with far more Orwellian overtones took place in the Indian Ocean port

city of Durban. The UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial

Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR), preceded by

an international conference of Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) on

the same theme, provided eye-openers, not only on racism but on the

moral bankruptcy of many so-called human rights organisations and the

cynicism which dictates the course of so much of international

relations.

For Australians, particularly Jewish Australians, the two conferences

had the redeeming feature of reinforcing just how lucky we are to live

in an open, democratic society which, for all its blemishes, treats

international human rights seriously.

The two main conferences were preceded by a Youth Summit, which in a

sense set the scene for the following two weeks. Delegates were given

free T-shirts which bore the official logo of the conference and a

slogan identifying Israel as an evil regime which should be dismantled

immediately.

Youth Summit delegates, or more correctly the tiny minority of Youth

Summit delegates allowed to have any say in the proceedings, rejected a

proposal to support peace in the Middle East and Jewish students found

themselves the targets of derision, insult and abuse. Non-Jewish

members of the Australian contingent which participated in this

conference told me repeatedly of their concern at the way in which the

conference organisers had bullied, cajoled and even threatened any

individuals who suggested that democracy had a place at the conference

(or elsewhere).

The early registrants at the NGO Forum were given a booklet of

"political" cartoons which included some of the most obscene

antisemitic stereotypes ever printed, including one which pictured a

caricature of a Jew which a large hooked nose, claws and fangs dripping

blood. All around Kingsmead Stadium posters and banners comparing

Israel to Nazi Germany and to Apartheid South Africa were prominently

displayed.

A large number of NGO delegates came from countries where there are no

organisations able to legally function unless they do the government's

dirty work and these were supplemented by large and visible media

contingents from countries which treat freedoms with complete contempt.

During the opening ceremony, the conference chairperson railed against

Israel but did not find time to refer to many, many victims of racism

who had thought that this conference would provide a platform. On the

first afternoon, as the business of the Forum commenced, parallel

session after parallel session provided podiums for extreme anti-Israel

propaganda, pointedly provided at the expense of any meaningful

consideration of many different experiences by victims of racism.

The session on Hate Crimes not only had a speaker whose thesis was that

Israel's existence is a "hate crime", but witnessed the shocking scene

of a person asking a question regarding the procedure during the

session being greeted with shouts of "Jew, Jew, Jew, Jew" and another

questioner, a woman with a South African accent, being heckled with the

abuse "Israeli dog".

By the second day of the Forum, participants were reporting that the

notorious antisemitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" was

being sold in the exhibition tent, set up for the distribution of

anti-racist materials. Regular reports of anti-Jewish intimidation,

including assault, were streaming into the Jewish caucus and to the

conference organisers, with the latter unwilling to take any action.

After months of wrangling in the lead up to the conference, members of

the Jewish caucus had secured the inclusion of a formal session on

antisemitism, but by the third day of the conference, when it was

scheduled to take place, there were genuine concerns for the safety of

participants. When the scheduled session began it was clear that a

large number of people present had come not to discuss antisemitism but

to make sure that the Jewish caucus felt intimidated. It is probably

worth noting that one of the few rules under which the conference

seemed to operate was that victims of a particular form of racism were

not to have their telling of their own experience altered by outsiders.

This procedure meant that any individual could stand up and personally

lie, without fear of contradiction - a method used in much of the

anti-Israel propagandising.

In the session on antisemitism it became clear that those who had

benefited from this policy elsewhere were planning on doing their

utmost to overturn it should Jewish people not simply cave in to overt

intimidation. After a series of papers given by experts from the US,

Canada, Uruguay, Europe and Australia it became noticeable that the

crowd at the only large entrance to the meeting tent was growing in its

number and aggression. When the final resource person, a student leader

from Israel, was speaking, the crowd started moving towards the area

where most of the Jewish participants were sitting, yelling and

threatening. Their hate, whipped up by individuals whose name tags

identified them as coming from South Africa, Iran, Palestine and the

US, was undisguised and virtually tactile. After the intervention of a

few brave souls, including one prominent African National Congress

figure, enough calm was restored for the meeting to reconvene, although

the only way this could happen was through the formation of smaller

working groups.

Throughout these first three days there were a series of instances where

a small group of Jewish students distributing material critical of the

anti Israel maximalism were confronted by a large group of noisy and

aggressive protesters. Police had to intervene on a number of occasions

and it is telling that, as all photographs and film footage reveal, all

the offensive and threatening behaviour came from the anti-Israel side

in the "confrontations".

