As few probably have missed the Durban Review Conference in Geneva on racism, racial discrimination and other forms of xenophobia has developed into quite a drama after the Irans president Ahmadinejad called Israel a racist state and the EU-member states walked out of the meeting (some of them didn’t even attended as a preventive boycott, one of them being The Czech Republic, who presently holds the EU Presidency, why Sweden had to take over as incoming presidency and speak on behalf of the Union. This gained some criticism on the Swedish Foreign Ministers blog)
The drama at the Conference was long anticipated and it is rather surpirsing that the conference has managed to agree upon the final document already yesterday. A few weeks ago I was at a pressconference held by the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who hosts the conference. The entire purpose of the conference was to rebut the rumors claiming that anti-Semitic wording were included in the document ,as has been claimed by both Prime Ministers and respected news media, but which is ungrounded. The fact is that there were anti-Semitic statements made at the NGO-forum of the first Durban Conferences, but there is no such actual references in the agreed text. Still as I walk to work this morning I hear the Israeli Foreign Minister on my NPR Global News Podcast claim that there are clear anti-Semitic wordings in the final document under review and still he is not able to cite any upon the request of the reporter who says he can’t find any such references. And as so often- when you tell a lie enough times it becomes (treated as) a truth. Especially if it is said by the right people in the right forums. In my mind this brings back images of the outrage in the Middle East after the publication of the so called Muhamedcaricatures in the Danish Jyllandsposten, when thousands of angry protesters marched in outrade over images few of them had ever seen. In the same way the rumour tends to add reasons to get angry and in the lack of realitycheck it is easier to incite anger and hatred.
And concerning the EU reaction, the Iranian statement and the final document- as I am beginning to realize the value of an outcome document is as much measured by the points in which is speaks as one those on which it is silent. And on the note of sience I think you should read this very noteworthy piece by Dror Feiler (sorry once again in Swedish, but if you look in the comments field Dror himself has posted the article in English).
There has been much talk about a “red line” and that Ahmadinejad allegedly crossed it. Before the walk-out, it was my understanding that this red line was set to protest against a possible uninformed denial of the Holocaust – which of course would have been intolerable.
Although such a denial never happened, it is still reported in media as if it really did which leads me on to the conclusion that the delegates from the EU never reacted to what was actually said but rather to what they were made to believe was going to be said.
The real scandal here is that the EU delegates were so easily manipulated to participate as puppets in what (quite literally) has turned out to be a spectacle arranged by a bunch of Zionist clowns on the Israeli foreign ministry’s payroll.
The world is laughing!
Here is my article in English
Dror Feiler
Today, April 21st or on the 27th of Nisan (according to the Jewish Calendar) is the official Holocaust and Bravery Day, to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust and the Warzaw Ghetto Uprising. Therefore, today I am obviously thinking of my, many family members who were murdered during the Holocaust in Poland and Germany.
So it is understandable that it is completely unacceptable to me that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is making untrue statements about the Holocaust. This must, of course, be condemned. The statement about wiping Israel off the map (if that is what he actually said) should also be condemned. On the other hand, we can, and we have the right and should, criticize the policies and actions of other states, and demand reforms or constitutional amendments from them if we find it necessary. However, the desire to wipe them out is totally unacceptable.
It was hardly surprising that Ahmadinejad succeeded in provoking the EU and the US by condemning Israel, calling it a racist state, causing the EU delegates to leave in anger. Since you shouldn’t use the conference as a forum for attacks and division, as the UN Secretary General so “correctly” put it, or since no one should attempt to kidnap the conference for political attacks, as a UN spokeswoman expressed it.
But can we all, who claim to advocate democracy and free speech, completely unconditionally accept the agreement that the EU and others made “that if anyone says this (i.e. that Israel is a racist regime), then we will leave”, as the head of Sweden’s UN delegation explained it to Svenska Dagbladet?
In other words, is using the word racist taboo when talking about a country like Israel at the UN conference on racism? Or, what does Israel need to do (that it doesn’t already do) to make it clear beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that its policies, and its laws and applications of them, are racist? Israel was not even allowed to be mentioned in the final document. Anyone who followed the developments around the so-called ”Durban 2” knows that, following intense pressure from the EU, the draft final declaration has been revised down, from 45 pages to 17 pages in which all references to Israel or the Middle East have been deleted. And despite that, both Israel and the United States still chose to boycott the conference, along with several other nations.
It can be deduced, then, that the reactions are not only, as one might have thought, about Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s tarnished statement. He “only” violated a taboo. And that is a significantly more worrisome, provocative and intriguing topic of discussion than are Ahmadinejad’s “scandalous statements”.
Because, what else can we call a nation whose policies make crucial differences between people, based on religion and ethnicity? What should we call a state under whose laws everyone is not equal? What should we call the practice of granting exclusive land-purchasing rights to Jewish citizens (approximately 90 percent of the country’s land is not available for purchase to the country’s non-Jewish citizens, solely because they are not Jewish)? What should we call laws that allow Jewish citizens to marry foreign nationals and live together in Israel while that same thing is forbidden for Israel’s Palestinian citizens, solely based on their ethnicity?
A lot can be said about Iran’s President Mahomoud Ahmadinejad; he both exaggerates and lies. But is it really a huge scandal to describe Israel as a racist country? Is it such an immense scandal that all of Europe’s representation goes ballistic? Isn’t it a greater “scandal” that Israel’s occupation and apartheid policies are allowed to continue year in and year out? Isn’t it a greater “scandal” that, on top of that, Israel’s illegal settlement policy continues in the occupied territories, since 1967? Isn’t it a greater “scandal” that Israel is allowed to defy countless U.N. resolutions, and to violate international law and Geneva Conventions without any action from the international community? And, perhaps the worst scandal of them all right now: that Gaza’s population of 1.5 million is still boycotted, isolated, without any chance of obtaining building materials it needs for the reconstruction of what Israel demolished during its latest attack on Gaza. A “scandal” so immense that words cannot possibly describe it. Because, tell me, which words will make it through the eye of the needle when it comes to Israel? Which words are we allowed to use to describe Israeli policy, without making Israel look bad? Is it even possible?
On the other hand, talking about a tragedy is always welcome. It doesn’t require anything of us, since we use that same term when speaking of natural disasters and Greek tragedies, which no one could possibly prevent. And yet, we all commiserate deeply with the Palestinians. We are, after all, humanists.
This painful, drawn-out erosion of the principle of everyone’s equal worth, that goes on, year in and year out, is demoralizing and devastating to the entire global community. An erosion that results in the international community boycotting Gaza’s people, the oppressed, the occupied and the weak, while the most powerful leaders, at an international conference, so obviously and loyally demonstrate the consistency and power behind their words, when it comes to sparing Israel. But not when it comes to protecting the tormented people of Gaza. When will we hear such unambiguous, plain language being directed at the state that, according to our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Carl Bildt, committed “massive war crimes” last winter? Because how else can we continue believing in our language, the words we have available to us, the words our politicians use? And what signals are we sending, in the example above, to Gaza’s continuingly isolated, injured and punished people and the rest of the third-world population?
When will Europe grow up, and realize its total responsibility for “the scandal”, the “tragedy”, yes, all of these failures that can be described in different words? And for which two peoples, the Israelis and the Palestinians are paying a price that’s far too high. Is there a limit? Not even all of the victims from this past winter have changed anything, basically. So therefore, let me confess my sins: I’m having some difficulty in sharing the West’s outrage over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements.
DROR FEILER
Stockholm
Thank you, Dror! Very much appreciated- will make a note of the article in the blogpost as well.