a country that respects human rights

I think I will preface all of my posts on the Durban 2 conference on racism with these three quotes. If anyone reads regularly, you would have seen two of them before. The first is from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, who urged attendance, and pointed out that:

. . . only six of the 341 paragraphs on Durban 1 singled out Israel, while there was also a resolution stating that the Holocaust “must never be forgotten”

The second is from Ha'aretz, who is not quite so hysterical with cries of anti-semitism as many western papers seem to be, and who state quite matter of factly:

The United States and Israel walked out of the first UN conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, to protest against an attempted resolution comparing Zionism to racism.

You might want to ask some Palestinians about that, seeing as they are under occupation due to Zionist beliefs. Maybe it is true.

The third quote is from UN Association of Australia president John Langmore: He concedes that at the 2001 conference attempts to misuse the talks to criticise Israel had taken place (but I wonder, if we return to the opening statistics put forward by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society), he also said that:

The 2001 World Conference Against Racism declared "the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination" while also recognising "the right to security for all states in the region, including Israel." [My emphasis].

Well, that's what the international community all agree on, isn't it? So what is the problem?

Further information on the Durban Conference website (IV. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights) states :

In her October 6, 2008 speech, High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanethem Pillay acknowledged the antisemitism of the 2001 NGO Forum, while minimizing its implications:

Seven years ago at the 2001 World Conference against Racism, the virulent anti-Semitic behaviour of a few non-governmental organizations on the sidelines of the Durban Conference overshadowed the critically important work of the Conference. Measures were taken to address this betrayal of the core principles of the Durban Conference, and the NGO document was not forwarded to the Conference. [My emphasis].

and

In his December 12, 2008 article, "Distortions plague anti-racism conference," Rupert Colville, Spokesperson of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights writes “The purpose of this Durban Review Conference (sometimes misleadingly referred to as ‘Durban II’) is to examine the implementation of the outcome document of the World Conference against Racism which took place in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. Unfortunately both newspapers replay a number of factual distortions which have become increasingly widespread on the internet over the past year, including numerous references to the review conference as an anti-Semitic ‘hate-fest’.” [My emphasis. The papers he is referring to are The Australian and The Wall Street Journal which ran articles on the Durban conference].

Australian Federal Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tom Calma, will lead an Australian delegation of three officials to the talks. He represents Australia's top human rights body. He said

... he had not observed either anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic sentiment in the preparations for the conference and urged both the Government and Opposition to send representatives.

Julie Bishop, the opposition foreign affairs spokesperson does not want Australia to attend, and our own government still seems to be sending human rights officials as opposed to government representatives, but it is better than nothing, which might have been the case. Julie Bishop fears it will become a platform for anti-Semitism, but I think Israel fears that it might become a platform for criticism against [it] for its occupation of Palestinian territories. Well, that's not anti-semitism, that's called having a conscience. At the same time, Israel said in January, in the midst of the onslaught of Gaza, that:

the Foreign Ministry considers the "Durban 2" World Conference against Racism, scheduled for April in Geneva, as the point when they can determine the extent to which Israel's standing as a democratic country that respects human rights has been damaged. Israel has rallied many countries against the conference on the grounds that it will become a platform for anti-Semitism, and has also announced, along with the United States and Canada, that it will boycott the conference. [My emphasis].

Considering Israel is not attending the conference, has convinced many other countries not to attend, or to be leery of the conference; considering its forces killed 1400 people in Gaza, most of them civilians, many of them children, might mean that its standing as a democratic country that respects human rights has been damaged quite severely. But I forget myself. Black is white, and Israel does not have to fear any criticism because no-one will be there to criticise them, (or to criticise other governments who do not respect human rights, either), if the Julie Bishops and Kevin Rudds of the world have their way.

Calma said:

the Geneva conference would examine issues critical to the role of national human rights institutions, such as policing and diversity and the rights of indigenous peoples.

"These are matters that governments need to engage on a global level in order to ensure that their policies are in line with international standards. It is also an opportunity to share good practices in these areas."

Hear, hear! Considering Australia has recently committed to honouring an election promise of signing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Langmore, in the same article, says:

"It is about the issue of racial discrimination, and that is a problem in our country and in a great many others, and we have some experience in trying to handle it, but we also have some lessons to learn from other countries," he said.

While Professor Langmore conceded attempts to misuse the talks to criticise Israel had taken place, he said it was an overreaction and a self-defeating gesture for Australia not to attend. "If you are concerned to ensure equitable principles are developed and applied, then you need to participate — Australia needs to participate," he said. [My emphasis].

Many Americans also feel that their country should be concerned about ensuring [that] equitable principles are developed and applied, and are also concerned about racial [and sexual] discrimination, as seen from the 92 signatories of human rights and civil groups, and individuals in the U.S. who are urging the Obama administration to attend (the U.S. has so far decided to boycott). Those signatures can be found at the end of this post. The open letter was published in Ha'aretz, which shows that the Israeli media is paying close attention to this issue, even if other media is not.

The points that the signatories raise are eloquently argued, but too long for this post. I have posted the article in full before, and it is linked to at the end of this entry, or go to the source, here. The sub-titles within their letter summarise why the signatories think the Obama administration should attend Durban, and those titles are listed following this paragraph. If one really believes that a democratic world with equality for all is the way to go, then what dispute is there with the ideas that are being expressed?:

Refusing to Discuss Racism on a Global Platform is Inconsistent with a Policy of Engagement with the International Community

The United States Should be Fighting for the Strongest Protections against Racism

Specific Objections Raised do not Warrant a Boycott

The United States Must Not Attempt to Ignore our History of Slavery

The United States Must Engage the Global Fight for Racial Justice in Good Faith

The Current Position of Non-Participation is worse than that of the Bush Administration

A United States Refusal to Discuss Racism Encourages Other Countries to do the same

So at least Australia will have a face at the Durban Review Conference, which means that we must be slightly better than the Bush administration, or is that the Obama administration? The conference seems to be labelled as a racism forum in the press, but is really anti-racist, or is about tackling racism. As Mr Calma said of the Australian government, and the opposition:

"I'd encourage them to participate, I don't think it's going to compromise anything."

___________________________________________________________________

Other posts referencing Durban 2 in lizardrinking are as follows:
Durban 2 - Americans who want Obama to Attend
Still no decision
It's all in the genes
Stories and Controversies
I guess Catholics just don't like them

___________________________________________________________________

Organizational Signatures on the open letter to Obama.

1. Advocates for Environmental Human Rights
2. Alianza Latinoamericana por los Derechos de los Inmigrantes, ALDI
3. Black Alliance for Just Immigration
4. Black Workers for Justice - Europe (BWJ-e)
5. BLACK Advisors
6. Center for Constitutional Rights
7. Cidadao Global
8. Coalition of African, Arab, Asian, European, and Latino Immigrants of Illinois
9. Coalition to Save Harlem
10. Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism
11. Croydon African Caribbean Family
12. Equal Justice Society
13. Equality Now
14. Four Freedoms Forum
15. Global Afrikan Congressuk
16. Hawai'i Institute for Human Rights
17. Highlander Research and Education Center
18. International Action Center
19. Justice Now
20. Labor/Community Strategy Center
21. Malcolm X Grassroots Movement
22. Maria Iñamagua Campaign for Justice
23. Matahari: Eye of the Day
24. The Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
25. Minnesota Tenants Union
26. Movement for Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA)
27. National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Chicago Branch
28. National Conference of Black Lawyers
29. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
30. National Lawyers Guild
31. National Lawyers Guild - Minnesota Chapter
32. National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights
33. National Rail Maritime and Transport Union 0543 Local Finsbury Park Branch
34. Norbertines of the Priory of St. Moses the Black
35. NY Solidarity Coalition with Katrina & Rita Survivors and the Survivors Assembly
36. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
37. Urban Justice Center
38. Willets Point Defense Committee
39. Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
40. Women of Color United
(please see individual signatures on next page)

Individual Signatures (with organizational affiliation for identification purposes only)

1. Ajamu Baraka, Executive Director, US Human Rights Network
2. Alexandra Oprea, Senior Editor, UCLA Law Review, Vol. 57
3. Aleyamma Mathew, Transnational Institute for Grassroots Research and Action
4. Alice J. Palmer, Chicago, Co-Chair of the People Programme
5. Amelia Parker, Program Coordinator, Center for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, American University Washington College of Law
6. Amy Agigian, Center for Women's Health and Human Rights, Suffolk University
7. André Degbeon, Founder, AFRO TV BERLIN
8. Andrés Castro, Founder/Managing Ed., The Teacher's Voice
9. Ann Fagan Ginger, The Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute
10. Anthony Gifford, Barrister (UK) and Attorney-at-law (Jamaica)
11. Asantewaa Gail Harris, Community Vision Council
12. Bill Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor, BlackCommentator.com
13. Brenda Stokely, New York Solidarity Coalition with Katrina & Rita survivors
14. Charles Amjad-Ali, Ph.D., Th.D., The Martin Luther King, Jr., Professor of Justice and Christian Community, Director Islamic Studies Program, Luther Seminary
15. Council Member Charles Barron, New York City Council
16. Chris Crass, Catalyst Project
17. Clarence C. Gravlee, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida
18. Colin Rajah, International Migrant Rights & Global Justice Program Director, National Network for Immigrant & Refugee Rights (NNIRR)
19. Professor Connie de la Vega, University of San Francisco, School of Law
20. Dr. Corann Okorodudu, Professor of Psychology & Coordinator, Africana Studies
21. Daniel Hazen, Board Member, US Human Rights Network
22. David Gespass, President-Elect of the National Lawyers Guild
23. David Kreindler, Vermont Workers' Center
24. David Wildman, Executive Secretary, Human Rights & Racial Justice Mission, Contexts & Relationships, General Board of Global Ministries United Methodist Church
25. Dawn Stanger, Vermont Workers' Center
26. Denise Williams, Ph.D., Negotiation, Conflict Resolution & Peacebuilding, California State University Dominguez Hills
27. Ms. Diane King, Director, Seeking Joint Solution
28. Dianne Burnham, Ohio Valley PEACE, Outreach
29. Donald H. Smith, Ph.D., Past President, the National Alliance of Black School Educators; Former chair, the Board for the Education of People of African Ancestry, the John Henrik Clarke House, New York City
30. Dowoti Désir, Founder of the DDPA Watch Group
31. Ms. Dra Barryl A. Biekman, President of the African European Women's Movement "Sophiedela"; Chair of the National Platform Dutch Slavery; Past President of the Pan African Strategic and Policy Group (Panafstrag Europe EU/NL; Board member of Tiye International
32. Edith M. Jackson, Howard University
33. Edward L. Palmer, Chicago, Co-Chair of the People Programme
34. Ellen Raider, Independent Commission on Public Education
35. Emira Woods, Foreign Policy In Focus/Institute for Policy Studies
36. Eric Mann, Author, Dispatches from Durban: The World Conference Against Racism and Post-September 11 Movement Strategies.
37. Erika Simard, Vermont Workers' Center
38. Eva Paterson, President, Equal Justice Society
39. Francisco Ramos, Executive Director, Coalition of African, Arab, Asian, European, and Latino Immigrants of Illinois. (CAAAELII)
40. Gary Orfield, Professor of Education, Law, Political Science and Urban Planning. Co-Director, Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles, University of California, Los Angeles, UCLA
41. Gerardo Renique, Associate Professor, Department of History, City College of the City University of New York
42. Dr. Gloria A. Caballero-Roca, Hispanic Studies, Earlham College
43. Gwendolyn Anderson, Member, NEA, WEAC and Milwaukee Teachers Association
44. Henrietta Faulconer, Northside Neighbors for Justice
45. Ignatious Muhammad, Member, Nation of Islam
46. Dr. Irma Loemban Tobing-Klein, President MDG Global Watch
47. Iwan Leeuwin, Chairperson, AAD Network in the Netherlands
48. James Haslam, Vermont Workers' Center
49. James Rowan, Northeastern University School of Law
50. Dr. Jason M. Ferreira, Department of Race and Resistance Studies College of Ethnic Studies, San Francisco State University
51. Jeanne Mirer, Secretary General of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers
52. Rev. Jeremy Tobin, Board Member, US Human Rights Network and Executive Board, Movement for Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA)
53. Jerrika Rivera, President, Asociacion Latina DBA Latina Association
54. Jewel L. Crawford, MD, National Medical Association; Participant, UN World Conference Against Racism, 2001
55. Joanna Cuevas Ingram, Student Member, National Lawyers Guild - San Francisco
56. Joceline A. Clemencia, Director Cultural Institute Independence, Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles
57. John A. Powell, Executive Director, the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity
58. Jonathan Kissam, Vermont Workers' Center
59. Jose R. Matus, Alianza Indigena Sin Fronteras
60. Joshua Cooper, Director, Hawaii Institute for Human Rights
61. Kalin Williams, Malcom X Grassroots Movement
62. Katie Seitz, Teaching for Change
63. K-C Nat Turner, Assistant Professor, School of Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst
64. Keith Jennings, President, African American Human Rights Foundation
65. Kristine Suozzi, Ph.D., New Mexico Health Equity Working Group Coordinator
66. Dr. Lady Dhyana Ziegler, Professor of Journalism, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, Florida
67. Laura Roskos, Ph.D., Co-President of U.S. Section, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
68. Lisa A. Crooms, Howard University School of Law
69. Loretta J. Ross, National Coordinator, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective
70. Lucy Murphy, Convenor, Gray Panthers of Metropolitan Washington
71. Lynn Roberts, PhD, Assistant Professor & Coordinator, Community Health Education Track, Urban Public Health Program, Hunter College
72. M. Thandabantu Iverson, Ph.D., Indiana University Labor Studies Program, School of Social Work
73. Madeline Labriola, Hudson Valley PaxChristi
74. Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, The University of California. Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center
75. Marilyn Fischer, Franciscans International
76. Martin Y. Iguchi, Ph.D., UCLA School of Public Health
77. Dr. Martin C. Okeke, (PhD) Former President of the Organisation NIDOE-France, Vice President PanAFSTRAG-France
78. Matt McGrath, Vermont Workers' Center
79. Mavis G. Biekman, Board Member, African European Women's Movement Sophiedela, The Hague, The Netherlands
80. Monami Maulik, DRUM-Desis Rising Up & Moving
81. Monique Ndigo Washington, The Healing Drum Collective
82. Nancy J. Bothne, Instructor, DePaul University
83. Nancy Munger, Co-President of U.S. Section, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
84. Nina T. Harawa, MPH, PhD, Department of Research, Charles Drew University
85. Nkem Dike, Northwestern University, IL
86. Nzingha Assata, Founding Member, The Alliance of Afrikan Women in England
87. Peg Franzen, Vermont Workers Center
88. Mr. Philip M. J. Baptiste, III, Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc
89. Queen Quet, Founder, Gullah/Geechee Sea Island Coalition
90. Radhika Balakrishnan, Professor of Economics and International Studies , Marymount Manhattan College
91. Raj Patel, Affiliation. UC Berkeley Center for African Studies
92. Ramona Ortega, Executive Director, Cidadao Glo

Durban 2 - Americans who want Obama to attend

This open letter was sent to President Obama from many concerned human rights groups and individuals in the United States who would like him, or his representatives, to attend the Durban 2 conference on racism. I would very much like Australia to attend, too, though it has threatened not to. America has said it will boycott. It was published in Ha'aretz. I will publish it in full:

Open Letter to President Barack Obama

This is a letter written by dozens of human rights groups and activists in the United States, urging President Barack Obama to rethink his decision to boycott the United Nations-sponsored anti-racism conference.

Why the United States Should Stop Refusing to Participate in a Global Conference on Racism

Dear President Barack Obama,We, the undersigned individuals and organizations dedicated to fighting racial injustice and promoting human rights domestically and globally received your recent decision to boycott the Durban Review Conference with profound disappointment.

Recognizing that your stated objections to the conference have been addressed, we are confident that your Administration will be reversing its decision in time to participate in the conference and its remaining preparatory meetings scheduled to take place in April.

Refusing to Discuss Racism on a Global Platform is Inconsistent with a Policy of Engagement with the International Community

As you know, the Durban Review Conference is one of the most important international platforms for discussing the elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances. Given the brutal history of slavery and Jim Crow in the United States, your Administration has much to contribute to this discussion. A boycott would be inconsistent with your policy of engagement with the international community. A policy of engagement requires discussion with governments and institutions even if one does not agree with them as demonstrated by your statement last week to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that your Administration is committed to seeking "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect." How can your Administration engage in any manner with the international community if it has no representation at the discussion table?

