Why We Approach the Durban II 'Anti-Racism' Conference with Trepidation

In today's global, Universalist age, what could be more welcome than a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), held in Durban, South Africa, ground zero of the global movement that toppled Apartheid? This is certainly how many of us felt when we first heard during the last year of the Clinton Administration that the UN was planning such a conference in 2001 to tackle the scourges, not only of racism and racial discrimination, but of "xenophobia and related intolerance." Of special importance was the fact that this was to be the first such international gathering in Africa and that post-Apartheid South Africa was selected as the venue.

For Jews in particular, the crusade against racism resonated for reasons that go back beyond the civil rights marches of the 1960s when Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched hand-in-hand. In 1936, the term "racism" was coined to rally scientific and political opinion against Nazi doctrines of "Aryan superiority" over Jews and other alleged "untermenschen." In 1948, a popularizer of the term, Julian Huxley (a Jewish anthropologist), served as the first Director General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). That was the year when the struggle against "racism" so conceived helped inspire both the UN Declaration of Human Rights and Israel's declaration of statehood with the UN's blessings.

Still, from the outset of the "Durban Process" there were serious concerns that the historic gathering in August/Sept 2001 could be hijacked, not to counter racism, but fuel it. The reason: The 1975 UN General Assembly resolution -- decoupling the history of Jewish people from the struggle against intolerance -- by equating "Zionism and racism." While this odious resolution was repealed in 1991, its gravitational pull dominated and eventually discredited many of the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) charged with safeguarding human rights on the world stage. Indeed, the 2001 Durban Conference proved to be a case of history repeating the 1975 Zionism-equals-racism outrage. In light of this, it should not be hard to understand why we fear that ugliness could stain "Durban II" -- starting on April 20th in Geneva -- this time not by symbolic gestures of NGOs, but by formal UN Resolutions singling out only Israel as the planet's worst serial abuser of human rights.

In retrospect, 2001's Durban I was doomed long before the first speeches were delivered. During the two-year lead-up to the Conference, my Wiesenthal Center colleague, Paris-based Dr. Shimon Samuels, a founder and board member of ENAR (the European Network Against Racism), which groups over 600 anti-racist NGOs across the European Union, and who chaired of the Jewish Caucus at the WCAR, attended preparatory meetings in Strasbourg, Warsaw, Santiago, and Geneva. Across Europe, he witnessed "an incremental process of semantic theft" as left-wing movements marked "Kristallnacht 1938" in November, 2000, while ignoring over 100 anti-Semitic attacks including synagogues worldwide in the same month.

In February 2001, despite assurances by then UN Human Rights Chief Mary Robinson, I and Dr. Samuels were excluded, in violation of our Center's UN consultative status, from the Tehran Prepcom which also barred the Baha'is. It was there that the "Zionism is Racism" formula was re-introduced while the phenomenon of "anti-Semitism" was deleted from the governmental draft declaration. According to the Tehran Times, Iran was "the best venue for holding this preparatory meeting, as the Iranians can rightly boast that they have an ancient culture and civilization free from all kinds of bias and discrimination." Conveniently omitted were contemporary examples of Iranian "tolerance" as the show trials of Iranian Jews as "Israeli spies" and the persecution of Iranian Baha'is for practicing their faith.

Instead of removing the rabid terminology introduced in Tehran, the Geneva Prepcom 3 meeting refined such Tehran strategies as:

The expropriation of the term "Holocaust," reflected in the new doctrine of "the three holocausts" "the twin holocausts" of the Atlantic slave trade and new world slavery (the trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades into Arab and Muslim societies are omitted), and the "third holocaust" of the "Naqba" or the Israeli-perpetrated Palestinian "Catastrophe."

The assimilation of "anti-Semitism" into the new concepts of "Arabophobia" (hence the accusations of "Anti-Arabism" and "Zionist practices against Semitism") and Islamophobia (no mention of discrimination in Arab and Islamic societies against non-Muslims).
The proposal to eliminate any mention of anti-Jewish practices, including Holocaust Denial on the Internet, because "antisemitism is not a manifestation of 'contemporary racism'."

