Forenede Nationers menneskerettighedsråd har med tilslutning fra Danmark godkendt et udkast til en tillægsprotokol, der giver borgerne ret til at klage til en FN-komite, hvis de mener, at staten har krænket deres økonomiske, sociale eller kulturelle rettigheder.

Det er alarmerende, og inden skandalen får lov til at rulle og vokse sig endnu større, må svaret være et rungende, fuldtonet NEJ!

Det kunne lige passe, at vi skulle have en komite bestående af repræsentanter for nogle af klodens blodigste og mest rigide diktaturer til at sidde og træffe afgørelse om, hvad der er ret og rimeligt i demokratiske stater.

I en sådan komite ville repræsentanter for demokratiske stater risikere at blive underkendt af repræsentanter for regimer, som stener kvinder, afhugger hænder og hoveder og hænger homoseksuelle i byggekraner, mens hoben som en grum anakronisme optager sceneriet med mobiltelefonkameraer.

Det ville være ganske utåleligt.

Fra UN Watch:

Speaking before a United Nations audience, French secretary of state for human rights Rama Yade voiced the strongest international backing yet for Geneva activist David Littman, who was silenced by the Human Rights Council this past June for daring to mention the role of Islamic Sharia law in certain violations of women’s rights. Showing more courage and candor than any other European official, Yade said that

…[H]uman rights is all about being very alert. There may be attempts to deny their universal nature but there is also European action to be taken within the French presidency. Certain governments would like certain forms of slander to be acknowledged as criminal law offences which run counter to the principle of universality upon which human rights are predicated.

And along the same line, it is very saddening that within the UN Human Rights Council, last June, a speaker of an NGO was censored because he was talking about the stoning of women in countries applying Sharia law. We have to be very determined as to maintaining the universal nature of human rights even if they are mistreated by States who defend a view of things that they themselves describe as cultural.

The Senegalese-born Yade addressed the opening of the UN’s annual conference of non-governmental organizations, held for the first time in Paris to mark the 60th anniversary of the signing there of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer headed the conference’s NGO expert panel on the UN Human Rights Council.

According to Yade, France took a strong stand rejecting relativism, and would call for a European Union drive to tackle violence against women worldwide. As current holder of the six-month EU presidency, France hopes to use Europe’s diplomats to “set the criteria for EU intervention” in combating violence towards women, said Yade.

Yade also told the conference that Paris plans to submit a draft declaration to the UN General Assembly in December aimed at combating homophobia and decriminalizing homosexuality, which is punishable by prison in 90 countries and by death in six of them.  The Paris conference gathered 1,700 NGOs associated with the United Nations for three days of debate.

More excerpts from Rama Yade’s speech:

…For instance on women, I believe that a Congolese woman from Goma must have the same rights, is entitled the same rights as a Parisian. This is what universality is all about. Do not accept relativism and this is why I decided for the French presidency of the European Union to introduce and defend a subjective gender equality, in particular regarding violence against women.

You know, no doubt, that the European Union already has guidelines on five subjects: death penalty, torture, dialogue with third countries, children in armed conflicts and human rights defenders. When we gather together all the instruments of the European Union, this can serve as a framework to protect human rights beyond European bodies and my objective is to add to this range guidelines on violence against women. It will set the criteria for UE intervention in women rights and will also be applied and trigger measures in the European diplomatic network. The preliminary work is on the way and we are about to submit the draft text to the European parliamentarians in the days coming. The idea is to push this through between now and December, in other words, before the French presidency draws to an end.

The second project I would like to commit to during the presidency – you have to prioritize – is that of homophobia so that certain governments renounce penalizing homosexuals and homosexuality. There are 90 countries worldwide who penalize homosexuality and six who actually apply the death penalty to homosexuals.

My preferred method is to prioritize collaboration with NGOs, not just in drafting the texts but also in identifying the most effective strategy. A draft declaration will be presented in December at the UN Assembly and I trust that we will be able to rely on help from a large number of governments in addressing this subject which remains taboo in many countries.

Watch video

Anti-semitisme skal nu forstås som islamofobi - så ofrene er nu muslimer og arabere.

Antisemitism (alternatively spelled anti-semitism or anti-Semitism; also rarely known as judeophobia) is the prejudice against or hostility toward Jews as a group. The prejudice or hostility is usually characterized by a combination of religious, racial, cultural and ethnic biases. While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, since its creation it has been used exclusively to refer to hostility towards Jews.^[1][2]

^{Via Israel Matzav}

^{Se også Eye on the UN.}

It’s a small victory for the defenders of free expression. The concept of defamation of religion promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and some African countries did not find favor in the Human Rights Council. It was this theme that concerned all member states this Spring and remains an issue that threatens the follow-up conference on racism (Durban II) which will be held in Geneva next April. If the Council cedes this point, warn certain Western nations ‘it is the end of the Council’s credibility’. On Thursday, Githu Muigai, the Special Rapporteur for contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, found it was not necessary to promote the sociological concept of defamation of religion but rather to adhere to juridical norms when it comes to inciting racial or religious hatred.

Report on Arrakis: Defemation of Religion Document Rejected by UN.

Well, this is something... let's see how much time they can defend this against the Islamists...

