The State Department issued a terse statement yesterday explaining that the US would not be represented at the Durban review Conference being held this week in Geneva.
The statement gives this reason for the failure to attend:
- the text still contains language that reaffirms in toto the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) from 2001, which the United States has long said it is unable to support. Its inclusion in the review conference document has the same effect as inserting that original text into the current document and re-adopting it. The DDPA singles out one particular conflict and prejudges key issues that can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding “incitement,” that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech.
This seems completely specious. The DDPA deals with numerous conflicts and issues, including these two points:
- # Concerning the Middle East, the DDPA expresses concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation and recognizes the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and the right to an independent state. It also recognizes the right to security for all countries in the region, including Israel, and calls upon all governments to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.
# The DDPA recalls that the Holocaust must never be forgotten.
Which part of that language, in particular, does the Obama administration not agree with? Or which part does it think “can only be resolved in negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians”?
I thought the Obama administration supported the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to security, and the non-forgetting of the Holocaust?
What on earth is it that they’re objecting to?
What on earth is it that they’re objecting to?
The US has stated its problems with the conference.
State: The U.S. believes any viable text for the Review Conference must be shortened and not reaffirm in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA). It must not single out any one country or conflict, nor embrace the troubling concept of “defamation of religion.” The U.S. also believes an acceptable document should not go further than the DDPA on the issue of reparations for slavery.
So the US objections are:
(1) singling out one conflict (I/P)
(2) the troubling concept of “defamation of religion”
The US really has two other problems with this conference:
(1) The labeling of occupation as racism
(2) Any proscriptions against Islamophobia
(1)from the UN:
Reaffirms the commitment to prevent, combat and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance that was a basis for convening the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001; . . .Reiterates that poverty, underdevelopment, marginalization, social exclusion and economic disparities as well as foreign occupation are closely associated with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and contribute to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty;
(2)Proposed by Pakistan, the U.N.’s Human Rights Council debated “defamation of religion — excerpt:
Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism and in this regard regrets the laws or administrative measures specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination they experience;
So the US is afraid of the inclusion of not only I/P but also its own “racist” occupations, and it wants to retain the Islamophobia option. It would be a “troubling concept” to stop defaming Islam, right?
I would include the links, but typepad doesn’t like them.
links: (substitute colons and dots)
http(colon}//www(dot)state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/02/119892.htm
http(colon)//www(dot)ohchr.org/Documents/Press/DODRev1_15-4-2009.pdf
http(colon)//blog(dot)unwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/defreligionsres3-11.DOC
This is the money quote:
“The United States also has serious concerns with relatively new additions to the text regarding “incitement,” that run counter to the U.S. commitment to unfettered free speech”
Read that again, and learn it.
Apply it next time you see an AIPAC statement
So now the moment of truth ….
Helena, you were very optimistic about Obama when the waves brought him to WH,
The problem here is not what we see , believe or what we wish many times expressed by you here about the new US administration (Obama Administration) that wished to bring forward what we hoping.
The fact and I think you should know all US administrations have their agenda nationally and internationally. It’s not the President his own business to plane and execute US politics while he is in WH, he is not more than a chosen employee brought to do what US strategic agenda.
As for ME specifically we never see bold splits between US policies and her support for state of Israel.
Many US citizens and official (especially Neocon) believes that if US didn’t support Israel what will be if State of Israel left to her enemies neighbours!!!
The above statement here very naïve and blind statement, its laughable excuses finding excuses to answers US support to State of Israel.
Why that?
Ok, US support for state Israel with most of here if not all her needs from aids, weapons, intelligences, satellite info and all sorts of support given to her made her the superiority state in the region comparing to her neighbours, but are that all?
Of Course not. The blindness support of US administrations for state of Israel wider and vast, not just security military support, it goes beyond UN and International resolutions and relations. In many cases accusing state of Israel were pushed far beyond the international standards and the limits in regards to the human rights, war crimes and racisms.
So do we expect there are changes with Obama administration with regard with US support of state of Israel?
No I doubt it, it might be some change in tactics but the outcome will be very similar if not exactly as same as for the last 60 years ago.
So this time The US has stated its problems with the conference… as always there is problem likewise in many incident like this.
Btw, don’t for got my example of US and Cuba relations, how many US administrations came and went, what changes they done? they all stick to same polices did they changed No. although there is wind of change its might be needed with rising tensions in Latin America nations and US, and this administration need to bring down this tensions its not good time for US to deal with it right now with Afghanistan, Iraq and ME troubling rears…
Amplifying the “caving” hint, perhaps the US position has something to do with this:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91935§ionid=351020101
Ahmadinejad is there, and before he left, he was spouting off about Israel — e.g., “zionism” — being a “frontrunning” source of racism.
Well, Ahmadinejad has every right to say what he thinks, and wait for the world’s reaction to what he said.
The US government doesn’t even have the guts to defend its positions in public.
First of all, I don’t see why the US boycott is particularly “tragic”. I guess this is just a bit of hyperbolic headlining on the part of our host.
Sure Richard. Ahmedinejad has every right to say what he thinks, but that doesn’t mean that the US or any other state has to dignify the little monkey’s opinions with an acknowledgement, let alone a full-fledged public debate.
JES, calling someone whose actions you strongly disapprove of a ‘monkey’ is inciteful and dehumanizing and doesn’t change anyone’s behavior in any constructive direction.
Well Helena, I was just using the terminology that his fellow Iranians have been reported to use when referring to the somewhat obvious resemblance.
For example, last year an Israeli reporter who spent a few weeks in Iran (and who, BTW, came back with very positive reports on Iran and Iranians) mentioned that he befriended an Iranian who took him to his office. In the lobby of the office was a photo of a monkey, and as each worker entered in the mornining, they casually looked at the picture and said: “Good morning Mr. President!”
At any rate, I don’t think that Ahmadinejad reads your blog, so I didn’t intend to change his behavior. I do think that he will, however, notice that there are a bunch of states boycotting the conference.
BTW, I seem to recall the term “Curious George” in relation to form US President. How did you feel about that?
Geneva is warming up (NY Times).
Mr. Ahmadinejad said the formation of the state of Israel left “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering” in order “to establish a totally racist government.” In response, dozens of delegates stood up and filed out of the room. Cheers erupted from the audience galleries.
Israeli leaders reacted to the welcoming of Mr. Ahmadinejad with deep dismay. In remarks at a cabinet meeting on Monday, the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Six million of our brethren were massacred during the Holocaust. Sadly, not everyone learned the lesson.”
The lesson being taught to Palestinians under the pretext of current Jewish suffering, perhaps?
The DDPA deals with numerous conflicts and issues …
Seems to me, the State Department’s strictly accurate in claiming that the DDPA “singles out one particular conflict”.
Most of the DDPA is generic. A few paragraphs mention specific groups or issues, e.g. “Africans and people of African descent”, “anti-Semitism and Islamophobia”, “Roma/Gypsy/Sinti/Traveller children and youth”. A couple of country-specific historical issues are mentioned (the Holocaust, “the heroic struggle of the people of South Africa against the institutionalized system of apartheid”). As far as I can see, the I/P situation is the only current country-specific conflict explicitly mentioned.
What on earth is it that they’re objecting to?
Just guessing:
(1) As Don Bacon said, they object to the implication that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories is a matter of “racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, or related intolerance”, let alone more worthy of mention in that context than any other country-specific issue.
(2) They object, as “prejudging a key issue”, to para. 65 of the declaration:
(generic language, but located so as to call to mind the application of the general principle to Palestine).
(3) Possibly that they object to the description of the occupation of Palestinian territories by Israel as “foreign” occupation; more likely, some of those whom they aim to appease do so object.
Cheers erupted from the audience galleries.
Don, I’m sorry to rain on your parade. They weren’t cheering for Ahmedinejad. They were cheering for the delegations who were filing out of the auditorium. I saw it on TV.
Furthermore, immediately after Ahmedinejad’s speech, Ban Ki Moon castigated him on his criticism of Israel and, more to the point, Zionism.
As for Netanyahu’s remarks, they were directed at Ahmadinejad and the reactionary regime currently ruling Iran.
All in all, apart from the states that boycotted the conference outright, the only European states that remained in the hall for Ahmadinejad’s speech were Spain and Greece.
The DDPA deals with numerous conflicts and issues, including these two points
Actually, Israel is the only state mentioned by name in the entire document. And I for one don’t see why a document specifically addressing racism needs to weigh in on occupation or self-determination, and if so why only one example among dozens around the world – including many with more obvious ‘racial’ dimensions since Palestinian and Israelis are racially quite similar – deserves mention.
Plus, even if we agree with the claim that Israel deserves security behind her borders, many don’t (including many of the regular commenters here.) Why is this political position necessarily racist?
BTW, I seem to recall the term “Curious George” in relation to form US President. How did you feel about that?
Wasn’t it Don who used to call GWB “the Chimp” from time to time in the comments and no one seemed to care?
The UN Conference does not mention other situations like that in Palestine, because there are none.
It is certainly true that this is not, strictly speaking a matter of race. But that is largely because the notion of race itself, except as a self defined shorthand for a bundle of cultural qualities, is nonsensical. And nowhere more than in the Levant which has been a bridge linking three continents for millenia.
But we all understand what the problem really consists of: the long, brutal dispossession of a population by colonists pushing them aside. The discrimination, woven into the fabric of the Israeli, against the indigenous and privileging the colonists.
It may be that my depiction of the problem is unfair; that can be addressed by contradiction and discussion. In the case of the Conference an attempt is being made, by the colonists, supported by their sponsors in the internatinal community, to argue that any questioning of the right of those designated, by the State of Israel, as entitled to live there or in lands conquered since 1948 is offensive, ‘racist’ (anti-semitic) and intolerable.
In other words the UN has no right to discuss what Israel, which owes its legal existence to the General Assembly of the UN, is or does.
This is, on the face of it, an indefensible position. And that is what the inhabitants of most of the world’s countries believe it to be.
JES,
It wasn’t my parade, it was a cut-and-paste from the NY Times as I indicated. A direct quote. I do admire your perceptive abilities in determining exactly what people seen on TV were cheering for in that Geneva scenario.
Ban ki-Moon is a dependable US (and Israel, apparently) lackey. He always reads his lines on cue. His castigations were not applied to the Israel slaughter in Gaza (except for the subsequent Israeli destruction of a UN facility) but they are now applied to some verbage. You must have some reason to respect this weak bureaucrat — what is it?
Obviously Netanyahu’s remarks were directed at Iran, but in Ahmadinejad’s context they are also applicable to Palestine. It is popularly held that it has been Israel’s plan to teach the Palestinians a lesson, no? Or do you agree with my above that it is Israel’s objective to create a stronger opposition? Or, if you don’t agree with either of those, what was the purpose of the Gaza slaughter?
I’m interested in your characterization of the Iran government as a “reactionary regime.” I suppose any government can be called a regime, but what makes Iran reactionary, in your view? What are they reacting to? I mean, I know, but I’d like to read your explanation. Are they wrong to dislike threats of aerial bombardment from the US and Israel?
As for your respect for the actions of European governments, we do have to realize that there is a lot to the world besides Europe, don’t we. The so-called un-aligned nations represent a lot of people, and their views on military occupations and Islamophobia, for two examples, are different than those of European governments. Also, what the European governments do is often not what their people want but is driven by the US.
“Also, what the European governments do is often not what their people want but is driven by the US.”
France and other countries went out of the room of the conference during Ahmadinejad’s speech.
Shame on us! They did it because they are ashamed they didn’t have the courage to say exactly the same thing, that is the Holocaust served as a pretext to create Israel, a racist State.
As far as I’m concerned, I don’t deny the reality of the genocide by the Nazis, nor do I link the faisability of the creation of Israel to the event of the genocide. Other motivations were then involved to impose a Jewish state in Palestine. The genocide just “helped”.
Sionism is racism. Denying it is complicity.
MARGARET PARSONS, Executive Director of African Canadian Legal Clinic, on NPR:
Well, we are extremely disappointed by the boycott of these Western nations. While we’re disappointed, we are not surprised, because this is about accountability. These countries have not come to the table with clean hands. They have never really meant to participate and really be held accountable for the implementation of the Durban Declaration and Program of Action, a document they all signed onto in 2001, the exception of Israel and the United States. At least the United States and Israel are being consistent in their position. However, these other countries are quite hypocritical in their withdrawal. You know, many here feel that if these countries had come, they would have received a failing grade, because they have done little to nothing to implement the Program of Action.
http://i1.democracynow.org/2009/4/20/more_countries_join_us_israel_boycott
Of course the on-going murder of Asians and Africans by western nations is racist, there’s no better word for it. That’s why the US and its allies have boycotted and walked out of the racism conference. Sure, they have to do what AIPAC wants, but it also makes a convenient cover story to cover their own sins.
Wasn’t it Don who used to call GWB “the Chimp” from time to time in the comments and no one seemed to care?
Yes Vadim. I went back and did a search, and sure enough, it was Don, Helena’s choice of “guest commenter” here.
I do admire your perceptive abilities in determining exactly what people seen on TV were cheering for in that Geneva scenario.
No problem. But tell me me Don how this:
“In a speech punctuated at intervals by boos from protesters and applause from some delegations….”
equates with this:
“Cheers erupted from the audience galleries.”
I’m interested in your characterization of the Iran government as a “reactionary regime.” I suppose any government can be called a regime, but what makes Iran reactionary, in your view? What are they reacting to?
What they are “reacting” to is modernity. That’s what’s commonly meant by reactionary. They are “reacting” to the liberalism of the West (including Israel) that respects the individual, including women, homosexuals and other “non-persons” or “lessor-persons”, and to a societal system that allows everyone to achieve based on their abilities.
The so-called un-aligned nations represent a lot of people, and their views on military occupations and Islamophobia, for two examples, are different than those of European governments.
Hey Don. That’s great. Then why bother with the Europeans, the US, Israel, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the non-Muslim, non-“white” world? Again, it comes back to my original question: What’s so “tragic” about the US boycotting the conference? And what’s the big deal about the delegations (all but Spain and Greece) walking out?
JES,
Let’s see if I’ve got this.
Reactionary regimes are reacting negatively to modernity, so the US/Euro regimes who are leading the campaign to sanction and threaten Iran for merely implementing their own safeguarded NPT-compliant nuclear power program are by definition reactionary, right?
Here we go with the pathetic lineup of Helena, Don, & co. cheering of all icons Ahmadinejad. How deep your hatred has to be to find common cause with such a person, such a position, such a justification for his positions. Ahmadinejad’s passion is probably genuine and rooted both in his interpretation of his religion and the interest of his country,but you sad folks, what is your source?
Have you been dumped by some boyfriend/girlfriend or you are just on the Arab payroll?
And whenever I hear about poor Roxana Saberi in an Iranian jail (haven’t heard much on that from you losers), I think about the injustice of her being there instead of some other pseudo journalists that deserve it more.
Titus,
You will search in vain for an example of me “cheering of all icons Ahmadinejad.” You might be interested to know that Mr. A. is not even Iran’s head of state, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is. Ahmadinejad has recently called for a review of Saberi’s case.
In short, your pitiful ad hominem attacks are factually worthless and your final threat is a fitting symbol of your mental vacuity.
Have a nice day.
Reactionary regimes are reacting negatively to modernity, so the US/Euro regimes who are leading the campaign to sanction and threaten Iran for merely implementing their own safeguarded NPT-compliant nuclear power program are by definition reactionary, right?
Right Don. That’s the common socio-political definition of reactionary as opposed to progressive.
As to the “safeguarded NPT-compliant nuclear power program”, well that’s bull. The entire affair was spawned precisely because the reactionary regime currently ruling Iran only agreed to partial disclosure.
JES
Honey bun. You likened me to a monkey and we haven’t even kissed yet. May I liken you to an ape or a pig or would that be too upsetting.
You might be interested to know that Mr. A. is not even Iran’s head of state, Ali Hoseini-Khamenei is. Ahmadinejad has recently called for a review of Saberi’s case.
