I agree, we should withdraw from the conference because it will by, its virulent anti Israeli stance combined with total silence over all the terrible things that are happening elsewhere, make things worse. It would be interesting to hear a Rudd Minister explaining why Australia should take part. Come to that it would be interesting to hear anybody at all explaining our attendence. Perhaps Forum is the one place where we might hear an explanation. I wait with curiosity.

As soon as I saw the title of the article I knew it would just be another weary rendition of "all criticism of Israel is anti-semitism".

File it with the others, under "labelling opponents as racist to suppress debate".

"Human rights activists and their selective condemnations" is an unfair title. It condemns human rights activists as a group.

I agree that singling out Israel for condemnation is probably antisemitism while human rights abuses of other nations when the abuses are of equal or greater magnitude are not condemned. However, all human rights activists do not single out Israel for condemnation, and all human rights activists are not antisemitic. The article is concerned with Durban 2, and the title of the article should reflect its contents.

I also question the boycott of the conference. It is a United Nations conference, and all members should attend, if for nothing else, to participate. It is analogous to the counterproductive US policy of not recognising governments of which they disapprove or on not on friendly terms with. Cuba, communist China, the USSR were not recognised by the US government for years even though those governments controlled their territory and functioned. The US still does not recognise Cuba. Recognition should not be equated with approval, and attending a conference under the auspices of an organisation which one belongs to should not be equated with approving the makeup or the conclusions of the conference. I think the US and Australia should attend and make their position known.

Manny Waks has his own double standards. When he was with the B'Nai Brithm he wrote a letter to the Canberra Times claiming that most terrorists were Muslims and defending the racist assertions of Rafael Israeli.

Waks repeats the kinds of libels against Muslims that were used in the West decades ago against Jews in the years leading upto the Holocaust.

Just about every anti-apartheid activist (including Desmond Tutu) who has visited Israel has said that it is wrong to compare Israel to apartheir South Africa. Why? Because Israel's treatment of Palestinians is much worse. It's a message Waks and his ilk wishes to drown out. But Israel's phosphorus bombs speak louder than the words of its apologists.

“Fair minded Australians should resent the language of these attacks against Israel, and the disreputable comparisons to other countries.”

It would be nice to think that fair-minded Australians did object to the anti-Israeli attitudes of people who are always mouthing off publicly. However, we don’t know what they think. The only opinions we hear made public are those of politicians (whose ‘opinion’s’ are whatever is safe for them to voice, and what is best for them electorally), and those of people who write letters to the editor, or share their views on OLO and other sites.

The majority of people are not politicians, letter writers or posters, so we will never know what they think.

As for the ones who are openly anti-Israel, a recent article by William Rubinstein, ‘The Biases of Genocide Studies’, covers them quite well. While most Israel’s detractors do not usually accuse that besieged little country of ‘genocide’ (some do, of course) the verbal attacks on Israel are similar to those of people calling themselves ‘human rights activist’ who babble on about Western genocide as though it were a particularly Western penchant, while totally ignoring the tribe-annihilating activities of Shaka Zula, the Mongol Genghis Khan, the Aztecs (who ‘sacrificed’ their own people at the rate of 10-20,000 annually) and the infanticide of our own indigenes, stopped, incidentally, by we dreadful white settlers, as happened with the equally dreadful Europeans, the Spaniards who have always been defamed for ‘wiping out’ the Aztecs. Add Rawanda, Uganda, Congo and other tin pot African countries still at it today.

Continued...

...continued

The connection between the two areas is the attitude of Leftist, self-hating whites, and non-whites in the UN, who have much to say about the bad side of white Westerners, but carefully ignore the atrocities of non-Westerners.

Israel is populated and run by Europeans, whereas Gaza and the rest of the Middle East is people by dark-skinned Arabs.

Ergo, Israel is the villain!

I agree totally with the authors that Australia should not have a bar of another charade such as 2001. The UN has shown itself time and time again to be a despicable and anti-Western organisation, riddled with despots from non-Western countries who are still getting away with atrocities the Western world dropped a long, long time ago.

There is no excuse for what we did in the dim past; but there is even less excuse for those doing the same things now; especially those poncing around the UN, trying to curtail free-speech in democratic countries, but all too willing to take anything they can get from the West.

Irfan,

Come on, now. We all know that most Muslims are NOT terrorists, but isn't it a fact that MOST terrorists are Muslims. It's only a libel if Waks is wrong. Perhaps it has been heard so often that we now all believe it; or, do you have proof that the generally agreed claim is wrong?

I can't think of any other terrorist organisations currently active who are bigger than those operated by Muslims.

sancho, it is not that criticism of israel is necessarily anti-semitism. the argument is that the selective nature of the criticism at UNDII, coupled with the selective (and ludicrous) attempts to protect islam from criticism at UNDII, amounts to anti-semitism.

it is a cheap and easy response for supporters of israel's policies to cry anti-semitism. but it is a symmetrically cheap and easy tactic for anti-semites to cloak their nastiness with criticism of israel. there seems to be plenty of cheapness and easiness of both flavours.

"Israel is populated and run by Europeans, whereas Gaza and the rest of the Middle East is people by dark-skinned Arabs."

That's the most ridiculous thing I've read in a long time. A fair chunk of Israelis are of Arab descent - Iraqis, Moroccans, Tunisians etc.

A former Israeli Ambassador to Australia was an Egyptian who spoke fluent Arabic.

I wish I knew what being European and having white skin had anything to do with it. I guess some of Israel's Western supporters have racist and xenophobic attitudes.

I wonder how long it will be before people stop seeing the United Nations as some kind of impartial, objective, innocent bystander. it isn't.

Terry

Israel probably gets the criticism it deserves. Antisemitism of course, is another matter entirely,as well as antisemitism, an Islamic group is pushing another agenda at Durban 2. This is an attempt to equate criticism of religion( guess which one) as a violation of human rights,I find this rather alarming as it strikes at a fundamental right in Western civilisation, the right to free speech.It will be interesting to see what comes out of this rather sinister gathering, we probably won't like it.

david f, you said, "I also question the boycott of the conference. It is a United Nations conference, and all members should attend, if for nothing else, to participate. It is analogous to the counterproductive US policy of not recognising governments of which they disapprove or on not on friendly terms with." I couldn't agree more. A country not attending the conference has no input whatsoever. A hands-off approach accomplishes nothing.

To participate in a conference whose arguments will be premised on anti-Semitism and hoax conspiracies and which will demand, as it has done in the past, the delegitimisation of Israel, which is an outpost of Western civilization in the midst of barbarians, as an "apartheid" and "criminal" state, will be a monumental stupidity.

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

Those Islamic countries pushing for a binding resolution making any criticism of the Islamic actions as heresy against the Koran and Islamic culture are directly threatening the most basic of human rights, the right of free expression. This right has been won through fair evolutionary democratic developments in our history. Our secular parliaments guarantee us this right and protect it. our democracies are created by us, the voters, and express the will of the people.The Islamic position is the imposition of dictatorial and authoritarian imposition of a theocratically based culture and politics. A clash of civilizations is looming and appears to be imminent.

I believe that these Islamic authorities have mistimed their drive. Only Pakistan has nuclear weapons.at present. That is why Iran is in a frenzy to develop its own to add to the nuclear arsenal to back up their demands. They have developed a death love and dont mind becoming martyrs as a quick way of going tio paradise. We dont embrace that option. We need to see clearly the underlying apocalyptic scenario and take steps to counter it forcibly.

There must be NO COMPROMIOSE OF OUR RIGHTS AND DEMOCRATIC IDEALS.

I have no idea how a human rights activist thinks. However, Muslim nations hijacking the UN with Jew hatred is easily explained. Dr Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism:

"When I put together the Koranic verses on the Jews," he continues, "they read like an indictment, prosecution and conviction. It was virulently anti-Semitic. Going into the hadith and the histories of Muhammad - where his assassination is attributed to a Khybar Jewess, for example - only strengthened this conviction.

"So when I juxtaposed that with the notion that there was no theological anti-Semitism in Islam, it was stunning. It's just so in-your-face that to claim that the foundational sources don't create anti-Semitism or aren't inherently anti-Semitic... it's absurd."

Forced conversions, rapes, pogroms, the wholesale slaughter of Jews in North Africa during the Almohad invasions of the 12th century and innumerable other incidents catalogued in The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism attest that this Jew hatred was more than a literary holdover of Muhammad's contempt for the Jews for rejecting his prophecies. Bostom also makes it plain that, with common motifs spanning from North Africa to India, from the eighth century to the 21st century and from Sunnis to Shi'ites and Sufis as well, anti-Semitism cannot be explained by cultural influences but is, in fact, inherently Islamic.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1213794275309&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[continued...]

More from Dr Andrew Bostom on Islamic anti-Semitism:

The recent annihilationist sentiments regarding Jews, as expressed by Hamas cleric al-Zarad, are also rooted in Islamic eschatology [end of times theology], and incorporated permanently into the foundational 1988 Hamas Covenant. As characterized in the hadith (the words, deeds, and even unspoken gestures of Muhammad as ostensibly recorded by his earliest pious Muslim companions), Muslim eschatology highlights the Jews' supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl -- the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ -- or according to another tradition, the Dajjâl is himself Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions maintain that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered- everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree, as per the canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 41, Number 6985) included in the 1988 Hamas Covenant (in article 7). ...

Hamas' views on the jihad against Israel, and Islamic Jew hatred, are entirely concordant with those of the most authoritative religious educational institution within Sunni Islam-Al Azhar University, in Cairo, Egypt.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/confronting_hamas_genocidal_je.html

Irfan,

I know that there are Arab/Israelis, and they are treated much better than they would be in Muslim countries.

But, how many of them make up your “fair chunk”?

You don’t know, do you? Just like you couldn’t answer my question about the numbers of Muslim terrorists and the numbers of non-Muslim terrorists.

What sort of a lawyer would accuse Manny Waks and others of ‘libel’ if he couldn’t prove that most terrorists were not Muslims?

