The Durban Review Conference / Festival of Hate Against Israel and the West (April 20–24, 2009) done come and gone… more or less. It took place without the participation of a number of member states, chief among them the United. On the eve of the conference on April 19 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressed “shock” at this decision — why, I dunno.
The US statement cites, as its main stumbling block, the current text’s reaffirmation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA), the outcome document agreed by consensus at the end of the 2001 World Summit against Racism in Durban, South Africa – but not agreed by the US or Israel which had both left the Conference before it reached its conclusion.
The Australian Government — which continues to function under KRudd, as it did under HoWARd, as the US’ deputy sheriff in South-East Asia and the world stage — also decided to boycott the event. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Stephen Smith, April 19:
…Australia, however, cannot support a document which reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action in its entirety – as is currently the case. The 2001 Declaration singled out Israel and the Middle East. Australia expressed strong concerns about this at the time. The Australian Government continues to have these concerns. Regrettably, we cannot be confident that the Review Conference will not again be used as a platform to air offensive views, including anti-Semitic views.
Of additional concern are the suggestions of some delegations in the Durban process to limit the universal right to free speech.
In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of my foreign ministerial colleagues who share these concerns about the process. Canada (January 23, 2008), Israel, Italy and the United States have already indicated that they will not participate.
As noted by Smith, other states to boycott the event include Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand/Aotearoa, Poland, Sweden and, of course, Israel. Ten states in total (including Australia and the US).
The KRudd Government’s decision to boycott the conference was applauded by Zionist groups in Australia, and criticised by others: see, for example, Opportunity to end racism goes to waste, John Langmore, The Age, April 21; Rudd UN boycott a ‘lost chance’ to fight racism, Daniel Flitton, The Age, April 23.
One of the main arguments put forward as to why UN member states should boycott the event is based on the characterisation of the Durban conference in 2001 as an ‘anti-Semitic hatefest’ (Greg Sheridan in The Australian: “It degenerated into a vile and hateful anti-Semtitic jamboree.”). This appears to be quite wrong, a fact pointed out on December 12, 2008 by Rupert Colville, Spokesperson of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, partly in response to an earlier editorial in The Australian:
A Google search on 10 December, using “fest” in conjunction with ‘Durban’ and ‘hate’ or ‘anti-Semitic,’ produced 49,900 web-page hits.* “Hate-fest” is not a common phrase, but it has been used in connection with the Durban process by people ranging from the Canadian Prime Minister to other politicians, academics, journalists, anti-Durban NGOs and a huge number of bloggers and other commentators.
The 2001 World Conference was indeed marred by the grotesque behaviour of some anti-Israel NGOs at the parallel NGO forum. Their inexcusable anti-Semitic actions, coupled with some difficult debates at the state level, have unfortunately cast the entire 2001 Conference and next year’s review in a negative light that is, by and large, unmerited.
Next year’s conference will focus on the 2001 outcome document, known as the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action (DDPA), which was adopted by consensus at the end of the 2001 World Conference. The DDPA consists of 341 paragraphs, of which six refer to the Middle East, anti-Semitism and directly related issues.
The first of those says: “We recall that the Holocaust must never be forgotten.” The second says “We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities.”
The remaining four paragraphs include references to “the plight of the Palestinian people” and “the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel,” as well as calling upon “Israel and the Palestinians to resume the peace process, and to develop and prosper in security and freedom.”
The contents of the DDPA were agreed by all the states present at the end of the 2001 conference. It is a fundamental, thorough and very wide-ranging framework document on racism and related issues. It takes a vivid imagination to turn it into the manifesto of a “hate-fest.”
At the conference itself, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave a ‘controversial’ speech, in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, and in which the war hero with a wonky leg denounced Zionism and Security Council support for Israel (“the most cruel and repressive racist regime”), provided a potted history of Western imperialism, blamed Zionists for the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and opined that:
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the true root of racism is the lack of human understanding as God’s chosen creatures and deviation from the true path of human life and human missions in creation. Due to negligence in worshipping God with awareness and pondering on the philosophy of life and the path towards human perfection – which leads to the natural outcome of being committed to divine values and mankind – the horizon of human insight has declined. And limited and temporary interests became the criteria of evaluation and actions by human beings. Therefore, the seeds of evil power took their shape and by neglecting fair chances for others’ growth, it added to the boundaries of its development.
And so on: the President made no reference to racism inside Iran, which I can therefore only assume does not exist.