The United States Should be Fighting for the Strongest Protections against Racism

The Durban Review process has offered a sophisticated and comprehensive framework for advancing racial equality including concrete guidelines for addressing the link between poverty, racism, sexism, and multiple forms of discrimination; advancing migrant rights; addressing youth violence; providing access to quality education, health care, and adequate housing; and advancing transparent governance in the fight for racial equality. We expect your Administration will not only engage in the process but will also work to ensure that the final outcome offers the strongest and most comprehensive framework for eliminating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerances. This is critical for progress in the domestic and global fight for racial and economic justice.

Specific Objections Raised do not Warrant a Boycott

We are concerned by the reasons put forth by your Administration for its refusal to engage in the conference. Notwithstanding that changes have been made to accommodate your Administration's specific objections, we do not believe that these objections should warrant a decision to boycott the conference. As we mentioned before, you recently demonstrated your Administration's willingness to engage in dialogue with governments with which you do not always agree such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we applaud that decision. Why would your Administration pursue a different policy now that it is time to discuss how to fight and eliminate racism for people in the United States and the rest of the world? How can the United States affirm freedom of expression - even for hate speech - if it refuses even to be present to listen to the views of others?

The United States Must Not Attempt to Ignore our History of Slavery

We are troubled that your Administration pushed for the withdrawal of language related to reparations, reference to the transatlantic slave trade as a crime against humanity, and the overall weakening of the efforts related to people of African Descent. We recall your own speech on March 18, 2008 that we need to "remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow." We also urge you to consider the bill H.R. 40 reintroduced by Representative Conyers in January calling for the establishment of a commission to examine the institution of slavery and current forms of racial discrimination, as well as to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies. We believe it will help illuminate the importance of discussing these issues both in the United States and globally.

The United States Must Engage the Global Fight for Racial Justice in Good Faith

It is regrettable that your Administration made its current decision on whether to participate in the Durban Review Conference based on one meeting. One meeting is inadequate for meaningful engagement in the process especially since the process has been ongoing since 2006 not including the time and preparation put into the 2001 World Conference Against Racism (WCAR). The actions of your Administration leave the impression that you are willing to ignore an important opportunity to advance racial equality if it is politically expedient.

The Current Position of Non-Participation is worse than that of the Bush Administration

A boycott by your Administration would be the first time in recent history that the United States has refused to participate in a United Nations conference. This position is even more radical than that of the Bush Administration's as the former Administration at least attended the preceding conference on race before withdrawing. We hope that your Administration will not squander this important opportunity to push for racial equality on the global stage and will instead send a diverse and high-level delegation including representatives from the non-governmental community.

A United States Refusal to Discuss Racism Encourages Other Countries to do the same

The current decision by your Administration not only affects the United States, but also provides cover for other countries that are reluctant to engage in a meaningful discussion on advancing racial equality to boycott the discussion as well. A United States boycott would have a long-term damaging effect on the global fight against racism.

In closing, we are reminded again of a speech you made a year ago insisting that race is an issue that this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We applauded your thought-provoking speech then as it echoed basic American values of equality and fairness and reminded us of the importance of engaging in mature and constructive dialogue on race. We urge you not to ignore this global discussion on race. This is an issue that is extremely important for making genuine progress in the United States and advancing peace worldwide. It is also a priority for many of us who supported your campaign for change. Again, we look forward to your timely and substantive engagement in the Durban Review Conference.

The list of signatories, including the National Lawyers Guild, can be found in this Ha'aretz article. There is also commentary on it here. The Australian Jewish Democratic Society is urging attendance, pointing out that:
. . . only six of the 341 paragraphs on Durban 1 singled out Israel, while there was also a resolution stating that the Holocaust “must never be forgotten” as detailed in this post. I also talk about it here and here.

let the mud be slung

Maybe only the morally bankrupt are successful politicians or vice versa. Perhaps it is only when you leave politics, such as Jimmy Carter or Malcolm Fraser have, that you can actually do something about human rights. While you are in power, forget it. It seems that the only human rights that are of concern to any of our successful politicians are those of their own class and country, perhaps, and a swathe of the middle to upper classes muddled in a fugue of deliberate ignorance. Those classes maybe do or don't want to be ignorant, but they are definitely kept that way.

I was withholding my opinion on our minister for foreign affairs, Stephen Smith. When he was relatively silent over the massacre in Gaza, letting his representatives talk for him, I thought that maybe he was not crossing that political suicide line of actually pointing out that America's dearest friend (and the country that Kevin Rudd has in his DNA) was, again, grossly violating human rights. However, the U.S. has decided not to go to Durban 2, though they were toying with the idea of going to Durban, and even though their many human rights groups, who felt that discussions of slavery and racism should be on the table, particularly given the U.S.'s background with said slavery, thought that they should go, they decided not to. Even though the organisers of the Durban Conference (the United Nations), under extreme pressure, decided there would be no side issues, or even open discussion, pertaining to the occupation of Palestine, and any racism charges that might stem from the situation of treating people like second class citizens, and even though they wiped discussion of slavery from the agenda, and it seemed there was no way in hell Israel was even going to be mentioned, the U.S. and Australia and some other countries have finally decided not to go. Israel and Canada had made their boycott positions known long before.

According to Middle East Reality Check

"The Australian understands the Dutch will not be going to the conference and Germany is also considering a boycott after intense lobbying by Mr Smith of his European counterparts..." (Israel slur fear forces boycott, Mark Dodd).

Nice going Mr. Smith. He is a sharp dresser, but that's about the extent of respect I now have for him. His Labor colleague, Julia Irwin, perhaps the only honest politician in Australia, had this to say about Smith's position (my emphasis):

Mr Smith's argument was strongly rejected by Ms Irwin.

"It's a shame Australia will be one of a handful of nations boycotting the Durban conference," Ms Irwin said.

"Any nation which has policies which discriminate on the grounds of race or religion should not be above criticism and should not be supported by the Australian Government."

And how right she is. She will never get to be prime minister with her outspokenness, but I hope she retains her seat forever.

Australian politics of late leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth. We have been the U.S.'s lackey since the end of WWII, and before that, England's, but it seemed to me there were times when we recognised fairness, human rights, and even the actual make up of the people in our population when we made decisions that affected others globally, and which affected how the global population saw us. Seems our politicians, even if they seem to lean left, are just another typical bunch of elites whose only concern is winning another term and another and another. Justice be damned. They couldn't give a shit.

The report from the Australian which MERC quotes says:

While Britain says it will be attending, the participation of countries such as Iran and Cuba, which have reputations as serial human rights violators, is likely to ensure the summit turns into an anti-Israel and anti-US slanging match.

Really, how is Iran different from Israel in this case, and how is the U.S. any different, given Guantanamo and Abu Graihb, and how is Australia any different, given its past compulsory detention for asylum seekers and off-shore processing, which has not entirely gone away? Keep in mind, Obama is keeping a lot of power, and is letting former human rights violators off the hook. Let the mud be slung, and let's get it out in the open. If we can slander all the other countries in the world, then let them do the same in return. And why do we not want to have a voice there? Why do we want to be known as the country that would not attend a conference discussing racism? What is wrong with us and the western world?

Posts on Durban (including this one) are here.

Other blogs and posts which discuss Durban in some detail are here and here.

*Note: However - please Stephen Smith, do something for this woman and her children.

lynch-pin or lynch-mob?

Remember, it is Jewish Voice for Peace who has posted the information this post is drawing on, and the quotes further on come from their MuzzleWatch site. The events that went on at Durban II, and the general co-ordinated campaign to both stifle voices concerned with human rights issues, and the promotion of sensationalistic scaremongering stereotypes of Muslims and countries which are predominantly Muslim is frightening. If a reporter in Iraq was imprisoned by the western-backed judiciary system for throwing shoes at then President George Bush II, then shouldn't those who donned clown wigs and attempted to throw red noses (yes, it sounds ludicrous, and that is the point) at President Ahmadinejad also face some form of punishment? Different countries, I know, but again, if one is punished for speaking out against an inflicter of crimes against humanity, then shouldn't the principle be blanket, or at least the recognition of the actions of the leaders, and the consequences of those actions? Personally, I think neither of the protesters should be punished, except for a possible fine and removal, and revocation of accreditation (in the case of the group at Geneva), keeping within the United Nation's Durban policy rules (particularly as Palestinian groups were totally denied a voice) as initially (in the case of revocation) occurred. But, what was the real motivation of the clowns?

