Posts Tagged ‘Arab oil’

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity

October 24, 2011

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity
Hudson New York – Simon Deng
October 19, 2011 at 5:00 am

Like you, I came to this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance to protest this third Durban conference which is an effort based on a set of lies, and organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

Durban III will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has lost its way. Its obsession with the Jewish obvious: . For over 50 years, 82% of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state – Israel. Hitler could not have been made happier.

Given all the good Israel does in the world, given its democracy and its striving to follow the highest standards of human rights, even in the face of the most brutal, the most fanatic enemies, the Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people know that.

But friends, I come here today to make a different case. I come with what you might at first think is a radical proposition: I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN’s anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over fifty years the indigenous black African population of Sudan — Christians and Muslims alike — have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, Sudan, about four million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed, and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

Everybody at the United Nations is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency to provide for them; this agency, UNWRA, treats them with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN even resisted using the word “slavery” to describe the enslavement of tens of thousands of my people. Why? Because slavery is a crime against humanity, apparently no one committing it wanted to end up before an international court. When Khartoum insisted that the term “abducted people” be substituted for the word “slaves,” the UN, caved to Arab pressure and agreed. Try that in America. Try calling Frederick Douglas an “abducted person.” It is outrageous.

The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the root causes of Sudan’s conflicts. Take Darfur, for example. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a “tribal conflict.” It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism, as it has typically been practiced in Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And they also do not want to be Arabized. They like their own African languages and dress and customs. They resist Arabization. The Arab response is genocide. But nobody tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The regime is targeting the black Africans — Muslims and Christians. This happened to the Nuba people before. In the 1990’s hundreds of thousands were murdered; a large number of women were raped; children were abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Nobody at the UN told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you see a massive amount of outrage and reports and protests about this coming out of the UN or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Do you hear them condemn Arab anti-black racism?

Look at the pages of the New York Times, or the record of the UN condemnations, What you will find is “Israeli crimes” and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages by the exaggerations of Palestinian suffering. Why? Because what Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin that we are all supposed to address.

The truth is that the West commits a real sin when it abandons us: the actual victims of non-Westerns. Our suffering has become almost taboo.

Let me return to the topic of slavery: while there are issues that divide public opinion, we can all agree that for one man to own another is a sin, and it should be stopped. The Americans tore themselves apart over the issue of slavery.

Chattel slavery, a centuries-long practice in Sudan, was revived as a tool of war in the early ’90s. The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad, or holy war, and thereby legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.

I do not like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.

I was only nine years old when I was made a slave. An Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat destined to Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family’s left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word “no.” All I could say was “yes,” “yes,” “yes.”

The United Nations knew about the brutal enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs from the early days of the conflict. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group — sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening.

As soon as the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, the UN agency backtracked, and proceeded to criticize the Non-Governmental Organizations that worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN’s actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League. So much for “human rights for everybody”.

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United Nations closed its doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least 26 of them.

After this event the Sudanese realized that Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So they continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for punishingly long distances, the refugees’ only hope was to reach Israel’s side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

The fact that even Darfuris, who are Muslims, chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area, speaks volumes.. Israel is racist? Israel is against the Muslim world? Ask the thousands of black Muslim Darfuris who found shelter inside the Jewish state.

When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response is absolutely the opposite of what the United Nations alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as “heaven.” No-one called them “abid” – an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations.

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. It is a state of people of the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with beautiful black Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Israel is a state that has taken my own black people in, rescued them, and helped them.

So, yes … my claim may be a radical claim: I claim that the victims who suffer most from the UN’s anti-Israel policy are not just the Israelis but all those people who have to be ignored in order for the UN to tell its big lie against Israel: all those victims of non Western abuse, especially all those victims of Arab and Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab and Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

So far, the Israelis have only been cursed by the UN. But look at the situation of the Copts, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais and Sikhs who suffer from Islamic oppression. We all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned so that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

Before I conclude let me tell you a story that reflects a special connection that the people of South Sudan feel toward Israel. In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor, and then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked and numb. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: “This is our people.” I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On July 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. We achieved freedom despite the opposition from the Arab world and despite the United Nations, whose General Secretary, Bi Ki Moon, lobbied for the unity of Sudan. For the South Sudanese, that would mean continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland; and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel’s legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I salute the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, who had the courage to state publicly that South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built— not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its people, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth.

This originally appeared in a a slightly different form as an address at a conference titled “The Perils of Global Intolerance”, in New York City, September 22, 2011.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2518/united-nations-slavery

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Advertisements

Will OccupyWallSt protest Arab Oil Greed / OPEC?

October 9, 2011

Will OccupyWallSt protest Arab Oil Greed / OPEC?

Donald Trump: OPEC is ‘Sucking the blood out of the country’
Jun 30, 2009 … He explained “They like to blame it on speculators.


http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/12469

All in the Islamic Family | FSM
Jul 18, 2011 – The physical rope is the oil-production capacity which the barbarians … helped to form OPEC in 1960), which the West refrained from reclaiming. … Are the Saudis, Kuwaitis, and other Arab regimes outside the usual …

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.9958/pub_detail.asp

Breaking OPEC’s Grip | EuropeNews
Aug 22, 2011 – OPEC is positioned to exploit this new demand with radical price hikes … In 1973, the Arab oil embargo threw our economy into chaos…

http://europenews.dk/en/node/46427


It is politically correct not to blame The Arabs… American Capitalism – bad, Arab greed = ok?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Arafat’s greatest weapon – mothers’ womb in action: Mother of 4 terrorist murderers chosen by the PA to launch statehood campaign

September 19, 2011
Mother of 4 terrorist murderers
chosen by the PA
to launch statehood campaign

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

The Palestinian Authority chose the mother of 4 terrorist murderers, one of whom killed seven Israeli civilians and attempted to killed twelve others, as the person to launch their statehood campaign with the UN.

In a widely publicized event, the PA had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

[Al-Ayyam, Sept. 9, 2011]
 
[PA TV News, Sept. 8, 2011]
 

In a widely publicized event, the PA had Latifa Abu Hmeid lead the procession to the UN offices in Ramallah and to hand over a letter for the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

The official PA daily reported that she launched the UN campaign last week, and noted that she is the "mother of seven prisoners and of the Shahid (Martyr) Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Hmeid." However, the paper did not mention that 4 of her imprisoned sons are murderers.

Palestinian Media Watch reported last year that Abu Hmeid then had 4 sons in Israeli prisons who were each serving between two and seven life sentences, a total of 18 life sentences. At that time she was in the news because the PA Minister of Prisoners’ Affairs, Issa Karake, decided to honor her with an award, "the Plaque of Resoluteness and Giving… inscribed with the names of her four sons who are imprisoned."

The PA minister explained then why the mother of 4 murderers of Israelis deserves such honor:

"It is she who gave birth to the fighters, and she deserves that we bow to her in salute and in honor."
 

The four sons are serving a total of 18 life sentences for the following crimes:

Nasser Abu Hmeid
– 7 life sentences + 50 years – commander in Fatah’s military wing the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades in Ramallah. Convicted of killing seven Israeli civilians and 12 attempted murders.

Nasr Abu Hmeid – 5 life sentences – Member of terror faction of Fatah, Tanzim, and convicted of involvement in two terror attacks and arms dealing.

Sharif Abu Hmeid – 4 life sentences – a member in one of the brothers’ units carrying out terror attacks against civilians and soldiers. Accompanied a suicide bomber to his attack in March 2002.

Muhammad Abu Hmeid – 2 life sentences + 30 years – involvement in terror attacks.

A fifth son, Abd Al-Mun’im Muhammad Yusuf Naji Abu Hmeid, the one reffered to as "Martyr," was a member of the military wing of Hamas, Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, and planned and carried out the ambush and murder of an Israeli intelligence officer.

PMW has not been able to determine for which crimes the rest of the sons are imprisoned.