Related posts:

• Nasser Khader calls on Denmark to condemn Islamism at Durban II.
• More on the UN resolutions on the "defamation of religions".
• Durban II: anti-Western and anti-Semitic feelings á la carte.
• UNHRC advises Britain.
• Petition against the UN resolutions about the "defamations of religions".

Durban II sarà una nuova Conferenza contro Israele

di Maurizio Stefanini, 19 Settembre 2008

Durban 2 la chiamano, anche se in realtà si terrà a Ginevra dal 20 al 24 aprile del 2009. Non è neanche la seconda volta che si riunisce la Conferenza Mondiale contro il Razzismo promossa dall’Unesco: anche gli appuntamenti del 1978 e del 1983 erano infatti stati ospitati da Ginevra, prima che la fine di quell’apartheid, già principale obiettivo di quei due incontri, permettesse per l’evento del 31 agosto-8 settembre 2001 la scelta della sede altamente simbolica di una città sudafricana. Ma l’etichetta ufficiale è quella di Durban Review Committee, e fu comunque Durban che passò alla storia per le polemiche che scatenò: polemiche che nella memoria non sono state ancora cancellate neanche dal trauma immediatamente successivo dell’attacco alle Torri Gemelle, appena tre giorni dopo la sua conclusione. Il timore è che quel che accadde allora torni a ripetersi.

Otto anni fa, infatti, l’evento si trasformò in un processo unilaterale al solo Israele, col tentativo di far riportare in vita quella famigerata deliberazione Onu del 1975 che aveva equiparato il sionismo a una forma di razzismo. Stati Uniti e Israele ritirarono allora le loro delegazioni, mentre Australia e Canada redigevano comunicati in cui attaccavano l'“ipocrisia” della Conferenza con parole di fuoco. Oltre a ciò ci furono anche un gruppo di Ong afro-americane e un gruppo di Paesi africani capeggiati da Nigeria e Zimbabwe che chiesero scuse e risarcimenti in moneta sonante da parte di ogni Paese europeo in passato responsabile della tratta degli schiavi. E qui fu la delegazione britannica a capeggiare una levata di scudi europea, col risultato finale di un compromesso: sì a una Nuova Iniziativa Africana, a un condono del debito, a nuovi fondi per la lotta all’Aids, alla restituzione dei fondi nascosti in Occidente dagli ex dittatori (i dittatori ancora in carica erano implicitamente esentati); ma senza alcun riferimento al termine “riparazioni”.

Il presidente sudafricano Thabo Mbeki aveva detto in Parlamento di essere disposto a riospitare la Conferenza, ma l’idea di un ritorno a Durban o paraggi anche fisica oltre che metaforica è bastata a provocare proteste e minacce di boicottaggio, così si è deciso di tornare a Ginevra. E forse è stato meglio così anche per lo stesso Sudafrica, dopo i recenti brutali pogrom di immigrati che vi sono verificati. Ma anche così il Canada ha già detto che non parteciperà, dicendosi sicuro che la Conferenza invece di combattere il razzismo e l’intolleranza ne promuoverà ancora di più. E la posizone di Ottawa è perfino più dura di quella di Israele, che ha annunciato anch’esso un boicottaggio “salvo sia dimostrato che la Conferenza non sarà utilizzata come strumento di ulteriore propaganda anti-israeliana e anti-semita”: insomma uno spiraglio lo lascia, anche per la pressione di alcune organizzazioni ebraiche inglesi e statunitensi che considerano comunque utile andarci. Anche gli Stati Uniti sembrano propensi a stare fuori, mentre l’Unione Europea non minaccia boicottaggi, ma attraverso la Slovenia ha parlato in sede di comitato preparatorio contro il rischio che si ripeta “l’inaccettabile antisemitismo di Durban”, chiedendo anche di non concentrarsi “su un’area geografica sola”.

Il bello è che su questo punto la stessa delegazione palestinese è d’accordo, ed ha parlato infatti di “razzismo” che sta sorgendo “in molte parti del mondo”. Ma il fatto è che la Presidenza del Comitato Preparatorio ce l’ha la Libia, il rapporto è stato affidato a Cuba, e nel comitato preparatorio ci sta pure l’Iran, oltre a Camerun, Sudafrica, Senegal, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Argentina, Brasile, Cile, Armenia, Croazia, Estonia, Russia, Belgio, Grecia, Norvegia e Turchia. Sarà interessante vedere se si parlerà pure di stragi di cristiani in India e Pakistan, di Cecenia, di pogrom di immigrati in Sudafrica e in Libia o della situazione nella Nuova Guinea Occidentale indonesiana, ad esempio. Ma l’Iran si è già segnalato per il veto che ha opposto a una Ong ebraica canadese: origine del boicottaggio di Ottawa. Insomma, il buongiorno che si vede dal mattino non è esattamente dei migliori.