If I were American, and particularly if I were any minority group in America that was not Jewish, I would be angry, frustrated and scared that my voice was being taken away from me by actions such as from the group above and from the kinds of actions detailed in the quotes at the end of this paragraph. Likewise, in Australia, Tom Calma, who is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and acting Race Discrimination Commissioner, was criticised for going to the Durban anti-racism conference because it was claimed he would upset the local Jewish community, which is not necessarily true, as I have outlined in previous posts. Note, the paper that article is pulled from is a Murdoch rag, and it makes no mention at all of Calma's ethnicity,and why it might be very much within his role and interests to attend a conference that was all about dealing with racism.

From Muzzlewatch (my emphasis):

The head of an official NGO alliance at the UN told me groups have an agreement not to protest inside of the United Nations, and that if they do, it is standard practice to revoke the group’s accreditation. When the UN tried to do just that to the European Union of Jewish Students, which disrupted the conference at various moments, the chair boasted that one threat to send out a press statement made all the difference:

Another student group, the European Union of Jewish Students, had learned April 21 that its accreditation was pulled after some members had yelled insults at Ahmadinejad from the gallery.

But the EUJS, which also has formal, permanent accreditation to the United Nations, protested that the entire group shouldn’t be punished for the actions of a few. EUJS Chairman Jonas Karpantschof said he told U.N. officials he would issue a news release if the accreditation weren’t reinstated, and it soon was.

“It would have looked really bad,” he said, “for the U.N. to take away badges from Jewish students on Yom Hashoah at an anti-racism conference.”

Jordan himself feeds the dynamic in the same article, called “Malcolm X’s daughter: ‘Zionist agitators’ bothered at Durban II. The article comes complete with an angry looking photo of Malaak Shabazz, who complained about ““Zionist agitators” at one event who were ” juvenile, nasty and aggressive.” In fact, friends from Canada’s Independent Jewish Voices were in the room when the students were acting in threatening ways and stuck a camera right in Shabazz’s face. One can only assume that as Malcolm X’s daughter, an “angry black Muslim woman”, she was right out of central casting for a depiction of the scary, anti-Semitic, mean Durban Review delegates.

I went to an Israel rally where the audience was exhorted to yell, “I am a Zionist” half a dozen times. But Shabazz, who was literally right when she called these young students “Zionist agitators”, is now part of the massive anti-Jewish hate-fest because she used the phrase.

From the JTA article which MuzzleWatch references is this quote from Shabazz. The first sentence is important.

"People confuse Zionism with Judaism, and that's completely unfortunate," she said.

“The Zionists here are making people hate Jews,” Shabazz said. “I was unfamiliar with the tactics of Zionists. But I got a crash course on it here.”

For some of those tactics, there are further posts here, here, here and here from MuzzleWatch.

When I review history, I think the era of McCarthyism was one of the scariest in the U.S. It's not too hard to imagine McCarthyism, or anything similar, devolving into a new Cultural Revolution. One of my Chinese students told me that his grandfather had to go to jail every day, and then return home, during the Cultural Revolution, and from my readings on the frequent humiliations and abuses of the time, he got off lightly. Australia had similar policies to McCarthyism when our then prime minister, Robert Menzies, tried to outlaw communism .

Democracy really is about freedom of speech. It seems to be promoted as one of its lynch-pins. Within the academic circles, at least, within the U.S., it seems few can voice a criticism of Israel without being branded anti-Semitic (commentary here), and it seems that the same climate exists at some institutions in Australia. Something I was very surprised about, especially considering what a small, though vibrant, Jewish population we have. In fact, our Muslim population is far larger. Desmond Tutu was not allowed to speak at a university in St. Cloud, Minnesota, due to pressure from lobby groups (and the woman who organised for him to speak was fired). And as stated before, he is now being branded as racist for his views on the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Very worrying times.

Note: 1st May: Some interesting commentary on the endorsement of torture from some quarters.

Note: May 1st, from Counter Punch . The Cases of Margo Ramlal Nankoe, William Robinson, Nagesh Rao and Loretta Capeheart. The McCarthyism That Horowitz Built Dana L. Cloud, 30 April 2009.

durban 2 - again

From the Jewish Voice for Peace group, MuzzleWatch, in Durban, talking with Palestinian lawyer, Usama Halabi:

"The Palestinian delegation made a big sacrifice for this conference. They omitted every single reference to our case, because other countries were opposed to that. There’s no language accusing anybody of anything. So me, I don’t understood what’s going on."

And pro-occupation Israelis and Americans absolutely did not boycott Durban except in an official sense, and their voice is being heard very loudly, which is what Halabi is referring to. Who made a mockery of this conference, and whose intention was it to make it a mockery? Of course, the outcome of this is that not only is the Palestinian voice not heard, but neither are any of the voices of the other 193(?) countries in the world.

The reporter also has a later post which is interesting. The last paragraph, reflecting her views, says:

Me, I am scared for Israel. For so many reasons. Sometimes I’m terrified- which is why I think the only way to be pro-Israel (and yes, we work with so many phenomenal Israeli justice activists who love their country and work against every last shred of discrimination, repression or inequality both in and outside of its boundaries)…the only way to be pro-Israel is to be anti-occupation. Israel simply must end this occupation now. That of course is the terrible heartbreak about what I’m seeing here today: The American Jewish Congress, Eye on the UN and other groups are not just fueling anti-Semitism by overplaying their hand, they are helping push Israel down a path from which it may never return.

Right now, that concerns me much more than the singling out of Israel in the UN. If Anne Bayefsky, UN Watch et al want to stop the phenomenon, they might try using their resources to pressure Israel to end their occupation.

what credibility?

In full, from the Guardian:

What credibility is there in Geneva's all-white boycott?

The Iranian president's repugnant rhetoric doesn't give Israel's sponsors the right to cry foul when it's called racist
Seumas Milne, 23 April 2009.


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. And they all decided to boycott this week's UN ­conference against racism in Geneva – even before Monday's incendiary speech by the Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which triggered a further white-flight walkout by representatives of another 23 European states.

In international forums, it's almost unprecedented to have such an ­undiluted racial divide of whites-versus-the-rest. And for that to happen in a global meeting called to combat racial hatred doesn't exactly augur well for future international understanding at a time when the worst economic crisis since the war is ramping up racism and xenophobia across the world.

Didn't Canada or Australia have anything to say about the grim condition of their indigenous people, you might wonder, or Italy and the Czech Republic about violent attacks on Roma people? Didn't any of the boycotters have a contribution to make about the rampant Islamophobia, resurgence of anti-semitism and scapegoating of migrants in their countries over the last decade?

The dispute was mainly about Israel and western fears that the conference would be used, like its torrid predecessor in Durban at the height of the Palestinian intifada in 2001, to denounce the Jewish state and attack the west over colonialism and the slave trade. In fact, although it was the only conflict mentioned in the final Durban declaration, the reference was so mild (recognising the Palestinian right to self-determination alongside Israel's right to security) that the then Israeli prime minister, ­Shimon Peres, called it "an accomplishment of the first order for Israel".

In this week's Geneva statement, Israel isn't mentioned at all. But the US bizarrely still used its reaffirmation of the anodyne Durban declaration to justify a boycott, to the anger of African American politicians such as Jesse Jackson and Barbara Lee, who chairs the US Congressional Black Caucus. In fact, like the other boycotting governments, the US administration had been intensely lobbied by rightwing pro-Israel groups, who had insisted long in advance that the conference would be a "hatefest".

Ahmadinejad's grandstanding played straight into that agenda. The most poisonous phrases in the printed version of his speech circulated by embassy officials referred to the Nazi genocide as "ambiguous and dubious" and claimed Zionist "penetration" of western society was so deep that "nothing can be done against their will". That a head of state of a country of nearly 70 million people is still toying with Holocaust denial and European antisemitic tropes straight out of the Tsarist antisemitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is not only morally repugnant and factually absurd. It's also damaging to the Palestinian cause by association, weakens the international support Iran needs to avert the threat of attack over its nuclear programme, and bolsters Israel's claims that it faces an existential threat.

