Is Mary Robinson Bad for the Jews?
Mary Robinson has had a long and interesting career. As the White House press office noted when explaining Barack Obama’s decision to grant her a Presidential Medal of Freedom:
Mary Robinson was the first female President of Ireland (1990 – 1997) and a former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1997 – 2002), a post that required her to end her presidency four months early. Robinson served as a prominent member of the Irish Senate prior to her election as President. She continues to bring attention to international issues as Honorary President of Oxfam International, and Chairs the Board of Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations (GAVI Alliance). Since 2002 she has been President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative, based in New York, which is an organization she founded to make human rights the compass which charts a course for globalization that is fair, just and benefits all.
Naturally, Abe Foxman sees an insidious plot against the Jewish people:
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, today issued a statement saying that Robinson has “anti-Israel bias” and calling the decision to bestow America’s highest civilian honor upon Robinson as an agent of change “ill-advised.”
James Besser explains the case, such as it is, against Robinson. You see, back in 2001:
Robinson didn’t support the anti-Semitic outbursts at Durban, but a credible case can be made that she didn’t do enough to prevent them – or speak up loudly enough after the debacle.
I think it takes a pretty serious case of narcissism to reach the conclusion that this bill of particulars ought to outweigh a person’s entire career.
My sense is that what’s really going on here is the same as what’s happening with pro-Israel groups’ years-long campaign against Human Rights Watch. It’s simply not possible to do a credible job of international human rights monitoring without criticizing Israeli behavior now and again. Exercising sovereign authority over the lives of millions of stateless persons is a human rights fiasco waiting to happen. But a lot of Jewish organizations in the United States seem to take the view that because Israel’s human rights record is better than, say, Sudan’s (and it sure is better) that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Israel bias.
85 Responses to “Is Mary Robinson Bad for the Jews?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Matt, great post. Desmund Tutu was recently honored as well, reminding me of the shame I feel towards my undergraduate alma mater for banning him from campus for alleged anti-semitism, and how they’ll never get money from me: http://www.citypages.com/2007-10-03/news/banning-desmond-tutu/
August 4th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Foxman’s a silly person, but not as silly as Michael Rubin and Jennifer Rubin, who seem to have decided, contra the nation’s constitution, that Irish presidents have direct authority over foreign affairs and budgetary matters. Foxman may be aping those smears, but he’s not so silly as to repeat that particular canard.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Foxman is not a silly person. He is a despicable person, Zionist scumbag. Just like every other Zionist.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
You make a reasonable point in this case, but you lose credibility by repeatedly defending HRW. Please either post a point by point response to David Bernstein’s posts at the Volokh Conspiracy concerning HRW, or stop defending them.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Abe Foxman is a joke. More disturbing are people like Jake Tapper, who uncritically launder his bullshit. Smart people know Tapper is an ass, but to most he’s just the guy on TV.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
As an Irish-American (I grew up in both countries) I am offended that someone who served Ireland so well and represented our country internationally with such grace should be treated this way. Narcissism is right!
Sentiment towards the Israeli government (note I said the government not the Jewish people) is much more mixed in Europe in any case, i.e. we are allowed to have an opinion on Israeli policy which is not just blanket endorsement of their actions, and Robinson holds what is a pretty mainstream position over this side of the Atlantic.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
But a lot of Jewish organizations in the United States seem to take the view that because Israel’s human rights record is better than, say, Sudan’s (and it sure is better) that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Israel bias.
A lot of Jewish organizations do seem to make that very silly argument (oftentimes it is un-ironically made by the same people who, ironically, complain about “moral relativism”). But that isn’t the issue with the Durban conference. There are many, many evils in this world and even if you think Zionism is one of them, to spend a whole meeting just completely attacking Zionism while ignoring far greater evils (and allowing people/nations with motes in their eyes to criticize the splinter in Israel’s eye) is just too much and one does wonder the motivation why, someone as normally so much on the side of what is right and moral as Mary Robinson, was a party to such a blatant misplacing of priorities.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Sentiment towards the Israeli government (note I said the government not the Jewish people) is much more mixed in Europe in any case – Lu
I should hope Europeans understand why this deeply offends many Jews. For centuries Europe has treated us Jews as an alien element to be tolerated at best and to be extinguished with extreme prejudice at worst. Nu? Some Jews decide “well, perhaps if we are not welcome in Europe we should resettle our historical homeland”. And then Europe has problems with the behavior of the resulting state? I dunno if Europe and her inhabitants have any moral authority here.
That is why it is so troubling that someone who does have such great moral authority was so involved in a conference that consisted of a bunch of nations with motes in their eyes criticizing the splinter in Israel’s eye.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Stating the obvious for the benefit of Google indexing:
The Israeli right wing policy towards the occupied territories is like the Johnson vietnam escalation plan, slowly seducing the lady, putting you at home plate without her knowing the difference.
Part of that is to discredit any discussion which doesn’t shout Israeli right wing slogans to the ceiling.
That obviously makes me either an anti-Semite, or (given the assumptions of my surname outside of MN) a self-hating Jew.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
There’s only one evil of this sort armed with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; having been involved in ethnic cleansing for 60+ years, and military occupation (not to mention direct extermination from time to time) for 40+ years. There’s only one of those.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
“But a lot of Jewish organizations in the United States seem to take the view that because Israel’s human rights record is better than, say, Sudan’s (and it sure is better) that any criticism of Israel amounts to anti-Israel bias.”
I don’t think people take that view. I think a lot of the anti-semites like to claim that in order to avoid confronting the reality of their illness. But I think most people in the world take the view that Israel’s record is much, much better than that of most (if not ALL) other nations, and that, invariably, the nations (specifically the UK and the US) that criticize Israel (or Sudan, for that matter) have worse human rights records, and have engaged in infinitely more violence and illegal actions.
For instance, Israel’s record on human rights is infinitely better than Ireland’s. I don’t think anyone would argue that. There is simply no comparison. There was just a report released recently that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of children were routinely beaten and raped by the church, and that it went on for decades. It’s hard to think of a worse human rights violations; these poor children had their lives destroyed, and it went on forever. And, to make it even worse, the human-rights abusing Irish government, rather than address the problem, follow the law, and arrest the rapists, passed a law making it illegal to criticize the church, and has done nothing to correct these massive human rights violations. And, in fact, the government knew about them all along the way, and actively worked to help the church continue them. A tremendous move for human rights that.
Goodness, people, children were RAPED, and the world does absolutely nothing.
Christians around the world continue to ignore the massive and abominable human rights violations of the Catholic Church, and, in fact, use attacks on Jews and Israel as a way of diverting attention from their horrible crimes.
I’ve always been an admirer of Mary Robinson. But I would like to know what she did to protect children around the world from being raped by the Catholics when she was United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Did she ever even raise the issue? I wonder…
August 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: Naturally, Abe Foxman sees an insidious plot against the Jewish people: [...]
August 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Matt – you are spot on here and please ignore David’s comments on HRW. As someone who has consulted closely with HRW for years it is infuriating when those who have little true knowledge of the organization bring up the nonsense of the David Bernstiens out there or NGO Monitor as evidence of HRW bias. These commentators are so obviously manipulative it is sickening. The pro-Israel bias is so strong I really can’t believe it is taken seriously. HRW is guided by blindly applying standards of international human rights and humanitarian law. Before working with them, I could never imagine an organization taking as much care and effort to be as unbiased as possible and as isolated as possible from governmental and political pressures. What is truly reprehensible is that these men and organizations are trying to discredit an organization that is doing everything within its means to make the lives of Israelis, and all other human beings, liberated from death, abuse and injustice.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
DAS (#7)
I don’t see why so many Jews should be deeply offended by Europeans having mixed feelings about the Israeli government. Moral authority isn’t hereditary it has to keep being earned anew.
August 4th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Ah, the children…
Yesterday at this spot the Israelis shot eight young men, six of whom were under the age of eighteen. One was twelve. This afternoon they kill an eleven-year-old boy, Ali Murad, and seriously wound four more, three of whom are under eighteen. Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered – death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo – but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Re abb1
Ah poooooooor babies. The IDF should apply Hama rules and really give cocksucking fuckfaces like Mr. abb1 something to whine about.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Seriously? Israel’s human rights issues aren’t that bad relative to a lot of countries, but you’re calling them the best of the best of the best? (just rewatched MiB)
A lot of countries do some fucked up shit, and Israel happens to be one of them. Just because they’ve been through some hard times in the past (to understate) doesn’t excuse their current behavior.
And while you’re ripping on the Irish, it should be noted that Ireland did come clean with what they have done, and have taken steps to prevent it from happening again. Although they haven’t thrown any of the bastards in prison, unfortunately. Give me a heads up when Israel decides to stop using ’stress positions’ and lays off on the collective punishment.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
The Durban fiasco and related cluster-fucks in the UN’s human rights apparatus did enormous damage to the UN’s ability to function in this arena. The opportunity cost is enormous, and how that weighs against the good she has done in her career is not a trivial or irrelevant matter.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Abe Foxman is systematically destroying the ADL. What a shame. They built up a reputation for integrity and principled defense of universal values over decades, and now Foxman is cashing that reputation in to buy a few short-term political chits on behalf of the Likudniks.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“I think it takes a pretty serious case of narcissism to reach the conclusion that this bill of particulars ought to outweigh a person’s entire career.”
On the contrary, I think it takes a pretty serious case of narcissism to pretend that the Durban conference, which Mary Robinson presided over, was simply an example of “criticizing Israeli behavior.” It was an antisemitic hatefest and a serious blight on her career. The issue deserved to be raised.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Root,
Could you please respond to David Bernstein’s specific criticisms of HRW? There is no evidence in your post to back up your assertions. As someone who has worked with HRW, do you have any specific information you can share that is relevant?
August 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
If the zionists would say:
“Yes, we were traumatized after the holocaust, but that is an excuse, not a good reason for what we did. We murdered and ethnically cleansed thousands of people so we could displace them from where they had lived for centuries. We then occupied their remaining territory and abused them terribly for decades.’
`But we recognize the injustice we have perpetrated and we now wish to set things right. So we will withdraw to the green line as our national border, we will compensate those we dispossesed and we will assist them in establishing their new government.”
If the zionists then followed those words with proper action, I think they would find that the vast majority of people everywhere would instantly applaud them and welcome them wholeheartedly as friends.
Anti-zionism would no longer thrive.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
So, we have a woman who has criticized anti-Semitism, did not join in the bashing of Israel at the Durban Conference, and criticized the Israel-bashing at the Durban Conference afterwards. The person putting together the bill of particulars raises all of these points.
Face it, there is no argument that Robinson did anything wrong except that she held a post at the UN – or, as the writer says, “…was part of a UN hierarchy.”
No, Likudniks, you don’t get to smear people as anti-Semites or fellow travelers or however many steps removed you’d care to make the accusation, merely for holding a UN post.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I don’t know the ins and outs of their position on Israel, but I will say this about HRW, on the basis of listening to their comments about Venezuela. That bunch of imperialist America wannabes can go f*ck a goat. Then they can go f*ck a pig. And if they’re still feeling randy after that, they can go f*ck a donkey. Bunch of effete hipster-p*ssies.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Here we go again, a whole thread full of people claiming that criticizing Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians = antisemitism.
