Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
It is highly ironic that the UN opened its Durban ll "conference against racism" on the occasion of Adolf Hitler's 120th birthday. Not withstanding its name, this conference was intended as nothing more than an exercise in anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing being led by some of the most racist countries on earth (namely in the Middle East).
The conference was a repeat of Durban 1 held a few years back and which was noted for its singling out of Israel as a "racist" state. This year's event promised to be the same with the featured speaker none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Fortunately, not only did Israel and the US boycott the conference, but also Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. Among European countries who attended we find the UK and France. The latter should be ashamed.
On Monday, when Ahmadinejad referred to Israel as a "racist entity", dozens of EU delegates rose and walked out of the hall. That is well and good, but why were they there to begin with? Why did Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz personally meet with Ahmadinejad? Does not the state of Switzerland stand for anything other than being an international banking center?
In addition to the requisite Israel-bashing led by the Arab states, also on the agenda was a move to make it a crime to criticize a religion. Sounds great, but the only religion that was really concerned here is Islam.
What is really astounding is when you examine the countries that are at the forefront of this effort to demonize Israel while making it a violation of international law to "defame" Islam.
First, let's look at Iran, whose president was the featured speaker. This is the man who has denied the Holocaust and called for Israel to be wiped off the map. In Iran, members of the Ba'hai faith are routinely persecuted as part of a government policy. What do I mean by persecuted? I mean things like arrest, rape and killing. This is the country where women accused of adultery are buried up to their shoulders and stoned to death while the faithful shout, "Allahu Akbar!" This is the country that hangs homosexuals. This is the country that storms embassies, takes diplomats hostage and finances terror.
In Egypt, members of the Coptic Christian minority are subject to discrimination by the Muslim majority. As in other Middle Eastern countries, mainstream newspapers and magazines publish anti-Semitic rants and cartoons reminiscent of Julius Streicher's Der Stuermer, the old Nazi anti-Semitic newspaper popular in the Third Reich. In the Middle East, People still write about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as if it were fact. Mein Kampf is still a best seller in the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia, it is illegal to openly practice any religion other than Islam. Under Islamic law, the penalty for apostasy is death.
Then there is Sudan, a country that has recently chaired the UN Human Rights Council, but has perpetrated the genocide in Darfur.
These are the countries that are sitting in judgement of Israel and complaining about defamation of religion (their own).
What does it say about the Western nations that attended this travesty? Of course, they will tell you that only by attending could they lend a moderating voice to the madness. That is a cop-out. What they did was give legitimacy to this disgraceful gathering. Of course, they put a happy face on it by condemning Ahmadinejad's words and watering down draft language. The UK and France were there in the first place because they were afraid of upsetting their Muslim minorities, who are liable to riot in the streets-or worse. Special mention and praise has to go to Germany, a nation with its unique history, that made it a point to stand up for decency.
The larger issue is what this says about the UN, a corrupt and inefficient organization that is been taken over by the Middle Eastern states. At the UN, anti-Semitism reigns supreme, terrorism is swept under the rug, and the US is used as both a whipping-boy and cash cow. The time has long passed for the decent nations of the world (the democracies) to walk away from the UN and establish a new international organization that stands for something decent.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Flight 93 Blogburst: Moral Muslims don't want a memorial to the terrorists on the Flight 93 crash site
by Findalis
Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave.
Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:
Flight 93:
One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be?
Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismisses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains completely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you've probably gone too far."
We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque.
Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:
The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile.
According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag.
(Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left
standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the center line of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.)
Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93!
This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish.
Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed.
Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses.
The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace."
This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106). Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation.
The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims.
Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire."
Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet.
What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site?
If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions.
That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad.
The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that
traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary.
Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.
Thanks to Khalim Massoud, president of Muslims against Sharia--Islamic Reform Movement, for his press release in support of Tom Burnett Sr.'s efforts to stop the Park Service from planting a giant Mecca-oriented crescent atop his son's grave.
Islamic Reform Movement is clear eyed on the problem:
We all know who the enemy is. It's Islamic radicals who are guided by the ideology of Islamic supremacy. Just as Nazis were guided by the ideology ofAryan supremacy. The only difference is that Gihadis consider it their religious duty to impose Islam all over the world and many of them yearn to die (and kill) for Allah. They use lines from the Koran such as "kill them [infidels] wherever you find them" or "slay the idolaters wherever you find them" as their guiding principles.Islam needs to be reformed so that it rejects supremacism and violent conquest, but trying reform Islam is a difficult and dangerous business:
Islamic radicals murder more Muslims than Christians, Jews, Hindus and everybody else combined. Jihadis may hate you for being infidels. But they really hate us for not following their demented dogma.In this struggle for the soul of Islam, the last thing that moral Muslims want is any kind of victory for the supremacists, never mind a mind-boggling symbolic victory over the heroes of
Flight 93:
What possible reason could be there for including anything Islamic or anything even resembling an Islamic symbol into Flight 93 Memorial? Inclusion of Islamic symbols memorializes murderers who brought down the plane and is tantamount to spitting in the faces of victims and their families. United Airlines Flight 93 was hijacked in 2001. Let's not allow hijacking of Flight 93 Memorial in 2008.
Muslims know all about facing Mecca for prayer
One of the difficulties in getting people to understand the significance of the Mecca-orientation of the Crescent of Embrace is that it all seems so esoteric, and if it is esoteric, how important can it be?
Witness Allahpundit, who as Michelle Malkin's pointman on this issue ought to be one of our strongest allies. Instead, he dismisses all concern about Islamic symbolism (effectively dismissing Michelle's original concern about the giant crescent, which remains completely intact in the "broken circle" redesign), on the grounds that: "if you need a protractor to properly express your outrage, you've probably gone too far."
We don't need a protractor to express our outrage. We need a protractor to explain what architect Paul Murdoch did. He built the world's largest mihrab: the Mecca-direction indicator around which every mosque is built. The planned memorial will be the world's largest mosque by a factor of a hundred. The gigantic Sacred Mosque in Mecca would fit four times over inside Murdoch's 3000 foot wide crescent, which is just the centerpiece of Murdoch's mosque.
Orientation on Mecca is THE central symbol of Islam, together with the crescent shape. Unlike Allahpundit, Khalim knows these things:
The shape of the "broken circle" resembles a crescent moon. So does the shape of the tower. Crescent moon is the most recognizable Islamic symbol. When we pray, we face Mecca and Mosques are traditionally built to face Mecca. The case could be made that the proposed design is aligned in North-Easterly direction, which corresponds with Qiblah, a direction to Mecca. Conventional wisdom would dictate that since Mecca is located to the South-East of Somerset, Qiblah cannot possibly have a North-Easterly direction. This assumption would be correct if you're using a flat map. However, if you take a globe, place pins on locations of Somerset and Mecca, and connect those pins with a string, you'll see that the string at the base of the Somerset pin points North-East. This symbolism may not be noticeable to a non-Muslim, and it is also possible, but likely improbable that the designer is ignorant of its significance. The proposed design would be perfect for EgyptAir 990 memorial. But for United 93 memorial, it is simply unacceptable.
Allahpundit is just being careless, but the willful blindness of the
Park Service is foundational
Park Service is foundational
The Memorial Project is committed to the idea that Islam was also hijacked on 9/11. To them, blaming Islam would be as bad as blaming the hijacked passengers and crew. Thus the possibility of hostile Islamic intent cannot be contemplated, no matter how high the "coincidences" pile.
According to Flight 93 Advisory Commission member Tim Baird, the Memorial Project participants all know that the Crescent of Embrace does in fact point almost exactly at Mecca (despite the Memorial Project's many public denials). They just assume it has to be a coincidence, just as they assume it is a coincidence that the Sacred Ground Plaza sits almost exactly in the position of the star on an Islamic crescent-and-star flag.
(Both of these almost-exact Islamic symbol shapes also contain exact Islamic symbol shapes. Remove the symbolically broken-off parts of the giant crescent and what is symbolically left
standing in the wake of 9/11 is a giant Islamic-shaped crescent pointing EXACTLY at Mecca. In the exact position of the star on an Islamic crescent and star flag is a separate upper section of Memorial Wall, centered on the center line of the giant crescent, that will be inscribed with the 9/11 date.)
Backers of the crescent design chose it specifically as a symbol of healing and outreach, implicitly to the Islamic world. Having been so generous to Islam, they just can't believe that a hidden al Qaeda sympathizer could be so ungenerous as to take advantage of their outreach by sneaking a memorial to the terrorists past their noses. They just can't believe that anyone could actually want to hijack Flight 93!
