German Double Cross on Durban II
Remember that Germany had the courage and conviction to refuse to participate in the Durban II racist "anti-racism" conference? Remember that Germany decided it would not sit on the anniversary of Hitler's birthday - opening day of Durban II - and listen to Iranian President Ahmadinejad promote another Holocaust? Remember that Germany refused to lend credibility to Durban II by deciding not to attend any of it?
That was weeks ago when the fiasco of Durban II was in the public eye. Today, the same Germany has double-crossed Jews, Israel and all those who care about anti-Semitism and the demonization of the Jewish state.
Germany has now agreed to the outcome document from Durban II - the document which "reaffirms" Durban I's smear that Israelis are racists.
Confirmation of Germany's position on the Durban II outcome document can now be found on the website of the German mission to the United Nations: the "document, from the German point of view, is an acceptable basis for the continuing struggle against racial discrimination and xenophobia."
German officials also now admit that they have highlighted their new found enthusiasm for Durban II to UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay in a bilateral meeting.
Furthermore, the Draft Report of the UN High Commissioner's office on Durban II, claims that Germany attended the conference. Germany is listed under the heading "The following States were represented at the Review Conference." In fact, Germany was not physically present and its chair was empty throughout. German officials, however, have confirmed that they have not asked the UN High Commissioner to correct the report.
So here is how Germany in 2009 does business - the dirty business of encouraging anti-Semitism while claiming it is doing the opposite:
(1) Germany represents itself to the world as a country which rejects Durban II as a vehicle for combating racism. On April 19, 2009 German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier declared that "there is still a risk the conference will be used as a platform for the pursuit of other interests, just as its predecessor in 2001 was. That is something we cannot accept." The German UN mission website subsequently explained their refusal to participate by saying "we feared that this conference, just as the previous conference in 2001, would be abused as a platform for other interests. Unfortunately, these fears were confirmed."
(2) Behind closed doors Germany represents to the UN that it accepts the product of this platform for anti-Semitism.
(3) Germany decides to cover-up the fact that it had denied Durban II legitimacy by refusing to participate - and is allowing the UN to claim that it participated, when it didn't.
EYEontheUN.org Editor, Anne Bayefsky, asked on April 17th, 2009 during the last Durban II planning meeting: will Germany grant legitimacy to a forum which tolerates the presence of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people? The answer, we now know, is "yes."
Comment on this item
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.
by Irfan Al-Alawi
"Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi" is Abu Du'a, a follower of the late Osama Bin Laden. By adding the name "Al-Qurayshi" in his current alias, he is also seeking to affirm descent from Muhammad.
The allegation of theological sovereignty over all Sunnis extends to Indonesia and Morocco. The idea that the borders between Syria and Iraq will be dissolved by the new "caliphate" defies all Islamic theology and history. As the Qur'an states, "Allah "made the nations and tribes different." (49:13) Syria and Iraq have been distinct for millennia.
The "Islamic State" seeks to obliterate these diverse identities by expelling or killing all Shias and Sunni Sufis. And it does not invoke the Ottoman caliphate in its propaganda, demonstrating decisively the fake nature of the "Islamic State."
A caliphate is obsolete and the "Islamic State" is totalitarian. All Sunnis need to repudiate them soundly, even by force of arms.