Transcript [00:00] Hello everybody. Thank you for joining [00:02] us whether it's morning, afternoon, [00:05] evening, I guess it could be nighttime [00:06] for some people somewhere in the world. [00:09] We're very honored to be hosting along [00:12] with UN watch this webinar marking 25 [00:15] years of the infamous anti-semitic [00:19] Durban conference. [00:21] Exactly 25 years ago in Durban, South [00:23] Africa, the UN Commission on Human [00:26] Rights held the World Conference on the [00:29] Elimination of Racism, discrimination, [00:31] and other forms of xenophobia. It's [00:33] quite a lengthy name. Over 8,000 people, [00:37] probably more delegates and NGO [00:40] officials participated in this event, [00:42] ostensibly called to celebrate the end [00:45] of apartheid and to develop a strategy [00:47] for combating racism. Instead, the long [00:51] and long before the opening sessions, [00:54] this conference was hijacked for what [00:56] the late representative Tom Lantos, a [00:58] member of the US delegation and a [01:00] Holocaust survivor, called the most [01:02] sickening and unabashed display of hate [01:04] for Jews I have seen since the Nazi [01:07] period. And that was 25 years ago. The [01:11] events of Durban and specifically the [01:13] NGO forum which revived the heinous [01:15] Soviet era Zionism is racism resolution [01:18] of 1975 [01:20] led me to begin what turned out to be a [01:22] 25- year journey and focus on [01:25] documenting the links between the [01:27] powerful and unaccountable [01:28] non-governmental organization industry [01:30] the NGO industry and the demonization of [01:33] Israel and the Jewish people. This was [01:36] the beginning of NGO monitor. [01:38] In this webinar, I am honored to be [01:40] joined as co-host by Hill Neuer from UN [01:43] Watch and three front row observers of [01:47] this tra travesty and its aftermath. [01:51] We will be recalling and discussing [01:53] these events and their implications in [01:55] today's environment of unimaginable [01:57] hatred and demonization. [02:01] Hello. [02:02] I'm pleased to introduce you. [02:04] >> Thank you, Gerald. It's an honor to [02:06] co-host this event with this eminent [02:08] panel. Um the events of Durban did not [02:13] necessarily begin in 2001 in that the [02:16] United Nations had declared Zionism to [02:19] be a form of racism in 1975. [02:22] That as Kofanan remarked years later was [02:25] the low point when it comes to the UN [02:27] and anti-semitism. So that demonization [02:30] of Israel's very raisand detach as a [02:33] racist entity began at the United [02:35] Nations in 1975. Thankfully after lots [02:38] of hard work and David was a big part of [02:39] it the that resolution was that infamous [02:42] resolution was repealed and cancelled uh [02:45] some 16 years later. But then of course [02:48] in 2001 that canard was revived and it [02:51] led to what we had about five years ago [02:54] where Israel was declared by uh large [02:57] human rights groups to be an apartheid [02:59] state. Uh and so Durban was a turning [03:01] point in reviving the Zionism as racism [03:04] canard and launching the demonization of [03:06] Israel as an apartheid state has [03:08] happened in the NGO forum. So it's a [03:10] major historic event and we'll hear uh [03:13] we'll hear all about it from our panel [03:14] of experts and just to say that you know [03:16] this is part of the work of UN watch UN [03:19] watch uh my predecessor Andrew Serovich [03:21] was there on the ground David of course [03:23] was very involved in the leadup uh and [03:26] everything surrounding it. Um you'll [03:28] hear all about it and uh I'm very [03:30] honored to be part of this event. [03:33] >> Thanks. We are we have a very [03:35] distinguished panel. Two of whom are [03:37] with us and hopefully the third will [03:39] join us in a minute. Professor Dina [03:42] Parat was the chief historian of [03:44] Yadvashm, professor of Jewish history at [03:46] Tel Aviv University and head of the [03:49] Caner Center for the Study of [03:50] Contemporary European Jewelry. [03:53] She has published many landmark articles [03:55] and books. and she was recently honored [03:58] for her contributions at the Kyifa [04:00] conference of the contemporary of [04:02] contemporary anti-semitism studies [04:04] association. [04:06] David Harris was the CEO of American of [04:09] the American Jewish community for many [04:10] years and spent at least a year and [04:12] David maybe longer I don't remember as [04:14] head of UN watch in Geneva where we [04:16] first met briefly in 2000. I'm not sure [04:18] if you remember, but I it was before I [04:21] understood what the NGO industry was [04:24] really about, but I started to become [04:26] interested. [04:27] David is now a visiting scholar at the [04:30] School for Advanced International [04:31] Studies at John's Hopkins University [04:34] among other distinguished institutions [04:36] and he has a new book, an important [04:38] book, Anti-semitism, What Everyone Needs [04:40] to Know, published by Oxford University [04:43] Press in 2025. [04:45] I think we should start by asking both [04:47] of you from different perspectives. [04:49] Dena, you were on the ground at Durban. [04:50] David, you were in the American [04:52] delegation dealing with these issues and [04:54] seeing them developed before anybody was [04:57] on the ground in Durban. Maybe we'll [04:58] start with you, David, because you have [05:00] the historical background and talk about [05:02] the what you saw and witnessed in the [05:04] leadup to and when it actually opened to [05:07] Durban to the conference. [05:09] Gerald, thank you very much for the [05:11] opportunity and a big shout out both to [05:14] you and NGO Monitor and to Hill Neoer [05:17] and UN Watch. And I hope I'll get to say [05:20] something before the webinar ends about [05:22] the unique role that both of these [05:24] organizations play in dealing with [05:26] issues not just of 25 years ago, but of [05:29] today. [05:31] As you said, I was invited by the the [05:33] Bush White House to be an official [05:36] member of the US delegation that was led [05:38] by Secretary of State Colin Powell. [05:42] And there were questions from the [05:43] beginning about whether or not um it was [05:46] appropriate for the United States to be [05:47] there and by being there lending its its [05:50] prestige, if you will, its validation. [05:53] And this went back and forth because [05:55] there had already been hints uh in the [05:58] regional conferences that led up to [06:00] Durban. There were there were [06:02] geographical regional conferences and [06:05] particularly the one in Asia um signaled [06:08] already the direction in which all of [06:10] this was going. So other than the [06:13] willfully blind and among the willfully [06:16] blind that might include Mary Robinson [06:18] who was then the United Nations High [06:20] Commissioner for Human Rights and if you [06:22] will the