A few comments:
The campaign to boycott the event was about as successful as it was ever going to be. Israel, the United States, and a handful of their international allies did not attend: scores of other states did send delegates, as did many NGOs.
All this fuss over God & the State naturally brought to mind dead Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin. In addition to expressing vile anti-Semitism, Bakunin also had some more interesting thoughts on this subject. Contra Ahmadinejad, Bakunin wrote “All religions, with their gods, their demi-gods, and their prophets, their messiahs and their saints, were created by the prejudiced fancy of men who had not attained the full development and full possession of their faculties”; “In a word, we reject all legislation, all authority, and all privileged, licensed, official, and legal influence, even though arising from universal suffrage, convinced that it can turn only to the advantage of a dominant minority of exploiters against the interest of the immense majority in subjection to them. This is the sense in which we are really Anarchists.”
Notwithstanding the boycott by Aotearoa/New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and, the United States, the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference was adopted by consensus on April 21 [PDF]. It makes no reference to Israel or the Middle East.
The response of Zionists and other critics of Durban II are surveyed by the blog ‘Muzzlewatch’; Australian blogger Antony Lowenstein also has some comments; while the Israeli group Gush Shalom issued the following statement:
Iranian Farce and Israeli grotesque
April 20, 2009A conference against racism attended by Iranian President Ahmedinajad is a farce – but the campaign against this conference, conducted by Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman, is grotesque. Ahmedinajad and Lieberman are twins, perfectly fit for each other’s company, both of whom built a political career upon the dissemination of hatred, the constant issuing of inflammatory racist statements designed to arouse the darkest of passions. The Netanyahu-Lieberman government is completely unable to respectably represent Israel in the international arena and defend the country’s most basic interests.
See also : Blasphemy! Bolt! Hate-fest! Dirka Dirka! (March 14, 2009).
as a side note on Durban see
http://www.tchrd.org/press/2009/pr20090420a.html
I’ve got a question, if Zionism is racism, why wasn’t (or more to the point hasn’t) Islamic Expansionism into the Holy Land and beyond considered the same? It has been violent, historically. It was not peaceful, just like how the first four caliphates replaced each other. I see Islam, primarily, as an Arab Pride movement, in reaction to historical Jewry being identified [as] an ethnicity. And why hotspots of the world, Pakistan, Chechnya, Sudan, and Afghanistan, are and have been littered with Arab fighters (Bin Laden being the most prominent). So, if Islam spreading from the Arabian Peninsula into other cultures and races (North Africa, Central Asia) is not considered imperialism and racism hand in hand, then why would Zionism be considered racism without Islam also being called this?
My point at the end of that is that like Dominic Knight of the Chaser recently said on Twitter, The very fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at an anti-racism conference proves that the UN isn’t run by Jews.4:51 PM Apr 21st from Tweetie
I note that I don’t consider either Zionism or Islamism racism, both are imperialist movements, but the Jewish one is to conquer a former home base, although some Muslims argue the two blue stripes on the flag indicate its desire to rule to the Euphrates. That said, it largely hasn’t been seen in history that Jews are out to convert non-Jews to Jewry by force like Islam has done. So if I get a chance to speak at the UN, I would like to respond to Mahmoud.
Thank you for this compassionate and even-handed account.
“The KRudd Government’s decision to boycott the conference was applauded by Zionist groups in Australia”
Well not really. They just sent Calma instead.
Darrin,
Tom Calma went in his capacity as Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner (Australian Human Rights Commission), and against the objections of the Australian Government. In other words, he wasn’t “sent” by the Government — which, if it was in its power to do so, would have instructed him not to.
Thus, while enormous attention has been paid to issues relating to Israel, the conference was not organised in order to examine this issue, but a very broad range of concerns to do with “contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” as a whole, and on a global, not regional, basis.
Calma’s decision to attend has been criticised. As reported by the AJN: “THE Opposition Scrutiny of Government spokesperson, Senator Guy Barnett, has demanded that the federal Government recall Australia’s race discrimination commissioner from the Durban Review Conference” (Recall race commissioner from Durban II: Opposition, Naomi Levin, April 23).
In fact, Warren Mundine has called for an apology from Calma and the Commission:
Uri,
Cheers.
Jamie,
L8r h8r.
“What do the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Italy and Israel have in common? They are all either European or European-settler states.”
http://sonsofmalcolm.blogspot.com/2009/04/more-on-foolishness-of-western.html
So you’re back to defending Israel’s hand over the Palestinians, Andy?
