March 2009

The fact that Israel was joined by Canada, Italy, and the Netherlands in boycotting last month’s planning meetings leading up to the UN anti-racism conference, which has been dubbed Durban II, does not mean officials in the Jewish state were not interested in the draft document.

The draft, which will be presented at the April meeting in Geneva, seems every bit as bad as Israel feared it would be. It has problematic paragraphs regarding free speech and defamation of religion.

The "defamation of a religion" clause is the Muslim countries’ attempt to squelch any criticism of militant Islam.

The representatives from 190 nations—including the US—debated the language for this document in which Israel is called a "racist" and "apartheid" power.

Last month, the Obama administration announced that the fact that the US was participating "in these informal negotiations" did not mean that the US would necessarily participate in the anti-racism conference itself or even in future preparations for the conference.

"These decisions will be taken at a later date, depending on the results that we see from the negotiating process," said State.

The Obama administration indicated that it had hoped its seven-person delegation to the planning meetings would be able to "change the direction in which the review conference is heading." That clearly meant they hoped they could shape some of the language, which would enable the US to participate in the regular conference.

It did not work out that way.

The initial draft of the Durban II text, now posted on the UN website, speaks of the suffering of the Palestinians under "occupation."

An alternative paragraph calls for the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees and refers to the "racial policies of the occupying power."

Israel itself is not named in the document, although the reader can clearly understand where it is being referenced.

Towards the end of the February, the US admitted its contingent had been unable to change any of the draft document’s statements.

One official, who asked for anonymity, said it was likely that the American delegation would recommend that the US boycott the meeting, even though President Barack Obama had announced the US would send a delegation.

The conference draft committee was chaired by a Libyan assisted by an Iranian, and a Cuban. Observers said, with that sort of lineup, it was impossible for the US to have any influence on the decision-making process.

According to the official, nearly all the 100 or so amendments that participants at the planning session are hoping to place on the meeting’s agenda, relate to Israeli "occupation of Palestinian lands," Israel’s being responsible for "the plight of Palestinian refugees," and similar aphorisms.

At the end of February, the draft committee was still undecided on whether to add a little line to the conference’s official platform that the Holocaust "resulted in the murder of one-third of the Jewish people."

"As far as we believe, Durban II is going to be the antisemitic event of 2009," said Amos Hermon, the head of the Jewish Agency’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. "It looks worse than we expected, even though it's not yet clear what the end result will be."

Roni Leshno Yaar, Israel’s Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, agreed, saying, at this point, he did not know how to improve things.

"At this stage, it is not possible to say what in the text would improve, if at all. In fact I expect the text to get only worse on all issues which are important for western democracy," he said.

The Americans attended the meetings, but did not appear to have made any improvements in the document, which Mr. Yaar, said "is getting worse every day."

Mr. Yaar noted that Israel has boycotted the preparatory meetings but has kept close tabs on the proceedings and has been lobbying countries to abstain.

Many supporters of the Jewish state hope the US will pull out now from the conference. The Bush administration agreed with Israel last year that the US should not participate unless it received guarantees that the conference would not become a stage for antisemitism and one-sided criticism of Israel, as occurred during the first Durban meeting in 2001.

Durban II is expected to be a repeat of the 2001 "UN World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance," held in Durban, South Africa.

Israel and the US walked out of the 2001 conference to protest its disintegration into an antisemitic, Holocaust-denying, anti-Israel hate fest.

There are signs that some groups at the conference intend to pick up where Durban I left off, namely the effort to pass a resolution equating Zionism with racism.

According to Ann Bayefsky, Mr. Obama’s team in Geneva may have said they intended to push hard to prevent Israel from being demonized by the document’s language, and wanted US participation to be conditioned on the language of the document, but, Ms. Bayefsky said, the fact is "the US had done just the opposite."

"The US delegates had made no objection to a new proposal to nail Israel in an anti-racism manifesto that makes no other country specific claims," she said.

According to Prof Gerald Steinberg, executive director of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, the image of the US sitting still while anti-Israel, antisemitic, and anti-Western clauses are added to the document is a worst-case scenario.

Prof Steinberg did not think going to the planning meeting was necessarily a mistake.

"The Obama administration took a ‘very bold and risky plunge by attempting to change the hate-filled agenda,’" he said.

The danger, he said, was that if the US allowed any language that "reinforces the first Durban attack on human rights."

"That failure would do ‘long-term damage throughout the world,’" he said.

On the other hand, he said, if the US is successful in either changing the language and agenda, or leading a walk-out if necessary, it would restore moral leadership and US influence.

