Oh, Here We Go Again

Someone call the waaaaambulance. The UNHRC once again is throwing a hissy fit because not everyone treats it as God's gift to human rights (or Judge Goldstone as His messianic messenger himself). Honestly, I don't think I know of any substantial political body with as thin a skin as one finds on the UN Human Rights Council. Maybe it's due to the incredible dissonance of existing as a living mockery to the very idea of justice, fairness, and equality. That's got to do some serious psychological scarring.

It Could Be, But Probably Won't Be

The UNHRC is apparently set to consider resolutions relating to the "organ theft" charges recently leveled against Israel, upon the submission of a Libyan NGO. Now, obviously, simply making spurious accusations against Israel isn't grounds for contesting the accredition of an NGO body -- that treatment is reserved for Jews who don't display the proper degree of reverence towards a body that views them with the respect of a spit bucket. Likewise, the High Commissioner on human rights cannot be expected to review or screen the language of such NGO submissions -- that practice, too, seems restricted to Jewey-Jew organizations with their offensive Jew language.

But I keep on hoping -- maybe this will be the "contradiction-closing case". A phrase coined by Derrick Bell, it refers to a case by a generally prejudicial body that goes in favor of the party it spends most of its time subjugating, normally because the case is such an outrageous departure from generally norms of equity that even the subjugaters can't help but notice it. The decision is proof that the body is fair, the system is just, and that it rules "merely according to law" and facts. The credibility gained by the case then can be drawn upon as it goes back to its standard operating procedures of maintaining an oppressive sphere.

It won't be, though. Despite the UNHRC's demonstrated track record of being a one-track Israel-bashing machine, whose concern for human rights is 8,522 square miles wide and an inch deep, there has been little substantive pressure on them to modulate their stance even a teeny bit. I'm genuinely curious if there has ever been an anti-Israel resolution forwarded to the council that they've voted down. I doubt it. Maybe this will be the first. I doubt that too.

Pz-Owned

UN Watch ambushes Libya at the UN Durban Review Conference preparatory meeting. Libya, for reasons that, depending on your perspective, are either inexplicable or all too explicable, was chosen to chair the chair the preparatory committee, was presiding when it recognized UN Watch, an NGO which "monitors the performance of the United Nations by the yardstick of its own Charter."

Normally, it seems to spend its time getting abused by the authoritarian regime of the week for actually caring about human rights. But here they turned the tables beautifully, turning the microphone over to a victim of Libyan torture who demanded to know how that nation's country could claim to lead the fight against discrimination when it had, he claimed, targeted him simply to scapegoat foreigners (the doctor was Palestinian).

Unsurprisingly, the Libyan ambassador eventually succeeded in shutting down the discussion. But still, it made for a nice spectacle. And since UN Watch tipped off the local media, it even got everything filmed.

So score one point for the good guys; and for suppressed victims of violence having their voices heard (if only for a little while).

A Mass Exodus

The AJC has launched a new blog called "AJC Durban Dispatch", promising to be a one-stop shop for the Durban Review Conference (widely known as Durban II). Right now it is covering the steady drumbeat of criticism of the conference (due primarily to hyper vitriolic criticism of Israel and language which would make criticism of religion a human rights violation), and the various countries which have threatened to or already have withdrawn. So far, Canada, Israel, the US, and Italy are confirmed non-participants. Countries considering withdrawing include the UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands, and Denmark. The Netherlands, in particular, is taking some very aggressive steps, pressing for a unified EU front against the conference if it does not amend its language, and otherwise the Dutch will withdraw unilaterally.

Colleagues of mine in the civil rights community have differed with me over whether the US should have withdrawn from Durban II. I understand their concern: there are many, many important issues about race and racial injustice that are critical to discuss, and the US needs to get back into the fray of this international discourse if we're to have any hope of pushing the discussion in a positive direction. But at the same time, I think it is very clear that the Durban conferences have been abject failures in putting these issues on the public agenda. The only thing they're known for is attacking Israel. Can anyone in the general public name a single other outcome of Durban I? Can anyone name a single productive agenda item on Durban II?

What we're seeing is that the illiberal regimes who are seeking to make Israel the scapegoat for any and every human rights calamity worldwide have been quite successful -- they've made it impossible for us to discuss "human rights", only Israeli human rights violations. The best way to respond to that is to refuse to play the game. When, in Durban I, only the US and Israel withdraw, people could ignore it: It's only America and its lapdog Israel (or vice versa -- I can never figure out who is the tail and who is the dog in this telling of the tale), and of course they'll walk out. It doesn't have any purchase, because the world doesn't consider the perspective of the US or Israel to be relevant to anti-Semitism or anti-Israel politics. I think they're blinded by their own prejudices, but there it is.

