The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

Archive for the ‘UN’ Category

Ahmadinejad Threatens Use Of Force Against ‘Enemies’

Posted by Atilla89 on August 3, 2008

There we have it, Ahmadinejad is trying to further develop a pretext for striking out against his enemies, namely Israel and America.

“For them, subjects like the nuclear issue are pretexts. The key reason for the hostility of the enemies in the past 30 years against Iran is that they want us to pull back so that they can say we have given in,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on state television on Friday. “But the Iranian people will resist with force against the enemies.”

Of course this is nothing new as Ahmadinejad already believes that this pretext was realised in 1979 with the imposition of sanctions and their renewal in 1995 and 2006.

The comments came as the United States set a weekend deadline for Iran to respond to an international offer to freeze its nuclear drive. “We want and we expect a response this weekend,” US State Department acting spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos said.

But a European Union diplomat said in Brussels that the EU was in no rush for a response from Iran.

“There’s no real limit,” said the diplomat, on condition of anonymity, after Washington set the deadline.

And now you have just seen how seriously the EU is taking this threat. It all starts to make sense why they are fine with pathetic sanctions and furthering deadlines. It also reveals the double standards that take place in these types of organisations, imagine for a moment if Israel or even America stated their intention to wipe out a democratic country within the UN? There would be an absolute outcry across the the entire world. Resolutions would be coming thick and fast from the UN with tough sanctions not far behind.


Posted in EU, Europe, Iran, Israel, Middle-East, Military, UN, US | 1 Comment »

Iran Is Head Of Group Charged With: ‘Taking The First Steps To Producing A Durban II Manifesto’

Posted by Atilla89 on August 2, 2008

Most people have realised by know that the second Durban Conference will be quite similar to the last one, Antisemitic and Anti-Zionist. We’ve already had a foretaste of what’s to come in the “Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards” which was put into place in order to “heed the decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism.” Need I say more? Indeed, once Canadian Senator Jerry Grafstein saw the signs and realised that the next Durban Conference known as UN Durban Review Conference scheduled for April, 2009 in Geneva was going to be much of the same thing, he started organising a counter-conference.

However, this is all just background information. In the latest development coming from the planning on the next conference, Eye on the UN reports that:

‘Iran has become a member of the “Group of Friends of the Chair”, an informal group of states charged with taking the first steps towards producing a Durban II manifesto.’

Is anyone else getting that queasy feeling in their stomachs again? I mean, the country’s President is a Holocaust denier, has threatened to destroy Israel numerous times and has stated that there are no homosexuals in Iran, which can be loosely translated as, because I killed them all (or am trying to). Am I missing something here? Now who else is on this “Group of Friends of the Chair’?

The role of his “friends” is described by Armenian Chairman Zohrab Mnatsakanian as “engaging in brainstorming and consolidating inputs.” Other members of the behind-the-scenes group are Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Egypt.

Um yeah… This is going to be interesting. Anne Bayefsky, Editor of Eye on the UN hits the nail on the head with this comment:

‘…one shudders to imagine the brainstorming among such human rights paragons.’
‘The first contribution of the “Group of Friends” will be filed at the next stage of the process, the ‘Intersessional Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group’ session to be held in Geneva September 1-5, 2008.’

I would be very interested to read exactly what they believe should be in the Durban ll manifesto, obviously I’m expecting more of the same that seen in Durban I but you never know…who am I kidding?

Posted in Antisemitism, Durban II, Iran, Israel, UN, Zionism | Leave a Comment »

Daily Kos Hits Earth’s Core, Digs

Posted by Atilla89 on May 14, 2008

Sorry guys for the large break. I’ve had a lot of work to get through, but know the worst is over, yay! Israel has made it to her 60th birthday which is something to celebrate, even if there those who can’t appreciate it, here and here, hat tip to LGF.

My favourite of these links is the Daily Kos one, just read this and laugh.

It thus emerged as a major power and a formidable challenger of existing Arabic powers that will decide the fate of the world, coordinated assassination of President Kennedy which unnaturally led to the hasty re-evaluation of American foreign policy for adjustion that align with the interests of Israeli state for total compatibility in irreversibly entangled alliance.