In many ways, the US administration’s efforts in Geneva were doomed from the start. Prof Steinberg said there are indications that Durban II will be much worse than Durbin I.

"In 2001, there were two parallel sessions, a governmental forum and then an NGO (non-government organization) forum. It was the latter that used words like ‘apartheid’ and ‘racism’ against Israel, but now it seems that, even though it's unlikely that the NGOs will have a strong showing because of a lack of funding, the governments of Iran and Libya—who are heading the governmental forum—have adopted the same language as used by the NGOs in 2001," he said, noting that the Europeans, too, were unable to change the language.

"And they have been negotiating since October," he said.

Prof Steinberg is convinced the issue of language is very important.

"Using the Durban strategy, Palestinians launched terror attacks with the knowledge that the Israeli responses would be condemned as ‘war crimes,’ which, in turn, would justify boycotts on the South African model. Instead of negotiations based on acceptance of Israel, the goal of the annihilation was reinforced," he said.

According to Prof Steinberg, the real long-term problem is that, if the US participates in Durban II and the language is as bad as he is expecting, it will demolish any prospects for peace.

"It will be hard for any Israeli government to accept a proposal by Sen [George] Mitchell if the US is involved in this, because if the same Arab countries that are part of the Saudi peace plan are the ones leading this demonization of Israel, and the rest of the world is part of the process, it’s incompatible. You can’t say that Israel is an apartheid state, apply the South African model—which basically aims to annihilate Israel as a Jewish state, and then continue with peace negotiations," he said.

Israel reacted to the announcement that the Obama administration would attend the planning session with a "wait-and-see" attitude. Officials in the Israeli Foreign Ministry told the Israeli press they had confidence in the US administration.

"I think we see eye to eye with the Americans on the subject of Durban II," said Eitan Levon, the Foreign Ministry’s coordinator for the conference.

A senior Israeli diplomat disagreed, telling Ha’aretz that Iran and Arab countries will once again "take over the conference."

"If the US participates in Durban II, it will be a major blow," said the diplomat.

One of the factors determining whether or not the US participates seems to be which of two top women in the administration gets to call the shots. Some observers say Secretary of State Hillary Clinton favors pulling out of Durban II, while UN Ambassador Susan Rice wants the US to participate, even though the draft language is unacceptable.

Sources close to Ms. Rice, who has made remarks quite critical of Israel, say she wants to send a delegation that would issue a strongly worded "minority report" objecting to the Israel-bashing.

Ms. Rice’s critics say her approach would, nevertheless, lend the conference prestige simply as a result of the presence of the US.

Ms Rice, who was a close adviser to Mr. Obama during the Presidential campaign, has pushed for the US to join the UN Human Rights Council, an organization boycotted by the Bush administration, mostly because of its one-sided criticism of Israel.

Another Obama official eager for US involvement in Durban II is Samantha Power, who participated in the initial Durban conference as the representative of a non-government organization. Ms. Power has a history of making controversial, cutting statements about Israel. She has, for example, expressed support for cutting US military assistance to Israel and using the funds as aid to build a Palestinian state.

Prof Steinberg said the fact that there are such disparate views within the administration was "troubling."

Another player who is watching this soap opera develop, is Britain, which, according to some reports is leaning towards avoiding the conference.

At a school in Englewood, Britain’s Foreign Officer Lord Malloch-Brown said, "If we can’t go forward now, we will withdraw." He explained that he had been to the first conference and "had never seen such a disgraceful event in quite a long international life."

"There are red lines that need to be made for us to participate. The US is in the same position as most of Europe. We are not going to stand idly by and allow this racist stuff to get through and be seen as acceptable. We are not going to have it." Said Mr. Malloch-Brown.

Ron Radosh of Pajama Media, an online site news and information center, said it was important to remember that Mr. Malloch-Brown’s judgment is that an officer of a government.

"He has bent over backwards to appease Muslim fundamentalists, while tolerating antisemitic incidents in Britain without a peep. If Durban is even too much to tolerate for a representative of Britain, you know how bad it really is," said Mr. Radosh.

The Italian Foreign Minister said his government also had no interest in sending a delegation if Durban II were going to be nothing more than a clone of Durban I.

"We will not send an Italian delegation [if it is the same as Durban 2001], but we will try to harmonize our position with other countries who are the friends of Jews. But we will leave a decision until the last minute," said Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini.

The Jewish Voice and Opinion is a politically conservative Jewish publication which present news and feature articles not generally available elsewhere in the Jewish or secular media. Articles may be reprinted in their entirety with attribution.