AIJAC lauds Australia’s vote against Durban II funding

[oberliner]

THE Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) has praised the Rudd Government and its UN ambassador for voting against funding for the so-called UN Durban Review Conference, or “Durban II”.

AIJAC Executive Director Dr Colin Rubenstein noted that the initial UN World Conference on Racism in Durban, held in September 2001, degenerated into the worst kind of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric.

He said there was every reason to believe the follow-on conference, scheduled for September 2009, would produce the same result.

“The 2001 Durban conference was supposed to be about combating racism and xenophobia. Instead, it was hijacked and turned into a caricature of the very forces it was supposed to combat, even reviving the old canard that Zionism equals racism.”

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=4795

[msmcghee]

1. Finally, some sanity in the world. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

2. I'd be interested in seeing Australia's explanation for this...

I notice the article is very sparse on anything but the opinion of Rubenstein*, who seems to think he's the spokesman for the Australian government and its motives. When I see the word racism and Australia voting against conferences to discuss it, I've got to wonder if the motivation might be a lot closer to home...

I don't know anything about the Durban conference, but have been led to believe it was nothing but a huge Jew-hating marathon. So given Rubenstein's tendency to bullshit a bit, I went and tried to find out what happened and what was the result and came up with this. The result was a declaration that every country should strongly support...

http://www.un.org/WCAR/durban.pdf

It looks like there was a lot of very important stuff covered in this conference. What I wasn't able to track down yet (not least coz my computer keeps on having a hissy when I try to open pdf's) is what was said at the conference that turned it into the obsessive Jew-hating fest that Rubenstein claims it was all about. I did see a press release from Mary Robinson saying that the language in the draft NGO text (from what I can work out this was another conference held at the same time) about Israel was inappropriate and hurtful, and I agree with her when it comes to a forum of that stature where statements are made in draft texts that Israel is committing genocide. But it does look to me like the problem was with the NGO declaration, because this is what she had to say about it: '"I will say to them that there are good things in the NGO declaration, but I cannot recommend it because I cannot accept some of the language in it, particularly the reference to genocide. That is unacceptable, hurtful language, which should not have appeared in any document coming out of Durban."'

http://www.un.org/WCAR/pressreleases/rd-d36.htm

Seems to me that rather than try to scuttle any future conferences about racism and discrimination, it would be more constructive to steer away from finger pointing at participants. Israel wasn't the only country that had concerns about finger pointing:

'In fact, one human rights campaigner said many governments were going to the conference not with an agenda but with an anti-agenda - things that they wanted kept off the table.

India has worked hard to prevent conference documents referring specifically to discrimination on the grounds of caste, which condemns tens of millions of people to menial jobs and abuse in south Asia.

The Indian Government says it is an internal matter and is trying to argue that the caste system has nothing to do with racism.

China is determined to stop its rule in Tibet being linked with racism.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1513561.stm

There's a lot of countries that'd participate who have appalling records when it comes to racism and discrimination, so to avoid ruffled feathers and huffy walk-outs, issues should be discussed without going 'Israel does this! India does that!' etc. And everyone can sit back and watch the US fume away coz their delegates would be busting to come out with a refrain of 'Iran is a bunch of genocidal racist thugs!!!!' and due to its own sensibilities when it comes to its allies it wouldn't be able to...

* About Rubenstein and AIJAC. I tend to take everything they say with a grain of salt until I can verify it elsewhere due to their really vicious smear-job on Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian moderate, when she won the Sydney Peace Prize. From labelling her a terrorist to a Holocaust denier, to trying to bully Bob Carr (the then Premier of New South Wales) to withdraw the prize, there's no depths AIJAC wouldn't stoop to in order to fling mud, none of which stuck as it wasn't true. Add to that AIJAC have accused SBS of being biased and antisemitic, and an Australian journalist was accused by them of being *anti-American* when he started an interview with the US Ambassador by saying that Australia was about to attack a country on the other side of the world that was no threat to us at all. These and more are reasons why I have nothing but contempt for AIJAC. When it comes to progressive Jewish groups in Australia (which AIJAC most definately isn't), there's groups like the Australian Jewish Democratic Society who are really worth listening to and supporting...

http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~ajds/