Government 'satisfied' at Durban outcome

DURBAN - The UN World Conference on Racism concluded yesterday by adopting a declaration that did not specifically criticize Israel, but which recognized the "plight" of the Palestinians and the injustice of slavery and colonialism, after nine days of contentious debate that repeatedly threatened to unravel the gathering.

Compromises on both issues were reached only yesterday morning, one day after the conference had been scheduled to end. Even as they accepted the compromise on the Middle East, Arab states registered their reservations that the conference would not directly condemn Israel for its treatment of Palestinians.

In a closing session that lasted beyond a final deadline when the interpreters had to leave, the conference adopted a program of action and declaration that was to serve as a global blueprint to fight racism.

But much of the debate was overshadowed by the disputes over whether to provide an apology and reparations for slavery and whether the document should condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

The government expressed satisfaction last night that the conference of racism did not include any condemnation of Israel or the Jewish people.

The deal reached on the Middle East was based on a South African compromise accepted Thursday by the European Union, but initially rejected by Arab states. The compromise recognized the Holocaust and condemned anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and also expressed concern "about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation." But it did not specifically criticize Israel or mention Zionism.

"Israel is satisfied that the clauses full of hate and incitement against it and the Jewish people were removed from the conference's final document," the Foreign Ministry said in a statement. The world rejected the attempt of the "extreme Arab states to take over the conference and turn it into a platform for deriding Israel," the ministry added.

Israel walked out of the meeting together with the US on Monday to protest against its anti-Israeli positions after a compromise proposed by Norway failed.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said the declaration marks an "accomplishment for Israeli foreign policy."

"For the first time, the automatic majority against [Israel] was broken," Peres said in a statement. Peres attributed the change to what he termed Israel striving for peace combined with its resilience in sticking to basic principles.

He thanked the US for its "unequivocal backing of Israel," and also noted the cooperation of European Union states, and support from a large block of countries in Latin America and Asia.

Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior said the document did not "include one word condemning Israel."

At the same time, the Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment that an international conference aimed at tackling a universal problem focused on a specific political conflict that has nothing to do with racism.

Melchior also said the attempt of the Arab world to "kidnap the conference and turn it into an anti-Israel festival in the end boomeranged. The real issue of the conference was put aside and the victims of racism were the victims of the conference since their issue was sidelined by the Arabs."

Melchior said he believes the turning point in the conference was the walkout by Israel and the US, since the Arab world saw that they could not get away with the delegitimization of Israel and the Jewish people. "The Arab states realized that if they stuck with their plan to condemn Israel, most of the other major countries would also leave," he said.

The Anti-Defamation League rejected the final resolution of the conference, calling the document the "irrelevant offering of a conference marked by hate and exclusion. The final document is the result of intense haggling by participating nations, absurdly negotiating whether the Holocaust was a noteworthy historical example of racism, and if anti-Semitism can be considered discrimination.

"The shocking focus on Israel throughout the entire conference, the fight for the inclusion of the right of return for refugees in the final document, while ignoring instances of ongoing racism and discrimination in the world today only underlines the farcical nature of this event," a statement said.

In Washington, a State Department official said the US government looks forward to examining the final text.

"We appreciate the effort of other parties in the conference who thought to remove the offensive language," the official said. "We're disappointed that the conference, which had an opportunity to address the issues of racism, was politicized. We're confident that our withdrawal was the correct measure and hope the decision had some effect on a better but still flawed result."

The Arab states had called for the conference to condemn Israeli practices as racist. The European Union had refused to allow the conference to take sides in the conflict.

"We are not satisfied with this conference," said Canadian representative Paul Heinbecker, registering his country's objection to the paragraphs regarding the Middle East. "Too much time has been spent on an issue which does not belong here. We want to condemn at this conference the attempts to delegitimize the state of Israel."

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara rejected the paragraph recognizing the Holocaust, saying that Europeans were responsible for the genocide and "are trying to spread their guilt around the world."

Earlier in the day, South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma told the conference she understood there was agreement reached on the two issues, and the Islamic states issued a statement confirming that.

But several Muslim countries then objected to efforts to delete additional text that many delegates felt indirectly referred to Palestinians, including a paragraph that said "foreign occupation ... is among the forms and sources of racial discrimination."

Working after the 4 p.m. deadline, the conference rejected their efforts, and then passed the previously agreed to texts by consensus.

Under the slavery deal, the conference acknowledged slavery and the slave trade as a crime against humanity and "should always have been so." It also expressed an apology in the form of acknowledgment for the wrongs of slavery and colonialism and offered a package of economic assistance to Africa.

Islamic states said they had accepted the compromise declaration, but still had serious reservations with its failure to address the Palestinian issue.

"Despite the fact that the text expresses concern about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation, it failed to condemn the discriminatory policies and practices of Israel," according to a statement by Organization of Islamic Conference.

"Regrettably, our repeated attempts to initiate negotiations on this issue... have been thwarted by other parties," it said.

While the conference's documents are not legally binding, all adopting countries promise to fulfill the applicable pledges made.

On Friday, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson told the NGOs that she could not recommend their document, which included virulently anti-Israel language and called for the total international isolation of Israel.

She said that this would be the first time that she could not recommend the document to the governmental body, but that she could not do it because the document contained "inappropriate and unhelpful" language.

Robinson referred specifically to two clauses in the document, one that equated Zionism as racism, and one that said that an international war crimes tribunal should be set up to try Israelis for racist and apartheid crimes.

After Robinson made her statement, she left the room and did not allow the NGOs to respond, drawing ire from Palestinians at the conference. One delegate, after accusing Israel of systematic racism, said that, "if Mary Robinson is not willing to listen to the Palestinian side, who will?"

(Nina Gilbert contributed to this report.)

How low Israel has fallen that it is satisfied when it is only indirectly villified and condemned.

"How low Israel has fallen that it is satisfied when it is only indirectly villified and condemned."

When a people have been openly 'villified and condemned' with attemps to eradicate them for centuries then this seems to be fairly mild.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.