The following are the reports about the mother of the terrorists launching the PA statehood campaign:
PA TV News interviews Abd Al-Mun’im Wahdan, a member of the "Palestine – the 194th state" national campaign:

Wahdan: "We of the ‘Palestine – the 194th state’ national campaign [calling for] a Palestinian state with full sovereignty on the territory of Palestine, send a delegation from institutions, organizations, and popular factions. This delegation was headed by Um Nasser Abu Hmeid – this fighter woman, who is the mother of seven prisoners and the mother of the heroic Shahid (Martyr) from the [military wing of Hamas] Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades. This campaign included a letter in which the people demand that the UN recognize Palestine as a state with full sovereignty, like the other countries."
[PA TV (Fatah), Sept. 8, 2011]
 
"The ‘Palestine – the 194th State’ campaign has embarked on its national activities in support of realization [of the appeal to the UN] in September and obtaining UN membership for the State of Palestine, by conveying a letter to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, via his representative in Ramallah. The campaign started out opposite the UN building in Ramallah, with the participation of a number of heads of factions and national forces, representatives of official and popular institutions, independent personalities, and members of trade unions. Hajja Latifa Abu Hmeid, mother of seven prisoners and of the Shahid (Martyr) Abd Al-Mun’im Abu Hmeid, handed the letter to the representative of the UN Secretary General in Ramallah."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Sept. 9, 2011]

 

"[In a procession which set off] yesterday from opposite the Cultural Auditorium in Ramallah in the direction of the UN representative office in Ramallah, the ‘Palestine – the 194th State’ national campaign was inaugurated… when Latifa Abu Hmeid, known as the ‘mother of the prisoners’, handed over a letter addressed to UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, via his representative in Ramallah… She was chosen [for this] because she is a symbol of Palestinian suffering as a result of the occupation’s (i.e., Israel’s) policy… She is the mother of prisoners Muhammad Abu Hmeid and his brothers Nasr, Nasser, Sharif, Basel, Islam and Jihad. She is prevented from seeing her sons who are sitting in the occupation’s prisons."
[Al-Ayyam, Sept. 9, 2011]

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5656


NATIV Online – Issue 11: Eighteen Years of Stolen Childhoods – From the womb to an early tomb, Yasser Arafat once said his best weapon was “the Palestinian mother’s womb.”

http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/11-issue/bertz-11.htm

Jul. 2010, Sep. 2011: Two important dates in ‘official’ ethno-religious cleansing, judenrein, apartheid Arab Palestine

September 16, 2011


Jul. 2010, Sep. 2011


Two important dates in ‘official’ ethno-religious cleansing, judenrein,  apartheid Arab Palestine


July 28, 2010 – “Palestinian” racist leader, PM Mahmoud Abbas on a ‘Jew free’ region, even banning Jews under NATO. The “Palestinian” media [PALLYWOOD] later edited the word “Jew” for “Israeli,” though it doesn’t really make sense in the context…



Arab League Tries to Score Points for Abbas, ‘Endorses’ Talks
Arab League letter ‘endorses’ direct talks, while leaving preconditions that prevent them. ‘No Jews allowed’ in Abbas’ planned state.
By Maayana Miskin and R. Sylvetsky
First Publish: 7/29/2010, 8:08 PM / Last Update: 7/29/2010, 9:45 PM
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138856


No outcry at Abbas’s racism? | The Jewish Chronicle
Aug 19, 2010 … Speaking in Cairo on July 28, Abbas gave his version of negotiations with Israel’s former Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert. In the course of his remarks, Abbas made a statement so astonishing that I quote it in full, as reported by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency: “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as Nato forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the Nato forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land.”
http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate/columnists/37008/no-outcry-abbass-racism


Israel Has Always Been A Jewish State | The Jewish Week

Menachem Z. Rosensaft Tuesday, August 30, 2011


While the Obama administration is trying to ward off the Palestinians’ ill-conceived bid for unilateral recognition as an Arab state at the UN General Assembly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is proving to be as obstructionist and hypocritical as his late predecessor, Yasir Arafat. “Don’t order us to recognize a Jewish state,” Abbas declared last week. “We won’t accept it.”


Never mind that he envisions an Arab Palestine that is Judenrein (that is, free of Jews). “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise [an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement], such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” Abbas said in Cairo on July 28, 2010.


Never mind that Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as Mauritanian in West Africa for that matter, are all officially “Islamic Republics,” that Egypt and Syria call themselves “Arab Republics,” that Jordan by its own definition is a “Hashemite,” meaning directly descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, kingdom, and that the website of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia proclaims that country to be “a modern nation that adheres to Islam, honors its Arab heritage and tradition, and presses vigorously forward in the service of Islam ….”


According to Abbas’ Islamocentric geopolitical ethos, Arabs are entitled to a myriad of Muslim states scattered across the Middle East and North Africa, but he will not countenance a single Jewish state in his neighborhood.


In fact, the international community recognized Israel as a Jewish state long before Abbas and his cohorts ever came on the scene.


On Oct. 11, 1947, Hershel V. Johnson, the United States deputy representative to the United Nations, explained at a meeting of the UN Special Committee on Palestine that “as a result of the First World War, a large area of the Near East, including Palestine, was liberated and a number of states gained their independence. The United States, having contributed its blood and resources to the winning of that war, felt that it could not divest itself of a certain responsibility for the manner in which the freed territories were disposed of, or for the fate of the peoples liberated at that time. It took the position that, these peoples should be prepared for self-government and also that a national home for the Jews should be established in Palestine.” (Emphasis added.)


Moreover, Johnson continued, “in 1917 the Government of the United Kingdom, in the statement known as the Balfour Declaration,..
[…]

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial_opinion/opinion/israel_has_always_been_jewish_state


Beware Palestinian apartheid [Ynet, Oct. 4, 2010]
Op-ed: Palestinian leader Abbas seeks to adopt racist policy based on ethnic cleansing of Jews
Jonathan Dahoah Halevi Published:  08.04.10, 00:03
[…]
“I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” he was quoted by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency.
A state without Jews
The Palestinians intend to demand the implementation of the UN resolution regarding refugees, from a Palestinian perspective, which gives the 5.5 million refugees and their descendants the right of return and to settle in the State of Israel. In his briefing to the Egyptian media, Abbas presented this strategy and denied the Jewish character of Israel. He maintains that Israel should, in fact, become a bi-national state, but on the other hand that Palestine must become a state “clean” of Jews.
The term “Israeli” used by Abbas means “Jew,” as the PA sees Israeli Arabs, Muslims and Christians alike as an integral part of the Palestinian people. The future State of Palestine, according Abbas, must resist any Jewish presence in its territory. In other words, the PA embraces a racist policy – Palestinian apartheid – directed at Jews, based on denial of Jewish history and the cultural and religious linkage of the Jewish people to the land.
The anti-Semitism embodied in Abbas’ words refers also to his position towards the NATO observers’ force that may be deployed in the West Bank to monitor the implementation of the peace agreement with Israel. He is opposed to Jews being included in this force; meaning, he will ask Germany and all other partner countries in NATO to use their own forces in the West Bank, in an effort to the exclude any Jewish soldiers.
He didn’t explain how these countries would determine who is a Jew, whether according to orthodox Jewish laws or just if one of the parents or grandparents was a Jew. But even Saudi Arabia didn’t dare oppose the deployment of American Jewish soldiers on its land during operation Desert Storm (1990-1), and no one in Israel ever demanded to disqualify Muslim soldiers from serving in the international observers’ forces in Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Sinai.
The racist language used by Abbas is particularly despicable as it doubts the loyalty of the Jews to their country. It is for this reason that his comments call for a firm Israeli and European response.
Note: Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency published on July 28 its version of Abbas’ briefing to the Egyptian media, quoting him as saying: “I’m willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land”. This version was reprinted by Palestinian newspapers al-Quds and al-Hayat al-Jadida on July 30 and by other Arab newspapers.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3929819,00.html



Sep. 14, 2011 – Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) ambassador to the US Maen Areikat on its policy of ‘Jew free’ “Palestine” State


Judenrein Palestine 3:11 PM, Sep 14, 2011 – By DANIEL HALPER
The Palestine Liberation Organization’s ambassador to the United States said Tuesday that any future Palestinian state it seeks with help from the United Nations and the United States should be free of Jews.
[…]
Such a state would be the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was judenrein, or cleansed of Jews, said Elliott Abrams, a former U.S. National Security Council official.
I was at this breakfast, and as the so-called ambassador was leaving and getting into his Cadillac, I asked whether he was endorsing an apartheid state. 
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/judenrein-palestine_593537.html