L'Occidentale

Per ulteriori informazioni sulla Conferenza Mondiale contro il Razzismo tenutasi a Durban nel 2001 cliccare qui

There has been much reaction to this conference, occurring as it did just prior to the WTC and related atrocities of September 2001. The conference declaration and program of action is seen by most to be an accurate formulation of an historical and current context of racism. It furthermore provides states, agencies and other stakeholders, a progressive much-needed grip on the way toward eradicating intolerance and discrimination. On the other hand, there were some delegates to the conference criticise the conference and it's outcomes, labelling it anti-semitic. By pure coincidence, these delegates represented the same states which firmly supported Apartheid). The reader is advised to scour the documents below for anti-semitic references. The problems I determined were the mention of "refugees" and their right to return to their homeland. Also problematic for some delegates (apparently) are the discussions relating to migrants and the manner in which they should be protected. Over all, whenever reference is made in the DDPA to anti-semitism, it is in order to express the conference's declaration that this constitutes the kind of racism the conference aims at eradicating. In fact, some of the DDPA most strongly-worded paragraphs deal with the scourge of anti-semitism.

Our dedicated page, listing a synopsis and related documents will be updated as far as possible http://azanian.wordpress.com/wcar-durban/

The blog administrator is of the opinion that the conference should be embraced by ALL stakeholders, regardless of differences over the outcomes of the Durban I conference. It seems logical that a conference of this nature would see delegates expressing varying viewpoints. Ultimately, achieving a healthy synthesis in the outputs of the conference remains the responsibility of those who participate in good faith. One would imagine that those who lack the necessary political will to see an end to the scourge of racism, will be speedily exposed during the conference proceedings. It is imperative that parties in those states with a history of race-related discrimination and where the social constructs of "racial/ethnic/religious/or other differences" continue to materialise into a tacit system by which access to resources are controlled by a few, to the detriment of the many, be more aggressively involved. Their absence will send a pessimistic message to the many who suffer oppression of this particular kind.

In particular, the Azanian voice is sought in this conference. So far our contributions have been significant though sadly not in keeping with our long history of struggle against racism. Local NGO's and the voice of local (Azanian) political voices have been lacking. We cannot rely solely on Judge Navanetham Pillay recently as UN High Commisioner for Human rights, to carry our viewpoint into the global arena. She was appointed in 1995 to the International Tribunal for Rwanda and in 2003 to the International Criminal Court at the Hague. In the summer of 2008 Pillay was appointed United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  Significantly, Judge Pillay's native city is Durban (eThekwini municipality) South Africa, and although the UN Watch page suggests that she is opposed to the outputs of the first conference - if this is indeed the case - she appears nevertheless to be doing justice to her post as High Commissioner, maintaining a progressive and optimistic attitude on this topic. Earlier this month, High Commissioner Pillay criticised western organisations and states for threatening to walk out of the Durban II process.

Later this year, the United Nations will hold a conference on racism. Durban II in Geneva. In spite of this conference, which, like the first, is being hijacked by Islamic countries to support Sharia, the Danish government has chosen to participate. Other countries, including Canada, will boycott it. Now that Denmark chooses to participate, this opportunity must be seized to make a firm stand.

I believe that the Danish government should use Durban II to propose a condemnation of political Islam as a racist ideology. We owe it to ourselves and to our soldiers, who set their lives on the line fighting terrorism on the battlefield, that we at the lofty conferences in the international society act equally firmly and with principle against Islamism.

The Secular Conscience: Naser Khader calls on Denmark to condemn Islamism at Durban II.

Related links:

• Nasser Khader in Wikipedia.
• Nasser Khader's website (in Danish).

Related posts:

• More on the UN resolutions on the "defamation of rerligions".
• Durban II: anti-Western and anti-Semitic feelings á la carte.

[Reuters] The new U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanetham Pillay, called on Monday for an open debate about racism and religious intolerance, taking aim at countries threatening to boycott a summit on those issues.

In her first speech to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the former International Criminal Court judge said next April's already-contentious U.N. conference on racism and xenophobia would be impoverished if the United States and others sat it out.

"Let's not forget that diversity of opinions is often an inherent and welcome characteristic of relationships among peers," she said.

...

The United States and Israel walked out of the last big U.N. summit on anti-racism, held in Durban in 2001, saying it had become a forum for anti-Semitism.

Canada has said it will not take part in the follow-up meeting planned for Geneva, and the United States, Britain, the Netherlands and France have said they may stay away if Israel's treatment of the Palestinians again stands to eclipse all else.

Im Newsletter der Botschaft des Staates Israel in Berlin vom 03.09.2008 war ein Beitrag aus der Jersualem Post vom 02.09. in Übersetzung veröffentlicht, aus dem hervorgeht, dass Israel auch weiterhin an seinem geplanten Boykott der  "Durban II " Frühjahrskonferenz 2009 (Menschenrechts - und Rassismuskonferenz der UNO) festhält. Wer sich mit der Zusammensetzung des UN-Menschenrechtsrats bekannt gemacht hat kann eine solche Entscheidung wie sie Israel getroffen hat nur unterstützen. Kanada hat ebenfalls den Boykott bereits ausgesprochen - die USA, Frankreich, Großbritannien und die Niederlande werden es hoffentlich nicht nur bei einer Androhung belassen.  Deutschland hat sich offensichtlich noch gar nicht geäußert - und es kann nur wünschenswert sein , dass sich die Bundesregierung dem Boykott ohne "wenn und aber" anschließt!

