Nov-1975 - Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby hijack the U.N. and --unfairly-- denounce Zionism, leading to UN resolution 3379

November 10, 1975

Arab-Islamic anti-Jewish racist lobby (with Communists' help) hijack the U.N. and --unfairly-- denounce Zionism, leading to the UN resolution 3379

The hypocrisy of both forms of exclusiveness; pan-Arabism and pan-Islamism denouncing Israel's democracy where its Arab-Muslims have equal rights.

Anti-Semitism in the United Nations

As a result of such bias, the UN has lost credibility. ... The infamous “Zionism is Racism” resolution was passed in 1975

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/unantisem.html

Testimony of The Anti-Defamation League on The United Nations..

http://www.adl.org/durban/testimony.asp

Jul 31, 2001 – The infamous “Zionism = racism” resolution was rescinded and the UN

What is the evidence that the United Nations is biased against Israel ...

[...] The UN General Assembly is still dominated by blocks of third-world countries that are anti-American and anti-Israel. The numerical strength of the Arab states and the Non-Aligned Movement in the General Assembly created the long series of offensive, anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western resolutions, capped by the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” Resolution 3379. Except for Resolution 3379 itself, repealed in 1991, these black marks of injustice remain on the General Assembly’s record.

In December 1991, the infamous 1975 “Zionism equals racism” resolution was repealed by the General Ass

embly. The repeal effort, which should have been a self-evident proposition, required an extensive diplomatic lobbying campaign by the United States, Israel and a few others. It included the direct, personal participation of President Bush, Vice President Quayle, and Secretary of State Baker; massive efforts by every regional bureau of the Department of State in Washington, American Ambassadors and their staffs in New York and every UN member capital; and lobbying by private groups around the world. The very difficulty of repealing Resolution 3379 showed just how deeply ingrained in the UN system was its anti-Semitic bias, and why, even after repeal, its effects linger.

The UN has repeatedly held Emergency Special Sessions of the General Assembly on Israeli construction in Jerusalem. The Emergency Special Session was originally convened in 1950 for emergencies like the Korean War. In the last 15 years, these special meetings have only been held regarding Israel. Emergency Special Sessions were not convened over the genocide in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, or with regard to the other major world conflicts, but they were convened to condemn Israelis moving into buildings they own in territory they have a legitimate claim to.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_faq_palestine_un_anti_israel_bias.php

... In 1974, when the UN General Assembly invited Yaser Arafat to address the body, and in 1975 granted the PLO “observer status”, the first time any non-nation was give such recognition or standing.

Even with this prelude, it was shocking when on November 10, 1975 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), its Resolution 3379, which states as its conclusion..

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_un_zionism_racism.php

Anti-Semitism Entraps U.N.

Palm Beach Post - Nov 7, 1975

By Abba Eban

The United Nations began its life as an anti-Nazi alliance. Thirty years later it is on the way to becoming the world center of anti-Semitism. There is no other tribunal form which such a torrent of abuse is poured forth every year against values, ideals and articles of faith revered by the Jewish people across the centuries. The horrifying truth that Hitler himself would often have felt at home in a forum which gave applause to a gun-toting Yasir Arafat and an obsequious ovation to the murderous Idi Amin.

There is, of course, no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel’s statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal rights of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people to its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.

Zionism is nothing more — but also nothing less — that the Jewish people’s sense of origin and destination in the land linked eternally with its name. It is also the instrument whereby the Jewish nation seeks an authentic fulfillment of itself.

And the drama is enacted in the region in which the Arab nation has realized its sovereignty in 20 states comprising 200 million people in four and a half million square miles, with vast resources.

The issue therefore is not whether the world will come to terms with Arab nationalism. The question is at what point Arab nationalism, with its prodigious glut if advantage, wealth and opportunity, will come to terms with the modest but equal right of another Middle Eastern nation to pursue its life in security and peace.

There are any ways in which Zionism can be defined. I hold in memory a concise formulation made 28 years ago: When Arab armies has attacked Israel on the day of its birth. Andrei Gromyko said in the Security Council on May 21, 1948, that Arab military operations were “aimed at the suppression of a national liberation movement.” It is as simple as that. Truth does not change just because those who proclaim it get tired of their own veracity.

Recently, a coalition of Moslem and Communist depotisms, reinforced, I hope temporarily, by a few Latin-American governments, produced an innovation. In the past decade it has often been possible for the United Nations to adopt resolutions criticizing the policies of member states — provided only that they are non-Moslem non-Communist states which practice parliamentary democracy and are not in the “third world” There are not very many of these, and these alone are considered fair game.

But never before until recently has the Moslem-Communist coalition sought to deploy its assured majority for the defamation of an ideology, a historic doctrine and a spiritual faith endorsed by the United Nations itself 28 years ago. What the General Assembly’s Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Committee conducted was not so much a debate as a doctrinal Inquisition, as in the Middle Ages.

The Intellectual default is no less spectacular that the moral decline. The charge is, of all things, “racism”! Yet it is just as natural for Arabs to be citizens and members of Parliament in Israel today as it is inconceivable for non-Moslems to be citizens, still less office-holders, in Saudi Arabia or Yemen.

The real essence of the draft resolution is to affirm a principle of monolithic exclusiveness for the Middle East, and to iron out all wrinkles of diversity. Thus, Kurdish individualities brutally oppressed in Iraq; the Christian particularity of Lebanon is to be drowned in a bloodbath; and Israel’s specific Jewish vocation is assailed. The purpose of the resolution’s sponsors is that in a region where many nations, tongues and faiths had their birth the monopoly of independence must be for Moslem pan-Arabism alone. The paradox is that Israel is less likely than others to be injured by the fiasco. The strongest of certainties is that Israel will not disappear, or be swallowed up into something else, or renounce its name, its tongue, its faith, its Jewish solidarities or its Zionist vocation...

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7iYvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qs0FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3758,2505344

Zionism and the U.N.

New York Times - Nov 3, 1975

By Abba Eban

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20810FE3B5F1B7493C1A9178AD95F418785F9

Out of step: life-story of a politician : politics and religion in a world ...‎ - Page 112 Jack Brian Bloom - Antisemitism - 2005 - 391 pages

"Arabism is racism" would have been an interesting debating topic. The OIC
countries were very clever in how they deflected the slavery issue that could so easily have been turned on them with a vengeance

http://books.google.com/books?lr=&cd=25&id=Kr2gAAAAMAAJ&dq=arabism+is+racism

Arabism Equals Racism

By: Gerald A. Honigman

FrontPageMagazine.com Friday, October 13, 2006

There’s an expression, “The pot calling the kettle black.” It refers to someone claiming a sin in others that is at least as prevalent - if not more so - in the accuser than it is in the accused. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

Turn the clock back three decades.

Some things change, others never will - such as the acceptance of anyone else’s political rights in a multi-ethnic region that most Arabs see exclusively as “purely Arab patrimony.” That’s the Arab-Israel conflict in a nutshell; but it is also the core of the Arab-Berber, Arab-Kurd, Arab-Black African, Arab-Copt, Arab-Assyrian, Arab-non-Arab Lebanese conflicts, as well, among others. The Arabs’ Anfal Campaign against the Kurds and their actions in Darfur and the rest of the southern Sudan are just a few of many examples of Arab genocidal actions against all who might disagree.

To be accepted, and not literally exterminated, one must do what Egypt’s most successful Copt did - consent to this age-old forced subjugation and Arabization. Dr. Boutros Boutros Ghali became a top official in President Anwar Sadat’s government and went on to become Secretary General of the United Nations, as well.

“Uncle Butros” instead of “Uncle Tom”.

He also instructed that for it to be accepted, Israel, as an entire country, must consent to being Arabized; like those Kurdish kids in Syrian Kurdistan who are forced today to sing songs praising their “Arab identity” and so forth.

Back in the 1970s, I was a consultant for a major organization while trying to finish my own doctoral work. One of my main jobs involved being brought in by dozens of major colleges and universities across a three-state region in the American Midwest to balance anti-Israel spokesmen on campus. One such visit was to Ohio University in Athens, near my small-mouth bass fishing grounds in the Hocking River.

OU was famous for its English language program for foreign students, so there were numerous folks there from all over the Arab and African worlds.

Those were the days of the United Nations’ infamous Zionism Equals Racism resolution. Arab and pro-Arab professors were already hijacking the campus scene, constantly putting Israel under the high-power lens of moral scrutiny in ways that they would never dream of doing to the Jewish State’s surrounding Arab neighbors.

It was arranged for me to come to deliver a lecture to balance one given previously by the other side.

The Arabs and their supporters - often left-wing Jews themselves - were “loaded for game” when they heard of my invitation. But so was I.

I was a card-carrying member of the London-based Anti-Slavery Society, and persistent reports were coming through of slavery (and worse) still being practiced in Arab lands, the lands of some of the same folks screaming about alleged “Zionist racists”. I prepared a small booklet called “Look Who’s Calling the Kettle Black”, which consisted of about a dozen short articles dealing with the hypocrisy of the Arab position. I had numerous copies prepared for distribution.

I had some of my host students in the audience ready for action. They were in the company of hundreds who packed the lecture hall, including college officials, professors and so forth. Unlike some of the Hillel organizations elsewhere, the director at OU was on the ball when it came to these issues. My cadre consisted largely of Hillel members.

After my presentation, I had my usual question-and-answer session. That’s when the proverbial manure hit the fan. I was anticipating a Zionism-equals-racism question from the audience and, sure enough, I was blessed with one.

I calmly replied, “Since you are so concerned about such issues, I believe you’ll be interested in the packet of information you are about to receive.”

I then had my cadre pass out the “Look Who’s Calling The Kettle Black” booklets.

After the commotion and dust settled, and it was time to leave for my hotel, several carloads of Arab students followed me. Some members of my group decided it was best to keep me company that night. Think of the Danish cartoons and the Pope’s comment incidents today. The Arab idea of free speech is the same now as it was back then, and as it has always been.

The next day, before returning to my office in Columbus, I decided to visit the nearby famous boot factory in Nelsonville.

What I’m going to relate next may sound a bit melodramatic, but it was for real.

I was on one of the top floors of the factory outlet looking at brand-name dress boots. There was hardly anyone else there, so I was sort of isolated.

All of a sudden, I spotted a half dozen tall, Black men down the aisle from me. One of them then called out, “Mr. Hooonigmannn!”

After my experience the night before, I figured that my time on Earth was up. There were definitely folks at OU who wanted to kill me that night. I nervously stood my ground as they ran up to me.

And if you offered me a million dollars, I would not have traded it for the subsequent experience.

As they grabbed my hands, they said, “Thank you so much for last night. We had never heard or seen what you shared with us before.”

Should I be ashamed to tell you of the tears in my eyes at that moment?

These were not just any folks. These were students, sent by their countries, who would later go on to become some of those nations’ future professionals and leaders.

As I did on dozens of other campuses, through scores of other platforms, and in dozens of op-eds for leading newspapers all over the region, I tried my best to help change some minds - one at a time.

The struggle is as hard, if not harder, today, but those of us who care have no other choice but to continue in this ever-growing uphill battle for a bit of justice for the Jew of the nations.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24912

Canadian Friends ICEJ Spearheaded Successful Campaign To ...


INFAMOUS UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 3379 DECLARING...
http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/anti3379.html

One Against the World

UN resolutions established the State of Israel and through them this country ... the notorious resolution equating Zionism with racism, passed in November 1975 .... law became increasingly central to the UN agenda, the Arab lobby has been...

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/un/one.html

United Nations Anti Israel Arab Lobby

The most repugnant of these anti-Semitic resolutions came in November 1975,..

http://www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org/united_nations.htm

THE UN'S ANTI-ZIONISM RESOLUTION: CHRISTIAN RESPONSES...

by JH Banki

United Nations resolution equating Zionism with racism "be counter- balanced ..... than the Arab lobby usually encounters on UN votes...

http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/740.PDF

The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America's Interests in the Middle East - Page 411 - Mitchell Bard - HarperCollins, 2010 - 412 pages

... Zionism and racism resolution 3379...

http://books.google.com/books?id=QKraRyoXbvoC&pg=PA411

Tags: 1975, Anti-Semitism, Arab anti-Semitism, Arab racism, Arabism is racism, Arafat, Idi Amin, Islamic anti-Semitism, Islamic bigotry, Islamofascism, Israel, palestinians, pan Arabism, pan Islamism, UN, UN resolution 3379, United Nations

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity [Under bloody Arab-Islamic lobby]

The United Nations: Accessory to Slavery and other Crimes Against Humanity
Hudson New York - Simon Deng
October 19, 2011 at 5:00 am

Like you, I came to this conference, The Perils of Global Intolerance to protest this third Durban conference which is an effort based on a set of lies, and organized by nations who are themselves are guilty of the worst kinds of oppression.

Durban III will not help the victims of racism. It will only isolate and target the Jewish state. It is a tool of the enemies of Israel. The UN has lost its way. Its obsession with the Jewish obvious: . For over 50 years, 82% of the UN General Assembly emergency meetings have been about condemning one state - Israel. Hitler could not have been made happier.

Given all the good Israel does in the world, given its democracy and its striving to follow the highest standards of human rights, even in the face of the most brutal, the most fanatic enemies, the Durban Conference is an outrage. All decent people know that.

But friends, I come here today to make a different case. I come with what you might at first think is a radical proposition: I come to tell you that there are peoples who suffer from the UN's anti-Israelism even more than the Israelis. I belong to one of those people.

By exaggerating Palestinian suffering, and by blaming the Jews for it, the UN has muffled the cries of those who suffer on a far larger scale.

For over fifty years the indigenous black African population of Sudan -- Christians and Muslims alike --- have been the victims of the brutal, racist Arab Muslim regimes in Khartoum.

In South Sudan, my homeland, Sudan, about four million innocent men, women and children were slaughtered from 1955 to 2005. Seven million were ethnically cleansed, and they became the largest refugee group since World War II.

Everybody at the United Nations is concerned about the so-called Palestinian refugees. They dedicated a separate agency to provide for them; this agency, UNWRA, treats them with a special privilege.

Meanwhile, my people, ethnically cleansed, murdered and enslaved, are relatively ignored. The UN even resisted using the word "slavery" to describe the enslavement of tens of thousands of my people. Why? Because slavery is a crime against humanity, apparently no one committing it wanted to end up before an international court. When Khartoum insisted that the term "abducted people" be substituted for the word "slaves," the UN, caved to Arab pressure and agreed. Try that in America. Try calling Frederick Douglas an "abducted person." It is outrageous.

The UN refuses to tell the world the truth about the root causes of Sudan's conflicts. Take Darfur, for example. Who knows really what is happening in Darfur? It is not a "tribal conflict." It is a conflict rooted in Arab colonialism, as it has typically been practiced in Africa. In Darfur, a region in the Western Sudan everybody is Muslim. Everybody is Muslim because the Arabs invaded the North of Africa and converted the indigenous people to Islam In the eyes of the Islamists in Khartoum, the Darfuris are not Muslim enough. And they also do not want to be Arabized. They like their own African languages and dress and customs. They resist Arabization. The Arab response is genocide. But nobody tells the truth about Darfur.

In the Nuba Mountains, another region of Sudan, genocide is taking place as I speak. The regime is targeting the black Africans -- Muslims and Christians. This happened to the Nuba people before. In the 1990's hundreds of thousands were murdered; a large number of women were raped; children were abducted and forcibly converted to Islam. Nobody at the UN told the truth about the Nuba Mountains.

Do you see a massive amount of outrage and reports and protests about this coming out of the UN or Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International? Do you hear them condemn Arab anti-black racism?

Look at the pages of the New York Times, or the record of the UN condemnations, What you will find is "Israeli crimes" and Palestinian suffering. My people have been driven off the front pages by the exaggerations of Palestinian suffering. Why? Because what Israel does is portrayed as a Western sin that we are all supposed to address.

The truth is that the West commits a real sin when it abandons us: the actual victims of non-Westerns. Our suffering has become almost taboo.

Let me return to the topic of slavery: while there are issues that divide public opinion, we can all agree that for one man to own another is a sin, and it should be stopped. The Americans tore themselves apart over the issue of slavery.

Chattel slavery, a centuries-long practice in Sudan, was revived as a tool of war in the early '90s. The Islamist regime in Khartoum declared jihad, or holy war, and thereby legitimized taking slaves as war booty. Arab militias were sent to destroy Southern villages and were encouraged to take African women and children as slaves. We believe that up to 200,000 were kidnapped, brought to the North and sold into slavery.

I am a living proof of this crime against humanity.

I do not like talking about my experience as a slave, but I do it because it is important for the world to know that slavery exists even today.

I was only nine years old when I was made a slave. An Arab neighbor named Abdullahi tricked me into following him to a boat destined to Northern Sudan where he gave me as a gift to his family. For three and a half years I was their slave going through something that no child should ever go through: brutal beatings and humiliations; working around the clock; sleeping on the ground with animals; eating the family's left-overs. During those three years I was unable to say the word "no." All I could say was "yes," "yes," "yes."

The United Nations knew about the brutal enslavement of South Sudanese by the Arabs from the early days of the conflict. Human Right Watch issued extensive reports about the issue. These reports gathered dust on UN shelves. It took UNICEF – under pressure from the Jewish –led American Anti-Slavery Group -- sixteen years to acknowledge what was happening.

As soon as the Sudanese government and the Arab League pressured UNICEF, the UN agency backtracked, and proceeded to criticize the Non-Governmental Organizations that worked to liberate Sudanese slaves. In 1998, Dr. Gaspar Biro, the courageous UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Sudan who reported on slavery, resigned in protest of the UN's actions.

My friends, today, tens of thousands of black South Sudanese still serve their masters in the North and the UN is silent about that. It would offend the OIC and the Arab League. So much for "human rights for everybody".

As a former slave and a victim of the worst sort of racism, allow me to explain why I think calling Israel a racist state is absolutely absurd and immoral.

I have been to Israel five times visiting the Sudanese refugees. Let me tell you how they ended up there. These are Sudanese who fled Arab racism, hoping to find shelter in Egypt. They were wrong. In 2005, the refugees camped outside the offices of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees in Cairo looking for mercy. Instead, the United Nations closed its doors and left the helpless women and children at the mercy of the ruthless Egyptian security forces who brutally slaughtered at least 26 of them.

After this event the Sudanese realized that Arab racism is the same, whether it is in Khartoum or in Cairo. So they continued looking for a shelter and they found it in Israel. Dodging the bullets of the Egyptian border patrols and walking for punishingly long distances, the refugees' only hope was to reach Israel's side of the fence, where they knew they would be safe.

The fact that even Darfuris, who are Muslims, chose Israel above all the other Arab-Muslim states of the area, speaks volumes.. Israel is racist? Israel is against the Muslim world? Ask the thousands of black Muslim Darfuris who found shelter inside the Jewish state.

When I asked the refugees about the treatment they receive in Israel, their response is absolutely the opposite of what the United Nations alleges. They were welcomed and treated like human beings. Compared to the situation in Egypt, they described their lives in Israel as "heaven." No-one called them "abid" – an Arabic word for slaves often used in Sudan, Egypt and other Arab nations.

Is Israel a racist state? To my people, the people who know racism – the answer is absolutely not. It is a state of people of the colors of the rainbow. Jews themselves come in all colors, even black. I met with beautiful black Ethiopian Jews in Israel. Israel is a state that has taken my own black people in, rescued them, and helped them.

So, yes … my claim may be a radical claim: I claim that the victims who suffer most from the UN's anti-Israel policy are not just the Israelis but all those people who have to be ignored in order for the UN to tell its big lie against Israel: all those victims of non Western abuse, especially all those victims of Arab and Muslim abuse: women, ethnic minorities, religious minorities, homosexuals, in the Arab and Muslim world. These are the biggest victims of UN Israel hatred.

So far, the Israelis have only been cursed by the UN. But look at the situation of the Copts, the Christians in Iraq, and Nigeria, and Iran, the Hindus and Bahais and Sikhs who suffer from Islamic oppression. We all suffer. We are ignored, we are abandoned so that the big lie against the Jews can go forward.

Before I conclude let me tell you a story that reflects a special connection that the people of South Sudan feel toward Israel. In 2005, I visited one of the refugee camps in South Sudan. I met a twelve year old girl who told me about her dream. In a dream she wanted to go to school to become a doctor, and then, she wanted to visit Israel. I was shocked and numb. How could this refugee girl who spent most of her life in the North know about Israel? When I asked why she wanted to visit Israel, she said: "This is our people." I was never able to find an answer to my question.

On July 9 of 2011 South Sudan became an independent state. We achieved freedom despite the opposition from the Arab world and despite the United Nations, whose General Secretary, Bi Ki Moon, lobbied for the unity of Sudan. For the South Sudanese, that would mean continuation of oppression, brutalization, demonization, Islamization, Arabization and enslavement.

In a similar manner, the Arabs continue denying Jews their right for sovereignty in their homeland; and the Durban III conference continues denying Israel's legitimacy.

As a friend of Israel, I salute the President of the Republic of South Sudan, Salva Kiir, who had the courage to state publicly that South Sudan embassy in Israel will be built--- not in Tel Aviv, but in Jerusalem, the eternal capital of the Jewish people.

I also want to assure you that my own new nation, and all of its people, will oppose racist forums like the Durban III. We will oppose it by simply telling the truth.