Palestinians: No Jews in our state‎
Israel Today – Ryan Jones – Sep 15, 2011
… it appears it is the Palestinians who seek apartheid. …[Areikat’s] comments conjure up Judenrein motifs.” Judenrein was the term used by the Nazis to …
http://www.israeltoday.co.il/News/tabid/178/nid/22948/language/en-US/Default.aspx


CAMERA Snapshots: Apartheid Palestine – Not in Washington Post and New York Times
Sep. 14, 2011 – The Palestine Liberation Organization’s representative to Washington, Maen Areikat, told American reporters that a future West Bank and Gaza …
http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/09/apartheid_palestine_not_in_was.html


Lieberman Orders Embassies to ‘Protest PA Apartheid State’
FM Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies around the world to protest remarks by a PA official that ‘Palestine’ will be ‘Judenrein’

By David Lev

First Publish: 9/15/2011, 2:18 PM


Foreign Minister Lieberman (file)
Israel news photo: Flash 90Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has instructed Israeli embassies in Europe and the U.S. to file strong protests with the governments of their host countries against comments by the Palestinian Authority representative delegation’s United Nations observer, who said that the Arab state the PA plans to declare in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem will be “free of Jews.”
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/147927

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East

September 15, 2011

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East


It is long overdue that this (and others like it) come under scrutiny for being systematically blindly anti-Israel biased, distortion of facts and simply obsessive in singling it out, while covering for Arab-Islamic crimes against humanity. [You know when an orgainaztion is in real trouble, when, even, its founding chairman criticizes it for utter and complete failure].

“Human rights” organizations’ conspiracy-collective war on Israelis’ Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter if its (like the UN) influenced by Arab oil / Lobby, Islamic lobby, Arab “street anger,” or impacted by the powerful mythology of “strong Israel vs. poor weak Arab” – (deriving from a distorted image, naively based on looking at a raw-but-shallow picture of balance-of-armament VS reality, underestimating the Goliath power of “Palestinians” and Hezbollah use of their civilians against cautious and Humane Israel) is the source of it, or if it’s by an individual bigot in charge at HRW.





IN GENERAL


See examples, updates at:

1) CAMERA.org here and here.

2) HonestReporting.com here and here.


HRW Founder Bernstein Starts Advancing Human Rights (AHR)

March 03, 2011

Robert Bernstein, the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch who publicly renounced his ties with the organization due to distorted and disproportionate focus on free and open Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East — mostly unfree — has just launched a new human rights organization, Advancing Human Rights.


Why the need for a new organization? Bernstein, 88, explains:


Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/03/hrw_founder_bernstein_starts_a.html


“Human Rights Watch Coverup”
Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky


When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ­ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth’s umbrage at criticism.


Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization’s reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch’s behavior at the UN’s infamous “anti-racism” conference held in Durban, shortly before 9/11. If the organization’s actions were assailable there, he says, it would make “it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct.”


It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.
Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: “Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.”
So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance ­ notwithstanding that ‘s citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.


At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here’s what happened:
As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.
The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that is an “apartheid” state guilty of “genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state.”


As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.


THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.


Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.
 
Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the “voices of the victims.”


In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for was a form of anti-Semitism.


The vote to delete the Jewish caucus’s proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.


What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the “voices of the victims” had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: “The document gives expression to all voices.”


What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.


AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.
On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration “marks a major success… and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included “anti-Arab racism.”


Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: “What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers.”
What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.


As for Roth’s claim of the organization’s objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability ­ despite an annual budget of $22 million ­ to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.


So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an “assassination” or “liquidation.”


International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.


Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.
When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel’s enemies?
The writer, a professor at York University in , is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908


Op-Ed Contributor – Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – NYTimes …
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN. Published: October 19, 2009. AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman …The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Pollak: Human Rights Watch is Biased Against Israel – WSJ.com
Jul 30, 2009 – Double Standards and Human Rights Watch
The organization displays a strong bias against Israel
By NOAH POLLAK
Over the past two weeks, Human Rights Watch has been embroiled in a controversy over a fund raiser it held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At that gathering, Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson pledged the group would use donations to “battle . . . pro-Israel pressure groups.”

As criticism of her remark poured in, Ms. Whitson responded by saying that the complaint against her was “fundamentally a racist one.” And Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, declared that “We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception.”

The facts tell a different story. From 2006 to the present, Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict have been almost entirely devoted to condemning Israel, accusing it of human rights and international law violations, and demanding international investigations into its conduct. It has published some 87 criticisms of Israeli conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus eight criticisms of Palestinian groups and four of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. (It also published a small number of critiques of both Israel and Arab groups, and of intra-Palestinian fighting.)

It was during this period that more than 8,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Human Rights Watch’s response? In November 2006 it said that the Palestinian Authority “should stop giving a wink and a nod to rocket attacks.” Two years later it urged the Hamas leadership “to speak out forcefully against such [rocket] attacks . . . and bring to justice those who are found to have participated in them.”

In response to the rocket war and Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel imposed a partial blockade of Gaza. Human Rights Watch then published some 28 statements and reports on the blockade, accusing Israel in highly charged language of an array of war crimes and human rights violations. One report headline declared that Israel was “choking Gaza.” Human Rights Watch has never recognized the difference between Hamas’s campaign of murder against Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to defend those civilians. The unwillingness to distinguish between aggression and self-defense blots out a fundamental moral fact—that Hamas’s refusal to stop its attacks makes it culpable for both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.

Meanwhile, Egypt has also maintained a blockade on Gaza, although it is not even under attack from Hamas. Human Rights Watch has never singled out Egypt for criticism over its participation in the blockade.

The organization regularly calls for arms embargoes against Israel and claims it commits war crimes for using drones, artillery and cluster bombs. Yet on Israel’s northern border sits Hezbollah, which is building an arsenal of rockets to terrorize and kill Israeli civilians, and has placed that arsenal in towns and villages in hopes that Lebanese civilians will be killed if Israel attempts to defend itself. The U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions demanding Hezbollah’s disarmament and the cessation of its arms smuggling. Yet while Human Rights Watch has criticized Israel’s weapons 15 times, it has criticized Hezbollah’s twice.

In the Middle East, Human Rights Watch does not actually function as a human-rights organization. If it did, it would draw attention to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries. In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are warehoused in impoverished refugee camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and even the right to work. This has received zero coverage from the organization.

In 2007, the Lebanese Army laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp for over three months, killing hundreds. Human Rights Watch produced two anemic press releases. At this very moment, Jordan is stripping its Palestinians of citizenship without the slightest protest from the organization. Unfortunately, Human Rights Watch seems only to care about Palestinians when they can be used to convince the world that the Jewish state is actually a criminal state.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html

TNR publishes “Minority Report: Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel”
April 28, 2010   Richard Landes
The New Republic has just published a major piece on Human Rights Watch and their deeply disturbed relationship to Israel. Its a case study of demopaths and dupes, human rights complex, masochistic omnipotence syndrome, and the left-jihadi alliance. Below, a few choice passages.


Minority Report
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel.
Benjamin Birnbaum April 27, 2010 | 12:00 am


[snip]


With Palestinian suicide bombings reaching a crescendo in early 2002, precipitating a full-scale Israeli counterterrorist campaign across the West Bank, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division (MENA) issued two reports (and myriad press releases) on Israeli misconduct—including one on the Israel Defense Forces’ assault on terrorist safe havens in the Jenin refugee camp. That report—which, to HRW’s credit, debunked the widespread myth that Israel had carried out a massacre—nevertheless said there was “strong prima facie evidence” that Israel had “committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” irking the country’s supporters, who argued that the IDF had in fact gone to great lengths to spare Palestinian civilians. (The decision not to launch an aerial bombardment of the densely populated area, and to dispatch ground troops into labyrinthine warrens instead, cost 23 Israeli soldiers their lives—crucial context that HRW ignored.) It would take another five months for HRW to release a report on Palestinian suicide bombings—and another five years for it to publish a report addressing the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza, despite the fact that, by 2003, hundreds had been launched from the territory into Israel. (HRW did issue earlier press releases on both subjects.)