Jerusalem Post: Israel befürchtet, dass die geplante Konferenz ebenso wie ihre Vorgängerin im südafrikanischen Durban im Jahr 2001 zu einer Orgie von Antisemitismus und Antiisraelismus ausarten wird. Die USA und Israel hatten die damalige Veranstaltung aus Protest verlassen. Gegen ‚Durban II’ spricht nicht zuletzt, dass im Planungskomitee Libyen den Vorsitz führt und der Iran und Kuba die Stellvertreter sind.

Ich denke, die vorangegangenen "blaue" Passage benötigt keinen Kommentar, um Israels Befürchtungen nicht voll und ganz zu verstehen und zu akzepieren. Bleibt zu hoffen, dass der Aufruf zum Boykott von "Durban II" noch viele Ohren regierender Häupter in der Europäischen Union erreicht!

die-wurde-des-islam-ist-unantastbar

Bis zum nächsten Mal - Schalom AhuvaIsrael

[Haaretz] The UN's new human rights chief said Monday she hopes to persuade the United States and Israel to drop their opposition to an upcoming global racism conference. 

"My instinct would be to get as many countries to participate as possible," Navi Pillay said on her first day as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

The so-called Durban II meeting in Geneva next year will review progress in fighting racism since the global body's first such conference seven years ago.

The U.S. and Israel walked out midway through the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, because of a draft resolution that singled out Israel for criticism and compared Zionism to racism. The resolution was never adopted. 

Lets take a peek into Pandora's box. [Emphasis added.]

4.  Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;

Our language has been molested!!! anti-Semitism, Christianophobia & Isllamophobia = racism ! Christianity & Islam are not races, they each include people of varying racial  and geographic backgrounds.  Hating a man on the basis of his skin color is irrational.  Skin color is not a valid predictor of behavior and it is a genetic trait not under the control of the individual. A believing, practicing Christian, who follows the Golden Rule, is a threat to no one; there is no reason to hate him.  A believing, practicing Muslim, is obligated to engage in war against pagans, Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians ; our blood and property are not sacred to him, its open season!  Fear of Islam is not irrational, it is intended,[3:151] [59:2] and is valid, based upon Islam's history of violent expansion.

Wherever "racism" is referred to in the preliminary document, you can substitute Islamophobia.

Stresses the need for an assessment to be conducted by the Human Rights Council and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on the extent to which racist phenomena are addressed through the implementation of specific laws, and underlines the importance of establishing national mechanisms with a view to specifically examining those phenomena;

They want the UNHRC to assess legislation addressing Islamophobia.  They want laws passed to prevent us from criticizing Islam.

1. Reiterates strongly that freedom of religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression, and non-discrimination are interdependent, and stresses the need to strengthen the process of effectively adjudicating cases associated with incitement to religious hatred under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other analogous instruments;

Article 20

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Our freedom of expression is interdependent with the Muslim's right not to be offended by exposure to the truth about Allah and Moe. Telling the truth about them is equated with incitement to religious hatred.

1. Underlines the importance of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief proclaimed by the General Assembly in its resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981;

Exactly what is being done to end Islam's imposition of Dhimmitude upon Copts & Chaldeans?

13.  Calls upon States to avoid inflexibly clinging to free speech in defiance of the sensitivities existing in a society and with absolute disregard for religious feelings;

Our right to expose Islam's mercenary motivation & barbarian  sacraments  is trumped by their right to be free from offense.  Yeah, right.

14. Reiterates  that it is critical for Governments and the judiciary to ensure that acts that constitute incitement under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are closely monitored and do not enjoy impunity;

Such as the blood thirsty sermons delivered in Mosques all over the Middle East and recorded at MEMRI?

15.  Urges the Human Rights Committee to clarify the scope and content of article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with the aim, among other things, of defining an appropriate threshold for enacting relevant legislation;

They are talking about restricting our right of free expression!

20. Calls upon States to pay attention to the serious nature of incitement to religious hatred, such as anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, more particularly, Islamophobia, and to promote the fight against those phenomena by strengthening interreligious and intercultural dialogue concerning the common ethics of all religions;

They are not really concerned about us, its Islam they are supporting.

27. Calls upon the Durban Review Conference to demonstrate the political will to confront those phenomena, and acknowledges that a failure of the Durban review process would, above all, pave the way for intensification of worrying racist and xenophobic trends, namely, the upsurge in racist violence, the political use of racism and its intellectual legitimization;

In view of point 4 cited above, read Islamophobic for racist / racism.

28.  Reiterates its concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupations, urges respect for international human rights law and international humanitarian law, and calls for a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;

The  Falestinians are the illegal occupiers, since Caliph Umar's conquest of the Levant. Palestine is Israel, Palestinians are Jews.  The U.N. stands history, morality, truth and justice on their heads, inverting  objective factual reality.

34.  Reiterates its call to States and encourages the private sector to promote the development by the media, taking into account their independence, of a voluntary ethical code of conduct and self-regulatory measures;

Translation: encourages censorship.