August 4th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
And that any criticism of Israel is also “anti-Jewish.”
So the math equation is criticism of Israel = anti-Israel = anti-Semitic
August 4th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
“I will say this about HRW, on the basis of listening to their comments about Venezuela. That bunch of imperialist America wannabes can go f*ck a goat.”
I think this illustrates how good an organization HRW really is. People who believe it’s necessary to commit human rights violations to advance their agenda are invariably critical of HRW, but only as it applies to their specific agenda. And these people come in many forms. Some criticize HRW over Venezuela, some over Israel, some over Iran, some of Sudan, some over China, etc. Virtually every country commits some human rights violations, and those countries criticize HRW when HRW criticizes them. But how many right wingers ever criticize HRW over Vietnam? None. Everyone is willing to accept HRW when they point the finger elsewhere, but not when it points at them.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
David,
Bernstein has multiple criticisms, so I’ll just comment on a couple of the recent ones.
1. A HRW fundraising appearance in Saudi Arabia stuck him as not only hypocritical but also reeked of pro-Arab/anti-Israel sentiment. My answer to this is he did not know specifics of the event. This was a private event, with private donors and citizens who were themselves concerned with domestic human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia which were discussed in detail. HRW has never and will never accept government funding. This was not an Israel bash fest. HRW is one of the only, if not the only, human rights organization allowed into Saudi Arabia, something Amnesty is not able to do. HRW has issued nine reports on human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia in the last two years alone, let alone other Arab states. There is no bias – and it is important for HRW to maintain relationships and access to the country in order to document abuses. The fact that an excellently researched (I’m in research methodology) and condemning report of Israel’s use of white phosphorous in Gaza was discussed seemed to set him off.
2. Bernstein is obsessed with the concept of disproportionate attention paid to Israel by HRW. This is simply false. The country that HRW publishes the most on is actually the U.S. In the last year, two reports on IDF abuses and two reports on Hamas/Palestinian abuses have been issued. Also, one of the strongest human rights advocacy practices is naming and shaming governments. It is logical that this tactic can, and should be employed, against an abusive Israeli government more effectively than abusive militias and de-facto political groups such as Hamas and Hizbullah. Even though Isreal receives the same attention as the other groups, the Israeli government has greater legitimacy and therefore “naming and shaming” may be more effective. Either way, his accusations of disproportion are false.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
@22: If the zionists then followed those words with proper action, I think they would find that the vast majority of people everywhere would instantly applaud them and welcome them wholeheartedly as friends.
I certainly wouldn’t, because it’s an ethnocentric ideology.
There is no, and can’t be, ethnocentric ideology “with a human face”. It can’t exist. Just like nice Nazism is not possible, so isn’t nice Zionism.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Seems a little ironic to me–Abe Foxman says a person has anti-Israel bias, people say he means anti-Semitism, then bemoan how you can’t be anti-Israel without people saying you’re anti-Semitic. Really? Foxman’s said a lot of stupid things and this may be among them, but how on earth does saying she has “anti-Israel bias” and the appointment was “ill-advised” amount to seeing “an insidious plot against the Jewish people”?
It’s like you can’t point out anti-Israel bias without someone claiming you’re crying anti-Semitism every time someone criticizes Israel. God, this is getting confusing. I really wish we could deal with what people say *now*, rather than what “x people say every time someone says y.”
August 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Fostert – Right. That is where HRW gets its strength – their reputation is so strong because it is an equal-opportunity watchdog that is guided by international law and nothing else.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Forgive the intrusion, but you can find my above-referenced posts here.
I don’t think the primary issue is whether HRW “tries” to be objective. The issue is that if an organization hires political activists for the Palestinian side to run its Middle East program (which I document in my most recent post), even if they try to be objective, they are bound to slant their reporting to match their preexisting view of the conflict. And that’s the best case scenario.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
What they’re doing, of course, is making an accusation of anti-semitism worth absolutely nothing. I’m sure there are some actual jew-haters hiding in amongst the lefties who don’t care for the Israeli government’s actions, but screaming “antisemite!” every time someone points out what the Israelis are doing is exactly the wrong sort of thing.
Hector, c’mon. Uncle Hugo has been fortunate in his enemies to this point, but would his opponents have the unrestricted right to criticize him be such a bad thing.
And, you know who like to talk about fucking goats? Hipsters, that’s who.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
(and by slant, I include unconscious bias).
And Ivan is exactly right: while some Israel advocates are too quick to accuse others of anti-Semitism, the other side is now claiming that all criticism of opponents of Israel amounts to charges of anti-Semitism. I’ve had people accuse me of crying anti-Semitism after long posts in which I never mentioned anti-Semitism, and explicitly attributed other motives (like left-wing anti-colonialist ideology) to a particular critic of Israel. It’s a tactic used to shut people up, just like exaggerated charges of anti-Semitism.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Re: Hector, c’mon. Uncle Hugo has been fortunate in his enemies to this point, but would his opponents have the unrestricted right to criticize him be such a bad thing.
Given that his enemies tend to be a bunch of oligarchic fascist f*cks, you don’t seem to see the gravity of the situation. Would you give unrestricted freedom of speech rights to a bunch of Klansmen?
As Ernesto Guevara once said when asked about the lack of freedom of speech, “If your freedom of speech means the freedom to call a black man a n—, then we are very proud to be unfree.”
August 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
This is a rather ridiculous comparison as these institutions were run by the Catholic Church, not by the state, and have been subject to many years of legal action to provide justice for the victims. Also, Ireland has a population of under four million people. There were no ‘millions’ of abused children, there were many thousands and that is a stain on the Irish nation that we must bear, but I find it difficult to understand why that makes and Irish person’s opinion on Israeli policy somehow irrelevant.
Criticising the Israeli government is not equivalent to anti-semitism, and it’s pure sophistry to claim it is.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
“Waiting”?????
August 4th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“Would you give unrestricted freedom of speech rights to a bunch of Klansmen?”
Yes. The beauty of free speech is that it gives radicals and idiots enough rope to hang themselves. How many people have ever been won over by a KKK rally? And how many people have been really turned off by such rallies? I suspect the latter group is at least a hundred times larger. If the KKK wanted to be more popular, they’d hold fewer rallies and we’d forget that they exist.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
There are many, many evils in this world and even if you think Zionism is one of them, to spend a whole meeting just completely attacking Zionism while ignoring far greater evils (and allowing people/nations with motes in their eyes to criticize the splinter in Israel’s eye) is just too much and one does wonder the motivation why, someone as normally so much on the side of what is right and moral as Mary Robinson, was a party to such a blatant misplacing of priorities.
I’ve explained this to you before, DAS, but apparently you didn’t notice, so I guess I’ll just have to keep on repeating myself.
I’m not familiar with the Durban conference, but I’ll point out two things. First, of course people devote a “whole meeting” to something even though there are worse evils in the world, it happens all the time, AIDS might never have been the greatest evil in the world and yet it has been the subject of hundreds of meetings, what would you expect? And second, either I’m misunderstanding something very simple or you are, because I think you got the mote/splinter thing backwards.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
David,
Has it been you all along or is the earlier commenter “David” different?
The hiring process for researchers at HRW is extremely grueling and much of the vetting is concerned with potential bias. I would argue that those with knowledge and background of certain issues have the skills and contacts to make great researchers on those issues. Ex-military make good arms researchers and ex-immigration attorneys are strong researchers on US immigration policy. Who would you want researching security force abuses in Iran? A member of the government-controlled press or a journalist/activist who has condemned the security forces in the past?
Where bias can be eliminated is in the research methodology. If the research is rigorous and sound, and if what constitutes an abuse itself is determined by non-negotiable international law, the research findings should hold up to scrutiny. It’s all good to say “this report is biased because it was written by an activist” but if the research used strong methods to highlight something that actually occurred, that is actually an abuse, I don’t see how you can argue with this.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
“The issue is that if an organization hires political activists for the Palestinian side to run its Middle East program”
You mention one, so why the use of the plural? But looking at the larger issue, it makes sense to hire someone who is credible in Arab circles. In the Middle East division, most of the countries being criticized are Arab. Such criticism would be immediately rejected if it were coming from a pro-Israel activist like yourself. The only way to get a foot in the door in the Arab countries is to hire someone Arabs think will give them fair treatment. And it’s quite clear from HRW reports that this does not result in a lack of criticism of Arab states. The alternative would be to hire a pro-Israel activist. In that case, the Arabs would shut HRW out of their countries, and HRW’s reports on Israel would be as biased in favor of Israel as your own writings. In essence, there wouldn’t be a Middle East division. But that, of course, is what you want.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Cyrus,
DAS misquoted slightly- here is the original.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
I don’t know who the other David is. David is a very common name.
HRW’s Middle East director was hired while she was active in Pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel politics for the NY branch of the American-Arab Antidiscrimination Committee.
Joe Stork, the Deputy Director, is a longstanding foe of Israel who supports boycott of and divestment from Israel.
Another hire, who has since left, was previously a writer for “Electrohic Intifada.”
And so on.
And it’s not like HRW has even hired people with a record of pro-Israel activism for “balance.”
If HRW hired activists with the Zionist Organization of America and a pro-Israel Stork equivalent–say, Daniel Pipes–to run their Middle East operation, I’d say that Palestinian advocates would rightly be suspicious of their objectivity. And if they then went to a West Bank settlement to raise money for HRW, pitching their hostility to “Arabist forces” and their reports on Hamas, I’d say that would be grounds for additional suspicion. And if they consistently insulted their critics on the left, issued wildly disproportionate criticisms of the P.A., and had a history of relying on unconfirmed “eyewitness” reports of Israelis that turned out to false (see HRW and Sifra), I think the suspicions would be confirmed.
August 4th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that HRW should hire vermin like Daniel Pipes? He makes SLC look like a saint.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Right. We desperately need to find a balance between describing an anticolonial liberation movement on one side and a bunch of armed to the teeth racist settlers on the other. We wouldn’t want to be unfair to the armed to the teeth mad racist settlers. Armed to the teeth mad racist settlers might get upset and start crying.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I’m no relation nor have I ever met David Bernstein. I’m a chemist (not a lawyer) – so please don’t get me started on the abomination that is Cap and Trade.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Re: Yes. The beauty of free speech is that it gives radicals and idiots enough rope to hang themselves. How many people have ever been won over by a KKK rally? And how many people have been really turned off by such rallies? I suspect the latter group is at least a hundred times larger. If the KKK wanted to be more popular, they’d hold fewer rallies and we’d forget that they exist.
Fostert,
We have the luxury of saying that because the Klan is weak today. If this were 1922 and the Klan were murdering Black men left right and center, I suspect you would change your tune.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
The beauty of free speech is that if you have enough money you can corner the speech market. And then you make a large number of people believe the stupidest things.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I had the honor of meeting Mary Robinson once. On even a bad day, she has more humanity and compassion in one finger than Foxman will ever be able to summon no matter how long a life he leads.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
“If this were 1922 and the Klan were murdering Black men left right and center, I suspect you would change your tune.”
No, I wouldn’t. Murder is not free speech. If the KKK murders someone, they should be jailed for murder. If they something offensive, they should still be allowed to say it. It makes them look like the nut jobs they are. And when they hold rallies, they remind the rest of us that they still pose a danger and that we must be more vigilant in promoting human rights.
And it’s the same with you, Hector. Every time you spout off about how some people should have their free speech rights eliminated, it reminds me that there still are a great many people like yourself who do not support basic human rights. It reminds me of a simple statement attributed to Thomas Jefferson: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” We will always have to contend with those who what to take our freedoms away. And those who want to do so always say that they only want to take away the freedoms of bad people. But it eventually snowballs into a situation where everybody’s freedoms are taken away. I don’t like the KKK one bit, but I am glad they have the right to speak their mind. If we take their rights away, whose rights rights are next?
Before you ask anyone else to sacrifice their rights, you should be willing to give up your own rights. From your writings, you seem to be supportive of the Liberation Theology movement in South America (I am too, actually). But remember, they have frequently had their free speech rights taken away because their views were considered offensive. Did you support their rights being taken away? Surely not, and neither did I. And don’t even start with your usual moral absoluteness. Political and religious opinions are opinions, not objective fact. We cannot simply censor an opinion because we don’t like it. We can, however, sue for libel if the objective facts are wrong.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I believe we had the luxury of saying it in 1922 also. In addition to all that fostert said, saying “Niggers suck.” is protected, while “Hang ‘em boys.”, even if not followed through on, is not.
And yeah, for someone who doesn’t seem to mind limiting the right to speech, you do seem to talk a lot.
August 4th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Man, the more time I spend on this site, the worse my spelling gets. You are evil, Mr. Yglesias.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
On a more philosophical level, there really are only two fundamental rights: the right to free speech, and the right to a writ of habeas corpus. All other rights are secondary.
Without habeas corpus, the government can simply jail anyone without reason. England used to do so frequently despite habeas corpus rights being in the Magna Carta. Just ask the Quakers. Fortunately for them, William Penn was a Quaker and a very good lawyer. He was able to get the British Courts to admit that his people did in fact have habeas corpus rights. They had the added benefit of the King owing William Penn a hell of a lot of money.
Without free speech rights, nobody can complain when the government is violating any other rights. The government then has free reign to do as it pleases and just say it didn’t happen. And how can you say it did happen when you don’t have the right to say so?
In the end, your freedoms don’t mean much when you can only exercise them from a jail cell.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Fostert,
And if the Klan were seriously contesting an election, would you let them? I suspect not.
William F. Buckley once defended segregation and Jim Crow by saying, in essence, that preserving civilization was more important than preserving democracy. He had a point as far as that goes, but he was wrong to assume that Black people were the uncivilized ones. In truth it was the racist f*cks like Strom Thurmond and the Klansmen who were the uncivilized ones, and they are the ones who should have been suppressed by the state.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
What do you mean by contesting? Running a candidate like David Duke? Campaigning for one of the candidates? Demanding a recount in court? Burning crosses on a candidate’s (or voter’s) lawn?
August 4th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
“And if the Klan were seriously contesting an election, would you let them? I suspect not.”
Yes, I would certainly let them. And let’s face it, it wouldn’t make a difference. If there are enough racists in a community to put the KKK in contention, then the community probably is already a racist nightmare. Look at Alabama in the 1960s. Even with brutal segregation, lynchings, and a ridiculously hostile attitude towards blacks, the KKK still won very few elections. And they didn’t win any under their own banner. They just had some of their members elected through other parties. The problem back then wasn’t that racists could speak out, it was that the majority of people were racists. Taking away their right to participate in elections would only mean that racists would have to stay in the closet to win an election. But every Southern politician knows how to do that. They just use dog whistle phrases to appeal to their racist constituents. Jesse Helms was never a member of the KKK, but he was every bit as racist. And being racist is how he got elected. But note that he never ran as a KKK candidate, he ran as a Republican.
“William F. Buckley once defended segregation and Jim Crow by saying, in essence, that preserving civilization was more important than preserving democracy.”
And, like usual, he was wrong. Civilization can never be preserved through uncivilized methods. Allowing one group of people to deny another group the right to participate in the system will only lead to greater conflict. If people cannot participate in society through democratic means, they will participate through violence. And that is exactly the Palestinians are doing. Violence is the only path that is granted to them, so that’s the path they take. Give them the right to vote in the Israeli elections, and they’d be a lot less violent. Of course, they’d also control the Israeli government if they were allowed to vote.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
And yet, HRW regularly condemns Hamas, Fatah, and other Palestinian entities when they commit human rights abuses.
For all of this supposed lack of objectivity, you seem pretty thin on evidence that these “pro-Palestinian activists” are demonstrating any bias towards the Palestinians.
That people who work for HRW criticize a certain country for its human rights violations is not, in fact, evidence of their bias.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
And, Hector, I would add that even if a KKK member is elected, he still can’t violate the Constitution. If a racist elected official wants to segregate the schools, he’ll violate Brown v Board of Education. And he’ll quickly have federal marshals in his office. We’ve sent the federal government after racists before, and we can do it again.
August 4th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
One of the messier aspects of living in a free society, rather than Hector’s terrifying vision of utopia is that even speech that we disagree with must be defended. Actually, especially disgusting free speech; speech that is non-controversial doesn’t really need defending in the first place.
