JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Alarms over Durban II

By Lisa Hostein · October 7, 2008

Durban has become a dirty word in some international circles, a reminder of the 2001 U.N. anti-racism conference that devolved into an anti-Israel, anti-Jewish debacle. Now as preparations for a follow-up conference proceed, worries abound that efforts to once again villify Israel and the West are gaining the upper hand.

One U.N. watcher analyzes the latest document to emerge from the pre-conference planners.

Others, too, are sounding the alarm about the latest developments, but the World Jewish Congress is opting for a more optimistic note, hoping that the new High Commissioner for Human Rights will work to avert another failed conference.

As JTA reported back in July, it’s too early to know which groups will prevail – or even show up – in pursuing their agendas, but at least people this time around are paying attention in advance rather than getting caught unprepared like last time.

0 Comments | Share This | Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Israel, U.N.

More Mahmoud, Part 2

By Ben Harris · September 26, 2008

The saga continues ... Iran’s president, meeting last night with an inter-religious group that included a rabbi, was met with protests outside the Manhattan hotel where the encounter took place.

Earlier in the day, Ahmadinejad met with some media bigwigs for breakfast, as recounted by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post. The Chicago Tribune has a slightly fuller account. The New York Times also has a lengthy interview with the Iranian leader.

And in case you missed the anti-Semitic rant he delivered Tuesday at the United Nations, Eye on the UN has produced this nice little highlight reel of the speech’s greatest hits, including an embrace by the General Assembly president, who is also a Catholic priest. Apparently, Israel’s new U.N. ambassador is none too happy.

3 Comments | Share This | Iran, U.N.

Where’s the outrage?

By Lisa Hostein · September 25, 2008

It’s easy to be incensed by Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s loathsome remarks at the United Nations and in media appearances, but several commentators are wondering why there hasn’t been more public outrage by the world community? I’m wondering why all the outcry over the lack of outcry is only coming from the right?

Eve Epstein, who as a U.N. insider serves as an important Jewish voice at the world body, writes in National Review Online:

To their shame, U.N. member states’ pledges of “Never Again” were betrayed by a singular lack of moral outcry. Have they learned nothing from the multitude of Holocaust education and genocide prevention programs they sponsored?

She also sees through his use of the word “Zionist” instead of Jew when he seeks blame for the world’s ills.

If he had used the word “Jew” instead of “Zionist,” such sentiments would likely be barred from the Internet in many countries, as a form of hateful invective.

But Ahmadinejad is clever, and summons the spirit of European and Muslim antisemitism by casting this as an issue of the Jewish state.

Elsewhere, a British commentator, in The New York Sun, takes the Europeans in particular to task for their silence.

And, in The Spectator, Melanie Phillips notes the irony that on the same day that Ahmadinejad took the stage in New York, Paul McCartney was talking peace in Israel.

Salon, on the other hand, buys Ahmadinejad’s distinction between Jews and Zionists, and criticizes Obama for conflating the two.

6 Comments | Share This | Anti-Semitism, U.N.

What’s missing at the U.N.

By Lisa Hostein · September 22, 2008

Remarkably little has been written in the media leading up to today’s opening of the U.N. General Assembly, where leaders from nations around the globe gather in New York for official speeches and sideline meetings.

For once, Israel is not expected to be a major target of vilification; but neither is Iran, which poses the biggest threat not only to Israel but the world, as Dennis Ross and other top former diplomatic and security officials write in the Wall Street Journal.

Jewish groups appear to be leading the charge, starting with a rally today across from the United Nations protesting Iranian President Mahmoud Achmadinejad. The Jewish effort illustrates the tensions between not wanting to make it seem like the nuclear threat from Iran is a “Jewish/Israeli” issue and not wanting to idly stand by as the threat escalates.

In a meeting of foreign ministers on Friday, Russia and China reiterated their position that the United Nations should take no further action on sanctions.

Beyond Iran, it’s sadly ironic that the intended theme of this year’s General Assembly – global poverty – is being overshadowed by the financial crisis that is roiling the United States and the world.

As for President Bush, his address on Tuesday will mark his farewell speech to the world body.

By the way, if you want a primer on what the United Nations was originally intended to do, see this.

2 Comments | Share This | International, Iran, U.N.

Our woman in Turtle Bay

By Ben Harris · September 19, 2008

In the New York Sun, B’nai B’rith International’s Sybil Kessler Sanchez, who runs a Jewish NGO office devoted exclusively to U.N. affairs, takes stock of the Jewish state’s progress at the U.N. as a new Israeli ambassador, Gabriela Shalev, assumes her post.

Sanchez’s conclusion: Israel’s situation at the United Nations has improved markedly in recent years – membership in a regional grouping and a “decrease in polarizing rhetoric” under the new secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon.

But ideological battles remain as rooted in the past as the decor of the U.N.’s 38-story headquarters on First Avenue: “On the front lines of international humanitarian and human rights law, Israel must continually prove itself in the battle for political and legal legitimacy,” Sanchez writes.

0 Comments | Share This | U.N.

Human rights lows in Geneva - Part II

By Uriel Heilman · May 28, 2008

Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba, now a candidate for the post of U.N. high commissioner for human rights in Geneva, is defending his record as president of the U.N. Human Rights Council during 2006-’07.

In a May 19 post, The Telegraph reported that U.N. Watch said de Alba “oversaw the massive erosion of what was already a problematic institution” and “oversaw the singling out of Israel as a permanent agenda item at the Human Rights Council.”

De Alba defended himself in an email to JTA, blaming the council’s record on its members:

While fully respecting the views of all stakeholders with regards to the way in which I conducted the Presidency of the Human Rights Council, I would like to make the following precisions: the decisions adopted by the Council throughout its first year of work (and indeed during its existence) are the result of collective decisions, and therefore the responsibility of all its Members.

He also says:

The Human Rights Council has been able to address urgent situations through the holding of Special Sessions, not only with regards to the situation on the Middle East, but also on Darfur, Myanmar, and, currently the concerns raised by the World food crisis.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch, says this is “grossly misleading.” He counts four special sessions on Israel, one on Darfur, one on Myanmar and one on food (for those keeping count). Since the creation of the U.N. Human Rights Council in 2006, Neuer counts 19 condemnatory resolutions on Israel, four on Myanmar and one on North Korea.

That’s none for Sudan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other places where rape victims are punished with lashes (Saudi Arabia), honor killings are unofficially sanctioned (Jordan) and citizens can be killed by their government simply for being born black (Sudan).

You can read de Alba’s full response to JTA here:

Mr. Heilman,

I thank you for your e-mail of 19 May, which I respond with pleasure since I agree with you on the importance of running both sides of the argument. Such balance is particularly relevant to the issues that you raise, given the scarce and sometimes incomplete information that is disseminated about the Human Rights Council, specially by some quarters.

Regarding your first question, my name has been put forward by the Mexican Government to the Secretary General for his consideration to the post of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. We do not see this as a candidature in the traditional sense, and we fully respect the prerrogative of the Secretary General to designate the High Commissioner, a designation which should be confirmed by the UN General Assembly. Regarding the process of selection, I believe it is not appropriate for anyone other than the Office of the Secretary General to provide any information or comment on its development.

As for your second question, while fully respecting the views of all stakeholders with regards to the way in which I conducted the Presidency of the Human Rights Council, I would like to make the following precisions: the decisions adopted by the Council throughout its first year of work (and indeed during its existence) are the result of collective decisions, and therefore the responsibility of all its Members. With respect to the particular issues that you mention, related to the institution building process of the Council, my responsibility as President was to reach an agreement to reform and improve the entire human rights mechanisms, meeting the consensus of all Members of the Human Rights Council. This necessitated intense dialogue and cooperation among Members and Observers of the Council, as well as NGOs and National Human Rights Institutions, all of which participated actively in order to bridge divergences of views which could have put the human rights system at risk.

Thus, the final result reflects a collective work, and, the fact that it was reached by consensus has been acknowledged as a major achievement in the human rights field. I think there is a misunderstanding with regards to the position of certain countries, as none requested to vote on the package before its adoption. A request to take action on the package, presented a day after its approval, was rejected by the Council with a vote of 46 against and one in favour.

I am aware that the Institution Building package is not a perfect one, but you should be aware that in the process of institution building, the possibility of voting issue by issue would have seriously damaged the already existing mechanisms of human rights protection, and certainly it would have limited the capacity of the Council to implement its mandate of universally protecting and promoting human rights.

I would finally like to point out that the current work of the Council is in fact largely based on the institutional agreements reached on June 18, 2007, and the developments so far have been quite positive. All Members of the Human Rights Council, without exception, have been engaged with a high level of responsibility in implementing those agreements. One of the major reforms has been the creation of the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism (UPR), under which all Member States of the UN, including those cited in your e-mail, will be reviewed, on an equal footing, with regards to the fulfillment of their human rights obligations.

Let me also highlight that the Human Rights Council has been able to address urgent situations through the holding of Special Sessions, not only with regards to the situation on the Middle East, but also on Darfur, Myanmar, and, currently the concerns raised by the World food crisis.

I hope you find these elements useful, and I remain available should you have any further questions or comments.

Sincerely,
Luis Alfonso de Alba

0 Comments | Share This | Israel, U.N.

Human rights low in Geneva?

By Uriel Heilman · May 19, 2008

One of the top candidates to be the new U.N. high commissioner for human rights may bring the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva to new lows, warns one pro-Israel watchdog organization.

Mexican Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba – who is the front-runner for the post, according to Human Rights Tribune, rarely missed an opportunity to single out Israel for special opprobrium during his year as president of the Council, according to Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch. Neuer clashed with de Alba in this session of the Human Rights Council.

This week, Neuer had this to say to JTA about de Alba, who was president of the Human Rights Council from mid-2006 to mid-2007:

“His record was one of weakness, at best, in the face of the takeover by the Islamic group of the Human Rights Council. He oversaw the massive erosion of what was already a problematic institution. Under his watch, the supposedly reformed U.N. Council ended its scrutiny of Belarus, ended its scrutiny of Cuba, and he refused to let Canada vote on its package of reforms. He also oversaw the singling out of Israel as a permanent agenda item at the Human Rights Council.”

The current high commissioner, Louise Arbour, has held the post for four years. She, too, has endured her fair share of criticism from the pro-Israel camp – residents of Sderot stoned her when she visited the town in November 2006, just a few months after she warned during the Israel-Hezbollah war that “those in positions of command and control” could be subject to “personal criminal responsibility” for their actions in the 2006 war. But if Arbour is succeeded by de Alba, the Council will only get worse, Neuer warns.

Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, who can be seen here smiling with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a meeting in Tehran in March, reportedly is another leading candidate for Arbour’s position.

The U.N. high commissioner for human rights is an appointee of the U.N. secretary-general. Spokesman Brenden Varma told JTA on Monday that Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon hopes to make his appointment by the end of June.

1 Comment | Share This | Anti-Zionism, Arab-Israeli Conflict, International, Israel, U.N.

Meanwhile, at the U.N. anti-racism prep conference in Geneva

By Michael J. Jordan · April 25, 2008

Another day, another tongue lashing from Anne Bayefsky. Bayefsky, the director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at Touro College, has become a Jewish gadfly here in Geneva, as speechifying diplomats wrapped the first week of a two-week “preparatory” session for the 2009 World Conference Against Racism. A common theme here is for Arab, Islamic and African nations to they’re racist, then point their fingers at Israel for racism. So for a fourth straight day, Bayfesky weighed in. “I wasn’t planning to say anything,” she said, after singling out Iran, Syria, Senegal and Algeria for hypocrisy. “But their words strained credulity, so I couldn’t let it go unanswered.” She’s become such an irritant for Arab anti-Israel sentiment that the Egyptian ambassador couldn’t help but express his frustration with her on Thursday. “This has become a daily show,” he said, “and we are sick and tired of it.”