1. Reiterates to States the importance of abolishing and prohibiting any discrimination within their jurisdiction, criminalizing racial profiling, envisaging sanctions for those who violate the law and ensuring effective remedies for victims;
2. Draws attention to the impact of counter-terrorism measures on the rise of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, including the practice of racial, ethnic, national and religious profiling;

Who hijacked three commercial flights and piloted them into office buildings?  Who carried bombs onto buses and subways? It was Muslims. But, no, we mustn't profile; we are not to be wary of Muslims, of course not!   There is only one possible anti-terrorism measure: eliminating Islam.
.  75.

1. Elaborating specific laws on combating incitement to racial and religious hatred, in conformity with obligations under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;

Objective: legislating censorship; Islam's blasphemy law to be imposed on Dhimmis.

h. Introducing educational curricula aimed at raising awareness of different cultures and civilizations with a fair and objective perspective;

Insinuating Islamic propaganda into our schools.

m.  Devising special laws and policies to confront the ideologies and practices of extreme right wing groups;

Those who expose Islam are branded 'Nazis' and outlawed. As they are trying to do in Belgium.

1. Normative measures and other practical solutions

• 1. Prohibiting by law, and adopting the necessary policy measures to eliminate racial profiling and profiling based on any grounds of discrimination recognized under international human rights law, envisaging sanctions for those who violate the law and ensuring effective remedies for the victims;
  2. Prohibiting by law and adopting necessary policy measures to combat the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and incitement to hatred;
  3. Ensuring, in relation to the two above-mentioned themes:

• • 1. That lawmakers in every country discharge their responsibilities in conformity with article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, taking due account of General Comment 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;
    1. That model legislation on this issue is elaborated through a joint exercise to be undertaken by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Human Rights Committee;
    2. That permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression are codified;
    3. That a voluntary ethical code of conduct is elaborated, in association with the International Federation for Journalists, to address racism in the media and other modern information and communication technologies while taking into account fundamental issues, such as the right to freedom of expression, and to eliminate the projection and perpetuation through the media and new technologies of negative images and stereotypes of African people and people of African descent;

• 1. Establishing the necessary complementarity and balance between human rights and fundamental freedoms with a view to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;

Res Ipsa Loquitur!

Eine ungewöhnliche Entschuldigung - Über den „triumphalen“ Empfang des brutalen vierfachen Mörders Samir Kuntar im Libanon - Gefangenen-Austausch am 16. Juli 2008 - hatte der arabische Fernsehsender „Al Dschasira“ ausführlich berichtet woraufhin Israel gegen diese Berichterstattung heftigsten Prostest einlegte mit Androhung des Pressebüros der israelischen Regierung, den Satellitensender zu boykottieren, wenn sich dieser nicht dafür entschuldigt. Zur Erinnerung: das Büro in Beirut hatte den Terroristen Kuntar als „pan-arabischen Helden“ gepriesen. Chanfar Wadah, Geschäftsführer des arabischen Senders hat sich daraufhin bei der israelischen Regierung dafür entschuldigt: die “Elemente des Programms“, welche zu Kuntars Ehren ausgestrahlt worden seien, hätten den ethischen Codex des Sender verletzt, so hieß es in dem Schreiben Wadah’s. Als Folge sei der Programmdirektor von ihm beauftragt worden, dass sich ein derartiger Vorfall nicht wiederhole. So berichtet der Ha’aretz, dem eine Kopie des Schreibens vorliegt. Quelle: Israelnetz vom 07. August 2008

Aus mehreren Quellen wird berichtet, dass die Hamas erwägt die Verhandlungen über den Austausch des vor mehr als zwei Jahren entführten israelischen Soldaten Gilad Shalit mit Ägypten als Unterhändler aufzukündigen. Israelnetz am 11. August: Laut „A-Schark al Awsat“ (arabische Zeitung London) wünscht die radikal-islamische Hamas eine deutsche Vermittlung. Ein ranghoher Vertreter der palästinensischen Gruppierung sagte gegenüber dem Blatt: "Wir haben allgemein den Eindruck, dass Ägypten nicht daran interessiert ist, dass die Hamas durch den Handel gewinnt. Deshalb strengt es sich offenbar nicht besonders an, um Israel zu überreden, unsere Bedingungen für den Handel zu akzeptieren."
Anmerkung: Hervorhebung oben AhuvaIsrael. Die Vermittlung Deutschlands zum Gefangenen-Austausch zwischen Israel und Hisbollah weckt natürlich auch bei der Hamas große Begehrlichkeiten in Bezug auf einen „gewinnbringenden Austausch-Deal“ – schließlich hat bereits im Januar 2004 die Hisbollah durch deutsche Vermittlung für drei von ihr im Oktober 2000 entführten toten israelische Soldaten einen riesigen, unverhältnismäßigen Deal  "herausgeschlagen"!

Wir vergessen dich nicht: Gilad Shalit ist am 17. Aufust 2008 seit 781 Tagen in den Händen der radikal-islamischen Terrororganisation Hamas. ILI-News vom 16. 08. - Seit dem Inkrafttreten des Waffenstillstandes feuerten palästinensische Terroristen über 40 Raketen und Mörsergranaten auf Israel. Während Israel für einen dauerhaften Frieden die Waffen schweigen ließ, nutzte die Hamas die Zeit, um eine neue Rakete mit 25 Kilometern Flugweite zu bauen – die Nasser-3. Damit bedrohen die Terroristen nun auch die Zivilisten in der Stadt Ashdod und mehrere Ölraffinerien.

Auf bald wieder - eine gute Woche - AhuvaIsrael

[Jerusalem Post] Is the United Nations' follow-up to the racist 2001 Durban World Conference Against Racism headed for the same fate? Perhaps. In response to the newly released UN blueprint for next April's Durban II in Geneva, EU members need to defend the red lines set by France, the UK and the Netherlands.

However, this is all just background information. In the latest development coming from the planning on the next conference, Eye on the UN reports that:

'Iran has become a member of the "Group of Friends of the Chair", an informal group of states charged with taking the first steps towards producing a Durban II manifesto.'

Is anyone else getting that queasy feeling in their stomachs again? I mean, the country's President is a Holocaust denier, has threatened to destroy Israel numerous times and has stated that there are no homosexuals in Iran, which can be loosely translated as, because I killed them all (or am trying to). Am I missing something here? Now who else is on this "Group of Friends of the Chair'?

The role of his "friends" is described by Armenian Chairman Zohrab Mnatsakanian as "engaging in brainstorming and consolidating inputs." Other members of the behind-the-scenes group are Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Egypt.

Um yeah... This is going to be interesting. Anne Bayefsky, Editor of Eye on the UN hits the nail on the head with this comment:

'...one shudders to imagine the brainstorming among such human rights paragons.'
'The first contribution of the "Group of Friends" will be filed at the next stage of the process, the 'Intersessional Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group' session to be held in Geneva September 1-5, 2008.'

I would be very interested to read exactly what they believe should be in the Durban ll manifesto, obviously I'm expecting more of the same that seen in Durban I but you never know...who am I kidding?

Und warum ruft nun Pascal Bruckner zum Boykott von Durban 2 auf? Die 4. Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus soll 2009 wieder in Durban stattfinden. Es ist damit zurechnen, dass sich diese unglaubliche Farce von 2001 wiederholt, wenn nicht noch verstärkt, denn die Führung obliegt Libyen!!! Der Iran und der Großteil der anderen Teilnehmer sind Mitglieder der OIC (Organisation der Islamischen Konferenz) sowie aus dem afrikanischen und asiatischen Raum, in denen die OIC die Mehrheit hat. Nicht zu vergessen ist: der UN-Menschenrechtsrat wird mehrheitlich von der OIC gestellt – dass bedeutet, dass den USA, Israel und der Europäische Union als nicht-islamische Länder z.B. die Möglichkeit genommen ist Beschlüsse zu blockieren – ihnen sind sage und schreibe die Hände gebunden.
(Anmerkung: die afrikanischen und asiatischen Gruppen kontrollieren die Mehrheit der Sitze im Menschenrechtsrat).
Dazu Anne Bayefsky, Professorin an der Juristischen Fakultät der Columbia University: „Westliche Staaten haben nicht die Stimme, dies (Beschlüsse) zu blockieren und so ist dies ein weiteres Beispiel, wie eine führende Menschenrechtsorganisation übernommen wurde.“ Siehe Link (englisch): „ Die UN Menschenrechts-Verträge“

Anmerkung: eine von der OIC dominierte Menschenrechtsorganisation ist meiner Meinung nach in der Tat eine völlige absurde Fehlbesetzung für eine „Weltkonferenz gegen Rassismus“ – und „Boykott Durban 2“ sollte daher viel Unterstützung finden. Siehe Link: Boykott Durban 2 mit Mail-Adresse zum Eintrag.

Vielen Dank für Ihre/Eure Aufmerksamkeit - Schalom - AhuvaISrael

[SMH] The United Nations is planning a global anti-racism conference that is destined to encourage racism. Known as Durban II, and to take place in Geneva next April, it follows the notorious anti-semitic hatefest held in Durban seven years ago.

Canada has already decided not to attend. The United States and Israel are planning to boycott too. Australia is, therefore, faced with an important challenge and opportunity. By refusing to participate, Australia can help deny legitimacy to a global platform for intolerance and deal the voices of hate a blow.

The rest.

What ever happened to loyalty?
The Liberals are fuming about their leader's carbon tax, the Dippers about their leader's position on the "Durban II" conference. Meanwhile, at stately Harper Manor, all is quiet.

Forget the Liberal caucus and Chevy Suburban owners, says the Toronto Star's Chantal Hébert. The real fight Stéphane Dion will face over his carbon tax may be with the Premiers—or three of them anyway. Ontario's Dalton McGuinty has enough to deal with just with soaring oil prices, thank you very much, without the feds piling on; British Columbia's Gordon Campbell quite enjoys the idea of redistributing his own carbon tax revenues; and Quebec's Jean Charest faces the prospect of the federal tax coming down on top of his own. "Leading economist" Tom Courchene says it's high time the federal government took the reins, Hébert notes, but even he calls carbon taxation "the most complex constellation of policies ever contemplated in Canada."

More bad news for Dion: the Vancouver Sun's Vaughn Palmer reports that 59 per cent of granola-munching, earth-smooching British Columbians are now opposed to Campbell's carbon tax. And though voters don't seem willing to take it out on his government quite yet, communications on the file has been abysmal. "By focusing public attention on the [$100] 'climate dividend'" instead of the offsetting tax shifts, Palmer argues, "the Liberals may well have managed the exceptional feat of reducing income taxes … without getting credit for doing so." And amidst record-high gas prices, the NDP are rolling out an "axe the tax" campaign—something Campbell should consider, Palmer suggests.