Posted in Antisemitism, Arabs, Hamas, Hizbullah, IDF, Iran, Israel, Jews, Lebanon, Middle-East, Military, Palestine, Terrorism, U.S. Politics, UN, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Lecture With Ambassador Izzat Abdulhadi

Posted by Atilla89 on April 14, 2008

Today I attended a lecture at Sydney University by Ambassador Izzat Abdulhadi who is the head of the general delegation of Palestinians to Australia. All that basically means is that he is the representative of Abu Mazen to Australia (specifically Australasia).

He presented a brief summary of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians and talked about ways in which peace could come about. Before I go into detail about what he discussed and proposed, I want to say that that he presented the Palestinian cause quite well even though he made a few key mistakes in his facts which I will go through.

1. He believes that the Palestinians are the indigenous people to that area.

The sources that I will be using will be primary (probably all) from The Jewish Virtual Library (JVL). This source references all of its own sources which you can check yourself if you doubt what has been written. Interestingly, I can answer this myself. During a discussion in one of my lecture (Jewish Thought, Civilisation and Culture) we discussed the Palestinian claim to the land now known as Israel. We found that they mostly originated from the Philistines, a group of pagans that almost exclusively lived in an area now known as the Gaza Strip. There is no record of them living in now what is known as Modern Israel. JVL also has information on this subject.

Palestinian claims to be related to the Canaanites are a recent phenomenon and contrary to historical evidence. The Canaanites disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago, and no one knows if any of their descendants survived or, if they did, who they would be.

Sherif Hussein, the guardian of the Islamic Holy Places in Arabia, said the Palestinians’ ancestors had only been in the area for 1,000 years.9 Even the Palestinians themselves have acknowledged their association with the region came long after the Jews. In testimony before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, for example, they claimed a connection to Palestine of more than 1,000 years, dating back no further than the conquest of Muhammad’s followers in the 7th century.10 And that claim is also dubious. Over the last 2,000 years, there have been massive invasions that killed off most of the local people (e.g., the Crusades), migrations, the plague, and other manmade or natural disasters. The entire local population was replaced many times over. During the British mandate alone, more than 100,000 Arabs emigrated from neighboring countries and are today considered Palestinians.

By contrast, no serious historian questions the more than 3,000-year-old Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, or the modern Jewish people’s relation to the ancient Hebrews.


2. He believes that Israel was a colonial project created in order to serve the super powers at the time, namely the UK and US.

Once again this is false as many of the resources that should have been available to help Jews resettle in Palestine/Israel were actually closed to them. Indeed, many Jews hated the imperialistic presence of the British and actually fought and died trying to drive them out of Palestine.

Moreover, as British historian Paul Johnson noted, Zionists were hardly tools of imperialists given the powers’ general opposition to their cause. “Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense ministries and big business were against the Zionists.”29

Emir Faisal also saw the Zionist movement as a companion to the Arab nationalist movement, fighting against imperialism, as he explained in a letter to Harvard law professor and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on March 3, 1919, one day after Chaim Weizmann presented the Zionist case to the Paris conference. Faisal wrote:

The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement….We will wish the Jews a hearty welcome home….We are working together for a reformed and revised Near East and our two movements complete one another. The Jewish movement is nationalist and not imperialist. And there is room in Syria for us both. Indeed, I think that neither can be a real success without the other (emphasis added).30

“Our settlers do not come here as do the colonists from the Occident to have natives do their work for them; they themselves set their shoulders to the plow and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it is not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively; we desire to teach them further: together with them we want to cultivate the land — to ‘serve’ it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile this soil becomes, the more space there will be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them: we want to live with them. We do not want to dominate them: we want to serve with them…..”

Martin Buber31

In the 1940s, the Jewish underground movements waged an anti-colonial war against the British. The Arabs, meanwhile, were concerned primarily with fighting the Jews rather than expelling the British imperialists.


3. He believes that the 2nd Intifada was caused by Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount.

This, frankly, is just crap. Regardless of whether it caused it or not (and it didn’t), an Israeli, Jewish Prime Minister should be able to visit the most holy site in Judaism without fear of being attacked. In fact it was Arafat’s intention all along for the violence to break out. The JVL explains the incident quite thoroughly; once again all these sources are listed at the bottom of the website for you to browse.

