world >> news analysis
U.N. Rhetoric
In General Assembly speeches, Abbas, Netanyahu trade charges of "ethnic cleansing."
Ron Kampeas and Uriel Heilman
JTA
M
ahmoud Abbas outlined a vision for an inde-
pendent Palestine that hewed to the two-state
formula but also revived rhetoric that hear-
kened back to an era of Palestinian belligerence.
Shortly after concluding his speech to the U.N.
General Assembly on Friday, the Palestinian Authority
president was followed by Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, who laid out a very different
vision of the two-state solution that underscored the
depth of the gulf between the two leaders
While Netanyahu spoke of the need for Israel to main-
tain a "long-term Israeli military presence in the West
Bank:' Abbas argued that the Palestinians had already
made their compromises.
"We agree to establish the state of Palestine on only
22 percent of historical Palestine on all of the territories
of Palestine occupied by Israel in 1967," Abbas said. He
added, "Our efforts are not aimed at isolating Israel or
delegitimizing it, we only aim to delegitimize the settle-
ment activity."
Abbas' emphatic endorsement of two states, and his
repeated calls for peaceful support from Palestinians
who were watching him were signals that he was still
committed to the two-state solution. "I do not believe
anyone of conscience can reject our application for full
membership in the United Nations and our admission
as a member state he said.
But Abbas also had harsh rhetoric for the Israelis,
accusing Israel of "ethnic cleansing:' targeting
Palestinians for assassination, strengthening its "racist
annexation wall" and carrying out excavations that, he
alleged, threaten Islamic holy places.
Abbas repeatedly invoked 63 years of "nakba,"
or catastrophe, and repeated his commitment to
unity with Hamas, a terrorist group committed to
Israel's destruction. He made reference to Muslim
and Christian ties to the Holy Land — the site of
Jesus' birth and where Muslims believed Muhammad
ascended to the heavens — but omitted any reference
to Jewish claims.
Netanyahu Responds
For his part, Netanyahu accused the Palestinians of rac-
ism and ethnic cleansing in their call for a state with
no Jewish settlers — "Judenrein," in Netanyahu's words,
using the Nazi-era term.
"That's ethnic cleansing:' he said
Mahmoud Abbas
Benjamin Netanyahu
He accused the Palestinians of wanting statehood
but not peace. "The truth is, so far the Palestinians
have refused to negotiate he said. "The truth is the
Palestinians want a state without peace?'
Abbas called for a timeline for peace negotiations
culminating in an agreement — but did not set one out
himself. That, and his commitment to prior agreements
with Israel, seemed to be aimed at assuaging Israeli
Rhetoric on page 35
Irrelevant
Have the Durban conferences finally
been discredited?
Benjamin Weinthal
Jerusalem Post
T
he United Nations held its
10-year anti-racism commemo-
ration conference Thursday to
honor the fiercely anti-Israel and anti-
Western Durban I event. In view of the
counter-Durban movement since 2001 to
stymie Durban's radical anti-Semitism
and anti-Western attacks, there is a grow-
ing consensus that the Durban process
has been derailed.
The 2001 "World Conference Against
Racism" took place in Durban, South
Africa, and the name Durban quickly
became associated with U.N.-funded
anti-Semitism, intolerance and racism.
In 2009, a successor conference, Durban
II, was held in Geneva, where Iran's
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denied
the first Holocaust and called for a second
one against Israel.
Thomas von der Osten-Sacken, a
German Middle East expert, who co-
launched an initiative in 2009 to convince
34
September 29 p 2011
Germany to boycott Durban II, told
The Jerusalem Post on Sept. 23 that the
Durban process only "resonates very
marginally?' He said the "most important
countries" boycotted Durban III, adding
that in comparison to Durban I and II,
the current conference is largely unim-
portant.
Germany withdrew its participation
at the 11th-hour in 2009. Nine European
countries, including the major E.U.
democratic engines — France, Italy, the
United Kingdom, Poland and Germany
— skipped Durban III because the event
codifies hate and anti-Jewish and anti-
Israeli sentiments.
Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, who
spoke at the counter-Durban conference
"The Perils of Global Intolerance" in New
York on Sept. 22, said, "Durban III has
been a flop. There is no media. People
on the street aren't interested. They have
failed in their efforts and their PR strat-
egy:' according to a JTA report.
Anne Bayefsky, an authority on the U.N.
and human rights, as well as the main
cus
Ourb.r,
circa
An anti-Durban demonstration by supporters of Israel
organizer of the anti-Durban conference,
has exposed a decade of efforts by anti-
Western and radical Islamic countries
to use Durban as a mechanism to strip
Israel of its legitimacy. This year's mean-
ingless Durban can be viewed as a kind
of crowning achievement of Bayefsky's
tireless work to debunk a racist endeavor
dressed up as anti-racism.
Perhaps the natural death of Durban
can also be explained by its chief
advocates. The waning Libyan despot
Muammar Qaddafi was a key supporter
of the Durban process. Authoritarian
regimes such as Castro's Cuba and the
Islamic Republic of Iran have champi-
oned Durban. Venezuela's President Hugo
Chavez, whose anti-Israel views carry
great currency in Iran, is a fan of Durban.
Predictably, last week, Lebanon, Cuba and
Iran launched tirades against Israel at the
Durban III event.
The U.N. anti-racism process has
achieved the opposite of its stated mis-
sion. Member countries, including the
Hate-Fest on page 35