11-0
June 25th, 2007 by Marc Schulman
Jackson Diehl’s Washington Post op-ed (”A Shadow on the Human Rights Movement“) deserves to be posted in full:
Where does the global human rights movement stand in the seventh year of the 21st century? If the first year of the United Nations Human Rights Council is any indication, it’s grown sick and cynical — partly because of the fecklessness and flexible morality of some of the very governments and groups that claim to be most committed to democratic values.
At a session in Geneva last week, the council — established a year ago in an attempt to reform the U.N. Human Rights Commission — listened to reports by special envoys appointed by its predecessor condemning the governments of Cuba and Belarus. It then abolished the jobs of both “rapporteurs” in a post-midnight maneuver orchestrated by its chairman, who announced a “consensus” in spite of loud objections by the ambassador from Canada that there was no such accord.
While ending the scrutiny of those dictatorships, the council chose to establish one permanent and special agenda item: the “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.” In other words, Israel (or “Palestine,” in the council’s terminology), alone among the nations of the world, will be subjected to continual and open-ended examination. That’s in keeping with the record of the council’s first year: Eleven resolutions were directed at the Jewish state. None criticized any other government [My emphasis].
Genocide in Sudan, child slavery and religious persecution in China, mass repression in Zimbabwe and Burma, state-sponsored murder in Syria and Russia — and, for that matter, suicide bombings by Arab terrorist movements — will not receive systematic attention from the world body charged with monitoring human rights. That is reserved only for Israel, a democratic country that has been guilty of human rights violations but also has been under sustained assault from terrorists and governments openly committed to its extinction.
The old human rights commission, which was disparaged by former U.N. secretary general Kofi Annan for casting “a shadow on the United Nations system as a whole,” frequently issued unbalanced condemnations of Israel but also typically adopted half a dozen resolutions a year aimed at the worst human rights abusers. For the new council, Israel is the only target. Eighteen of the 19 states dubbed “the worst of the worst” by the monitoring group Freedom House (Israel is not on the list) were ignored by the council in its first year. One mission was dispatched to examine the situation in Darfur. When it returned with a report criticizing the Sudanese government, the council refused to endorse it or accept its recommendations.
The regime of Gen. Omar al-Bashir, which is responsible for at least 200,000 deaths in Darfur, didn’t just escape any censure. Sudan was a co-sponsor on behalf of the Arab League of the latest condemnations of Israel, adopted last week.
This record is far darker than Kofi Annan’s “shadow.” You’d think it would be intolerable to the democratic states that sit on the council. Sadly, it’s not. Several of them — India, South Africa, Indonesia — have regularly supported the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement in their assaults on Israel and defense of Cuba, Belarus and Sudan. The council’s chairman, who rammed through last week’s decisions without a vote, is a diplomat from Mexico.
The European Union includes countries holding eight of the council’s 47 seats. It has made no serious effort to focus the council’s attention on the world’s worst human rights violators. According to a report by the independent group UN Watch, the European Union “has for the most part abandoned initiating any country-specific resolutions.” At one point before last week’s meeting, the European Union threatened to quit the council, effectively killing it. Yet when the meeting ended, Europe’s representative, Ambassador Michael Steiner of Germany, said that while the package of procedural decisions singling out Israel “is certainly not ideal . . . we have a basis we can work with.”
What about Western human rights groups — surely they cannot accept such a travesty of human rights advocacy? In fact, they can. While critical of the council, New York-based Human Rights Watch said its procedural decisions “lay a foundation for its future work.” Global advocacy director Peggy Hicks told me that the council’s focus on Israel was in part appropriate, because of last year’s war in Lebanon, and was in part caused by Israel itself, because of its refusal to cooperate with missions the council dispatched. (Sudan also refused to cooperate but was not rebuked.) Hicks said she counted only nine condemnations, not 11.
Never mind how you count them: Is there a point at which a vicious and unfounded campaign to delegitimize one country — which happens to be populated mostly by Jews — makes it unconscionable to collaborate with the body that conducts it? “That could happen, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near there,” Hicks said.
That’s the human rights movement, seven years into a century that’s off to a bad start.
I disagree with Diehl on only one point. He says the target of the delegitimization effort is a country that “happens” to be populated mostly by Jews. I would use the word “because” instead. Perhaps that’s what he really means; if so, why not come out and say it?
This entry was posted on Monday, June 25th, 2007 at 7:22 pm and is filed under Human Rights, United Nations, Anti-Semitism. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
11-0
June 25th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
SteveK,
Please explain 46-1.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
It is pretty much a pathetic excuse for a human rights organization.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Vote
The result of the vote was as follows:
Marc,
This is the third or forth TMV iteration of this story; and my position is that there is more to it than you or David or Jason want to discuss; and since I’ve been shouted down rather than debated… I chose the minimalist approach.
But, that’s not fair to you as you haven’t shouted down my position so I’ll try again.
This ISN’T about Jews, it’s about Israel.
There are Jews in Israel that support the actions of the UNHRC.
Many of the UNHRC Resolutions that are being condemned for being against Jews are merely reauthorizations of previous resolutions that Israel has stonewalled.
Human Rights Council resolutions S-1/1 and S-3/1 are just trying to get UNHRC ‘fact-finding’ teams into Israel and Gaza to find out what’s actually happening. Israel says NO and the Palestinians say YES so it gets labeled as anti-Israeli.
It should be no surprise that some are wondering if there’s something that Israel (NOT the Jews) are trying to hide.
.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
SteveK,
My objection isn’t to Israel being the target of UNHRC resolutions. My objection is to Israel being the only target of UNHRC resolutions. It’s being singled-out to the exclusion of all others (including, most notoriously at this time, Sudan) that smacks of anti-semitism.
If you have an alternative explanation, I’d be happy to read it.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Marc,
Israel is not the only target of UNHRC resolutions.
Editorials and opinion pieces are written to reenforce the writers opinion so neither side of the argument will tell us what actually happened and it’s to boring for mainstream news coverage… To find out what really happened you have to look for yourself.
Here’s two links if you’re interested.
The first is to an article titled: UN Human Rights Council agrees to details for reviewing countries at the UN News Center.
It includes the half truth about Belarus and Cuba but sets it next to the other half truth:
The second a link to the home page of the 5th session of the Human Rights Council: 11 to 18 June 2007 from where you can read, watch and look into what was done and said. There are even Webcams of all representatives making their arguments and statements.
Contrary to urban legend the members of the UNHRC aren’t out ‘just to get the Jews’ nor do they have horns or pointy tails.
June 25th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
SteveK,
Was Diehl incorrect in saying “Eleven resolutions were directed at the Jewish state. None criticized any other government?”
June 25th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Marc,
That was fast… Evelyn Wood would be proud.
Not meaning to be rude but it’s late and I’ve golf in the morning, I’ll check back with you tomorrow at about 1pm PDT… Have a good evening.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Hey, Steve K., the cast of clowns known at the UN General Assembly can reach an even larger anti-Israel vote if it wants. Why don’t you post some of those anti-Israel votes as well?
Israel has been hated by its evil enemies since its inception, but has become Politically Incorrect since the 1960s. It’s predictable. Who was against Israel along with its enemies in the region? The Soviet Union and the Western Left. Only the Soviet Union is missing now.
June 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Seriously Steve, Marc’s point is a good one. Yea Israel isn’t an angel in the human rights dept and probably could use some monitoring. But UNHRC has definitely singled them out when there are dozens of other countries doing far worse on a far larger scale. An explaination is in order if they want any legitimacy. Otherwise they merely continue the UN’s time honored tradition of utter uselessness in any endevor that doesn’t include US participation/leadership.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Correct or not, painting a complicated situation by yet another ‘anti-simitic’ label obscures as much as it explains.
It seems to me that if Israel had been created and inhabited by a group of Martians, we would now be debating anti-Maritanism.
The animosity stems from events, not from the identity of those who live in and support Israel. The creation of Israel was a controversial event, in that it resulted in losers as well as winners. The losers, Palestinians, were angry then and angry still because the mess hasn’t been resolved.
I grant that anti-semitism is a factor here, but using it as that explained the situation leads to the dangerous perception that once the problem has been given a label, everything is explained, and we need look no further for understanding.
No understanding, no hope of resolution.
It is equally misguided to look at the UNHRC is such simplistic terms. I agree completely that the roster of members from the outset gives the agency the aura of ludricoursness bordering on the insame.
But that hardly explains all there is to know.
For one thing, tt leaves out the behind-the-scenes machinations of big powers around the globe, . . Russia protects Belarus. China has protected the Sudan. the US resists investigations that might be critical of it. Israel does the same.
In this messy situation, it’s a wonder any genuine inverstigations take place at all.
The results are absolutely unacceptable. Israel is singled out.
Oversimplifying does not make the situation better, but it does abscure understanding.
No understanding, no hope of resolution.
June 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
domajot, how else to describe the hideous actions of the UN towards Israel, put forth by the block of antisemitic arab and muslim nations which control the agenda of the UN.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Marc + Laura,
Overplaying the ‘anti-semitc’ card is counter-productive tactically, IMO.
Though I am not a Jew, I have had close ties Io Israel for over 45 years. I hear from all sides, including the several sides of arguments in Israel itself.
When the ‘I accuse’ role is overdone, it creates a backlash. Those who feel they are wrongly accused become resentful of the accusers. That leads to criticism of a new order, adding to the back-and-forth animosities.
Others feel they are emotionally bullied into a supportive role instead of adopting one of their own volition. That causes resentment of another kind.
It all ends in diverting attention from what’s important into debates of who is anti-semitic and who not, what is anti-semitic and what is not
If something is unjust, it is unjust on the merits of actions taken, not because ti was given a nify label.
To be successful at promoting a cause, one can’t lose sight of the audience. The question should be asked: Is this tactic working or would another approach work better?
Since the UN is treating Israel unfairly, labeling that as anti-semtic just opens a new area for animosites and adds nothing to a fact based demonstration of specific instances of unjust treatment.
Attention should be on achieving ends, not the satisfaction of labeling or name calling.
Watch the audience, and get out of the echo chamber of like-minded people is my advice.
June 26th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
There is a good deal of anti-Semitism on the part of the Arabs. There is no (real-world) doubt about that. But it’s also a case of politically-correct politics, which we have seen since the 1960s and with Israel, since the USSR and the Western Left joined the Arabs in bashing Israel. To this extent it’s a turbocharged version of how South Africa was treated (while it was surrounded by Communist-leaning nations, and remains surrounded by nations that are dysfunctional and often tyrannical despite billions in foreign aid and educational attempts). (Bash South Africa, seek “divestiture,” as is sought for Israel, but ignore Zimbabwe and something far worse there.)
June 26th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Domajot,
I get your point, but where is the line between “this isn’t anti-semitic” and “this is anti-semitic?” And who should draw the line.
Here’s an analogy that serves to explains my view that the UNHRC’s actions are anti-semitic:
1. I hope we can all agree that Israel’s human rights violations are not as severe as Sudan’s.
2. Suppose ten white men were arrested and charged with first degree murder, and one black man was arrested and charged with second degree murder.
3. Further suppose that all-white juries acquitted all ten white men and that another all-white jury convicted the black man.
Sounds like the segregated South, doesn’t it? Would not everyone to whom the label “liberal” applied have concluded that the members of the juries were racist? Would not the Southern racists have complained that the liberals were trouble-makers who were poisoning race relations?
The UNHRC is like the Southern juries of old. It condemns Israel for lesser crimes and acquits the perpetrators of greater crimes. Equal justice for all? Not by a long shot. What distinguishes Israel from the perpetrators of the greater crimes? It, and it alone, is a Jewish state. That’s anti-semitism, just as surely as the Southern juries were racist.
June 26th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Excellent analogy Marc. That is exactly what is taking place at the UN with regards to Israel.
Domajot, I think we ought to state the truth and call the UN’s actions exactly what they are. If anyone should feel resentful it should be us towards the UN. They have no right to feel resentful for being called to account for being the antisemites they are.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Marc,
Not being able to subject the human psyche to scientific lab test,s, we can’t determine exactly what part of Israel’s troubles are due to intrinsic anti-semitism. Defining anti-semitism in a particular instance can be controversial in itself. A clearer, and thus better, case can be made for an anti-Israel bias at the UN. I suggest that it’s more productive to focus on what can be shown clearly without diffusing attention on side issues that cause more controversy.
First of all, I see no reason to believe that the conflict over lands and power (Israel vs. Palestinians) would be inherently much different if a group other than Jews had created Israel and immIgrated to it. The dispute over lands and power would still be there.
Victim based terms like racism and anti-semitism become counter productive when they are overused . Used sparingly and carefully, scch labeling can be powerful. Used repeatedly and carelessly, labels lose substanstive meaning and fade into the blah-blah background of general accusations and allegations. They become irritants rather than calls to action for otherwise neutral onlookers.
Call someone an anti-semite, and you lose his willingless to listen to what else you might have to say. Talk about justice and fair treatment, and you have a much better chance of retaining someone’s attention.
I’m far from a marketing expert, but in the end it is about marketing the message and looking for strategies and language that will convince rather than antagonize. No matter how convinced a person is that a specific instance is a clear case of racism or anti-semitism, one should consider if saying so outloud will be productive or counterproductive. “Is this the right moment and the right audience?” one should ask.
Israel can’t go it alone at this stage. It needs support from the West. When Israel or its supporters talks to anyone,, even the neer-do-wells at the UN, the whole world listens, and it judges the content of the message withing the context of the presenation. The language chosen, the postures taken are important. Haven’t we learned anything from Bush’s missteps in talking on the world stage?
Life is not fair. It’s not enough to think you’re right.
Keep your eye on the prize and consider how best to get from A to B.
That’s my take on it, at any rate.
June 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Laure,
Nothing works better to cause people to turn away than a message that begins and ends with a lot oFf SHOULDs.
Giving orders is for the military, not for diplomacy.
You can shout ‘the truth’ from the rooftops day in and day out, but unless you convince people that your message is reasonable and just, at the end of the shouting, there will only have been unheeded shouting.