Countries preparing for a United Nations conference on racism have removed references to Israel and religious defamation from its draft declaration, potentially clearing the way for Western states to attend.

Apparently the threats of the West have had an affect. Or maybe not. Anne Bayefsky reports that while most specific references to Israel have been removed, one major stumbling block remains.

On some of these counts, the document makes substantial changes. It is somewhat shorter, removes grotesque allegations like calling Israel an apartheid state and deletes the words “defamation of religions.”

But most important, it refuses to disavow the 2001 Declaration. On the contrary, it “Reaffirms the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) as it was adopted at the World Conference against Racism … in 2001.” That declaration says Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism–with Israel the only U.N. state found guilty of racism. And though today’s draft divides provisions into the negotiable and non-negotiable, it announces that reaffirming Durban I is text which does not “remain to be negotiated.”

This “new and improved” document, therefore, breaches President Obama’s key conditions. It “reaffirms in toto the flawed 2001 Durban Declaration.” In so doing, it does not satisfy the demand that no country or conflict be singled out. Unsurprisingly, behind the scenes, Palestinian negotiators in Geneva are expressing satisfaction with today’s result.

In short, the organizers removed specific references to Israel, but re-affirmed the 2001 declaration that has all those references. Their hope is to finesse the issue and encourage Western countries to return while leaving the flawed premise of the conference intact.

Bayefsky calls on President Obama to denounce the proceedings and ignore the phony changes.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Here is how the American delegates responded to a proposal they understood was incompatible with U.S. interests (“Brackets” denote withholding approval at any given moment in time.): “I hate to be the cause of unhappiness in the room . . . I have to suggest this phrase remains in brackets and I offer my sincere apologies.”

Having watched U.N. meetings for the past 25 years, I can’t remember a U.S. representative in a public session so openly obsequious, particularly in the presence of such specious human rights authorities. And yet the U.S. delegates appear happy to be there and convey the marching orders of their new commander-in-chief.

(The American bootlicking is undermining countries like Britain and Italy who are trying to change the direction of the Durban II conference.)

Unfortunately deferring to tyrants and despots has consequences beyond just the antisemitic Durban II hatefest. Barry Rubin fears that a number of situations in the world are deteriorating – in Lebanon, in Turkey and in Iran – and the United States has decided to be popular instead of strong. (h/t LGF and memeorandum)

In short, 2009 is looking like a year of massive defeat for the US and its friends in the Middle East. Meanwhile, Washington is blind to this trend, pursuing a futile attempt to conciliate its enemies, losing time and not adopting the policies desperately needed.

Instead, the US should make itself leader of a broad coalition of Arab and European states, along with Israel, to resist Islamism and Iranian ambitions.

Alas, the new administration is fooling around while the region burns.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The first full-fledged exercise in accommodating our international antagonists so they might accommodate us is now playing itself out in Geneva where the planning for Durban II is taking place. Our delegation of three is made up of small fry so if they come home with nothing not much will have really been lost, or some at Foggy Bottom will say. I suppose sending this grouplet of unknown was better than sending Mrs. Clinton: if the White House had sent her and she came back with empty hands the whole enterprise would of reeked of loss and defeat. Maybe Ambassador Rice should have been sent. Apparently, that the U.S. should attend this pre-extravaganza extravaganza was her cause. But there is no indication that she wanted to be directly saddled with the costs of going herself. She certainly grasped what the likely results would be.

Mere Rhetoric quotes from a Jerusalem Post report that both Susan Rice and Samantha Power are pushing the administration to attend the conference, not just work on the preliminaries and concludes:

This is outreach to Jew-hating fanatics. Even if the White House bails on the conference, the anti-Semitic organizers will have succeeded in moving the “engagement” goalposts.

And none of that matters for whether Peretz should be publicly retracting his defenses of Rice and Power. They’re not pushing for involvement in the planning stages. They’re pushing for involvement in Durban II as such. They apparently have Obama’s ear since they’ve thus far achieved involvement in the planning. If the President bails out later that might be a limited defense of his actions. Maybe. But it wouldn’t be a defense of Rice and Power.

This does not accord with Peretz’s hopeful scenario.

Nor does the latest from Anne Bayefsky (h/t Elder of Ziyon):

The EU had attempted to add a reference to the Holocaust at the last preparatory meeting (in January), which the U.S. did not attend. But Iran and Syria had objected. The EU proposal was therefore “bracketed” — entered into the items-in-dispute category. Both Syria and Iran had claimed there weren’t enough facts about the Holocaust to warrant a definitive denunciation. Iran had also complained that the proposal was in the wrong section.

So the EU tried again, and this time the American delegation was present. Here is how the discussion went:

European Union: We have a new proposal under the section on education and awareness-raising that would recall the U.N. General Assembly resolution on the remembrance of the Holocaust. It would read:

Urges states to raise awareness and to implement U.N. General Assembly resolutions 60/7 and 61/255 which inter alia observes that the remembrance of the Holocaust is critical to prevent further acts of genocide, condemns without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end.

Iran: My delegation thinks that this is an inappropriate place to incorporate this new paragraph, so we request that this new paragraph be put in brackets.

Chair: Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn’t seem the case. We move on.

Since the operating principle is consensus, this put the Holocaust provision in dispute. But the American delegation chose not to go on the record strongly supporting the EU’s proposal, as it had on other items. Not a peep came from the “change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading” folks.

