On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I tend to agree with Richard Cohen. It is possible to criticize Israel > without being anti-Semitic. However, I do not believe this is the case with > most critics of Israel. Few of them ever criticize anyone else for doing > things far worse than what they accuse Israel of doing. Few of them > acknowledge the crimes committed against Israel or that the Israelis are, as > I've said numerous times, scared out of their minds. A little balance would > go a long way to convince Israelis that the critics simply don't mean them > ill.
In general I agree, but I don't feel comforable wielding the anti-semitism brush too broadly. I think a lot of Israel's criticism may stem from the fact that we think of it as a western nation and want to hold it to higher standards than we expect many less advanced nations to follow. A comparison might be the way Europe tends to criticize the US for maintaining the death penalty more than it might criticize some regimes around the world that are considerably worse. The point is not that the US is so very horrible as such, but that they hope to see the US meet a much higher standard. (Whether the nations of Europe consistently meet such a high standard themselves would be another topic for debate.) > <<and > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64779-2002Apr28.html > This is a rebuttal to Krauthammer's editorial's description of Mr. > Cornelio Sommaruga of the ICRC. I wonder who's right? >> > > > Quoting from the letter: > > "In fact these are two distinct bodies. The ICRC has only individual members, > who are all Swiss nationals, so there could be no question of the MDA being > admitted to it. As head of the ICRC Mr. Sommaruga did, however, fight for 13 > years to create the legal basis for recognition of the MDA, and -- as Israeli > officials have testified -- he was behind a compromise that would have > allowed the MDA to join the international federation in 2000. Sadly, the > meeting at which this should have happened was postponed after the current > violence broke out, and it has not yet been rescheduled." > > But why did he have to fight for 13 years? Why wasn't the MDA simply > recognized a long time ago? (I really don't know; does anyone?) That's an excellent question, and the UN's statement begs the obvious question: why did the Palestinians' decision to start an Intifada interfere with the Red Cross's talks with Israel? Was the postponement mutual? Was it one-sided? Etc. > "The second allegation, or insinuation, relates to a conversation Mr. > Sommaruga had with Bernadine Healy, then president of the American Red Cross, > in 1999, when he asked her rhetorically whether she would be ready to accept > a red swastika, which had been requested by an Asian country as a Buddhist > and Hindu symbol. Alan Baker, legal adviser to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, > was present during this conversation. The Jerusalem Post said, quoting Mr. > Baker, that "using this comment to allegedly show an anti-Jewish bias on > [Mr.] Sommaruga's part 'is a vile manipulation of something said in a > different context.' " > > I'm sorry, asking that kind of question, even rhetorically, shows monumental > insensitivity. He should have known better. I hope he apologized. I think the point of the UN's letter is that Sommaruga didn't actually make the comparison of swastika and Star of David that Krauthammer alleges. It implies that Sommaruga at some point argued that accepting even a Hindu/Buddhist swastika -- a symbol which itself ought to be innocuous -- would be inappropriate given that symbol's despicable misuse in the west. It also implies that the allegation Krauthammer reported was discredited long ago by an interview in the Jerusalem Post. That is why I wonder which version Mr. Sommaruga's character is closer to the truth. A cursory web search hasn't revealed to me anything particularly damning. > In any case, I am willing to accept that he is not an objectionable person. I > think Israel should admit the fact-finding mission, but I can understand > their assuming that it's just another excuse for the rest of the world to > pick on Israel. Why is there no fact-finding mission into how the Arabs can > keep sending suicide bombers into Israel despite the PA's legal > responsibility to stop it? I'm torn on this. On the one hand, Israel must be as transparent as possible -- it's the only way to maintain moral credibility. On the other hand, based on what I've read the proposed UN mission did seem lopsided, designed to investigate Israel's actions but not the context in which they were undertaken. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
