Mary Robinson, who presided over the UN's notorious Durban conference in 2001, and participated in many anti-Israel sessions during her tenure as High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997-2002), is slated to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House on Wednesday. This award has been criticized by Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC, and by others who blame Robinson for the destruction of the universality and moral foundation of human rights. Many quote the late Congressman Tom Lantos (a liberal Democrat, Holocaust survivor, and a member of the American delegation to Durban), who denounced this UN event as "an anti-American, anti-Israeli circus." Lantos declared that "much of the responsibility... rests on the shoulders of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson who, in her role as secretary-general of the conference, failed to provide the leadership needed to keep the conference on track." The same applies to her role in the Human Rights Council, which was exploited for the political assault against the Jewish state, in parallel to the horrendous murders of Israelis in mass terror attacks. Robinson's behavior also set the stage for the pseudo-judicial and entirely one-sided Goldstone inquiry on Gaza. BUT ROBINSON, like other public figures confronted with past moral lapses, has chosen to attack her critics and refuses to admit any errors in judgment. In a recent interview with RTE Radio One in Ireland, she declared "There's a lot of bullying by certain elements of the Jewish community..." She repeated the term "bullies" in reference to those who disagree with her blind adoption of the Palestinian narrative, which starts the history of the conflict in 1967, and focuses only on the "occupation," ignoring the Arab rejectionism that led to these events. This offensive language only highlights Robinson's problem, showing that she has learned nothing. Perhaps Robinson, who was Ireland's first female president and has numerous supporters (including in the Obama administration), has the illusion that her critics will eventually disappear, but this has not happened. At ceremonies at American universities in which she has received honorary doctorates, students and faculty have led protests. At Emory University, Prof. Kenneth Stein, who has worked with former president Jimmy Carter, noted "the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her to speak." The White House award will not change this. Instead, Robinson should take the opposite path by acknowledging her failure to take a moral position in protecting universal human rights, rather than promoting anti-Israel discrimination and double standards. Admitting error is never easy, particularly for a public official, but in doing so, Robinson would have a chance to correct the damage by apologizing and asking for forgiveness for her contribution to this bitter history. The first step is to admit the obvious - that in the 2001 Durban conference, she allowed the Islamic bloc, led by Iran and Libya, to hijack the principles of human rights. Rather than promoting the myth that Durban "yielded an extraordinarily important document for those who suffer discrimination, marginalization and racism…." Robinson needs to acknowledge these errors, including agreement to hold a key preparatory committee meeting in Teheran, assuring Israeli and Jewish delegates that they would receive visas. They did not, and the vicious anti-Semitic language adopted at the Teheran meeting should have prompted her immediate resignation. TO TAKE the courageous moral step of admitting error, Robinson also needs to publically divorce herself from the obsessive denunciations of Israel's defense against terror. These include false allegations of "collective punishment" on Gaza, and her condescending suggestion that Israelis were duped into supporting military responses to the continuous deadly rocket fire from Gaza. Recently, she said: "I cannot believe that ordinary Israeli people understand what is being done in their name; they couldn't possibly support it if they did." Such ill-advised words are clearly not the way to demonstrate understanding or contrition. In preparing for the White House ceremony, Robinson would be well advised to see this event as a chance to undo some of the damage she has caused, and contribute to restoring the moral foundation of human rights. An apology and request for forgiveness is the right thing to do, even at this late date. Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg heads NGO Monitor, and chairs the political science department at Bar Ilan University in Israel.
News and Opinion Based on Facts
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Advice for Mary Robinson - Apologize
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Transformation
Too much hate. Too much shooting at the hip before finding out what is really going on. The following post was written by A nurse who is caring for the poor in Guatemala. She doesn't just talk and debate. She goes out into the mud and grime and tries to save the lives of little children. She was, until two days ago, a registered Republican. Her husband was killed four years ago in Iraq. She is tired of being lied to by her government. So am I. I do have much respect for my conservative friends, but many are listening only to one side of issues, and that side is not honest. That side is not patriotic. That side lost the war in Afganistan because they went to Iraq for whatever reason, take your pick as to the reasons, I've heard them all. I have heard Bush and Cheney change their stories repeatedly over the years as to why we went there, and why some of our most valued young died in a war that has no real end or even realistic goals. When we leave Iraq, if we do, we all know what is going to happen. Another radical Islamic enemy. Worse in every way than they were before we quit Afganistan, WHICH WE WERE WINNING, and now are losing. I am not thrilled with the Administration's overall performance, particularly in regards to Israel, but there is much more to the story than many, apparently, are even aware of. Because they only listen to one side. Cat Estanol lost her Husband in the Iraq fiasco, . If you consider yourself a thoughtful American, and you honor our soldiers, and their families, listen to her story. MFB In my heart and in my mind I know I cannot find peace with my husband's death in Iraq until I fully understand why he was there and simply, why did he die? What was the point? Was there a point? Did my President lie to me, to us? Why did this have to happen? Why am I still here without my husband? Was his death as pointless as I sometimes believe? Grief is a powerful thing. At the time he died, people would say things to me like "It's a process." No, it's not. It has been 4 years and I am not "over" it or “through” it or whatever you want to say. He is here with me in my heart and in my mind every minute of every day awake or asleep. No, I have NOT learned to live with it. No, time does not heal. I get stuck on the Why? part of his death. Why is he dead? He was shot. He was shot 21 times with assault rifles. His Captain said that it was over quickly and he was gone before he fell to the ground. I like to think that he didn't have time to think, to be scared or worried. In my heart and in my mind I know I cannot find peace with his death until I fully understand why he was there and simply, why did he die? What was the point? Was there a point? Did my President lie to me, to us? Why did this have to happen? Why am I still here without my husband? Was his death as pointless as I sometimes believe? People say things to me like “he died to keep us all free.” No, he didn’t. He served our country to keep us all free, but he died because he was sent to Iraq. That’s not the same thing. He was one in a long line of military men in his family, father, grandfathers, uncles, and now brothers. I am proud of him. I am proud of what he did. I am proud that he made a conscious decision to serve his country and that he served honorably. It is some solace that he was killed while he was trying to help someone, not kill someone. He had a good heart. What he was asked to do must have been killing him inside but he did it because it was his duty. What I am not proud of is the fact that I believe that we, Americans, were manipulated into a conflict and that he was killed to advance the theories of a few egotistic men as they saw the US as a benevolent superpower deciding which regimes get to stay in power and which must fall so that we may maintain our superiority. Men with Napoleonic complexes, most of whom never served in any military capacity, career politicians, who want to rule the world, and still want to, by advancing what they say are conservative principles. I am a conservative but those principals they have outlined are not my principles. Would it be easier, would it be safer for America if by sheer military strength all other nations in the world followed our example of democracy and western thinking and did as we wanted? Yes, of course. Should we strive to bend others to our will? No. It is wrong and I believe immoral, not to mention unlikely. We have a hard enough time running the US, let alone the world. I am quite certain that what led us into Iraq was a perfect storm of a nation shattering event, powerful men positioned in influential places and a weak President that could be convinced to follow their position. Many things point to a group called PNAC or Project for the New American Century. I read the website and things started to fall in place for me. I don’t believe in the things they believe. I do feel that my husband died for their beliefs, not to keep the America free. This blog is not about a conspiracy theory. It is about how my beliefs have been shaken to their core and changed forever. When I turned 18 I registered to vote. I registered as a Republican. I was raised Republican. I was raised hearing Rush Limbaugh play on my mother's radio every day. I have been active in the Republican party forever. I volunteered and worked. I attended meetings, distributed flyers, registered people to vote. I was active in the Republican Party on campus when I was in college. I married and my husband went into the Marines, a family tradition. He enlisted after college because he knew it would not be his career but wanted to serve just not as an officer. He was sent to Iraq and was killed only 5 months in to his tour. He and I discussed the war and his responsibility to do as our President asked. He didn't agree with the war, and this was in 2004, but he honored our President and went to serve. I recently signed on to Twitter and then everything changed. Everything. What I thought was the GOP no longer exists as far as I can tell. My Republicans Party no longer exist. They have been replaced by a bunch of rude, disrespectful, and yes - crazy people. The hatred and invectives spewed daily by conservatives on Twitter has completely altered my feeling about the party. I agree with NOTHING that is being said. I have started unfollowing everyone who says hateful and disrespectful things. If you are sporting the "Joker" avatar made to look like President Obama - that's an automatic Block. I don't like the way people demean others and the President. I don't like how they malign everything that comes out of the administration. I don't like how these people make Americans looks unruly, uneducated and uninformed. I don't like what is happening. President Obama is our President. He deserves our respect as did President Bush. I never joined in the Bush-bashing that went on during the last years of his administration. I rarely agreed with him but I always showed respect and I always listened to what he had to say, respectfully. It is interesting to note that during the Bush administration, anyone who disagreed with them was labeled a traitor, lacking patriotism. The way people talk about President Obama and his administration is unpatriotic, it is disrespectful, it is wrong. He is our President and we are in as much jeopardy at this moment as we were the day after 9/11, it is just in a different form. The GOP habit of scaring Americans into compliance has just worn thin for me. All I read is lies and distortion coming from the Right. They are yelling nonsensical talking points to stop all forward movement. I find I cannot get behind a Party that conducts itself the way I have seen the GOP act especially in the past 6 months. I believe the driving force is just plain racism. They cannot believe our President is African-American and so everything he says, everything he does is wrong. Everything. This needs to stop. I am so afraid, so very afraid if this hate-mongering doesn't stop, someone will be killed. I don't want any more killing. What I am most afraid of is that our President will be killed. It seems to me that is the point of all this. Agitate a crazy person who will get rid of what the GOP sees as a problem. It is what I hear in every word Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck or Michelle Malkin speak. This nonsense we are seeing now from both sides needs to stop. Both parties are equally corrupt and there is very little substantive debate about anything anymore in our politics. It's all name-calling, outlandish insults and demonetization of the other side as all that is wrong in America. Rush is a hypocritical blowhard who most likely doesn't believe the majority of what he says-it's an entertainment program after all, not news or insightful analysis, as is the case with most talk radio. I have resigned from the Republican Party. I have resigned as a volunteer in my district. I re-registered as an Independent and it was not a decision I made lightly. Do I hold the Bush Administration responsible for my husband's unnecessary death? Yes I do. Do I trust the GOP? No I don't. Do I want to be a part of the direction they are headed? No. I quit. First Posted on Still Learning
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Obama Administration Recognizes Ahmadinejad as President
By Barry Rubin*
August 5, 2009
No, I don't want to keep writing every day about the Obama Administration's Middle East policy. There are many other topics I'd prefer, but the problem is that they keep doing things.
Now the White House has recognized Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as "the elected leader" of Iran, in the words of White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.
Let's be clear here. It would be understandable, though worthy of serious debate, if the U.S. government said that Ahmadinejad was the de facto leader of Iran. What was called for here was a little sneer, a little sarcasm. Something like: He is in fact the president and so we have to face the fact that he's running the country. Or even, If we are going to deal with Iran in any way, we must recognize that he is functioning as president.
There needed to be some reservation, some caveat, some hope thrown to the millions of brave oppositionists who are being beaten, arrested, tried in court, or even murdered.
But what we got was this, quoting the AP dispatch:
"Gibbs was asked [August 4] if the White House recognized Ahmadinejad as the country's legitimate president.
"`He's the elected leader,' Gibbs responded."
Did you catch that? In the context, and every detail is carefully orchestrated to send the proper message, Gibbs did two things:
First, he implied that Ahmadinejad is the legitimate president, that is he is properly president, that his placement in office was legally and properly done.
Second, he reinforced this idea and went further, in effect endorsing the election as fair and Ahmadinejad as the winner. "Elected president" means he got the most votes, right?
Was this an error? Did Gibbs mess up? Did the State Department get on the phones to the White House and urge some "qualification" on this statement? We will see but no hint of that yet.
This is deeply and profoundly wrong. Again, some would say the United States should withhold recognition altogether but at least if the administration is going to accept the reality of the situation, at least it should make clear its disapproval.
Totally aside from the morality--and I remember the days when a "liberal" was someone who argued that the United States should not recognize governments achieving power by force or dishonest elections--there is the matter of U.S. interest.
The United States is engaged in a conflict--if that word is too strong for you, say competition, rivalry--with Iran. Anything that shows the true nature of that regime should be highlighted, even if the administration seeks to engage Tehran. It scores points with allies and neutrals, weakening the other side, a side which--among other things--is killing American soldiers in Iraq.
In addition, the administration should want to court the opposition, a huge proportion of Iranians who, if they were to take over, would reverse the regime's policies of anti-Americanism, sponsorship of terrorism, subversion, and if not building nuclear weapons than at least slowing the pace and being less likely to use them.
But that's not the philosophy of this administration which believes that to engage with an enemy you must be sure never to offend it, use power or leverage, or even be critical in any way if that can somehow be avoided.
Despite my own criticisms of the administrations Middle East policy, I'm truly shocked and dismayed by this shameful action, even though I can't say I'm surprised.