While Israel boycotts the forum because of its distinctly anti-Israel vibe, one quasi-Israeli mills about – “kind of undercover,” as he puts it. Khazriel Ben Yehuda isn’t actually a citizen, but a permanent resident of Israel for 30 years. You wouldn’t guess it from his dapper African-looking garb. Ben Yehuda hails from Israel’s small Black Israelite community. “I don’t really announce I’m from Israel, like a Malian wouldn’t announce ‘I’m from Mali!,’” says Ben Yehuda, who spoke on behalf of the African Hebrew Israelite Development Agency, based in Ghana and in his Israeli hometown of Dimona. Still, he sees the forum like an Israeli would: “When you get down to it, the Arab and Islamic countries tend to dominate.”

0 Comments | Share This | Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Israel, U.N.

Prepping in Geneva for U.N. “anti-racism” conference

By Michael J. Jordan · April 24, 2008

Noel Hidalgo/Creative Commons

JTA correspondent Michael J. Jordan visits with the diplomats in Geneva preparing for the 2009 World Conference Against Racism as they seek to widen the definition of anti-Semitism to include Islamophobia – Arabs are Semites, after all – and talk of the importance of focusing on “state racism.” Guess which state?

Parsing U.N. diplo-speak

Parsing United Nations diplo-speak requires an attuned ear and a capacity to read between the lines. On Thursday in Geneva, at a preparatory conference for the 2009 World Conference Against Racism, the Syrian ambassador drew a line between “individual racism” and “state racism.” State racism? Do you mean – maybe – Israel? Crusaders against racism must study where those with a “cultural superiority complex” deny the “right of millions to self-determination,” he said. “Thank you to the distinguished delegate,” the Libyan chairwoman said.

Depends on how you define “anti-Semitism”

Just when you thought you knew all about anti-Semitism – turns out it means Arabs too, at least according to Algeria’s ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva.

When the Algerian diplomat, Idriss Jazairy, argues that anti-Semitism’s definition should be expanded to include Arabs, who are a Semitic people, the director of the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at Touro College, Anne Bayefsky, shot back. The greatest source of anti-Semitism today operates “under the guise of anti-Zionism and anti-racism activities,” epitomized by the U.N. Human Rights Council’s disproportionate focus on criticizing Israel, she said.

When Bayefsky spoke, Jazairy immediately raised his hands to form a T – as in “time-out” – and the forum’s chairwoman, Libyan Najat Al-Hajjaji, began tapping her gavel, cutting off Bayefsky to permit Jazairy to respond. Bayefsky was allowed to resume, but was interrupted twice more by Al-Hajjaji’s gavel and Jazairy’s interjections.

The 57 member states of the Organization of Islamic States are “feigning an interest in anti-Semitism only to pervert and emasculate the meaning, which is why they have no problem condemning it,” Bayefsky said after the session.

Some observers were confused by the entire exchange. A watchdog for India’s “untouchables” caste, the Dalits, shyly conceded his ignorance of the matter to JTA: “It’s somebody against something, yes?”

Arafat on Display

Lining the tungsten-lit hallway in the basement of the U.N. complex in Geneva, a 10-panel exhibit on the Palestinians gets plenty of foot traffic because it’s next to the main cafeteria here. The exhibit contains four photos of Yasser Arafat, including a wide-angle shot of the standing ovation Arafat famously received from the U.N. General Assembly in November 1974. This week, a U.N. staffer and U.N. security guard – both Africans – were reading the French-language exhibit. Asked why he thought it was the only permanent exhibit in the building, the staffer replied, “Because it’s the oldest conflict.” As for Arafat, I ventured, some might view him as a terrorist. “You Europeans,” the security guard snapped at me, an American journalist. “You’re responsible for all that’s happened there.”

Click here to tune into the Durban Review Conference Preparatory Committee’s live webcast, Friday, April 25, 2008, 10:00-18:00 CEST.

2 Comments | Share This | Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, Israel, U.N.