Israel's Challenge: The Durban II Conference on World Racism

The Durban II Conference, also known as the Second World Conference against Racism, is going to commence on April 20. Since the articles of draft documents were being discussed and shaped during the preparatory meetings, the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzip Livni, has warned the UN that Israel would not attend to the upcoming conference if the Israeli politics labeled as “Zionism”  were considered as racist again.

The latest draft resolution for the conference is remarkable in its criticism of Israel, even in  comparison to the declaration of the first conference. There is no attempt at a balance between the right of Israeli security and the right of self-determination of the Palestinians. Indeed, in addition to pointing out the one-sided racial discrimination against Palestinians, there are three significant references: the Gaza situation, the Israeli "Wall" running through the West Bank, and the Syrian Golan Heights. The worst-case scenario for Israel, is that these references will bring in the International Court of Justice, as the judicial body of the UN, to rule on the norms of international law under the Occupied Territories.

In 2001, both the Israeli and American delegations withdrew from the first World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, claiming that the language of the draft declaration was “anti-Semitic” and “full of hatred.” The "shocking" vote for the declaration was interpreted as a revival of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted in 1975 but annulled in 1991, which stated that Zionism was a form of racism and racial discrimination.

Yet, the US and Israeli lobbies were successful in their "non-participation". The final text of the conference did not include the language accusing Israel of racism. Indeed, it aimed at neutrality in its treatment of the State of Israel and the Arab world. For instance:

• “63: We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation. We recognize that inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an independent State and we recognize the right to security for all States in the region, including Israel, and call upon al States to support the peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.”

• “61: We recognize with deep concern the increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in various parts of the world, as well as the emergence of racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas against Jewish, Muslim and Arab communities.”

• “150: Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas concerning these communities.”

This time, Israeli diplomats are expecting a tougher process. The draft resolutions of the Durban II conference, possibly bolstered by the Gaza War, are portraying Israel as an occupying state carrying out racist policies.

The latest revised version of the reviewed text issued on 23 January 2009 states:

“(Re-emphasizes the responsibility of the international community to provide international protection, in particular from racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, for (Palestinian) civilian populations under occupation in conformity with international human rights law and international humanitarian law;).”

“(Reiterates that the Palestinian people have the inalienable right to self-determination and that, in order to consolidate the (Israeli) occupation, they have been subjected to unlawful collective punishment, torture, economic blockade, severe restriction of movement and arbitrary closure of their territories. Also notes (with concern) that illegal settlements continue to be built in the occupied (Arab) territories (since 1967);)”

“Expresses deep concern at the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories as well as displaced persons who were forced to leave their homes because of war and racial policies of the occupying power and who are prevented from returning to their homes and properties because of a racially-based law of return. It recognizes the right of Palestinian refugees as established by the General Assembly in its resolutions, particularly resolution 194 of 11 December 1948, and calls for the return to their homeland in accordance with and in implementation of this right.”

In this text, only the Palestinian side that must be protected, and only they suffer from unlawfulness. Only they are oppressed because of war --- there is no reference to Hamas, Islamic Jihad or Fatah --- and because of Israel’s policies based on racial discrimination.

Specifically, the declaration asks the International Court of Justice to give its advisory opinion on the Israeli Wall in the West Bank as both a symbol and an instrument of the occupation:

“(Reiterates deep concern about the plight of the Palestinian people (as well as inhabitants of the other occupied territories) under foreign occupation, (including the obstruction of the return of refugees and displaced persons, and the construction of the segregation wall,) and urges respect for international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law, and calls fir a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the region;)”

“Calls for the end of all actions violating international human rights and humanitarian law, the respect for the principle of self-determination and the end of all suffering; calls also for the implementation of international legal obligations including the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Wall and the international protection of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.”

The draft then offers a vital sentence in parentheses: “(Proposal to include reference to Gaza situation – language to be provided).” This inserted sentence could, for example, call for the Israeli officials who ordered Operation Cast Lead and the generals who carried it out as "war criminals" to be judged in the International Criminal Court.

The most important point outside the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is probably the reference to the Syrian issue. The drafting committee is underlines the Israeli occupation and the Israeli ‘racial discrimination policies’ against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights:

“(Expresses deep concern at the practices of racial discrimination against the Palestinian people as well as (Syrian nationals of the occupied Syrian Golan) (other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories) which have an impact on all aspects of their daily existence of all such practices;)”

Yet it is here that there may be a possibility for both Israel and a positive outcome. While Tel Aviv has urged the US, Italy and Canada to boycott the conference, American support on the sidelines for an approach to the Syrian issue may be acceptable to the Israelis. Indeed, both the US and Israel may see the Syrian initiative as an opening for dialogue between Israel and Palestinians, as well as loosening the ties between Damascus and Tehran that hve developed since 2001.

Only last week US Secretary of State sent two officials, Jeffrey Fletman and Daniel Shapiro, to Damascus. She also visited Turkey and announced that President Obama would be coming to Ankara in April. This pointed to Turkey's positive mediation role in the Israeli-Syrian dialogue and its place in the solution of the water problem arising from the use of Golan Heights between Syria and Israel.

Did the US Avert a Coup in Pakistan? No.

And now an enlightening tale of the Internet and how to substitute an exaggeration for the real story:

This morning there are stories flying around the Web that Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, may have stopped a military coup in Pakistan through a series of phone call to General Ashfaq Pervez Kiani, through a series of phone calls.

It is being reported by more reliable sources like Al Jazeera that Kiani and President Asif Ali Zardari have clashed in the last 24 hours, but Mullen didn't intervene to stop a military takeover. Here's how the rumour, and distortion, started.

On Thursday night, Mullen was interviewed by Charlie Rose of the US Public Broadcasting System. Here's the video and transcript of the key exchange in the discussion:

CHARLIE ROSE: But you see reports today of increasing strife between Zardari, the leader of Pakistan, and his opposition, worrying some people that it might become Musharraf all over again.

MICHAEL MULLEN: Sure. We’re watching -- obviously watching this lawyers march very carefully. And I’ve been engaged from the standpoint of understanding what’s going on there, and I know that there are people are concerned that this could degenerate into a situation that could very possibly generate a crisis, which may cause actions to be taken on the part of the military.

I don’t think that possibility is out there as a high probability right now, but certainly it’s a concern. And I’ve interacted with my counterpart in Pakistan upwards of 10 times. I mean, I’ve been with him
upwards of 10 times over the last year, and he is committed to a civilian government. He’s committed to the democracy that’s there. In my view, the last thing in the world he wants to do is become -- is take over as President Musharraf did.

CHARLIE ROSE: He wants to stay out of politics?

MICHAEL MULLEN: He does want to stay out of politics. He also -- he wants to do the right thing for Pakistan. And he’s in a very, very tough spot. He also knows his country well, and so obviously he’s paying a lot of attention to this as well, as we all are. And I’m just hopeful that this doesn’t turn into another crisis in Pakistan.

This is straightforward: those pushing the "coup" question have turned Mullen's 10 exchanges with Kiani over the last year, which include recent meetings in Washington and Kabul, into 10 phone calls from Mullen to Kiani in recent days. Those discussions were on broader military matters, notably the handling of the insurgency in the Northwest Frontier Provinces.

The US Government does not want a coup in the middle of this crisis. If Washington thinks Zardari is too damaging to stay in power, then it will look for his replacement, but at a quieter time and a less dramatic process.

If those jumping to coup conclusions had listened to the next section of Mullen's interview, they would have gotten to the real heart of the story:

CHARLIE ROSE: How do you get the army chief of staff, Kiyani, to take those military forces and use them not in anticipation of conflict with India, but more in pursuit of forces that want to destabilize Pakistan?

MICHAEL MULLEN: Well, first of all, he recognizes that he has an extremist threat in Pakistan. They’ve lost many, many citizens. And in fact, there’s -- if you look at the suicide bombings which have occurred over the last year or so, they’ve actually moved towards -- and a couple of them have actually occurred in Islamabad. So he recognizes there’s a serious extremist terrorist threat inside his country, and in fact his forces have fought very hard this year up in Bajaur, which is in Mohmand, up on the western border.

Clearly, the Mumbai attacks in India put him in a position where he had to focus more on the Indian border, and he has. I mean, he’s a chief who’s got threats coming from both directions. It’s very important -- and I give President Musharraf and Prime Minister Singh a lot of credit - because they actually detentioned [sic] that border during President Musharraf’s time, and in fact the tourism started to flourish, there was trade which started to flourish across that border, and all that got suspended with the Mumbai attacks.