This originally appeared in a a slightly different form as an address at a conference titled "The Perils of Global Intolerance", in New York City, September 22, 2011.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2518/united-nations-slavery

Tags: "palestine", Africa, Amnesty, anti Zionism, Arab lobby, Arab oil, Arab oil lobby, Arab racism Islamism, Arabism, Arabism is racism, Arabs, crimes against humanity, Darfur, Durban 3, Durban III, Genocide, HRW, human rights, Intolerance, Islamic bigotry, Islamic Lobby, Islamism is bigotry, Israel, Jihad, middle east, Muslims, OIC, racism, Sudan, UN, United Nations, Zionism

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine

The United Nations Should Not Recognize an Apartheid, Judenrein, Islamic Palestine :: Hudson New York

by Alan M. Dershowitz

September 21, 2011 at 11:30 am

The United Nations is being asked to grant the Palestinians the status of a "state," for at least some purposes. The question arises what kind of a state will it be? In an effort to attract Western support, the Palestinian Authority claims that it will become another "secular democratic state." Hamas, which won the last parliamentary election, disagrees. It wants Palestine to be a Muslim state governed by Sharia Law.

We know what the Palestinian leadership is saying to the West. Now let's look at what its saying to its own people, who will, after all, be the ultimate decision makers if Palestine is indeed a democracy.

The draft constitution for the new state of Palestine declares that "Islam is the official religion in Palestine." It also states that Sharia Law will be "the major source of legislation." It is ironic that the same Palestinian leadership which supports these concepts for Palestine refuses to acknowledge that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people. Israel, in contrast to the proposed Palestinian state, does not have an official state religion. Although it is a Jewish state, that description is not a religious one but rather a national one. It accords equal rights to Islam, Christianity and all other religions, as well as to atheists and agnostics. Indeed, a very high proportion of Israelis describe themselves as secular.

The new Palestinian state would prohibit any Jews from being citizens, from owning land or from even living in the Muslim state of Palestine. The Ambassador of the PLO to the United States was asked during an interview whether "any Jew who is inside the borders of Palestine will have to leave?" His answer: "Absolutely!" After much criticism, the Ambassador tried to spin his statement, saying that it applied only to Jews "who are amid the occupation." Whatever that means, one thing is clear: large numbers of Jews will not be welcome to remain in Islamic Palestine as equal citizens. In contrast, Israel has more than 1 million Arab citizens, most of whom are Muslims. They are equal under the law, except that they need not serve in the Israeli army.

The new Palestine will have the very "law of return" that it demands that Israel should give up. All Palestinians, no matter where they live and regardless of whether they have ever set foot in Palestine, will be welcome to the new state, while a Jew whose family has lived in Hebron for thousands of years will be excluded.

To summarize, the new Palestinian state will be a genuine apartheid state. It will practice religious and ethnic discrimination, it will have one official religion and it will base its laws on the precepts of one religion. Imagine what the status of gays will be under Sharia law!

Palestinian leadership accuses Israel of having roads that are limited only to Jews. This is entirely false: a small number of roads on the West Bank are restricted to Israelis, but they are equally open to Israeli Jews, Muslims and Christians alike. The entire state of Palestine will have a "no Jews allowed" sign on it.

It is noteworthy that the very people who complain most loudly about Israel's law of return and about its character as the nation state of the Jewish people, are silent when it comes to the new Palestinian state. Is it that these people expect more of Jews than they do of Muslims? If so, is that not a form of racism?

What would the borders of a Palestinian state look like if the Palestinians got their way without the need to negotiate with Israel? The Palestinians would get, as a starting point, all of the land previously occupied by Jordan prior to the 1967 War, in which Jordan attacked Israel. This return to the status quo that led to the 6 Day War is inconsistent with the intention of Security Council Resolution 242, which contemplated some territorial changes.

The new boundaries of this Palestinian state would include Judaism's holiest place, the Western Wall. It would also include the access roads to Hebrew University, which Jordan used to close down this great institution of learning founded by the Jews nearly 100 years ago. The new Palestinian state would also incorporate the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, in which Jews have lived for 3000 years, except for those periods of time during which they were expelled by force.

It is contemplated, of course, that Israel would regain these areas as part of a land swap with the Palestinians. But there is no certainty that the Palestinians would agree to a reasonable land swap. Palestinian leaders have already said that they would hold these important and sacred sites hostage to unreasonable demands. For example, the Western Wall covers only a few acres, but the Palestinian leadership has indicated that these acres are among the most valuable in the world, and in order for Israel to regain them, they would have to surrender thousands of acres. The same might be true of the access road to Hebrew University and the Jewish Quarter.

When Jordan controlled these areas, the Jordanian government made them Judenrein—Jews could not pray at the Western Wall, visit the Jewish Quarter, or have access to Hebrew University. There is no reason to believe that a Palestinian state would treat Jews any differently if they were to maintain control over these areas.

An Apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the outcome of negotiations with Israel, and not the result of a thoughtless vote by the United Nations.

The Palestinians and Israeli leaders are now in New York. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered to sit down and negotiate, with no preconditions, a realistic peace based on a two-state solution. President Abbas should accept that offer, which will actually get the Palestinians a viable state rather than a cheap paper victory that will raise expectations but lower the prospects for real peace.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/2442/united-nations-palestine

Push for Palestinian state at UN must be rejected: It will hurt Arabs and Jews alike

New York Daily News - Alan Dershowitz - Wednesday, September 21st 2011, 4:00 AM


An apartheid, Islamic, Judenrein Palestine based on the 1967 borders is a prescription for disaster. That is why a reasonable Palestinian state must be the ...

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/09/21/2011-09-21_push_for_
palestinian_state_at_un_must_be_rejected_it_will_hurt_arabs_and_jews_al.html

Inernational: From Israel to New York - Jews, Christians Protest Hamas Led ...‎ Israel News Agency


By Joel Leyden

Israel News Agency


New York --- September 20, 2011 .... Thousands of Jewish and Christian protesters are taking to the streets in Jerusalem and in New York to protest a UN vote on the creation of a Hamas led Palestine...


The issue is not a vote at the UN. The issue is that of an all out PR campaign of incitement and violence coordinated by Iran, Syria, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah which will transcend into a regional war in the Middle East.


The Israel Defense Forces are preparing for mass riots as the Israel Defense Forces Home Front Command prepares bomb shelters for it's citizens.


Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, criticized the Palestinian effort last Friday, calling it a violation of the Oslo Accords, the 1993 agreement between Israel and the PLO.


"The Palestinians made a commitment to Israel and the world, to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations. The Palestinians are violating their signed commitments."


Regev also threatened the PA, saying that if they proceed with their UN action either with the General Assembly or the Security Council, "Israel will reserve the right to respond in kind". Several Israel lawmakers have suggested responding by annulling the accords or by annexing all or part of the entire West Bank. The West Bank, which never belonged to any entity known as Palestine, belonged to Jordan before the 1967 war.


While many protest a UN vote for a Palestine that has openly stated that it would not allow Jews inside their country, a state of Apartheid, Americans are also out in the streets protesting the arrival of Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The New York based advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran, is protesting outside the Warwick Hotel in Manhattan where Ahmadinejad is staying.


"Ahmadinejad is the leader of a criminal regime allied with al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and guilty of atrocious human rights violations," the group said in a statement. "Would the Warwick be willing to accommodate Osama bin Laden's successor Ayman al-Zawahiri were he to visit Manhattan?"

