cliffnotes pls :)
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Michael Dinowitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Genocide in Darfur; child soldiers in Chad and Congo; compulsory > sterilization of women in China; suppression of dissent in Cuba, Iran, Syria > and Russia; rape as a political weapon in Zimbabwe; sex trafficking in Asia; > denial of human rights to minorities and women in Saudi Arabia and other > Arab countries? Not important to the UN. What is? A conference who's central > purpose is to demonize a single country/people. And the US is part of it. > Canada, Britan and Italy have pulled out in protest but Obama is sending > 'his team' over to try and turn the conference away from being an > anti-Israel/Jew hatefest. But he's not really trying to change it. Nothing > has changed but instead it's gotten worse. > So let me see if I get this straight. A black president (the assumption on > many peoples minds is that Obama's presidency is a blow against racism > because of his color) is backing an anti-racism conference that's proposing > racist ideals and language. Welcome to the new America. > > > http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/22/obama-israel-holocaust-durban-opinions-contributors_united_nations_print.html > > The Obama administration's decision to join the planning of the U.N.'s > Durban II "anti-racism" conference has just taken a new twist: cover-up. On > Friday, State Department officials and a member of the American Durban II > delegation claimed the United States had worked actively to oppose efforts > to brand Israel as racist in the committee drafting a Durban II declaration. > The trouble is that they didn't. > > The Feb. 20 State Department press release says the U.S. delegation in > Geneva "outline[d] our concerns with the current outcome document" and in > particular "our strong reservations about the direction of the conference, > as the draft document singles out Israel for criticism." One member of the > delegation told *The Washington Post*: "The administration is pushing back > against efforts to brand Israel as racist in this conference." In fact, > tucked away in a Geneva hall with few observers, the U.S. had done just the > opposite. The U.S. delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail > Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country-specific > claims. > > Getting involved in activities intended to implement the 2001 Durban > Declaration--after seven and a half years of refusing to lend the > anti-Israel agenda any credibility--was controversial to be sure. But late > on Saturday Feb. 14, the State Department slithered out a press release > justifying the move. It claimed that "the intent of our participation is to > work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is > heading." > > Following what was clearly a planned public relations exercise, *Washington > Post* columnist Colum Lynch championed the U.S. bravado in an article based > on the story orchestrated by the American delegates. In his Feb. 20 article > entitled: "U.S. Holds Firm on Reparations, Israel in U.N. Racism Talks," he > fawned: "The Obama administration on Thursday concluded its first round of > politically charged U.N. negotiations on racism, *pressing foreign > governments ... to desist from singling out Israel for criticism* in a draft > declaration to be presented at a U.N. conference in April." > > The reality, however, was nothing of the sort. Instead, Obama's Durban II > team slipped easily into the U.N.'s anti-Israel and anti-Jewish environs, > taking the approach that "fitting in" was best accomplished by staying > silent. > > On Tuesday, the Palestinian delegation proposed inserting a new paragraph > under the heading "Identification of further concrete measures and > initiatives ... for combating and eliminating all manifestations of racism, > racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance..." with the > subtitle "General provisions on victims ... of discrimination." The > paragraph includes: "Calls for ... the international protection of the > Palestinian people throughout the occupied Palestinian territory." In other > words, it claims that the Palestinian people are victims of Israeli racism > and demands that all U.N. states provide protection from the affronts of the > racist Jewish state. > > Furthermore, the new Palestinian provision "Calls for ... implementation of > international legal obligations, including the advisory opinion of the > International Court of Justice on the wall..." This is a dramatic attempt to > change an "advisory opinion" into a "legal obligation"--a status which > attaches to no advisory opinion. The ICJ decision, which advises that the > Israeli security fence is illegal, has always been rejected by the United > States--hitherto. And with good reason. The Egyptian judge had voiced his > opinion on the result before the case was even heard, in his capacity as a > leading Egyptian diplomat. The terms of reference from the General Assembly > who asked for the decision, and the documents they laid before the Court, > predetermined the outcome. And as the strong dissent by the American judge > and Holocaust survivor Tom Buergenthal pointed out, the Court came to its > preposterous conclusion that "the right of legitimate or inherent > self-defense is not applicable in the present case" without considering "the > deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel is being subjected." > > But when the Palestinian delegation laid their new proposal before the > drafting committee, what did Obama's team do? Nothing, absolutely nothing. > They made no objection at all. > > It is impossible to argue that their silence was unintended. Over the course > of the week's negotiations the American delegation had objected to a number > of specific proposals. They had no trouble declaring "we share reservations > on this paragraph," in the context of a demand to criminalize profiling. > They "called for the deletion" of provisions undermining free speech like > the suggestion to "take firm action against negative stereotyping of > religions and defamation of religious personalities, holy books, scriptures > and symbols." > > Their silence when it came to Israel was, therefore, deafening. It also had > the very concrete result of not placing the Palestinian paragraph in > dispute, and the diplomatic rule of thumb is that paragraphs that have not > been flagged as controversial cannot be reopened for discussion, as > negotiations finalize an end product. > > The Obama team was not only silent on the new "Israel is racist" language, > it also said nothing when faced with Holocaust denial. Negotiators from the > European Union suggested on Wednesday a new provision to "c*ondemn without > reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject > denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, > or any activities to this end." *Iran--whose president is a > Holocaust-denier--immediately objected and insisted that the proposal be > "bracketed" or put in dispute. The move blocked the adoption of the proposal > and ensured another battle over the reality of the Holocaust in April--at > these supposedly "anti-racism" meetings. After Iran objected, the chair > looked around the room, expecting a response. He said: "Is there any > delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It > doesn't seem the case. We move on." U.S. delegates said nothing, even after > the prompt. > > Again, the American silence must have been deliberate. In marked contrast, > after the E.U. objected to a provision calling for limits on free speech, > the American delegation had no trouble piping up immediately: "I want to > echo the comments from the E.U. This ... call for restrictions is something > that my government is not able to accept." > > Evidently, a U.S. team bent on legitimizing Durban II believed it would be > counter-productive to object vigorously to sections most likely to be > noticed by Americans skeptical about participation in the conference. They > must have figured that no objection would mean no controversy, which in turn > would mean there would be no cause for complaint from U.S. observers. That's > one way to buy favors on the international stage, but it sure doesn't > forward a stated intention of changing the Conference direction. Nor does it > promote the ultimate need to change the anti-Semitic and anti-democratic > direction of global human rights policy. > > The week's events also revealed that European negotiators have adopted the > same strategy at Durban II that they did at Durban I. After the United > States and Israel walked out of Durban I on Sept. 4, 2001, it was the > European Union that cut the deal trading off a mention of the Holocaust and > anti-Semitism for a reference to Palestinians victims of Israeli racism. > Likewise, this week the European Union said nothing in response to the > Palestinian proposal but pushed the Holocaust reference instead. No matter > that discrimination against the Jewish state, and against Jews for > supporting the Jewish state, is the major form of anti-Semitism today. > > The manipulation of Holocaust remembrance--knowing that Israel is the > bulwark of the Jewish people against "never again"--is as cynical as it > gets. > > European Union delegates confirmed that their silence on the Palestinian > proposal was deliberate, commenting off-camera that the references to > Israeli racism had already been made in the Durban I Declaration, and the > purpose of Durban II is to implement Durban I. > > State department officials and U.S. delegates to Durban II's planning > committee insist that their minds have not been made up. Friday's State > department press release said "the United States has not made a decision > about participating in the Durban Review Conference or about whether to > engage in future preparations for the Conference, but the work done this > week will be important information for taking these decisions." Similarly, > *The > Washington Post* reports, quoting an American delegate: "This is a > fact-finding mission; it's just a first step ... Negotiations will probably > resume in March or early April." > > The strategy is painfully obvious--spin out the time for considering whether > or not to attend the April 20 conference until the train has left the > station and jumping off would cause greater injury to multilateral relations > than just taking a seat. > > The delay tactics are indefensible. The U.S. administration attended four > full days of negotiation. During that time they witnessed the following: the > failure to adopt a proposal to act against Holocaust denial, a new proposal > to single out Israel, which will now be included in the draft without > brackets, broad objections to anything having to do with sexual orientation, > vigorous refusal by many states to back down on references to "Islamophobia" > (the general allegation of a racist Western plot to discriminate against all > Muslims), and numerous attacks on free speech. > > This "dialogue" is not promoting rights and freedoms. It is legitimizing a > forum for disputing the essence of democracy, handing Holocaust deniers a > global platform and manufacturing the means to demonize Israel in the > interests of those states bent on the Jewish state's destruction. > > But you can be sure that the State Department report now on Obama's desk > reads "can't tell yet, don't know, maybe, too early to tell." Why? > > If the Obama administration does not immediately announce that its foray > into the morass of Durban II has led it to decide this is no place for > genuine believers in human rights and freedoms, there is only one conclusion > possible. His foreign policy of engagement amounts to a new willingness to > sacrifice Israel and an indeterminate number of American values for the sake > of a warm welcome from the enemies of freedom. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:289600 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