Leigh, the onus is on you to provide evidence that the vast majority of terrorists are persons who are of Muslim faith, heritage and/or background. You need to provide evidence that you have with you a comprehensive list of all terrorists, and that you have checked the background of each terrorist.

Alternatively, you need to provide evidence that you have compiled a comprehensive list of each terrorist act. You then need to show that the majority of these acts are committed by persons of Muslim faith and/or background and/or heritage.

In addition to this, you need to provide a definition of terrorism that is universally accepted.

Once you've done all that, we can talk about the alleged religious affiliations of terrorists. Without such evidence, your claims about terrorism are reflective of little more than your own prejudices.

While you're at it, Leigh, you might define what you mean by the term "Muslim".

Irfan,

No. You have accused Manny Waks of libel. You are the one who has to provide the evidence that he has libelled Muslims in general. I don't have to do anything. I asked you, "Isn't it a fact that MOST terrorists are Muslims". I didn't answer my own question in the affirmative. I don't know the answer.

As usual, you are determined not to answer any questions. But, you expect me to give you a definition of what "Muslim" means to me.

Same old Irfan.

Irfan,

"a definition of terrorism that is universally accepted", this seems rather disingenuous,what are the odds of that occurring? I'm not inclined to let you play Socrates. We all know the cliche 'that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', after all some of the founders of Israel used terrorism to achieve their aims until they were able to use conventional methods, then the Palestinians became the terrorists. Am I right in inferring that you regard some acts of 'terrorism'(since you require a definition) as legitimate resistance to Western imperialism? If so please provide examples, so we can set the parameters. If someone states that his/her religion is Islam that's good enough for me, I don't require a definition. Those vermin who murdered Australians in Bali were Moslems, they said so, proudly.

I deny that there are any human rights activists anywhere in the world.

There are ONLY POLITICAL ACTIVISTS with private agendas of their own and are usually funded by vested interests.

They'll have a red-hot go at Israelli actions in Gaza and American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan but are conveniently silent on the DR of Congo,Sudan and places where their interests do not lie.

socratease

To reach that conclusion, socratease, you'd need to insulate yourself from all the media, where human rights abuses are decried daily - in any nation.

What you're either avoiding or unaware of is that our government and media aren't trying to whitewash the events in Congo or Sudan, or scream in our faces that the Congolese and Sudanese are above criticism because of an unspoken belief that god promised the world to them in an ancient book of folk stories.

The moment our leaders and media begin treating other nations with the one-sided propaganda donated to Israel and the US (when it's Repulican-run), decent Australians will hook into that, too.

Irfan

Keep talking to us, we get to see what Islam does to the mind.

The United Nations is guilty of BUT.

Certainly the UN defined "racial discrimination" as relating to “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.

No problems so far... however then the United Nations for political expediency came out with all its' own BUTs.

These BUTs are where the core definition does NOT apply, where exemptions are granted, and governments and organisations and individuals all around the world proceeds to redefine their racism so as it does is exempted, so does not conflict with the original and widely supported definition.

Solution is simple dump all the exemptions.

Racism was once again be defined as actions where exists “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.

This approach does not deny persons once victims of racist actions rightful compensation for past wrongful actions.

This approach does confine such compensation to actual compensation, not activities perpetuating racsim and racist actions.

.

The United Nations is an utter disaster and unmitigated failure. Take a look at Israel where any number of UN resolutions have gone ignored and scoffed at.Then there's Rwanda where it failed miserably as it did in the Balkans,It took the NATO forces to bomb the Serbs to their senses before another ten thousand Bosnian Muslims would have been butchered. And dont just point to the trial of Milosovich and a pitiful handful of his pals when the UN knows right now of the whereabouts Of Karadich and Ratko Milan or whatever his name is.And nothing is done to arrest them and drag them to the Hague.

Then there's Darfur, the DR of the Congo and Sudan and Kashmir.

Has the world forgotten Hyderabad that was declared an independent state until in 1947.Nehru marched his troops in a few years later on the pretext of taking temporary "police action" to protect the Hindu businesses.Today Hyderabad is "unquestionably" an integral part of India. Swallowed up. The same thing is being repeated i the West Bank in Palestine and the UN hasnt seen a thing. LOL Yeah.

The list goes on and on...altogether too vast to find a place in this brief thread.

socratease

Socratease, you said, "The United Nations is an utter disaster and unmitigated failure." This is true and few would try to deny this. An honest appraisal of the Homo sapiens species would reveal, in my opinion, that the our Uninted Nations' "unmitigated failure" is a direct reflection of the weakness of our species! The question becomes, where and who are we and will we destroy ourselves?

I think the first question that needs to be asked is whether or not the actions of the government of Israel can be considered racist. Enough people I hold in high regard seem to think so and I would tend to agree.

The posts here seem to be saying by extension the world shouldn't have targeted the South African regime because of what was happening in Cambodia or other international calamities. I don't think it is a supportable position.

As to the original Durban conference from my admittedly limited reading it appears to have been the NGO meetings that went awry rather than the meeting of government representatives. But even then the final resolutions didn't appear to be off the scale.

Perhaps I need enlightening but from what I can gleen so far I am of the opinion that the Australian government should attend.