The French
playwright Moliere once wrote that
hypocrisy is a vice
that often passes for virtue. The 2001 Durban Conference was
such an example. Three days prior to 9/11, the first World Conference
against Racism (WCAR) organized by the United Nations in Durban, South
Africa ended. Its stated intention was to promote tolerance between
nations. Instead, it became a festival for promoting hatred of Israel
and the West by some of the most repressive, dictatorial regimes in the
world encouraged by European and American NGOs.
At that
“Conference”, Yasser Arafat claimed Israel was guilty of a "supremacist
mentality, a mentality of racial discrimination" and that "the Israeli
occupation is a new and advanced type of apartheid.”
Disregarding their own historical complicity in the slave trade
and the rat holes of Saudi Arabia (one of the world’s worst violators of
human trafficking), African dictators called for slave reparations from
the U.S. At the same time, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
refused to demand that calls for violence against Israeli and Western
targets be removed from a common NGO communiqué as violence was
sometimes "justified if against apartheid or on behalf of the
intifada." Copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a
well-documented anti-Semitic forgery, were openly sold within the
Conference area.
Now the UN has announced its intention to
organize Durban II in 2009. Durban II
promises to raise the rhetoric to new levels of hypocrisy and to further
inflame racial and religious intolerance. Already, there is talk
of Arab states asking for an agenda item that would call for a
declaration to the effect that our current war against Salafi
(extremist) Islam is nothing more than a plot to demolish their religion
– a ploy by the West to subjugate Muslims everywhere.
As Victor Davis Hanson suggests, perhaps the
delegates at a global conference (like Durbin II) should consider
setting an agenda on how best to deal with the issue of compensating
refugees expelled from their ancestral homes since that seems to be a
hot item in the Israel-Palestinian debate. Perhaps Israel could learn
from the vast experiences of the collective assembly of distinguished
delegates. After all, they have much more experience than Israel in the
matter.
In the wake of World War II, millions of Germans
were forcibly expelled from their homes in East Prussia by the Poles and
the Czechs expelled their German citizens from the Sudetenland as well.
In addition, millions of Muslims fled India for Pakistan following the
bloody riots of 1947 and India not only stripped them of their
citizenship, but barred them in its constitution from ever returning to
India.
Furthermore, between 1948 and 1953, almost a
million Jews were expelled from their ancestral homes in Iraq, Iran,
Syria and Egypt and had their property confiscated, and in the wake of
the Communist takeover of Vietnam, millions of South Vietnamese fled to
the U.S. and other Asian countries, so there is a wealth of valuable
precedents out there for Israel to follow if and when the issue of
compensating Palestinians for property they lost after 1948 is placed on
the table.
And perhaps
before forcing Israel to return the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West
Bank to the Palestinians, Durban II delegates could create a model for
returning lands to nations that they themselves defeated in war. They
could begin with a large slice of historic Germany that is now part of
Poland, or the Russian occupation of the Kurile Islands (in northern
Japan), or half of Cyprus that the Greeks lost in 1974 after the Turkish
invasion.
Or, perhaps
they could begin with the Western Sahara which was annexed by Morocco,
or the 15% of Azerbaijan that has been controlled by Armenia since 1994
not to mention all of Tibet that has been under Chinese occupation since
1950-1.
Taking all
this into account, the Durbin II delegates have more than enough
collective experience to advise Israel on how best to deal with such
territories.
And then
there’s the issue of setting a global standard for the treatment of
terrorists. The Russians and Syrians could really help with this one.
During the second Chechnya War of 1999-2000 Russia reportedly sent
missiles into Grozny killing tens of thousands of civilians in their
search for Chechnya terrorists – explaining why the United Nations later
called that city “the most destroyed city on earth.” And Syria
completely destroyed the northern Syrian town of Hama in 1982, once home
to the Muslim Brotherhood. Over 30,000 people were killed or remain
“missing.” And the Indian government looked the other way in 2002 when
hundreds of Muslim civilians in Gujarat were killed in reprisal for
Islamic violence against Hindus.
The lessons
learned from these nations on how to deal with terrorists would be
invaluable in reassuring a world that continues to condemn Israel for
the deaths of fifty-two Palestinians in Jenin. In fact, Israel could
really benefit from the Durbin delegates’ collective experiences
especially since it is consistently demonized when it retaliates against
missile attacks on its civilian population by resorting to targeted
assassinations of terrorist leaders (in an effort to reduce civilian
collateral damage) and enforces a partial embargo on energy to an enemy
dedicated to its destruction. If the above issues can be adjudicated by
the delegates attending Durbin II using their own extensive experience
in such matters, then resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should
be a cakewalk.
So let
these nations set an example on how to resolve international disputes.
The Russians and Syrians could share their wealth of experience with
Israel on how best to negotiate with terrorists. Poland, Russia, China,
Turkey, Vietnam and Armenia could offer advice on a formula for giving
back lands to those whom they have defeated in war, and Iraq, Syria,
Jordan and Egypt could become role models on how best to work out a
comprehensive resettlement and/or compensation package for the Jews they
dispossessed and expelled from their countries after the 1948 birth of
Israel.
After
a half century of failed attempts to resolve these issues with the
Palestinians, Israel could learn much from these other nations at Durban
II who have so successfully resolved their own problems that they have
never once been criticized by the same body that has somehow always
found the time to condemn Israel for “crimes against humanity.”