In the years to come, critics would accuse HRW of giving disproportionate attention to Israeli misdeeds. According to HRW’s own count, since 2000, MENA has devoted more reports to abuses by Israel than to abuses by all but two other countries, Iraq and Egypt. That’s more reports than those on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and other regional dictatorships. (When HRW includes press releases in its count, Israel ranks fourth on the list.) And, if you count only full reports—as opposed to “briefing papers,” “backgrounders,” and other documents that tend to be shorter, less authoritative, and therefore less influential—the focus on the Jewish state only increases, with Israel either leading or close to leading the tally. There are roughly as many reports on Israel as on Iran, Syria, and Libya combined.


HRW officials acknowledge that a number of factors beyond the enormity of human rights abuses go into deciding how to divide up the organization’s attentions: access to a given country, possibility for redress, and general interest in the topic. “I think we tend to go where there’s action and where we’re going to get reaction,” rues one board member. “We seek the limelight—that’s part of what we do. And so, Israel’s sort of like low-hanging fruit.”


[snip]
[Bernstien and] Edith Everett, a member of both the MENA advisory committee and the HRW board, a former stockbroker, and a philanthropist who has donated millions to aid Druze Arabs in Israel, eventually came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears. For Everett, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was a turning point. “Participating on the board became most difficult since [that war],” she recalls. While Everett agreed with some of HRW’s critiques—on Israel’s use of cluster munitions, for example—she took issue with many of the organization’s conclusions, including its reporting on human shield use in Lebanon. (In a 2007 report, HRW insisted that Hezbollah fighters did not shield themselves and their weapons among the local civilian population on a widespread basis.) For a long time, Everett had felt there was a healthy exchange about these issues inside HRW, but that had begun to change. “I felt in recent times there was less of a dialogue,” she says. “It seemed to me that there was a commitment to a point of view—that Israel’s the bad guy here.”


[snip]


Robert James—a businessman, World War II veteran, and member of the MENA advisory committee who has been involved with HRW almost since its inception—calls the group “the greatest NGO since the Red Cross,” but argues that it is chronically incapable of introspection. “Bob is bringing this issue up on Israel,” he says. “But Human Rights Watch has a more basic problem. … They cannot take criticism.”


[snip]


Critics have pointed out that a number of Whitson’s colleagues in MENA—such as Joe Stork, who came to HRW after decades as a leader of the left-wing Middle East Research and Information Project, where he was part of an editorial collective that ran an extremely anti-Israel journal—arrived at the organization with backgrounds in the pro-Palestinian movement. Sid Sheinberg argues that the mere appearance of a biased jury at MENA ill-serves HRW. “Is it smart to have a number of people about which questions can be asked—in either direction?” he says. But, when I asked Whitson about this critique—and, specifically, about a former researcher on Israel who, before starting at HRW, wrote pro-Palestinian dispatches from the West Bank and Gaza describing Israeli soldiers as “protected by arrogance and hatred and a state and an army and the world’s superpower”—she said she didn’t see a problem with this situation. “For people who apply for jobs to be the researcher in Israel-Palestine, it’s probably going to be someone who’s done work on Israel-Palestine with a human rights background,” she explained. “And guess what? People who do work with a human rights background on Israel-Palestine tend to find that there are a lot of Israeli abuses. And they tend to become human rights activists on the issue.” For his part, HRW program director Iain Levine, who oversees the organization’s 16 divisions, acknowledges that people from many divisions—and not just MENA—arrive from “solidarity backgrounds,” but insists that, “when they come to the door of this organization, they park those things behind.”


Whether or not Whitson has done so, she clearly favors a tough approach toward the Jewish state. She has argued that, far from being too harsh toward Israel, HRW is actually too lenient. “[B]elieve me,” she wrote in an e-mail to a MENA advisory committee member, “on israel in particular, we are overly cautious and extremely kid-gloved because of the harassment we endure.” Less definitive—but still arguably revealing—evidence about Whitson’s politics can be found in her opinion of Norman Finkelstein, the activist and avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany. The two became acquainted years ago, and she brought him to HRW to discuss his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah. (“He had a very mixed reception,” she remembers. “I think people did not find his style particularly persuasive.”) In late 2006, when Finkelstein launched a letter-writing campaign demanding that HRW officials apologize for a press release critical of Palestinian officials (which they eventually did), one HRW observer e-mailed Whitson to share thoughts on Finkelstein’s over-the-top rhetoric. Whitson replied: “I agree w/ u that norm undermines himself and his cause w/ the language he uses, and his anger sometimes gets the better of him and his brilliant mind and generous spirit. I continue to have tremendous respect and admiration for him, because as you probably know, making Israeli abuses the focus of one’s life work is a thankless but courageous task that may well end up leaving all of us quite bitter.”


[snip]


Bernstein also raised some of his concerns with then-HRW board member Richard Goldstone, who would go on to write the U.N.’s much-maligned report on the Gaza war. There are few more reviled figures in Israel right now than Goldstone, but even he sympathized with Bernstein on certain points, such as the politicized nature of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, after being created in 2006, had directed its first nine condemnations at Israel. In March 2008, barely a year before he accepted UNHRC’s mandate to investigate the Gaza war, he told Bernstein that he thought the body’s performance had been hopeless and expressed ambivalence as to whether HRW should continue appearing before it.


He also agreed with Bernstein that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s increasingly aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, in combination with his threatening policies, was an issue worthy of HRW’s attention. Goldstone pushed Roth to address it, but to no avail. (When I asked Roth in a February interview at his office about HRW’s refusal to take a position on Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel, including his famous call for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” Roth quibbled about the way the statement had been translated in the West—“there was a real question as to whether he actually said that”—then told me that it was not HRW’s place to render judgments on such rhetoric: “Let’s assume it is a military threat. We don’t take on governments’ military threats just as we don’t take on aggression, per se. We look at how they behave. So, we wouldn’t condemn a military threat just as we wouldn’t condemn an invasion—we would look at how the government wages the war.” Whitson, who sat in on the interview, offered her two cents: “You know, that statement was also matched by Hillary Clinton saying that the Iranian regime should be destroyed or wiped off the map. Again, so, very similar statements, side by side, close in time.” For his part, Goldstone told TNR that he eventually came around to the view this was not an issue HRW should take up.)
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/04/28/tnr-publishes-minority-report-human-rights-watch-fights-a-civil-war-over-israel/


____________



THE SOROS EFFECT


Obama-Sponsor Gives $100M to Anti-Israeli ‘Human Rights Watch’
 – Sep 13, 2010 – Anti-Israeli secular-Jewish billionaire George Soros has pledged $100 million to the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW),
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139596


Human Rights Watch sells out to Soros–Gerald Steinberg – NYPOST.com
Sep 13, 2010 – Selling Out to Soros
Rights group’s dubious recordBy GERALD STEINBERG


Last Updated: 6:20 PM, September 13, 2010
Posted: 11:44 PM, September 12, 2010


In accepting a huge grant from George Soros, Human Rights Watch has spurned the public advice (and warning) offered nearly a year ago by its founder Robert Bernstein. Rather than grapple with the serious problems of credibility and bias, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth has cemented relations with Soros — a partisan ideologue who also supports Moveon.org, a controversial advocacy group.


Bernstein severely criticized HRW in a New York Times oped. To “resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world,” he warned, the organization must return “to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it.” In its earlier days, he noted, “to create clarity in human rights,” HRW aimed to “draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds.”


Soros: His $100 million donation to Human Rights Watch will make up for grants lost because of recent scandals. Over the years, HRW lost its moral compass and substituted ideology and an Israel-obsessed agenda. Bernstein was trying to awaken the group’s leaders to the decayed state of what was once a human-rights superpower.


Instead, Roth has opted to accept Soros’ $100 million grant — which should offset nicely the income lost from core donors who’ve walked away in the wake of a host of scandals. It won’t, however, address the root problems.


In May 2009, HRW launched a fund-raising drive in Saudi Arabia, using its anti-Israel record to solicit funds from “prominent members of Saudi society.” That September, HRW “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was “outed” as an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia — a troubling hobby for the main author of a number of HRW reports that accused Israel of “war crimes” and other violations.


Add to this the recent work by NGO Monitor, the watchdog group that I lead, and others on the severe ideological biases at HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. The systematic research in NGO Monitor’s report and articles in The New Republic and the Sunday Times detail the severe ideological biases of MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson and deputy director Joe Stork.


Both Whitson and Stork came to HRW with backgrounds in pro-Palestinian political activities, and continue to promote their anti-Israel political agendas through their “human rights” work.