This refusal to acknowledge evidence of hostile Islamic intent stabs at the heart of what Islamic reformers like Khalim are trying to accomplish.
How to distinguish a moral Muslim from an Islamic
supremacist
supremacist
Being knowledgeable about Islam, moral Muslims recognize (as bin Laden's followers do) that Osama bin Laden is a perfectly orthodox Wahabbist, using traditional means of violence and deception to pursue the traditional Islamic objective of world domination. The difference is that moral Muslims reject the totalitarian methods and objectives of established Islam. Moral Muslims recognize that traditional Islamic orthodoxy needs to be reformed.
Textually, the opportunities for reform are very propitious. The Koran contains both sweeping calls to violence (9.05, 9.29) , and sweeping calls for tolerance (2.256, 109). To turn these diverse commands into a religion of violent conquest, every major school of Islamic interpretation, both Sunni and Shiite, considers the peaceful verses of the Koran to be expunged via the doctrine of "abrogation." Where different verses can be seen to contradict each other, the doctrine of abrogation holds the earlier verses to be abrogated and replaced by the later verses.
The peaceful verses are all early verses, so as far as traditional Islam is concerned, they don't even exist, except as a device for deceiving infidels into believing that Islam is a "religion of peace."
This doctrine of abrogation flies in the face of the Koran's own insistence that it contains no contradictions (4.82), and that nothing is abrogated (2.106). Textually, traditional Islam does not have a leg to stand on, but anyone who points it out is subject to the traditional Sharia death penalty for blasphemy. Alternatively, in a Wahabbist specialty called "taking takfir," such heretical interpretations constitute apostasy, another death penalty crime in every major school of Islamic interpretation.
The Koran repeats dozens of times over that those who forget the words of Moses will burn in Hell forever (e.g. 2.75, 3.187, 5.13, 13.25, 15.90, 16.63). This is repeated so many times because it is Muhammad's accusation against the Jews: that they twist the "allegorical parts" of the Torah (3.07). But the LEAST allegorical part of the Torah is the Ten Commandments. Thus according to the Koran, the 6th Commandment--Thou shalt not murder--is binding on Muslims.
Murder is any killing that is not in defense against either a violent attack or a conspiracy to violent attack, and there is no clearer case of murder than the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostates, who only want to go their own way. The same goes for blasphemy. To kill someone for challenging doctrine is MURDER. If the Koran really is the word of God, then every traditional Muslim in the entire world who supports established Sharia law is "wood for the fire."
Whether Islamic reformers are out to save the lives of those who would be murdered, or out to save the souls of the murderers, they are engaged in a great contest with perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever known: a RELIGION of evil. All they need to do to win is expose the truth: that traditional Islam is in systematic violation of the Koran's own most fundamental commandments, yet to expose this truth they must break through the teeth of traditional Islam's strength: its totalitarian repression of dissent. In short, all they have to do is bring truth to the most psychologically brutalized people in the history of the planet.
What could be worse, in a battle like this, than to see the land of liberty--the great haven from which truth can be spoken--build a gigantic terrorist-memorial mosque on the Flight 93 crash site?
No helping hand from the land of the free
If this willful blindness prevails, it will be a clear signal that in the battle to wrest Islam from the grasp of evil, America will not help. By following the morally blind idea that goodwill to Islam means having a see-no-evil attitude toward Islam, America is refusing to witness what moral Muslims are trying to expose: that the worst evils--condemned to the fire many times over by the Koran itself--thrive at the heart of Islamic institutions.
That evil heart is what throbs, a half-mile across, in the crescent memorial to Flight 93, and the refusal of our own Park Service, fully alert to all the facts, to witness this evil is the worst possible betrayal, not just of America, but of the good people in the Islamic world as well. A see-no-evil attitude towards Islam is NOT goodwill. It emboldens the worst in Islam at the expense of the best. To help the good against the bad, we have to distinguish the good from the bad.
The good are those who are trying to reform Islam. The bad are those who pretend that
traditional Islam orthodoxy is already peaceful, and deny that reform is necessary.
Muslims against Sharia has a facebook group, if anyone wants to join. Check out the Islamic Reform Movement website here.
