Blind Solidarity Instead of Critical Dialogue

The UN conference against racism threatened to fall apart before it began. Through their choice of wording, western and Islamic states tried to rob each other of the legitimacy to voice criticism. A commentary by Kersten Knipp

Before things got moving, key Western states pulled the emergency brake. The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Israel feared that the UN's conference against racism would be transformed into a tribunal against Israel and were determined not to let that happen.

They declined to take part, thereby depriving themselves of any chance to influence the conference. Their pessimism is astounding, considering that they had already exerted their influence prior to the conference with some success.

Contentious passages deleted

The passages that explicitly addressed Israeli policy in harsh terms were cut from the conference's draft declaration. For instance, there is no longer any mention of the Palestinians being subjected to "unlawful collective punishment, economic blockade, severe restriction on movement and arbitrary closure of their territories".

In the paragraph above this, the draft originally stated that the Palestinians were "racially discriminated". All this is no longer contained in the document. The only remaining vague reference is to "foreign occupation" – without explicitly naming any occupying force.

In this way, the Western states showed how effectively they can negotiate with those governments that criticised Israel so harshly in the original draft.

Onslaught against Israel?

So why did they withdraw? It is questionable whether the conference was really the fiery onslaught against Israel that the states refusing to take part seemed to fear.

And it is just as questionable whether the anti-Israeli invective from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who travelled to Geneva especially for the conference, damaged the conference's reputation to such an extent that it could no longer produce any positive results on fighting racism.

On the contrary, the outbreak showed how thin this man's arguments are – a head of government who feels he can wag a moral finger at Israel while consistently suppressing democratic change in his own country.

The friend-foe logic

As it is, their withdrawal is above all a triumph for the friend-foe logic that dominates the debate on Israel and the Palestinian territories: any criticism of Israeli policy on Palestine is always at risk of being branded "propaganda" or, even worse, "anti-Semitic". These two terms, once voiced, prevent any objective discussion.

The refusal to consider objective discussion possible at the Geneva conference and the decision to refuse in advance to take part in a debate where opposing opinions are expressed – a standard feature of every UN conference – indicates the main motive for the states not to take part: the logic of alliances. This is a serious and significant reason, but it should be stated as such.

Yet there is also another sign of how hardened the fronts are: up to the last minute, at least some Islamic countries fought to include a passage in the conference's draft declaration, condemning "the stereotypical association of religions, particularly Islam, with violence and terrorism" – a link that they say has a negative effect on followers of these religions.

But what is "stereotypical"? The term hinders any debate on the need for religious reform. When understood in this way, it displays a discreet affinity to the term "propaganda", which was used before the conference to disqualify possible criticism of Israel's policy on the Palestinians.

Verbal protection mechanisms

The verbal protection strategies on both sides are remarkably similar. And so, before it even began, the conference showed the extent to which the parties involved have chosen to think in terms of camps. Solidarity with their own troops counts for more than the will for dialogue.

The logic of opposing fronts, which the conference sought to combat, has celebrated discreet triumphs in Geneva. The participants still have much to do, not least when it comes to their own attitudes.

Kersten Knipp

Kersten Knipp is a journalist focusing on international cultural relations for Deutschlandfunk, WDR and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

Qantara.de

UN Conference against Racism in Geneva
Pointless In-Fighting
Before the UN Durban Review Conference got underway in Geneva, UN expert Andreas Zumach expressed the opinion that an international conference on the Middle East would be of more use than the conference against racism – the reasons he gave are no less topical after the uproar caused by Ahmadinejad's speech in Geneva

Brian Klug - Robert Wistrich
When Is Opposition to Israel and Its Policies Anti-Semitic?
What kind of role does anti-Semitism play in the Middle East Conflict? At what point does opposition to Israel turn into anti-Semitism? These issues are discussed by Brian Klug, British philosopher and journalist, and Robert Wistrich, director of the International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism in Jerusalem

Dossier
Israeli-Palestinian Dialogue
Beyond the violence in the Middle East conflict, there are many individuals and initiatives working towards lasting peace in the region. Our new dossier presents just some of them