August 4th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
As an aside relevant to one of MY’s Ode-to-Scandinavia posts yesterday. My wife is Swedish and is shocked at some of the anti-minority speech she hears in the US. She often says that it would be considered hate speech in Sweden and wouldn’t be allowed. But I’m with fostert, I guess I’m just very American in the importance I place on freedom of speech, and the prospect of laws curtailing that– even for the benefit of some deservedly-protected minority group–is chilling.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Europe in general has much stricter controls on speech than those in north america, true. But I think its worth pointing out that Britain is sending BNP members to the european parliament. In other countries of europe, there are explicit white-power, neo-nazi groups sending representatives to state governments. I’m not familiar with conditions in Sweden, but in many eastern European countries, as well as places like Spain overt racism is a huge problem. I say this simply to point out that limiting hateful speech does not seem to do anything to eliminate it, rather it simply drives it underground where it festers. I think its better the way we deal with it here, have it out in the open where we can keep an eye on it.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Mary Robinson?
I hadn’t realized that the Medal of Freedom was being converted into a Stuff White People Like Lifetime Achievement Award.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
@Aqua Regia: There are some problems with racism here and some deep anti-immigrant sentiment (of the Steve Sailor sort). My impression, though, is that the hate speech legislation comes from the desire for a socially liberal (in the non-Millian sense) society. So the impulse is similar to the impulse behind generous parental leave legislation, e.g..
But I may be wrong; maybe a real Swede here can set me straight. In the meantime, it’s back to “Trazan & Banarne.”
August 4th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
And for those of you who don’t know the show, you can check out the awesome intro here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrq2EDvZfM
It’s amazing Gen-X Swedes aren’t stoned most of the time.
August 4th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
To give you an idea of what life is like without free speech, consider India. Now India has a mostly free press and is the world’s largest and most impressive democracy. But in India, not all speech is free. It is illegal to make statements that are religiously offensive. My criticisms of Christianity and Hector’s criticisms of Islam would be illegal in India. Last time I was in India, my traveling companion was scared to death of what I was writing. And for good reason, some of what I wrote was in fact illegal. After a few weeks I just told him to stop reading my writings and then he wouldn’t be complicit in my crimes. So how crazy do these laws get? During a three month trip, two famous actresses were arrested and faced criminal charges for statements they made. Both of them suggested that premarital sex was okay and that people should be allowed to choose their own spouses. That’s what it takes for criminal charges in a country without free speech. And that is why we have the First Amendment. And why we need to defend it with eternal vigilance.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Too many of Israel’s defenders remind me of old pro-Soviet fellow travelers (or current Cuba devotees), any evidence of Soviet human rights violations was met by evasion: look at all those anti-Semitic east European refugees? what about Jim Crow? invasion of Czechoslovakia response to WW2 trauma etc. etc.
August 5th, 2009 at 6:40 am
You are forgetting something in this post:
“The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.
A leader in the development of materials, programs and services, ADL builds bridges of communication, understanding and respect among diverse groups, carrying out its mission through a network of 30 Regional and Satellite Offices in the United States and abroad.”
So, the president of an organization devoted to fighting anti-semitism critizes someone for being anti-israel. The category error clearly is his. If he were not conflating anti-semitism with anti-zionism, then why would he object to something being “anti-israel”? It’s like accusing the US of being “anti-north korea”. That is only bad if the reason for it is bad. In Israel’s case, the presumed reason for opposing isreal is anti-semitism. People criticizing him in this thread are rightly recognizing these facts.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Re: It is illegal to make statements that are religiously offensive. My criticisms of Christianity and Hector’s criticisms of Islam would be illegal in India.
Fostert,
While such laws are on the books, people do make criticisms of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism in private conversation all the time. The laws are only really enforced against rather egregious examples of public blasphemy- ‘The Satanic Verses’ was banned, if I recall correctly. Public figures do make criticisms of Hinduism and Christianity, a lot- the laws are typically enforced more against criticisms of Islam. For understandable reasons, given the history.
It isn’t illegal to say things like “Hinduism is a feudal plot to keep the peasantry in their place’. Given that a lot of major politicial leaders over the last century- Ambedkar, Periyar, and others- said exactly this, it could hardly be made illegal.
Re: (or current Cuba devotees)
Geoff Robinson,
As one of those (qualified) defenders of Cuba, I propose that you join your Human Rights Watch buddies in a goat-f*cking orgy at the nearest farm.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:41 am
They had the added benefit of the King owing William Penn a hell of a lot of money. – fostert
This isn’t always a benefit. In the middle ages, when money-lending was one of the few things Jews were allowed to do, many spendthrift nobles ended up owing Jews a lot of money. When they couldn’t pay, they just stirred up popular sentiment against Jews and drove their creditors out of town (or let the mobs kill them).
August 5th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Too many of Israel’s defenders remind me of old pro-Soviet fellow travelers (or current Cuba devotees) – Geoff Robinson
Of course. Whilst too many people nowadays on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue forget this, Zionism is, in its roots, a left wing philosophy (so why do so many so called leftists today proudly proclaim their anti-Zionism). Moreover, the neo-cons are also rooted in the left even if their trunks, branches, etc. are on the right.
So why should this be surprising?
August 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
It’s not a left-wing ideology; racism can’t be left-wing.
It’s true that many Zionists were also socialists (’Jews-only’ sort of socialism), but so were the Nazis vis-a-vis their favorite ethnic group, and that still has nothing to do with the left.
August 5th, 2009 at 9:58 am
If the zionists then followed those words with proper action, I think they would find that the vast majority of people everywhere would instantly applaud them and welcome them wholeheartedly as friends.
Anti-zionism would no longer thrive. – ron
Do people really believe this?
If anything, one could argue the occupation and settlements were a success because before them, people like Ron wanted Israel no longer to exist. Now they would be happy (so they claim) if Israel went back to its pre-1968 borders? And those borders allowed for so much peace?
Nu? If Israel went back to its pre-1968 borders, etc., how much do ya wanna bet that people like Ron would turn around and say “see, Zionism is evil, even the Zionists admit it”.