But, perhaps as a result of an appeal by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon, Ahmadinejad dropped those provocations at the last minute. What in fact triggered the walkout of European Union ambassadors was his reference to Israel as a "totally racist regime", established by the western powers who had made an "entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering" and "in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe".

The rhetoric was certainly crude and inflammatory. Britain's foreign secretary David Miliband called it "hate-filled". But the truth is that throughout the Arab, Muslim and wider developing worlds, the idea that Israel is a racist state is largely uncontroversial. The day after Ahmadinejad's appearance, the Palestinian Authority foreign minister, Riyad al-Maliki, echoed the charge in the conference hall, describing Israeli occupation as "the ugliest face of racism". It's really not good enough for Britain's ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Peter Gooderham – who led the Ahmadinejad walkout – to say of the charge of Israel's racism, "we all know it when we see it and it's not that".

This is a state, after all, created by European colonists, built on the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous population, whose founding legal principles guarantee the right of citizenship to any Jewish migrant from anywhere in the world, while denying that same right to Palestinians born there along with their descendants. Of course, Israel is much else besides, and the Jewish cultural and historical link with Palestine is a ­profound one.

But even those Palestinians who are Israeli citizens face what the then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert last year called "deliberate and ­insufferable" discrimination by a state which defines itself by ethnicity. For Palestinians in the occupied territories, ruled by Israel for most of the state's existence, where ­ethnic segregation and extreme ­inequality is ruthlessly enforced, the situation is far worse – even without the relentless military assaults and killings. And Israel now has a far-right ­government whose foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said 90% of Israel's Arab citizens have "no place" in the country, should be forcibly "transferred", and only be allowed citizenship in exchange for an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Zionist Jewish state.

But if Lieberman had turned up to speak at the Geneva anti-racism conference, who believes that western delegates and ambassadors would have staged a walkout? Of course, there's a perfectly ­reasonable argument to be had about the nature of Israel's racism and whether it should be compared to apartheid, for example. But for western governments to hold up their hands in horror when Israel is described as a racist state has no global credibility whatever.

Israel's supporters often complain that, whatever its faults, it is singled out for attack while the crimes of other states and conflicts are ignored. To the extent that that's true in forums such as the UN, it's partly because Israel is seen as the unfinished business of European colonialism, along with the Middle East conflict's other special mix of multiple toxins. The Geneva boycotters, fresh from standing behind Israel's carnage in Gaza, are in denial about their own racism – and their continuing role in the tragedy of the Middle East.[My emphasis]

heroes who valiantly try to protect us, all of us

Definitely worth reading, from MuzzleWatch (which is a project of the Jewish Voice for Peace) at the Durban Conference
Gay Muslim filmaker Parvez Sharma is my hero.

And these pithy paragraphs from the latest entry on the distrust the writer has for the reporting of the first Durban conference. She says:

I don’t doubt there was anti-Semitic literature and language at Durban I. But was it 90% of the conference, or .09%? I have no way to know. I do know, however, that yesterday’s Sharansky, Voight, Dershowitz session, supposedly on anti-Semitism, was a tour de force of insulting and demeaning anti-Muslim/Arab stereotyping and callousness, infused with Islamophobia, and that not one media account will ever call it what it is. [Author's emphasis].

There’s simply no question that there are plenty of Arab and Muslim diplomats in particular who are more than happy to use their air time to go after Israel and ignore their own miserable human rights records. This is not news. And I’m sure that if you took enough time, you could find someone who supports Hamas, someone else who hates Jews, and someone else who hates women.

But where is the power? [my emphasis]. That, in some ways, is the only question that matters. And in the end, Israel continues to act with diplomatic impunity, thanks in large part to the US which protects it. That’s why a strong UN is a threat.[my emphasis]

The United Nations is not a corporate entity. It is a place where every country has some voice, though some-like the United States and other Security Council members- have much much stronger voices than others. At a conference like this, the representatives of those countries, no matter how vile, stupid or cruel, get to speak. As Ijm Dike told me, “After Achmedinejad spoke, any leader of state could have gotten up and taken him to task, and then re-asserted the focus on the conference. I don’t understand why nobody did that.”

Too late now.

By the way, American Dershowitz above has labelled anti-apartheid campaigner, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, as a racist and a bigot for his prior comments that Palestinians live in conditions similar to, if not worse than, South African apartheid, and for his urgings that they be treated equally and fairly, and for his urgings to change the conditions they live under. I wonder what Dershowitz's comments are classified as, if Achmedinejad and Tutu have the racism mantle between them, and Israel and (its proxy supporters) is the only country with a voice?

a clayton's boycott

I'm late getting this stuff (3 days)and I am also a little busy, working fulltime at other things. However, the content of the following is something that I have posted about before, though maybe not so succinctly. A full post from Muzzlewatch entitled Huh? Obama condemns Durban I Statement:

Haaretz reports that Barack Obama said:

“We expressed in the run-up to this conference our concerns that if you adopted all of the language from 2001, that’s not something we can sign up for,” Obama said on Sunday. “Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn’t believe in.”

Does that mean the United States doesn’t believe in the following- and again I quote here from the only references to Israel found in the entire 61 page final Durban document:

58. We recall that the Holocaust must never be forgotten;

61. 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;

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;

150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities;

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;

Our government does not support the above either, obviously.

She also writes in a separate post:

Turns out Israel is here in full force at Durban II. Earlier today I told you about the range of Israeli-government-narrative-only events being held in UN buildings, while Palestinian NGOs have been banned from holding side-events. (The transparent excuse is that the side-events can not be region specific, only issue specific. The real story is the UN simply folded to pressure.) [My emphasis].

As one respondent told me, the UN Human Rights Commissioner is still reeling because she folded on all of the US demands to essentially cleanse the Palestinian narrative from the conference, and still the US and others pulled out. [My emphasis]

Go figure. No wonder countries which are not perceived as 'western' have no trust in western ideals and values which are very limited in their actual practical application.

australia - not one of the 182 states

Last post for the night and for Durban 2. Smith, Rudd, Obama, Clinton (I guess), I hope you are reading this somewhere, but in all actuality, I'm sure that you know all this, anyway, but it is much more fun to have games with smoke and mirrors. I guess that we are proud not to be one of the 182 states who came to a consensus on racism or anti-racism, and adopted it. Must be true what they say about white people, not really ever wanting to share anything with anyone (sorry Obama). It's a shame, because I am white, and I do not feel that way. From the final press statement of Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

If people actually read the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, they would have realized that it includes a paragraph which says that “the Holocaust should never be forgotten”. It includes two paragraphs that denounce “anti-Semitism and Islamophobia”, and one paragraph which mentions the suffering of the Palestinians, their right of self-determination and the security of all States, including Israel, and two paragraphs calling for peace. That’s all there is on the Middle East. And I could not get these corrections published in some important newspapers, particularly in the US, who used the word hate fest without checking these paragraphs.

The final document of this conference – the Conference product, if you like – also says the Holocaust must never be forgotten and deplores anti-Semitism along with Islamophobia and all forms of racism, xenophobia, racial discrimination and related intolerance. But already the propaganda machine is starting to wind up to term this conference a failure, a “hate fest and all the rest of it.” This is extraordinary. Yet no one has really written up the true story of this Conference – a strange rough and tumble affair full of smoke and mirrors, I must admit, yet very definitely a success story, with plenty of good will as well as plenty of bad will of the type I have described just now.

...

But because of this campaign that was so determined to kill the conference, some countries decided to boycott it, although a few days earlier, they had actually agreed on what is now the final text. I consider this bizarre. You agree the text on Friday evening, and walk out on Sunday. I think, it was unfortunate that a few states disengaged from the process. Although almost all of them had agreed this text, they are not part of the consensus that adopted it. I do hope they will come back into the process now. They can still add their names to the list of 182 states that have adopted the outcome document. And by the way, Iran is part of that consensus. When the final call came, Iran did not oppose the text.

it's all in the genes

Update to yesterday's post: Well, at least the U.S. has been protesting the randomness of the supplies that Israel lets into Gaza or not.* Though who the "officials" mentioned in the report below are, I do not know.

The United States is protesting to Israel over seemingly random restrictions on deliveries to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip of harmless goods such as soap and toilet paper, diplomats said Wednesday.

Diplomats fear day-to-day crisis management on Gaza was diverting the United States and other Western governments from bigger issues like the goal of restarting peace negotiations for a Palestinian state.