Imad Faluji, the Palestinian Authority Communications Minister, admitted months after Sharon’s visit that the violence had been planned in July, far in advance of Sharon’s “provocation.” “It [the uprising] had been planned since Chairman Arafat’s return from Camp David, when he turned the tables on the former U.S. president and rejected the American conditions.”18

“The Sharon visit did not cause the ‘Al-Aksa Intifada.’”

— Conclusion of the Mitchell Report, (May 4, 2001)19

The violence started before Sharon’s September 28, 2000, visit to the Temple Mount. The day before, for example, an Israeli soldier was killed at the Netzarim Junction. The next day in the West Bank city of Kalkilya, a Palestinian police officer working with Israeli police on a joint patrol opened fire and killed his Israeli counterpart.

Official Palestinian Authority media exhorted the Palestinians to violence. On September 29, the Voice of Palestine, the PA’s official radio station sent out calls “to all Palestinians to come and defend the al-Aksa mosque.” The PA closed its schools and bused Palestinian students to the Temple Mount to participate in the organised riots.

Just prior to Rosh Hashanah (September 30), the Jewish New Year, when hundreds of Israelis were worshipping at the Western Wall, thousands of Arabs began throwing bricks and rocks at Israeli police and Jewish worshippers. Rioting then spread to towns and villages throughout Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Internal Security Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami permitted Sharon to go to the Temple Mount – Judaism’s holiest place – only after calling Palestinian security chief Jabril Rajoub and receiving his assurance that if Sharon did not enter the mosques, no problems would arise. The need to protect Sharon arose when Rajoub later said that the Palestinian police would do nothing to prevent violence during the visit.

Sharon did not attempt to enter any mosques and his 34 minute visit to the Temple Mount was conducted during normal hours when the area is open to tourists. Palestinian youths — eventually numbering around 1,500 — shouted slogans in an attempt to inflame the situation. Some 1,500 Israeli police were present at the scene to forestall violence.


4. He believes that the settlements in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem are a barrier to the peace process.

This line has been used by many an opponent to Israel, and once again is just not true. Just off the cuff I can rebuff that argument. Why, if the settlements were a barrier to peace, was there no peace before there were settlements? The settlement of the West Bank only happened AFTER the 6 day war. Why did the Arabs launch a war against Israel (Egypt blockading the straits of Tiran was an act of war) before there were settlements? The answer of course was that the settlements were never a barrier to the peace process.

Settlements have never been an obstacle to peace.

  • From 1949-67, when Jews were forbidden to live on the West Bank, the Arabs refused to make peace with Israel.
  • From 1967-77, the Labor Party established only a few strategic settlements in the territories, yet the Arabs were unwilling to negotiate peace with Israel.
  • In 1977, months after a Likud government committed to greater settlement activity took power, Egyptian President Sadat went to Jerusalem and later signed a peace treaty with Israel. Incidentally, Israeli settlements existed in the Sinai and those were removed as part of the agreement with Egypt.
  • One year later, Israel froze settlement building for three months, hoping the gesture would entice other Arabs to join the Camp David peace process. But none would.
  • In 1994, Jordan signed a peace agreement with Israel and settlements were not an issue. If anything, the number of Jews living in the territories was growing.
  • Between June 1992 and June 1996, under Labor-led governments, the Jewish population in the territories grew by approximately 50 percent. This rapid growth did not prevent the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.
  • In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlement, but the Palestinians still would not agree to end the conflict.

Settlement activity may be a stimulus to peace because it forced the Palestinians and other Arabs to reconsider the view that time is on their side. References are frequently made in Arabic writings to how long it took to expel the Crusaders and how it might take a similar length of time to do the same to the Zionists. The growth in the Jewish population in the territories forced the Arabs to question this tenet. “The Palestinians now realize,” said Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, “that time is now on the side of Israel, which can build settlements and create facts, and that the only way out of this dilemma is face-to-face negotiations.”3

The disposition of settlements is a matter for the final status negotiations. The question of where the final border will be between Israel and a Palestinian entity will likely be influenced by the distribution of these Jewish towns. Israel wants to incorporate as many settlers as possible within its borders while the Palestinians want to expel all Jews from the territory they control.

If Israel withdraws toward the 1967 border unilaterally, or as part of a political settlement, many settlers will face one or more options: remain in the territories, expulsion from their homes, or voluntary resettlement in Israel. The impediment to peace is not the existence of those settlements, it is the Palestinians’ unwillingness to accept a state next to Israel instead of one replacing Israel.