At Geneva, prestigious NGOs such as Amnesty International, Save the Children, and Franciscans International expressed alarm at this inflammatory language, but would not speak out in solidarity with its Jewish targets. Indeed, Human Rights Watch refused even to protest "calls for violence" in the NGO Draft, which it defended as "being justified if against apartheid or on behalf of the Intifada."

Then came Durban. First, there was "the youth forum" during tens of thousands of demonstrators chanted: "We Will Liberate Al-Quds" and "Free Palestine." The Durban police had difficulty controlling clashes between rival street demonstrators. Jewish demonstrators waved Israeli and South African flags, sung Hebrew songs, and offered flowers to shouting protesters who did not reciprocate with bouquets. On Monday, a "Hitler pamphlet" with a picture of the Fuhrer and a caption reading, "If I had won the war there would be no . . . Palestinian blood lost," surfaced at the Durban Exhibition Center.

I will never forget my first experience at Durban. While talking with a veteran Egyptian journalist from Al Ahram, who accompanied President Sadat on his historic trip to Jerusalem, he saw a younger reporter from Jordan passing by and called him over to introduce us. In mid-handshake, the young man suddenly withdrew his hand and asked: "Are you a Jew? I never would have shaken your hand if you are a Jew," as he wiped his hand off on his jacket.

Durban I's singular focus on Israel, not only damaged the Jewish State, it emboldened Mideast extremists, empowered anti-Semites, and stained the image of self-appointed caretakers of 'Civil Society'. Perhaps worse of all, by focusing almost exclusively on Israel/Palestine it robbed precious access to the world stage of human rights activists from five Continents desperate to put their case before the nations of the world.

Which brings us to Geneva's 2009 global confab against racism and all forms of intolerance. Once again, it is Israel -- and, this time advocates of Freedom of Speech -- in the docket. The Durban II Preparatory Committee, led by Libya invited to join into its inner sanctum Iran which, since Durban I, has continued to stone women for adultery, hang adolescent criminals, persecute gays, finance international terrorism, developed nuclear centrifuges in defiance of the UN, and threatened "to wipe Israel off the map." At Iran's insistence, participation by a Jewish NGO has been banned -- just like in 2001.

The planning agency, the UN Human Rights Council, in an unintended homage to George Orwell, has treated some religions as more equal than others. When British historian David Littman sought to discuss mistreatment of women under Islam, he was cut off by Egyptian and Pakistani delegates declaring any discussion of Sharia law "will not happen." On the other hand, Council's Special Rapporteur Doudo Diene gave a speech condemning Islamophobia but not mentioning discrimination against Christianity or Judaism. By defining religions rather than individuals as the carriers of human rights, Durban II may seek to overturn freedom of speech guarantees and make "anti-Islamic blasphemy" a crime under international law.

Some proposed language was moderated at the last minute after boycotts led by Canada and belatedly by the U.S., and concerns expressed by the European Unions and others. Yet despite cosmetic changes, there is every reason to believe we are in for yet another hate fest. I will do my best to keep you abreast of developments at Durban II from Geneva, providing you with an activist's inside view on breaking developments. Marx said: "History repeats itself -- first as tragedy, then as farce." Let's hope that this farce will not generate new tragedies.

Comments

[Rosa van der Wieken]

Dear Mr Cooper,
You walked out on Ahmedinejad, but you should not have been in the room to begin with. It was clear fom the start that the conference would not be hijacked by the pro-islamist, because it was organised by them. No need to hijack. Ban kimoon showed his colors. Fighting anti-semitism, I lobbied with others that our Dutch government would abstain from honoring this farce with their presence. And minister Verhagen did decide to boycot in the end. So should have you. It would have given you less press coverage, but it would have made a better impression on the people that stand up for us. Do you need to be there to know?? You stated twice that you were humbled. Stay where you are since then. From a high place you may think you get a better view, but often you overlook the real issues.
Kind regards
Rosa van der Wieken
www.noantisemitism.org

[sshaler]

I read the Durban I Declaration and watched the famous President Amadinijad rant and I can't see what the big impediment is. Why can't everyone listen, learn and put forth their own arguments like grown ups instead of refusing to play because someone might say something that offends you? This behaviour of boycotting a racism conference because you can't call the shots on what others will say is pathetic.

[MelRoy]

The problem I have with this conference, like the first one, is the lack of discussion about other countries. For Israel, it was kind of like going to an AA meeting, only to have everybody else in the room point their finger and say "YOU are an alcoholic".

I would have given anything to speak in Geneva - before or after the President of Iran - and even crafted a speech to call out injust laws and policies around the world. We speak about Israel's injustices because we know about them, but very few people - even world leaders - are educated about the annihilation of indigenous tribes in Brazil, the struggles of the Hong people of northern Thailand, the unspeakable discrimination against people of the Baha'i faith in Iran (the largest religious minority in the country), the deplorable treatment of Chinese Christians or even better-known examples like the ongoing persecution of Kurds, the expulsion and slaughter of white farmers in Zimbabwe and of course the genocide in Darfur.

And if nobody wants to talk about these, and other examples of racial and religious persecution around the world, then what is the point of having the Geneva conference. So delegates can take in the mountain air and gorge themselves on nice chocolates?

[MelRoy]

And I suppose the continued racist oppression of the people of Haiti means nothing? Frederick Douglass said in 1893, "But a deeper reason for coolness between the countries (the United States and Haiti) is this: Haiti is black, and we have not yet forgiven Haiti for being black or forgiven the Almighty for making her black.

Nothing has changed. A brief respite when President Clinton was in power, but as soon as Bush took office, the United States embarked on a plot to literally hand Haiti over to the white minority. I can't wait to see what Obama is going to do about Haiti.

[sshaler]

If one cannot sit still and listen to all points of view, even ones we disagree with or even hate, there will never be an end to racism.

What do you call Israel's aggression? It seems to me that millions of people are struggling to find a way to openly discuss the carnage going on in occupied Palestine and until we can talk about it without being accused of anti-Semitism, we're perennially stuck in this vicious circle of being lectured on what we're allowed to say instead of looking at the real factors involved in the Palestine/Israel conflict. It is very frustrating and a lot of people are getting fed up with it.

[Sigmund101]

Israel ranks near the top in her degree democracy and tolerance for all points of religious and political views. Certainly within the Middle East and , I know of no other country with comparable tolerance. In Israel all Muslims have full religious and political rights. In contrast, Sunni controlled Muslim states frequently persecute Shiites, Shiite controlled states persecute Sunnis, and both persecute Ahmadi Muslims. In Pakistan, Ahmadi Muslims cannot even openly call themselves Muslims and many have been murdered for doing so. If you are a Christian (or Jew) and want to openly practice your religion in Saudi Arabia (or to become a citizen), you'd better forget about it.

But I DO see a legitimate argument for criticizing Israel's imperfections. Such criticism is actually pemissable and, in some quarters, even welcomed within Israel. There is actually the possibilty that criticism will be effective, whereas it would not be in most other Middle Eastern countries and in a sizeable number of all the other countries in the world. But the degree of opprobrium heaped upon Israel for its imperfections is disproportionate to the magnitude of its imperfections.

I therefore understand Rabbi Cooper's trepidation regarding Durban II. Though it is easy for me to say this, I urge him to keep trying to have a dialogue with those who espouse anti-Israeli positions. Even if he manages to have a meaningful communication with only a small subset of those who attend the conference, it could be very beneficial.

Keep trying Rabbi Cooper.

[WoodyTanaka]

We can argue day and night about this, but by mandating that benefits accrue and detriments are inflicted by virtue solely on ethnicity and religious affiliation, Israel absolutely opens itself up for criticism in this area. It is unavoidable. There is no way that you can say that such-and-such benefit is available to a new immigrant because he is Jewish, while limiting the amount of funding for the schools within Israel because it services native Palestian students (as compared to those schools serving Jewish children) does not establish a credible and colorable claim of government-supported prejudice akin to racism being made.

Compound that with the fact that the discriminatory treatment is multiplied in the West Bank areas of Palestine illegal occupied by the Israeli military forces and settler colonists, where the discrimination based on ethnicity and religion are too well known and to numerous to even merit mentioning. It is not "anti-Israel" to point to the truth of what Israel does, nor is it anti-Semitism. Israel should be esteemed for the degree of freedom it does provide, but in a louder and stronger voice, should be condemned (as with any other nation) for the wrongs it commits and permits to be commited. Otherwise, it will continue these evil practices. That is precisely why Israel's practices must be free to be scrutinized, along with Pakistan's and the US's and the UK's and South Africa's, and Russia's and China's and everyones.