In one case, Israel blocked for weeks a World Food Program (WFP) shipment of chickpeas, used to make the Palestinian food staple hummus, the U.N. food agency said.

"We're certainly asking the Israelis questions about this," a U.S. official said of the restrictions on what is allowed into Gaza.

A Western official said: "The Americans and international NGOs (non-governmental organizations) are raising their concerns... We're protesting."

I think the second paragraph of the above is the most important, especially considering Hamas has ordered those who are firing rockets to stop while negotiations are currently going on in Egypt, and it is especially indicative of why it is not necessarily a wonderful policy to have an unquestioning, "special" relationship with Israel. Our own prime minister has said in the past that support for Israel is "in his DNA". Of course it is possible to support Israel and to condemn the occupation (though you wouldn't think so), but considering Rudd did nothing to condemn the recent onslaught on Gaza (it was Hamas' fault entirely), and has celebrated Israel in ways that no government before him has, and his government is now considering not attending the Durban II conference against racism*, along with the U.S., Canada and Israel, it seems that he has little problem with the occupation and the human rights abuses that occur within, or even the racism that also occurs within Israel "proper" (it doesn't define its borders). It's obvious that pettiness, inconsistency, cruelty, sycophancy and the means to annihilate a people must be a genetic thing.

*Reference to the opening article first found here.

*The United States and Israel walked out of the first UN conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001, to protest against an attempted resolution comparing Zionism to racism. Considering that it is a sect which justifies the keeping of a people in an open air prison, the taking of their land, stripping them of their rights and their lives, could it be that maybe the call was justified?

still no decision

Still no Australian news on whether Australia will attend the Durban II conference against racism or not. I think we should go. I think we are sophisticated enough to know the difference between malevolence and rhetoric. I think that our policy should not so closely mirror U.S. and Israeli policy on certain matters, far more than many other countries. I wrote to our foreign minister, Stephen Smith, stating my opinion, but I don't think the opinions of the voters in Australia matter much to the government. There is background on the conference in this post, about half way down.

Note: The Australian Jewish Democratic Society is urging attendance, pointing out that:

. . . only six of the 341 paragraphs on Durban 1 singled out Israel, while there was also a resolution stating that the Holocaust “must never be forgotten”.

Note: March 21, Middle East Reality Check has also put up a post on this.

hand in hand

Uri Avnery's latest column after a few jumps. Here is Ahmadinejad's speech, and here, here, here and here is some commentary on it, and also some commentary on some of his prior comments, (some commentary here on some of Hamas' previous statements, too). Considering Iran has just jailed some bloggers and sentenced them to lashes, and has also jailed an Iranian-American reporter on dubious charges, and these are some of the milder punishments it can and has meted out, he obviously is not the best person to be accusing others.

But, if at Davos, Peres can say None of the crossings between Gaza and Israel, vital crossings, were ever closed, if he can say There was never a day of starvation in Gaza, if he can puzzle over why rockets might be fired, and can deny that Palestinians live in an open air prison, and much more, just 10 days after the all-out carnage that the Israeli war on Gaza wrought, all to rapturous applause, and all to the members of nation states (apart from the Turkish Prime Minister) remaining firmly in their seats, then why was Ahmadinejad's speech so offensive? Particularly as he had, perhaps as a result of an appeal by the UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon...[cut "The most poisonous phrases"]...of his speech - [read the article] at the last minute.

I don't think we should sit there if Idi Amin were telling us about the wonderful things his government had done for his people and the world either, all the while lecturing us on our wrongdoing, but if we sit there straight-faced listening to, and even applauding Peres' lies, then what the hell is the difference? Deny one group's suffering, such as the international community did at Davos, we may as well deny them all.

I think one has to keep in mind, too, at least according to Baer (I really need to read more), that Iran has rebuilt areas that Israel has destroyed, such as in Lebanon. To many people in the region, Israel has not done much to improve their quality of life, in fact, quite the opposite. I can't say that Iran promises to either, in the long run, nor that their actions are purely philanthropic, but they don't seem to be holding pre-emptive wars or wars of deterrence on the surrounding countries, ripping up infrastructure and building great walls, though I have no doubt that they have plenty of influence in those countries in many ways.

In addition if Israeli forces do the following:

AIC [alternative information center - and Israeli-Palestinian organistation] staff member Mohammad Abu Humus was taken from his home at 3am today by masked members of the Israeli security forces, who stormed and searched his home with drawn weapons. Abu Humus was subsequently brought before a judge, who acquiesced to the police request and extended his detention for 11 days. All of the material and evidence concerning Abu Humus is classified. Abu Humus is accused of involvement in unruly protests against Israeli military actions in Gaza, which he categorically denies, and the classified nature of the evidence for such a minor accusation calls into question the true motives of the Israeli authorities in the detention and interrogation of Abu Humus.

Abu Humus, 43 years old and a resident of the East Jerusalem village of Issawiya, is a long-time political and social activist in East Jerusalem. He is married to Wafa and has four small children, two daughters: Irfat (11) and Shahd (10) and two sons: Anas (8) and Majd (3). He has worked with the AIC since 2006

Attending the court hearing today were Abu Humus’ wife Wafa, members of the Alternative Information Center and additional residents of Issawiya, who came in support and solidarity with Abu Humus.

Wafa noted that “our children were terrified by the masked men with drawn weapons. I asked them how they expect us to live with them in love and respect, when they act like this? They don’t leave us any room for love,” added Wafa sadly.

The detention of Abu Humus is part of Israel’s wider campaign to repress the legitimate right of Palestinian residents and citizens of Israel to protest Israeli actions in Gaza and exercise their right to freedom of expression. Since the beginning of Israel’s military attacks on Gaza, more than 300 Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem have been detained, arrested and taken for interrogation by the Israeli security services. For the past several days, Israeli forces have entered Issawiya every night, detaining prominent political activists.

how is it any different from any other police state?

Not to say that Hamas forces and Fatah forces do not do the same or worse to their own people or each other's organisations - but one needs to look at cause and effect, and the west does not regard them as representatives of a democracy, yet, it claims that Israel is one.

Additionally, Avnery states that [n]ow [Ahmadinejad] wants to penetrate the Sunni Arab world in order to turn Iran into the dominant regional power. Baer (ex CIA and fluent in Arabic) does not deny these intentions, but seems to think that people should actually be looking at who wields more power, and claims that people should be looking more towards the words and actions of the Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i than Ahmadinejad. Incidentally, Baer sees Israel and Iran working together quite well in the region, and sees them as natural allies, particularly as Iran seems to be as pragmatic as it is brutal. Israel still seems to be feeling its way on that score (at least on the pragmatism scale). Anyway, I do not really know that much about Iran, so I am just reporting Baer's sentiments as a prelude to Averny's column. It is as always pretty good. Have a read:

Can Two Walk Together?

25/04/09

I AM not saying that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an agent of the Mossad.

Absolutely not. I don’t want to be sued for libel.

I am only saying that were he an agent of the Mossad, he would not behave any differently.

And also: If he did not exist, the Mossad would have had to invent him.

Either way, the assistance he is giving to the government of Israel is invaluable.

LET’S LOOK at last week’s scandal.

Years ago, a conference against racism was convened by the UN in Durban, South Africa. It was natural that such a forum would denounce, among others, the Israeli government for its policy towards the Palestinians – the occupation, the settlements, the wall.

But the conference was not content with this. It turned into a platform for wild incitement against the State of Israel – and only against it. No other state in the world was denounced for violating human rights – and among the denouncers were some of the most obnoxious tyrants in the world.

When preparations were made for a second “Durban Conference”, this time in Geneva, the Israeli government did everything in its power to convince at least the countries of North America and Europe to boycott it. That was not so easy. Well before the start of the conference, the US succeeded in eliminating the reference to Israel in the draft of its final document (leaving only a reference to the resolutions of the first conference), and in the end it decided to boycott the conference anyway. But the European countries agreed to attend.

The Israeli government was anticipating the conference with great apprehension. The atrocities of the Gaza War have turned public opinion in many countries against Israel. The conference could become an outlet for these emotions. The brightest minds in Jerusalem were trying to find ways to prevent this.

And then along came Ahmadinejad. Since he was the only head of state to attend, the organizers could not prevent him from speaking first. He delivered a provocative speech – not being satisfied with criticizing Israel, his words dripped with unbridled hatred. That was a welcome pretext for the European representatives to get up and walk out in an impressive pro-Israeli demonstration. The conference became ridiculous.