In response to the hostility, which resulted in many of the Jewish

delegates hiding their name tags and even to some of the kippa-wearing

male delegates wearing caps out of fear, the Jewish caucus convened a

media conference, inside the media tent, as this was regarded as the

least likely place in which Jewish delegates would be physically

attacked. However, before the opening statements could be completed, a

group of shouting, jeering, fist-waving, shoving demonstrators,

including a number wearing media badges, forced the abandonment of what

had been hoped would be a rare opportunity for Jewish voices to be

heard.

The situation had deteriorated to such a degree that a workshop which

comprised a formal part of the program, on the subject of Holocaust

Denial, had to be cancelled on security advice, leaving the presenters

from Canada, Belgium, Australia and South Africa free to soak in the

atmosphere of a conference which had held out so many prospects.

While all this was going on, a group of Hamas activists were parading

about the conference centre and its environs with three members of the

eccentric Jewish sect, Neturei Karta, who purport to be the only

"authentic" Jews and espouse the view that Israel's existence is a sin.

Their commitment to Judaism was well illustrated by their decision to

demonstrate against Israel, carrying placards, on the Sabbath, while

the Jews they describe as "unauthentic" were attending synagogue

services. The fact that these street performers found no problem with

the distribution of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" or doing the

dirty work for organisations which speak not only of their dream of

destroying Israel but also of subjugating Jews was unfortunately of no

interest to the media throng excited by the prospect of "dissident"

Jews.

Not too dissimilar in their actions during the conference were a number

of "anti-Zionist" Jews, from Israel and South Africa, who also seemed

to have no problem with the overt antisemitism, as long as they were

still given a platform at the conference to give their views on why

Israel should cease to exist as a Jewish state, or as a state in any

form.

Given the conduct of the conference, it was hardly surprising that the

final documents produced, as an alleged summary of the consensus views

of the Forum, should be approved and adopted in a manner reflecting

the corruption, dishonesty and racism of the conference organisers,

supplemented by the cynicism and immoral pragmatism of conference

participants who thought that as long as their special interests were

looked after the antisemitism and complete intellectual dishonesty of

both the process and the sections on the Middle East were not a

problem. It was hardly out of step with the way the conference had

proceeded that the final Declaration was not adopted until many NGO

participants had left Durban. To her credit, UN Commissioner for Human

Rights, Mary Robinson, refused to participate in a ceremony to accept

the conference outcome documents.

One of the saddest outcomes of the behaviour by the organisers and anti

Israel/antisemitic bully brigade was that many issues of real concern

received very little airing, if any. Many fine human rights activists

and brave spokespeople for victims of racism had come to the Forum in

the hope that others would learn of some of their pain and work towards

alleviating contemporary racism and the scars inflicted by previous

practices of racism. The Dalits, the lowest rung on the caste ladder,

were probably the only group which made itself heard above the

intensive propagandising of the anti-Israel lobby.

There were no "winners" in the NGO Forum. The organisers were

responsible for a corrupt process and breaking their own rules as the

days went on and which set the stage for what many have described as

the most antisemitic international event in the post-war period.

The anti-Israel campaigners may have achieved an insertion of hateful

language in the final documents but lost an enormous amount of

credibility through their bullying and inability to respond to the

arguments of a small and ill-prepared group of Jewish activists. The

tirade of antisemitism which so much of the so-called human rights

community either promoted or tolerated is of great concern to Jews and

to all who genuinely oppose racism. Victims of racism around the world

lost after their forum was so crudely hijacked by the most fanatic of

single issue propagandists.

About the only people who left the conference with their dignity intact

were the members of the Eastern and Central European caucus who showed

a genuine concern for all victims of racism while lambasting the

dishonesty and outrageous behaviour which marked so much of the Forum.

As the NGO Forum was concluding, the UN conference was opening. With

official delegations from over 150 countries, the formal atmosphere and

the leadership from the secretariat was far different from that which

prevailed in the NGO Forum, but the tension remained high.

The Conference convened with only working drafts of the Declaration and

Program of Action, which meant that a great deal of work had to be done

at the conference itself. The issue of the participation by Israel and

the US figured prominently in the minds of delegates, as did the issue

of the way in which slavery and other "past" issues could be settled in

any consensus manner.

The opening speeches were marked with appeals, desperate appeals, for

participants to not waste time throwing invective at Israel or other

parties, but to concentrate on producing a blueprint for combating

racism. Nevertheless, formal speeches at the plenary by member states

of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and their totalitarian

allies were replete with hate-filled anti-Israel invective. Leaflets on

the desk where delegates collected their daily program included some

referring to "Nazi Israel Apartheid" but these paled into irrelevancy

when compared to the formal speeches by some of the designated

representatives of national governments.

Two positive highlights of the plenary session were the dignified and

thoughtful paper delivered by the Israeli representative Mordechai

Yedid and the intervention by Australia in response to the Declaration

of the NGO Forum. In the latter situation Australia's Ambassador to the

UN, John Dauth, used his Right-of-Reply (a procedure used only

sparingly during the conference) to point out that the Declaration was

unacceptable and a discredit to all identified with it, due to sections

which were "deplorable".

While speech after speech took place in the plenary hall, national

delegations were going through hundreds of paragraphs in the

Declaration and the Program of Action, attempting to reach consensus on

every sentence, word and punctuation mark. After a short time it became

clear that Australia, Canada, the European Union, most Latin American

and some Asian and African countries, were working to produce rational,

positive and forward looking documents, while the Arab League, the

other nations in the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, Cuba and a

number of Caribbean and African states seemed hell bent on using the

conference purely as a platform for promoting propaganda at the expense

of any serious work against racism.

As if the work in these sessions was not demanding and exhausting

enough, slabs of paragraphs relating to the Middle East (and related

subjects such as antisemitism, Islamaphobia and the Holocaust), the

Past (slavery, colonialism and the like) or those containing lists of

victims or grounds of victimisation were referred to small groups of

designated states who had the job of producing wording which could be

accepted by consensus.

The decision of Israel and the US to attend, at the very last moment,

reminded serious delegations that the credibility of the Conference

depended on it sticking to its aims, rather than being distracted or

redirected by those who had come, as they were happy to tell anyone who

would listen, to ensure that the Nazi Holocaust was not mentioned in

the Conference documents, antisemitism was either excluded or had its

meaning maliciously twisted and for Israel to be identified as the only

country on this world which deserved to be singled out for alleged

"racism".

At the half way point of the Conference, the US and Israel determined

that the fight against racism was best served if they were to leave.

One will never know if their timing was optimal, if it would have been

better if they had never arrived or if the process would have been

expedited had they stayed. What can be said is that, after they left,

the democratic nations of the world with Australia, Guatemala, the

European Union and Canada in the lead, were steadfast in their refusal

to allow the Holocaust to be denigrated, "antisemitism" to be twisted

and contorted by antisemites or Israel to be treated as a pariah.

At the time the Conference was scheduled to end, nothing approaching

final documentation had achieved agreement. As the Conference clock

ticked into overtime, agreement was reached on the way in which the

Conference would describe the victims of racism, the grounds for

racism, the legacy of past practices such as slavery and colonialism

and, well after all had seemed lost, an unhappy compromise regarding

the Middle East was achieved.

In the matters which were not so contentious it is worth placing on

record the leading, constructive role played by Australia, with experts

from Canberra being responsible for some of the more logical,

progressive and achievable aims in fields such as education, potential

for NGOs to participate in decision-making and in international

cooperation against trans-national racist activity.

The outcome of the Conference was such that countries such as Israel

and Australia were able to make it a far more successful exercise than

seemed possible in the days, weeks and months leading to it. Although

the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and their allies had been

defeated in just about every one of their assaults on common decency,

logic and truth, they still managed to distract attention from the many

and numerous human rights abuses which they commit or promote. They

also achieved an unhelpful mention of the Israel-Arab issue in

documents on racism and even a pair of offensive paragraphs, which one

can only hope are not allowed to undermine progress towards peace.

In the Government Forum, Australia can hold its head high as a supporter

of the highest democratic principles and for its willingness to often

say things which needed to be said but which other countries may have

chosen to leave alone. The European Union, Canada, Guatemala , Brazil

and a number of other countries which may not have been as vocal but

were similarly guided by a commitment to combat racism also showed

dignity and strength.

The host country, South Africa, was, to say the least, schizophrenic.

Some of the South African delegates were part of that core working to

try to achieve something valuable from the Conference while others

seemed more attracted to the pseudo-Marxist rhetoric of the one-party

dictatorships.

It is not possible at this point to assess whether the Conference will

prove valuable or will have damaged the struggle against racism or, for

that matter, resulted in something between these two poles - but we can

say that, if they surprise us all and indulge in some honest

self-reflection, the anti-Israel claque will admit that they were, most

deservedly, humiliated as a consequence of their disingenuity and

transparent dishonesty.