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/unprotestsdemonstrationshamas
palestinepaabbasnetanyahuvoteterrorism
israeljewishchristianswarislamicjihadi
ransyriafacebookgroupusidfwar48092011.html

Tags: Abbas, Apartheid palestine, Arab apartheid, Arab immigration into palestine, Arab racism, Arabs, Ethnic Cleansing, ethno-religious cleansing, Fatah, genocide, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam, Islamic apartehid, Islamic Bigotry, Islamofascism, Jews, Jihad, judenrein, judenrein Palestine, Muslims, Palestine, Palestinians, Politics, Religion, religious cleansing, UN, United Nations, violence, war on terror, Zionism

Qaddafi's puppet 'Al-Hajjaji,' chairing Durban 'racist Arab controlled "anti-racism" conference' is "investigating" that country's Human rights?

Qaddafi's puppet 'Al-Hajjaji,' chairing Durban 'racist Arab controlled "anti-racism" conference' is "investigating" that country's Human rights?

Watchdog Group Demands Removal Of Libyan Human Rights Investigator...
U.N. Watch, an organization that monitors the world body, says Libyan envoy Najat Al-Hajjaji should be the ‘last person’ investigating human rights abuses, as Libyan jets drop bombs on rebel forces in her homeland. A watchdog group is asking the U.N. to immediately remove a Libyan envoy from her post as an investigator on human rights violations by mercenaries, saying that as a mouthpiece for a regime that’s “deploying hired guns to massacre its own people” it’s “outrageous” to have her in that position.

But it’s not the first time Al-Hajjaji’s been in a controversial post.

In 2003 she was elected president of the Human Rights Commission against objections from human rights groups and the U.S.

"It is not appropriate for a nation under U.N. sanctions -- a nation with the horrible human rights record that Libya has -- to be chairman of this commission," then U.S. ambassador, Kevin Moley, said at the time.

As someone who “whitewashed the crimes of the Qaddafi regime” for more than a decade, “she also shouldn’t have been the head of the world conference on racism, the Durban II conference, which she chaired for two years,” Neuer added.

But Neuer said it would be hard to imagine a position that would be more of an “obscene irony” than her current one.

“Everybody knew she was sitting on this mercenary group and no one said a thing…and the question is why not?”

In a letter sent Monday to UN chief Ban Ki-moon, U.N. rights commissioner Navi Pillay, and UNHRC president Sihasak Phuangketkeow, U.N. Watch demanded that the officials take immediate action to expel Al-Hajjaji.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/08/group-calls-libyan-envoys-removal-post-investigator-mercenaries/

Exposed: Qaddafi rep is UN council’s “expert on mercenaries”

http://www.unwatch.org/cms.asp?id=1468682&campaign_id=63111

THE REAL WORLD



A Tyrants Club


The U.N. Human Rights Commission is worse than a joke.



BY CLAUDIA ROSETT



Wednesday, January 22, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST



[The Wall Street Journal]



Among those who value liberty and justice, the United Nations' choice of Libya to chair this year's session of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has been widely described as a defeat. By some lights it's a defeat for the U.S.--which protested giving this post to an emissary of terror-sponsoring tyrant Moammar Gadhafi. By U.S. standards it's a
defeat for the Human Rights Commission and the entire system of international justice the U.N. pretends to promote. All of which sounds bad, but comfortably abstract; just one more round of folly at the U.N.

[...]

It is a betrayal of millions upon millions of people living under governments so brutal--from North Korea to Turkmenistan to Iraq--that most citizens do not dare to demand the freedoms that belong by right to all human beings.


[...]

It is absurd, in fact, to describe the exaltation on Monday of Libya's Ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji to head of the Human Rights Commission as the product of a "vote." That implies there was some sort of democratic process at work... Among the 33 governments that voted in favor of Libya were almost certainly the rulers of such civic sinkholes as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Cuba and Zimbabwe. Like the despots in Syria, Vietnam and China, these are folks who do not have the guts to face a genuine system of democracy back home..


It's much worse than that. Putting Libya in a spot to set the U.N. agenda on human rights is not simply a defeat of justice and human dignity. It is a betrayal.

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070226161249/http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110002944

The U.N.'s Racist Conference On Racism - Forbes.com Dec 4, 2008 ... Billed as an effort to fight racism, that Durban conclave focused instead on ... is chaired by a Libyan ambassador, Najat Al-Hajjaji.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/03/racism-durban-conference-oped-cx_cr_1204rosett.html

Tags: al-Hajjaji, Arab racism, Arab world, Arabism, Arabism is racism, Arabs, discrimination, Durban, Durban 2, Durban II, Gaddafi, Gadhafi, HRW, human rights, human rights violation, human rights watch, Islamic Bigotry, Libya, Libyan Arab Republic, Middle East, Najat Al-Hajjaji, oppression, Qaddafi, UN, United Nations

More on the undemocratic anti Israel "critics"

Hey NIF: Criticism is a Democratic Right

By Anne Herzberg Legal adviser of NGO Monitor Sat Feb 12 2010

(http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=167765)

It’s strange that groups claiming to be well-versed in human rights seem so unfamiliar with the concept of free speech.

Those who make a full-time pursuit of criticizing others probably should grow thicker skin. Yet the New Israel Fund (NIF) and its NGO grantees have launched a thin-skinned offensive against an Israeli student group that criticized them. And they have dragged NGO Monitor into the fray.

As soon as Im Tirtzu released its report detailing how Israeli human rights organizations contributed to the Goldstone Report, NIF backers unleashed ad hominem attacks against the student group and against NGO Monitor (though we were not involved in the report). NIF has threatened to sue Im Tirtzu and any newspaper that repeats its findings. It also sent a letter to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu calling NGO Monitor “the rotten fruit of Israeli democracy.”

The record needs to be set straight regarding many troubling aspects of NIF’s combative reaction. To avert criticism of their activities, many of the non-governmental organizations highlighted in Im Tirtzu’s report - such as B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel - are promoting the canard that if only Israel had cooperated with Richard Goldstone and his UN fact-finding mission on the Gaza war, his report would not have been as outrageously one-sided as it turned out to be.

In truth, there is no evidence that Israeli participation in the Goldstone mission would have changed the outcome of the widely panned report.

Goldstone’s mission was the product of a political war conducted against Israel in the UN Human Rights Council. Led by some of the world’s most abusive regimes - including China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia - this corrupt body has ignored mass atrocities such as the genocide in Darfur, the slaughter of more than 25,000 Sri Lankans and the forced starvation and enslavement of North Koreans. Indeed, the Goldstone mission was created by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to deflect attention from the horrific abuses of its member states and their supporters. In fact, according to the International Criminal Court prosecutor, Goldstone’s mission was financed by the Arab League.

FOR HIS part, Goldstone went along with the farce. Where facts exonerating the IDF existed - whether from the UN, the Israeli Foreign Ministry or independent sources - Goldstone apparently ignored or twisted such evidence, choosing instead to credit Hamas sources.

Israeli NGOs played a central role in laying the foundation for Goldstone’s untenable report. During the fighting in Gaza, these groups issued nonstop allegations of “war crimes,” “collective punishment” and intentional murder of civilians. They delivered countless publications containing speculative and unconfirmed claims used to bolster the HRC’s predetermined conclusions. Much of the Goldstone Report was based directly on these inflammatory charges.

Rather than admit their role, these organizations now seek to absolve themselves of responsibility. While NGO assertions of Goldstone’s fairness are perhaps rooted in naiveté, the attempts by the NIF and its grantees to muzzle critics are far more pernicious. Since NGO Monitor first raised the issue of European government funding for supposedly “nongovernmental” organizations (many of which also receive financial and other support from the NIF), these groups have resorted to childish attacks. They have bizarrely characterized NGO Monitor as “extremist” and “right-wing” (whatever those terms mean), and complained that simply reporting on their funding and activities amounts to “repression of dissent.”