If the “Elders of Zion” had planned the conference, it could not have ended better as far as the Israeli government is concerned.

ALL THIS happened on Holocaust Day, when Jews in Israel and all over the world commemorate the millions of victims of the genocide.

The memory of the Holocaust unites all the Jews in the world. Every Jew knows that if the Nazis had reached him, he, too, would have gone to the death camps. We, who were then living in Palestine, knew that if the German general Erwin Rommel had broken through the British lines at El Alamein, our fate would have been that of the Warsaw Ghetto.

All Jews feel that it is their moral duty to keep the memory of the victims alive. To this profound feeling there is added a political consideration: the memory of the Holocaust causes most Jews everywhere to support the State of Israel, which defines itself as the “State of the Shoa Survivors”.

But time passes and memories fade. There is a recurrent need for a present, actual enemy, a “Second Hitler”, who arouses all the latent fears lurking in the Jewish soul. Once it was Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, the “Egyptian Tyrant”. Then Yasser Arafat played this role. Nowadays there is Hamas, but that is hardly sufficient. No way to convince anyone that Hamas could possibly annihilate Israel.

Ahmadinejad is the ideal candidate. He is a consistent Holocaust denier. He declares that the “Zionist entity” must disappear from the map. He is working on the production of a nuclear bomb. This is serious – a few nuclear bombs on Israeli population centers can indeed wipe out Israel.

So we have a “Second Hitler”, who is planning a ”Second Holocaust”. Against him, all the Jews of the world can unite. What would we do without him?

THE PUTATIVE Iranian nuclear bomb fulfills another very important role. It is serving now as an instrument for the obliteration of the Palestinian problem.

Next month Netanyahu will present himself at the White House. That might turn out to be a fateful meeting. President Barack Obama may demand a clear commitment to start a peace process that will lead towards the creation of the Palestinian state. Netanyahu will make a desperate effort to avoid this, since peace would mean the evacuation of the settlements. If he agreed to this, his coalition would fall apart.

What to do? Thank God for the Iranian bomb! It constitutes an existential threat against Israel. It is self-evident that the Israeli Prime Minister should not be bothered with bagatelles like peace with the Palestinians when the Iranian nuclear sword is dangling above his head!

Netanyahu’s predecessors also used this ploy. Whenever somebody raises the matter of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and demands that our government start real negotiations, freeze the settlements, dismantle the outposts, release prisoners, end the blockade on the population of the Gaza Strip, remove the roadblocks – the Iranian bomb appears ex machina. No time to think about anything else. The bomb heads our agenda. The bomb is our agenda.

There is a lot of irony in this. Iran has never been the least bit interested in the plight of the Palestinians. Ahmadinejad, too, doesn’t give a damn. Like all other Middle East governments he uses the Palestinian cause to further his own interests. Now he wants to penetrate the Sunni Arab world in order to turn Iran into the dominant regional power. For this purpose, he raises the banner of the Palestinian resistance. But for the time being, he has only succeeded in pushing the Sunni Arab regimes into the arms of Israel.

AHMADINEJAD’S MOST enthusiastic fans sit in the Ministry of Defense in Tel-Aviv. What would they do without him?

Every year, the struggle over the defense budget breaks out anew. This year, with the economic crisis, the debate will be even more acrimonious. Little Israel maintains one of the largest and most expensive military establishments in the world. Relative to the GNP (gross national product), we easily trump the United States, not to mention Europe.

Must one ask why? Israel is surrounded by enemies who are plotting to destroy us! True, Egypt is now the most loyal collaborator of Israel, Iraq has quit the game for the time being, Syria has long since ceased to be a threat. Jordan is humble, the Palestinian Authority dances to our tune. It is hard to justify a giant defense budget for fighting little Hizbullah and tiny Hamas.

But there is Iran, thank God. And there is the fearsome Iranian bomb. Here you have an honest to God existential danger. Our Air Force declares that it is ready to take off any day – no, any minute - and eradicate all the many Iranian nuclear installations.

For that they need money, lots of money. They need the most advanced airplanes in the world, each of which costs many, many millions. They need suitable equipment for reaching the targets and fulfilling the task. That is more important than education, health or welfare. After all, the Iranian bomb will kill all of us – including the children, the sick and the underprivileged. (The tycoons may perhaps succeed in getting out in time.)

The budget will be approved, but the flyers will not fly. It is not clear whether such an attack is at all feasible. Neither is it clear if it would significantly postpone the production of the bomb. But it is clear that such an attack is not possible politically: it cannot be executed without the express confirmation of the US, and there is no chance that this will be forthcoming. The attack would almost automatically cause the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which all the Gulf oil is shipped. That would be catastrophic, especially during a world-wide economic crisis, when a huge rise in the price of oil can cripple the already weakened economies. No, our valiant pilots will have to content themselves with bombing residential neighborhoods in the Gaza Strip.

IT COULD be argued: if Ahmadinejad behaves like a Mossad agent, Avigdor Lieberman behaves like an agent of Iranian intelligence.

I don’t say so, God forbid. I really don’t want to be sued for libel.

But Lieberman’s behavior is indeed – how to put it – slightly bizarre.

True, for a moment he looked like a winner. After he sent Hosny Mubarak to hell, the Israeli media reported that the most important Egyptian minister had met with him, shaken his hand and invited him to Egypt. Perhaps he wanted to show him around the Aswan dam, which Lieberman once wanted to bomb. But the next day a furious Mubarak reacted by denying the story and declaring that Lieberman will not be allowed to set foot on Egyptian soil.

In the meantime, an important newspaper in Russia published an interview with Lieberman, in which he asserted that “the US will accept all our decisions.” Meaning: we rule America, Obama will do as we tell him.

Such talk will not increase Israel’s popularity in the White House, to say the least. Especially just now, after it was disclosed that the Israeli Lobby, AIPAC, has asked a congresswoman to intervene in favor of two American Jews indicted for spying for Israel. In return, AIPAC promised to get the Congresswoman appointed as chairwoman of a very important committee. How? Simple: AIPAC will tell the majority leader of the House that if she does not comply. a Jewish billionaire will stop contributing to her election fund. Not a very savory disclosure.

In brief, the Iranian Ahmadinejad and the Israeli Lieberman are Siamese twins. The one needs the other. Lieberman rides on the Iranian bomb, Ahmadinejad rides on Israeli threats.

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” asked the prophet Amos (3:3). The answer is: Yes, indeed. These two can very well walk hand in hand without agreeing on anything.

farewell

A touching farewell post, April: Kids on wheels in Jabalia & other farewells with some beautiful photographs from the Tales to Tell blogger. The international volunteers who make their way into Palestine are extraordinary people. This one stayed throughout the war on Gaza, and if I remember correctly, is returning home to study midwifery. Also if I remember correctly, she is not even twenty-five yet, and she has definitely seen and done more than most of us do in a lifetime.


Interesting reports on Darfur, also. Muzzlewatch
An atrocity which needs no exaggeration (from 2007), also from Muzzlewatch, commenting on Jon Voight's speech at Durban II. Jesus wept. Or any other holy and compassionate person.

I guess the Catholics just don't like them

The president of the U.N. General Assembly calls a genocide a genocide (January 14, 2009).

"The number of victims in Gaza is increasing by the day... The situation is untenable. It's genocide," d'Escoto said at the UN in New York.

About 970 Palestinians have been killed and 4,300 injured since Israel began its Gaza offensive on December 27, which it says is to stop Palestinian fighters attacking Israel with rockets. Other sources say 971 dead including 400 women and children. That's 41% of deaths. Israel says only 300 civilians have died (see article below) and have repeatedly used the human shield argument despite reports to the contrary (read some of the blogs of the volunteers in Gaza at present, or the Human Rights reports from the Israeli agencies. The links are in the blog roll), but repeating this argument seems to be a habit of theirs.

From the article: D'Escoto, a former Roman Catholic priest and Nicaragua foreign minister, is known for his outspoken criticism of Israel and last year likened Israel's treatment of the Palestinians to the racist apartheid system previously used in South Africa.

He is not popular with Israel and will be routinely ignored.

Unfortunately, this guy now has something to say, too, (Bin Laden Urges Jihad on Israel, Sky news, 14 Jan, 2009).

