I understand why many pro-Israel groups are upset that Mary Robinson, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, is getting the Medal of Freedom  (See this earlier Political Insider entry here).

The problem, in my view, is that some are fighting a losing battle that is unlikely to contribute to the overall goals of the pro-Israel movement.
The issue isn’t a simple one.

I don’t think Robinson is anti-Semitic; I do think the record shows she didn’t heed abundant warnings that the UN Conference on racism, which occurred under her watch, was shaping up as a out-of-control Israel bashing session.   She did recognize and criticize the anti-Semitism that turned the conference into a mockery; I suspect critics who say she didn’t respond strongly or publicly enough are correct.

I also think the decision to give her the medal was an unsmart move, to put it charitably, by an administration that is trying to calm concerns in the pro-Israel leadership about President Obama’s Middle East intentions and remedy a lack of outreach to Israeli voters, a complication in his plans to resurrect Middle East peace negotiations.

This week the Robinson issue escalated with an unusual blast from AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, which called on Obama to “”firmly, fully and publicly repudiate” the honoree’s views on Israel. A bunch of other groups are also weighing in.

But what, exactly, do the critics expect to happen?

There’s no way President Obama is going to simply say “Sorry, it was a mistake, you can’t have the award after all,” especially since other aspects of her public career make her at least as deserving of the award as other recipients (I mean, really, Chita Rivera, the dancer?)

Robinson is revered in many circles – not for Durban or for anything relating to Israel, but for her human rights work and her status as Ireland’s first female president.

It seems unlikely Obama is going to stand up before the cameras and say “hey, I selected her for her role in other human rights areas, but her views on Israel stink.”

The problem is magnified by the fact that, beyond the legitimate criticism of her record,  the issue is being stirred up by activists and organizations with a strong vested interest in discord between pro-Israel forces and an Obama administration they detest.

So what is the correct response if you’re a Jewish leader who thinks honoring Robinson for her laudable efforts in other parts of the world serves to legitimize her Israel views and her involvement in Durban?

I’m not sure (I’m a journalist, not a high-paid Jewish executive), but I suspect groups that genuinely object to the decision to award the medal to Robinson should simply express disappointment, explain the reasons – and shut up.

The initial criticism was legitimate; I suspect mainstream pro-Israel leaders had no choice, given the emotional punch the Durban fiasco continues to pack in the Jewish community.

But going to war against the administration on this is a lose-lose proposition; the only winners will be those who, for reasons of partisanship or ideology, want to drive the biggest possible wedge between the administration and Israel.