Erick Stakelbeck of CBN has a compelling report on the Mary Robinson fiasco. Meanwhile, the World Jewish Congress puts out a statement:
We are deeply troubled that the White House has chosen to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. During her tenure, she presided over the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001, which deteriorated from a conference intended to combat racism into a platform for demonstrations of hostility to Israel and the Jewish people unprecedented in an event convened by the international body. At that time, Ms. Robinson could have done much to prevent the debacle but instead chose to legitimize it. The United States boycotted Durban in 2001 over the events that transpired there and the final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism. Indeed, the Durban final outcome document was re-affirmed at the Durban Review Conference held in Geneva in April 2009, which was not attended by the United States precisely because of the affirmation of this document.
Ms. Robinson’s tenure at the UNCHR featured much anti-Israel activity, including distorted condemnatory reports and statements, an endorsement of Palestinian violence as legitimate political activity, and the outrageous equating of the Holocaust to the suffering of the Palestinians. We believe that her performance in the UNCHR renders her unqualified to receive the nation’s highest civilian honor.
A week after the controversy arose, the New York Times reports on the firestorm: “President Obama’s decision to bestow one of the nation’s highest honors on Mary Robinson, the first woman to serve as Ireland’s president, has touched off protests by Jewish groups and lawmakers, who claim she has shown a persistent anti-Israel bias in her work as a human rights advocate.” As for Robinson, she avoids any specifics and sticks to her talking point: “This is old, recycled, untrue stuff.” What is untrue — the condemnation by Tom Lantos and Elie Wiesel? Her celebration of Durban for years after the hate-fest?
She adds: “I have been very critical of the Palestinian side. My conduct continues to be on the side of tackling anti-Semitism and discrimination.” One wonders why none of that manifested itself at Durban 1. (One wonders even further: Is this the extent of the grilling from the New York Times?)
However this award debacle unfolds — be it retraction or apology or stubborn insistence on barreling through with a controversy-ridden ceremony — it seems that a line has been crossed. Until now, Jewish organizations have been disinclined, even after substantial provocation, to take on the president. Give him the benefit of the doubt. He really gets it, honest. Well, let’s see if we can work quietly with the administration. All such sentiments — and the pure desire to maintain access and cordiality — prevented mainstream Jewish organizations and elected Jewish leaders from airing sharp criticism. But this is different.
An affront too great and glaring to be wished away has surfaced. The inhibition on speaking out against an administration hostile toward Israel has been lifted. Once broken, perhaps it will become a habit — one of candid and honest criticism, of refusal to accept the unacceptable, and of willingness to explain to an administration (which is apparently far denser than even its harshest critics imagined) exactly how it errs. If so, the Mary Robinson award may prove far more politically damaging than the Obama team ever imagined.
