Why the U.S. Must Leave and Condemn Durban II
The Durban Conference - The UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance- held in 2001, turned out to be one thing only- a conference held to single out Israel alone for racism and all the sins in the world. As a pro-Israel website put it, "the Durban conference became notorious for its unbridled attacks on Israel, led by Iran and a number of other Arab states."
As preparations for the second Durban conference scheduled to be held in April take place, Britain and Italy announced they are thinking of joining Canada, the Netherlands and Israel in refusing to attend the Review Conference meant to see whether the recommendations of Durban I are being upheld. Britain's Foreign Office Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown said: "If we can't go forward now, we will withdraw. I was at the first conference. I have never seen such a disgraceful event in quite a long international life...We are not going to stand by and allow this racist stuff to get through and be seen as acceptable."
This judgment comes from an officer of a government that at home, has bent over backwards to to appease Muslim fundamentalists, while tolerating anti-Semitic incidents in Britain without a peep. If Durban is even too much to tolerate for a representative of Britain, you know how bad it really is.
Commenting on Durban I, Melanie Phillips wrote accurately that "cursory references to anti-Semitism and never forgetting the Holocaust were tossed in as a trade-off for singling out the ‘racism' of Israel, which was responsible for ‘the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation.' Instead, an equivalence was drawn between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia." This April's conference is dedicated to, as their first draft indicates, to condemning Israel for "apartheid," for "crimes against humanity" and for perpetrating a "form of genocide." The conveners of Durban II are anything but objective.
Last October, the Sandinista who is now UN General Assembly President, (itself a travesty) Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, said Israeli "apartheid" must "be outlawed," and met by "a campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions."
So the question emerges: What is the United States going to do? Is it floating the choice that our country too, like our allies Canada and Britain, will most likely not participate? Where is the voice of President Barack Obama, a man most Americans look to for leadership in the fight against racism?