By any conventional standard the declaration issued at the conclusion of the Durban II global conference on racism, held in Geneva in late April, was a signal — and a very, very positive — achievement. It is forward-looking in its commitment to protect victims of racism, includes significant new protections for migrants, omits the pernicious idea pushed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference that religions should be protected from “defamation” and does not single out Israel for anything.
Even though the singular rant of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got all the press, the conference was not the “hatefest” that many Jews had confidently and noisily predicted. As early as February, the American Jewish Committee’s David Harris was calling the Durban II planning process “discredited,” while the Anti-Defamation League cautioned governments and NGOs to say “Not again” and insisted, “This time, no one can say let’s just wait to see what happens.”
U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, Durban II’s secretary general, complained of a “widespread and highly organized campaign of disinformation” regarding the conference. While she has declined to elaborate on this statement, many believe that she was referring to the efforts of Jewish groups.
But the fears expressed by Jewish organizations proved to be unfounded. Indeed, in negotiations over the conference declaration’s text, the Organization of the Islamic Conference did not end up playing a destructive role. Instead, it showed a willingness to accommodate most American (and Israeli) red lines. Before the Durban II conference even began, virtually all significant American concerns — some of which were about Israel and Jews, and many of which were not — had been accommodated, and properly so.
The one demand that was not met proved to be a killer: The conference document endorsed Durban I. This was understood by many observers to be simply U.N.-speak — no conference ever fails to endorse its predecessors. But to many Jewish groups, it amounted to nothing less than the wholesale incorporation into Durban II of all of Durban I’s antisemitic, Holocaust-denying, genocidal ugliness.
I was at Durban I, and I walked out of its NGO forum along with scores of other Jews. In light of the Durban I trauma, Jewish skepticism over anything named “Durban” is understandable. But Durban II was not Durban I. The unshakable assumption that it was, however, led the United States, Israel and eight other nations not to attend.
Despite the no-shows, the 180 or so countries that did attend achieved astonishing consensus. Western and Muslim governments actually worked together effectively — the very goal President Obama fervently promotes but simultaneously undermined by pulling out of this conference.
Still, there are opportunities for redemption. An American endorsement of the conference’s declaration would, even now, help create a powerful global force against racism. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem likely. Instead, the future of the Durban II process is uncertain.
This is a shame, and it presents a problem to the Jewish community. Jewish groups played such a prominent role in criticizing Durban II that they were the very first to be informed by the White House of its decision to boycott the conference. (Human rights groups were informed second and civil rights groups third.) International human rights groups, however, think that the Durban II declaration is worth fighting for and are stunned that the opportunity it presents is being squandered. Sadder still, it is no longer assumed that Jewish groups will be allies in global human rights work.
Jews were once seen as being at the forefront of the global campaign for human rights, which is surely where we belong. It’s time for us to once again assume our rightful place in this struggle, and there is no shortage of places to start. One of them is here and now: We can urge the United States to signal its approval of the Durban II declaration. It might be awkward for the White House and for Jewish organizations to do such a sudden turnaround, but furthering the global fight against racism is certainly worth a little egg on the face.
Kathleen Peratis, a partner at the New York law firm Outten & Golden, is a board member emerita of Human Rights Watch.
2,800 countries can gather together talk, pass resolutions, twiddle their thumbs, etc., but it is, i aver, US which holds all shemites and nonshemites [egyptians/ashk'm]in captivity. it did cost money. US had shopped for and bought israeli, egyptian, and shemitic leadership.
but what 'zionists' desire most had been withheld by US and euros. We all know that israel, a borderless, lawless, poor region is too tiny to satisfy most land robbers. however, being such an utter dependency, dares not complain nor demand US/europe let it have what i wants/needs for surviaval and success.
US is delaying any solution, evaluating that a nonsolution for decennia to come is best solution for US. Yes, we can say that no solution is a solution.
i think that an overwhelming number of judaists and their rabbis wish US and europe leave israel alone or that they do not constray it to the degree that they do.
ideally, a land shld be interdependent. ideally, every person shld be much interdependent and not at all a dependency or ruggedly independent.
i do not know what 'jews' think about americanism; its rugged independency on internat'l and interpersonal levels. however it may be, the structure of society and governance in US goes against the nature; i.e., that there is no such thing is independence; everything being connected to and interdependent on everything else. more cld be said. tnx
America going to Durban II, especially with Ahmedinejedad allowed to speak would be the equivalent of going to Munich before Kristallnacht and after the Evian Conference.
The UN GA President himself is a racist and mass murderer as well as a vicious anti-Semite. Missy Peratis' sobbing over bogus notions of standing up to Racism while the Islamic world and their allies piss on the Jewish people just doesn't hold up.
Obama should never have considered going there in the first place, nor Mrs. Clinton, but we've discovered how shallow and lack of character and courage permeates from the top down in this administration. President Bush was correct in refusing to allow American representatives to attend a sham, bogus, hate-rant, and in the end, so was Obama.
When Kate Peratis has the guts to demand NO MORE ANTI-SEMITISM, NO MORE AHMEDINEJEDAD, AND NO MORE D'ESCOTO - or NO MORE ATTENDANCE, then she deserves a listen. But if she wishes to whine - ho-hum.
Dear Brothers and Sisters...some times in our lives is hard to Find So many Deep Words.that we Will Need to Express.....That what is Going on today in our Planet.is that is Full of Infected warms.with POisons in the Crooked Tonguess..and that the Whole PLanet Does Not Realize..that this Global Situation of Chaos.And Tribulation..is the ISLAMIC EMPIRE..Again.. attacking...Globally. Is Very sad Most of the Mankind Believe.That is a Problem Between the Jews..And Arabs But How Wrong they Are.. is Like a DOMINO EFFECT.and the Sick Economy is not Going Forward.Due to All those Infectios illnesss..Of Hate.. And is like a Brade. is All related... The diasspora and ISRAEL has to be UNITED.UNITED.If NOT?????? there are SErious Problems and Tragedies We have Familly in Venezuela and this is to Worry is Almost Latin America.is SElling their Souls to the Islamic Empire.Even Virgin Islands that is U S A Territory and Pto Rico..OK? is All over and I Am sure If..If MR BERLIN..Will be Arriving today in America? he Could Not.Write One Not of this Most wonderful Song. GOD BLESS AMERICA.is very Worryyyyy..what is Going On..!!! THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME.... GOING IN TO YOUR FORWARD..THANKSSSSSS.TONS OF RAINBOWS SHALOM..REBECCA.!!
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.