Hungary takes EU lead in announcing boycott of upcoming Durban conference
Hungary has become the first EU country to announce it will not attend this year’s UN event marking the 20th anniversary of the World Conference on Racism in Durban, which featured antisemitic messages.
“The Hungarian government declared a zero-tolerance policy against antisemitism and is fully committed to guarantee the safety of the Jewish people that we also consistently represent in the international fora,” Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó wrote in a letter to Mark Weitzman, director of government affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles.
“In this spirit, Hungary does not support the Durban process and voted against the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 31 December 2020 deciding on the convening of a high-level meeting on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,” he wrote.
The 2001 World Conference Against Racism, is also known as Durban I, after the South African city in which it was held. It was a hotbed of antisemitic and anti-Israel messages and was where the accusation of apartheid against Israel was popularized.
An early draft of the resolution adopted at the Governmental Conference at Durban equated Zionism with racism, leading the US and Israel to withdraw from the conference. The final draft did not condemn Zionism as racist, but the Israel-Palestinian conflict is the only one listed specifically under the section on “victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”
The NGO Forum at Durban approved a resolution calling Israel a “racist apartheid state” and accusing it of genocide. Antisemitic materials, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, were distributed at the event.
David Collier: Lancaster - whiter than white antisemitism - an attack on the Jewish state
Lancaster Council just voted to boycott the Jewish state. The Councillors of this north-western city decided to create foreign policy all of their own. A policy that has no time for that tiny Middle Eastern democracy trying to survive amidst a sea of Islamist extremists, terrorist groups and despots.Jonathan Tobin: Who really cares about the Palestinians?
Lancaster is a very white British city. The largest minority group is ‘other white’ – chiefly from Eastern Europe. It is also heavily Christian. Lancaster is not Bradford or Luton. It is not Sheffield either – another northern city with an anti-Israel fetish. Take a look at the Lancaster Councillors – there is no Islamist influence driving the agenda here. You cannot blame this brazen act of antisemitism on Islamist chest-beating or pandering to the extremists within a community that has changing demographics.
Beyond the University and its JSOC, there are also virtually no Jews in or around Lancaster.
This was a white British attack on the Jewish state. Hard left, rather than Islamist antisemitism. The product of 6 years of Corbynista politics spreading antisemitism into the mainstream.
Just a couple of months ago, there were cases of rampant antisemitism on Lancaster University Facebook pages. It would be interesting to hear how the 39 vile councillors that either supported or abstained on this BDS motion think that this type of action helps community cohesion in the United Kingdom – or more locally the Jewish students at their university.
The Lancaster motion
Some people have tried to pass the Lancaster motion off as some type of opposition to arms trade deals, but if you read the minutes of the meeting, you soon realise it was nothing of the sort.
The original motion set out to ‘express its support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement’. There is no nuance in this. When taken in its entirety BDS is an antisemitic movement that seeks the total destruction of Israel.
Reading the additional notes is to take a journey into the blind ignorance and hatred of the people that compiled them. The motion also lays the full blame for the recent conflict on Israel – which exposes political naivety on the part of the authors. The Palestinian decision to postpone elections was probably the most likely cause – as it gave clear motive to Hamas to desire a confrontation. Whoever wrote this motion – knows no more about the conflict than is delivered to them by updates from rabid anti-Israel newsletters.
It also chose to only condemn the death of Palestinian civilians. In Lancaster – Israeli civilians killed by Hamas terrorists clearly have no value and received no equal condemnation.
The council resolved to contact local pension funds asking them to divest from *all* Israeli companies that are active in Israeli ‘settlements’. Although it may seem limited – in effect, this is a blanket ban on investment in Israel – it covers everything from all banks and utility providers to every large Israeli chain store. Lancaster voted to boycott the Jewish state.
The three Lancaster conductors
There were three councillors leading the toxic vote. Councillor Jack O’Dwyer-Henry proposed the motion. It was seconded by Councillor Gina Dowding and Councillor Kevin Frea.
The motion passed with a clear majority (item 30); 26 members voted for, 11 against and 13 abstentions.
By contrast, Arabs who live in Israel enjoy not only democracy, including the right to vote, but hold seats in the Knesset and are now represented in the current government coalition, as well remain equal under the law, as opposed to being widely and falsely depicted as living under "apartheid."
Rather than dispute Israeli attacks on Hamas or the blockade it enforces along with Egypt against the terrorist-ruled enclave, people who actually cared about peace should support the overthrow of Hamas. Instead, they give impunity to a group whose purpose remains to fight to eliminate Israel and evict the Jews from their ancient homeland, while ignoring their own residents in the process.
Similarly, those who talk about the "occupation" of the West Bank are not only indifferent to the plight of the millions who suffer under Abbas's misrule, but wish to further empower him at the expense of Israel's security.
The fact that the Palestinian national movement is led by movements and leaders who are as undemocratic as they are corrupt and bloody-minded doesn't mean that Israel is perfect. Yet those who buy into the narrative of Palestinian victimhood not only regard what Arabs do to each other as not as interesting as what Israel supposedly does to them. They also treat the entire subject of Palestinian brutality as a non-issue and dismiss the entirely reasonable Israeli refusal to put themselves at the mercy of such people.
If those leading the charge to punish Israel were serious about wanting to help the Palestinians, they'd concentrate their fire on Abbas and Hamas and seek to support those few brave souls who seek their overthrow and replacement by those who believe in liberal democracy and peace, no matter how unlikely that might be.
But besotted by intersectional myths about Israel being a function of colonialism and an expression of "white privilege," they strip the Palestinians of any agency in their fate or conduct. This illustrates the basic truth that critical race theory, especially as it applies to the Middle East, both infantilizes Arabs and regards them solely as political props to be used to attack their preferred villains.
Seen in this light, it's clear that most of those who speak about Palestinian suffering actually couldn't care less about them. What they want is to single out and destroy Israel, victimizing its Jewish population and stripping them of their rights. Rather than an expression of sympathy for Palestinians whose leaders have condemned them to fighting a never-ending war they can't win, too many of the critiques of Israel recently voiced on the left must be seen as rooted more in anti-Semitism than concern for anyone's human rights.