A more broad-based boycott would be far harder to ignore. If the entire EU, plus Israel, plus Canada, plus Australia, and whatever other nations might join them (the Japan Times just editorialized its view that Durban II should be scrapped), the message will be sent that a firm coalition comprised of many of the world's most liberal countries will not countenance shielding the field of human rights violators by only targeting Israel. No longer will nations like Cuba and Libya be able to count on the international community as a whole affirming their charades. Perhaps they don't care -- but at least we'll have drawn the battle lines.

The UN and the Jews

I have rarely said kind things about (former) UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. I was calling for his ouster in 2004, noted his complacency in the UN's appalling anti-Israel bias, and I mocked him when he seemed to seriously believe that Syria would stop arms shipments to Hezbollah along the Syria-Lebanon border.

In short, I have not been a fan.

But this speech he gave, in tribute to UN Watch founder and diplomat Morris Abram, nearly made me cry.

I know that to some of you in this audience, and in the Jewish community at large, it has sometimes seemed as if the United Nations serves all the world's peoples but one: the Jews.

The exclusion of Israel from the system of regional groupings; the intense focus given to some of Israel's actions, while other situations sometimes fail to elicit the similar outrage; these and other circumstances have given a regrettable impression of bias and one-sidedness.

As you know, the General Assembly some years ago rescinded its resolution equating Zionism with racism. Even so, deep and painful scars remain -- for the United Nations, I should stress, as much as for you. One of my priorities as Secretary-General has been to try to heal these wounds and find our way to mutual understanding and partnership.

Building lives of security and dignity for all requires the full participation of all -- of each and every individual and nation. I am glad to say that the Jewish community has been a significant presence at the United Nations from the beginning. Leaders of the American Jewish Committee were in San Francisco when the Organization was founded, and helped to infuse the Charter with concern for justice and human rights. Earlier this year, the American Jewish Committee donated $200,000 to the United Nations refugee agency for the reconstruction of schools in Kosovo, showing a humanitarian impulse that recognizes neither borders nor creed, but only fellow human beings in need.
[...]
The new century is upon us, and the shape of the challenges ahead is clear. Some are as old as civilization itself: war, hunger, intolerance and inequality. Others are newer, such as the AIDS epidemic, climate change and the opportunities and risks associated with globalization. Some threats are conspicuous, such as drug-trafficking and terrorism. Others are more subtle, like corruption and money- laundering.

All these challenges share a crucial aspect: they transcend borders. They demand of us that we think less about what divides us, and more about what holds us together. They demand of us that we continue building an international community: a humane community with rules, with shared values and aspirations and, most of all, with a conscience.

It is unthinkable that your voices would not be part of this quest. Jews know the burden of bigotry. They know the longing for sovereignty. They know the pride and peril of nation-building. They know the push and pull between tradition and the modern; between individual needs and those of the community; between multiculturalism and more narrow visions of society. These are issues and questions that resonate for all people. As we search for answers, your participation can enrich the United Nations.

Friends, Jews around the world have just finished the annual celebration of Hanukkah -- the last "festival of lights" in a dark and tumultuous century. Tragically, genocide is very much a word of our time, blighting humanity's path and casting long shadows over genuine progress in the human condition. Indeed, the United Nations will never forget its origins in the fight against fascism, and that its Charter was drafted as the world was learning the full horror of the Holocaust. This history makes it especially sad that such a gulf arose between us.
[...]
Together, we have an opportunity -- and an obligation -- to bring more light into the world. Jews have been engaged in just such a mission since the far reaches of antiquity. For the past fifty-four years -- certainly not as long, although it has felt that way at times -- this has also been the mission of the United Nations. Neither of us has always succeeded. But neither have we stopped trying. Let us join forces and build a better world together. Thank you very much.

It isn't perfect. I wished that Annan had conceded that the allegations of one-sidedness were not just an "impression" but a fact, one that Annan should apologize for and demand to remedy.

But even the acknowledgment that we have a legitimate grievance, noticing that we feel the UN simply did not care about our plight and was utterly indifferent to our suffering, is something that I had never heard from the highest elites in the international system.

It's a start. Now let's build a better world out of it.