A few days ago an organization called Human Rights Watch called on a well-known mad anti-Semitic führer committed to the destruction of Israel, to renounce on a great deal of his “identity”, leaving from now on one different people or religion, as well as freedom of expression, in peace:
Human Rights Watch called on Ahmadinejad to use his presence at the UN racism conference to announce an end to repression of the Baha’i people in Iran and a commitment to allow freedom of expression – an essential protection in the fight against racism worldwide.
It has done so not without hinting at the repeated elimination threats by exactly the same führer and other members of his clique against Israel, the Jewish State (oh, well, okay, even if without any reference to his proxies’ ongoing real actions in various countries aimed at making these very threats true).
What does this teach us?
Apparently, for Human Rights Watch, it is not good to suppress a different religion and to persecute its followers, while it reduces the threat of annihilation and the daily acts of an anti-Semitic annihilation war (by the Iran-supported anti-Semitic terror organization Hamas, for instance), to use the organization’s own words, to not more than “past statements” and “controversial comments” of a “divisive figure”. So that one must say that, if Human Rights Watch would be a religion, it would be, to a certain degree, even a very tolerant religion – tolerant toward anti-Semitic mass-murder, even if not tolerant toward what it may define as racism.
Furthermore, if it would be a religion, this Human Rights Watch religion would even be a religion proselytizing globally and on a high level, i.e. among states:
Human Rights Watch said that governments should deepen their engagement with the conference to ensure that it stays on track, focusing on the important issues of addressing racism in the world.
A religion which pretends to be binding for the whole world, because
“[t]he issue of fighting racism and discrimination is too important to be derailed by anyone.”
And a religion which therefore, if necessary, knows also a devil, and whose followers seem to be convinced of the fact that whoever dares “derail” its fight in spite of the important issue of racism in the world can only be either somehow an Ahmadinejad-like “racist” himself – like the Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad who is scheduled to speak at the anti-racist conference precisely on the 120th birthday of Adolf Hitler (and on the eve of Holocaust Memorial Day) and whose government, according to Human Rights Watch,
routinely represses dissent and has continued the decades-old repression of Iran’s religious and ethnic minorities, including the Baha’i religious minority (http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/06/04/iran-scores-arrested-anti-baha-i-campaign),
– or else an authoritarian, anti-democratic person, government or other body which, when it comes to so-called negotiations, tries to impose its own will upon an entire good-willing anti-racist mankind :
“Saying you won’t negotiate unless everyone else accepts all your demands first is not the way to get the changes you want,” [Juliette] de Rivero [“Geneva advocacy director at Human Rights Watch”] said. “This attitude is especially disappointing given President Obama’s promise to engage with other nations rather than trying to impose Washington’s will upon them.”
So that, as a State, either one has to participate in that conference or else… one has to participate in that conference, whatever the cost for those who’ve always been seen, by anti-Semites, as the most stubborn and selfish people of the world, whose State is seen by anti-Semites as an unnatural construction. But strangely, what the organizers of “Durban I” and “Durban II” meant and mean by “fighting racism and discrimination”, still seems to be perceived stubbornly as what it is even by the US State Department, which despite all the change work delivered by a number of resolution change soldiers, still noted in a recent statement that
the document must not reaffirm the 2001 Durban conference’s draft document – which, by mentioning the “plight of the Palestinian people” places Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the context of race – and that the U.S. cannot support restrictions on freedom of expression that could result from the document’s language related to “incitement” to religious hatred.
Indeed, if this kind of religion, which, when it is not called Human Rights Watch, goes under its common name of anti-Semitism even when it does not always use blunt “legal tricks” as the one cited by the US State Department, would not deserve hatred, it would deserve at least a wealth of contempt, and no-one should in fact participate in a UN black mass like the one in Geneva, except for the anti-racist heirs of Hitler, of whom there are plenty enough anyway. Therefore, the countries that deserve to be applauded in the context of “Durban II”, are Israel, Canada and Italy, i.e. the first ones who tried to “derail” a train which exactly like “Durban I” has been designed right from the start – in the bloody Islamic Republic of Iran – to help pave the propagandistic way for the destruction of Israel and the Jews – and of the rest of what is left of Western civilization – and once again for the mad sake of protecting all the different “peoples” of the world from their destruction by one “race”. That of the Jews, which was perceived and declared as the “anti-race” already by other famous “divisive figures” who not long after having voiced their “past statements” and somehow “controversial comments”, executed what is known as the Holocaust whose “historical accuracy” (sic), according to the Deutsche Welle (under the headline “EU still undecided on whether to attend UN anti-racism talks”), Ahmadinejad likes to question so insistently.
PS: A little more from Eye on the UN: