Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

World Conference against Racism 2011 (Durban III)

Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,116
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

20 Jan 2024, 8:57 am

I hate posting a link to a Wikipedia article, but everything else I can find seems to either be on a Jewish site, a UN site, or a scholarly paper i.e. a PDF.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durban_III

Relevant text:

Quote:
The previous Durban conferences had been criticized by Western governments for allegedly promoting rather than combating racism. Fourteen countries boycotted Durban III. They charged that the Durban process has been used to promote racism, intolerance, antisemitism and Holocaust denial, and to erode freedom of speech and Israel's right to exist. The same countries, excluding Austria, Bulgaria, France and the United Kingdom, had also previously boycotted the Durban Review Conference in 2009.


I see strong evidence here that the UN actively pursues policies aimed at the destruction of Israel. How many Jewish deaths might result from that is anyone's guess.


_________________
My WP story


Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,712
Location: New York City (Queens)

20 Jan 2024, 9:49 am

MaxE wrote:
I see strong evidence here that the UN actively pursues policies aimed at the destruction of Israel. How many Jewish deaths might result from that is anyone's guess.

Depends what is meant by "the destruction of Israel."

Could mean anything from the expulsion of Jews (more ethnic cleansing == obviously very bad) to the replacement of the current Jewish-supremacist Israeli state with a single binational state with equal rights for all. The latter would be the best possible outcome IMO, though it would need to be approached very carefully, with a lot of attention to the details of its constitution, to ensure that everyone's rights are truly protected. (See my separate thread Palestine/Israel: 2-state solution vs. 1 binational state?)


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.


Last edited by Mona Pereth on 20 Jan 2024, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,116
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

20 Jan 2024, 11:27 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I see strong evidence here that the UN actively pursues policies aimed at the destruction of Israel. How many Jewish deaths might result from that is anyone's guess.

Depends what is meant by "the destruction of Israel."

Could mean anything from the expulsion of Jews (more ethnic cleansing == obviously very bad) to the replacement of the current Jewish-supremacist Israeli state with a single binational state with equal rights for all. The latter would be best possible outcome IMO, though it would need to be approached very carefully, with a lot of attention to the details of its constitution, to ensure that everyone's rights are truly protected. (See my separate thread Palestine/Israel: 2-state solution vs. 1 binational state?)

Destruction as I see it means that the State of Israel, as we know it today, no longer exists.


_________________
My WP story


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,541
Location: Right over your left shoulder

20 Jan 2024, 11:31 am

MaxE wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I see strong evidence here that the UN actively pursues policies aimed at the destruction of Israel. How many Jewish deaths might result from that is anyone's guess.

Depends what is meant by "the destruction of Israel."

Could mean anything from the expulsion of Jews (more ethnic cleansing == obviously very bad) to the replacement of the current Jewish-supremacist Israeli state with a single binational state with equal rights for all. The latter would be best possible outcome IMO, though it would need to be approached very carefully, with a lot of attention to the details of its constitution, to ensure that everyone's rights are truly protected. (See my separate thread Palestine/Israel: 2-state solution vs. 1 binational state?)

Destruction as I see it means that the State of Israel, as we know it today, no longer exists.


Which isn't inherently a bad thing, depending on the circumstances and what succeeds it.

The scenario Mona proposes would result in Israel no longer existing as we know it, but it's hard to honestly frame a binational single state as replacing Israel as a negative.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,116
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

20 Jan 2024, 12:21 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
MaxE wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
MaxE wrote:
I see strong evidence here that the UN actively pursues policies aimed at the destruction of Israel. How many Jewish deaths might result from that is anyone's guess.

Depends what is meant by "the destruction of Israel."

Could mean anything from the expulsion of Jews (more ethnic cleansing == obviously very bad) to the replacement of the current Jewish-supremacist Israeli state with a single binational state with equal rights for all. The latter would be best possible outcome IMO, though it would need to be approached very carefully, with a lot of attention to the details of its constitution, to ensure that everyone's rights are truly protected. (See my separate thread Palestine/Israel: 2-state solution vs. 1 binational state?)

Destruction as I see it means that the State of Israel, as we know it today, no longer exists.


Which isn't inherently a bad thing, depending on the circumstances and what succeeds it.

The scenario Mona proposes would result in Israel no longer existing as we know it, but it's hard to honestly frame a binational single state as replacing Israel as a negative.

I can't say if what Mona proposes is a bad or a good thing, but it would mean the destruction of the State of Israel and would probably meet the approval of most people attending that conference in Durban.


_________________
My WP story


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Jan 2024, 11:11 pm

I believe the reason the Australian government boycotts this conference is because its a vehicle for countries crusading against Israel rather than a legitimate movement against racism.

Australia: On 23 August, the country announced that it would not attend the Durban III event at the UN, saying that "it was not convinced that 'unbalanced criticism of Israel and the airing of anti-Semitic views' would be avoided." This was confirmed by spokesperson for Prime Minister Julia Gillard