“Tom Calma went in his capacity as Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner (Australian Human Rights Commission), and against the objections of the Australian Government. In other words, he wasn’t “sent” by the Government — which, if it was in its power to do so, would have instructed him not to.”
ummm, yeah, it’s not like he’s on the government payroll or anything.
Whitemore,
You are genius.
Darrin,
I suspect that you have a little more to learn about government.
Jamie R,
What is Zionism?
What is racism?
What is Islam?
What is the history of Islam?
Answering these questions would seem to be a prerequisite to arriving at a comparison between Zionism, Islam, and racism, and also an understanding of the contemporary political situation in Pakistan, Chechnya, the Sudan, and Afghanistan.
You define Zionism and Islam(ism) as ‘imperialist’, not ‘racist’.
I understand Zionism to be a modern political ideology and movement which has its origins in late nineteenth century Europe and its seminal ideological expression in the writings of Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), especially his Der Judenstaat (‘The Jewish State’). His was one of a number of responses to what was then termed ‘The Jewish Question’; Marx wrote on this subject in 1843 in ‘On the Jewish Question’.
Herzl’s answer to the question is contained in the title of his work.
Insofar as The Jews constitute a Race, and insofar as Israel is a Jewish State, Israel is, by definition, ‘racist’. Here’s a passage drawn from the article (What credibility is there in Geneva’s all-white boycott?, Seumas Milne, The Guardian, April 23, 2009) to which Ana linked:
The history of Islam extends over a much longer period than Zionism — about 1,400 years. From its origins in contemporary Saudi Arabia, Islam has extended its reach across the world. Like the expansion of Christendom over a slightly longer period, it was accompanied by great violence, and Islam supplanted or otherwise sought to incorporate local, subordinate cultural and religious beliefs and traditions into its regime. Like Christianity, Islam has also witnessed various schisms. Like Christianity, Islam has undergone various revivals, often of a ‘fundamentalist’ (‘back-to-basics’) nature. In terms of ‘fundamentalism’, some make a distinction between ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamism’, and identify the latter as constituting a modern political movement (roughly equivalent to Zionism); Osama bin Laden takes his inspiration from Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, an 18th century scholar.
The contemporary political situation in Pakistan, Chechnya, the Sudan, and Afghanistan is complex, but to understand its contours requires an understanding of, for example: the role of the military in Pakistani politics (and US support for its generals); the uses to which Russian chauvinism has been put by Putin; the history of post-colonial Africa and Cold War conflict; and the decimation of the left and decline of secular nationalism in the Middle East.
To begin with.
Insofar as The Jews constitute a Race, and insofar as Israel is a Jewish State, Israel is, by definition, ‘racist’.
Even Hitler did not believe ‘Jew’ was a race, but rather a spiritual community, although he did not want to lose the support of racists for political reasons.
FYI, Jew is a tribe, and tribe is not defined as Race in the Old Testament (obviously it couldn’t Dawkins hadn’t s*** on humanity yet), but rather a social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents, or adopted strangers. Whereas Race comprised of a certain breeding stock. If you go to Israel in the modern era, you’ll see Jews are definitely not of the ‘same breeding stock’. Some look European some look Arab some are even Ethiopian (remember the airlift?), all are Jews.
Like the expansion of Christendom over a slightly longer period, it was accompanied by great violence,
Christian Europe’s violence was not fuelled by Christendom, rather aggressive Islamic Expansionism and rulers of European monarchies who wanted the power of the church in their hands. The problems with Martin Luther were about what Germans wanted that Italians and Spaniards had. Note Martin Luther’s death sentence was given by a royal member of Europe not the Pope. And the problems with violent Turks were long overdue a response in self-defence. Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread the passion for the Crusades. Try to remember that Christian homelands such as Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Egypt, had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories created a powerful motive to self-defence and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.
The contemporary political situation in Pakistan, Chechnya, the Sudan, and Afghanistan is complex
Look a little closer and all are being funded and led by Arab Muslims and fighters sent from the Arabian peninsula. If one is not willing to admit this evidence seen, well then 9/11 was done by robots I guess.
BTW, sucked in on that Essendon ANZAC loss, it’s okay I don’t actually think of you or any other Collingwood fan when you choke so dramatically like that, I think of Eddie crying on the toilet. It makes me smile.
One definition of ‘Jew’ that is relevant is that contained in ‘The Law of Return’:
4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.
If Race “comprised of a certain breeding stock”, then ‘Jew’ would appear to be defined in implicitly Racial terms in this Law.
