The Mary Robinson Conundrum
Being president is all about sending messages. When it comes to the Middle East, everybody knows that indirect messages can carry at least much weight as the direct ones.
So it’s not surprising a whole lot of people are trying to figure out just what President Obama meant by selecting Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as one of 16 recipients of the Medal of Freedom. And others think they know and are trying to spin the rest of us.
For many pro-Israel activists, the selection was loaded down with unwelcome significance.
It’s not just that Robinson is seen as biased against Israel; what has made her name a lightning rod is her personal identification with a 2001 UN conference on racism in Durban, South Africa that was hijacked and turned into a grotesque festival of overt anti-Semitism, right down to the distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
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.
She has spoken out extensively against anti-Semitism, but was also part of a UN human rights hierarchy that demonized, and didn’t just criticize, Israel.
So was there a message implicit in her selection, or was it just a misstep by administration officials who thought nobody would care too much about honoring Robinson among 15 other recipients, including the actress Chita Rivera and tennis player Billie Jean King?
The dumb move theory isn’t exactly a slam dunk.
This administration has had plenty of time to learn the ins and outs of vetting, and top officials at the White House have accumulated lots of experience in dealing with the special sensitivities of the Jewish community. It’s hard to swallow the idea that they didn’t expect Jewish groups to react negatively (on Monday, the ADL did; here’s a link to their press release).
But if it was a message, what was its meaning?
Some argue that her selection was meant as one more signal to the Arab and Muslim world that Washington and Jerusalem don’t walk in lockstep, another follow up to Obama’s outreach speech in Cairo.
But I’m guessing not. This is a part of the world where messages are usually delivered with a blow torch; while Robinson’s name conjures up memories of skewed U.N. policies and the Durban to many Jews, most of the rest of the world remembers her primarily for her human rights work in other areas and her groundbreaking political career in Ireland.
In other words: selecting Mary Robinson for a presidential medal isn’t going to convince many in the Arab world that Obama is their new best friend.
Some partisan Republicans are calling reporters and arguing that her selection was meant as this administration’s equivalent of a former Republican secretary of state’s “bleep the Jews” comment.
Sorry, no sale; in other areas the administration is showing they care a lot about the views of American and Israeli Jews. That’s why they’re mounting a major PR offensive to explain policies they believe have been misunderstood.
I can’t imagine anybody over on Pennsylvania Ave. believes giving Robinson the nation’s highest civilian honor will contribute to those goals.
And another honoree is the late Jack Kemp – the former pro football quarterback, congressman, HUD secretary, Republican vice presidential candidate – and pro-Israel hardliner. It would be hard to find a politician more revered by the very same pro-Israel leaders who are the most upset about Robinson.
So if there was a message here, it was a pretty garbled one.
If you’re following my logic, you’ve probably guessed by now that I don’t have an answer. My hunch is that the people making the decision concluded it wouldn’t be a big deal, and that the only Jews who’d be bent out of shape are those who already think Obama has it in for Israel.
But I also know that among a pro-Israel leadership that has become steadily more uncomfortable with Obama administration positions on Israel and anxious about what comes next, the decision to honor Robinson will inevitably make things worse.
Tags: Durban conference, Obama, Robinson, UN
August 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
This is not a dumb move. On the tiniest fringe of a fringe will have the slightest objection to honoring the most honorable Ms. Robinson.
August 5th, 2009 at 12:13 am
“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.”
The same credible case could have been made against anyone who might have chaired that meeting.
“Shimon Samuels, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris, said that after he showed Robinson the booklet, she stood up, waved it and said, “This conference is aimed at achieving human dignity. My husband is a cartoonist, I love political cartoons, but when I see the racism in this cartoon booklet, of the Arab Lawyers’ Union, I must say that I am a Jew - for those victims are hurting. I know that you people will not understand easily, but you are my friends, so I tell you that I am a Jew, and I will not accept this fractiousness to torpedo the conference.”
And fanatical groups like the ADL are prone react negatively to anything they may perceive lacks respect to their believed importance.
But as you insinuate Mary Robinson merits an award like this for all that she has achieved.
August 15th, 2009 at 7:57 am
There is a certain small section of the Jewish community which feels that, unless you are 100% behind every move Israel makes you are an anti-semite. Mary Robinson has done wonderful work and deserves every honour given to her.