How Israel Orchestrated the Real Geneva HateFest Against Black and Brown People

[XXPANTHAXX]

May 14, 2009
by Arlene Eisen

On Saturday, April 18, two days before the United Nations Durban Review
Conference (DRC) officially convened, anti-racist demonstrators from
every continent and nearly every struggle in the world filled the
streets of downtown Geneva. A sea of flags, banners and posters spoke
for indigenous people from Bolivia, Mexico and Guatemala, the landless
former slaves of Brazil, Tamils struggling for survival in Sri Lanka, a
huge contingent of Dalits demanding an end to the caste system, Black
delegates from the U.S. and other points in the Diaspora calling for
reparations and freedom for political prisoners, Africans from the
continent, many European migrants from the third world and their
supporters and a variety of groups in solidarity with the Palestinian
people. Some had handmade signs: “Zionism equals racism” and “Israel is
an Apartheid State.”

At the rally, Doudou Diène, “Special Rapporteur on Contemporary forms of
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related intolerance” and a
scholar from Senegal, spoke. He emphasized that racism is rooted in
slavery and colonialism, including settler colonialism. He pointed out
that the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues a tradition of
settler colonialism and racism. The crowd applauded. Not a heckler was
in sight.

Most of us at the demonstration had heard the news that the U.N. Office
of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) - the organizer of the
Conference - had attempted to appease the United States and Israel by
deleting language supporting reparations for slavery and self
determination for the Palestinian people. But the Obama administration’s
threat to continue the boycott begun by Bush and Israel in 2001 did not
dampen the spirits of the demonstrators that afternoon. After the
demonstration, various NGO caucuses met, many for the first time,
attempting to prepare position papers that would pressure the DRC to be
more responsive to grassroots anti-racist movements. We were about to
learn that we had been thoroughly outmaneuvered.

Most were unaware that for nearly two years, hundreds of militant
pro-Israeli activists and the Israeli Foreign Ministry had been
coordinating their plans to sabotage the DRC. The fiercely pro-Israel
NGO-Monitor named at least 17 Zionist organizations that had been
“monitoring and protesting” the Durban Review Conference since May 2007
- only a few months after the U.N. General Assembly itself had passed a
resolution to convene the Durban Review Conference.

Role of the Israeli Foreign Ministry

On Sunday, Feb. 24, 2008, Israel’s Foreign Minister at the time, Tzipi
Livni, announced Israel’s decision to boycott the DRC. On Feb. 25, Haviv
Rettig Gur reported in the Jerusalem Post that some 30 Jewish
organizations from around the world were scheduled to meet the following
day with the Israeli Foreign Ministry “to coordinate efforts at
preventing the Durban Review Conference from becoming an anti-Israel and
anti-semitic hate fest.” According to the Jerusalem Post, at that
meeting, with the guidance of the head of the NGO Unit of the Foreign
Ministry, they formed a task force to coordinate efforts for Durban II.”

At the time, Bush was still president and all the 2008 presidential
candidates were competing with each other to be recognized as the
staunchest Israeli ally. Israel had no reason to doubt U.S. backing when
it took the lead in the international campaign to derail the DRC.
Through every U.S. presidency, Israel has been the largest recipient of
U.S. foreign aid - currently $3.1 billion in military aid and nearly
double that in non-military grants. U.S. aid has built and maintained
Israel’s army - the fourth most powerful in the world - the same army
that has keeps a defenseless Palestinian population under siege,
occupied for the last 42 years and expelled and dispossessed for the
last 60 years.

Most recently, Israel inflicted 22 days of relentless ‘round-the-clock
bombing on the sliver of land of Gaza where 1.5 million Palestinians are
caged. That bombing killed some 1,400 people, wounded 4,336 and
terrorized the entire population. Israel perpetrated this crime against
humanity with impunity, confident of the support of the Obama
administration and most European allies.

Israel is aware that as a settler-colonial regime, its power rests on
violence underwritten by the U.S. But U.S. support for Israel’s
permanent war against the Palestinian people requires perpetuation of
the myths: “Israel is a democratic, not apartheid state” and “Israel
wants peace and is only defending itself against fanatic Arab
terrorists.”

In Durban, the 2001 Worldwide Conference Against Racism (WCAR),
sponsored by the U.N., cracked Israel’s hegemonic narrative of the “the
Middle East conflict.” The final Durban Declaration and Program of
Action (DDPA), signed Sept. 8, 2001, by all U.N. members except the U.S.
and Israel, reflected the even-handed diplomacy of the world’s official
state representatives.

