racism.
The Durban Review Conference was established to evaluate the progress made towards the goals set by the first World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in August 2001.
It was a worthy topic that should have made for a worthy conference in which to debate how the world should react to the pernicious forces of racial and religious hatred, cancers that ruin the lives and security of millions of people. But as so often happens with the world body, the exhilarating promise proved to be very different from the deadening reality.
DurbanI was a notorious hate-filled gathering that devolved into one of the most racist and prejudiced meetings in the UN’s history. Its anti-Semitism and anti-Israel agenda and hysterical crowds of extremists still send shudders of horror through the corridors of human rights organisations. This is why many nations, especially from the West, are considering boycotting Durban II which, like Durban I, is likely to become a platform for anti-Semitism and anti-Western xenophobia and hatred.
Like its predecessor, Durban II has been appropriated by nations that have scant regard for human rights, and whose anti-Western and anti-Israel stance has made the UN Human Rights Council into a forum for the evils it was created to oppose.
EU threatens pullout from racism conference
March 16 2009 at 08:07PM
Brussels – The European Union on Monday threatened to pull out of an upcoming United Nations conference on racism unless a controversial draft declaration, deemed anti-Semitic, is changed.
“The main voices were very sceptical about the directions of the papers prepared,” said Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency.
The EU is seeking to remove at least five paragraphs from the draft declaration relating to the situation in the Palestinian territories, such as an assertion that “in order to consolidate the Israeli occupation, (Palestinians) have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture.”
Schwarzenberg, speaking to reporters after presiding over a meeting of EU foreign ministers, said the EU would “probably” send its own suggestions for the draft.
Italy has already pulled out of the conference
“If the conference will be in line with that then we will stay, otherwise there is a strong call to withdraw,” he said.
Italy has already pulled out of the April 20-24 conference in Geneva, “complaining of unacceptable, aggressive and anti-Semitic phrases,” while Britain has said it will not attend unless there is a “change in direction” to the draft declaration.
Israel, Canada and the United States have also vowed to boycott this year’s gathering, dubbed “Durban II”.
The inaugural racism conference, held Durban in September 2001, saw a walkout by Israeli and US delegates in protest against a bid by Arab nations to adopt a resolution equating Zionism with racism.
German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier is among those calling for a unified EU withdrawal from the talks unless the preparatory papers are substantially modified.
The documents “suggest that this is not simply dealing with racism, but that the conference could be diverted by the taking of one-sided positions on the Middle East conflict, or to condemn some European and American positions regarding the Arab-Muslim world,” he said after the Brussels meeting.
“I would plead for us to withdraw from this conference if in the coming hours and days we don’t get a substantial modification of these documents,” he said. – Sapa-AFP
EU ultimatum to the OIC: Change your tune on Durban II or we won’t … EuropeNews
Italy pulls out of UN racism conference The Associated Press
Italy says no to Durban II
Jewish Telegraphic Agency – Mar 5, 2009
He said the statements in question “must be eliminated,” and that Italy would not participate unless the draft document was changed. …
Australia ready to boycott Durban II
Jewish Telegraphic Agency – [March 17, 2009] … (JTA) — Australia said it will boycott the Durban II anti-racism conference unless the heavily anti-Israel conference draft document is changed. …
FM: Ahmadinejad’s attendance proves ‘Durban II’ racist – Israel …Apr 19, 2009 … FM: Ahmadinejad’s attendance proves ‘Durban II’ racist. Lieberman calls on nations to join boycott of UN conference on race as Israeli, …
Criticism of Israel dropped from Durban II draft resolution
Ha’aretz – March 17, 2009
Initial draft resolutions for the United Nations Durban II summit branded Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies. …
U.S. to boycott Durban 2 conference on racism – Haaretz Daily …Feb 27, 2009 … U.S. House Speaker: Obama handled Egypt crisis ‘as well as possible’ (AP) … Against Racism in Geneva from April 20-25, known as Durban 2, …
Obama: Durban II risks ‘hypocritical’ Israel hatred – Haaretz …Apr 19, 2009 … Obama: Durban II risks ‘hypocritical’ Israel hatred. Lieberman: Ahmadinejad invite shows summit’s true nature; New Zealand, Germany to …
A few points about the racist UN – Durban "anti-racism" conference
Why Western countries tend to boycott it.
1) Since Muslim nations (OIC & Iran) push to criminalize criticism of Islamists’ bigotry, doesn’t it mean that anything being said in that conference is the opposite of tolerance and of truth?
2) How can the UN avoid the largest practitioner of racism, which is Arabism (against: Kurds, Berbers, Africans, Jews, Assyrians, Asians, etc.), but focuses on the so called "anti-Arab racism"?
[ Arabism is racism! ]
3) When will Arab racists & Islamic bigots let go of the UN and stop hijacking it with it’s lobbies (silencing Arab racist genocide in Darfur, yet daming innocent Israelis who merely try to survive)?
4) Why is Arab terror singling out Jews not racist?
5) Why is the essence of the entire "conflict’" in the M.E. not a form of bigotry by Arab Muslims who can’t "accept" the non Arab non Muslim pluralistic democratic Israel?
6) Are Jews living, or even allowed to live in racist "Palestinian" controlled territories (Judenrein – ethnic cleaning)?
7) When will lefty radicals (Meretz/B’Tzelem) talk about preferential treatments to Arabs OVER Jews inside Israel, like in Hebron and in other cases?
8] Why are (Arab Palestinian or Hezbollah) the ones using its own kids as cannon fodders considered "innocent victims"?
9) Is Israel battling just terrorism or an ARAB MUSLIM CAMPAIGN OF GENOCIDE since the 1920′s?
10) How more racist can the Durban-conference get, If the two oppressive regimes: Libya & Iran are the "stars"?
Libya – whose Muamar Qaddafi ,besides his own persecution of non-Arabs, especially blacks in his country, who describe themselves as living like: slaves or animals, the one of the champions in today’s racist Arabization, and Arabist racism push against Africa [whose "vision" has been compared to Hitler's "lebensraum"], in: Chad, Nigeria, etc., ultimately his crimes in the Sudan region helped in leading the current Al-Bashir’s genocide on Millions of Africans (financed mainly by Libya and S. Arabia).
Iran, the regime of Islamic bigotry’s oppression on its own population with an added special persecution on all on-Muslims: Christians, Baha’i, Jews, etc. or on non-"pure-Persians" like: Ahwazi – Arabs, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, etc. now under the leadership of: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [EichmannJihad - the Islamic Hitler] who plays as if he "denies" the holocaust only in order to prepare for (his wishful) the second, "wiping off Israel".
Thus, the shame of the UN, kidnapped by the epitome of intolerance today, the infamous twin fascism: Arab racism, as in Gadhafi, and Islamic bigotry as in Amadinejad, are going to be "preaching" (and determine) to the world on tolerance.
DURBAN 2 – THE ‘WALK OUT’ BY THE WEST AS [HOLOCAUST DERNIER AND ADVOCATOR OF 'GENOCIDE' DUBBED 'HITLER' WORLDWIDE] ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN’S AHMADINEJAD BEGINS HIS HATEFUL, ISLAMO-FASCISTIC RACIST RANT
Walkout at UN conference after Iran president calls Israel ‘racist [Apr 20, 2009]
Philippe Naughton British delegates joined a dramatic diplomatic walkout today when President Ahmadinejad of Iran told a major UN conference against racism that the state of Israel had been founded “on the pretext of Jewish suffering” during the Second World War.
Around 20 delegates, including envoys from the UK, France, and Finland stood up and left the room at what was considered an anti-Semitic remark by the Iranian leader, who has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
Nine Western countries including Israel and the United States had already decided to boycott the conference entirely because its draft declaration endorsed the conclusions of an anti-racism conference in South Africa eight years ago in which Islamic nations pushed through a text equating Zionism with racism.
Even before the walkout, Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech had been interrupted by three protesters dressed as clowns who where quickly bundled from the vast conference room at the Palais des Nations by guards.
Later, other protesters shouted down from the balcony as the Iranian president carried on his address…
Durban II Conference: Ahmadinejad Anti-Israel Tirade Spurs Western …Apr 20, 2009 … The United Nations Durban II anti-racism conference in Geneva this week hit … the speech as an “intolerable appeal for racist hatred” and calling for “an …. Britain walks out as Ahmadinejad calls Israel ‘racist’ …
BBC NEWS | Europe | Walkout at Iran leader’s speech
Apr 20, 2009 … Diplomats walk out of a UN anti-racism conference during a speech by … all forms of hate speech, against all perversion of this message. … UN Durban Review Conference.
Diplomats walk out as Ahmadinejad rails against Israel in UN
NEW FEARS OF ANOTHER RACIST DURBAN AS ANOTHER CONF. MIGHT BE UNDER WAY: 2010
Israel Fears Another ‘Anti-Semitic’ UN Conference on Racism
Dec 27, 2010 … “The Durban Conference of 2001, with its anti-Semitic undertones and … “Israel is part of the international struggle against racism. …
Israel plans to boycott UN Durban III conference
Dec 25, 2010 … “The Durban Conference of 2001, with its anti-Semitic undertones and displays of hatred for Israel and the Jewish world, left us with scars …
THE OUTRAGE AT LIBYA -WHICH HHEADED THE DURBAN 2- AS BRUTAL M. QADDAFI CRACKS DOWN ON PROTESTERS
Libyan Membership Under Fire As U.N. Human Rights Council Gets Poor Grades
Thursday, September 16, 2010
By Patrick Goodenough
(CNSNews.com) – Four months after the world’s governments elected Libya to the U.N.’s top human rights body, victims of Libyan abuses joined human rights advocates Thursday in appealing for Muammar Gaddafi’s regime to be expelled.
U.N. Suspends Libya From Human Rights Council – Huffington Post
Mar 2, 2011 UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. General Assembly suspended Libya from its top human rights body as governments worldwide pressured Muammar Gaddafi to halt the deadly crackdown on his people.
SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES
The 192 U.N. member nations voted by consensus on the council’s recommendation to suspend Libya’s membership on the U.N’s top human rights body for committing “gross and systematic violations of human rights.” General Assembly President Joseph Deiss called for the vote and signaled its adoption by consensus by banging his wooden gavel.
The resolution sponsored by Arab and African states also expressed “deep concern” about the human rights situation in Libya.
It is the first time any country has been suspended from the 47-member council since it was formed in 2006. Based in Geneva, the council is charged with strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights around the globe.
Why the UN is a joke
Wizbang (blog) – Feb 24, 2011
During the selection of its officers for 2003, Ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji was elected Chairperson of the Geneva-based Commission on Human Rights by a secret ballot of 33 countries in favour, with three opposed and 17 abstentions. …
The Last Circle in Libya
Toward Freedom – Rene Wadlow – Mar 2, 2011
In fact, the then Libyan Ambassador, Najat al-Hajjaji, a former wife of one of the Qaddafi sons had chaired the Commission on Human Rights in 2003. There is now discussion of expelling Libya from the Human Rights Council, however the Libyan …
Watchdog Group Demands Removal Of Libyan Human Rights Investigator…
U.N. Watch, an organization that monitors the world body, says Libyan envoy Najat Al-Hajjaji should be the ‘last person’ investigating human rights abuses, as Libyan jets drop bombs on rebel forces in her homeland. A watchdog group is asking the U.N. to immediately remove a Libyan envoy from her post as an investigator on human rights violations by mercenaries, saying that as a mouthpiece for a regime that’s “deploying hired guns to massacre its own people” it’s “outrageous” to have her in that position.
But it’s not the first time Al-Hajjaji’s been in a controversial post.
In 2003 she was elected president of the Human Rights Commission against objections from human rights groups and the U.S.
“It is not appropriate for a nation under U.N. sanctions — a nation with the horrible human rights record that Libya has — to be chairman of this commission,” then U.S. ambassador, Kevin Moley, said at the time.
As someone who “whitewashed the crimes of the Qaddafi regime” for more than a decade, “she also shouldn’t have been the head of the world conference on racism, the Durban II conference, which she chaired for two years,” Neuer added.
But Neuer said it would be hard to imagine a position that would be more of an “obscene irony” than her current one.
“Everybody knew she was sitting on this mercenary group and no one said a thing…and the question is why not?”
In a letter sent Monday to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, U.N. rights commissioner Navi Pillay, and UNHRC president Sihasak Phuangketkeow, U.N. Watch demanded that the officials take immediate action to expel Al-Hajjaji.
Exposed: Qaddafi rep is UN council’s “expert on mercenaries”
Wirbel um Ghadhafi-Vertraute in Genf
Tages-Anzeiger Online – Mar 8, 2011
Najat al-Hajjaji, eine langjährige Vertraute des libyschen Machthabers, sitzt ausgerechnet in einer UNO-Arbeitsgruppe, die den Söldnereinsatz bekämpft. Die Diplomatin ist keine unbekannte Person. Ghadhafis Frau in Genf: Die libysche Diplomatin Najat …
Op-Ed: UN human rights chief must be held accountable
[March 8, 2011]