A “non-paper” distributed to participants of next year’s Durban II conference contains worrying indications that the anti-racism gathering will cast Israel as a racist oppressor of Palestinians and will challenge freedom of the press, warns Anne Bayefsky, RIGHT, a law professor who monitors UN activities.
Bayefsky, who operates the Eye On The UN website, said the non-paper “is a laundry list of all the things governments intend to discuss” at Durban II, the followup to the notorious Durban I, the United Nations World Conference Against Racism. Critics say the 2001 gathering in South Africa was marked by anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. “Egypt and Iran intend to discuss Israeli ‘racism’ against Palestinian victims [at Durban II],” the non-paper said.
Not given a formal UN symbol or number, the non-paper was discussed at the first substantive session of the Durban II preparatory committee, which met in April during the Passover holiday. “We can expect the African regional group, driven by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will put this subject matter on the agenda. There’s no sign the European Union is going to be able to prevent this discussion,” Bayefsky said.
In addition, the document suggests implementing “a code of conduct on journalists, limiting freedom of expression. That should ring alarm bells for all democratic societies.”
Bayefsky noted that in 1991 the United Nations rescinded its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, but since then Israel’s opponents have been attempting to portray the conflict as one of an Israeli apartheid regime targeting Palestinians.
“It’s really Zionism as racism by any other name. Since it’s passé and not in favour, it’s taken on new words. Some people will invoke the language of apartheid regarding Israel.”
With the Durban II planning committee headed by Libya and Iran and with other foes of Israel participating, the trend toward vilification of the Jewish state is becoming clear, Bayefsky said.
“There’s no sign the EU is going to be able to prevent this discussion,” she continued. They were unable to stand up to African and Islamic groups during discussions in the preparatory committee, including Islamic countries’ efforts to disqualify the Canadian Council of Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA)’s request for accreditation. (CIJA eventually withdrew it’s application.)
“On one item after another, they [the EU] roll over and play dead,” she said.
“In some respects, Durban II will be worse than Durban I,” Bayefsky continued. “Not just to isolate Israel as a racist state, but also assault on human rights’ dearest values, particularly freedom of expression.”
Some of the world’s worst rights violators are using the defence of religion “to mount an attack on freedom of expression,” she added.
On a brighter note, Bayefsky said Durban II, which will be held in Geneva from April 20 to 24, 2009, will not be accompanied by a parallel meeting of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). At Durban I, the NGO gathering was “where some of the most overt examples of gross anti-Semitism took place,” she said.
Meanwhile, Jewish organizations from around the world gathered in Geneva last week as guests of UN Watch, another UN monitoring organization, to consider a Durban II strategy. Bernie Farber, CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress, and former Congress president Keith Landy attended the meeting.
Farber said an alternative conference was discussed, but he believes it would be difficult to organize between now and April. “We’re not there yet,” he said, adding that an alternative conference could be held after Durban II instead.
“Canada was very much part of the focus in all the discussions because it took the lead” in withdrawing from Durban II, he said. “It was seen as a moral and ethical lead,” and one that could influence other governments to do the same.
The participants of last week’s meeting discussed “formulating red lines. After they are crossed, Jewish organizations would advocate that their governments pull out” of Durban II, Farber said.
Bayefsky believes the United Nations has “roped in” EU countries by holding the conference in its backyard, and she expects European countries will provide much of its funding.
If democracies remain at a conference marked by anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, it is like debating Ernst Zundel about the Holocaust. It merely lends credibility to the anti-Semites, Farber said.
“Even for those who want to be at Durban II, once you determine the red lines, you just can’t negotiate and be on the same stage with those who seek to discredit and disenfranchise the Jewish people and the State of Israel,” he added.