Those were the main points that were discussed. Ambassador Abdulhadi did go into detail about the refugee issue saying that at the very least there needed to be some compensation (which I agreed with) and at most a a symbolic resettlement of maybe 100K Palestinians into Israel which I reject. At the end the Ambassador took questions from the audience, many of them were quite good, my question (which I didn’t get around to asking was this:

“You talked about Israel taking down the Wall and checkpoints in the West Bank yet these security measures have stopped at least 80% of terrorist attack into Israel. Why should Israel take down these measures if it is going to be attacked by the terrorists?”

Interestingly enough I actually managed to talk to him for about 15 minutes by myself and raised that point and his response was that if Israel did take down these measure and withdrew to the ’67 borders then negotiations for a viable Palestinian state and peace would be able to proceed. I rejected that saying that we had already offered a similar deal in 2000 at Camp David and we were turned down without a counter offer by Arafat. His response was that Arafat was weak and couldn’t take this offer because he was facing too much opposition from within.

Posted in Hamas, IDF, Israel, Jews, Middle-East, Palestine, Terrorism, UN | 4 Comments »

New UN Investigator Is A ‘Troofer’

Posted by Atilla89 on April 11, 2008

That fool Professor Falk who I was talking about in the previous post, has decided that the ‘neocons’ may have played a role 9/11. Yep, he’s that kind of guy; did I mention he was a fan of Ward Churchill? Hat tip to LGF, full article below can be found here.

A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Mr. Falk said, “It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don’t think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess.”

I am not going to go into all these conspiracy theories and try and debunk them, you can check out Screw Loose Change for that. But seriously speaking, why in its inifinite wisdom did the UN send an official so obviously biased against Israel, who believes in nut-case conspiracy theories to try and make decision regarding human-rights abuse? Further in the above article former American Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton explains America’s position on this.

When asked for a comment about the appointment of Mr. Falk, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton said, “This is exactly why we voted against the new human rights council.” A spokesman for the American embassy at the United Nations offered no comment yesterday when asked.

If there was any more doubt about Falk’s unsuitability to this position it can be summarised below.

In a February 16, 1979, op-ed for the New York Times, Mr. Falk praised Ayatollah Khomeini and bemoaned his ill treatment in the American press. He wrote, “The depiction of him as fanatical, reactionary and the bearer of crude prejudices seems certainly and happily false.” Nearly nine months later, student followers of Khomeini invaded the American embassy in Tehran and held 52 diplomats hostage for the following 444 days.

Obviously Israel is not too happy with this and has decided to deny him entry.

Richard Falk is scheduled to take up his post with the UN Human Rights Council in May, but the Foreign Ministry said it will deny Falk a visa to enter Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, at least until a September meeting of the council. At that meeting, Israel intends to ask the council to expand the envoy’s mission to include investigating Palestinian human rights abuses against Israelis.

An obvious and fair question, one any reasonable country would be expected to ask.

According to a Tuesday posting on the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Web site, Falk defended statements he made last summer equating Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with Nazi treatment of Jews during the Holocaust. He told BBC News that Israel has been unfairly shielded from international criticism.

Yeah… because Israel has never been bashed in the UN. Should I even be bothered to mention the countless of times the former Human Rights Council has gone after Israel? Or should I just mention Durban 1 and be done with it.

Posted in Antisemitism, Arabs, Israel, Middle-East, Palestine, Terrorism, U.S. Politics, UN | Leave a Comment »

Just Gotta Love The UN

Posted by Atilla89 on April 9, 2008

Sorry for the  delay, as usual the blame goes to not having enough time. The UN has once more decided to reinforce my conviction that they are an absolute pointless body which are either Antisemitic half the time, or just have plain double standards. In their latest round of screwing things up they have decided to send a new ‘UN Investigator’ to look into Israel’s conduct in the West Bank.

Professor Falk said he drew the comparison between the treatment of Palestinians with the Nazi record of collective atrocity, because of what he described as the massive Israeli punishment directed at the entire population of Gaza.