"When the weather is cold, it proves climate change is taking place. And if it's hot, it proves climate change is taking place," Terence Corcoran whinges in the Financial Post. And according to the CBC, CNN and his "local all-news radio station"—whether they say it explicitly just imply it with their "tone"—floods such as those in Iowa apparently prove climate change is taking place too, even though scientists agree no single event should be chalked up to the overall phenomenon. Phooey! he declares.

"Internal correspondence obtained by the National Post suggests that a number of NDP MPs think the party is mistaken in its opposition to a government boycott [of the UN anti-racism] conference and has called for a rethink," John Ivison writes. Sounds ominous. But as far as we can tell, that "internal correspondence" is a single mass e-mail to members of the left-wing Alliance of Concerned Jewish Canadians from founder Diana Ralph, in which she claims Diana Bronson, from Jack Layton's office, told her that Dipper MPs were "starting to crumble and [believe] that the decision was a mistake." There's certainly opposition—Peter Stoffer allows that he's "not 100% behind the current decision." It just seems weird to pin the whole story on a third-hand e-mail, is all.

The Montreal Gazette's Janet Bagnall bemoans the Conservative government's apparent lack of interest in appealing to female voters, particularly at a time when women are more educated, participating more in the workforce, closing the earnings gap, occupying more seats on FP500 boards of directors and… hang on a tic, aren't these all good things? Well, apparently not. "What these statistics show is that Canadian women are having problems," Bagnall argues, noting that "fewer women are marrying and having children," and those that do "are cutting back somewhat on the amount of time they spend looking after them."

After the jailbreak
Taliban insurgents may be crowing to the Western media about the Kandahar prison break, but the Star's Rosie Dimanno says their stated goal of recapturing Kandahar City is nothing but a pipe dream. It won't happen, she assures us, "even if it means transferring American troops by the battalion-load from eastern Afghanistan, or shifting some 2,400 Marines only recently landed as reinforcement cavalry in neighbouring Helmand." But the insurgents' increasing brazenness, particularly in close proximity to Kandahar, poses a strategic challenge nevertheless. The solution, one "diplomatic source" insists, is not to abandon the key strategy of engaging "the population in villages, in communities," and not to be drawn into battles on "guerrilla-friendly terrain."

Well of course Taliban insurgents blew a hole in the Kandahar prison, the Globe's Jeffrey Simpson sniffs from his comfortable office in Ottawa. The Afghanistan-Pakistan border "mocks one of the cardinal rules of counterinsurgency warfare," he argues, while NATO's "inability to starve the insurgents of funds and supplies" mocks another. We assume Simpson will favour us with some constructive suggestions about what the hell to do about all this in his next column.

Idiots, certainly. Terrorists, maybe.
The Star's Thomas Walkom believes RCMP informant and star prosecution witness Mubin Shaikh came close to "torpedo[ing] the Crown's case" in testimony yesterday at the trial of a minor player in the so-called Toronto 18 terrorism plot. The ringleaders were "delusional," "nuts," "disconnected with reality," possessed by a "jihadist fantasy" and "a few fries short of a Happy Meal," he testified, arguing "it was highly improbable that the nefarious plans he has been describing for the last 10 days could ever have been put into action." (He may well be right. On the other hand, we would note that gangs of very stupid people have managed to pull off "improbable" terrorist attacks in the past.)

People who believe prosecutors have vastly overreached in this case—particularly when it comes to the 20-year-old currently on trial—"have a point or 12," The Globe and Mail's Christie Blatchford concedes. He was a "recent convert whose knowledge of Islam was a kilometre long and a millimetre deep," she notes, and the ringleaders deliberately kept him out of the loop. But when it comes to the leader of this hapless terror cell, she still "defer[s] to Mr. Shaikh," who said yesterday: "You and I know it's a fantasy, but he didn't."

Duly noted
From Abraham Lincoln to Harry Truman and Bill Clinton, the Globe's John Ibbitson says there's a historical pattern when a competent but less experienced executive takes over the oval office: he "arrives clearly unequipped to meet the demands of the office. He makes mistake after mistake, his popularity wanes and the pundits prepare his political obituary." Meanwhile, he "analyze[s] each failure with a clear head," surrounds himself with trustworthy advisers, "figures out the Congress," and rebounds—often to greatness. As such, Ibbitson says Obama's lack of experience is less a concern than his "capacity to grow." It's considerable, he concludes—but then again, so is John McCain's.

England went through an energy crisis in the 13th century "when population growth and deforestation led to a shortage of wood," writes the Ottawa Citizen's Dan Gardner, and again in the early 1700s, when, having exhausted easily accessible coal supplies, "miners had to burrow deep into the earth—so deep the mines flooded with water." A "clanking, belching, hissing" invention solved that problem, he notes, and he's pretty sure our "inventive species" will get us out of our current mess too. After all, he writes, "the earth's core is a mighty furnace. Air and water swirl with unfathomable kinetic energy." And by gum, we'd add, there's profit to be made!

