Is it amnesia or Amnesty?

[msmcghee]

By Dr. Charles Jacobs
Friday January 25, 2008

When even Israel’s far-left Rabbis for Human Rights warn that the 2009 UN Conference on Racism could turn into an anti-Israel hate fest like the 2001 Durban affair, then all of us should worry.

After my column on “Durban II,” Joshua Rubenstein, head of New England’s chapter of Amnesty International, berated me in the Advocate for criticizing his organization’s role as enablers of anti-Israel campaigns. He said Amnesty really couldn’t do much about the 2001 UN Durban Conference, where Jews and Jewish nationalism were targeted viciously and defamed. But that’s just not true: Amnesty could have walked out – even if that meant following the lead of the U.S. State Department and, gasp, the Israeli delegation. Instead, Amnesty stayed and pretended that this was noble or courageous. But abandoning the Jews to the Durban mob was ignoble and cowardly.

The claims of Amnesty officials notwithstanding, none of the delegates who attended the NGO Forum at Durban provided any evidence that Amnesty officials actively opposed the anti-Israel agenda, which was adopted by consensus, in the first place. This time around, shouldn’t they be asked to do more than meekly regret their failure to, in Rubenstein’s words, “head off the ugly incidents that in fact did take place?” Here’s what we should ask:

Will Amnesty work to ensure that the same defamation of Jews won’t happen at the 2009 Conference? Will Amnesty see to it that its obsessive and one-sided reporting on Israel won’t be used as a bludgeon in the planning for the next Durban conference? In the all-important preparatory committees, now in progress, will Amnesty try to ensure that all human rights issues will be discussed and not just the Arab-Muslim strategy of “boycott, divestment and sanctions” of “apartheid” Israel? Oh, and will Amnesty say publicly if it intends to abide by the UN Resolution (sponsored by the Islamic Conference – the most powerful UN voting bloc) that prohibits attributing to Islamism any abuse of human rights, even when the abusers are following Islamic law or custom (take, for just one small example, the murder of apostates)?

Full article

[mike_c]

1. more propaganda equating opposition to Israli national policy...

...with "abandoning the Jews to the Durban mob" and "defamation of Jews." Which ethnic or religious group are we defaming when we criticise U.S. policy?

[LeftishBrit]

2. Frankly, this article...

takes about as unbiased and objective a view of Amnesty International as anti-Israel people generally do of Israel.

Amnesty International condemns human rights abuses worldwide, including those carried out by the Muslim Right in Islamic countries. Here are just a handful of examples. (The third link, to an interview with Nobel prizewinner Shirin Ebadi, may be of particular interest to many here.)

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=13726

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10594&ArticleID=2657

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=10634&ArticleID=2690

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/events_details.asp?ID=107

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15562

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17604

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15440

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17558

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16073


This includes violence by Hamas and other Palestinian organizations:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15571

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=15268

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16779

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17383



They are particularly active with regard to events in Sudan and the horrors of Darfur:

http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=910&ArticleID=910


I do think that they should dissociate themselves from Durban unless they are sure that antisemitic elements won't get out of control again; but this hardly makes it a selective organization that only ever criticizes Israel.

[msmcghee]

3. As I read it - this article specifically addressed . .

. . AI's participation without protest at the last Durban meeting and asked what they were going to do this time - and listed some suggestions.

Nowhere in the article does the author claim that AI does not criticize Arab or Palestinian human rights abuses in other venues. The article is only about the last Durban conference and the next one. Is there something in that context - the articles context - that you find untruthful or biased on the author's part?

[bemildred]

4. Surely you are not advocating a boycott of the meeting?

Boycotts are unfair and counterproductive.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Total boycotts of countries are usually unfair and counterproductive

Boycotts of meetings and specific activities are another matter.

E.g. I would certainly boycott a Likud meeting, or meeting held in support of the settlers, if I were asked to attend one; not that it's very likely that I would be.

[bemildred]

7. Well, yeah, actually I think boycotts are great in any circumstances.

A fine and legal way to express you opinions, and very democratic by its nature too. It is true that when you boycott great big collections of people or nations or whatnot you expose yourself to various criticisms, which I do not propose to go over again here, but the fact is you are perfectly within your rights and people do exactly that all the time without much fuss and bother. When you turn it into a public campaign, of course, you invite counter-measures of various sorts.

[LeftishBrit]

6. It's my interpretation of the statements...

'Will Amnesty see to it that its obsessive and one-sided reporting on Israel won’t be used as a bludgeon in the planning for the next Durban conference? .... Oh, and will Amnesty say publicly if it intends to abide by the UN Resolution (sponsored by the Islamic Conference – the most powerful UN voting bloc) that prohibits attributing to Islamism any abuse of human rights, even when the abusers are following Islamic law or custom (take, for just one small example, the murder of apostates)?'

Since Amnesty so clearly and publicly do not abide by this UN resolution, this question seems strange. Also, I do not find their reporting on Israel 'obessive and one-sided' as compared with their reporting on many issues. It may be that some news media are more inclined to report Amnesty comments on Israel than other issues, because of their own biases, but that does not mean that Amnesty obsesses with Israel.