Monday, September 03, 2007

The U.N.
Planning Session For
The Second Holocaust?

That's what Pamela calls it, and that's how it would seem to me it might very likely be remembered by the history books.

The U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People is full of delegates all puffed up on their own moral pride. So puffed are they that they are unable to see themselves in the larger context of history. They will be blessed to be dead, so that they will not ever have to face the fact that what they see themselves as good service to humanity, they will be remembered alongside Hitler's willinge executioners.

This article is from Daniel Schwammenthal of the Wall Street Journal:

"Israel is an apartheid state," was the most often-heard charge, closely
followed by calls for a boycott. The West should cut its economic ties with the Jewish state, the speakers urged, and engage the "democratically elected" Islamists now running Gaza.

No, this was not a Hamas rally somewhere in
the Palestinian territories. This was Brussels, where the European Parliament
last week played host to the "United Nations International Conference of Civil
Society in Support of Israeli-Palestinian Peace."

If the conference title's inversion of the truth is reminiscent of Communist-style propaganda, this is no coincidence. The meeting was organized by the U.N. Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, a Soviet-era body founded around the time of the 1975 U.N. "Zionism is racism" resolution. That anti-Semitic resolution was revoked in 1991 but the committee continued its activities in the resolution's original spirit.

Speaker after speaker at
the European Parliament on Thursday and Friday presented the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict from an exclusively Palestinian perspective. Israel was accused of
human rights violations while Palestinian terrorism and incitement went
unmentioned. The delegates invoked the Israeli occupation as the underlying
cause for the conflict without mentioning the Palestinian rejectionism and
violence that prevent further Israeli withdrawals. The "right of return" of
millions of Palestinians, which would lead to the demographic destruction of
Israel as a Jewish state, was upheld despite the official claim to favor a
two-state solution.

Amid this standard-Israel-bashing, a few delegates
managed to come up with a few innovative charges against the Jewish state.

There was Clare Short, a member of the British Parliament and Secretary for International Development under Prime Minister Tony Blair until she resigned in 2003 over the Iraq war. Claiming that Israel is actually "much worse than the original apartheid state" and accusing it of "killing (Palestinian) political leaders," Ms. Short charged the Jewish state with the ultimate crime: Israel "undermines the international community's reaction to global warming." According
to Ms. Short, the Middle East conflict distracts the world from the real
problem: man-made climate change. If extreme weather will lead to the "end of the human race," as Ms. Short warned it could, add this to the list of the crimes of Israel.

The U.S. also came in for criticism. Pierre Galand,
chairman of the European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine, admonished Washington for increasing its military aid to Israel. What really worried Mr. Galand was that this aid would allow Israel to build a missile defense system. In Mr. Galand's view, Israel's ability to protect itself against possible nuclear-tipped Iranian missiles doesn't serve the "cause of peace."

Speaking at the conference's opening session, Edward
McMillan-Scott, British vice president of the European Parliament, told the
audience that, "It is also worth noting that I am related to Colonel T. E.
Lawrence of Arabia." Having thus established his noble pedigree, he later told
me that Hamas was "not a terrorist organization."
Perhaps Mr. McMillan-Scott is aspiring to the title of Edward of Hamastan?

The only attempt among the
dozens of speakers to present the other side came from an Arab-Israeli. Nadia
Hilou, a member of the Israeli Parliament (so much for the "apartheid" charge)
explained why her countrymen are pessimistic about the prospects for peace.
"It's the disappointment that the withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon, which were
seen as gestures of good will, have worsened not improved Israel's security
situation." Having failed to stick to her assigned role as witness for the
prosecution, Ms. Hilou is unlikely to be invited back.

One is tempted to
dismiss the conference as of little practical consequence. Another U.N.
conference bashing Israel -- what else is new? Bronislaw Geremek, a former
Polish foreign minister and current member of the European Parliament,
disagrees. That his house has played host to this "revolting" meeting, he told
me, will further diminish Europe's credibility as an even-handed peace broker in
Israeli eyes. Mr. Geremek, together with a group of like-minded lawmakers, many
also Polish, tried in vain to stop the conference from taking place.

U.N. gathering in Brussels, though, did more than just sow distrust between
Europe and Israel. It was a further step in the growing campaign to delegitimize
and demonize Israel. The calls for a boycott, championed first by radical
Palestinians, have already been adopted by some mainstream organizations, such
as various British unions. Similarly, the idea of establishing contacts with
Hamas has been echoed recently by high-profile politicians. Italian Prime
Minister Romano Prodi, a former EU Commission President, suggested talking to
Hamas last month to help it "develop." (He later backtracked.) The British
Parliament's foreign affairs committee also recommended last month to engage
with Hamas. The U.K. lawmakers even added Hezbollah and Egypt's Muslim
Brotherhood to their wish list of dialogue partners -- all in the interest of
peace, of course.

By hosting this conference, the European Parliament
has lent its good name to propaganda and helped to make radical anti-Israeli
claims more mainstream. It's a huge disservice to the search for Mideast peace,
which must be based on compromise and dialogue.