Iran is the co-chair of the Durban II preparatory committee.   Its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has described the Nazi holocaust as a “myth” and compared Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists to Hitler’s tactics, has publicly declared the goal of eliminating the Jewish state from the face of the earth.   He also said that “Israel, this stain of disgrace, will be purged from the center of the Islamic world—and this is attainable."  If any comparison to the genocidal Hitler is apt, Ahmadinijad fits the bill.

It is no coincidence that at a prominent book fair, held in Frankfurt, Germany no less,  Iran’s booth has prominently displayed the same kind of anti-Semitic propaganda that so enthralled the Nazis.  This included the classic screeds Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Henry Ford’s The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem.   The Iranian state also published its own Jewish conspiracy theories in a book entitled Tale of the 'Chosen People' and the Legend of 'Historical Right'.   Its cover bore a red Star of David superimposed on a gray death's head and a yellow map of the world.

The rest.

Canada, the US, and Israel are boycotting Durban II. The other co-chair of the prep committee is Libya.

Independent berichtet, dass Durban die UN-Rassismus-Konferenz 2009, besser bekannt als Durban II, nicht ausrichten wird.

ShareThis

Wie geht man mit Nachrichten aus Nahost um? Sderot und Gaza „im Kontext“.

Der Iran will jüdische Gruppen aus dem Forum aussperren lassen. Aufwärmphase für Durban II.

Zawahri: Hisbollah streute Gerüchte, Israel habe 9/11 geplant. Dies bestätigt, dass Sunniten in der Lage waren, das World Trade Center zu zerstören.

Chefredakteur der New York Times stellt gewisse Ähnlichkeit zwischen Israel und südafrikanischer Apartheid her. Bill Keller schrieb ein Buch über Nelson Mandela….

Hisbollah baut Kommunikationsnetz aus. Die vorgeblich „legitimierte libanesische politische Partei“ kann jetzt Gespräche von Bürgern und Behörden anzapfen.

Musikklänge einer Stadt, die dichter bevölkert ist als Gaza. Mit 7.000 Leuten pro Quadratkilometer hat Tel Aviv eine höhere Bevölkerungsdichte als Gaza (Via Daled Amos)

Ägypten baut eine Mauer. Sich Palästinenser vom Leib halten bedeutet nicht Apartheid, wenn es Araber tun, stimmt’s?

Saudischer Blogger wieder frei. CNN berichtet, dass der regierungskritische Blogger Fouad Al-Farhan aus dem Gefängnis entlassen wurde.

ShareThis

They will also call on Ban to cancel the "Durban II" conference slated for 2009, and address the "world's amnesia" about rocket attacks on Sderot.

In a private meeting Tuesday, representatives from the Wiesenthal Center are expected to ask Ban to advocate for a special session of the General Assembly on suicide bombing and terrorism and reverse the Assembly's longstanding refusal to raise the issue in its halls.

"The GA has had many special sessions on issues such as apartheid, drugs smuggling, disarmament, but the greatest scourge - suicide terror - is being blocked," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center. "We know that 57 Muslim countries don't want a meeting on it. But if you look at the world, it's not only global warming threatening the fabric of civilization, but suicide terrorism."

The Wiesenthal Center will also urge the secretary-general to cancel the Durban II conference scheduled for 2009, which many Jewish organizations fear will be a recap of the first conference held in South Africa in 2001 under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. That conference was titled "The World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance," but dealt mostly with Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. Both Israel and the US eventually quit the conference.

"When will we see a Durban conference on the treatment of women in the Arab world, or the religious police in Saudi Arabia and Iran?" asked Hier. "To have a conference that focuses myopically on one country under the globe, that is a hate fest targeting the same people as the Holocaust, is unacceptable."

Mere på Jerusalem Post

Efter mødet udtalte FN's Generalsekretær: UN SECRETARY GENERAL BAN ON SUICIDE TERROR: "TOO MANY PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED ... AN UNACCEPTABLE POLITICAL WEAPON"

57 muslimske lande er ikke flertallet i FN. Hvem hjælper dem? Og kommer der noget ud af initiativet?

Sin embargo ya hay dos gobiernos, cuando falta mas de un año para la celebración, que evalúan no participar de dicha conferencia, mientras que Canada ya desistió:

Los gobiernos de Estados Unidos y Francia amenazaron con no enviar a sus representantes a Durban II, la conferencia sobre racismo que la ONU realizará en Sudáfrica el año próximo, si en el encuentro prima “el antisemitismo que prevaleció en la reunión” efectuada en 2001, cuando se retiró en protesta por acusaciones de Irán.

“La pasada conferencia de Durban llevó a excesos intolerables por parte de ciertos estados y numerosas Organizaciones No Gubernamentales que convirtieron el encuentro en un foro contra Israel”, dijo el presidente francés Nicolas Sarkozy.

Por su parte, la secretaria estadounidense de Estado, Condoleezza Rice, afirmó que Washington podría tomar la misma postura, aunque la decisión final la tomará el presidente electo, que asumirá en enero de 2009.

Si bien el tema de la conferencia es la xenofobia y el racismo, Canadá anunció en enero que no participará del encuentro porque considera que “caerá en un lamentable antisemitismo”.