Whitson was and remains an advocate of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In July 2009, she referred to Israel’s “system of apartheid.” Stork’s publications in the Middle East Research and Information Project from the 1980s and 1990s focus on attacking Zionism, Israel and American “imperialism” in the Middle East, while promoting the Palestinian narrative.


This is further evidence of Bernstein’s conclusion that HRW is “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.”


The group has relentlessly promoted the UN-commissioned report by one of its former board members, Richard Goldstone — a report that reflects the same biases and dubious research practices as so many recent HRW papers. In 2009, HRW’s 34 pro-Goldstone publications outnumbered its documents on all the countries in the Middle East except Israel and Iran.


The bias is indisputable: HRW’s publications on “Israel and the Occupied Territories” made up 28 percent of its total Mideast output in 2009.


Which makes it a fine fit for George Soros, whose own biases are well-established. In the Middle East, for example, his Open Society Institute exclusively supports advocacy groups that campaign internationally to undermine the elected governments of Israel — organizations such as Adalah, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Gisha and Yesh Din.


In extending his control over HRW, Soros seeks to increase its staff by 40 percent, reposition it as a major international player and restore its influence as an arbiter on universal human rights. But while his grant will alleviate the crisis caused by HRW’s declining income, it only deepens the moral crisis.


Only by changing the organization’s hiring practices, research priorities, methodologies and biases — especially at MENA — can Human Rights Watch recover its image as the “gold standard” of human-rights groups.


Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution, and a professor of political science at Bar Ilan Uni versity
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/selling_out_to_soros_iYfn7YXaZg8xEFCp5iEcCJ


_____________



EXPLODING CRITICISM IN THE WAKE OF CRITICIZING ISRAEL, WHILE ISLAMIC-HEZBOLLAH DELIBERATELY CAUSES CIVILIAN DEATHS IN LEBANON (2006)


First Word: What is ‘Human Rights Watch’ watching – Jerusalem Post
 –  ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
08/24/2006 16:48


Many former supporters of the organization have become alienated by its obsessive focus on Israel.


When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true. Consider the following highly publicized “conclusion” reached by Human Rights Watch about the recent war in Lebanon between Hizbullah and Israel: “Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.” No cases! Anyone who watched even a smattering of TV during the war saw with their own eyes direct evidence of rockets being launched from civilian areas. But not Human Rights Watch.


How could an organization, which claims to be objective, have been so demonstrably wrong about so central a point in so important a war? Could it have been an honest mistake? I don’t think so. Despite its boast that “Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies,” it didn’t find one instance in which Hizbullah failed to segregate its fighters from civilians. Nor apparently did HRW even ask the Israelis for proof of its claim that Hizbullah rockets were being fired from behind civilians, and that Hizbullah fighters were hiding among civilians. Its investigators interviewed Arab “eyewitnesses” and monitored “information from public sources including the Israeli government statements.” Human Rights Watch ignored credible news sources, such as The New York Times and The New Yorker. “Hizbullah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
Mr. Amar said Hizbullah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back. – Sabrina Tavernise, “Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hizbullah,” The New York Times, July 28, 2006. Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins. A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, “It was a Hizbullah mosque.” A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hizbullah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away. – Jon Lee Anderson, “The Battle for Lebanon,” The New Yorker, August 8, 2006. Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that Hizbullah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They’ve done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret’d.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. “It’s the same as if you set up your weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital.” – Carlie Gillis, “Diplomacy Under Fire,” MacLean’s, August 7, 2006.
The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell. “Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?” The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.


Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel. – Sonia Verma, “Hizbullah’s Deadly Hold on Heartland,” National Post, August 5, 2006. [Samira] Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hizbullah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home. – Mohamad Bazzi, “Mideast Crisis – Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run,” Newsday, July 28, 2006 “What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hizbullah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defense Forces),'” said [Lewis] MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. – Steven Edwards, “UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack,” CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006. It was also reported that Hizbullah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin. – United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release).
While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hizbullah fighters at road blocks. In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with laundry sheets drying on a balcony.
Others show a Hizbullah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hizbullah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. “Hizbullah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said. “Until the Hizbullah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated. “After the attacks they didn’t even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said. Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater.
The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets. The release of the images comes as Hizbullah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as “human shields.” – Chris Tinkler, “Revealed: How Hizbullah puts the innocent at risk; They don’t care,” Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006.


HOW COULD Human Rights Watch have ignored – or more likely suppressed – this evidence from so many different sources? The only reasonable explanation is that they wanted there to be no evidence of Hizbullah’s tactic of hiding behind civilians. So they cooked the books to make it come out that way.


Even after the fighting ended and all the reports of Hizbullah hiding among civilians were published, HRW chief Kenneth Roth essentially repeated the demonstrably false conclusions that “in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.” So committed is Human Rights Watch to its predetermined conclusions that it refused to let the facts, as reported by objective sources, get in its way. Many former supporters of Human Rights Watch have become alienated from the organization, because of, in the words of one early supporter, “their obsessive focus on Israel.” Within the last month, virtually every component of the organized Jewish community, from secular to religious, liberal to conservative, has condemned Human Rights Watch for its bias. Roth and his organization’s willful blindness when it comes to Israel and its enemies have completely undermined the credibility of a once important human rights organization.


Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=32731


Human Rights Watch: Irrelevant, Immoral on Mideast Conflict
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League 
This article originally appeared in The New York Sun on August 2, 2006 


Human Rights Watch has come out with a stinging attack on Israel for its actions in the conflict against Hezbollah, calling the tragedy in Qana a “war crime.”


Since Human Rights Watch is not an organization that has ignored human rights issues in the Arab world — it has done studies on such issues as human rights violations in Egypt and suicide bombings — what the organization says is given much weight and credibility in certain circles.


The truth is, however, that the overwhelming thrust of Human Rights Watch work regarding Israel and the Arab world falls on Israel. Included was a rush to judgment in its accusation that Israel in Jenin had committed war crimes in seeking out suicide bombers, as well as the fact that in one year (2004), according to NGO Monitor, of 33 HRW documents dealing with Israel, 25 were critical of the Jewish State.


More significantly, there are questions about HRW’s broader perspective in its work in the Middle East. Kenneth Roth falls back on technical interpretations to justify what his organization criticizes and what it doesn’t. He says that it doesn’t go into the cause of war. He doesn’t want to talk about the intentions of various parties. He doesn’t want to look at the larger picture because, he claims, all of this would undermine the neutral posture that gives his organization credibility.


More than any specific criticism, it is this explanation of what HRW is about that is so problematic. First, he inappropriately compares his organization in this respect to the Red Cross, but that body has a very different purpose. HRW, by its reports and statements, has a major impact on political judgments.


Far more important is that his explanation of HRW’s perspective — at least as it applies to the conflict of Israel and the Arab world — leads inevitably to the conclusion that HRW is either irrelevant or immoral, or maybe both. On one level, his explanations of all the factors that don’t come into play when doing analyses and passing judgment should lead to the conclusion that they truly aren’t relevant to the fundamental issues of peace, war, and justice that are embodied in a conflict such as this. If the intentions of Syria and Iran are not to be examined, if the takeover of part of a country by a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel is not something important, if the continuous flow of rockets, launchers and other weapons from Iran and Syria to an illegitimate group is not worthy of consideration, then ultimately why should anyone take seriously what Human Rights Watch has to say?


On a deeper level, one can conclude that despite painting itself as a great moral arbiter, in fact Human Rights Watch’s approach to these problems is immorality at the highest level. Let’s remember that Israel has been able to survive and prosper in a region where it has been surrounded by neighbors, close and far, who have been committed to Israel’s destruction for five decades, because of one reason: its strength and power of deterrence.


The State of Israel, which emerged out of the ashes of the Holocaust, understood early on that it must be able to convince its enemies that attacking the tiny Jewish State would be a big mistake. Israel had to make clear to the Arabs that they would be hurt far, far more than the pain they could inflict. In other words, without Israel hitting back (not in an “eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” fashion which Mr. Roth cited and is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews) but in a much stronger way, Israel would have been destroyed long ago.


The moral issue, the human rights issue that overrides everything else in this conflict is that if Hezbollah, Syria and Iran don’t understand that they will pay an overwhelming price for these rocket attacks on Israel, then eventually the rockets will be armed with chemical weapons and the warheads with nuclear weapons. In other words, a second Holocaust would be in the works.


So yes, Israel is striking very hard at Hezbollah and the infrastructure that allows it to operate and to receive weapons from Iran and Syria. And yes, there are tragically civilian casualties. Israel must do everything in its power to limit these casualties. But it is Hezbollah that has cynically created a dilemma for Israel by embedding their missiles not only in civilian areas, but literally in civilian households. The dilemma for Israel was: should it be so careful to avoid civilian casualties — for its own sake, for the sake of the Lebanese people and their attitudes toward Israel, and for world opinion — that Israel would not effectively destroy the missile threat that was turning northern Israel into a hell for its residents? Or, should Israel strike at Hezbollah with significant force, inevitably producing civilian casualties because of the placement of missiles, which would turn the people of Lebanon and the world against Israel? Israel has sought its way through this minefield. It has tried both to protect its people and to limit civilian casualties.


It is no accident that Human Rights Watch gets it wrong or has a habit of rushing to judgment as it did in Jenin and as it did in Qana. If one sees military activity by Israel in a vacuum, ignoring the threats to its security and existence, ignoring the intentions and growing capabilities of its enemies, ignoring the cynical actions of its foes which seek either to hurt Israel and its citizens on the ground or to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world, then, of course, Israel will look like the neighborhood bully and will be accused of all kinds of things.


I would therefore recommend that Human Rights Watch be viewed for what it is, at least when it comes to the great struggle in the Middle East that may determine not only the future of the State of Israel but of mankind itself: as irrelevant or immoral.
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/EB055C60-4506-4FAF-98A0-49AEAAC82227,213018C9-567C-418C-BDEA-1CBDA8F58810,frameless.htm


Roth’s False God
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 8, 2006


After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is “a clear humanitarian violation.” We’re tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.


Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in “extremist interpretations of religious doctrine” like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he’ll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he’ll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not “in sight” is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.


The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth’s statements “loathsome” and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is “so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously.” The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed “a classic anti-Semitic stereotype,” and said Human Rights Watch is “irrelevant or immoral.” A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, “Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying.”


The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, told us of Human Rights Watch that he was “disturbed by its apparent bias.” The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said Mr. Roth of Human Rights Watch “is not only naïve, but shows his hatred toward Jews and Israel is greater than his hatred of Islamist terror.” The general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, called Human Rights Watch’s position “a problem,” and said, “to elevate a mistake to the level of war crime is outrageous.” A spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Bandler, said the statements by Human Rights Watch and Mr. Roth “display a real lack of understanding.”


American Jewry stands with the Israeli government on the point. Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry, a few months back told us of Human Rights Watch, after the organization wrote to President Bush calling for an end to all American aid to Israel, “They’ve lost their credibility.” Even Human Rights Watch’s founding chairman, Robert Bernstein, who led the organization from 1979 to 1997, is dismayed and pained at the stance the group he founded has been taking against the Jewish state, according to several individuals to whom Mr. Bernstein confided his discomfort with the organization he helped found. Mr. Bernstein declined to comment.


Mr. Roth sneers at “religious doctrine” and “Biblical injunctions” from the Torah. In an earlier letter to this page, he referred to them as the “morality of some more primitive moment.” He belittles any distinction between a terrorist group whose goal is to kill Jews, eradicate Israel, and impose Islamist law worldwide, and a pluralist sovereign state, like Israel, that apologizes and investigates when it kills civilians in the course of trying to protect its civilians and borders from the terrorist group. Human Rights Watch recently called on America to cease immediately arms transfers to Israel. If Mr. Roth’s Yale Law School degree and international law dictate cutting off Israel’s arms as it is under assault by a terrorist group out to destroy it and deliberately kill its civilians, we’ll take the Bible any day. One doesn’t need a Yale Law School degree or expertise in international law to know Israel is different from the terrorists, just a basic moral compass.


Mr. Roth’s own moral compass seems to go haywire whenever Israel is involved. More reputable scholars of international law, like Orde Kittrie writing in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, disagree with Human Rights Watch’s conclusions. So do President Bush and a consensus in Congress and among the American public, which have supported Israel’s right to defend itself. Siding with Human Rights Watch in criticizing Israel have been the governments of Iran and Communist China, two of the worst human rights abusers of them all.


Mr. Roth may send us another letter, conceding another point or two along the way. Or not. But this is about more than Mr. Roth and his organization. The moral equivalence that has infected him and his organization has, sadly, spread far on much of the left, from the United Nations to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International and the editorialists of the New York Times, who yesterday, stunningly, said any ceasefire they would favor must allow Hezbollah “to claim some sort of victory.” That such confusion has not gained traction among American Jews or, for that matter, on the Christian right in this country is testament to the bond of shared values between America and Israel. Those values have a base in something higher than the false god of international law before whom Kenneth Roth has brought a once-idealistic institution so low.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roths-false-god/37473


Human Rights Hypocrites
– Aug 29, 2006 – Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which … Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed.

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/hrw01.htm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘DURBAN SO-CALLED “ANTI-RACISM” CONFERENCE’: EPITOME OF ARAB RACISM, ISLAMIC BIGOTRY AND UN’S HYPOCRISY

March 9, 2011

‘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.
http://www.ilanamercer.com/ben.htm



‘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.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1025

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…
http://www.bnaibrith.ca/publications/audit2001/audit2001-06.html

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

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=254&PID=0&IID=1704

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 …..

http://www.jstor.org/pss/25659754

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.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/durban1.html

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. …
http://www.strauss.za.com/hip/steyn.asp


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, …
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/israel/durban.pdf

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.
http://www.adl.org/durban/adl_quotes.asp

Racists cry racism at U.N. conference … At the Durban debacle, racists cried racism and anti-Semites paraded their bigotry while condemning Israeli …
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=10776

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 …
http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cultuHre.htm

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. …
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=488

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 …
http://www.adl.org/durban/adl_quotes.asp

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
MichNews.com
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…

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/124/4241

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…
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3454&page=0


Arab Racism

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
http://www.gzyn.com/cmp/contentReadingActions.do?method=readArticle&id=31&edition=1&title=Arab+Racism


Antisemitism And Racism Equating Zionism with racism and Nazism is not a new motif in the Arab …
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2001-2/arab.htm


[‘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 …
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/127280

Durban & Islamo Arab Apartheid
http://www.dhimmi.com/durban.htm

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 http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3538

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.

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070226161249/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002944
http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/jan24_2003.html



Go ahead! Compare real Arab racism with Israel
Let’s compare Arab racism with bogus anti-Arab racism charges on Israel
Dec. 2007
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,”…
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/124514

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 …
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24912
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/116503




DURBAN ALERT 2007


Durban Alert, August 27, 2007 Aug 27, 2007 …This surge in racism adopted new forms
http://www.eyeontheun.org/durban.asp?p=357



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.”
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43175


Palestinian Arab Muslims first class citizens in Israel whereas Israeli Jews are second class citizens
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/67486



“Double Standard”

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”
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/67487
].

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.”

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Jacobs_Mindelle/2007/02/26/3668039.html

Israelis aren’t ‘racist’ – they’re worried
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1167467807212



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.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/87586




‘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 …
http://www.eyeontheun.org/durban.asp?p=348


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?
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=109970 




UN’s Durban II Conference Against Racism?


By: Sam Harari, The Bulletin
08/20/2008
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.
Some Background
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….

