FM Livni: Israel will not participate and will not legitimize the Durban 2 Conference

* Of course not. The whole thing is a charade concocted by the Arabs and their parasitic enablers to attack and vilify Israel…

Livni: “Israel will not participate in the Durban 2 Conference”

(Communicated by the Foreign Minister’s Bureau)

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tzipi Livni, announced today, in front of the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities of North America, that Israel will not participate and will not legitimize the Durban 2 Conference. 

The OIC & the UN: Islamophobia and “defamation of religion”

Two years ago, the UN General Assembly decided to convene in Geneva in 2009 the Durban Review Conference, as a follow-up to “the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” held in Durban in September 2001. The Durban Conference of 2001 became a forum for pernicious accusations and incitement against Israel,  attacks against  Zionism libeling it as a form of racism, denial of the unique and special nature  of the Holocaust, and a distortion of  the meaning of the term anti-Semitism.

* Swinish Squandering at U.N. Human Rights Council: Foreign Aid Money Spent on $23 Million Art Ceiling 

* The swine from the UN: Ban Ki Moonbat and Navi Pillay smear Israel over “human rights” for terrorists:

Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

*  UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay (replacement for awful Arbour) takes off the mask and shills for Hamas: Israel harshly condemned a call by the UN’s top human rights official to immediately end the Gaza blockade, which she said breached international and humanitarian law.



* Jiziyah alert: EU hands over another 750.000 Euro’s  to the Palestinian Central Elections Commission “to help successfully pave the way for any future elections in the occupied Palestinian territory.”

Although we had many reasons to believe that the Review Conference will be a repetition of Durban 1, Israel announced in February 2008 that it would wait for an assurance that the incitement and gross excesses of 2001 will not be repeated in the upcoming Review Conference. Since then, unfortunately, we have not seen any proof that things would be better. On the contrary – the Asian Group paper which was submitted to the Preparatory Committee contains the same language of hate which undermined the first Durban Conference. The document reproduces, almost word-by-word, the rhetoric of the Tehran Planning Meeting in 2001, a meeting which led to the Durban 1 farce. Once again extremist Arab and Muslim states wish to control the content of the conference and derail it from its original mission.

Regrettably the Asian document was compiled into the “Draft Outcome Document”, which appears now on an official UN website. In this “Draft Outcome Document” no particular country is named or singled out, except for Israel.

During recent months, we expressed the hope that the language of hatred will not repeat itself; we declared that we will not agree to the singling out of Israel, and we will object to incitement and condemnation of Israel. Despite our efforts and those of friendly countries, for whose position we are grateful, the conference appears to be heading once again towards becoming an anti-Israeli tribunal, which has nothing to do with fighting racism.

Israel is fully aware of the importance of the international fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, and, therefore, looked forward to the success of the review conference.

The vitriolic tone and context of the “Draft Outcome Document” continue to undermine the genuine aims and objectives of the Durban Conference, and leave us no choice, but to withdraw from what, once again, will apparently become a platform for denigrating Israel.  

In view of this situation, Israel will not participate and will not legitimize the Review Conference, which will be used as a platform for further anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic activity. We call upon the international community not to participate in a conference which seeks to legitimize hatred and extremism under the banner of the “fight against racism”.


The OIC & the UN: Islamophobia and “defamation of religion”

Nov 15, 2008

By: WEA RLC Principal Researcher and Writer, Elizabeth Kendal          


(OIC: Organisation of Islamic Conference)

Durban I — the UN’s first World Conference on Racism, Racial 
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance — which was held in 
Durban, South Africa, in early September 2001 ended with a walkout over 
its virulent anti-Semitism. Yet sadly it now seems clear that the Durban 
Review Conference (or Durban II), which will be held in Geneva in April 
2009, is shaping up to be even worse.

As a prelude to Durban II, a Second Preparatory Session of the 20-state 
Preparatory Committee — of which Libya has been elected chair with 
Cuba, Pakistan and Iran as vice-chairs — was held in Geneva from 6 to 
17 October 2008. The resulting “Draft Outcome Document for the Durban 
Review Conference 2009” is now available on the United Nations Human 
Rights Council (UNHRC) website at LINK 1.

It is clear from the draft document, as well as from reports emanating 
from the subsequent 63rd UN General Assembly meeting held in Geneva 
during the first week of November, that a central focus of Durban II 
will be “Islamophobia”, which is being presented as “a new form of racism”.

Muslims, the draft declaration asserts, are at dire risk of a racial 
“holocaust” due to “a new form of racism” — “Islamophobia” — which is 
incited through “defamation of Islam”.

The draft declaration recommends that local, national and international 
laws and human rights covenants be reviewed and amended as necessary so 
that “defamation of Islam” is made a criminal offence, losing the 
protection it has long enjoyed under the “pretext” of “freedom of 
expression, counter terrorism or national security”. It recommends that 
legal instruments be established to punish offenders — that is, those 
who “defame” Islam by associating it with violence, human rights abuses 
or terrorism.

Anne Bayefsky, a York University professor and human rights lawyer who 
attended the Second Preparatory Session in Geneva, warns: “This is the 
new dimension of Durban 2, which in many ways makes it a greater threat 
than Durban 1. It’s really setting up a war of ideas, that has rough 
implications, between Islamic states and everybody else. . . .  Durban 1 
was called an assault on Israel; a demonisation of Israel as racist and 
analogous to Apartheid South Africa. But in addition, Durban 2 is an 
assault on freedom of expression and other essential democratic rights 
and freedoms.” (Link 2)


The draft declaration has built on the 17 August 2007 report by Mr 
Doudou Diene, the then UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of 
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and 
the OIC’s Observatory of Islamophobia.

For background see:
UN Human Rights Council:  Watershed days. 18 Sept 2007
WEA RLC News & Analysis by Elizabeth Kendal 

(This posting gives a thorough critique of Doudou Diene’s August 2007 
report and considers its implications in terms of the Islamisation of 
international human rights.)
OIC:  Eliminating “defamation” of Islam. 25 March 2008
WEA RLC News & Analysis by Elizabeth Kendal 

(This posting analyses the OIC’s Observatory of Islamophobia which was 
launched at the OIC Dakar Summit in March 2008. The Observatory of 
Islamophobia, which is built on Doudou Diene’s August 2007 report to the 
UNHRC, must be seen in the context of the OIC’s “Ten Year Program of 
Action” through which it aims to address the most “prominent challenges 
facing the Muslim world today”. This posting also presents scenarios and 
means through which the OIC might fulfill its goal of establishing 
international instruments to punish — under the pretext of peace and 
human rights — those whom they charge with inciting Islamophobia 
through “defamation” of Islam.)


Canada and Israel have already pulled out of Durban II while several 
other Western states have threatened to boycott — most notably Denmark. 
As reported by Jette Elbaek Maressa in Jyllands-Posten (28 Oct 2008), 
Danish foreign minister Per Stig Moller told his Arab partners during a 
round trip to the Middle East that if the Organisation of Islamic 
Conference did not withdraw its proposal to make criticism of religion 
equivalent to racism, then Western countries will stay away from Durban 
II. “If the OIC pushes through this draft resolution, they shall not 
expect European or Western countries to be present at the table,” he 
said. (Link 3)

The Non-Government Organisation “UN Watch” has released a paper on the 
Durban II Draft Declaration. Entitled “Shattering the Red Lines: The 
Durban II Draft Declaration”, it examines a “small selection of the 646 
provisions of the Durban II draft declaration, highlighting several that 
breach the EU’s red lines” (i.e. the lines the EU determined should not 
be crossed).

In its opening summary, UN Watch charges that the draft declaration 
seeks “to distort human rights laws for the purposes of Islamic 
censorship” by “inserting a prohibition against ‘defamation of religion’ 
designed to restrict free speech and impose the censorship of Islamic 
anti-blasphemy laws”.

UN Watch’s paper provides a clear, thorough and yet concise overview and 
analysis of the most contentious elements of the Durban II draft 
declaration. It is recommended reading. (Link 4)


Reliefweb has published a report on the 63rd General Assembly that was 
held in Geneva subsequent to the Durban Review Conference Second 
Preparatory Session. LINK 5

The report describes representatives from Egypt, Sudan, Libya and 
Pakistan all expressing great concern over the threat posed by this “new 
form of racism” — Islamophobia — which is incited by “defamation of 
religion”. According to the Libyan representative, freedom of speech is 
not the issue — at issue is the “misuse” of that right.

The representative from Iran told the assembly that modern-day racism is 
no longer based on supposed inequality between races, but is based on 
culture, nationality or religion. He claimed that xenophobic acts 
against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; defamation of religions; 
religious intolerance and racial profiling are all expressions of this 
new form of racism which seeks legitimacy and protection under various 
pretexts such as combating terrorism.

According to the representative from Saudi Arabia, Islam rejects all 
forms of discrimination and so in Saudi Arabia there are legal 
provisions to protect all the rights of all persons regardless of race, 
religion, status or gender.

Various free, multi-racial Western democracies (a minority in the UN) 
denounced racism while making strong and clear defences of human rights 
including religious liberty and freedom of expression.

The representative from France (speaking on behalf of the European Union 
[EU]) reminded the assembly that the EU had supported the organisation 
of a Review Conference as long as certain conditions were met and 
certain lines not crossed. He said that the primary goal should be the 
full implementation of existing normative framework and that new norms 
should only be drawn up if they were deemed necessary, were subject to a 
broad consensus and did not go back on universal achievements by 
restricting the current scope of human rights.

He expressed the European Union’s concern that the “thought process” on 
the possible creation of complementary norms was moving in a direction 
that could reduce the level of human rights promotion and protection. 
According to Reliefweb, the representative from France said the EU would 
“not allow the United Nations principles to be undermined” and would 
work in accordance with the principles that had been set out in the 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He said the Review Conference 
should concentrate on the implementation of the existing framework 
without restricting any human rights, establishing any hierarchy among 
victims, or excluding any one group. As well, the review conference 
should show how promoting human rights, especially the freedom of 
speech, could play an important role in fighting racism.

The representative from the USA expressed concern at the trend of 
conflating issues of racism and religion which he said were two distinct 
issues. He likewise asserted that the cure for intolerance is more 
dialogue, not less.

The representative from Israel regretted that alliances had trumped 
ideals and warned that nations with a genuine desire to promote peace 
should guard against the co-opting of legitimate language and ideas by 
racist demagogues. He expressed concern that Durban II risked becoming 
itself a platform of racial incitement, and he feared that words might 
quickly turn to actions.


The OIC formulated its Ten Year Program of Action (TYPOA) in Makkah in 
December 2005. Item VI on the TYPOA is “Combating Islamophobia”. The OIC 
determined to do this by means of: 1) establishing an Observatory on 
Islamophobia tasked with monitoring Islamophobia and “defamation” of 
Islam and issuing annual reports; 2) getting the UN to adopt an 
international resolution on Islamophobia, and call on all States to 
enact laws to counter it; and 3) establishing international legal 
instruments to enforce anti-defamation laws and deliver deterrent 
punishments to those charged with inciting Islamophobia through 
defamation of Islam.

The Observatory of Islamophobia was launched in Dakar in March 2008 and 
the UN has been passing resolutions against Islamophobia and 
“defamation” of religion ever since the OIC and Arab League-incited 
Cartoon Intifada of February 2006. All that is left on the OIC’s agenda 
for combating Islamophobia is the legitimisation and implementation of 
national and international laws and legal instruments to punish 
offenders. It looks like Durban II might be a step in this direction.

By E N Kendal


1) Draft Outcome Document for the Durban Review Conference 2009

2) Durban 2: New site, same debacle.
Kevin Libin, National Post (Canada) 25 October 2008

3) Danish foreign minister threatens Western boycott of Durban II
Jyllands-Posten 28 Oct 2008
By Jette Elbaek Maressa

4) Shattering the Red Lines: The Durban II Draft Declaration
Selected provisions of United Nations draft published at Second 
Preparatory Session
By UN WATCH (Oct. 2008).

5) Strengthening respect for human rights key for preventing conflict, 
stabilizing post-conflict situations, Third Committee told.
Sixty-third General Assembly
Third Committee
33rd & 34th Meeting (AM & PM)
Hears from Special Rapporteur on Racism, Chair of Mercenaries Working 
Group; Religious Defamation, Progress towards Durban Review Conference 
among Issues

  **WEA Religious Liberty News & Analysis**
  < >

Please feel free to pass this along to others giving attribution to:
“World Evangelical Alliance – Religious Liberty News & Analysis.”

WEA RLC operates two mailing lists: the WEA RLC News & Analysis list and 
the weekly Religious Liberty Prayer list.

The WEA RLC News & Analysis mailing list provides reports on religious 
liberty and persecution around the world for those with a special 
interest in the field. Most subscribers are involved in church-based 
religious liberty advocacy, academic research, missions leadership, 
creative-access missions, religious media, or have prayer networks 
supporting these groups, although anyone is welcome to join. Postings 
average one per week. Information shared does not necessarily reflect 
the opinion of World Evangelical Alliance, or of the WEA Religious 
Liberty Commission.

For those who would like regular detailed information specifically
for prayer and intercession, we recommend that you subscribe to the
WEA Religious Liberty Prayer List (RLP). Each week a different
nation or situation is highlighted. A short summary is included for
use in church and other bulletins.


To subscribe for WEA RLC News & Analysis, please send your request to
< > Please include your name and country 
or state of residence.

To subscribe for the weekly Religious Liberty Prayer(RLP) bulletin, 
please send an empty e-mail to < > with any or 
no subject.

For more information on the World Evangelical Alliance, please see:
< >,
For the Religious Liberty Commission of the WEA, see:
< >.
All WEA RLC material is archived at < >.

Advocates International < > serves 
as the legal and judicial advisor to the RLC. Advocates International 
links many Christian lawyers and judges around the world and has been 
involved in religious liberty issues for many years.