Mary Robinson has a long opinion piece in the International Herald Tribune in which she states that Europe must do more to fight anti-semitism:
Last month in Berlin a man wearing a pendant with the Star of David was attacked on a bus by a group of teenagers who spat on him, kicked him in the face and shouted anti-Semitic insults. A day earlier in Vienna a rabbi was physically assaulted by two young people as he was walking home from prayer. In Minsk, Belarus, vandals desecrated a memorial at Yama, which marks the site where 100,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II, spraying Nazi slogans, swastikas and threats. And in London, vandals desecrated 386 Jewish graves at the Plashnet Cemetery in East Ham.
Each of these attacks and desecrations of Jewish sites took place in the last month. None have received much public attention. But they are illustrative of a growing pattern of anti-Semitic attacks that has escalated dramatically since 2001.
In a report published last year the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights found “an alarming rise in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe.” The committee noted that with the exception of Jewish organizations and some human rights and anti-racism groups, “the world community – governments, intergovernmental organizations and nongovernment organizations alike – has not responded adequately to this growing problem. Anti-Semitism is racism. Anti-Semitic acts need to be confronted more forcefully and treated as serious violations of international human rights.”
We agree, Europe should do more. But who the hell does Mary Robinson think she is to lecture anyone on anti-semitism? You remember, of course, that Mary Robinson was the chief architect of the virulently anti-American and anti-semitic “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.” You remember that, don’t you:
At the conference, Robinson presided over little more than an intellectual pogrom against Jews and Israel. She remained largely silent as the preliminary Asian Regional Conference in Tehran (to which Israel was excluded) inserted blatantly racist statements into the conference agenda. She failed to speak out when, on the grounds of the U.N. conference itself, the Arab Lawyers Union distributed pamphlets depicting hook-nosed Jews as Nazis spearing Palestinian children. In the same tent where nongovernmental organizations depicted Israel as a “racist, apartheid state,” were distributed fliers entitled, “What if Hitler had won?” The answer: “There would be no Israel, and no Palestinian bloodshed.”
These idiots really don’t think we are paying attention.
Unlearned Hand
Good work John… that really is quite ridiculous.
Simon McGarr
Is a resistance to a current Israeli government’s policy and actions the same as anti-Semitism?
What if that government changed and a new one started doing the opposite of the current one? Would that demonstrate their anti-Semitism?
Simon McGarr
Is a resistance to a current Israeli government’s policy and actions the same as anti-Semitism?
What if that government changed and a new one started doing the opposite of the current one? Would that demonstrate their anti-Semitism?
Simon McGarr
Apologies for the double post.
Edmund Burke
Mary Robinson would lecture you on how to wipe you’re arse if given half a chance. Her hectoring, droning nanny knows best tone had me reaching for the button during seven long years as Irish president.
However her article is so fecking stupid, I wonder how she has been able to tie down so many high profile jobs.
“Anti semitism equals racism.” Duh!
“Europe has a long and tragic history of anti semitism, not least the horrors of the Holocaust” Does she mean there are things worse than the Holocaust.
Kevin McDonnell
Simon,
Your statement needs to be addressed on its face, because it is an intellectually tired and yet endlessly foisted canard. I want to talk about that, but I want to begin by asking two questions: What would the “opposite” of the present policy be? And how does the blaringly obvious hate-mongering at the conference NOT constitute virulent anti-semitism? For the first, I submit to you that at the essential level, the opposite of the present plicy would be aquiescence to the stated intent of Hamas et al, and would amount to voluntary holocaust. Period. Barak had a more “rapprochment” type policy, and it did not ever approach the realm of peace, because peace is not the objective of the power brokers in the Palestinian camp.
The answer to the second follows on, and it is that any government short of one that was actively herding its own citizens into whatevevr equivalent of the gas chambers that the Palestinian tyrants could devise, would have resulted in the same type of virulence at that conference, because at its heart, it IS Jew hatred plain and simple. So the almost palpably insane canard ubiquitous on the left that there is some element of rational political discourse in the present climate of acceptable “anti-zionism” (or whatever label the Euro elite considers fashionable today) is as I said, a canard. I will post again to make a few follow on points.
David Rothman
Simon writes: “Is a resistance to a current Israeli government’s policy and actions the same as anti-Semitism?”
Why of course not. That’s why burning synagogues, assaulting and spitting on jews and vandalizing graves are merely an expression of opposition to Israeli tyranny.
Christian fundamentalists like to ask, “What would Jesus do?” Without irony, transnational progressives literally ask, “What if Hitler had won?”
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinian Authority, the Arab League, and now the people of the EU clearly don’t distinguish between that “Shitty Little Country” and that “Shitty Little People.”
Oddly, if Simon remembered history, he might recall that the Israeli government of Ehud Barak did do the opposite of the Sharon government. It withdrew from Lebanon, signed the Oslo accord and offered a state for the Palestinians.
Alas, when Israel followed Simon’s wonderful advice, it merely convinced the Palestinians to step up their attacks and suicide bombing. It also led directly to the outrageous antisemitism at the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance.
Kevin McDonnell
I have spent much time in the last year immersing myself in the history, both distant and near, of that troubled place and that I have some time ago come to endorse the view that a Civil War among the Palestinians may be the only way to purge the very dark cancer at the heart of its society. I’m continually struck by the fallacious imagery foisted by those who wish to frame all terms of debate in the modern world, that this conflict can be dealt with in ANY way as seperate from the War on Terror. In fact, this period will be, if indeed there is a future perspective, best viewed as a civil war based on the fundamental ideas and philosophies which have always been civilisations driving forces, but which have never been laid as naked and exposed as they are now.
Simon, I think your post demonstrates how most of us need quite a serious bracer. For people like myself, who are taken aback by those, who in the name of a twisted so called realpolitick(which has morphed into intellectually artful and relativistic justifications for nihilistic elitism), think that putting the screws to the only bastion of civilisation in the region, and legitimizing an inarguably corrupt regime will somehow end up as smart diplomacy. I am living in Norway, and have been since before September 11th, and when I speak of public imagery that is utterly convoluted, and as incapable of reflecting events from a broad perspective as Pravda ever was, I speak from experience. One could easily begin to describe a conspiratorial pattern if one was so inclined, but of course it is not. A conspiracy implies deliberate collusion of disparate forces, and what is happening is not deliberate….per se. On the other hand, merely labeling it all as bias, fails to capture the depth of its roots in the extended order. I believe however, that the vast majority of those who toil without moral anchorage, in the postmodern sea of relativistic rhetoric and the meaningless banter around “social justice”, are not aware of just how much of their free will they have surrendered to this collective vision…. and that this vision is and has been for quite some time, a malleable clay most receptive to a particular intellectual elite. Failure to raise a Moral standard at this crossroads of history, does not merely cowtow to Islamic terror, but to the creeping nihilism of burueaucratic elitists(ala European “intellectuals”), and to the tyranny of the mind engaged by all the affiliates of displaced utopianism.
I found it instructive that at the same time last week that Abbas, Sharon and Bush did their photo-op, De Villepin, and Prodi had a photo op of their own… with Arafat… smiling and warm handshakes and all. Do we not SEE, what is manifesting itself in such abject arrogance and absence of an ideal or prinicible? I watch the way the messages of the world… its story… gets conveyed in real time and I tell you I sometimes feel like weeping. It IS different now, in the level of mendacity and deception, even as it has become finally a reality that the real time “Heralds Cry” is truly world encompassing. The discourse stands on one common standard only, and that is that there is no standard, and this has the effect of biasing everything towards… cynicism-nihilism-evil… usually in that order. There is a true lesson in that fact alone… but that is itself a value statement which is not permitted in the public discourse. What a brilliant stroke is the ubiquitous impact of relativism. I do not have a label for the intellectual/emotional phenomenon that so bridles the discourse and includes everything that the post-modern/constructionist/neo-Marxists espouse in common. But it is the language of almost every spokesman for the future from NGOs to ideological visionaries. It sits like a vice grip on the thought centers of those who are charged with thinking towards an ideal(witness Amnesty International for example).
Meanwhile… and not co-incidentally, the entire western worlds resources within the public forum are now ensuring that the definition of “injustice” is found in the fact that WMDs have not been found yet. The idea of mass graves uncovered revealing children who were buried alive clutching their dolls and toys is not relevant enough to be discussed within the context of Justice.
Perhaps we don’t deserve the future.
I do not know if there will be a proper formulation which will accomplish the task of setting down ideals which both serve as a basis for worthy goals, and shine light on the malformations that brought us to this point, but I truly hope so.
I have digressed, but I wanted to make clear that I believe that what we see collectively in the mainstream “public” eye, will never serve the cause of good in its present state. This makes voices such as yours, which are made from the obvious perspective of being “enlightened” and “tolerant” so disturbing. Where did you come upon this unquestionable open-mindedness? To get back on topic, Do the present policies of Europe, which are obviously nearly the opposite of those of the US and Israel herself, work FOR a true peace in the region? I am deeply disturbed at the way deference to an odious interpretation of “Peace” is being layed out… yet again, and it is one that the likes of Mary Robinson and UN Eurocrats would surely ascribe to. As Abbas claims to be struggling to do what ever is “possible”, with his possibilities seemingly more and more restricted, I cannot help but comment that in essence what is happening is this: The architects of the rage and nihilism that gave birth to an ideology so heinous that suicide bombing is its political statement, are now claiming the need to defer to and appease that ideology in the interest of “peace”. Let us be clear: Peace will NEVER come from such an obscene premise, and we are blind fools to entertain the thought. This is not even a Faustian bargain, but simply an invitation to mayhem. The PA has absolutely controlled every instrument which has the power to influence and mold the heart, mind and soul of Palestinian society for over ten years. From schools to mosques, newspapers and media, and it has used them to expand and cultivate an unceasing state of naked hatred and murderous rage to an extent that would have left Goebbels in awe. We are now being told that we must accept that those who cultivated this phenomenon are to be exonerated from its repsonsibility, even as they are “legitimized” to continue using it as an excuse for repression and corruption. That Would End Badly. If that is true than there is little doubt that the only solution, is for the monstrosity at the heart of Palestinian society to be purged. If such a purging is inevitable, then the cause of Justice is FAR better served by a Civil War which destroys the architects who nurtured this inhumanity, then to further focus it on men, women and children whose Capital Crime is to get on a bus or visit the market while being Jewish.
Use your eyes, look around and tell me that you do not see the bubbling up of irrational hatred and visceral racism within the “mainstream” public discourse. Tell me you do not even entertain the possibility that the impact of death cultism is not being embraced by a cynical nihilism within the Western multiculturalist discourse. And Tell me that you do not sense at some level, a philosophical/emotive connection between the unfurling of present day anti-Americanism, and the clear though dark history of Anti-Semitism within mans dream of himself.
For my part, though I am deeply distressed (and sometimes a bit terrified) over the depth and pervasiveness of what can be lucidly referred to as creeping shadows, yet I have not become hopeless, and I hope that you can, at some point, see the sources of your rhetoric and philosophical foundations in a different light before then you accept their vagaries as a beacon to judge the world around you.
Kevin McDonnell
And I am REALLY sorry to the Host and commentators for the length of that post… I’ve had a helluva week in dealing with minds in a vice grip…. and something broke in me. I’m sorry even to Simon… IF I miscast him… I may have, but his language was clear enough.
In any case…. SORRY.
shaulie
Kevin,
That was wonderfully stated.
I would like to copy your post to another forum that I often visit. (With full atribution, of course.) Would you mind?
Shaulie
Sweet Lou
John,
Great post. Perhaps the discrepancy can be explained by Mary Robinson changing her mind. This would be a good sign, as it might indicate that she and her ilk are re-evaluating some key priciples.
Is this too charitable a view? Am I too optimistic?
Simon McGarr
Calling for a civil war seems an odd way to plan for peace.
Compromise can be useful, and can buy time for deeper understanding. The ever wobbly NI peace process is a good example. The two sides still don’t like each other. But there are hundreds of people alive because of their willingness to compromise who would otherwise be dead.
And to disagree with the current Israeli government still doesn’t make you an anti-Semite. For example when the previous government acted correctly, I would have said huzzah. When the current government acted mistakenly, I’d say boo.
The same was the case with my own government, and with the US one. Do I switch from being pro american to anti american when I do that? Or do I just remain a person with a point of view looking to support actions which coincide with my opinions and to disagree with ones that don’t?
Kevin McDonnell
Simon,
Do you?… (switch from American to anti-American when opinions change)… I don’t know. It would depend on the source of your opposition philosophically, and the nature of your expression of opposition practically. But then, thats not the point is it? And to you use the hypothetical of yourself still does nothing to address, in fact seems to deliberately (albeit perhaps unconsciously as a conditioned response) skirt the actual issues at hand. To wit: What occurred at specifically at the conference, and more generally as the metaphysical phenomenon of unleashed Jew Hatred at work now in MANY places… IS anti-Semitism. Just as the endlessly citable examples of irrational and reflexive anti-Americanism which contaminates the policies and very language of international relations today… is quite similar.
As to the concept of a Civil War (which may be more or less bloodless than the staus quo, it would depend) being the most effective road to peace, that is exactly my point. It may also be the most enduring, and you can look at history for examples. In fact I would go further. It may be the ONLY way to actually purge what is unquestionably a truly malignant undercurrent of naked hatred whose levers, are already firmly grasped by the absolute worst people to be pulling them. For all the Bush posters mindlessly caricatured with Hitler mustaches, the most ready examples of Nazisms simulcrums are in the Arab world, and its penultimate offspring is in contrl of the Palestinians. Any other posturing, no matter how many “assumptions” of moral superiority are included in it, is fatuous.
Kevin McDonnell
Simon,
BTW: I must add that your comment “But there are hundreds of people alive because of their willingness to compromise who would otherwise be dead.” had me really baffled on two levels. First, I wonder who those hundreds are since every attempt at compromise from Oslo on has done virtually nothing to slow down, and may have been very effective at speeding up (the ruthless always advance upon signs of weakness…it is an immutable law) the murder and mayhem. So I’m at a loss to discern who these living people are.
But on another level, I find your cpomment chilling because you reveal an anchorless predilection to appeasement which is horrifying both from a historical level (in that it doesn’t do anything but ensure even worse, ever so slightly down the road) as well as from a philosophical level (in that it smacks of cowtowing to ruthlessness in the name of “peace”… which is an odious peace indeed and if globally embraced, simply ensures the dominance of tyranny….do the math).
Just thought I would point that out…. but then I’m an American, and thus inherently predisposed to chronic simplisme-itis.
Simon McGarr
Hi there,
My reference to the hundreds of people alive referred to Northern Ireland.
I don’t think appeasement is a useful word taken out of its historical context. Fundamentalism insists there can only be one correct path, and that all others are wrong. The opposite of that isn’t appeasement, I feel, but realism. So if you want to stop people from being killed in a squalid war where neither side has clean hands, you have to begin somewhere to build up trust. There’s always a lot of luck involved, and it won’t work every time. But in the end, it is what peacemaking and negotiation always have to come back to. Because there’s no other way to settle disputes except to compromise.
It can certainly leave a sour taste in the mouth, but pragmatism can produce noble results. A war can end without any winners, and similarly peace can be made without any losers.
Kevin McDonnell
Northern Ireland is oft cited, but it is so different on so many levels. For one thing, neither of the most rabid elements of Catholic Republicans, nor their Protestant counterparts were in complete control of civil society as has been the case in the PA since Oslo. This is a critically important point, and it is the reason I draw such a clear historical comparison to Nazi society of the 30s. In fact, in the Northern Irish case, a truly free press expedited a gradual buildup of dialogue and thus empathy between the conflicted parties which alienated them more from the militants than from each other. When the twisting of moral cause becomes impossible, and the “rightness” of ruthlessness perishes in the mind of a society, radicalism has no traction. In the PA you have none of these trappings of free society, and in fact, you are not at all likely to, without a forceful shift borne of internal strife. Have you ever read translations of mass media from ANYWHERE on the spectrum of offerings in Palestinian society? There is no case to be made for Justice, when visceral hatred is so actively cultivated… you are more likely to end up with a death cult. As is. Though I have no doubt that the spark of peace still glows in most Palestinian Arab hearts, and most wish to see a future for their children brighter than a morally indefensible “Martyrdom”. Cobined with the very real fear of speaking out against the status quo (typical of societies beneath ruthless tyranny) that spark has no way to be fanned and freed.
Since I cite something “morally indefensible”, its worth addressing your contention that fundamentalism is merely the idea that there is one correct path, and that its opposite is realism. A bit ironic that, since my post above refers to the odious so called “realpolitic” of today in whose soil I am sad to say, it appears you are rooted. In any case, I hardly think realism is the opposite of fundamentalism, how arrogant! It must be the case that you are speaking from the perspective of value relativism and assume that the opposite of your errr values (we wont go there) is the most virulent label one can have hung on them in todays world. However, I would first point out that there is a world of difference between acceptance of the IDEA that there is ultimately, rightness and wrongness in all things, and actually espousing dogma to universally define it. Any good Classical Liberal thinker would rely on the fact that while there is right and wrong indeed, its totality is beyond our ken to grasp individually. Yet while I do not have a perfect picture, I do have a compass, and it is the same compass that applies everywhere. You mistake arrogant dogmatism with a belief in right and wrong, but I would submit that at its essence, the violent nature to Islamic fundamentalisms “religious” intolerance, is more akin to the ideological intolerance of Marxist revolutionaries or the racial intolerance of fascists. That is where you will find the connection. Not in euphemistic labels smacking of atheistic pseudo jargon.
BTW On what standard do you base your contention of “noble” results.. as is the ones that come after the sour taste. Just curious.
KM
Yehudit
Excellent comments. I wrote about this here referring to an article by Sen. Tom Lantos describing in detail Robinson’s behavior during the preparations for the UN conference. (There’s a link to the Lantos article in my piece – it’s a .pdf file. Well worth reading. What you’ve described is only part of what Robinson did to avoid confronting the antisemitism of the conference.)
John Cole
Yehudit- I have read the Lantos file before. IN fact, Simon was trashing me (calling me a redneck) over on some other forum ( http://blogs.salon.com/0001514/2003/06/20.html#a434 ), and I requested that he read the Lantos file.
Yehudit
I notice that nowhere in her article does she address her own part in contributing to the atmosphere of anti-semitism, by repeatedly avoiding confronting its expression at the preparations for the conference.
If she had any guts, she could make a powerful statement by describing how she did the wrong thing, and why, and the lessons she learned. But she doesn’t have any guts.
Yehudit
Thanks, John. More people should read the Lantos article. here’s the
http://fletcher.tufts.edu/forum/new/Lantos9.pdf
Simon McGarr
A special one, just for Kevin.
When Compromise Can Be the Principled Choice