TURTLE BAY DISPATCH

The U.N.'s Dirty Little Secret
The international body refuses to condemn anti-Semitism.

BY ANNE BAYEFSKY
Monday, December 8, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST


Last week, the U.N. once again proved itself incapable of rising to the
moral challenges embraced in its founding Charter: "tolerance," "the
dignity and worth of the human person" and "equal rights." A draft
resolution on anti-Semitism--which would have been a first in the U.N.'s
58-year history--was withdrawn in the face of Arab and Muslim opposition.

Daily incidents of anti-Semitic violence around the globe are reported in
the media. Yet while leaders of the Free World condemn synagogue bombings
in Turkey, firebombings of Jewish schools in France, and the hate speech
of Malaysia's president who now heads the Organization of the Islamic
Conference, the U.N. moves in the opposite direction, encouraging the
proliferation of this centuries-old hatred.

In marked contrast, other forms of intolerance continue to consume the
U.N.'s attention and resources. A special rapporteur mandated by the U.N.
Commission on Human Rights reports regularly to the U.N. on
"discrimination against Muslims and Arab peoples in various parts of the
world" including any "physical assaults and attacks against their places
of worship, cultural centers, businesses and properties." An entire 2003
Commission resolution "combating defamation of religions," mentions only
prejudice against Muslims, Arabs and Islam.


Condemnation of anti-Semitism--which ought to be axiomatic--engenders
controversy and intransigence at the U.N. At this year's General
Assembly, Ireland assumed the role of gatekeeper, slamming the door in
the face of a resolution to protect Jewish victims. Ireland has
shepherded resolutions on religious intolerance through U.N. bodies for
nearly 20 years without introducing anti-Semitism. In mid-November
current events prompted demands in the Irish Parliament for an
explanation of this omission from Foreign Minister Brian Cowen. The
shabby excuse offered at that time was to sacrifice Jewish rights on the
U.N.'s alter of "consensus and a wide level of co-sponsorship."

In plain language, to Ireland, Arab and Muslim opposition to condemning
anti-Semitism meant . . . cut and run! Irish unwillingness or inability
to stand up for principle at a time when it is assuming the Presidency of
the European Union, does little to enhance the credibility of either the
U.N. or the EU as honest brokers in the Middle East peace process.

The behind-the-scenes story of this Machiavellian plot involves an Irish
breach of a deal struck between Foreign Minister Cowen and Israeli
Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom only two weeks ago. Israel agreed to drop
efforts to include "anti-Semitism" in the religious intolerance
resolution in exchange for a promise from Ireland to introduce a new
resolution specifically on anti-Semitism. But after the General
Assembly's Third Committee adopted the resolution on religious
intolerance minus any reference to anti-Semitism, Ireland refused to
carry out its side of the bargain.

From the common era to the modern age, genocidal persecution of Jews has
been justified by whichever label has served the perpetrator's interests:
Religion, race, ethnic origin or nationality have all functioned, at one
time or another as grounds for anti-Semitism. Ironically, the U.N. today
can find none of these grounds sufficient to launch the vital campaign
required to prevent the atrocities this hatred inspires. Instead, U.N.
diplomats use the multiplicity of alleged Jewish crimes to place
anti-Semitism between the stools. When the U.N. passed a major treaty on
racial discrimination in 1965, they omitted "anti-Semitism" on the
grounds that it "was out of place." Yet, a matching treaty on religious
intolerance, promised by the General Assembly in 1962, was never acted
upon.

Now, Mr. Cowen and company are claiming that anti-Semitism is, indeed, a
matter of racial discrimination rendering it unsuitable for the
resolution on religious intolerance. This self-serving reversal has been
perversely justified in the name of the U.N.'s infamous 2001 Durban
Racism Conference, which actually served as a platform for anti-Semitism.

The Durban Declaration excluded virtually all references to anti-Semitism
and the Holocaust when it came to the specifics of taking action, and in
a devil's bargain between the European Union and Arab states permitted a
minimal reference to anti-Semitism in exchange for including a
condemnation of alleged Israeli racism. Last week the U.N. General
Assembly permitted reference to anti-Semitism in a resolution on
follow-up to the Durban Conference, knowing that the United States and
Israel would be forced to vote against.


At the heart of the U.N.'s problem with anti-Semitism lies rejection of
the very idea of Jewish victimhood. Instead of ensuring that victimhood
brooks no discrimination, on Nov. 26 a resolution condemning terrorist
attacks on Israeli children failed to make it through the General
Assembly while one on Palestinian children was adopted with only four
states opposed. Israel was forced to withdraw its resolution because
Egyptian amendments deleting "Israeli" before every mention of the word
"children" were guaranteed an automatic U.N. majority.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan--who has occasionally paid lip-service
to the problem of anti-Semitism--ignored the requests of both NGOs and
the state sponsors of the anti-Semitism resolution to weigh in on the
importance of the issue with U.N. members, or to press the point with the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, just as he has never convened a
conference or written a report dedicated to anti-Semitism. The
unwillingness of the U.N.'s principal organs and its secretary general to
confront and take meaningful action against this scourge, including its
Muslim and Arab sources, is not merely a sin of omission.

The U.N. is an organization founded on the ashes of the Jewish people,
and whose core human rights principles were drafted from the lessons of
the Holocaust. The inability of the organization to address seriously one
of the very evils it was intended to prevent is a scandal of global
proportions. In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared,
"disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts
which have outraged the conscience of mankind." Fifty-five years later
the outrage is gone, the silence of the U.N. when it comes to
anti-Semitism is deafening, and the only ones benefiting are those
planning future barbarous acts against Jews everywhere.

Ms. Bayefsky, an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School and
professor of political science at York University, Toronto, is a member
of the governing board of UN Watch.

 

"When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny.
But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty."
Thomas Jefferson
 
"The founding fathers knew that even the best designed government
wouldn't
work if the people were not righteous, moral and G-d fearing - if they
didn't love liberty and cherish it."
 
What have you done TODAY to help educate your family, friends, co-workers
and neighbors on the proper role of government?
Make history with us...Call 1-800-JBS-USA-1 for more information.
 
Andy "Hirsh" Dlinn
SW PA JBS Section Leader
wa2ffy@amsat.org
http://www.nowitsyourmove.org
http://www.jbs.org
http://www.towardtradition.org
 
The opinions expressed on this forum are those of the authors of the
articles posted. The John Birch Society has no responsibility for
anything that is posted on this forum. The OFFICIAL John Birch Society
web page is a www.jbs.org "Look alike" clone pages, run by others,
violate JBS policy. Visit The New American at www.thenewamerican.com

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do
nothing."

Edmund Burke 1729-1797

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who
still have swords."