The latest on the Mary Robinson controversy
Both the World Jewish Congress and World Zionist Organization's American Section have now criticized the selection of Mary Robinson for a Presidential Medal of Freedom. The WJC says it is "deeply troubled" by the Robinson selection and feels she is "unqualified" for the honor. And WZO-AS chairman Kalman Sultanik, who identifies himself as a longtime member of the Democratic Party, says that "at a time when the Administration is trying to encourage a peace process between Israel and its neighbors, awarding Ms. Robinson the Medal of Freedom sends the wrong message to the Jewish community in the United States and to Israel."
They join a number of other Jewish organizations and members of Congress who have called Robinson the wrong choice for the nation's highest civilian honor. We should point out, though, that one of the most prominent Robinson critics, AIPAC, inaccurately referred to the statement which came out of the 2001 Durban conference against racism in its press release condemning the selection of Robinson earlier this week. The group said that "Robinson is widely known for the high-profile role she played in leading the deeply flawed U.N. Human Rights Commission and for presiding over the U.N.’s Durban Conference on Racism, which the Untied States boycotted for its unprecedented hostility to Israel and its final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism." But that was actually not in the final document. Notes a post on the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Web site by ministry legal adviser Alan Baker after the conference was over: "The good news - There is no equation of Zionism with racism, and that is very important. We fought against it and we won."
Israel and Jewish groups did object to the fact that the Palestinian issue was brought up and singled out in the final conference document, because it improperly put the issue in a racial context.
The New York Times and Los Angeles Times also reported on the Robinson controversy today.
The full WJC and WZO releases are after the jump:
First, the WJC:
Upon learning of the White House decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, the World Jewish Congress issued the following statement:
We are deeply troubled that the White House has chosen to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. During her tenure, she presided over the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001, which deteriorated from a conference intended to combat racism into a platform for demonstrations of hostility to Israel and the Jewish people unprecedented in an event convened by the international body. At that time, Ms. Robinson could have done much to prevent the debacle but instead chose to legitimize it. The United States boycotted Durban in 2001 over the events that transpired there and the final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism. Indeed, the Durban final outcome document was re-affirmed at the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva in April 2009, which was not attended by the United States precisely because of the affirmation of this document.
Ms. Robinson's tenure at the UNCHR featured much anti-Israel activity, including distorted condemnatory reports and statements, an endorsement of Palestinian violence as legitimate political activity, and the outrageous equating of the Holocaust to the suffering of the Palestinians. We believe that her performance in the UNCHR renders her unqualified to receive the nation's highest civilian honor.
And the WZO's American Section:
I strongly protest the decision of the White House to award Mary Robinson the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
As the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights, Robinson presided over the notorious anti-Semitic Durban Conference which equated Zionism with racism. This comparison is a stain on the United Nations, the Durban Conference and Ms. Robinson, as its chairman.
At a time when the Administration is trying to encourage a peace process between Israel and its neighbors, awarding Ms. Robinson the Medal of Freedom sends the wrong message to the Jewish community in the United States and to Israel.
As chairman of the World Zionist Organization – American Section and as a long-standing member of the Democratic Party, I call upon President Obama to withdraw her nomination for this award.
KALMAN SULTANIK
Chairman
World Zionist Organization, American Section
Share
5 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
While it is true that technically the phrase “Zionism is racism” is not in the Durban 1 or Durban 2 documents, the spirit of the concept still came through the back door in par. 63, singling out Israel as the only country mentioned in the outcome and making an implied claim that Israel as a state was “racist”.
The reaffirmation of Durban 1 in Durban review in April 2009 singles out Israel, alone among all nations—no other country is mentioned in this document. It puts Israel under a section titled “victims of racism” making it appear as if Israel has institutionalized racism like South Africa’s apartheid.
That’s unacceptable. One can raise the issue of acts of racism by the Israeli government without making the false and tendentious claim or implication that Israel is “an apartheid state” (a hateful slogan from Durban). And by singling out Israel in Durban 1, and reaffirming Durban 1 in Durban 2, you perpetuate that unfair focus and that tendentious reading.
I realize that for some, the motivation in condemning this award has more to do with American politics and unhappiness with Obama, and with putting down markers around a contentious debate about American foreign policy and Israel, but it is worth sticking to the principles here, which are not just a Jewish issue but a universal one: if a world conference does not single out countries for specific mention as a policy that has been followed in most every other UN conference, it should not single out Israel in a conference on racism; moreover, it should not make the false implication about “the apartheid state” by mentioning the Palestinians as “victims of racism” —even with an add-on admitting concern about Israel’s security.
I don’t believe that the U.S. under Bush, and then later in the Obama Administration, should be construed as “succumbing to Jewish lobbyist pressure”. For one, that incites a hateful caricature of Jewish groups and a stereotype of their purported powers that fuels the worldwide anti-Israel invective that reaches such a shrill and obsessive pitch that it does indeed become antisemitism.
It’s helpful to remember that it is legal to register a lobby in this country and advocate positions—AIPAC is not a cabal, but a legitimate lobbying group. Pick another group to support if you don’t like this one and participate in the political process—this is America.
But more to the point, even if there were no Jewish lobby in existence, it would be the right thing to do not to let this world conference racism, or its review conference, single out only one country, and make false claims about only one state’s practices.
A number of Jewish groups as well as international human rights groups and other NGOs are taking the position now of saying nothing about this, as it is hard to say anything without joining a nasty political fray, and hard to say anything without being accused of possessing an entire cluster of other views that someone will find objectionable somewhere.
Nevertheless, I think it is important to take a moral position myself as an individual. I don’t think one should exclusively condemn the awarding of the prize to Mary Robinson, nor do I think if she is defended in receiving the prize that such defense should be made without criticism. Jewish groups have a point, even if they got the terms in this contentious document technically wrong, that there is still an unsettling and wrongful obsessiveness with Israel in these two documents, something we find elsewhere in the UN, of course, which constantly creates a vicious climate which does nothing to help reach a settlement whatsoever.
The UN could do a great deal to improve the climate around this issue by reining in the tendentious, furious obsession, singular focus, special sessions, etc. in a number of settings (General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Commission on the Status of Women, etc.)
Does that mean you can’t say anything criticizing Israel? Of course not. You can criticize Israel on a number of issues—and no one on the left or at the UN or in international human rights groups seem to have any fears of doing so. They are not “bullied” by the pro-Israel lobby, as Mary Robinson unfortunately suggests in reacting to the news of the criticism of this prize; their many reports and blogs and tweets let us know that.
But there are many, many country situations in the world involving racism, and government-sponsored practices of racism, and they are neglected in favour of this obsession time and again, and that is wrong.
As for the response of the Israel foreign minister back in September 2001, I think it has to be viewed in context. Many were relieved that the worst of the language was kept out, given that it had crept in during the prep cons, and praise was due to the UN for keeping it out—and to some extent to Mary Robinson for keeping out *that particular phrase*. And 9/11 happened right afterwords, distracting us from parsing the document and figuring out the impact of par. 63 immediately.
But she did not work to keep out *the singular focus on Israel” or par. 63. That is why the U.S. walked out in 2001; that is why the U.S. did not walk in, in 2009.
Further discussion on my blog:
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/untethered/
@Catherine Fitzpatrick..In my opinion Israel “is” an apartheid state.
“That’s unacceptable.” Unacceptable for who? Israel? Yes...Ask the rest of the world.
“AIPAC is not a cabal”...Ask the rest of the world.
“succumbing to Jewish lobbyist pressure”....Bush did and all those before him as well....Obama has locked out the major procrastinators.
“A number of Jewish groups as well as international human rights groups and other NGOs are taking the position now of saying nothing about this”...That is “far” from the truth madam:
“That is why the U.S. walked out in 2001” The US walked out because of pressure from the Lobby..You need to take a serious look at the history of “disproportional representation” for the “few”..It was pandemic...Until Obama...Go Obama!..Try as you may, you will not bring my president down.
Israel has been using its political capital to influence American media and public opinion against Obama administration and anyone that they do not like. Its shadowy pattern begins to take shape.
First, on Charles Freeman’s appointment as the chairman National Intelligence Council. There is no doubt about Charles Freeman’s qualification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Freeman,_Jr.). The irony is that he predicted his own future when he endorsed Professor Stephen Walt’s working paper “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.” He said: “No one else in the United States has dared to publish this article, given the political penalties that the Lobby imposes on those who criticize it.” So down he went, thanks to the powerful Israel lobbyists.
Then characterized Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod as “self-hating Jews.” These are the two most trusted advisers and closest confidants of Obama. Netanyahu wants to undermine their credibility as a a means to disarm Obama’s defense shell.
And now, attacking Mary Robinson to demonstrate that Obama is an enemy of the state of Israel.
I have no doubt that this pattern of relentless attack has an effect on the right-wing Jews as well as those who did not trust Obama to begin with. It also proves that the Israel lobbyists are indeed powerful. But these moves also revealed how Israel is able to manipulate the media and replace American interest with its own. This is also seen by the international community that Israel, once was as the brave and smart small countries surrounded by powerful and mean Arabs, now becomes the bully and cunning beast that totally pursues its own interest at expense of other peoples and countries.
I think that it would be wise for Israel to work with Obama’s administration to pursue peach as the larger interest for Israel. If staying on the current course, Israel will probably lose more strategically over the long term.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Sandori VonRoth
08/07/09 07:49 PM
I am deeply troubled that the World Jewish Congress has chosen to chastise the honor of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. During her tenure, she presided over the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001, which deteriorated from a conference intended to combat racism into a platform for demonstrating the power of the Jewish lobby of Israel to avoid world scrutiny by strength of bought boycott from the United States of America. At that time, Ms. Robinson could have done much to prevent the debacle but instead chose the honorable position to allow the voice of world leaders to be heard. The United States succumb to lobbyist pressure and boycotted Durban in 2001 over the events that transpired there and the final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism. Indeed, the Durban final outcome document was re-affirmed at the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva in April 2009, which was not attended by the United States precisely because of additional pressure from the Jewish lobby.