To join our blogbursts, just send your blog's url.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
From Lionheart: A Great Luton Demonstration
A note from Radarsite: This has to be the most exciting video I've seen this year. The Brits are fighting back, and I love it! Anyone is welcome to steal this great video. Spread the good news. - rgObama Brings Another Turkey Into His Administration
Cross-posted by Gary Fouse
fousesquawk
Introducing Rosa Brooks
(Hats off to the great Don Martin)
Much like Bill Clinton, shrewed observers of the current president need to pay less attention to his efforts to appear moderate and pay more attention to the worker bees he puts into government. Such is the case with his recent selection of Rosa Brooks to be an advisor to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy.
Who is Rosa Brooks, you ask? Her most recent gig was as a left-wing editorialist for Los Angeles left-wing (and failing) Los Angeles Times. Previously, she has been a Georgetown University law professor and most alarming of all, a special counselor to George Soros (and if you don't know who George Soros is, you have no idea of the dangerous situation this country is in).
As Times columnist, Brooks alternated between condemning the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq with calling George W. Bush names like liar and torturer and comparing him to Hitler.
"How did they ever get away with it?
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released a batch of memos drafted in 2001 and 2002by lawyers in the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel. Written mainly by John Yoo, then a deputy director in the office, they laid out the purported legal justifications for a theory of presidential power amounting to virtual dictatorship."
(LA Times, March 5, 2009)
"Barack Obama ended four wars during his first week as president. With just a few words and strokes of his pen, the president ended the war on terror, the war on Islam, the war on science and the war on women." (LA Times January 29, 2009)
So now this character is going to wield considerable power in the Department of Defense, an appointment she refers to as her own "personal government bailout". God only knows what type of advice this lady will be handing out-perhaps some suggestions of the type of weapons our troops should be using. In the words of Zell Miller-"spitballs?"
fousesquawk
Introducing Rosa Brooks
(Hats off to the great Don Martin)
Much like Bill Clinton, shrewed observers of the current president need to pay less attention to his efforts to appear moderate and pay more attention to the worker bees he puts into government. Such is the case with his recent selection of Rosa Brooks to be an advisor to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michelle Flournoy.
Who is Rosa Brooks, you ask? Her most recent gig was as a left-wing editorialist for Los Angeles left-wing (and failing) Los Angeles Times. Previously, she has been a Georgetown University law professor and most alarming of all, a special counselor to George Soros (and if you don't know who George Soros is, you have no idea of the dangerous situation this country is in).
As Times columnist, Brooks alternated between condemning the war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq with calling George W. Bush names like liar and torturer and comparing him to Hitler.
"How did they ever get away with it?
On Tuesday, the Justice Department released a batch of memos drafted in 2001 and 2002by lawyers in the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel. Written mainly by John Yoo, then a deputy director in the office, they laid out the purported legal justifications for a theory of presidential power amounting to virtual dictatorship."
(LA Times, March 5, 2009)
"Barack Obama ended four wars during his first week as president. With just a few words and strokes of his pen, the president ended the war on terror, the war on Islam, the war on science and the war on women." (LA Times January 29, 2009)
So now this character is going to wield considerable power in the Department of Defense, an appointment she refers to as her own "personal government bailout". God only knows what type of advice this lady will be handing out-perhaps some suggestions of the type of weapons our troops should be using. In the words of Zell Miller-"spitballs?"
The real story of Obama’s decision making with the hostages off Somalia
The real story of Obama’s decision making with the hostages off Somalia
Posted on April 19, 2009
Posted by John Ray at STACLU
AH, now it comes out: Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:
1. BHO wouldn’t authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn’t do anything unless the hostage’s life was in “imminent” danger3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies7. BHO immediately claims credit for his “daring and decisive” behaviour. As usual with him, it’s BS.
Read the following accurate account. Read the rest at Stop the ACLU
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Suffering from PETSD? You're not alone.
