CIJA blocked from Durban II 
By Paul Lungen 
May 08, 2008 
The Jewish Canadian News
Original Source: https://mail.hudsonny.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content%26task=view%26id=14618%26Itemid=86

 The Canadian Council on Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) has withdrawn its application for accreditation to the upcoming Durban Review Conference, also known as Durban II. 
CIJA was blocked by the discriminatory treatment of Iran and its supporters at the UN, whose goal was “to marginalize Jewish voices and memory,” said Hershell Ezrin, RIGHT,  chief executive officer of CIJA.
“The whole process had become so discriminatory to us, we felt that no matter how many times we answered their questions and responded to shorter and shorter deadlines, we were asked the same questions over and over again,” he said.
Durban II is the followup to the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, held in Durban, South Africa, which critics said degenerated into an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic hatefest.
CIJA applied for accreditation to Durban II in 2007 and was approved by the UN Secretariat. About two months ago, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) informed CIJA that Iran objected to its inclusion as a recognized NGO, although no reasons were given. 
Under the UN’s rules, details of the objection were supposed to have been communicated to CIJA for a response, but CIJA was given no concrete reasons for its exclusion before the Durban preparatory committee met on April 21, the second day of Passover.
CIJA’s application was discussed that day, and the organization was given 48 hours to provide information to Iran. During a second debate on April 28, Iran demanded further documentation, and CIJA was given 24 hours to reply. In all, CIJA provided more than 100 pages of documentation to support its application.
CIJA withdrew its application when it became clear it could never convince Iran to withdraw its objections. Since the preparatory committee operates by consensus, it was inevitable that CIJA’s application would be rejected, Ezrin said.
Iran was supported by Egypt, Algeria and the Palestinian delegation, while Argentina, speaking on behalf of South American nations, as well as Switzerland and Slovenia, representing the European Union, supported CIJA.
“It is unacceptable that the accreditation process be dominated by political considerations. We need to ensure that the process be fair, respectful and transparent,” the Slovenian delegate stated on behalf of the EU.
In a letter to the UNHCHR announcing its withdrawal, CIJA said “the continuing and obvious actions by a group of member states led by Iran appear to us to be aimed primarily at marginalizing Jewish voices and memory. They remain at odds with the UN’s high ideals.”
“Despite the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist hate that blighted and derailed the initial Durban conference [Durban I], there remained hope that, working together, people of goodwill could identify common ground in the fight against racism, discrimination and xenophobia. However, the events of recent days have put into question again the will, or ability, to fix the broken Durban process. While initially we felt it important to defend our name and reputation, it is  now clear that, no matter what evidence we supply to demonstrate our bona fides, or how many times we supply it, under how many shrinking deadlines, it will make no difference in affecting the agenda of Iran or its supporters.”
Anne Bayefsky, senior editor of the watchdog Eye On The UN website, said CIJA’s treatment “was clearly a case of double standards applied to a Jewish and pro-Israel organization.”
Bayefsky, who was in Geneva monitoring the Durban II preparatory conference, said “there is no doubt they [CIJA] were treated differently from all other NGO applications, and the Iranians were given virtually carte blanche to interrupt the accreditation process.”
Hillel Neuer, TOP LEFT,  executive director of UN Watch, a human rights monitoring group, said, “It is ironic that a UN gathering to combat racism became a platform for Tehran’s fundamentalist regime and its allies to single out and harass a mainstream NGO for no apparent reason other than the inclusion in its name of the words Jewish and Israel. All of this from a Holocaust-denying government that was just censured by the UN General Assembly for its persecution of religious and racial minorities.”
Neuer suggested Iran’s “anti-Jewish animus” was further stoked by anger at “Canada’s lead role in a UN General Assembly resolution that spoke out for victims of Iranian human rights violations.”
Bayefsky said developments at the preparatory conference give little hope Durban II will be much different than the 2001 Durban I conference. 
Durban I was used by “the worst human rights violators to cast themselves as the anti-racists.” Durban II will likely be “a major step backward for the protection of human rights,” she said.
Bayefsky pointed to several developments that suggest Arab and Muslim countries are attempting to set the agenda for Durban II. During the preparatory work, “there have been numerous statements that anti-Semitism is about Arabs and Muslims. It is an effort to deny Jews as victims by appropriating anti-Semitism,” she said.
In addition, she said, “there is an effort to undermine dramatically the freedom of expression in the name of Islamophobia. To avoid criticism for the xenophobia in Islamic societies, you are seeing this constant references to Islamophobia, with the perpetrators being western societies.”
A resolution advanced by Canada on freedom of expression was “butchered” by the UN Human Rights Council, she said, with Islamic countries amending it to require the rapporteur on free speech to report criticisms of Islam. 
It’s a reaction to the publication of pictures of the Muslim prophet Muhhamad in a Danish newspaper, which sparked violent protests by Muslims in 2006, she said.
“The council is turning freedom of expression on its head, if it offends the feelings of religious extremists,” Bayefsky added.