chairwoman of this entire [06:24] process but it was already clear that [06:27] this could go easily go off the rails in [06:30] the governmental section not to mention [06:32] the NGO forum and there were two parts [06:35] to Durban. [06:36] And so I I I'll just take a moment, [06:39] Gerald, and then I'll I'll yield my [06:41] time. But I want to read what Colin [06:43] Powell said after the decision was made [06:45] within the official US delegation when [06:48] he announced on September the 3rd of [06:51] 2001, why the United States chose to [06:55] withdraw from the conference. And of [06:57] course, alongside that, Israel walked [06:59] out with the United States, the only two [07:02] countries in 2001 to leave. These are [07:05] Colin Powell's words. Quote, "I know [07:08] that you do not combat racism by [07:11] conferences that produce declarations [07:13] containing hateful language, some of [07:15] which is a throwback to the days of [07:17] Zionism equals racism." And here I would [07:20] insert because Hill you mentioned it [07:22] just 10 years before another Bush the [07:26] father had overseen the the the the [07:29] reversal of the Zionism's racism [07:32] resolution leading some to believe that [07:34] that era was over only to discover 10 [07:38] years later that if anything it had been [07:40] in hibernation and was coming back with [07:42] vengeance. back to Colin Powell or [07:46] supports the idea that we have made too [07:48] much of the Holocaust or supports that [07:51] apart that apartheid exists in Israel or [07:54] that singles out only one country in the [07:56] world, Israel, for censure and abuse." [08:00] Those were the words of the Secretary of [08:02] State of the United States, explaining [08:04] why the United States had chosen to [08:06] withdraw from um from the Durban [08:09] Conference. I was a member of the US [08:12] delegation and I must say much as I had [08:15] looked forward to to participating in [08:17] the process. I was immensely proud of [08:20] the US position then and as I read those [08:22] words today even more so. [08:25] >> Thank you. Thank you Gerald. Thank you [08:28] Hel for organizing [08:30] and David for participating of course. [08:35] Um I would like to emphasize or share [08:39] with you two point in time. I was a [08:43] member of the Israeli foreign ministry [08:46] delegation to Durban. I had the honor of [08:49] being there and not the pleasure. [08:53] First point in time is the following [08:56] one. We were sitting in a hall uh that [09:01] was designated for the diplomatic [09:04] delegations. We are a very small [09:06] delegation, [09:08] 10 people. So I was the only one [09:11] representing Israel in this room. And I [09:14] could see in a matter of a day or two [09:18] not more that a conference in which [09:25] so much effort so so many budgets um and [09:30] as David said preparatory [09:34] um conferences [09:36] I attended one in Strasburg because we [09:39] didn't go we could not go to the one in [09:42] Thran [09:43] that represented Asia. Um, all these [09:47] efforts were gone in a day or two and [09:51] instead of dealing with a burning [09:54] problem of really facing racism that was [09:58] increasing in Europe after the waves of [10:01] immigration, [10:03] Israel and the Jewish people are on the [10:05] table. So I went up to the Belgian [10:10] representative [10:11] who was on the first day heading [10:17] or chairing uh the sessions in this hall [10:21] and said could you tell me what's going [10:24] on? How did it with a snap of a finger [10:28] turn out against anger? [10:31] And he said, you know, he took me aside [10:34] as if explaining [10:37] something so obvious. He said, listen, [10:42] most of the countries who had [10:44] delegations representing them from South [10:48] America, Africa, the Far East, mainly [10:51] them who were under colonial rule see [10:56] racism very differently. They don't see [10:59] the problems [11:01] that we see in Europe today or in North [11:04] America. They see and remember and [11:09] cannot forget what happened during [11:11] colonial times. And what they want to [11:14] use the conference for is forgetting [11:17] compensations [11:19] for what they suffered under colonial [11:22] rule. So just imagine he tells me he [11:27] should have said medally that was the [11:30] tone of of his speaking. He said, [11:33] "Listen, [11:35] what [11:37] what would happen if Spain [11:40] would compensate so many countries in [11:44] South America, [11:46] a Portugal, Brazil [11:49] and so and so and we Belgium compensate [11:53] Congo and you know we all know what [11:57] Belgium robbed from Congo and so I tell [12:01] you frankly [12:02] The simple solution out of this problem [12:05] was to pick on Israel and the Jews. And [12:09] he said it so simply, so openly that [12:14] he he he left me speechless. [12:17] That was [12:19] a a a blunt and exact explanation of [12:24] what happened in the Durban conference. [12:28] There was another point uh in the same [12:31] hall the second day an Iranian was the [12:34] chairperson [12:36] and the issue at stake was whether the [12:40] word holocaust would appear in a [12:43] sentence that the Arab countries wanted [12:46] to change. [12:48] Holocaust should be written with a [12:51] lowerase h a small h and the s in the [12:54] end. Holocaust. [12:56] Okay. And my job was to deter this and [13:03] there were some 19 [13:07] Arab rep um countries with [13:10] representatives. You know that all in [13:13] all there were four 54 the Arab League [13:18] all the Arab League countries but in [13:20] this all at that moment 19 and the [13:23] chairperson gave all the 19 [13:27] the possibility to speak. And then he [13:30] said, "Okay, Israel, you have one minute [13:32] left to explain to us why the Holocaust [13:35] is unique and it cannot be written with [13:38] a lower case but with a capital letter [13:41] and no, which I did the best in." Okay? [13:45] And it was off the table. But this is [13:48] the reality that we faced an impossible [13:52] reality in which matters were cut before [13:57] we started. [14:00] Yeah. Uh we're we're honored to be [14:02] joined by Professor Irwin Cutotler, [14:04] who's the founder and chair of the Raul [14:06] Walenberg Center for Human Rights, [14:08] Canada's former minister of justice and [14:11] attorney general, longtime [14:13] parliamentarian, where he uh did a [14:15] tremendous job bringing human rights [14:17] victims and activists to speak in the [14:20] parliament. Professor Cutotler is a [14:21] renowned international human rights [14:23] lawyer and scholar. As human rights [14:26] lawyer, he was known as council for the [14:28] oppressed, represented people like Saudi [14:30] blogger Raif Badawi, Leopoldo Lopez, uh [14:34] Vladimir Kar Murza and many other [14:37] eminent dissident and former political [14:39] prisoners. Uh he's a board member of UN [14:42] watch and was a longtime uh pillar of [14:45] our Geneva Summit for human rights. And [14:48] so it's an honor for us to hear from [14:49] Professor Cutotler who has played a [14:51] central role uh in everything [14:53] surrounding Durban and its aftermath. [14:56] >> Thank you. I'm sorry for my technical [15:00] limitations which precluded me getting [15:02] on on on time. I did hear David Harris [15:05] and I did hear part of Dino. But I want [15:08] to begin just by commending uh you and [15:11] uh Gerald for initiating this important [15:15] timely and really uh significant get [15:18] together and with my uh fellow panelists [15:23] both of whom are close friends. Let me I [15:25] was in Durban as a member of the uh [15:28] Canadian delegation but I also [15:31] participated in the NGO forum. I had [15:35] been very active in the founding of both [15:37] Amnesty and and uh Helsinki watch which [15:41] then became human rights watch. So I was [15:43] very much part of the NGO forum and even [15:47] uh looked in on the student forum and my [15:51] remembrance uh from Durban. I'll just [15:54] very quickly uh sum it up in case others [15:58] because these remembrances have remained [16:01] with me to this day. They've not only [16:04] part of my memory, but they are part of [16:07] my psyche. And I just have to [16:09] contextualize them. When it was first [16:11] announced that there was going to be a [16:13] world conference against racism in in [16:15] Durban in the late 1990s, it was going [16:18] to take place in 2001. As we know, I [16:20] greeted this with a great sense of uh [16:23] anticipation, if not excitement. This [16:25] was going to be the first world [16:27] conference uh against racism of the 21st [16:31] century. This was going to be the first [16:32] international human rights conference of [16:34] the 21st century in which anti-racism [16:37] was an organizing theme and was all [16:39] taking place in Durban, South Africa, [16:42] the birthplace of the uh of a apartheid. [16:45] And as someone who' been active in the [16:47] apartheid movement, as a student, as a [16:49] profession, had been arrested there at [16:51] 20 years earlier in 1981. As I said, I [16:54] looked forward with anticipation and [16:56] excitement. But what happened at Durban [16:59] where we've all used an oftabused [17:02] Orwellian metaphor uh metaphor was truly [17:06] uh or Orwellian [17:09] a conference that was supposed to be a [17:12] world conference against racism turned [17:14] into a conference singling out one [17:17] member state Israel for special [17:20] approachment. [17:22] And that held true with regard to [17:26] the first international human rights [17:29] conference. And it held true with regard [17:31] to the uh singling out of Israel and the [17:35] Jewish people for racism and hate. But [17:38] what I remember most from Durban were [17:42] the chance, the slogans, the [17:45] demonstrations in the streets where the [17:48] chance went that the struggle against [17:50] apartheid in the 20th century required a [17:52] dismantling of South Africa's apartheid [17:55] state and the struggle against apartheid [17:58] in the 21st century requires a [18:00] dismantling of Israel as an apartheid [18:04] state. I remember the placards and the [18:07] posters uh placards and poster which [18:10] said that Hitler was right which showed [18:14] Jews with fangs and bloody uh images. I [18:19] remember those placards and posters [18:22] which denigrated Israel uh as a [snorts] [18:26] not just a Zionist [18:29] racist state but which denigrated Israel [18:34] as a genocidal state. And I remember [18:38] also what took place in the immediate [18:42] aftermath of Durban because what made [18:45] Durban so important is that was a [18:48] tipping point for the laundering of [18:51] anti-semitism [18:53] under the protective cover of the UN, [18:57] the authority of international law, the [18:59] culture of human rights and the very [19:02] struggle against racism, the very [19:05] struggle against apartheid. And what [19:07] emerged from Durban was the metastasized [19:14] new legalized anti-semitism, [19:18] if you will, where under the cover of [19:20] the UN, Israel was being able to be held [19:23] out as a racist colonialist [19:28] settler state, ethnic cleansing, child [19:32] murdering, apartheid, Nazi, genocide. [19:36] ital state all the epithets which we [19:39] know today that are being used in [19:43] condemn institutionalized condemnation [19:46] of Israel in our everyday discourse all [19:50] this was born at Durban [19:53] >> there's a lot more that can be said [19:55] about what happened at Durban and even [19:58] and also a lot more to talk about what [20:00] happened before Durban that led to this [20:03] Dena you talked about the uh what the [20:05] Belgian uh diplomat said, but there's [20:08] also you mentioned the the Tehran [20:10] Prepcom that took place where as I [20:13] recall Mary Robinson said to the Jewish [20:16] organizations, David, I don't know if [20:17] you were involved in that or not, but [20:19] that the United that Jew that Israel and [20:22] the Jewish organizations NGOs would be [20:24] able to send representatives and they [20:26] approved visas what a week after the uh [20:28] the prepcom ended in Thran. But that's [20:31] where a lot of the language was [20:32] developed and over the the period of [20:34] time. I want to move because our time is [20:36] limited. I want to move to some of the [20:38] implications [20:39] that uh came out of Durban. Everything [20:42] that you said tells us why over the [20:45] years as this metastasizes as professor [20:48] Cutotler said and was tried out in all [20:50] sorts of different ways throughout the [20:53] 25 year 22-year period until October 7th [20:56] and the the heinous atrocities and then [20:58] the explosion of everything that was [21:00] said at Durban now on a global sphere. [21:04] But one of the things that I I find [21:06] important from the the process of what [21:11] you saw at Durban was particularly the [21:15] uh attempt to have a working definition [21:17] of anti-semitism. And I think that has [21:20] been lost. There's a lot of debate about [21:22] whether this uh what is now adopted by [21:24] the International Holocaust Remembrance [21:26] Alliance, the working definition of [21:28] anti-semitism with its various examples. [21:31] uh a lot of debate. Well, this is an [21:33] attempt to uh prevent legitimate [21:35] criticism of Israel. We hear that a lot. [21:37] And then we hear some what I would call [21:39] false flag working definitions like the [21:42] one that uh the Rosa Luxembourg [21:44] Foundation created and called the [21:46] Jerusalem uh declaration on [21:48] anti-semitism. But I want to go back to [21:49] this post Durban period and the roles [21:52] that you had and the the question or the [21:56] processes by which uh this working [21:58] definition was developed and where you [22:00] think we can we stand now with that [22:02] process. Um indeed a lot more could have [22:06] been said no doubt but [22:11] Durban was a starting point which we I [22:15] think we fully realized a few years [22:19] later. Uh what happened is that uh the [22:23] Durban conference with this intensity of [22:27] hate of expressions, demonstrations [22:32] seen and heard all over the world [22:36] opened the road for was for what was [22:39] called a few years later [22:42] um [22:44] a new era in the long and sad history of [22:48] anti-semitism. And this was called the [22:51] new anti-semitism. This is the era we [22:54] are still in during the last 25 years. [22:58] And why new? Because after following [23:02] Durban, [23:04] we could see that a lot of the first of [23:07] all a lot of the initiative went from [23:11] Christian hands, not all of it, to [23:13] Muslim hands. Second, a lot more [23:16] violence. Third, a lot more coming from [23:20] the street, not only from the extreme um [23:24] extremist movement. and force a blaring [23:31] of any difference that has been [23:34] cherished before between anti-semitism, [23:38] anti- Zionism, saying that Israel and [23:40] the Jewish communities are one body to [23:44] which we agree of course, but thereby [23:47] blaring the line between anti-semitism [23:51] and anti-Zionism. I think all these four [23:53] points portrayed [23:56] a new kind of anti-semitism [23:59] and then situation got worse 2002 3 2004 [24:05] we monitor in Tel Aiv for 30 years [24:08] situation in of anti-semitism worldwide [24:11] 2004 violence doubled in comparison to [24:16] 2003 [24:18] and so in 2004 there was a conference a [24:22] big one in Berlin in which most of the [24:26] Durban survivors [24:28] participated [24:30] and one of the main conclusions was we [24:35] need a definition of anti-semitism [24:38] and [24:40] many scholars [24:43] um scholars institutes most of them [24:46] Jewish some not like the one in the UMC [24:50] in Vienna [24:51] We all together we sent materials. We [24:55] sent suggestions. [24:58] They were gathered in in Washington [25:01] under Andy Baker on the one end, Bata [25:04] Vinkler on the other and they were [25:07] formulated into a working definition. [25:11] I want to highlight that the two this [25:15] year 2005 [25:17] was in itself also a pinpointing year [25:21] because in 2005 [25:23] you had on the one hand the working [25:26] definition [25:28] you had the decision of the UN as if a [25:32] sort of a compensation [25:35] a decision to have an international [25:38] Holocaust memorial Okay. And you had the [25:42] huge monument [25:44] launched in Berlin in memory of the [25:47] Holocaust. On the other hand, you had on [25:51] this same 2005, [25:53] you had the BDS movement starting. [25:57] You had Iran deciding formally openly [26:01] that they are going to deny the [26:03] Holocaust, invest [26:06] efforts and budgets into denying the [26:08] Holocaust. [26:10] and the Hamas under Iran opices [26:15] taking power in the Gaza Strip. So you [26:18] had like in 2005 all result of the [26:22] Durban conference you had like these two [26:25] lines. You had the attack and you had to [26:29] the response to the attack. And in this [26:33] atmosphere the working definition of [26:37] anti-semitisms anti-semitism started its [26:40] way being adopted first in Cordova in um [26:46] a big conference of the OCE organization [26:50] for the security and [26:53] and what [26:55] >> cooperation in Europe. [26:56] >> And cooperation thank you in Europe. um [26:59] h [27:02] that it was adopted. It is not it is a [27:05] non-legal binding document. It is it was [27:08] adopted and since then it started its [27:12] way [27:14] despite what Gerald quite rightly said [27:18] that there are attempts to have another [27:24] to formulate other um definitions. But [27:28] this one according to the surveys we [27:31] have has until now been adopted by 1,245 [27:38] entities, countries, universities, [27:40] municipalities, [27:42] whatever. That's quite a number. This is [27:45] the definition that is in place. It is [27:49] adopting it is a statement is taking [27:53] sides. [27:55] H the others were not adopted by anyone. [27:58] Um and it is an asset in the struggle [28:03] against anti-semitism. [28:06] Thank you. [28:07] >> In terms of some of the responses, [28:10] David, you were in Washington. You [28:12] didn't go to Durban. The American [28:15] delegation, Secretary of State Colin [28:16] Powell came back. What were the [28:20] responses, consequences, understanding? [28:22] I know that 911 came three days later [28:25] and that also that had the merger of the [28:29] two is a significant point in history [28:32] but sticking with the Durban impact [28:37] what was learned from this from your [28:40] perspective from your vantage point [28:44] >> in a way Gerald I was involved in both [28:46] tracks [28:48] one as a as an official delegate of the [28:50] US um team. On the other hand, as as uh [28:54] was said earlier, um chairing UN watch [28:58] at the time, [29:00] um I helped to organize, prepare, brief [29:04] Andrew Strulvich whom you mentioned, [29:06] Hillel, Joel Fis, um and others from [29:09] both [29:12] UN watch and the European Union of [29:14] Jewish Students. [29:16] So I I saw both sides of this. By the [29:19] way, I think it has to be said, if only [29:22] to add, if you will, to the color that [29:24] that Irwin and Dena described so [29:26] effectively that uh the protocols of the [29:30] elders of Zion, the infamous book, The [29:34] Tarist forgery that first saw light in [29:38] 1903 [29:39] was reportedly available uh in the NGO [29:43] forum. And then as Irwin said, there [29:47] were t-shirts and there were posters [29:49] that asked the question [29:52] um [29:54] um about Hitler finishing the job or not [29:57] finishing the job. [29:59] So the the tone really dug deep into the [30:05] long painful toxic history of [30:09] anti-semitism. [30:12] Number two, [30:14] we tend to forget that the German [30:18] conference took place only months after [30:21] President Bill Clinton [30:23] had given it his all alongside Prime [30:26] Minister Ehood Barack to achieve a [30:29] two-state solution. [30:32] Clinton had left office in January. [30:33] Durban took place in early September. [30:37] But the enduring lesson here was simply [30:40] this. Those [30:42] at the NGO forum were not interested in [30:45] a two-state solution. [30:47] Had they been interested in a two-state [30:49] solution, the conversation might have [30:51] been very different, including asking [30:54] the question, why did Yasa Arafat on [30:57] behalf of the Palestinians [30:59] not either offer a counter proposal or [31:02] indeed embrace uh the deal that was put [31:04] on the table? And Bill Clinton then [31:09] later in his autobiography, My Life, and [31:13] even most recently after October 7th, [31:16] has [31:18] been scathing [31:20] in his denunciation of the Palestinian [31:23] approach to the peace talks at the time. [31:27] But this has applicability in very [31:30] obvious ways, Gerald, to where