It’s simple: to bear witness. The U.S., Israel, Canada, and Italy rightly recognized that the conference is clearly heading down an anti-Israel path. By staying home, those nations are telling the world that they will not be part of such a charade. But our role is different. As a global human rights group, it is incumbent upon us to carefully monitor the proceedings of a conference devoted to combating racism and intolerance, and to call attention and speak loudly if it veers off course, especially when it focuses so negatively on Israel.
B’nai B’rith will actively participate in Jewish non-governmental organization (NGO) side events in Geneva. These events and programs will provide an important counterpoint to events by pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel NGOs.
The original Durban conference of 2001 was such an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic free-for-all that B’nai B’rith joined the United States, Israel, and other NGOs in walking out in protest amid anti-Semitic portrayals of Israel as an apartheid state. By being there, BBI was able to tell the world what transpired. Going to Durban II will allow us to fill that role again.
The question of whether to go or not to go to Geneva for the Durban follow-up conference presented a catch-22. This Durban dilemma represents a conflict between having a voice within a terribly, and possibly fatally, flawed system, or having no voice at all.
As more and more preparatory meetings took place, it became strikingly clear that the new conference would follow an eerily similar route to that of the original summit.
Although meant to evaluate the progress of declarations from the original World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, early review conferences have included the same unrelenting focus on Israel and the same anti-Semitic denouncements. There seemed no interest in taking on the real problems of discrimination and intolerance in our world. It has become standard and accepted practice for countries with some of the world’s worst human rights records to point the finger at Israel.
The message sent by the United States in abandoning these hopelessly tainted proceedings is immeasurable. For the United States, choosing not to participate became a matter of principle. To be part of a process hijacked by the likes of Libya, Iran, and Syria is to be part of the problem. Until this point, preparations for the conference have focused a microscope on Israel – the sole democracy in the Middle East – while blatant racism, human rights violations, and intolerances by numerous other nations go undeterred. Women are forbidden to congregate publicly in Iran and are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, North Koreans are starving to death, and in Darfur hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions displaced. And yet somehow, tiny Israel gets all the attention.
The original Durban conference taught the world that nefarious nations, voting blocs, and even NGOs can sway the truth and even sway an international organization like the United Nations.
To be sure, in theory the conference is necessary. But in practice, the conference will most likely cross over the brink again into counter-productivity. An international conference against racism should promote fair and uniform human rights standards and be built on a framework of civil conduct and mutual respect. It should not be preternaturally preoccupied with vilifying Israel and ignoring real promoters of racism.
The Durban Review Conference has squandered a remarkable opportunity to demonstrate that the world community is serious about exposing and eradicating racism and fighting intolerance. But as defenders of human rights, the broader Jewish community and our own constituency expect B’nai B’rith to carefully monitor the proceedings. We are choosing to attend because with more than 60 years of commitment at the U.N., B’nai B’rith has been an unwavering advocate for Israel and a strong defender of global human rights. Our vigilance continues.