You miss the point. It’s not really important who is in control in Iran and whether Ahmedinejad is the head of state or simplly the head mouthpiece for the reactionary regime. We have for example the following description:
Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.
At the climax of a military parade marking the outbreak of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, “We will crush America under our feet’ and “Israel must be wiped off the map.”
And do you know what? That’s from 2003 when the “reformer” Hatami was in Ahmedinejad’s figurehead position, and it’s from the Guardian to boot:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran
And as for his intervention into the Roxan Saberi case, well what difference does it make? After all, Ahmedinejad is only a figurehead, right?
JES, your games have grown too boring, really. Iran has never been a threat to Israel or the United States, but it has been under constant threat from both. Why should it surprise you that they react to real threats by doing some sabre rattling of their own.
Shirin,
Yaaawn!
JES, you have captured my reaction to your predictable nonsense quite well, but you gave it a bit too much enthusiasm.
Shirin darling, you remind me of that 1969s song by Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks: “How Can I Miss You When You Won’t Go Away?”
JES, Habibi, my sentiments exactly.
Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme.
During earlly time of Khomieni he siad the freedome of Plastinain comess by crossing Bahgdad!!!!.
Then war up last 8 years, Saddam regime suggested to khomeini that he will made corridor for Iranian’s troops and military to cross to fight Israel instead of his wish of exporting his Islamic revolution which was full of anti-US and anti-Israel slogans.
JES, tell us who supplied and delivered those weapons to khomeini (Iran – Contra saga)with no daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans he created..
So as you said daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans in a move sure to reinforce international concern over the nature of its nuclear programme. to pick the attention of international community to Iran program…. that’s means anti-US and anti-Israel slogans just words nothing more or less, its meaning less in fact and no threat made then, Isn’t JES?
Ahmadinejad’s passion is probably genuine and rooted both in his interpretation of his religion and the interest of his country,
You can twisted the though as much as you like but that shows your brain with hatred.
The fact is Israel contentiously threatened Iran and her development this not secret.
so do you think that have nothing to do with Iran reaction for those US/ Israel threats?
There is very clear experience of Operation Opera that Terrorist criminal act by Israel state toward nation and state neighbour to Iran.
Comment made by MERC
Salah, Lotan’s statements that you quoted here are not accurate.
For example, he asserts that:
…93% of pre-67 Israel is designated in law through acts of the Knesset for cultivation, development and settlement by, of and for Jews only.
This is simply not true. The relevant law states that: “The ownership of Israel lands, being the lands in Israel of the State, the Development Authority or the Keren Kayemet Le-Israel, shall not be transferred either by sale or in any other manner.”
It does not specify Jews, Arabs or Eskimos. It simply states that the ownership may not be transferred anyone.
Further, while the JNF does state that the land it acquired is for the use of Jews only, this land is not anywhere near 93% of the total land of pre-1967 Israel. (Further, the High Court of Justice has recently overturned this aspect of JNF lands.)
Could I just add too that for any Israeli commenter to point the finger at Ahmadinejad is sheer hypocrisy.
Really? Well, consider this. It is estimated that somewhere over 50% of Iranian land is Muslim awqaf, and controlled by the reactionary regime for the sole use of Muslims or, at discretion of the waqf and by their sufferance, by lease to non-Muslims. Further, according to a 2005 report issued by the UN Commission of Human Rights Special Rapporteur:
– land confiscation and “confiscation-style” purchase of lands by the Government seem to disproportionably impact on the land and property of some religious and ethnic minorities; information collected by the Special Rapporteur seems to indicate the existence of a number of cases of confiscation of Baha’i property; another example of such practice was observed in Khuzestan, where lands historically cultivated by Iranian-Arabs were compulsory purchased by the government for particularly low prices to open space for sugar cane plants and other development projects, such as Dekhoda;
– cases of “land-grabbing”, by means of modification in the use of land, purchase and division for sale to the private sector were also reported to the Special Rapporteur, specially concerning migrant neighborhoods and traditional fields for camping and routes of nomad groups (in the outskirts of Shiraz, for example);