“We are concerned about the plight of the Palestinian people under
foreign occupation. We recognize the inalienable right of the
Palestinian people to self-determination and to the establishment of an
independent State and we recognize the right of security for all States
in the region, including Israel, and call upon all states to support the
peace process and bring it to an early conclusion.” (paragraph 63,
http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/Durban.pdf)

Other paragraphs expressed deep concern regarding anti-semitism and
Islamophobia and affirmed that the “Holocaust must never be forgotten.”

Despite the declaration’s moderation, the U.S. and Israel denounced it
as “anti-semitic” and walked out. The corporate media echoed the
pro-Israeli narrative that demonized the Durban Conference as an
“anti-semitic hate fest.” Then, before the U.N. or any of the 150
countries that signed the declaration could defend it, the Twin Towers
were bombed.

The Western corporate media sealed the reputation of Durban in a tomb of
anti-terror, anti-Muslim hysteria. How convenient for the Zionists to
resurrect the misrepresented ghost of WCAR in order to launch their
campaign to discredit and derail the 2009 Durban Review Conference.

The Zionists’ comprehensive strategy

Before any reader jumps to the conclusion that this author is resorting
to the traditional anti-semitic canard by creating a fictional “Zionist
conspiracy,” please note that Michael Jordan, frequent contributor to
the pro-Israel online news service JTA, openly bragged about the power
of their plot. The cornerstone of the plan was to campaign for an
international boycott of the conference and then to accuse any critics
of being anti-semitic.

On April 28, 2009, he wrote: “This time, however, the Jews actually did
conspire, albeit openly, to sabotage the conference. [my emphasis]

“The World Jewish Congress[1] met with officials from 17 U.N. member
states to push for a boycott. Hudson Institute scholar Anne Bayefsky
banged the anti-Durban drum for months in the U.S. media, including the
National Review, the New York Daily News and Forbes. And Israeli
officials pressed their allies that intended to participate in the
conference not to tolerate any anti-Israel resolutions.

“But for the most part, Durban II’s organizers and participants did not
want to point the finger at the Jews for the anti-Durban effort for fear
of being labeled anti-semites.”

The Jerusalem Post, Israel’s newspaper of record, reported frequently on
the growing lobbying efforts to render the Durban Review Conference
irrelevant by convincing the “world community” - read Europe and the
U.S. - to boycott it. A Sept. 28, 2008, article specifically detailed a
concerted three-pronged strategy: 1) To call for states to boycott the
conference; 2) To urge governments and private donors not to fund either
the conference or the NGOs; 3) To organize and galvanize a pro-Israeli
presence at the conference. While the article didn’t publicize it, the
strategy also involved pressure from inside the U.N. - especially the
U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights - through staff
members who were relatively pro-Israel.

1. Lobbying for boycott

Virtually all pro-Israel forces were mobilized to press for boycott.
During the presidential campaign, Obama shamelessly pandered to the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) - the influential
lobbying organization. Yet he also had a huge political debt to Black
voters and had encouraged his candidacy to be used as an anti-racist
symbol.

Thus, many of his supporters were shocked Feb. 27, 2009, just five weeks
into his presidency, when Obama declared the U.S. would not attend the
U.N. Durban Review Conference unless its outcome document were changed
to drop all references to Israel, reparations for slavery and the
defamation of religion. However, Obama’s spokespeople added that they
would be prepared to re-engage if the negotiations brought about a
“shortened” text of the document that met their criteria.

AIPAC immediately issued a press release that applauded Obama’s boycott
of the U.N.’s “celebration of racism and vile anti-semitic activity.”

Encouraged by the Obama administration’s open endorsement of Israel’s
year-old boycott, Zionist forces intensified their campaign to widen the
boycott to destroy any possibility of a successful conference. For
example, on March 9, 2009, The Jerusalem Post reported that Dr. Moshe
Kantor, president of the European Jewish Congress - an umbrella
organization for many Zionist organizations - called on the European
Union to boycott the conference.

While only a handful of European countries followed the lead of U.S. and
Israel, the threat of a wider boycott accomplished another objective. On
March 17, conference organizers announced their attempt to appease
Israel, the United States and their fence-sitting allies by revising the
Draft Outcome Document. They removed all references to Israel as a
perpetrator of racial discrimination, cut out any mention of the
Palestinians’ right to self determination and also excised all language
related to reparations, an acknowledgement that the transatlantic slave
trade was a crime against humanity and a proposal to strengthen the
Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent. But fearing
resistance from the Non-Aligned Countries, African countries and other
Islamic countries, conference organizers balked at Obama’s final demand
to totally renounce the hard-won Durban Declaration and Programme of
Action (DDPA) of 2001.

2. Choking off funding for the conference

In addition to pressure for boycott and weakening the conference’s
anti-racist program and documents, the Zionist strategy aimed to
withhold funding from the U.N. conference itself and potentially hostile
NGOs.

The U.N.’s budget only met part of the conference’s needs. The rest had
to be raised from voluntary contributions from states and civil society,
including major philanthropists like Ford and Soros Foundations. It is
possible that Zionist pressure on the U.S. and other governments to
withhold funds from the U.N. backfired. With no funds from the U.S.,
funds donated by Iran, Libya and others became more significant.

However, the campaign to starve the NGO Forum and any individual NGO
that didn’t tow the Israeli line had more success. In October 2008, the
NGO Monitor sent an open letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon
calling on him to “avoid providing official sponsorship or funding for
another NGO Forum that is likely to be a venue used to promote hatred
and anti-semitism.” Various other Zionist organizations - including the
Simon Wiesenthal Center, the American Jewish Committee and Human Rights
First, sent similar letters.

In 2001, the NGO Forum in Durban included 8,000 people and lasted more
than a week. U.N. and other financial support enabled many grassroots
people to participate and radicalize the process. The forum’s political
influence was significantly responsible for the U.N. DDPA’s endorsement
of reparations, self-determination for the Palestinian people and
generally strong stand against racism. Israel’s strategy for 2009 was to
torpedo any NGO Forum with the potential of exerting an anti-Zionist
influence.

In preparatory meetings, each time NGOs called for an NGO Forum in
Geneva in 2009, Jose Dougan-Beaca, the coordinator of the
Anti-Discrimination Unit of the OHCHR, emphasized that an NGO Forum was
impossible because of “lack of money and facilities.” Dougan-Beaca was
responsible for conveying information in both directions between the
NGOs and the OHCHR. But a delegate from Independent Jewish Voices of
Canada who attended those meetings reported that he became a partisan
advocate for the pro-Israel NGOs.[2]

The pro-Israel Magenta website published detailed reports of those
preparatory meetings. Those reports confirm Ralph’s impression. In
addition to citing financial constraints, Dougan-Beaca attempted to
lower the NGOs sights for the conference by emphasizing the DRC was
mandated to be a review conference, not intended to expand on the DDPA.
Therefore it would be appropriate for NGO attendance to be much reduced
and NGOs should not attempt to strengthen the DDPA.

In the end, rather than a fully funded official NGO Forum, barely 300
NGO representatives straggled into private venues away from the U.N.
complex on the weekend before the DRC convened. And fewer than 1,100
authorized NGO delegates were able to come to Geneva at all. During the
conference itself, pre-authorized “side events” that featured speakers
on approved topics were supposed to meet the NGO need for a political
platform. These side events reflected both Israel’s and the U.S. agenda.

Two weeks before the conference began, for example, the Office of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights informed a Palestinian Refugee Rights
Organization (Badil) that Palestinian-related side events would not be
permitted. There was no such restriction on pro-Israel events.

It is important to understand that the campaign continues to financially
strangle anti-racist NGOs that may criticize Israel. On April 26, the
day after the conference adjourned, in a piece titled, “Geneva Walkout
Isn’t Enough” (www.ynetnews.com), Diane Meskin praised the NGO Monitor’s
campaign to cut off funding for all anti-Israel NGOs. She wrote, “The EU
has much to do if it truly wants to fight anti-semitism, racism and the
perpetuation of anti-Israel propaganda on the world stage. It must put
its money where its mouth is and stop funding NGOs that use these funds
to promote the delegitimization of Israel …” She explicitly named
funding organizations that must cut off named grantees - many of whom
have supported a diversity of anti-racist causes.

3. Mobilizing a strong pro-Zionist (and disruptive) presence at DRC

Pro-Israel forces at the conference had their marching orders: Protect
Israel from criticism of its most recent genocidal blitzkrieg and
invasion of Gaza and gag any discussion of the occupation of Palestine
itself. Uniformly, pro-Israeli groups worked to keep the focus on Iran,
the holocaust, anti-semitism and Muslim complicity in Darfur. They
talked about the persecution of the Roma and about Rwanda, but attempted
to silence all mention of land seizures, the apartheid wall, separate
roads, checkpoints, home demolitions, economic strangulation, mass
incarceration, theft of water and all the other racist assaults on the
Palestinian people.

Throughout 2008 and during the months of 2009 leading right up to the
conference, meetings of the Preparatory Committee in Geneva, Regional
Meetings in Latin America, Africa, Europe, Asia and among the Islamic
States and Intersessional Meetings all invited input from NGOs. Those
NGOs with closer ties to the grassroots were invariably poorly funded
and could not afford travel and lodging in Geneva. Thus, NGOs more
closely linked to governments - especially pro-Israel NGOs - had a
disproportionate presence at the preparatory meetings.

For example, the pro-Israel NGO based in the Netherlands - I-CARE,
funded by the Magenta Foundation - attended the preparatory meetings and
posted detailed accounts of those meetings on their website. Many of
those accounts describe some of the numerous attempts by pro-Israel
organizations to sidetrack conference planning. The World Jewish
Congress created the highly selective World Jewish Diplomatic Corps -
young professionals, an “elite force on the ground to attend the
Preparatory Meetings to argue for human rights.”

Reports by I-CARE’s representatives at those meetings reflect Israel’s
particular concern with both the influence and composition of the Bureau
of the Preparatory Committee that had responsibility to “prepare the
agenda and draft decisions for consideration by PrepCom and address all
issues pertinent to its work …” Ms. Najat Al-Hajjaji, the permanent
ambassador from Libya to the U.N. in Geneva and past chair of the Human
Rights Council, chaired the bureau. Bureau “vice chairpersons” from the
Global South outnumbered delegates from Europe 11 to 7,[3] and the Cuban
ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva, Resfel Pino Alvarez, who is also the
respected chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, was named
vice-chairperson-rapporteur.

Two websites central to efforts to implement Israel’s anti-DRC strategy
have been the Home - UN Watch, affiliated with the American Jewish
Committee, and the www.ngo-monitor.org, based in Jerusalem. The latter
was founded with the objective “to end the practice used by certain
self-declared ‘humanitarian NGOs’ of exploiting the label ‘universal
human rights values’ to promote politically and ideologically motivated
anti-Israel agendas.” They functioned as promoter, clearinghouse and
publicist. Some 16 months before the conference, the Dec. 22, 2008,
Jerusalem Post reported that the World Union of Jewish Students formed a
special task force of 60 students who would travel to Geneva “to defend
Israel.”

According to Home - UN Watch, there were a total of 314 newly-registered
NGOs with a total of 1,073 delegates at the DRC and some 370 delegates
belonged to only two of the Jewish student unions that attended. If the
delegates from all the myriad pro-Israel organizations and media are
counted,[4] it is likely that more than half those who attended the
conference in Geneva came with the sole purpose of building a pro-Israel
presence and preventing any anti-Israel expression.

Response to the pro-Israel juggernaut

From the first day of the conference we saw the waves of disruption of
Ahmedinejad’s speech - coordinated in both the General Assembly and the
NGO auditorium. Some 200 pro-Israel activists then attempted to block
the entrance to his press conference. Similar disruptions of side events
frustrated attempts to discuss Islamophobia. And large well-publicized
panels and carefully-orchestrated rallies that featured famous Zionist
celebrities were sympathetically reported by a compliant Western
corporate media. Even within the U.N. OHCHR, at least one press officer
gave pro-Israel statements to the press.[5] All this made many
non-Zionist participants feel that pro-Israel forces had hijacked the
conference with military-like planning and precision.

By the second day, NGO advocates for reparations, land for the landless,
the rights of Dalits, self-determination for the Palestinian people and
a myriad of other anti-racist demands began to regroup. But suddenly,
the U.N. OHCHR announced that the “Outcome Document of the DRC” would be
approved by consensus before the close of the second day of the five-day
conference. There would be no opportunity to repair the damage done by
the U.N. OHCHR’s appeasement of the U.S. and Israel’s demands.

Nevertheless, a group of African and African Diaspora NGOs, progressive
Islamic NGOs and those in solidarity with the Palestinians, migrants and
many others continued to meet informally and strategize. They vowed to
continue the struggle for recognition of their demands in other venues -
including, perhaps, a Durban 2010. Anti-Zionist Jewish organizations[6]
- whose presence at the conference was totally eclipsed by the
pro-Israel forces - had met earlier and were heartened by the growing
strength of the BDS movement to press for boycott, divestment and
sanctions against Israel.

Setback and encouragement for anti-racist movements

At least 145 U.N. member states endorsed the Outcome Document by
consensus. The very first paragraph reaffirmed the Durban Declaration
and Program of Action as it was adopted at the World Conference against
Racism in 2001. Moreover, delegate after delegate reiterated the praise
that the South African Foreign Minister and spokesperson for the Africa
Group gave to the DDPA:

“The DDPA is viewed as an inspiration that would define the 21st century
as the century that restored to all their human dignity. It provides a
solid and concrete basis for every country to develop its own measures
to combat all forms of racism, and to strengthen the protection regime
for victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance.”

In the end, only 10 countries - all European or European-settler states
- boycotted the DRC. At least 17 state delegates[7] expressed
disapproval of the boycott in their official statements. In the language
of diplomats, they denounced the boycott as revealing a lack of
commitment to overcoming racism. More than 100 remaining delegates
implicitly criticized the boycott orchestrated by Israel and the U.S.

Yet, pressure from the U.S. and Israel did succeed in preventing serious
strengthening of the 2001 DDPA. For example, most delegations from
Africa and the Africa Diaspora had been working for the DRC to adopt
measures to provide effective tools for implementing a commitment to
reparations[8] and establishing a “racial equality index” and timetables
by which specific progress could be assessed. They also called for a
Permanent Forum for People of African Descent, not simply a “panel of
experts.”

But in the end, perhaps in order to prevent the majority of European
countries from following the boycotters, the Outcome Document was silent
on these issues. Moreover, Ban Ki-Moon and Navi Pillay explicitly
repudiated Ahmedinejad’s speech, which had affirmed Palestine’s right to
self-determination. Pillay admitted in her press conference on April 24
that she believed her denunciation of Iran was the price the EU demanded
not to join the boycott. Except for Argentina, the 15 countries that
explicitly denounced Iran were all European.[9]

Some 18 countries - none of them European - explicitly supported the
Palestinian people’s right to self determination and criticized to
varying degrees Israel’s denial of Palestinian rights.[10] Most of
these, plus Azerbaijan and Pakistan, were among the 15 that called for
stronger measures against Islamophobia. Finally, 16 countries - all
except Japan from the Global South - expressed concern for protecting
migrants against racist attacks and the final Outcome document included
protections for migrants that most European countries had opposed.[11]
In sum, about half the delegates took definite stands in their speeches
on the most controversial issues of the conference. Their stands
demonstrate the endurance of North-South oppressor-oppressed relations.

Israel is a bastion of “European civilization,” a settler colonial
state, on the edge of the African continent. To survive as a Jewish
state - by definition an apartheid state - Israel is perpetually
consolidating and expanding its narrative that turns the reality of its
racist colonial project on its head. The global hegemony of U.S.-led
imperialism is cracking. U.S. and European complicity with Israel
demonstrates how white supremacist states will increasingly join forces
and circle the wagons when threatened.

The U.N.’s Durban Review Conference once again dramatized a lesson many
learned long ago: Appeasing settler colonial, neo-colonial and
imperialist powers only emboldens them. The Palestinian Authority and
other Muslim States (including Iran) agreed to a “consensus” document
that omitted any mention of Israel or Palestine. The African and
Caribbean States signed onto a “consensus” document that omitted mention
of reparations.

But the U.S. never compromised in its unconditional support for Israel
and opposition to reparations. Hopefully those NGOs and others who
argued, “Let’s just focus on our issues. The Palestine-Israeli conflict
is just a distraction from the real struggle against racism,” learned
from Israel’s campaign to destroy the conference. Just as the U.S.,
Europe and those bribed by them are united in their project to maintain
their hegemony, African and African Diaspora people, Asian and
indigenous people - all colonized and formerly colonized people - need
unity.

Endnotes

[1] World Jewish Congress identifies the WJC as an international
organization which represents organizations in 80 countries from
Argentina to Zimbabwe. It has headquarters in New York City, a research
institute in Jerusalem and affiliate offices in Brussels, Budapest,
Buenos Aires, Geneva, Johannesburg, Moscow, Ottawa, Paris and Sydney.
The WJC Office in Geneva hosted the “International Jewish Caucus at the
DRC” even though it had called for states to boycott the conference at
its January 2009 Plenary.

[2] Diana Ralph. “No Anti-Semitism at Durban II: Canada Should End its
Boycott.” Outlook Magazine. Vol 47 #1, Jan/Feb 2007, pp. 17-18.

[3] From Africa, the vice chairs included representatives from Cameroon,
South Africa and Senegal; from Asia: India, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan,
Turkey; from South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile; and from Europe:
Armenia, Croatia, Estonia, Russia, Belgium, Greece and Norway.

[4] Some of the Zionists organizations with delegates in Geneva were
World Jewish Congress, American Jewish Congress, European Jewish
Congress, Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, Canadian Jewish
Congress, International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism, The
Simon Wiesenthal Center, B’nai Brith Canada, B’nai Brith International,
International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Human Rights
First, Rabbis for Human Rights, Hadassah, Jewish Council for Public
Affairs, Jewish Council for Racial Equity, Union of Jewish Women of
South Africa, Institute for Advancement of Human Rights, American Jewish
Committee.

[5] Pierre Hazan, a staff member of the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, author of a pro-Israel book on the Six Day War and
fellow of the Congressionally-funded U.S. Institute of Peace, mocked the
DRC as “an immense ritual of collective atonement and social
purification.” (quoted by News24, South Africa's premier news source, provides breaking news on national, world, Africa, sport, entertainment, technology & more. April 17, 2009)

[6] There may have been others, but this author is aware of
representatives of Neturei Karta, an Israeli-based group of orthodox
Jews who believe Zionism is antithetical to Judaism (see Neturei Karta - Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism),
Independent Jewish Voices based in Canada (ijv@magma.ca) and the
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network-IJAN that identifies Israel as
a settler colonial state. ( International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network)

[7] Brazil, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Organization of Islamic Councils,
Indonesia, Iran, Lesotho, Namibia, Nigeria, Norway, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda and Uruguay. U.N. Secretary General Ban
Ki-Moon, U.N. High Commission for Human Rights Navi Pillay and a number
of others explicitly criticized the boycott.

[8] Twelve countries explicitly advocated for Reparations: Angola,
Barbados, Cuba, Guyana, Haiti, Iran, Jamaica, Libya, Namibia, Suriname,
Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Many others suggested that former colonial
countries had the responsibility to ease poverty, forgive debt and
assist in the economic development of the Global South.

[9] Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and
United Kingdom.

[10] Bahrain, Cuba, Egypt, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, League of
Arab States, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Nicaragua, Palestine (PLO), Qatar,
Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates

[11] Argentina, Burkina Faso, Cuba, Ecuador, Greece, Haiti, Honduras,
Japan, Jordan, Mauritius, Mexico, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal,
Tanzania and Turkey.

Arlene Eisen is a writer based in San Francisco, who, since the 1960s,
has been active in anti-imperialist struggles. Most recently she edited
Second Lines, the newsletter of the Peoples’ Hurricane Relief Fund,
traveled to South Africa where she joined a project to document the
Black Consciousness Movement and participated in the
United-Against-Racism-U.S.A. delegation to the U.N. Durban Review
Conference in Geneva. She can be reached at arlene_eisen@sbcglobal.net .

[Dknows]

Wonderful article, no one will never know how cruel Israel is and the corporation of the U.S has to go with the flow because if everyone finds out the real truth white supremacy will be over..


thanks,
dknows..

[DarkManJah]

The minute i saw who Obama's chief of staff was, i knew the unitedsnakes would do what it did. and then he got that ofther jewish supremacist as his chief advisor, the guy who ran his campaign and the campaigns of, gulp!, other black elected officials over the years...
About reparations, dozens of posts ago i questioned the idea of giving Afrikans in amerikkka reparations because most of the money will be given to civil rights-agenda organizations, you know, the ones whose missions don't conflict with the goals of white supremacy. i mean, can you see them giving money to a Pan-Afrikan Militant group, even if it had 100K members? me either. Hell, i will even go far as to say that reperations will lead us further into the Beast's belly. For the time being, they can keep the damn $. We already knee deep in this sh#t they call the west, i don't want it up to my shoulders... Remember, $ don't liberate;it perpetuate...to an extent we must consider before We cash the check...

Excellent post!
Do you have any articles/insights about how jewish supremacy really runs/influences president's office via an advisory capacity? Will be waiting...somewhat patiently, if only because i researched rahm emanuel's history the absolute minute Obama announced rahm would be holding his hand for the next 4 years...

[guera]

Originally Posted by Dknows

Wonderful article, no one will never know how cruel Israel is and the corporation of the U.S has to go with the flow because if everyone finds out the real truth white supremacy will be over..


thanks,
dknows..

I dont understand what you are saying. White supremacist hate jews.