Anyone who had the power to protest could have seen it coming. Nice present you left Obama, George, though he seems only too happy to ignore it as much as his predecessor. Aaron David Miller, a former state department adviser on the Middle East said about Barack Obama in this article, (9 January, 2009): "Unless he [Obama] is prepared to adopt a policy that is tougher, fairer and smarter than both of his predecessors you might as well hang a closed-for-the-season sign on any chance of America playing an effective role in defusing the current crisis or the broader crisis." And well, Hillary's views were always known before, but just to make sure, she stated them again. Though, who knows, maybe there will be backdoor dealings and negotiations going on, but not before at least another 500 die, I predict. I hope I eat my words.

In the meantime, from Haaretz (14/01/2009): The Foreign Ministry [of Israel] considers the "Durban 2" World Conference against Racism, scheduled for April in Geneva, as the point when they can determine the extent to which Israel's standing as a democratic country that respects human rights has been damaged. Israel has rallied many countries against the conference on the grounds that it will become a platform for anti-Semitism, and has also announced, along with the United States and Canada, that it will boycott the conference.

The conference is organised by the United Nations Human Rights Council. I guess along with the Vatican, (who said that Gaza more and more resembled a big concentration camp, 9 Jan, 2001), and d'Escoto above, they must have it in for Israel, the U.S. and Canada. The world should be wary.

*Note: It looks like the reporter from Palestine who updates daily has updated his blog, but I cannot get the information at present. It looks as if it has been blocked, or maybe I just can't read it. Anyway, the post from 2 hours ago is Israeli troops attack Gaza City. It is the top blog on my blogroll. I hope others have more luck in accessing it, and that he survives to post another day. *Later: He seems to be back. Posting times have changed though. Updating, I guess.

is your ass covered?

I pulled this the other day, but Jon Stewart says it better than I ever could, and with more humour, so here it is again, with Mr. Stewart added. Thanks to Antony Loewenstein posting the clip, which was where I first saw it. The rest of the writing and quoting is mine, kinda (in that the quotes aren't mine, but I'm sure you get what I mean).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
A Brief History of Torture
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Glenn Greenwald, again. I really admire his writing, dedication and thoroughness. This is on President Obama's announcement last week

that he opposes prosecutions of CIA officials who tortured detainees in reliance on OLC [Offiice of Legal Counsel] memos purporting to legalize that conduct (a decision which is not Obama's to make),

'realisation' of which seems to be why he has changed his tune on the situation. Greenwald says

the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, Manfred Nowak, announced that Obama's policy of immunizing CIA torturers violates international law and, specifically, the clear obligations of the U.S. under the Convention Against Torture (signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988)

This morning, I conducted a 20-minute interview with Nowak . . . regarding the specific legal obligations of the U.S. to provide accountability for crimes of torture; how Obama's invocation of the "state secrets privilege" to block torture victims from having a day in court independently violates the Convention; and the detrimental impact that will result for the U.N.'s ability to hold torturers around the world accountable (which is Nowak's prime mandate) if the U.S. announces to the world that its own political leaders who systematically ordered torture will be shielded from all accountability.

The above and final two paragraphs quoted in this post below, from the article, is true. The United Nations is definitely being undermined as seen by Jewish peace group, MuzzleWatch's reporting on the Durban II conference, and once we are without the Geneva Convention, without the United Nations, what do we have? I am not convinced that it is 'Islamic extremists' (though they do exist, along with a whole bevy of other extremists) who are steering us into another dark age. I don't know if the crimes carried out by the west will ever come home to roost in the constant and terrifying way in which we often seem to inflict them (not to say we are responsible for all the crime and terror around the world), but if torture is condoned (and not holding those who have committed torture, and even more so ordered its implementation, responsible is a form of condoning) then the very idea of being compassionate and democratic nations, with equal rights for all, is false. No big surprise there, really, though.

Greenwald cites International law professor, Kevin John Heller who provides an example of a

set of prosecutions by the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, as part of The Ministries Case, in which German officials were prosecuted for doing nothing other than stating, when asked, that they had no objection to the deportation of 5,000 Jews from France. Those officials, who were convicted at Nuremberg, did not order the deportation or carry it out; rather, they merely failed, when asked, to object to the policy on the ground that it violated international law.

In harsh war times, when people are under draconian governments and military systems, and when they fear for their lives if they do not follow an order, I do not hold that they should automatically be held responsible for crimes that they have committed, particularly when the case is comply or yourself be subject to harsh punishment, or loss of life, by your own government or institution, but, though the destruction of the twin towers was and is a frightening act of terror, as were the other acts committed on that day, was the U.S. living under a similar, daily, constant cloud of actual violence all throughout Bush's two terms? Likewise, if a CIA official refused his or her orders to torture, would they themselves be subject to great punishment? I know a paper trail was being left (though I'm not sure if it was by the CIA, rather, maybe is was the FBI), as some were very uncomfortable with the acts they were being asked to carry out, and who knows in which ways the government and the CIA really interact?

According to an interview conducted in the 2005 PBS Torture Question documentary with anti-torture author Mark Danner on this actual paper trail, Colin Powell thought it was a

". . .mistake to withhold Geneva Conventions protection; [as it would] put American soldiers at risk." And it [would] also -- and he said this very prophetically -- lead to the degradation of good order and discipline within the American military. He wrote this; he said it. And you see the attitude coming back in the other memos from Alberto Gonzales, from the Department of Justice, essentially saying, "Look, this isn't what we're worried about right now; what we're worried about is getting rapid interrogations." They don't precisely say that, but fighting a new kind of war, a "new paradigm," as Gonzales said. ...

Later, the interviewer states So they become sort of cover-your-ass memos, and Danner concurs:

I think so. Well, there's something more than what might be called cover-your-ass memos. They're also developing a kind of legal justification that permeates throughout the government. You see, for example, in the torture memo, August 2002, huge chunks of that memo were incorporated in the working group on interrogation the following spring that Secretary of Defense [Donald] Rumsfeld organized within the Department of Defense ... so that you have the legal theory being developed and then being incorporated into the military's planning documents.

It's in some ways the miracle of the word processor. You see these things, and there they are, the same paragraphs. So they raced around the government, and you can find them in very many places, not just in the Department of Justice.

Whether these are the same memos or not, they definitely deal with the same moral concept, and with the legalisation of human rights abuses. The type of legal justification referred to above is what is being called on as a defense by the OLC lawyers as referred to by Greenwald below.

Obviously, with the most powerful military in the world, the U.S. has the power to declare itself exempt from international law and to refuse to adhere to its own treaty obligations. We have the power (as distinct from the right) to ignore what the U.N. says about what we do and to refuse to abide by the standards we impose on others. Indeed, that the U.S. can legalize the very same methods that we have long condemned as "torture" when used by other countries was exactly the core argument made by OLC lawyers to justify what they were doing.

But those who spent the last eight years criticizing the Bush administration for ignoring international conventions and legal obligations -- yet who now want to refrain from investigating Bush crimes -- should at least try to reconcile those past criticisms with their current unilateralist, exceptionalism-based arguments against holding our own criminals accountable (it's different when we do it). And if this is the mentality we're going to adopt -- that we're not bound by our own treaty obligations and need not pay any heed to U.N. positions -- then we probably shouldn't expect that we'll be taken very seriously when we point to international obligations and U.N. pronouncements as a means for claiming that other countries are acting wrongfully.

One has to say about the United States, though, and hopefully Australia, and many other western countries, too, that this information does become available, and that people may have their careers ruined writing about it, or may have their careers enhanced, but, by and large, they do not face the same degree of suppression that human rights activists in many countries in the world do. This, I think, is to be admired. And allowing other countries and people to choose their own governments, and to live their own lives, and to encourage freedom of speech and lifestyle choice and religious choice, is really the view I would prefer the rest of the world have of my country, rather than as it being a supporter of torture, and an actor and upholder in the denial of rights to others. And I know Australia is not the U.S., yet David Hicks was a long time in coming home, and Mamdouh Habib has said that ASIO were implicit in his arrest, detention and torture. Additionally, Rudd's relationship with the U.S. is little changed from Howard's. The greater world is far more aware of the west as influencing global events, than the general populous of the west is aware of how its governments affect the lives of others.

All of the links in the Greenwald quotes are in the original document.

Here is a link to the Office of Legal Counsel memos.