Not Singing Their Song
Perhaps you remember the first world summit against racism. It happened in 2001, just before the 9/11 attacks. What it amounted to was a bunch of nations condemning Israel. Eight years later, they hope to hold another conference to do the same thing.
In a rare bit of good news (half-glass full type), it looks like the U.S. will boycott the meeting. The administration doesn't like Israel being singled out, and also opposes the conference's support for restrictions on criticizing religion and reparations for slavery.
To quote the linked article, the reaction (though I have no doubt it's widely supported by Americans) has been mixed.
The debate over U.S. participation has pitted American human rights advocates, who support taking part, against some American Jewish organizations, who have called for a boycott.
Shouldn't there be quotes around "human rights advocates"? That's what they call themselves, but it's questionable if we followed their recommendations it would help human rights. And it makes it sound as if people who oppose them don't support human rights.
"We agree the text needs improvement," said Peggy Hicks of Human Rights Watch, which received a State Department briefing on the policy. "But we believe that the best way to achieve it is to sit down at the table and work."
Really? Did they say that about South Africa during the apartheid era? Anyway, we already sat down to work on a pre-conference document and predictably, it produced Israel bashing (which doesn't seem to bother Human Rights Watch that much).
The Anti-Defamation League [made this statement] "We applaud the administration for refusing to participate in a process that would in any way brand Israel as a racist country."
Is that what we did? I just thought we refused to participate because they wanted to single out Israel.
Ultimately, the trouble isn't about whether or not we sit down, or attend any UN or world conference on this sort of subject. The problem is there are a lot of nations, some of them viciously racist, who are obsessed with Israel. Summits give them an opportunity, not to mention cover, to express their hatred.
Their obsession is such that it blocks out rational discussion of honest disagreement. Until they can get beyond it (and it's so basic I don't see this happening any time soon), it'll be very hard to make any serious progress.
Their obsession is also so great that anyone who objects will be called a Zionist puppet. So welcome to the club, President Obama.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:22 AM
5 Comments:
I'm not a fan of either Obama or Rahm Emanuel. But I was relieved when Obama picked Emanuel, because that seemed to signal that Obama would not join the Israel-bashing that is so much more common on the left (especially, in America, the younger left).
It's hard to say where Obama stands, since he's picked plenty of people on his foreign policy team who are Israel bashers.
Could we maybe just accept that Obama's the kind of guy whose team members' views don't necessarily reflect his own? If I were King of The Forest and had to pick an economic team to advise me, it would include (the ghost of?) Columbus Guy. He and I don't agree about a lot of economic areas, which I would value far more highly than folks who would tell me what I already thought.
By "bashers" do you really mean anyone who won't accept the Likud party line?
Anyone who mentions "Likud" when talking about Israel is already guaranteed to be mindless on the issue. The fight is the difference between a liberal democracy and terrorists who favor genocide. The worst Likudnik can be dealt with, and wants fairness and peace more than the average opponent of Israel in the middle east.
Post a Comment
<< Home