Wednesday, March 18, 2009
I've heard Phillipe Karsenty complain that the AJC's French representative intentionally undermined him in his efforts to expose the Al Dura hoax. It sounded like a possible misunderstanding at the time, but reading about the AJC's activities regarding Durban II, Karsenty's concerns become all the more believable. It starts with David Harris defending AJC's encouraging the Obama Administration to stay in Durban and even run for a seat on the Human Rights Council by attacking Anne Bayefsky, Carloine Glick and Melanie Phillips: Durban Diplomacy, Durban Delirium
...We at AJC have been on the receiving end of some of these scurrilous attacks. Why? Because we understood that, with the decision on Durban II handed from the Bush to the Obama administration, the new team would necessarily assess the process before making a final decision on the US role.
When a five-member official US delegation was sent last month to Geneva to compile a set of recommendations, AJC's Felice Gaer was one of the participants. The group had over 30 meetings with key ambassadors and made crystal clear that any reference to Israel in the final document would be unacceptable to the US.
The trip itself, though, was red meat for a chorus of critics, led by writers Caroline Glick in Israel, Anne Bayefsky in the US and Melanie Phillips in the UK...
Glick, Phillips and Bayefsky responded by holding their ground: A response to David Harris
It stands to reason that that David Harris would be sensitive to criticism of the AJC's participation in planning "Durban II." After all, by taking part in the Durban II planning process on a US government delegation, AJC contemptuously ignored repeated calls from Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Minister Isaac Herzog for the United States government to stay away and announce it will not participate, period. Israel's priority, and the priority of much of the American Jewish community was to delegitimize the hate-fest, not place an AJC representative on its planning committee.
The fact of the matter is that the only reason the US made a tactical retreat from the process was the pressure created by criticisms such as ours, along with protests made by Israel, Canada, and other American Jewish organizations and leaders.
For more than a year, the AJC has conducted an extensive lobbying campaign of the American government and of foreign governments to stay in Durban II...
Isi Leibler chimed in with an excellent piece here: The debate over 'Durban II' and the AJC
The AJC adopted a flawed approach to this issue from the outset, insisting that that the American government and others should participate in the conference. Their attitude undermined efforts by bodies like "Eye on the UN" which invested massive efforts in creating a public awareness of the need for a boycott.
The AJC decision to accept the invitation to participate as a member of the US delegation in the Durban II preparatory committee to ascertain whether this obnoxious body would change its approach was an even greater blunder. They were irresponsible in encouraging the perception that a body totally controlled by the Islamic Conference and rogue states, and even chaired by Libya, with Iran and Cuba serving as deputy chairs, could possibly be anything other than an instrument for promoting evil.
To make matters worse the US delegation, including the AJC representative, actually sat on its hands during the proceedings of the preparatory committee while vicious demonizations of Israel took place. They even remained silent when Iran objected to a resolution condemning Holocaust denial...
...One would have expected American Jewish leaders at the least to have also expressed concern when simultaneously with its announcement it would not partake in Durban, the US government proclaimed that it would in future participate in meetings of the Human Rights Council, and would even seek to be elected to the leadership of that despicable body. The US action will only legitimize an organization which represents the antithesis of its title, defends the worst regimes practicing the denial of human rights and now seeks to limit all criticism of Islamic behavior or practice. Alas, the AJC only two years ago was "urging the United States to seek membership on the UN Human Rights Council." It would appear that to this day Harris and the AJC fail to appreciate that organizations purporting to promote human rights which are controlled by tyrannies and dictatorships can never be reformed. They must be isolated and marginalized.
The US backed down on participating in Durban II for two reasons. The most important was the campaign spearheaded by Bayefsky exposing the disgusting behavior of those controlling the proceedings. The second was the stubbornness of the preparatory committee about even paying lip service to behaving decently and amending their draft document. The danger now is that they will come up with a shorter document which does not include the vile language, and the US hailing that as a victory and agreeing to participate in what will still be a massive anti-Semitic hate-fest controlled by the same villains...
Well what do you know, Leibler is right: Durban II draft drops Israel criticism
Specific criticism of Israel was dropped from a draft resolution prepared for a United Nations-sponsored anti-racism conference.
The new draft resolution for the Durban II conference, to be distributed to government ministers this week, does not single out Israel for criticism but still speaks of concern about negative stereotyping of religions. It also does not include a provision backed by Muslim countries that criticizes "defamation of religion."...
...The elimination of references to Israel and other specific countries, and the striking of the "defamation of religion" passage do meet some of the Obama administration's conditions for participation in the conference laid out in late Feburary. But the new text reaffirms the concluding document of the first Durban conference, which singled out the "plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation."...
Anne Bayefsky also explains, in her Forbes column, why there is far less to these changes than meets the eye: Obama Should Denounce Durban II
Under the growing threat of a boycott by the United States and European countries, negotiators planning the U.N.'s Durban II "anti-racism" conference made a new move in Geneva today. They released a modified version of a draft declaration that is expected to be adopted at the April melée. The draft jettisons much of the extra baggage Islamic states had piled on throughout the 10-month drafting process (for the sole purpose of "compromising" at the end). The improvements, however, do not meet the minimal conditions that the Obama administration delineated for U.S. participation. It is time to end the equivocation and get out...
She goes on to explain how legalistic language is used to make a document appear innocent, when it is anything but.
In the end, Isi Leibler is exactly right when he says, "...organizations purporting to promote human rights which are controlled by tyrannies and dictatorships can never be reformed. They must be isolated and marginalized..." That means not being naive when it comes to events like Durban II.
Difference between communist USSR Media and USA Media
In Russia government make media say what they want - even if lie. In USA mainstream media try to make government what they want - even if lie. Eventually they become same thing?!
I Igor produce Obama Birth Certificate at www.igormarxo.org
Isi Leibler provides updated (as of yesterday) commentary and perspective, excerpt, with emphasis and the Khaled Abu Toameh link added:
"Seventy-eight percent of Jews voted for Barack Obama. Under normal circumstances that should provide sufficient comfort for them to uninhibitedly express concern about policies they feel could endanger Israel's security. But some Jews now appear hesitant to be perceived as publicly criticizing a newly elected Democrat administration headed by a popular president. Understandably, there is also a growing fear of the impact from the ever-increasing anti-Semitic agitation which is reinforced by the financial meltdown. The frightening nightmare, which few American Jews are even willing to contemplate, is that the US could follow the anti-Semitic pattern now encompassing Europe. In fact, this has already become a reality on US campuses."
I would tone down some of Leibler's phrasings in this instance, nonetheless his emphases are warranted. Imo the primary concern is reflected in the underlying evidence, 1) the wider and still developing "zeitgeist" or general movement, in turn as reflected upon in the linked Abu Toameh's piece (e.g., likewise, as reflected in this well known ZombieTime narrative and pictorial review, as reflected in the recent Davos exchange featuring Erdogan, Peres, Ban Ki-Moon and Amre Mousa of the Arab League) and 2) as reflected in the Obama admin., in S. Power, S. Rice, et al. and their long-term programmatic interests, which Leibler probes and opines upon. What is called for is not reactionary or overly exciteable alarums, but a sober minded view of things together with a commensurate analysis and response is needed. I do not see how the administration's seeming interests and probings can be conceived in a propitious manner and what are at issue, seemingly again, are absolutely pivotal concerns.