So basically he thinks it is wrong for the Israeli blockade of Gaza to continue. *Cue laughter now* I’m sure most of you that have read into the situation know that a blockade around Gaza is exactly what is needed. First you have Hamas desperately trying to get as much ammunition and materials to build weapons as possible into the Strip and secondly you have Hamas operatives trying to get into the Sinai in order to get into Israel through the lightly defended border (I have been to that border and all it is a wire fence patrolled by the IDF).

At the same time, Israel allows food and aid materials into the Gaza Strip! Its a wierd situation, on one hand you have Hamas trying to kill Israelis, and Israel retaliating and on the other you have Israel actively sending in aid to help the Palestinians civilians. Tell me, what semblance does that have to Nazi strategies of punishing (through killing) large numbers of civilians and homes intentially?  The answer is quite obviously very little.

This is nothing new, the UN bashes Israel plenty of times. As well as this however, the UN is adding insult to injury by not looking into the human rights violations made by the Palestinians (of which there are many.

A spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry said that Israel wanted the UN investigator’s mandate changed, so that he could look into human rights violations by the Palestinians as well as Israel.

If that were not to happen, the Israeli government may consider barring entry to the new UN investigator.

Link for story here.

Posted in Arabs, Israel, Middle-East, UN | 1 Comment »

No UNSC Resolution Condemning Jerusalem Atrocity, Thank Libya

Posted by Atilla89 on March 8, 2008

If ever you were in doubt of the UN’s shitty morality standards, check this out; hat tip to LGF. Before you read the article below though, just consider for a second, a man goes to a school, pulls out a gun and kills eight students. In America, first thing you would think of would be of an event similar to Columbine, no? Obviously the killer, if he has not killed himself, would be sentenced to a lengthy term in jail. Well imagine this has happened with where another country/territory was involved. At the very least there should be a condemnation from the reigning international power group, the UN. No such thing has occurred, and will probably not happen, thanks to Libya.

The United States accused Libya on Thursday of preventing the Security Council from condemning as a “terrorist attack” a deadly assault on a Jewish school in Jerusalem, but Tripoli called for “balanced action.”

The United States had drafted a statement that was discussed at an emergency U.N. Security Council session called to debate an attack by a Palestinian gunman who killed at least eight people and wounded at least 10 more at an Israeli religious school. “The members of the Security Council condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack that took place in Jerusalem March 6, 2008 which resulted in the death and injury of dozens of Israeli civilians,” said the draft statement. The U.S. delegation had hoped the 15-nation council would unanimously support the text but Libya, backed by several other council members, prevented its adoption. “We were not able to come to an agreement because the Libyan delegation with the support of one or two others did not want to condemn this act by itself but wanted to link it to other issues,” U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters after the council meeting. The Libyans wanted to include in the statement language condemning the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza, which have killed over 120 Palestinians, many of them civilians. Khalilzad rejected that. He said killing students in a school was different from the unintentional killing of civilians. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin agreed, saying, “To see people walk into a religious school and open fire on the students there, that is really something which should give one pause, especially those who care about religion.” He said the attack by the Palestinian gunman was a “clear-cut individual act of terrorism.”

I think Charles Johnson from LGF said it best, “They wouldn’t condemn mass murder, but the United Nations found time today to condemn Israel for defending itself from Palestinian rocket attacks.”

Posted in Hamas, Israel, Libya, Middle-East, Palestine, Terrorism, UN | 3 Comments »

UN Durban Follow Session: A Sign For Things To Come

Posted by Atilla89 on February 21, 2008

7 days ago I started talking about a counter conference against Durban II because I, like a lot of other people believe that Durban II will just by another bitch-fest about Israel and Zionism, dominated by Antisemitic Arab powers and their allies. Well, we’ve had an follow up session and guess what, there are no surprises as to what has happened at this conference. Read the whole thing here.

In what may be a portent of things to come, Islamic accusations against the West dominated a UN session today dedicated to follow-up of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa.

This week in Geneva saw the first meeting of the “Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards,” which was created by a UN Human Rights Council Resolution on follow-up to the 2001 Durban conference. Initiated by Algeria on behalf of Africa, it was adopted in December 2006 over the opposition of the EU, Canada and other democratic states on the Council. The resolution sought to “heed the decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism.”

So basically those that turned Durban I into a fiasco have launched this new meeting. Now we start to see the reasons why Israel, Canada and many political pundits and commentators don’t want another conference.

