Israel Matzav

How much is a Security Council seat worth?

How much is a UN Security Council seat worth? Apparently Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard (pictured) believes that it's worth throwing Israel under the bus.

And then there is Australia. On Thursday, Australian diplomats said they were going to stay in the negotiations. They believed the draft declaration was a good starting point and were hopeful about the future. What happened to Australia’s former voice, having pulled out of the Durban II conference in the firm belief that lipstick on a caterpillar does not suffice?

Australia, which is running for a seat on the Security Council this fall, is running scared. The Australians are well aware of what happened to Canada at the last Security Council election. The Canadians were defeated despite a huge investment spiritually, politically and financially in the U.N. for decades because the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper refused to abandon support for Israel, free expression and other rights in the face of repeated challenges from Islamic and Arab states at the U.N. Human Rights Council and General Assembly. Evidently, Australian principles aren’t quite so dear.

And Australia isn't the only one declaring that the draft declaration - which would result in over 100 heads of state adopting the 'Durban declaration' condemning Israel as racist at September's Durban III conference - is a good basis for discussion.

The co-chairs from Cameroon and Monaco made the agenda painfully obvious. They insisted that the 2011 declaration will “not re-open previously agreed text” since their “mandate is clearly not to renegotiate the Durban Declaration.” On the contrary, Durban III will have the Durban Declaration “at its core.”

In light of such an admission, the maneuvering of Germany proved most pathetic of all. German diplomats announced that Germany was a beacon of fighting discrimination. They then declared that the draft declaration, which commemorates and reinforces Durban I, was a good basis for discussion, and they were happily prepared to keep engaging in this “constructive” manner. They did manage to note that singling out any country will not be acceptable to them.

In short, according to Germany, a square peg can be fit into a round hole. The Durban Declaration already singles out Israel. The purpose of Durban III is to applaud the Durban Declaration. At Durban II in Geneva in 2009, Germany pulled out just two days before Ahmadinejad opened the conference on the anniversary of Hitler’s birth. True to form (which Germany would have known months beforehand) Ahmadinejad said: “The word Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religion and abuses sentiments to hide their hatred and ugly faces." How long will it take the Germans to figure it out this time?

...

Inspired by the weakness of democratic states across the U.N. human rights system – the United Kingdom and France evidently thought at Thursday's negotiations that dead silence was acceptable – the Russians pushed the envelope and circulated lengthy additional suggestions for a Durban III declaration. The Russians are undoubtedly working in collaboration with the 56 states in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.

Disgusting. Simply disgusting. Will the US speak out against it? Don't hold your breaths. It's a miracle Obama decided to withdraw from the conference this far in advance. For him to actually speak out against it would be a flying pigs moment.

This all makes us appreciate Canada again. Those Israelis with travel budgets ought to consider visiting Canada. It's a beautiful country (I've been to Montreal and Toronto and have driven from the US border to Montreal and from Niagara Falls to Windsor).

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Durban III, Julia Gillard, UN Security Council elections

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:32 PM