BTW — does Ron really think that Jews should have such limited access, as Jews had (if they had access at all pre-1968), to holy sites that have been Jewish long before a single Arab speaking Palestinian existed?
*
BTW — anybody know what really happened in re. the “diary” linked to by abb1? The Israeli army has done some pretty shitty things, but when Israel does something like this (which alas they have done such horrid things), there is plenty of hews and cries even within Israel itself … and we all hear about it. I’ve not heard of this, so I am calling B.S. My guess is that the army was fired upon and they fired back: certainly the Israeli army needs better rules of engagement, but usually when one is fired upon, one is allowed to fire back.
Also, abb1 may wish to ask himself why these Palestinians are still in refugee camps? Plenty of people fled foreign armies and mobs in the mid/late 1940s as new borders were drawn, including as many Jews fleeing from Arab countries as Palestinians fleeing from the nascent state of Israel. And yet we only hear of Palestinian refugees? Why is that? Perhaps we should wonder about the role of the UN here as well as of Arab occupiers of Gaza/the West Bank as well as of Israel?
August 5th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Whilst too many people nowadays on both sides of the Israel/Palestine issue forget this, Zionism is, in its roots, a left wing philosophy (so why do so many so called leftists today proudly proclaim their anti-Zionism).
I don’t proudly proclaim much of anything, but if I were to start, I guess anti-Zionism would be right up there when it is on topic such as in this comment thread, and wouldn’t even come to mind in other situations. And your lack of punctuation makes it harder to figure out what you’re saying, but the bit in parentheses was a question, right? If so, you’ll find the answer in my old comment. Don’t make me link to it again. I can copy-paste just as fast as you can disingenuously insinuate calumny.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Moral authority isn’t hereditary it has to keep being earned anew. – AVS
And what has Europe done to re-earn its moral authority with respect to us Jews?
Don’t get me wrong, there are many things good about Europe (which we in the US would do well to emulate — I am as much of a socialist Euro-weenie as they come!). And certainly most Europeans are, if anything, less anti-Semitic than your so-called pro-Israeli so-called Christian ‘Murkins. But Europe still has much to pay (literally) for the Holocaust and for previous anti-Semitism.
Jews settled in Israel because we were personae non gratae in Europe. It is true that now we are “welcome” there. But has Europe payed us back for the Holocaust? Can Jews driven out of Europe by Cossacks or Nazis or whomever come back, get our old land back? Our valuables back?
Let’s not live in some magical cloud cuckoo land here. In the late 1940s a lot of people, for better or worse, got booted from their land. In the 20th century a lot of nation-states were formed, which were allowed to establish defensible borders. And yet Israel, a state founded by Jews in a land associated with Judaism since the dawn of the Hebrew people (one could argue that Palestinians are “illegal settlers”) is behaving “illegally” for allowing settlements in a place called Hebron? For occupying Jerusalem, toward which we Jews have prayed for well over a thousand years as our Holy City? Sheeze people.
Do you guys even know what Zionism is? Hint — it is not a colonial plot to oppress brown people.
August 5th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Thank you Hector for correcting my quote. I think, however, Cyrus, my point still stands.
As to Durban, was the whole point of the conference supposed to be to decry Zionism? No … it was to decry racism, etc. And Zionism is the most racist ideology ever? Is Palestinian nationalism racist (would a Jew be welcomed in a Palestinian state? Non-Jewish Arabs are citizens in Israel)? What makes one nationalism more racist than another?
Yes, Israel is doing what it is doing now. Yes, many of Israel’s actions are condemnable (and SLC will tell ya, I’ve been quite comfortable condemning them … heck, I’m not even a Zionist as I have huge theological issues with that ideology, so I am certainly not saying that all condemnation of Israel or Zionism is anti-Semitic).
What is anti-Semitic the selective failure of empathy among so-called leftists who normally claim to be all about empathy and listening to alternative narratives. Why the insistence on viewing Zionism only through the lens of being a “colonialist movement”? Why the condemnation of Israel for what are, if disproportionate and ultimately counterproductive, acts of national self-defense that are allowed of any other nation? Why the happiness with nation states (including a Palestinian state — and let’s make no mistake, the one-state solution so favored by many so-called leftists, would be a de facto Palestinian state) except for Israel? What is different about Israel? Heck, the US funds many countries that do things we don’t like … again what is different about Israel?
Jews were an oppressed people. Some Jews decided to solve the problem by setting up their own state. Non-Jews fled this nascent state whilst Jews were driven out of the neighbors of this state. Since then, the state has been under almost constant siege. And now the so-called champions of the oppressed on the so-called left decide they won’t stomach Israel trying to expand itself into more reasonable borders, which action other nation states were allowed? Why the sudden change when it’s time for us Jews to have our turn at state-craft? And why not a shred of empathy for Jewish oppression (and denial of why Israel exists in the first place)? Why cover your ears and go “nanny-nanny-nah-nah” instead of even listening to the Zionist narrative?
August 5th, 2009 at 11:45 am
1. Palestinians were driven out of Israel.
2. Israel trying to “expand itself into more reasonable borders” entails taking away land from Palestinians and pushing them into more unreasonable borders. If you can’t see how that is wrong, than you are in fact a racist and truly have no empathy for the Palestinians. Furthermore, since the formation of the UN, states have NOT been allowed to just expand at the expense of other countries’ territory. If you haven’t heard, the rules have changed. That’s probably the biggest development in international relations in the 20th century, in case you didn’t know.
3. regarding attention to jewish suffering, I will bet you 1000 dollars that there have been more books, movies, and public discourse/exposure about jewish suffering and the holocaust than any other group in existence. Regardless, I’ve been to Israel many times. Israeli teenagers go to nightclubs, hang out, throw parties on the beach, go backpacking in thailand and india… Palestinian teenagers dodge bullets and live in a choking atmosphere of oppression and poverty ever-present in their daily lives.
Clearly you have no empathy, and only care about your ethnic clan. You are either completely deluded, or indeed a racist.
Let’s talk about the Armenians next time. They deserve some attention, and unlike the jews, they really haven’t gotten much sympathy and recognition for what they went through. (Incidentally, the Israeli government denies that the Armenian genocide was a genocide, go figure)
August 5th, 2009 at 11:52 am
And yet Israel, a state founded by Jews in a land associated with Judaism since the dawn of the Hebrew people (one could argue that Palestinians are “illegal settlers”) is behaving “illegally” for allowing settlements in a place called Hebron?
From Wikipedia’s page on Hebron: “The name “Hebron” traces back to two West Semitic roots, which coalesce in the form ḥbr, having reflexes in Hebrew, Amorite and Arabic, and denoting a range of meanings from ‘colleague’, ‘unite’, ‘friend’ or ‘to be noisy’. In the proper name Hebron, the sense may be alliance.” From Wikipedia’s page on Hebrew: “The modern word “Hebrew” is derived from the word “ivri” which in turn may be based upon the root “`avar” (עבר) meaning “to cross over”.”
In other words, the similarity is coincidental. (You aren’t assigning significance to the mere fact that the place has a Hebrew name at all, are you? That would be really ridiculous.)
Even if the similarity weren’t coincidental, though, you undermine your argument by basing it on ancient history. You know, it’s taken me a while to write this, because mentally I compare it to American Indians or whatever, other groups that still exist but have been displaced from their homelands, in some cases even pretty recently, but you don’t make it easy when you argue that a claim over a thousand years old on a certain plot of land could be taken as seriously as a claim less than a century old. Why not just claim that Israel should be where it is because that’s what God promised?
What is different about Israel?
Name one other country in the world today which is (a) funded to a large degree by and has one-sided support in the U.S. government, (b) exercises sovereign authority over millions of stateless people, as someone put it upthread, (c) is nominally a liberal democracy and therefore should know better, (d) is engaged in an ongoing political fiasco with a neighbor that (e) fuels unrest in other countries throughout its region, and (f) was founded in living memory, directly creating that stateless people problem. Name one. Hell, name one other country that meets even five of those six conditions. (The U.S. itself probably does, and indeed left-wingers criticize the U.S. quite a bit.) If you can, then I promise I’ll do my best to mention that other country or countries every time I see Zionism getting criticized on this blog. If you can’t, then please concede that Israel’s situation really is unique, and please stop insinuating that Israel’s critics are motivated by anti-Semitism.
August 5th, 2009 at 11:54 am
(The U.S. itself probably does, and indeed left-wingers criticize the U.S. quite a bit.)
… and, it goes without saying, could always do so more, but no one’s perfect and all that.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
If you can’t, then please concede that Israel’s situation really is unique, and please stop insinuating that Israel’s critics are motivated by anti-Semitism.
And, just to cover my ass more, “unique” doesn’t mean “worst” or “most harmful” or whatever, it merely means “unique,” which by itself and especially in these ways is sufficient to get attention and explain the criticism aimed at Israel, without imputing anti-Semitism to people.
August 6th, 2009 at 1:06 am
“There’s only one evil of this sort armed with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; having been involved in ethnic cleansing for 60+ years, and military occupation (not to mention direct extermination from time to time) for 40+ years. There’s only one of those.”
China? Turkey?
August 6th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Sorry, sorry…Turkey has no nukes (apart perhaps from a few of ours). & their genocide was longer ago. Occupation’s still going strong.
August 6th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Re: Let’s talk about the Armenians next time. They deserve some attention, and unlike the jews, they really haven’t gotten much sympathy and recognition for what they went through. (Incidentally, the Israeli government denies that the Armenian genocide was a genocide, go figure)
I am as much a fanatical partisan of Armenia as the next man, but Armenia does have a homeland, albeit a small, landlocked one under threat by their American-backed Azerbaijiani neighbors.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Incidentally, and obvious coincidentally, so does Abe Foxman of the once-revered Anti-Defamation League.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Perhaps in the past they didn’t. But the Armenians have a homeland because they never left it. Regardless, the Jewish people do have a homeland now, so they’re on similar footing.
August 9th, 2009 at 12:33 am
“Israel trying to ‘expand itself into more reasonable borders’ entails taking away land from Palestinians and pushing them into more unreasonable borders. If you can’t see how that is wrong, than you are in fact a racist and truly have no empathy for the Palestinians. Furthermore, since the formation of the UN, states have NOT been allowed to just expand at the expense of other countries’ territory. If you haven’t heard, the rules have changed. That’s probably the biggest development in international relations in the 20th century, in case you didn’t know.”
At the expense of which country has Israel expanded its territory? That’s not a trivial question. International law certainly permits permanent annexation of territory under specified conditions. One of these conditions used to be military conquest. Most agree that today, conquest is not sufficient to justify annexation on the grounds that such annexation would violate article 2 of the UN charter. But conquest might justify annexation when the military action is consistent with article 2 (e.g., where it is justified as self-defense). In any event, cession, occupation, accretion and prescription still provide good grounds for annexation. One can argue that the absence of any other sovereign in the West Bank permits Israel to annex as a result of occupation, without need to resort to a claim of conquest.
In fact, Israel has not proposed to annex the West Bank. Rather it has proposed annexing a small part of that territory (something in the order of 5%), compensating the Palestinians with equivalent land elsewhere. This is certainly consistent with article 2 of the UN charter and UNSC Resolution 242. Nor do I see anything that is racist about this.