But the right of expression always comes with the potential for disapproval. It is strange that groups claiming to be so well-versed in human rights seem so unfamiliar with the concept of free speech.

These attacks must not divert attention from the massive power that NIF and its beneficiaries wield. NIF has an annual budget of $32 million. Its Israeli grantees also receive tens of millions annually from the EU, European governments, the US-based Ford Foundation and George Soros’s Open Society Institute.

NIF-funded NGOs regularly engage in public relations blitzes, often facilitated by professional media consultants. They hold press conferences, issue glossy publications in multiple languages, and contribute regular op-eds and articles to high-profile media outlets such as Ma’ariv, Haaretz, The New York Times, and Huffington Post. They regularly submit reports at the UN and send representatives to conferences in Europe and America. B’Tselem has a growing lobbying office in Washington and a representative in the UK.

NGO Monitor researchers have analyzed NIF funding practices for years. While the organization does some positive work in Israel that should be applauded, it refuses to engage in debate regarding several of its grantees that demonize Israel at the UN, support boycott and divestment campaigns, promote “lawfare” cases against Israeli officials, and even advocate erasing the Jewish character of the state. Significantly, many NIF donors are unaware of these activities. NIF has rebuffed all of NGO Monitor’s attempts to discuss appropriate “red lines” for the groups they fund.


Perhaps if NIF would stop name-calling and threatening lawsuits, the path would be open for a constructive debate about the role several NIF-supported NGOs have played in the demonization of Israel, and their exploitation by reactionary and totalitarian forces at the UN. Instead of blocking healthy discussion, NIF and its grantees should welcome this conversation - a conversation that would benefit NIF donors, the Israeli public and, ultimately, Israeli democracy.

The writer is the legal adviser of NGO Monitor

http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3895&q=1

'Goldstone Report was our smoking gun’
BY ABE SELIG
18/02/2010 23:33


How did Im Tirtzu go from organizing campus demonstrations to compiling a major report that has reverberated into a major scandal?

How did Im Tirtzu-The Second Zionist Revolution, which was created less than four years ago as a small student organization to voice support for IDF reservists, go from organizing campus demonstrations during the Second Lebanon War to compiling a major report that has reverberated into a major scandal?

One of the reasons, The Jerusalem Post learned this week, was that the document the group released last month, now known as the “Im Tirtzu Report,” which listed the New Israel Fund as a main financier of more than a dozen Israeli NGOs – including: The Association for Civil Rights in Israel; Adalah, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; Bimkom-Planners for Planning Rights; Gisha-Legal Center for Freedom of Movement; HaMoked-Center for the Defense of the Individual; Physicians for Human Rights-Israel; the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel; and Yesh Din-Volunteers for Human Rights – that provided testimony used in the UN’s Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead, was the result of efforts modeled after military intelligence operations that trace and pinpoint money trails leading to terrorist organizations.

Im Tirtzu head Ronen Shoval, told the Post this week that the detailed report, which has continued to make waves both in civil society and government circles, was “modeled after the way intelligence agencies look into the financing of terror groups.”

“We invested great efforts to understand the funding strategy and ideology behind the NIF, and what we found out is just the tip of the iceberg,” Shoval said, although he declined to elaborate.

While some questions regarding Im Tirtzu’s inspiration and practical use of intelligence tactics remain unanswered, Shoval did say that he and his group had “always known that the [NGOs that reported to the Goldstone Commission] were getting support from the same place, but after the Goldstone Report was released, we saw that they had crossed a red line.

“The Goldstone Report was our smoking gun,” he said. “It showed that these groups were not engaging in constructive criticism, but destructive criticism, and working to harm the state.

“We also knew that the testimonies they gave were highly flawed and often without attributions,” he said. “So it was important for us to research these groups and expose who they’re connected to.

“All we had to do was follow the money,” he continued. “If we were to have gone after these individual groups one at a time, it wouldn’t have been nearly as efficient. Instead, we decided to go after the source – the NIF – because that’s where the money trail kept leading to.”

While the report resulted in increased support for Im Tirtzu – in addition to the massive publicity it produced, Shoval said hundreds of people had joined Im Tirtzu in the weeks since the report’s release – it also became a strong rallying point for the group’s opponents, including the very NGOs the report targeted.

Dozens of newspaper articles and blog postings accusing Im Tirtzu of “McCarthyism” and even “fascism” surfaced in the wake of the report.

Additionally, an advertisement that was published throughout the Hebrew and Israeli English-language dailies, featuring a caricature of NIF chairwoman and former Meretz MK Naomi Chazan with a horn strapped onto her forehead, drew condemnations comparing it to Der Stürmer – drawing a parallel between Im Tirtzu’s efforts and the Nazi weekly used to dehumanize Jews between 1923 and 1945.

Shoval was unapologetic regarding the ad, dismissing the criticisms as “nonsense.”

“Was the ad successful?” Shoval asked. “I know it was, and therefore it didn’t go too far. Sometimes you have to put the truth right in people’s faces.

“It’s interesting that in the name of free speech, [critics of the ad and report] tried to shut us up,” Shoval continued. “But as far as the ad campaign was concerned, we had to figure out how to come out against a group that no one even knew existed. No one knew who the NIF was, but everyone knows Chazan.

“I don’t have anything personal against her,” Shoval said. “But I’d be happy if her group stopped financing these organizations.”

Shoval also rejected the notion that Im Tirtzu had received government support for the report’s creation.

“A lot of groups, including government bodies, support it,” he said of Im Tirtzu’s report. “But it’s not as if we were receiving instructions from above to carry this thing out. Government officials have responded with interest to our findings, simply because they agree that these groups and their actions present a strategic threat.

“For us, we look at this information as an ethical issue, not a legal one,” he added, stressing that he had received thousands of e-mails thanking him for the report.

“People have written me saying things like, ‘Finally, you said what we’ve all wanted to say for so long,’ and, ‘It’s about time someone did this’. I think people have just had enough of what these groups are doing.”

And what it is that these NGOs are doing, Shoval clarified, is undermining the state, and disseminating anti-Zionist tropes into Israeli society.

“Basically, anti-Israel groups, including many in Europe, have found Israelis who are willing to do their dirty work,” he said. “In that vein, this is not a right-wing or left-wing issue. It’s about being a Zionist and supporting Israel as a Jewish state – that’s it.”

And such is the essence of Im Tirtzu, Shoval said. What began as an effort to support IDF soldiers – especially during anti-war protests – on university campuses during the Second Lebanon War, has seen Im Tirtzu come into its own as a forceful movement with thousands of members, and the attention – if not backing – of the government.

“We’re trying to bring back faith in the way of the early Zionists,” Shoval said. “And we’ve been successful because we’re portraying our cause as cool and trendy. We want people to understand what it means to be a Zionist today – why they should stay in Israel, why they should go to the reserves.

“And so,” he continued, “Im Tirtzu began as a way to get back to the basics and present alternatives to all of the anti-Zionist sentiments that are out there.”

Shoval said his group was nowhere near slowing down. As for its success in growing from a small, student-based campus organization into a movement with front-page headlines and Knesset members citing its work, Shoval said luck or being in the right place at the right time had little to do with it.

“From the start, we’ve had very intelligent people on-board, planning out how to make this thing work,” he said.

