Using "Antisemitism" to Stifle Debate
It's not just for "Zionist neocon Likudniks" anymore. JTA reports,
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.
Looking forward to the sequal to Durban in Geneva next month....
Bar:
You, me, and many other folks voted for and still have high hopes for President Obama on matters pertaining to Israel and the Middle East, as well as other matters. Thank you for boldly pointing out a decision that many of us are deeply disappointed with, and that is President Obama's decision to lend credibility to the hate-fest that will be Durban II. He's still my guy, I'd vote for him in a second, and I'll defend him against his harshest critics, but I will not defend his decision on Durban II, even though I have no doubt that he sincerely believes that our presence can make a difference there. Thankfully, there is still time for President Obama to decide that even the well-intentioned intervention of his Administration can do little to modify the hate-filled claptrap that will characterize Durban II.
February 24, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coming clean, Bruce, I'm still glad that there was an American presence at Durban, as well as a Jewish NGO presence -- the World Union of Jewish Students, for example -- to witness the spectacle first-hand and to challenge the ignorance and to deny any free license to shameless antisemitic diatribes.
The conference is intended not so much to cure humanity of its racism and other forms of poisonous presumptions, of which antismemitism, sexism, homophobia are integral companions, but to deal with it. An American presence at such a gathering is the responsible course for a nation uniquely founded on ideas, as opposed to tribal affiliations like much the rest of the human world. The United States has something important to offer the intent of the conference, regardless of the inevitable warts and boogers of its implementation. I am trying to remain cautiously optimistic that the Geneva round will provide a more fair discourse than Durban. Surely, at least, it will be different. Keynahora, I don't think it could get much worse.
February 24, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I appreciate the comment. Can you help me understand why you would have the Obama state department avoid the Geneva WCAR? Thanks.
February 24, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry I misconstrued your position Bar, and if there's one person on here who could change my position it would be you. My problem with American participation is that there is no indication at the threshold that this conference will be any different than the first. And based on the participation of the American delegation over the past week, it does not appear that we are making any concerted effort to change the nature and scope of the debate. Perhaps I'm looking at it the wrong way. As I stated, I don't question President Obama's good faith. I just hope that if we're there we make our presence known in a constructive way and lead the conference in a more balanced direction.
February 24, 2009 7:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No apologies necessary. It's not like I took the observation deep enough into any position to be construed at all.
Meanwhile, I look forward to your perspective of the conference as the saga unfolds. Thanks again.
February 25, 2009 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just in from that neocon rag, In These Times: Israel, Gaza and the Left, by Ken Borciner
February 25, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce - I support Obama's decision to participate in Durban II. I am under no illusions that the outcome will be significantly different from the first go around. However, except for Americans and Israelis the world pays some sttention to it's misguided conclusions.
We can,of course, not participate and denounce it but that will not change the world's opinion of either Israel or the US. My hope is that participating we can make Durban II better than Durban I and that III, IV and V etc will become steadily better. It may take a generation or two but I am confident Durban X will be better for our participation than it ever would be without it. It is a very important topic and just because it is off the rails now doesn't mean we should not tackle it and make it better.
February 25, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
JD:
I hear you, and I hear Bar, and I think I've been persuaded. Thanks and hope you're right.
Bruce
P.S. I also had the chance to discuss this up with MJ in person yesterday, and his view was basically the same as yours and Bar. So, we shall see.
February 26, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
"yours and Bar's" that is.
February 26, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some week-old "updates":
Washington Post, Feb. 20,
JTA, Feb. 18,
February 27, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hold the phone, Bruce! Check it out,
February 28, 2009 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shmuel Rosner has an interesting take that the participation in the drafting process was, basically a sham:
"The American decision to withdraw from Durban 2 is worthy of the praise it gets, but should not be regarded as such big surprise. The Obama administration was giving reasons to believe that this will be the outcome of negotiation for quite a while now (including in this interview I had with a senior official)."
........
"Did it score some points with the international community - or maybe it was losing credibility because of its eventual decision to withdraw?
With all due respect to positive, sometimes even enthusiastic domestic reaction to the decision to pull out (you can read some quotes here), the more important reaction to follow is the one of countries around the world. Looking at different Arabic sources one gets the feeling that the US didn't succeed in convincing its enemies that it was negotiating over Durban participation in good faith."
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/the_real_question_of_durban
I've seen hints here and there that the Obama negotiating process will be more about the atmospherics than substance. The problem with that approach is the assumption that those on the recieving end are stupid.
However, it may be that the administration is not interested in their reactions to the same old shit/demands and is only going through the motions to do cya and convince allies to follow the same hardliner failed policies.
From what I am seeing thus far, there's no substantive change on the horizon. Plenty of talk about a new approach, sure thing.
Que show.
February 28, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink