Opinion

A MIX OF IDEAS

Dry Bones WEN At0 NOW

Editorials are posted and archived on JNonline.us .

Editorial

Boycott Durban III

T

here's absolutely no reason Israel
should participate in a meeting
at the United Nations to mark the
10th anniversary of the Durban confer-
ence on racism.
And it's not.
In a Dec. 26 statement, Israel's Foreign
Ministry stressed that "under the present
circumstances, as long as the meeting is
defined as part of the infamous 'Durban
process: Israel will not participate in the
meeting."
The Jewish state is right: It's sad (even
a travesty) that a resolution relating
to such an important subject — rac-
ism — has been diverted and politicized
by the automatic majority at the United
Nations. Linking the subject to the Durban
Declaration and Programme of Action
(2001) is, itself, a form of racism.
"The Durban conference of 2001, with
its anti-Semitic undertones and displays
of hatred for Israel and the Jewish world,
left us with scars that will not heal quick-
ly," Israel's Foreign Ministry declared.
The U.N. General Assembly voted on
Dec. 24 to hold a session in September on
"Combating racism and follow-up of the
Durban Programme of Action" — Durban
III. The meeting will mark the decennial
of the original Durban conference, which
was to have addressed institutional rac-
ism, but degenerated into manifestations

of bigotry and hatred — more precisely,
an anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hate fest.
Chillingly, the forthcoming event is set
for shortly after the 10th anniversary com-
memoration of 9-11, a catastrophe spurred
by the same ideology of hatred and terror
that Durban I came to represent.
Given the tenor of the U.N., its no
surprise that the vote was 104 nations in
favor of the "anti-racism" session and 22
against (with 33 abstentions).
Countries voting nay were Australia,
Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Israel, Italy,
Latvia, Lithuania, the Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau,
Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
the United Kingdom and the United States.
In a statement issued following the vote,
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice
said, very appropriately: "We voted 'no'
because the Durban Declaration process
has included ugly displays of intolerance
and anti-Semitism, and we do not want to
see that commemorated.
At the original U.N. conference against
racism in Durban, the United States
and Israel walked out when it became
clear that it had degenerated into little
more than an opportunity for vitriolic
Israel-bashing that many observers said
bordered on anti-Semitism. The confer-

ence's final document
singled out Israel for
condemnation.
At Durban II in
Geneva in 2009,
several European
and North American
countries announced
they would boycott
the conference out of
concern that its special
focus on Israel would
make a mockery of
the issue of fighting
racism; several more
walked out of the con-
ference when Iranian
President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad used the
podium to slam Israel.
B'nai B'rith
International saga-
ciously affirmed the danger of a Durban
III, maintaining, "The original Durban
conference attempted to validate the
perverse theory that Zionism is racism.
Durban's legacy of hate, intolerance and
double standards should never be forgot-
ten, and should certainly never be cel-
ebrated."
The American Jewish Committee said in
a statement, "The global campaign against
racism has been hijacked by countries that

DryBonesBtog.com

have little regard for human rights and
whose primary goal is to advance highly
political agendas:'
This anti-Semitic road show dubbed
"Durban" has no place in New York. What it
has to do with the U.N. mission of defending
and protecting human rights escapes us.
The civilized world must shun the
hatred, prejudice and racism against
America and the West as well as the global
campaign to undermine Israel that mani-
fested at Durban I. 1-1

So Much For Bridge Building

T

hose who toil in the trenches to
achieve better understanding
between races, religions and ethnic
groups might have expected some support
from the Arab community in reaction to
the bigoted remarks of the journalist Helen
Thomas. Instead, they and the rest of us
were inundated with statements expressing
support for her.
Locally, as well as nationally, without the
slightest hesitation, Arab leaders came to
her defense, shamelessly acknowledging
that they shared her anti-Semitic beliefs.
Of course, they proclaimed proudly, Jews
control the news media, finance and this
country's foreign policy. What is new about
that? The tragic episode, regrettably, proves
once again — as if more evidence were
needed — how we have pursued the "sci-
ence" of bridge-building on faulty premises.
In order to build strong bridges of
mutual understanding, both sides need
to come to the table with decent inten-
tions. The task needs to begin with mutual
respect for each other before other difficult
and sensitive issues are tackled. Both sides

need to acknowledge they are
committed to principles of
human decency.
Mutual respect should not
be an issue for negotiation; it
must be a given, otherwise, all
other efforts to achieve some
degree of understanding are
bound to fail.
What's more, implying some-
how that negative and some-
times anti-Semitic views of Jews
result from a lack of under-
standing about us as a people
indicates a lack of self-respect. We should
not, and must not, try to convince others
that we are "really good guys; you have been
misinformed about us:' Moreover, it also
implies that we understand why they may
be anti-Semitic and we want to prove them
wrong.
Our first step in any efforts to build
bridges must be to demand respect — not
ask for it or negotiate for it.
To our credit, Jews as people have always
demonstrated their prima facie respect for

Our first step in any efforts to build bridges
must be to demand respect
not ask for it
or negotiate for it.

others — blacks, Muslims, gays
and others subject to discrimina-
tion. We have not demanded that
they prove themselves as decent
people. Regrettably, we have not
demanded a quid pro quo.
Time and again, we have demonstrated a
self-demeaning complex, which holds that
others do not understand us and that is
why they are anti-Semitic.
This entire scenario played itself out not
too long ago when the Rev. Louis Farrakhan
was making major headlines with his anti-
Semitic tirades.
When organized Jewry — surrender-
ing its self-respect — asked and even
implored the black community to speak
out against such bigotry, black leaders —

with a few exceptions — stood by silently.
(In the Farrakhan case, at least a few black
leaders condemned the remarks; not one
Arab leader has done so in the Thomas
incident. A letter writer to the Jewish News
said the silence of the Arab community
was frightening. Indeed, silence would
have been welcome.)
At one meeting, a black leader in Detroit
who was considered among the most
friendly to the Jewish community was
asked to commit himself to condemning
anti-Semitism and bigotry when and wher-
ever it occurs. He refused to do so.
He could not be moved, while he
certainly was aware of the Jewish com-
munity's history of fighting racism and
its activism in the civil rights movement,

Bridge Building on page 34

January '13

2 0 1 1

33