Algerian Deputy Permanent Representative Mohammed Bessedik drew thinly veiled comparisons of today’s treatment of Muslims to the Nazi atrocities against Jews. “The policy of targeting Muslims would actually aim at dehumanizing them by assaulting their identity to legitimize an attitude of racial discrimination similar to the one that targeted another Semitic people in the 20th century.” He described the threat of “reawakening the hydra of the anti-Semitic campaigns of the 20th century, which we now call Islamophobia.”

In thinly veiled jibes against Israel, “foreign occupation” was raised repeatedly by Islamic states. Syria and Algeria called it one of the worst forms of human rights violations. Egypt referred to countries that occupy other countries for a lengthy period as “a form of racism by itself” and “a racist regime of occupation.”

I think both those paragraph are pretty self-explantory. As well as this, the Arab and African countries aren’t troubling to cover their lobby for another of these conferences;

Senegal stressed the need for finding new language for contemporary manifestations of racism — another way of calling for a reopening of the Durban 2001 declaration.

Hopefully enough countries will boycott the Durban II conference enough to make it look like a farce and instead attend a counter conference proposed by Canadian Senator Jerry Graftstein. Otherwise there is not much else that can be done.

Posted in Islam, Israel, Jews, Middle-East, Racism, UN | 2 Comments »

Durban II Counter-Conference A Go, Grafstein Says

Posted by Atilla89 on February 14, 2008

I am sure everyone has heard of 2001 United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa. If you have not, to be brief, it was a conference which was very one-sided against Israel, the conference itself was antisemitic with anti-Israel propaganda going around. The conference was a disgusting exercise in Antisemitism and Holocaust revisionism, complete with stalls selling the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and enough Israel-bashing to satisfy the most brutal anti-Semitic. Basically it was a conference which instead of condemning racism actually helped to spread it. Now, there is a second conference being planned, also in Durban in 2009. Countries such as the U.S. and Canada are already boycotting it and there are plans underway for a counter conference to run at the same time. The goal of this conference would be a focus on anti-racism and Antisemitism. The conference itself would be similar to the 1936 “People’s Olympiad,” which was organised as a protest to the official Olympic Games being in Nazi Germany.

Canadian Senator Jerry Grafstein

A proposed counter-conference that would run parallel to Durban II continues to gather support from parliamentarians around the world, says Senator Jerry Grafstein, left, the Canadian lawmaker behind the alternative event.

Grafstein has been calling on his contacts among parliamentarians around the world for their support for an anti-Durban conference that would run in the same city as Durban II – the followup to the 2001 United Nations anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa – but would focus on anti-racism and anti-Semitism.

The parallel conference would serve as a corrective to the UN-sponsored gathering, which is likely to reprise the anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism that characterized the original Durban conference, Grafstein said.

U.S. Congressman Alcee Hastings has agreed to join Grafstein as head of an organizing committee.

MPs from a number of western democracies and other states have given verbal support to the parallel conference. “I’ve discussed it with parliamentarians in Europe, Africa, the United States, Australia and Canada, and so far the response has been positive,” Grafstein said. “They like the idea in principle.”

I really  hope that Australia gets involved in this, I am certain if Howard was our current Prime Minister, he would be right there. However, now that we have Rudd, I really don’t know. The joys of a Labor PM…

The follow up conference, dubbed Durban II, is being organized by a committee established by the UN Human Rights Council, which itself has been accused of focusing almost exclusively on Israel while ignoring human rights abuses around the world. The UN body has appointed Libya to chair the preparatory committee organizing Durban II, and the committee includes such anti-Israel advocates as Iran and Cuba.

Canada has announced it would not take part in Durban II. Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, and Jason Kenney, secretary of state for multiculturalism and Canadian identity, issued a statement last month that said: “Canada has a long and proud history of fighting racism, discrimination and intolerance in all its forms. It was for this reason, and its promise of concerted global action against racism, that we participated in [Durban I]. Unfortunately, that conference degenerated into open and divisive expressions of intolerance and anti-Semitism that undermined the principles of the United Nations and the very goals the conference sought to achieve.

“Secretary of State Kenney and I had hoped that the preparatory process for the 2009 Durban Review Conference would remedy the mistakes of the past,” Bernier said. “We have concluded that, despite our efforts, it will not. Canada will, therefore, not participate in the 2009 conference.”

