In the first week of September 2001, as Israelis mourned the deaths of dozens of victims of suicide attacks on cafes and buses, the United Nations held a conference which labelled Israeli defensive actions “war crimes” and dubbed Zionism “apartheid”. Ostensibly called to fight racism and xenophobia, the infamous Durban parley was hijacked by anti-Israel racists, including many of the 4,000 delegates to the NGO Forum. The conference of 1,500 NGOs adopted a final declaration that abused the rhetoric of universal human rights to demonize Israel and push the real cases of human rights abuse to the margins. Durban showed how “soft-power”-primarily media campaigns using moral-sounding slogans–is used to protect the “hard power” of suicide bombers and rocket launchers.
The U.N., under the auspices of Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, is currently planning a follow-up conference for 2009. The first preparatory meeting was held recently in Geneva, led by Libya, Iran, Cuba and other human rights stalwarts. But this time, given the lessons of the 2001 debacle, it may be possible to defuse this new anti-Semitism, which singles out the Jewish state through double standards and false allegations….
To succeed, the counter-strategy will require an about-face from key players, including major international NGOs and their funders. In 2001, the Ford Foundation and European governments paid the costs for many of the NGO delegates, including members of the Palestinian NGO network (PNGO), which drafted the final text…. In response to criticism from the U.S. Congress and investigations into possible violation of U.S. tax laws governing non-profit groups, Ford Foundation officials pledged to cease support for “groups that promote or condone bigotry or violence, or that challenge the very existence of legitimate, sovereign states like Israel.”
Implementation, however, has been inconsistent at best. Indeed, the latest report by the Israel-based NGO Monitor shows how European funding of anti-Israel NGOs under the slogan of “civil society” initiatives remains largely unchanged. Only a major effort “naming and shaming” the patrons of anti-Israel discrimination will prevent them from bankrolling similar activities in the 2009 version of Durban.
The key factor could be whether NGO superpowers, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), Amnesty International, FIDH (the French-based International Federation of Human Rights Leagues), Caritas (the Catholic Agency for International Aid) and the British-based Christian Aid use their political and media influence to actively prevent the hijacking of Durban II.
Past performance does not augur well. At the 2001 conference, the HRW delegation, headed by Reed Brody, actually joined in preventing Jewish Caucus members from participating in the NGO Forum debate. Since then, international NGOs have been central in implementing the Durban strategy of delegitimizing through twisted and selective interpretations of international law and false claims based on Palestinian “eyewitnesses.” These groups have played a key role in promulgating the Jenin “massacre” and “Israeli war crimes” myths, in supporting the U.N.-based campaign against the West Bank security barrier they pointedly call the “apartheid wall”, in condemning Israeli actions in Gaza to prevent the smuggling of rocket parts and explosives, and in promoting the proposed UK academic boycott of Israel. Moreover, in the 2006 war with Hizbullah, these NGOs led the political attack against Israel.
But campaigns that ignore the context of self-defense have angered some philanthropists and undermined the credibility of the NGO network. Facing another embarrassment in 2009, the leaders of these NGOs must choose between allying themselves with Iran and Cuba or finally rejecting the Durban double standards. Although the probability for change is low, it is not a lost cause.
Indeed, Jewish human rights NGOs can have an important catalytic effect if they cooperate and adopt realistic strategies. Alliances with other groups whose concerns were ignored at Durban 2001, such as the Roma or gypsy NGOs, are also crucial. Dedicated research organizations which focus on the core issues relevant to Durban II, such as U.N. Watch, Eye on the U.N. and NGO Monitor, can provide expertise and detailed information to relevant groups around the world.
Similarly, the Israeli government, which was caught by surprise in 2001 and had no ready response to NGOs and soft power, must prepare seriously for this round. Natan Sharansky, whose sharp criticism of the abuse of human rights inherent in the singling out of Israel carries weight, should be centrally involved in Israel’s strategy, along with Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni and former chief justice Aharon Barak.
The U.S. government’s role will also be significant. It will include the voices of Representative Tom Lantos, who led the 2001 delegation, Jerrold Nadler, who pressed the Ford Foundation on its funding of the NGOs, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Congressional hearings could provide a platform for exposing the abuse of “soft power” and considering response options. The Americans will find allies among Australian and Canadian officials, such as former Canadian Justice Minister Professor Irwin Cotler, a world-renowned human rights expert whose outrage at Durban 2001 still reverberates today.
If a successful strategy is devised and implemented for Durban II, the impact will go beyond halting the demonization of Israel; it will help restore the universality of human rights norms.
(Gerald M. Steinberg Chair of Political Studies at Bar Ilan University, the executive director of NGO Monitor, a past SPME Board Member from 2002-2007.)