[Sigmund101]

A study by Nadim N. Rouhana and Ahmad Saabneh called "Equality between Arabs and Jews and Related Issues" discusses satisfaction levels of Arabs and Jews about equality in various areas of life, such as education and http://www.mada-research.org/publications/ch2.pdfons/ch2.pdf). The authors are hardly Israeli apologists. In Israel such studies can be freely done. Yes, the Arabs in Israel perceive more inequality but the results are mixed and nuanced. For example, in health care "About two-thirds, 65% and 61%, indicated that they felt there is a high level of equality between Arabs and Jews in hospital care and provision of health services in Arab localities, respectively". In education, the Arabs were less satisfied. 23% thought there was essentially full equality, 34% endorsed a "middle range" of equality and the remained felt there was definite inequality. This should be improved. But this is far from 100% of the Arabs saying education was unequal. How would African Americans respond to a similar poll in Chicago? Or Kurds in Turkey? Or Basques in Spain? Of course, the fact that one could probably (I would say undoubtedly) find many worse cases all over the globe does not excuse Israel for not fully satisfying the educational aspirations of its Arab citizens. But by putting Israel into perspective with the rest of the world, I do not think that Israel deserves the singular level of criticism that some offer.

[Baghooli]

Only one nation in the world currently militarily occupies and imprisoned millions against their will and UN resolutions calls for several generations now, why would anyone be surprise to have this nation as main agenda for ridiculing in Durban conference!

[pkafin]

China occupies Tibet. Either India or Pakistan occupies Kashmir (depending on who you ask). Indonesia occupies several large Islands in which the occupants have been subjugated to Javanese rule. Russia and Japan disagree over who owns and controls a few islands. England is still in Northern Ireland. The borders in Africa are still in flux. The UN has estimated that there are 300,000 children soldiers (none of whom fight for Israel) who have been abducted and drafted into the armies of either their own govts. or the armies of their enemies ...it goes on and on.

The fact that you think Israel is unique (or somehow the worst offender of any one of several metrics for criminal behavior) only serves to highlight how detrimental it is to knowledge in general when one instance of a problem becomes the obsession of any and all discussion regarding that problem.

Regardless of how odious you find the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Racism is a global problem that will not be addressed adequately by looking only at one country.

[WoodyTanaka]

"Regardless of how odious you find the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Racism is a global problem that will not be addressed adequately by looking only at one country."

Perhaps not, but there is no reason to exempt Israel from condemnation for its instiutionalized bigotry, especially, but not exclusively, in the way it has oppressed the people of occupied Palestine. Why should Israel get a pass? If anything, because it professes to be a modern, westernized democracy, it should be held to higher standards than, say, China.

[sshaler]

Omission from the above argument: The US occupies Iraq.

[Baghooli]

I stand corrected, Only one nation in the world currently militarily occupies and imprisoned millions against their will with intention of absorbing their land but not their native population.

[oncethere]

I'd call it the Orwellian Inversion conference.

[skialethia]

Correction:

Me...me...me...I. srael. Israel must control every little thing.

"In today's global, Universalist age, what could be more welcome than a World Conference Against Racism (WCAR), held in Durban, South Africa, ground zero of the global movement that toppled Apartheid?"

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y? No country enabled the South African Apartheid regime like Israel.

I too am glad this Durban Conference was started at ground zero of the movement that toppled Apartheid, hopefully it can be toppled AGAIN!

[pkafin]

I think you don't realize the extent to which Durban I was undermined by the singular (near maniacal) focus on Israel. Durban I failed to achieve a single one of it's originally declared objectives. Only the semi-undeclared objective of highlighting Israel's policies (in the worst light possible) was achieved.

[WoodyTanaka]

Perhaps it is because the rest of the world, except for the US government and a few other enablers Israel has around the world, recognize that Israel is not only not immune from such institutionalized bigotry, but is one of the leading perpetrators of such practices among the westernized so-called democracies.

[WoodyTanaka]

What we need to do is cut all of the nonsense and address the real issues and condemn any and every government which harms or benefits persons based on race and ethnicity. Period. There can be no exceptions for any state, including Israel.

[skialethia]

Bingo!

[batguano]

Ditto that!