The UN's top human rights official, Navi Pillay, attempted on Monday to
block further defections from the UN's racist "anti-racism" bash
scheduled for New York City on Sept. 22. The United States, Canada,
Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands have already
announced a boycott of "Durban III," a UN event designed to
"commemorate" the 10th anniversary of the UN anti-Semitic hatefest held
in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001. Pillay said she was
"disappointed" with these pullouts, labeling them a "political
The barb was no accident for a UN high commissioner for human rights who
has been distracted by her anti-Israel and anti-American agenda since
taking office in 2008. Pillay is perhaps best known for her unremitting
defense of the notorious Goldstone report and for having questioned the
legality of the killing of Osama Bin Laden.
For Pillay, championing the Durban conference and its manifesto, the
Durban Declaration, is a personal crusade. A native of Durban herself,
shortly after her appointment she explained to a Geneva audience that
the city's mayor asked her to "rescue the name of Durban," given its
unflattering association with anti-Semitism. In response, she helped
launch both Durban II in Geneva in 2009 and Durban III.
Unfortunately, her efforts to legitimize the Durban Declaration have
little to do with the most basic of human rights: equality. The Durban
Declaration charges only one country with racism among all 192 UN states
- Israel. It calls Palestinians "victims" of Israeli racism, a 21st
century reincarnation of the Zionism-is-racism libel. When Durban II
ended with an "outcome document" that reaffirmed the Durban Declaration,
Pillay gloated in a news conference on April 24, 2009, that Palestine
is indeed "mentioned in the Durban Declaration and the word 'reaffirm'
carries those paragraphs into this document."
While Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the "anti-racism"
crowd at Durban II, Pillay remained glued to her seat. UN videotape
shows her simply watching democratic states walk out in disgust,
although she and her secretariat colleagues had a copy of his
Holocaust-denying speech in advance. Despite her later scramble, when
under pressure, to distance herself from his comments, she issued a
flowery thank-you to the Organization of the Islamic Conference for
their role in Durban II - which included warm applause for Ahmadinejad.
Pillay's enthusiasm for the Durban "anti-racism" agenda goes hand in
hand with her single-minded pursuit of the demonization of Israel
throughout her tenure. In January 2009, Pillay called for the creation
of what became the Goldstone inquiry. In August 2009, she issued a
report that lauded Hamas for having "made public statements that it is
committed to respect international human rights and humanitarian law."
After Goldstone claimed that Israel had intentionally targeted
civilians, Pillay said on Sept. 30, 2009, "I lend my full support to
Justice Goldstone's report and its recommendations." Goldstone has since
recanted the veracity of his slur; Pillay has not.
In July 2010, she made a rare appearance before the Security Council on
"situations where the protection of civilians has been and remains of
great concern" around the world - and made only two pleas to the
council, both about Israel. Referring to Gaza, she said: "I urge the
council . . . to ensure the lifting in full of the blockade" - which
would stymie Israel's ability to limit the flow of arms to Hamas. And
she made this plea: "I urge the Security Council to support the
recommendations of the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict" -
that is, the Goldstone report.
After a visit this past February to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, she
said this at her final Jerusalem news conference: "The clearest
manifestation of institutional discrimination is the fact that during
all my meetings with government and state officials, I do not believe I
met a single Palestinian citizen of Israel." She could have easily
determined that Israeli Arabs are members of Israel's parliament, in the
diplomatic corps and on the Supreme Court. The discrimination that was
apparently unclear to Pillay was the institutional charter of the Hamas
government in Gaza, which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish
citizens of Israel, and the Palestinian Authority's refusal to recognize
the right of a Jewish state to exist at all.
The antagonism between Pillay's political priorities and the interests
of Americans was most evident in her reaction to the death of Bin Laden.
On May 3, Pillay expressed concern about his treatment. She demanded to
know "the precise facts surrounding his killing" for the purpose of
determining its legality. According to Pillay, "counterterrorism
activity . . . in compliance with international law" means "you're not
allowed . . . to commit extrajudicial killings." And this requirement
would be satisfied only if the Americans had stuck by what she claimed
was their "stated . . . intention . . . to arrest Bin Laden if they
Her concern for Bin Laden was remarkable both for its flagrant
contradiction with the laws of war justifying lethal force in his case,
and for being three times as fast as her expressions of concern in March
about the victims of lethal terror in Syria.
It is little wonder, therefore, that Pillay should be a fan of Durban
III. On Monday, she confirmed that she will be coming to New York to
participate in Durban III, which she described as an "important event . .
. to combat discrimination." Discrimination defined by the sponsors of