we are [31:32] today. Because those who on, if you [31:35] will, on our side who think that by [31:37] marching and clamoring for a two-state [31:39] solution, [31:42] they're moving the process closer to a [31:44] midpoint fail to understand the enduring [31:47] lesson of Durban. Number one. Number [31:49] two, in this case, as Dena said, but let [31:52] me emphasize [31:55] this this Talmudic debate that continues [31:58] in parts of the Jewish world about [32:01] whether anti-ionism is or is not [32:03] anti-semitism [32:05] was answered in the halls and streets of [32:08] Durban. [32:10] A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Most recently, [32:14] the other day, uh, the likely next [32:18] congressman from New York, Brad Lander, [32:21] learned the lesson again, thinking that [32:23] as a strong critic of Israel, he could [32:27] endear himself to the anti-Israel crowd, [32:30] discovered that notwithstanding his own [32:33] fierce criticism of Israel in order to [32:35] get himself elected, a Jew is a Jew is a [32:39] Jew. Thirdly, [32:42] what became clear was that whereas in [32:45] the 1975 effort on resolution 3379, [32:51] this was a Soviet Arab concoction and it [32:54] was pretty clear from the fingerprints. [32:57] 2001 and thereafter [33:00] was in a way, I hate to say it, much [33:02] more sophisticated [33:04] in in one sense at least. [33:07] And that was in wrapping [33:10] its agenda [33:12] in in a mantle of of of political [33:15] progressivism [33:17] of the language of human rights. [33:21] something again we see to this day. And [33:24] that brings me to the other enduring [33:26] lesson. Um, which is that we saw, I [33:30] believe, the the basic strategies and [33:33] tactics employed then in Durban and [33:36] honed in the months leading up to Durban [33:39] until today with the BDS movement. [33:44] uh and and and the word [33:46] intersectionality [33:48] which may or may not have been alive and [33:51] well in 2001 [33:53] but certainly came on the linguistic [33:56] track since but looking back it was [34:00] intersectionality on steroids. [34:04] Everyone who came and Dina you addressed [34:06] this. Everyone who came had their own [34:10] human rights agenda. [34:12] Whether it was reparations as she said [34:14] or whether it was simply the fear of [34:17] neglect of urgent issues. [34:21] In the end, however willingly or not, [34:24] they all submerged those those those [34:27] priorities to what became the defining [34:30] issue of Durban. [34:33] [snorts] [34:33] And lastly, and this of course is where [34:35] NGO monitor steps in. [34:40] This didn't happen in a vacuum either. [34:43] Yes. Yes to some government collusion, [34:46] including the host country, South [34:47] Africa. [34:49] uh yes to those who were there for the [34:51] NGO u forum and pedled the protocols etc [34:55] etc etc but how about so-called [34:58] establishment groups like the Ford [35:00] Foundation [35:02] the Ford Foundation which was then led [35:04] by Susan Berisford whom I had gotten to [35:06] know before and after who subsequently [35:11] acknowledged painfully [35:14] that they had indeed funded [35:17] NOS's those who were in Durban with an [35:21] agenda to punish, delegitimize, [35:25] demonize, isolate Israel and by [35:28] extension the Jewish people. So the [35:31] implications of Durban are not just in [35:33] the sense of reminiscence of of of a [35:37] member of the Israeli delegation, a [35:39] member of the Canadian delegation or a [35:40] member of the American delegation. It's [35:43] not about sort of digging deep into our [35:45] memory. It's shouting from the rooftops [35:49] that what happened then that what was [35:50] allowed to happen then by the [35:52] gatekeepers has repercussions and [35:55] ramifications to this day and we're [35:57] seeing them being played out as we [36:00] speak. And finally, Gerald on IRA. Uh it [36:04] was mentioned by Dena that Andy Baker [36:06] was one of the key people. Uh and [36:10] I I I'm the one who signed Andy Baker's [36:12] paycheck every two weeks. um uh as he [36:16] was a staff colleague of mine [36:19] and yes to the need for a the the the [36:24] centralization the normalization of of [36:26] of a definition on anti-semitism. [36:30] I I understand its importance. We [36:31] participate in the effort until today. [36:34] But I don't think we should overstate [36:37] um its importance in light of what's [36:40] actually going on and when one has to [36:43] look at the various tools available to [36:45] us. Please don't misunderstand me. This [36:48] is not a lack of confidence in IRA, but [36:51] it is as was said earlier not a a [36:54] legally enforcable mechanism [36:58] and therefore we have to look to other [37:00] tools alongside it and not put many if [37:04] if not most of our eggs in the IRA [37:06] basket alone. [37:10] >> Uh thank you David. Uh um I would like [37:14] to ask Professor Cutotler if uh you [37:16] might shed light um in and we have about [37:20] five minutes before we're going to go to [37:21] Q&A. I'm just going to remind everyone [37:23] who's watching, you can pose questions [37:26] uh by clicking on the Q&A button. A few [37:28] of you already have. Click on the Q&A [37:30] button, pose a question, and we'll try [37:32] to give it to the panel. So I'd like to [37:33] ask Professor Cutotler to fast forward [37:36] to today. if we look at the lasting [37:38] impact of Durban particularly after [37:40] October 7th and and asking the question [37:43] about strategies how to combat and roll [37:46] back the anti-semitism that we're facing [37:49] today. Professor Cutotler. [37:51] >> Yeah. One of the first things you know [37:54] reference was made to it but there are [37:56] implications for it. That is the the [37:57] regional form the Asian forum that was [38:00] held in toran. [38:02] Uh that produced the most scurless [38:05] indictment of Israel since the end of [38:08] the second world war and that indictment [38:12] then uh found itself institutionalized [38:15] at the Durban forum. it showed the [38:18] nefarious rule of of uh the Iranian [38:21] regime which remains to this day. So [38:23] that's the first thing that we have to [38:26] bear in mind. Second thing that took [38:29] place that was uh important by the way I [38:32] just want to say as an aside I witnessed [38:35] the distribution of the protocols of the [38:37] elders of of Zion at at Durban. uh this [38:41] was part uh really of the overall uh [38:46] institutionalization of both traditional [38:49] and contemporary anti-semitism. [38:52] The other thing that took place which [38:54] was a forerunner for anti-semitism in [38:57] the campus culture today was the manner [39:00] in which Jewish students were assaulted [39:03] at Durban. them being told you don't [39:06] belong uh to the uh human race go back [39:10] to Poland even being beaten up I [39:13] witnessed all these things personally [39:15] and as I say the forerunner of the [39:17] campus anti-semitism [39:19] of today and then uh we have also the [39:23] IRA definition that was mentioned one [39:26] thing I do want to say about the IRA [39:29] definition that is very relevant it is [39:31] the most authoritative [39:33] comprehensive ensive and democratically [39:37] adopted working definition that we have [39:41] and adopted now by 46 countries etc. So [39:45] it can play uh an an important role but [39:48] I think David Harris's reservations need [39:52] also to be uh borne in in mind. And then [39:56] the last thing I want to mention that [39:58] took place in the immediate aftermath of [40:01] Durban which sets forth our agenda for [40:04] today in which UN watch and NGO monitor [40:07] have been involved. We forget what [40:09] happened in the immediate aftermath of [40:11] Durban and I'll just list them. Number [40:14] one, the UN General Assembly met and [40:16] adopted some 20 resolutions of [40:19] condemnation against Israel and some [40:21] five against the rest of the world [40:23] combined. Number two, the then UN [40:26] Commission on Human Rights as it was [40:28] called now the UN Council on on human [40:31] rights met and adopted more resolutions [40:34] against Israel than again here the rest [40:36] of the countries combined. So here we [40:38] see the institutionalization of [40:40] anti-semitism within the framework of [40:42] the uh UN uh itself. And then a third [40:46] thing which is ignored and has been [40:49] forgotten and that is the uh treaty [40:52] bodies to the Geneva Convention the [40:56] benchmark of international humanitarian [40:58] law met for the first time 52 years [41:01] after its adoption in 1949. [41:05] met in the immediate aftermath of Durban [41:07] and put one state in the docket of the [41:10] accused was not Iran, it was not Russia, [41:14] was not Syria at the time. The only [41:16] state put in the docket of the accused [41:18] in the immediate aftermath of Durban [41:19] when they met for the first was Israel [41:21] and when they met twice after that then [41:24] again only Israel put in the docket of [41:26] of the accused. So this singling out of [41:29] Israel for selective appropri and [41:33] indictment is something which emerged [41:35] after Durban and has continued to [41:38] metastasized since. I flew back from [41:41] Durban uh and arrived in in Montreal on [41:44] the morning of 911 and I won't forget [41:49] right after that I got a call from one [41:51] of my colleagues who had been at Durban [41:53] when he said if uh 911 was the crystal [41:57] of terror Durban was the mine camp and [42:01] Durban regrettably is the mine camp for [42:04] what is happening today and that's why [42:07] the work of UN watched the work NGO uh [42:11] monitor the work of ISGAP with David [42:13] Harris is is so important and of course [42:17] the mobilization of the uh international [42:21] community and I think I'll close with [42:22] this that we have to speak to the [42:25] community of democracies and tell them [42:28] that this post Durban explosion of uh [42:32] and what we're witnessing today post [42:34] October 7th unprecedented explosion of [42:37] anti-semitism is a threat not just to [42:40] Jews, but a threat to democracies [42:42] themselves, a threat to their individual [42:44] and collective security, and a threat to [42:48] what we call the rules-based [42:50] international order. [42:52] >> We are limited in time, but I think [42:54] also, by the way, I suggest anybody who [42:55] wants to see more, all three of you have [42:57] written about this and we can maybe even [42:59] put together a page that uh collects [43:01] some of the links to go into more [43:04] detail. Uh we do have some questions and [43:07] uh I'll I'll read one of them from Nava. [43:10] Uh I think it's it's pertinent. I'll go [43:12] a little bit further than what she [43:13] wrote. Did any other states beside the [43:16] USA and Israel condemn Durban one and [43:18] she's Durban 2. That was in 2009. That's [43:21] when Akmina Jad uh stole the show I [43:24] guess or or not. We can talk a little [43:26] bit about that as well. But what other [43:28] states other than the United States and [43:30] Israel walked out and were active? I [43:34] have I'll see what you have to say. May [43:36] add a little bit to that. Were there any [43:38] non-Jewish NOS's that condemned the [43:40] Durban resolutions? I think that's [43:42] that's an important question. And we can [43:44] go on from there. And I will add to that [43:46] the fact that there is a Durban [43:50] um conference, a follow-up conference [43:54] scheduled for I believe September 28th I [43:57] think is what HL said in New York. It's [44:00] a short, it's not going to be a 8-day [44:03] conference like Durban, but it shows [44:05] that this issue is still very much on [44:07] the UN uh calendar. And the question is [44:10] what can be done about that? Are there [44:11] other other countries other than Israel [44:13] and the United States who are uh working [44:16] to make sure that the the horrors of of [44:20] Durban 2001 [44:22] are recalled in that framework. So that [44:23] that's a lot of package based on Nava's [44:26] uh sorry Kava's uh question. [44:30] >> Can I take a bite of that please? [44:33] >> Take a bite a big bite. [44:35] Um, I'll I'll certainly leave it to Hill [44:38] to talk about what's coming in [44:39] September, but it's a very it's a very [44:42] good question and and I wanted to get [44:43] the information in anyway [44:46] because in 2001, as we discussed, only [44:49] two countries left. The Europeans [44:52] discussed leaving but ultimately decided [44:55] to stay. And in order to justify their [44:58] decision to stay, they claim they were [45:01] able to soften the extreme language put [45:05] on the table by by the Arab delegation [45:08] and their and their partners. But by the [45:10] way, those who watch the UN know that [45:12] this is an old tactic used by the the [45:16] the Arab uh side, the o the Arab League, [45:20] the OIC, the non-aligned movement to put [45:23] very extreme language knowing it will [45:25] not be accepted to engage with the [45:27] European Union, [45:30] which then moves the needle slightly in [45:33] the direction of so-called moderation. [45:35] The Europeans claim victory [45:39] and the OIC and the Arab League walk [45:41] away laughing. [45:43] This happens again and again and it [45:45] happened at Durban. However, I know that [45:48] some of us are genetically predisposed [45:50] to reject any encouraging news. But to [45:54] to to Kava's question, in 2009, there [45:56] was the first review conference. [45:59] Uh let's call it Durban 2. 10 countries [46:03] did not show up. [46:05] originally nine and and and and the [46:08] checks then joined shortly after the [46:10] conference began making it a total of [46:12] 10. In 2011 there was the 10-year [46:16] anniversary call it Durban 3. 14 [46:19] countries did not show up and in 2021 [46:23] for the 20th anniversary [46:25] 38 countries I repeat 38 countries did [46:28] not show up. This does not mean that we [46:32] have reached the end of the rainbow. [46:34] But it is to say that with the passage [46:36] of time, [46:38] more and more western liberal [46:40] democracies have understood that their [46:43] association with the Durban process has [46:46] brought them not glory but shame. [46:49] But Hill perhaps you can tell us what's [46:52] in store uh next month. [46:57] >> Yes, thank you David. So, uh, indeed, as [47:00] as David said, um, we've we've had [47:03] numerous anniversaries since the Durban [47:05] conference, and so this will be the what [47:09] some call Durban 5 um on 28th September, [47:14] Monday. This will be uh about nearly a [47:18] week after the UN General Assembly [47:19] begins its annual high level opening. [47:23] It'll be the the Tuesday prior will be [47:25] when the US president and other [47:27] presidents will show up in New York. And [47:29] then presumably when the presidents and [47:31] heads of state have already left town, [47:34] uh others will be there, whether it'll [47:36] be foreign ministers or just the the UN [47:38] ambassadors. And they'll gather uh in in [47:42] New York at the UN on Monday, 28th [47:45] September. The theme is mobilizing [47:47] global public support for the full [47:49] implementation of the Durban Declaration [47:50] and Program of Action. and they're meant [47:53] [clears throat] to adopt a concise [47:54] political de declaration uh which is [47:57] something that they've done before which [47:58] will renew political will for [48:00] implementing Durban. In terms of [48:02] specifics um it has been said that there [48:05] will be some discussion perhaps of um [48:08] reparations which is something that's [48:11] come up recently for um colonial crimes [48:14] related to racism. Um and certainly UN [48:19] watch and I'm sure all the other [48:20] organizations uh here are calling on [48:23] member states to stay away uh not to in [48:26] any way legitimize uh Durban. We have a [48:29] petition on our website unwatch.org. [48:31] people can sign it and urging uh all [48:34] governments to pull out. As David [48:37] recalled, the last time they had an [48:40] anniversary was 5 years ago was the 20th [48:42] anniversary and we had reached the [48:44] number of 38 pulling out. Uh I hope that [48:47] that number can be maintained. Of [48:48] course, this is the post October 7th [48:51] world. We have major western states, the [48:54] Canada, Australia and UK that we knew [48:57] just 5 years ago in some ways do not [49:00] seem like the same countries have been [49:02] very unfriendly if not hostile [49:05] politically to Israel. Whether they're [49:07] going to be willing to pull out, I hope [49:09] so. if they want to maintain their [49:13] principled position on opposing the [49:15] hatefest of anti-semitism that their [49:17] governments called out in the past 25 [49:20] years. I do hope that they'll all uh [49:22] stay away and not legitimize this [49:24] conference. [49:25] >> May I add something? [49:29] >> Go ahead. [49:30] >> Thank you. Uh thank you for both answers [49:36] that answered Kava's question. I want to [49:39] remind you um about what happened in [49:42] Durban and definitely has implications [49:46] until today and is relevant to her [49:49] question and this is that the NG western [49:53] NOS's in Durban was so violent and the [49:57] decision [49:59] dis despicable [50:01] while East European ones had a different [50:06] approach a much more moderate and a much [50:10] more reasonable one. And the cons the [50:14] the decisions and conclusions were [50:17] accordingly. And why? Because there were [50:20] less Muslims and still are less Muslim [50:24] immigration and Muslim presence in [50:27] Eastern Europe than in Western. [50:30] And this goes until today. When you look [50:32] at the general map of today's [50:35] anti-semitism [50:36] and the anti-semitism from Durban until [50:39] today, you see the rise in the western [50:43] world and not in East European countries [50:47] because of the difference in Muslim [50:50] presence and this should be taken very [50:53] much into consideration in what we do [50:56] next. [50:57] >> Actually, that fits into the next [50:59] question. uh that Jazelle asks. She said [51:03] anti-semitism is a European concept yet [51:06] Zionism is condemned widely in the [51:10] Islamic world and she mentioned [51:12] specifically organization of Islamic [51:14] cooperation and David you talked about [51:16] their role and other people have [51:17] documented their role in in the whole [51:19] Durban process and and beyond the Qatar [51:22] of course and many other countries are [51:24] very much involved in that it's the [51:25] largest single voting block now in the [51:27] UN uh after the demise of the cold war [51:31] and no longer you you don't have the uh [51:33] non-align movement. What is it 55 or 56 [51:36] countries and that uh or states that [51:39] that vote uh as a block even though some [51:41] of them have good relations with Israel [51:43] like UA and others they still largely [51:46] control a lot of these agendas. So she [51:48] asks whether it's possible that UN [51:50] decisions against Israel are at least [51:53] partly based I think that's an [51:54] understatement on the what she calls [51:57] jihadist principles and I think the [52:01] broader question of how much Durban [52:04] demonstrated the power of those or of [52:08] the OIC of the Islamic block and the [52:11] alliance between them and the NGO world. [52:14] Uh we've seen at at Durban the [52:17] Palestinian so-called human rights [52:19] groups which are linked to the popular [52:21] front for the liberation of Palestine [52:23] terrorist organization groups like [52:24] al-Hak and others played a central role [52:27] in uh in tan and the prepcom and [52:30] developing the language that was used in [52:31] the NGO conference in the NGO forum and [52:35] their alliances with the human rights [52:36] watch and animisty international. So the [52:39] that I think in addition to what was we [52:43] saw was at Durban in terms of the NOS's [52:46] and the the postc colonial anti-western [52:50] now intersectional intersectional [52:53] uh NOS's we also see the the very major [52:57] role of uh the Islamists through the OIC [53:02] through Qatar and other groups and I'm [53:04] wondering whether you can comment on how [53:06] you see that professor Cutotler. if [53:08] you're want to take the lead on that. [53:11] >> Yeah, I I just want to mention um with [53:15] regard to Durban because the question [53:17] was asked about what each of our dele [53:20] delegations did. We, the Canadian [53:22] delegation did not leave at the request [53:25] of the Israeli uh delegation and so we [53:29] stayed um and we condemned what was [53:31] happening in Durban but I felt so [53:33] outraged that I I left the uh Canadian [53:38] delegation itself and I think now when [53:41] we are on the eve of the 25th [53:44] anniversary it's not enough to get [53:48] states to refuse to attend in the [53:50] important work that Hill is doing. We [53:53] have to have the states understand that [53:57] uh the legacy, the Durban legacy of [54:00] racism and hate against Israel and the [54:02] Jewish people is still with us and that [54:05] what we have to do is combat uh the [54:08] Durban hate legacy. And uh the [54:12] interesting thing about the Durban [54:13] conference because we know there were [54:15] three conferences intergovernmental [54:18] uh non-governmental and student and [54:21] those are today the driving forces of [54:24] what might be called the new [54:27] institutionalized metastasized uh [54:30] anti-semitism that we're witnessing [54:33] today under the cover of the UN the [54:35] authority of international law culture [54:37] of human rights struggle against all the [54:40] things that that I mentioned. And so [54:42] what we need now is the mobilization of [54:45] the community of democracies [54:48] to not only refuse to go to Durban, but [54:51] to begin to unmask, expose, and combat [54:56] Durban's legacy of hate. Otherwise uh we [55:00] are going to become bystanders to the [55:03] continuation of the Durban hate legacy [55:06] with the resultant threat as I mentioned [55:09] to the democracies themselves. [55:12] >> Um Gel um if if you understand the [55:16] United Nations at all you understand [55:19] that there are several concentric [55:20] circles [55:22] if I can simplify. Um let's begin with [55:25] the Arab League and there are what 22 [55:28] members Hil Hill if I recall correctly [55:32] and whatever differences there may be [55:34] among them privately or even in their [55:37] diplomatic position toward Israel at the [55:41] UN itself they will generally stick [55:43] together as a block. The second [55:46] concentric circle is the OIC, the [55:49] Organization [snorts] of Islamic [55:50] Cooperation, [55:52] which has some 56 members the last time [55:55] I checked. And again, as was said, even [55:58] though some of those countries, for [56:00] example, the UAE or for that matter [56:02] Azarbaian [56:04] have a very robust bilateral [56:07] relationship with Israel, they see [56:09] absolutely no value in um breaking [56:13] ranks. [56:15] They say they whisper to their friends [56:18] outside that they've moderated the [56:21] positions that were being put on the [56:22] table. But at the end of the day, their [56:26] votes have been quite consistent. And [56:28] whether the non-aligned movement exists [56:31] in the way that it once did with [56:33] Marshall Tito and with Neu and uh and [56:37] others, [56:39] they are a numerical majority of the UN [56:42] member states. [56:44] So [56:46] I recall Canada under Prime Minister [56:48] Steven Harper when it was a candidate [56:50] for the Security Council seat [56:54] and to the extent that I remember it, we [56:56] have two Canadians on the call who will [56:58] remember it better than I. But, you [57:00] know, he stood his ground uh as a friend [57:03] of Israel and as a result, Canada, [57:07] normally everyone's favorite country in [57:09] the United Nations, lost out on the vote [57:13] for a coveted rotating seat on the [57:16] Security Council at that time. In other [57:18] words, what Canada experienced then is [57:21] what other countries also realize that [57:24] there is no political mileage within the [57:26] UN system. Not if your country has an [57:30] issue that it wants to put before the [57:31] general assembly or other bodies and not [57:34] if your country has a candidate for a [57:36] director general or a secretary general [57:40] uh and and wants to get the majority [57:42] vote. That's simply a numerical [57:46] equation. But I need to add one more [57:48] thing Gazelle and that is there is one [57:51] place in the United Nations system which [57:55] has legally enforcable power and that is [57:58] the United Nations Security Council [57:59] under chapter 7 of the UN charter. Not [58:02] chapter 6, chapter 7. And this is where [58:06] for those of you on this call from the [58:08] United States, you need to understand [58:11] the only thing standing in the way I [58:13] believe between a decision by the UN [58:17] Security Council to invoke Chapter 7 and [58:20] impose legally binding sanctions on the [58:22] state of Israel at some point in time. [58:24] It could be, for example, on the uh [58:27] transfer or sale of any weapons to the [58:30] state of Israel. And by the way, there [58:32] are precedents with other countries in [58:34] the UN Security Council is one hand of [58:38] one ambassador and that is the [58:40] ambassador of the United States of [58:42] America who under instructions from the [58:45] White House whether alone [58:48] or not will raise her or his hand to [58:52] veto any such resolution. And this is [58:55] where without getting into domestic [58:57] politics but nonetheless we have to [58:59] understand that who is in the White [59:02] House matters consequentially because [59:05] that is the one place where decision can [59:07] be made within the UN system which is [59:09] not just a mosquito bite or a scratch [59:13] annoying as it is sometimes irritating [59:16] maybe even painful but the one place [59:18] where it can extract real cost is in the [59:21] UN security council and that's where [59:23] there is not a democratic system. [59:25] There's a five permanent members veto [59:27] system and it's the United States, the [59:29] United States alone that stands between [59:32] us and that potential outcome, I [59:33] believe. [59:34] >> And uh I think with that we're we're [59:37] going to conclude. Uh we had an hour [59:40] that was uh extremely [59:42] um uh informative and insightful from [59:46] people who were on the ground where [59:49] decisions were being made uh at Durban [59:53] in Washington in Geneva uh and [59:55] elsewhere. So this was really a [59:58] tremendous privilege to hear from David [60:00] Harris, to hear from Professor Dino [60:02] Parat, to hear from Professor Irwin [60:04] Cutotler. I would like to thank the [60:07] initiator and our co-host Gerald [60:09] Steinberg, Professor Gerald Steinberg of [60:11] NGO Monitor. Um, this has been an [60:14] extremely important panel and it will be [60:17] made available on the internet for [60:19] people to see and remind everyone that [60:21] the 25th anniversary of Durban is today. [60:24] It's today that it began. Uh, and the UN [60:27] will mark it on September 28th. uh as uh [60:31] as our panelists said it's not enough [60:33] but at a minimum governments should not [60:35] attend but uh much more we need to ask [60:38] from from the government so that the [60:40] legacy of Durban uh of anti-semitism is [60:43] not perpetuated. So thank you very much [60:46] for our panelists for our hosts and also [60:48] thank you for all our guests for your [60:50] participation. It is much appreciated. [60:53] >> Thank you all. All the best.