So General Kiyani knows what he has to do. He needs to move more troops to the west and he needs to train them in counterinsurgency.

There you have it. As Josh Mull has noted on this site, the Obama Administration wants to keep the Pakistani military focused on the "sanctuary" in the northwest and wants the Pakistani Government firmly behind Pakistani, US, and joint operations there. There should be no conflict with India distracting from that effort.

And --- here is the point of the US policy towards the Long March --- there should be no distraction of domestic politics from that overriding objective. So Washington's efforts over the last few days have been not to topple Zardari but to get the President to back off from a showdown with political rivals like Nawaz Sharif and to be careful in his handling of the lawyers' movement.

If Zardari continues to see political and judicial opponents as Public Enemies Number One, and thus loses the plot on the approach to the "real" insurgency, then he may have to go.

But not now.

UPDATED Showdown with Mad Money: Jon Stewart Interviews CNBC's Jim Cramer

Latest Post: Coming Soon - Jim Cramer, Master TV Critic
Latest Post: Mad Money Meltdown - Jim Cramer, CNBC, TheStreet.com In Intensive Care

After a week dissecting CNBC's financial advice, and in particular the "expertise" of Mad Money host Jim Cramer, Jon Stewart of The Daily Show enticed Cramer into the studio. The interview is more hard-hitting than humourous, but Stewart's exposure of the investment house of cards is even better than the satire of the last seven days: "It is a game that you know is going on....but you go on television as a financial network and pretend isn't happening....It's Not a f****** game."

Part 1:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part 2:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part 3:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Part 2:

Pakistan: Day Two of the Long March

update (8 p.m. GMT): The Zardari Government has met in emergency session. The President has been joined by Prime Minister Gillani, Senate Chairman Farooq Naek, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Information Minister Sherry Rehman, and Water and Power Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf. Spokesmen are promising "important decisions" within 24 hours.

Update (5 p.m. GMT): High-level talks appear to have begun in Pakistan. The reasons for movement are unclear.

One possibility is that a call from US envoy Richard Holbrooke to President Zardari, following a meeting between the US Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, and Nawaz Sharif, has pushed the Government to a more conciliatory position. The US and UK have both denied putting any pressure on Zardari to make concessions to the marchers, though Foreign Secretary David Miliband's office have confirmed that he has spoken to Zardari by telephone.

Update (2.30 p.m. GMT): Former Supreme Court Bar Association President Aitzaz Ahsan has said that the Long March will be called off if Iftikhar Chaudhry is reinstated.

Update (1.45 p.m. GMT): Dawn sources claim that President Zardari may have accepted some of the compromises suggested by PM Gilani.

Update (12 p.m. GMT / 5 p.m. Pakistan): There are rumours that PM Yousaf Raza Gilani is pushing for a compromise, and that President Zardari may be willing to yield to some of the marchers' demands. However police have sealed the Punjab-Sindh border and closed highways to prevent the marchers reaching Multan.

Update (9 a.m. GMT): The Pakistani Government has invoked Section 144, the order authorising detention of demonstrators in the Northwest Frontier Provinces, detaining dozens of people.

There were no reports of further arrests overnight. The most significant incident was the blocking of a convoy from Quetta with Ali Ahmed Kurd, the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Kurd and the convoy have responded with a sit-in blocking the main highway from Baluchistan to Sindh Province.

Clerics call for al-Zaidi's release

The Associated Press is today reporting that a number of Iraqi clerics are calling for the release of Muntazar al-Zaidi, who was jailed for three years for throwing a shoe at former President George W Bush. According to AP:

Sheik Suhail al-Iqabi, a follower of anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, said the sentence against Muntadhar al-Zeidi is "a verdict against the Iraqi people who refuse the American occupation" of Iraq.

And:

Another Shiite cleric in the Sadrist stronghold of Kufa also condemned the prison sentence.

"We just wonder on what law the judge has based his sentence. Was this verdict taken to satisfy their masters?" Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi said during a sermon. "Why do you not try the Americans who are killing the Iraqi people in cold blood?"

See also:

• Muntazar al-Zaidi Update: 3 Years in Prison for Shoe-Throwing