Grafstein noted that Liberal leader Stephane Dion has backed the official Canadian position. Grafstein said that the government’s refusal to attend “is a major step forward from the last time.”

The UN has shown repeatedly that it’s tilted against Israel, Grafstein continued.

Yeah, that shouldn’t have been to hard to work out…


Grafstein said an alternative to the Durban II conference would permit human rights advocates to meet at a “balanced conference” and take advantage of the media presence and “so we can act as a restraint on UN officials. This time, they won’t get a free ride.”

Posted in Antisemitism, Israel, UN | 2 Comments »

UN Human Rights Council: Fair or Biased?

Posted by Atilla89 on October 2, 2007

Here is an article by Anne Bayefsky in regards to the UN Human Rights Council and its Resolutions. One of the more interesting statistics that it revealed was that (as of today) “74 percent of the Council’s moves against individual states have been directed at Israel, 21 percent at Sudan, 5 percent at Myanmar, and the rest of the world has been given a free pass.” This I find very interesting, to those that support this council, I ask (the obvious) what are they doing for other human rights abusers, the answer is nothing. But what is even more interesting is that the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) have the real power behind this council and any mention of Antisemitism is ignored yet when a “…few cartoons in a newspaper published some two-thirds the way to the North Pole… billion people have been gravely wounded…” One of my ‘favourite’ lines is by Pakistan, who, on behalf of the OIC state that “Islamophobia is also a crude form of anti-Semitism.” Interesting, no? Enjoy the read.

When President Bush told the United Nations General Assembly this week “the American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council,” his words could not have been more timely or deserved. He pointed out “This body has been silent on repression by regimes from Havana to Caracas to Pyongyang and Tehran — while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel.” On Friday, the Council piled the dung heap higher. It wrapped up another session in Geneva by adopting two more resolutions against Israel and no resolutions critical of the human-rights record of any of the other 191 U.N. member states.

This brings the total of anti-Israel resolutions and decisions adopted by the “Human Rights” Council — in only the first 15 months of its operation — to 14. Another four very weak decisions and resolutions have been applied to Sudan. And the Council finally decided to hold a special session of the Council on Myanmar. So adding up the highly selective concerns of the U.N.’s lead human-rights agency: 74 percent of the Council’s moves against individual states have been directed at Israel, 21 percent at Sudan, 5 percent at Myanmar, and the rest of the world has been given a free pass.

European diplomats openly predict that within a year all U.N. special investigators dedicated to uncovering and reporting on human-rights violations in specific states will be abolished by the Council. These key mechanisms for human-rights protection were created with enormous difficulty over the past two decades. The axe wielded by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) was first used in June to terminate the human-rights investigations on Cuba and Belarus. Then came the dithering over Sudan. While genocide continues in Darfur, the Council couldn’t decide this week whether a Sudan investigator was worth keeping. The matter was deferred for another three months. All other such investigators are on the chopping block — all that is, but one.

The only exception to the “rule” is the investigator assigned to Israel. The Council has extended the life of the Israel rapporteur until Council members deem the occupation to be over — notwithstanding that the controlling faction believe all of Israel to be occupied land. At the same time, there is no shortage of outbursts from the OIC railing against any other human rights investigator. With great indignation Egypt sputtered: “…decisions to create, review or discontinue a country mandate, should take into account the principles of cooperation and dialogue with the country…”

Israel-bashing, the sport of choice for U.N. diplomats the world over, presents a special conundrum for European diplomats. In its first month of operation the Council took a decision to hold a special session on Israel and then adopted a resolution containing a vitriolic attack on Israel, alone. The date was July 6, 2006 — a time when Hezbollah was making plans for a war it started shortly thereafter. The EU voted against both the decision to hold the special session and the resolution.

The 24-hour United Nations propaganda machine, however, never sleeps. There soon sprouted new resolutions to “follow-up” the first. The EU boldly held out when faced with the first such test — by abstaining on a follow-up item in December 2006. A few months later, and again today, the role of opposing the OIC was apparently too much to bear. The EU voted in favor of following-up a resolution with which it vehemently disagreed in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Arabs, Israel, Middle-East, Palestine, Religion, Syria, UN | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »