Soccer Dad

There's something about mary

Hillel Neuer writes about Mrs. Robinson's defense of her role at Durban:

In attempting to defend the final text, you say that Shimon Peres, Israel's foreign minister at the time, "welcomed" it. This is a deliberately misleading half-truth, put to frequent use this year by the apologists for Durban II.

The facts tell another story. On September 4, 2001, after he instructed his delegation to walk out of the conference, Peres described the gathering in Durban as "a farce" where "human rights were defeated," and as a "court of mockery of justice."

At the same briefing, Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister, Rabbi Michael Melchior -- a spiritual leader known for his advocacy of pluralism, liberalism and human rights protections for Israel's minorities -- described the Durban draft as "the most anti-Semitic official document put on any table in any official conference since World War II." Yet you omit to mention any of this.

Yes, a few days later, when the final text emerged, Peres cheered the removal of the worst proposals, a direct result of the diplomatic pressure created by the joint U.S. and Israeli walkout that you continue to condemn. At the same time, his legal adviser, Alan Baker, made clear that Israel hardly gave its blessing to the outcome: "The fact that the Palestinians succeeded in inserting partisan and specific statements concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a declaration of a conference on racism is something that never should have happened."

(tweeted by David Hazony)

It wasn't just that Robinson facilitated the condemnation of Israel. Jamie Kirchik writes:

It is not just Robinson's record at Durban that renders her unfit for the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Throughout her tenure as High Commissioner, she frequently criticized the United States for its operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison facility and terrorist detainee policies--warning that we were "losing the moral high ground"--but rarely lifted a finger when it came to serial abusers of human rights like the People's Republic of China, Libya, or Sudan. As a result of the problems in Durban and her baleful term as High Commissioner, the United States did not support Robinson's continuing as head of the office: After she was replaced in 2002, former American ambassador to the UN Richard Holbrooke said that "she overly politicized the job." (Indeed, the Human Rights Commission became such an international joke under Robinson's tenure--with all manner of human rights abusers allowed onto the body--that it was eventually abolished in 2006.) At the time of her replacement, Robinson lashed out at the United States by blaming it for her downfall, which makes the decision of the current American administration to honor her all the more perplexing.

But it's hard to argue that her choice as a recipient of the Medal of Freedom was an error.

One can't help but conclude that Robinson was chosen precisely because and not in spite of her worldview, which differs not that appreciably from Obama's. Yes, Obama chose not to attend Durban II--that was a bridge too far. But let's get real--is it more likely that the Obama team "missed" the entire focus of Robinson's career or that she embodies in meaningful ways their vision of the world and underlying unease with American exceptionalism? They would have us believe the former--pleading incompetence. But the more one recalls Robinson's career, the weaker that excuse seems.

So when the President's supporters claim that too much importance is being attached to the nomination.

One Obama supporter suggested that the controversy was a distraction from more important matters.

"With a major battle to ensure every American has access to health care, delicate negotiations to further the peace process in the Middle East and the battle to deny Iran a nuclear capacity, don't we as a community have more critical issues to focus on?" said Ira Forman, the CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Now if the peace process - or, more generally, foreign policy regarding the Middle East - as Forman himself says, is important, then wouldn't an action that reveals the administration's stand on Israel be significant? It would be and that's what's especially disturbing here.

Perhaps that's why President Obama's supporters would rather his critics not discuss the honor.

UPDATE: Something more from John Bolton. (Tweeted by David Saranga.)