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=20082298&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8


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.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/racism-durban-conference-oped-cx_cr_1204rosett.html


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.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/smith-should-avoid-racist-conference/story-e6frg6ux-1111118965061


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
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=nw20090316193612328C818953&set_id=
 
EU ultimatum to the OIC: Change your tune on Durban II or we won’t … EuropeNews
http://europenews.dk/en/node/21207
 
Italy pulls out of UN racism conference The Associated Press
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gJ-jO8GITRBOpeVyJThpU1Ys7NGAD96O3MOO2
 
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. …
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/05/1003490/italy-says-no-to-durban-ii
 
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. …
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/03/17/1003772/australia-ready-to-boycott-durban-ii


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, …
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3703246,00.html


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. …
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1071735.html

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, …
http://www.haaretz.com/news/u-s-to-boycott-durban-2-conference-on-racism-1.271097

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 …
http://www.haaretz.com/news/obama-durban-ii-risks-hypocritical-israel-hatred-1.274359

A few points about the racist UN – Durban "anti-racism" conference

[April, 2009]

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.
http://israeldefender.com/?p=232



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…
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6132972.ece

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’ …
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/20/durban-ii-conference-ahma_n_188918.html

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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8008572.stm

Diplomats walk out as Ahmadinejad rails against Israel in UN
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomats-walk-out-as-ahmadinejad-rails-against-israel-in-un-1.7322



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. …
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/12/27/israel-fears-another-anti-semitic-un-conference-on-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 …
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=200956

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.
http://www.cnsnews.com/node/75363


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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/un-suspends-libya-from-human-rights-council_n_830108.html


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. …
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/02/24/why-the-un-is-a-joke.php


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 …
http://www.towardfreedom.com/home/africa/2311-the-last-circle-in-libya


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.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/08/group-calls-libyan-envoys-removal-post-investigator-mercenaries/


Exposed: Qaddafi rep is UN council’s “expert on mercenaries”
http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=1468682&campaign_id=63111


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 …
http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/ausland/die-arabische-revolution/GhadhafiVertraute-setzt-sich-fuer-Opfer-von-Soeldnern-ein/story/10663016?dossier_id=852


Op-Ed: UN human rights chief must be held accountable
[March 8, 2011]
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/03/08/3086338/op-ed-un-human-rights-chief-must-be-held-accountable

PBT Palestinian Bogus Terminology / PPT Palestinian Propaganda Terminology

February 7, 2010

PBT Palestinian Bogus Terminology

or

PPT Palestinian Propaganda Terminology

The “Palestinian propaganda” greased by Arab oil & boosted up by terrorizing the west, has been “busy” for decades by producing bombastic phrases, terms in order to slur the democratic ‘Jewish’ state, ranging from plain ridiculous to simply outrageous lies.

The first more noticeable attempt (in the 1970’s) by the Arab Muslim infested anti-Jewish bigotry was to coin [instead of the outside world declaring the truth about this intolerant society, about: racism of Arabism or the bigotry of Islamism] the outrageous phrase: Zionism – racism. Using its oil & market power insinuating to other (mainly African & Asian) nations that “they better get along”, they have been poisoning the international atmosphere with “the new Anti-Semitism.”

With time, some PPT terms have become “acceptable” as in ‘Arab lobby money buying writers,’ enter: Carter… (Jimmy Carter and the Arab Lobby, How Arab money fuels Carter’s hate),‘example, what anti-Israel Apartheid Arab world has coined on democratic multi-racial, pluralistic Israel & its fight for survival as: “apartheid”, even though J. Carter admitted on CNN that Israel is really an equal free to all democracy (I recognize that Israel is a wonderful democracy with freedom of speech and equality of treatment under the law between Arab Israelis and Jewish Israelis.” [CNN, June 12, 2006]) and that his intention of using that radical language was ONLY to bring attention (I use the word provocative not in a negative sense, but just to provoke debate and to provoke discussion [CNN, June 11, 2006]), yet, the damage was done.

Ridiculous as it sounds, the “last” word in the baloon language is no less but: “genocide”, (heck yea, forget the real genocide today by racist Arabs in the Sudan, or the ongoing open declarations by Arab Muslim “resistance” leaders to wipe off Israel, but rather) every failed attack on Israeli civilians is considered a “massacre” and if it’s a few in one season it is conveniently called: “genocide”, the intent is clear, to shock! As the Arab Muslim backed dictator in Venezuela “does what he is told”, he (in the anti-terror op. in Gaza) accused Israel’s government of “genocide” when IDF was “fed up” with 8 years of Arab “Palestinian” Hamas attacking Israeli kindergartens with missiles while recently in Gaza using Arab women & children as human shields which –naturally– cause deaths (Synagogue attack stokes Jewish fears that Chavez is inspiring anti-Semitism in Venezuela, Venezuela’s Jews Fear More Attacks – ABC News ).

Or in the power grab by the Eurabia-immigrants, Arab Muslim militant “activists” getting a hold on Malmo Sweden – so strongly that in order to “have” their support the mayor of Mamlo had to say some really stupid things. (Malmö: Muslim antisemitism, Mayor of Malmo, Sweden: Zionism is Racism, Jews flee Malmö as anti-Semitism grows) as Arab racism & Islamic Anti-semitism burns in Sweden – causing ethnic cleansing of Jews

US [like Canada] Pulls out of [Arab Muslim racist dominating push at] UN’s “Durban” conference – European states consider boycotting it too

March 1, 2009

US [like Canada] Pulls out of [Arab Muslim racist dominating push at] UN’s “Durban” conference – European states consider boycotting it too

United States Pulls Out of Durban II
 
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
(IsraelNN.com) The Obama administration announced Friday that it is boycotting the Durban II conference on racism unless there are significant changes to what the State Department called “unsalvageable” anti-Israeli resolutions.

The decision by the State Department pleased Kadima leader and acting Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Knesset Member Silvan Shalom, Livni’s predecessor, who said it is “a sign for the entire world.” Livni stated that the policy move “must lead the way for more countries that share the same values” to boycott the convention, scheduled for April. Canada already has said it will not participate.

Israel has been concerned by the new American government’s change in policy to participate in preliminary committee meetings for the convention, which is to be held in Geneva but bears the name of the South African city where the first meeting was held in 2001. The United States walked out of it because of harsh anti-Israeli resolutions.

The proposed motions for the April meeting single out Israel for its presence in Judea and Samaria and include a Palestinian Authority proposal for “international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory” effectively claiming that Arabs are victims of alleged Israeli racism and that the U.N. should protect them.

The Durban planning committee, chaired by Libya, also rejected a European Union (EU) condemnation of Holocaust denial.
 
The State Department announcement came after growing domestic protests of the Obama administration’s participation in the planning committee. It would reconsider its boycott if the conference drops its reference to any specific country, which so far names Israel but no other nation, and if it does not affirm the 2001 Durban resolutions that singled out Israel.

“Unfortunately, the document being negotiated has gone from bad to worse,” State Department spokesman Robert Wood said. “As a result, the United States will not participate in the forthcoming negotiations on this text, nor will we be able to participate in a conference that is based on this text.”

The Anti-Defamation League and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations praised the American government for backing out of the conference.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130187

European states consider boycotting Durban 2 summit
The 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban was meant to lay down a blueprint for nations…
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067540.html

ARAB MUSLIM CONTROL on western MEDIA

February 15, 2009
ARAB MUSLIM CONTROL on western MEDIA

Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, chief executive of S. Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company Control on US (& other) media

Who owns CNN?

The answers might surprise you (or maybe not). Ever wonder why CNN and Time are so blatantly pro-islamic. Ever wonder why these weasels want are tooo eager to toe liberal / islamic propaganda??

A good chunk of AOL Time Warner is owned by Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal the Saudi billionaire. It is well known that Prince AlWaleed is a front for the Saudi royal family. All of the oil money that is swindled from Aramco the Saudi oil company is “invested” by Prince Al Waleed and his company. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1465942/posts, http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports_basketball_heat/2008/09/beasley-hurt-ea.html?cid=132826195#comment-132826195
From the ‘Saudi Online’ page:
RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he has spent $1 billion on stocks over the last six months, including another $500 million on Citigroup.
“Already the world’s largest shareholder in Citigroup, the prince’s shareholding in the world’s most profitable bank is now around $10 billion,” said a press release from his Kingdom Holding group.
“At about $43, Citi’s share price was at too attractive a price,” the prince said in the statement.
And he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner. “The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.
“I believe in the power of the AOL brand and I am already a shareholder in this global media giant. Therefore, when the price reached lucrative levels, we decided to increase our stake. The weakness in AOL’s stock price is temporary as it reflects the temporary weakness in several areas in which it is involved,” Alwaleed said.
He also increased his stake in priceline.com to $100 million, or 5.4 percent of the company.

saudia-online.com/NewsMar02/news06.shtml

AOL BIAS – This is a growing guide to AOL political and religious bias seen by AOL subscribers as
demanded by its Arab owners.
Alwaleed,Arab,owned,Arab,money
AOL shows political and religious bias in its news coverage. The bias is also seen in the use of AOL message board
censorship policies. Poster’s messages are deleted by AOL monitors violating AOL’s own Terms of Service, TOS.
Time Warner has taken no action to stop the bias but has looked into it. They did nothing. AOL is owned by Arab money.
Alwaleed spent $1 billion on stocks recently
RIYADH, 12 March — Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal announced yesterday that he added $450 million to existing shares in AOL Time Warner.
“The price was very cheap at around $23,” the prince said.
http://www.dicksguides.com/ZDGKN/POLS/AOLissues/AOLownedbyArabs.htm