Discover PETSD
My friends, if like me, you find yourself suffering from the debilitating symptoms of PETSD (Post Election Traumatic Stress Disorder), take heart, you're not alone. If after four months you still find yourself unable to accept the reality that this man is now your president, that this man now represents the United States of America to the rest of the world. If you still can't come to grips with this lingering shock. If you still recoil at the sight of his disturbing image and feel yourself overwhemed by dark depression, almost to the point of being physically ill, take solace in the knowledge that there are others out there who share your burden. We are the PETSD, and we are here for you. We are a non-profit support group whose sole purpose is to give comfort and aid to victims of PETSD. Why suffer alone? Give us a call and start fighting back by joining PETSD and following our three-step program. One: Admit to your feelings of helplessness and despair. Two: Join us and feel the power of the group. And, three: sign the PETSD Pledge to vote the lousy bastards out in 2012.
Best wishes,
Roger W. Gardner,
Regional Director
Northeastern Chapter, PETSD
Best wishes,
Roger W. Gardner,
Regional Director
Northeastern Chapter, PETSD
Anne Bayefsky on Durbin II
STATEMENT BY ANNE BAYEFSKY AT THE THIRD SUBSTANTIVE PREPARATORY MEETING OFTHE DURBAN REVIEW CONFERENCE
April 17, 2009 United Nations, Palais des Nations, GENEVA, SwitzerlandT
he eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating antisemitism you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hate mongering on a global scale.The Durban conference - allegedly dedicated to combating racism,antisemitism and other forms of intolerance - will open April 20th on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler without agreement on even so much as remembering the Holocaust and the war against the Jews. Your draft words on the Holocaust - the very foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - have been narrowed to the barest mention from previous versions.And if the minor reference survives at all - it will be a testament to your interest in Jews that died 60 years ago, while tolerating and encouraging the murder of Jews in the here and now.Furthermore, the draft before you demonizes the Jewish state of Israel and then has the audacity to pretend to care about antisemitism in a single word buried among 17 pages. Antisemitism means discrimination against the Jewish people. Since it is evident that almost none of you have the courage to say it, the face of modern antisemitism IS the UN - your - discrimination against Israel, the embodiment of the Jewish people's right to self-determination. Over and over again we have heard a massive misinformation campaign about the content of these proceedings and the draft before you. We have heard the tale that this draft does not single out Israel, that the hate has been removed, that the fault of the antisemitism at Durban I was that of NGOs while states and the UN were blameless. Perhaps you think that journalists and victims will not bother to read for themselves the Durban Declaration adopted by some governments. There is only one state mentioned in it - Israel. There is only one state associated with racist practices in it - Israel. And yet the very first thing that thisdraft before you does is to reaffirm that abomination, abomination for Jews and Arabs living in Israel's free and democratic society, and for all the victims of racism ignored therein. Lawyers call it incorporation by reference when they hope nobody reads the small print. The propaganda stops here. We have read it. We understand the game. And we decry the ugly effort to repeat the Durban agenda to isolate and defeat Israel politically, as every effort to do so militarily for decades has failed.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chair of this Preparatory Committee also told us this week that the Durban Declaration in all its aspects is a consensus text. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the Canadian reservations made in Durban in 2001 which state categorically that the Middle East language was outside the conference's jurisdiction and no tagreed. Perhaps they failed to notice that one of the world's greatest democracies, the United States, voted with its feet and walked out of theDurban I hatefest? The Durban Declaration has never represented a global consensus among free and democratic nations. When the head of the Islamic conference treats Durban as a bible, in their words, it is more accurately adefamation of religions. This week you decided which states ought to serve in a leadership role at next week's conference. Among them are some of the world's leadingpractitioners of racism, not those interested in ending it. You have also decided to hand a global megaphone to the President of a state which advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust. So in a state of shock and dismay we address ourselves not to the human rights abusers that glorify the Durban Declaration or its next incarnation,but to democracies -- and we ask: Will Germany sit on Hitler's birthday and listen to the speech of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people and grant legitimacy to the forum which tolerates his presence? What about the United Kingdom, the birthplace of the Magna Carta? Or France that helpedto ship last generation's Jews to crematoriums? You could have fought racism. You chose instead to fight Jews. You could have promoted the universal standards against racism already in existence. You chose instead to diminish their importance in the name of alleged cultural preferences. You could have protected freedom of expression. You chose instead to undermine it by twisted concepts of incitement. You could have brought victims of racism together in a common cause. You chose instead to pit victims against each other in an ugly struggle for meagre recognition. For those democracies that remain under these circumstances youare ultimately responsible for what can only be called an appalling disservice to real victims of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance around the world.
Courtesy Naomi Ragen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.BMP)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