Italy:
Division as Italy marks uprising
Nicole Winfield, Rome [AP]
The Age
April 27, 2009
ITALY commemorated the anniversary of its anti-Nazi uprising at the weekend amid a fierce debate over a proposal by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s conservative allies to honour Italians who died fighting for the Fascists.
The proposed legislation would grant a special honour and pensions to all those who fought in World War II — those who fought for dictator Benito Mussolini and anti-Fascist partisans alike.
The legislation was introduced in the lower Chamber of Deputies last June, but debate over it intensified on Saturday as Italy marked Liberation Day, a national holiday commemorating the anti-Nazi uprising that began on April 25, 1945, in the northern part of the country. The insurrection ended with Mussolini being shot and strung up…
Poland:
Dual peril for Poland’s top pubcaster
Nick Holdsworth
Variety
April 24, 2009
Leading local filmmakers including Andrzej Wajda and Agnieszka Holland have called for viewers to boycott TVP as a dispute intensifies over the appointment of Piotr Farfal as the station’s acting president.
The 30-year-old’s elevation to the top job at the two-channel pubcaster — following December’s boardroom coup– reignited anger over his alleged links as a teenager to extreme right-wing and neo-Nazi politics.
Farfal, who for the previous 18 months had been deputy chairman of TVP — a political appointment made by Poland’s earlier right-wing administration — has admitted that as a teenager he edited bonehead magazine Front. The magazine was known for its anti-Semitic stance.
Farfal dismissed a media storm at the time as “absurd,” saying he was “a snotty-nosed kid who let his name be used.”
But the stink is not going away…
Jamie R,
On Christianity and Empire, see Christianity and the Roman Empire, Dr Sophie Lunn-Rockliffe, BBC:
“…How should we characterise Constantine’s religious convictions? The differing but related accounts of his miraculous conversion suggest some basic spiritual experience which he interpreted as related to Christianity.
His understanding of Christianity was, at the stage of his conversion, unsophisticated. He may not have understood the implications of converting to a religion which expected its members to devote themselves exclusively to it.
However, what was certainly established by the early fourth century was the phenomenon of an emperor adopting and favouring a particular cult. What was different about Constantine’s ‘conversion’ was merely the particular cult to which he turned – the Christ-cult – where previous emperors had sought the support of pagan gods and heroes from Jove to Hercules…”
4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.
This law is not strictly racial, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I can clearly see it also incorporates the ‘spiritual community’ aspect of Judaism – if you have converted to the faith and can prove it, you’re accepted, even without a big hook nose. Also, the return of many Jews who look different racially right now in Israel is further proof the law has not been strictly racial.
My thoughts on early Christianity are simple ones, I mean if it was true, and there were enemies of it materially and spiritually, the easiest way to end it is to divide it then conquer it. Oldest rule in the book is divide and conquer. One way to prevent that is to stop the heresies and to a lesser degree the persecutions by entrenching it with a foundation backed by great power. As history shows, the Roman Empire is long gone, its rulers went down with it, but the Basilica of Saint Peter that came out of it still stands. A lot of things have chenged in the world since, the rock upon which the church was built is still debated, but I found it particularly interesting when I considered the fact this has stood the test of time. A rock indeed.
“This law is not strictly racial, how do you arrive at that conclusion?”
On the basis of the definition you provided:
That is, there are (at least) two ways of tracing a person’s blood line / establishing ‘a certain breeding stock’ (descent): matrilineal or patrilineal. The Law of Return invokes matrilineality. That the Law includes a provision for converts — whose offspring will be categorised according to the same schema — should not obscure this fact. The manner in which you describe tribal peoples concerns social relations; ‘race’ is normally understood as being underpinned by some notion of biological descent (‘breeding stock’).
Racism, boycott and a big dose of hypocrisy
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10488.shtml
The manner in which you describe tribal peoples concerns social relations; ‘race’ is normally understood as being underpinned by some notion of biological descent (’breeding stock’).
The problem lies where you bring science into something where science didn’t exist. Race was not a factor 4000 years ago, if you note it has only been a factor since the late 19th century. Before then social and cultural were traits that identified groups, not genes.
I would like to say that some need to take the same critical paintbrush they do to the Jewish and Christian scriptures as they do science scriptures. Would be healthy.
Jamie, just trust the word, race is real – biologically.
It’s only ethics the Word, the message is not about science, it would be healthy then that science fetishists got off that egotistic high horse and looked critically at what their own work produces rather than trying to shovel it all over to the invisible sky fairy believers.
Here’s a zine which may open your eye’s a little.
anus.com/zine/articles/marxism/
LOL.
ANUS = SHIT.