Is CNN International Really – ANN or the Arab News Network ??
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/comments/122382

CAIR, WAMY to launch massive propaganda campaign“We are planning to meet Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal for his financial support to our project ….
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011934.php

Georgetown’s Capitulation to Radical Islam
By Joe Kaufman and Jeffrey Epstein
FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, January 06, 2006
Georgetown University was built with a Catholic and Jesuit identity. This bit of information is proudly displayed on the school’s website. But like Bethlehem in Israel, that identity is quickly being lost to a radical strain of Islam, as a counter-terror symposium has been abandoned and a pro-terror conference has been confirmed. Indeed, one of America’s most prestigious universities appears to be under siege.
Fearing violent reprisal from militant Muslim members of their student body, the school’s conference center rejected an educational symposium being hosted by America’s Truth Forum (formerly the People’s Truth Forum), a non-partisan, fact-based organization whose sole mission is to educate the American people on topics of national security. In this case, the subject matter to be discussed involved the “Underlying Roots of Terrorism: The Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security.”…
While the counter-terror symposium was shunned, an organization associated with violence has been awarded a forum. From February 17 – 19, the Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM), an activist group that has expressed its willingness to work with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, will be holding its “Fifth Annual Divestment Conference” on Georgetown University’s campus. At past events, shouts of “Kill the Jews” and “Death to Israel” could be heard amongst the crowd. And according to a news report, during PSM’s last conference, when a resolution to condemn terrorism was voted down, “the delegates erupted in cheers.”
When PSM announced its event, it’s interesting to see who they sent a press release to. A site that devotes a page to the release, Palestine Monitor, is said by one source to be a “PRO-TERRORIST SITE.” This is easy to understand, as the website contains numerous pages glorifying the Intifada (uprising) against Israel. Another location that prominently displays the press release is Ramallah Online, a hate site that equates the Jewish Star (Star of David) with the Nazi Swastika.
Not wanting to anger its on-campus insurgency, the university has remained hush about the event. The consideration of a small matter of money may also be on Georgetown’s mind. The PSM conference is coming on the heels of a $20 million donation to the school, given by a fairly effluent Saudi sheikh, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. This is the same sheikh who had previously donated $27 million to a telethon that raised money for the families of suicide bombers.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=3398EF71-9067-4C86-88D2-9A8AD51427A5

Hamas…. at least $50 million from wealthy Saudis like Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, …
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?archive=112006

Saudi Prince Al Waleed bin Talal hoster of telethons for suicide bomber families buys large share of Fox News
Saudi prince advocates strategy of business not boycotts to ‘influence American public opinion”
September 25, 2005
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1109

Saudis Buying Shares of Fox lets freakin take over the oil fields already in saudi arabia… Prince al-Waleed ibnTalal already owned stock. …
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17651_Saudis_Buying_Shares_of_Fox

New Islamic satellite channel launched
March 8, 2006
Filed under: Newspapers — Hans Henrik Lichtenberg
Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, the chief executive of Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom Holding Company, has officially launched an Islamic satellite channel seeking to project Islam as a religion of moderation, the Arab News online daily reports. Al-Resalah (The Message) has been broadcasting informally since last Wednesday. At a press conference on Monday, Prince Alwaleed said the 24-hour channel would target an Arab audience, especially young people, by projecting ‘our Arab heritage through a modern medium.’. Al-Resalah will be the forerunner of a future English-language Islamic channel for Western audiences. The prince said the new Islamic network would provide a platform for a dialogue on religious, social and economic issues affecting everyday life, but its priority would be to counteract the misconceptions of Islam in other societies. Tarek Alsuwaidan, the channel?s general manager, said that 40 per cent of the programmes would be youth oriented, 30 per cent would target women and families, and 10 per cent would focus on children, Arab News reports. (AKI,March 08, 2006)
http://blog.newspaperindex.com/category/newspapers/page/7/

Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal owns 5.46 percent of Rupert Murdoch’s media conglomerate News Corp.
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002958.html

The Failure of Western Universities [incls. Middle East studies, MESA, Saudi funding at Georgetown and Harvard, Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, John Esposito, Martin Kramer, Daniel Pipes]

Kari Vogt, historian of religion at the University of Oslo, has stated that Ibn Warraq’s book “Why I am Not a Muslim” is just as irrelevant to the study of Islam as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion are to the study of Judaism. She is widely considered as one of the leading expert on Islam in Norway, and is frequently quoted in national media on matters related to Islam and Muslim immigration. People who get most of their information from the mainstream media, which goes for the majority of the population, will thus be systematically fed biased information and half-truths about Islam from our universities, which have largely failed to uphold the ideal of free inquiry. Unfortunately, this situation is pretty similar at universities and colleges throughout the West.

London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), scene to a growing number of anti-Semitic incidents from an increasingly pro-Islamic campus, issued a threat to one of its Jewish students to cease his protests against anti-Semitism at the University. Gavin Gross, an American, had been leading a campaign against the deterioration of conditions for Jewish students at SOAS, which is part of the University of London. SOAS had witnessed an escalation of anti-Jewish activity, in both severity and frequency. At the beginning of the year, the Islamic Society screened a video which compared Judaism with Satanism.
Meanwhile, in a move to “promote understanding between Islam and the West,” Saudi Arabia donated about SR13 million to a leading British museum. The officials said the money from Prince Sultan would pay for a new Saudi and Islamic gallery, which would help to portray Islamic culture and civilization in right perspectives. It would also help fund scholarships for Saudi students at Oxford University.

The Saudis and other oil-rich Arabs are busy buying influence over what Westerners hear about Islam. Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud, a member of the Saudi Royal Family, is an international investor currently ranked among the ten richest persons in the world. He is known in the USA for a $10 million check he offered to New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in October 2001 for the Twin Towers Fund. Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that the prince had called for the United States to “re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”

Prince Talal is also creating a TV channel, Al-Resalah, to target American Muslims. He already broadcasts in Saudi Arabia. In 2005, Bin Talal bought 5.46% of voting shares in News Corp, the parent of Fox News. In December 2005 he boasted to Middle East Online about his ability to change what viewers see on Fox News. Covering the riots in France that fall, Fox ran a banner saying: “Muslim riots.” Bin Talal was not happy. “I picked up the phone and called Murdoch […] [and told him] these are not Muslim riots, these are riots out of poverty,” he said. “Within 30 minutes, the title was changed from Muslim riots to civil riots.”
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4257

: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Donald Trump Blames Arab, Muslim (& Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez) oil for Economic Crisis

February 6, 2009
Donald Trump Blames Arab, Muslim (& Venezuela’s dictator Hugo Chavez) oil for Economic Crisis
 
Donald Trump blames Arab Oil for the world crisis
 
Trump: There’s Too Much Oil
newsmax.com ^ | July 29, 2008 | staff

Real estate mogul Donald Trump says there is way too much oil in the world
to justify the current high market prices. “Frankly, I hear there are tankers
all over the world that are loaded up to the gills with oil,” he told CNBC.
“They have so much oil they don’t know what to do with it. It’s ridiculous
what’s going on with OPEC and all of that.” Trump blames major oil producing
countries for the current recession and accuses large oil companies of “doing a
major number” on everyone. Trump lauds the recent dips in the price of oil,…
http://moneynews.newsmax.com/streettalk/oil/2008/07/29/117281.html

 
Donald Trump Says – it’s the price of oil that is to blame by Ruth …Sep
29, 2008 … He said now the price of oil will plunge – possibly back down to a
possible … Trump blames the downturn on OPEC and the Saudi Arabians.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?grpId=-1&articleId=281474977462847
 
As far as the economy is concerned, though, Larry, I’m afraid that if and
when the economy does get going, you’ll have OPEC raise its ugly head and come
out and just raise oil prices again and kill it, because I think that OPEC had a
lot to do with the failing of the world economy. (Feb. 4, 2009)
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0902/04/lkl.01.html/04/lkl.01.html