“We always saw the university campuses as a means to an end, and part of a 10 year plan that would bring us from a student group to an influential force in Israeli society.”

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=169091

Tags: "palestinians", Adalah, and Yesh Din-Volunteers for Human Rights, Anti Israel Bias, Anti Israel Bigotry, Arab racism, Arabs, Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Bimkom-Planners for Planning Rights, Cast Lead, gaza, Gisha-Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, Goldstone report, Hamas, HaMoked-Center for the Defense of the Individual, Im Tirtzu Report, Islamic bigotry, Israel, Jews, Jihad, New Israel Fund, NGO, NIF, Operation Cast Lead, Pallywood, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, terrorist organizations, The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, UN

What a world:: Racist Arabs & Islamic bigots call the victims of their racism - "racists"

Forget the fact that Israel is multi-racial for all colors from the whitest of white to the darkest of black, whereas Arab countries (including "Palestinian" authorities") asides from oppressing all non-Arab minorities, are almost entirely "judenrein", but in democratic Israel, an Arab can get the highest office!

But the brazenness of Arab racism not only fails to admit of it's racist war on Jews/Israel since the 1920's, but it brands Israel's defense FROM it as "racist".

.

___________

Israelis aren't 'racist' - they're worried Op-Ed Contributors ...Israel's Arab citizens are being drawn toward radicalism by their leadership.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1167467807212

[Racism of] Killing Jews in Israel
a young Israeli student at Hebron University was gunned down while jogging through a mixed neighborhood of Jews and Arabs. The al Aqsa Brigade, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Yassir Arafat's Fatah movement, joyously claimed credit for the killing of yet another innocent Jew. When it was later learned that the jogger was an Arab-Israeli and not a Jew, al Aqsa quickly apologized to the family, calling it an accident. But the killing of the innocent young jogger was not an accident; the murderer had deliberately taken aim at his head and midsection, intending to end his life. The only thing accidental about the murder was the religion of the victim. The al Aqsa Brigade had sent the assassin to murder a Jew - any Jew, so long as he was a Jew.

This is racism, pure and simple. And despite efforts by supporters of Palestinian terrorism to justify the murder of innocent civilians as national liberationor by any other euphemism, this case proves that the Palestinian terrorists targeting of Jews and only Jews - as many as possible - is little different in intent than other forms of lethal or exterminatory anti-Jewish murders (I dont use the term anti-Semitic only because some Arabs claim that because they too are Semites, they cant be anti-Semitic). Obviously the numbers are different, because Israel is capable of defending its Jewish citizens, but if it were not, the goal of Palestinian terrorist groups would not be very different from that of previous groups intent on murdering as many Jews as possible.
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/israeljewsracismdersh130112.html

The Hamas advocates Killing Jews, simply for being Jews
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=14650

If justifying the murder of innocents because they belong to a certain hated group is not abject racism, I'd like to know what is.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/999795.html

______________

MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD 'Racist' speech walkout‎ - Apr 21, 2009
Diplomats from across the world have walked out of a speech delivered by Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a global anti-racism conference, ...
http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/bild-english/home/regularieninhalte/world-news-ticker/world/2009/04/21/mass-walk-out-at-un-conference-after-racist-iranian-speech.html

Lebanon news - NOW Lebanon -Western leaders horrified at 'racist ...Western leaders horrified at 'racist' Ahmadinejad speech. April 20, 2009. Western leaders recoiled in horror Monday at a fierce anti-Israel outburst by Iran's president at a UN ...
http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=89673

When representatives of many Arab and Muslim nations publicly applaud Ahmadinejad's racist rant, the real losers are the Palestinians. ...
http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/durbanII

Tags: Jihad, war on terror, "palestine", Muslims, Jews, "palestinians", racism, Arabs, Arab racism, Islamic bigotry, UN, Iran, Ahmadinejad, Arabism, Islamism, hitler, Libya, Islamic Hitler, Holocaust, Durban, Durban 2

Boo to the Muslim Hitler - Ahmadinejad Jeered at the racist “anti-racism” conf. UN Durban

Ahmadinejad jeered at anti-racism conference - CNN.com, The opening of a United Nations conference in Switzerland on anti-racism was marred by chaotic scenes Monday as protests and a walkout by delegates … http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/04/20/racism.conference/index.html

Iran’s leader sparks Western walkout at UN meeting, AP – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gestures during his speech at the …. JOE BEE buzzed up: Iran’s leader sparks Western walkout at UN meeting (AP) … http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090420/ap_on_re_eu/un_un_racism_conference

Iran’s leader sparks walkout, shouts of ’shame’ - United Nations …Apr 20, 2009 … Image: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivers his speech … Iran’s leader sparks walkout at U.N. meeting … http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30304767/

European delegates walk out on Iran’s President Mahmoud ...Apr 20, 2009 ... The United States and eight other Western countries, ... That prompted a walkout by some 40 diplomats from European countries such as Britain and ... Ahmadinejad "has made Iran the odd man out," Jonas Gahr Store said. ...

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=7348

Delegates walk out of UN summit during Ahmadinejad speech ... While 40 diplomats representing Britain, France and other European countries...

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/20/israel-un-conference753.html

Boycott, Walkout Mar UN Racism Conference - Radio Free Europe ...Apr 20, 2009 ... Delegations from a number of countries have walked out of a UN ... Some 40 delegates stood and exited the hall amid a mixture of outraged shouts ... EU Walkout Ahmadinejad's invitation to address the conference... http://www.rferl.org/content/Western_Boycott_Mars_UN_Racism_Conference_From_Outset/1612128.html

Apr 20, 2009 ... Delegates walk out of UN summit during Ahmadinejad speech ... While 40 diplomats representing Britain, France and other European countries left later, Ahmadinejad was applauded by some Middle Eastern...

http://news.aol.ca/article/delegates-walk-out-of-un-summit-during-ahmadinejad-speech/602810/

Tags: Palestinians, Palestine, war on terror, Jihad, Islamofascism, Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Arab racism, racism, Arabism, UN, Islamism, Iran, Islamic Bigotry, Hitler, Holocaust, Libya, Islamic Hitler, Ahmadinejad, Durban, Durban 2

Making the world ‘Judenstaatrein’ (Islamic Genocidal Anti Semitism)

Making the world ‘Judenstaatrein’ (Islamic Genocidal Anti Semitism)

jpost ^ 02, 23, 09

Making the world ‘Judenstaatrein’

By IRWIN COTLER

Feb 23, 2009

Some 125 parliamentarians gathered together last week for the historic founding conference of the Interparliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism (ICCA), brought together by a new sophisticated, globalizing, virulent and even lethal anti-Semitism reminiscent of the atmospherics of the 1930s, and without parallel or precedent since the end of World War II.

The new anti-Jewishness overlaps with classical anti-Semitism but is distinguishable from it. It found early juridical, and even institutional, expression in the UN’s “Zionism is racism” resolution - which the late US senator Daniel Moynihan said “gave the abomination of anti-Semitism the appearance of international legal sanction” - but has gone dramatically beyond it. This new anti-Semitism almost needs a new vocabulary to define it; however, it can best be identified using a rights-based juridical perspective.

In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations - the denial of and assault upon the Jewish people’s right even to live - with Israel as the “collective Jew among the nations.”

As the closing “London Declaration” of the ICCA conference affirmed: “We are alarmed at the resurrection of the old language of prejudice and its modern manifestations - in rhetoric and political action - against Jews, Jewish belief and practice and the State of Israel.”

Observing the complex intersections between the old and the new anti-Semitism, and the impact of the new on the old, Per Ahlmark, former leader of the Swedish Liberal Party and deputy prime minister of Sweden, pithily concluded: “Compared to most previous anti-Jewish outbreaks, this [new anti-Semitism] is often less directed against individual Jews. It attacks primarily the collective Jews, the State of Israel. And then such attacks start a chain reaction of assaults on individual Jews and Jewish institutions… In the past, the most dangerous anti-Semites were those who wanted to make the world Judenrein, ‘free of Jews.’ Today, the most dangerous anti-Semites might be those who want to make the world Judenstaatrein, ‘free of a Jewish state.’“

Genocidal Anti-Semitism

The first modality of the new anti-Semitism - and the most lethal type - is what I would call genocidal anti-Semitism. This is not a term that I use lightly or easily. In particular, I am referring to the Genocide Convention’s prohibition against the “direct and public incitement to genocide.” If anti-Semitism is the most enduring of hatreds and genocide is the most horrific of crimes, then the convergence of this genocidal intent embedded in anti-Semitic ideology is the most toxic of combinations.

There are three manifestations of this genocidal anti-Semitism. The first is the state-sanctioned - indeed state-orchestrated - genocidal anti-Semitism of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran, dramatized by the parading in the streets of Teheran of a Shihab-3 missile draped in the emblem “wipe Israel off the Map,” while demonizing both the State of Israel as a “cancerous tumor to be excised” and the Jewish people as “evil incarnate.”

A second manifestation of this genocidal anti-Semitism is in the covenants and charters, platforms and policies of such terrorist movements and militias as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah and al-Qaida, which not only call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be, but also for the perpetration of acts of terror in furtherance of that objective.

The third manifestation of this genocidal anti-Semitism is the religious fatwas or execution writs, where these genocidal calls in mosques and media are held out as religious obligations - where Jews and Judaism are characterized as the perfidious enemy of Islam, and Israel becomes the Salmon Rushdie of the nations.

In a word, Israel is the only state in the world - and the Jews the only people in the world - that are the object of a standing set of threats by governmental, religious and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. The London Declaration - again in a significant clarion call - recognized that “where there is incitement to genocide signatories [to the Genocide Convention] automatically have an obligation to act.” This promise must now be acted upon.

Ideological Anti-Semitism

Ideological anti-Semitism is a much more sophisticated and arguably a more pernicious expression of the new anti-Semitism. It finds expression not in any genocidal incitement against Jews and Israel, or overt racist denial of the Jewish people and Israel’s right to be; rather, ideological anti-Semitism disguises itself as part of the struggle against racism.

The first manifestation of this ideological anti-Semitism was its institutional and juridical anchorage in the “Zionism is racism” resolution at the UN. Notwithstanding the fact that the there was a formal repeal of this resolution, Zionism as racism remains alive and well in the global arena, particularly in the campus cultures of North America and Europe, as confirmed by the recent British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism.

The second manifestation is the indictment of Israel as an apartheid state. This involves more than the simple indictment; it also involves the call for the dismantling of Israel as an apartheid state as evidenced by the events at the 2001 UN World Conference against Racism in Durban.

The third manifestation of ideological anti-Semitism involves the characterization of Israel not only as an apartheid state - and one that must be dismantled as part of the struggle against racism - but as a Nazi one.

And so it is then that Israel is delegitimized, if not demonized, by the ascription to it of the two most scurrilous indictments of 20th-century racism - Nazism and apartheid - the embodiment of all evil. These very labels of Zionism and Israel as “racist, apartheid and Nazi” supply the criminal indictment. No further debate is required. The conviction that this triple racism warrants the dismantling of Israel as a moral obligation has been secured. For who would deny that a “racist, apartheid, Nazi” state should not have any right to exist today? What is more, this characterization allows for terrorist “resistance” to be deemed justifiable - after all, such a situation is portrayed as nothing other than occupation et résistance, where resistance against a racist, apartheid, Nazi occupying state is legitimate, if not mandatory.

Legalized Anti-Semitism

If ideological anti-Semitism seeks to mask itself under the banner of anti-racism, legalized anti-Semitism is even more sophisticated and insidious. Here, anti-Semitism simultaneously seeks to mask itself under the banner of human rights, to invoke the authority of international law and to operate under the protective cover of the UN. In a word - and in an inversion of human rights, language and law - the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena is “legalized.”

But one example of legalized anti-Semitism occurred annually for more than 35 years at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This influential body consistently began its annual session with Israel being the only country singled out for country-specific indictment - even before the deliberations started - the whole in breach of the UN’s own procedures and principles. In this Alice in Wonderland situation, the conviction and sentence were pronounced even before the hearings commenced. Some 30 percent of all the resolutions passed at the commission were indictments of Israel.

After the commission was replaced in June 2006 by the UN Human Rights Council, the new body proceeded to condemn one member state - Israel - in 80% of its 25 country-specific resolutions, while the major human rights violators of our time enjoyed exculpatory immunity. Indeed, five special sessions, two fact-finding missions and a high level commission of inquiry have been devoted to a single purpose: the singling out of Israel.

This week’s ICCA conference and London Declaration unequivocally condemned this “legalized” anti-Semitism, calling out that “governments and the UN should resolve that never again will the institutions of the international community and the dialogue of nations states be abused to try to establish any legitimacy for anti-Semitism, including the singling out of Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena, and we will never witness - or be party to - another gathering like Durban in 2001.”

The Resurgence of Global Anti-Semitism: Evidentiary Data

The data unsurprisingly confirm that anti-Semitic incidents are very much on the rise. Still, the available figures only show half the picture - they demonstrate an increase in this old/new anti-Semitism by concentrating on the traditional anti-Semitic paradigm targeting individual Jews and Jewish institutions, while failing to consider the new anti-Semitic paradigm targeting Israel as the Jew among nations and the fallout from it for traditional anti-Semitism. But the rise in traditional anti-Semitism is bound up with the rise in the new anti-Semitism, insidiously buoyed by a climate receptive to attacks on Jews because of the attacks on the Jewish state. Indeed, reports illustrate both an upsurge in violence and related anti-Semitic crimes corresponding with the 2006 Second Lebanon War and the recent Israel-Hamas war, which delegates to the ICCA conference characterized as a “pandemic.”

Conclusion

It is this global escalation and intensification of anti-Semitism that underpins - indeed, necessitates - the establishment of the ICCA to confront and combat this oldest and most enduring of hatreds. Silence is not an option. The time has come not only to sound the alarm - but to act. For as history has taught us only too well: While it may begin with Jews, it does not end with Jews. Anti-Semitism is the canary in the mine shaft of evil, and it threatens us all.

The writer is a Canadian MP and former minister of justice and attorney-general. He is professor of law (on leave) at McGill University who has written extensively on matters of hate, racism and human rights. He is a co-founder of the Interparliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism with UK MP John Mann.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1233304849224&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Tags: war on terror, Jihad, Islamofascism, Muslims, Jews, Arabs, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islam, Zionism, Anti Israel bigotry, racism, genocide, UN, Al Qaeda, Islamic Bigotry, bigotry, anti Semitism, Israel vs genocide, Durban, Durban 2, Durban II, Judenstaatrein, Islamic Genocidal Anti Semitism, radidal Islam