In addition, as Bayefsy observed, the American delegation – consisting of seven diplomats not three – failed to stand up for Israel at another point.

The Wall Street Journal notes some other mischief going on in Geneva:

The draft also calls “on states to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation.” Yes, you read that right. The transparent purpose is to criminalize all criticism of Islam, a.k.a. “Islamophobia.” There is also a not-so-sly effort to extract reparations for the long-banned trans-Atlantic slave trade: States that “have not yet condemned, apologized and paid reparations” for the trade are urged “to do so at the earliest.”

The Obama Administration knows all of this. In its press release, the State Department stressed that its intent in sending a delegation to Geneva is “to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading.” State also adds that its involvement “does not indicate — and should not be misconstrued to indicate — that the United States will participate” in the formal conference.

The Journal isn’t encouraged:

We’d be more confident if State hadn’t released the news at 7:03 p.m. last Saturday, when most of the world was better occupied. This is how Washington officialdom announces decisions of which it is not especially proud.

Or when Washington doesn’t want to risk a negative reaction.

Rick Richman doesn’t think American involvement should continue:

Obama is in the process of making either a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before withdrawing from Durban II, or a low-level, half-hearted diplomatic effort before participating in it: we will learn which in due course. But what is currently going on is not a “high level diplomatic effort” involving “moral leadership.” Moral leadership will occur if Obama decides to withdraw from Durban II – if, in other words, he decides to do what George W. Bush did in connection with Durban I.

And Jennifer Rubin reminds us of the words of Barack Obama supporter, Colin Powell from 2001:

I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of “Zionism equals racism”; or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse.

Such considerations do not seem to be moving the Obama administration.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

“The intent of our participation is to work to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading. We hope to work with other countries that want the Conference to responsibly and productively address racism around the world,” the statement said.

In his interview with Al-Arabiya, President Obama said:

We’re going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

So will this “effective job of reaching out” include telling the Muslim world that the United States will challenge it when its beliefs and actions challenge those of America and its allies? Or does the outreach simply mean that the Obama administration will be silent when the Muslim world opposes the United States?

It’s impossible to get an early read on the administration’s full intent. The White House held an off the record conference call with a number of Jewish organizations yesterday to explain its position. (The article only mentions two organizations that participated. Maybe more are named elsewhere.)

Gerald Steinberg doesn’t view even this preliminary contact as risk free.

If the Americans succeed in reversing this agenda in the brief time that remains, it would mark a major success and set the stage for restoring US influence and values. Proponents of engagement argue that the Obama Administration can help steer this UN conference so that it actually focuses on discrimination against minorities around the world, and is not another platform for anti-Israel obsession.

Alternatively, if this strategy fails, and the text remains poisonous, an American-led walkout with the 27 members of the European Union and some others would delegitimize the Durban process.

HOWEVER, IF Washington hesitates and compromises, allowing the OIC and like-minded NGOs to control the agenda, the participation of the world’s democracies will do immense damage. It will amplify the impact of the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, including the NGO Forum which used terms like “apartheid” and “racism” to isolate Israel.

My guess is that the administration’s approach is more likely to be governed by “outreach” than by change. While the administration may be able to garner some superficial changes, the overall tone of any and all resolutions issued from Durban II will be pretty similar to the results of the original. I hope I’m wrong, but the American walkout from the original Durban was pretty controversial and I don’t see that President Obama or his advisers are much interested in confrontation at a time when they say they are seeking understanding.

With the writing on the Synagogue wall (via memeorandum) the costs of not fighting antisemitism cloaked as anti-Zionism are quite high.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

The latest to fall is how Israel’s blockade harmed the sick and injured in Gaza. Israel actually allows the vast majority of those who apply to leave for medical treatment to get treatment in Israel.

Elder of Ziyon has more.

Which means that during this horrible “siege,” Israel has been doubling and re-doubling the number of patients allowed from Gaza to Israel or the PA for treatment.

Additionally as the JCPA – the source for these figures – points out

# The facts are that Israel has provided ever increasing numbers of approvals of permits since the Hamas takeover of Gaza, despite increasing rocket attacks on Israel’s civilian population, including mortar and terror attacks directed at the Erez crossing used by patients.
# At the same time, there have been at least 20 incidents where Palestinians used medical missions to attempt terror attacks.

Reading things like this makes me wonder if Israel actually cares more about Palestinians than the Palestinian leadership does. The most recent medical efforts we saw from Hamas was its persecution of Fatah affiliated doctors, making health care in Gaza even less available. Yet it’s Israel that will be in the dock, accused by the likes of Amnesty International of preventing access to health care and other crimes:

Amnesty International raises concern over human rights violations entrenched in the normative and institutional structure of the Israeli state: the failure of Israel to recognize the applicability to the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) of humanitarian and human rights law; the unlawful settlements in the OPT; the construction of a fence/wall mostly within the OPT; the demolition of Palestinian homes in the OPT and of Arab Israeli homes in Israel; policies which undermine the rights of the occupied Palestinian population to health, education, housing, work and an adequate standard of living in the West Bank and, in particular, in Gaza where Israeli authorities have imposed a stringent blockade; torture or other ill-treatment of detainees;

This goes beyond irresponsible. There exists no charitable explanation for AI and the other NGO’s who will be doing the will of the Arab world next year at Durban II and demonizing Israel. This isn’t about helping the Palestinians but about hating Israel and the Jews.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.