Anne Bayefsky: Never Again? The U.N. gets a P.R. boost [will be costly to Israel]

NRO ^ | January 27, 2005 | Anne Bayefsky

[Tolik]

On Monday, the United Nations marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp with a day-long special session of the U.N. General Assembly, followed by the opening of an exhibition. Throughout the event, the words "never again" were repeated many times. But what exactly did they mean to U.N. members and officials?

Here is the cynical response: They meant that the secretary-general has been seriously weakened by the Oil-for-Food scandal and ongoing congressional and criminal investigations, as well as the sexual abuse of refugees in the Congo by U.N. peacekeepers and the mishandling of sexual-harassment charges in-house. A secretary-general seeking to serve out his remaining two years in office finds throwing something toward the Jews, in the form of commemorating a 60-year-old catastrophe, a relatively inexpensive means of redemption.

The scope of the exercise was strictly controlled. The Europeans agreed to promote the special session on the condition that there were no resolutions and no final declaration — in other words no lasting statement of purpose or resolve. They were not prepared to do battle with Arab and Muslim states over texts or outcomes. Not a single substantive U.N. document was distributed. The ground rules for the special sessions of the General Assembly for the previous decade were completely different — this one would be "commemorative" only.

One hundred thirty-eight U.N. members agreed with the proposition to hold the special session, and one more decided to speak at the actual event. Of the remaining 50 U.N. members, half were from the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

U.N. member states delivered 41 speeches over the course of the day. Only five of those speeches mentioned Israel. Even the speeches of the United States, the European Union, Canada, and Australia failed to refer to Israel. Nobel-laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Weisel, who spoke at the outset, mentioned Israel once; citing a number of examples of steps that the allies might have taken, he added "if Britain had allowed more Jews to return to Palestine, now Israel, their ancestral land...it would have prevented or reduced the scope of the tragedy." Weisel also called for condemnation and prosecution of suicide-terrorism as a crime against humanity (without mentioning the context).

An evening reception brought hundreds of Jews to the public entrance of the U.N. where an exhibit containing photographs and artwork from Yad Vashem was unveiled. Walking through it, one comes across the word "Israel" on one occasion, in the last sentence, which reads: "Most of the Holocaust survivors immigrated to the state of Israel after its establishment in 1945 following a resolution of the United Nations." When the exhibit was opened, the assembled crowd sang Hatikva, the Israeli national anthem — although this breach of U.N. protocol is said to have been approved on the grounds that the song was for all victims of the Holocaust.

The rules of the game were articulated by U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz while speaking on behalf of the United States: "We have agreed today to set aside contemporary political issues, in order to reflect on those events of 60 years ago in a spirit of unanimity." And except for an indirect comment by Jordan and a direct reference to Palestinians by Venezuela during the day's speeches, the game plan was followed.

The upshot? The United Nations looks better in the eyes of many. The secretary-general improved his image. Israel, the perpetual U.N.-loser, was queen-for-a-day.

But the nagging question is, where does this leave "never again"?

Widening the lens, we notice that last month the U.N. adopted 22 resolutions condemning the state of Israel, and four country-specific resolutions criticizing the human-rights records of the other 190 U.N. member states. Also in December the public entrance of the U.N. sported the annual solidarity with the Palestinian people exhibit, featuring a display about Palestinian humiliation at having to bare midriffs at Israeli checkpoints. (No mention was made of the purpose of the checkpoints or the Israelis who have died from suicide belts on Palestinians who circumvent them.) On exactly the same day that the secretary-general announced the holding of the commemorative session, January 11, 2005, he also pushed forward the U.N. plan to create a register of the Palestinian victims of Israel's non-violent security fence. (There are no plans to create a register of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism.) In March the U.N. will begin its annual session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, at which Israel will be the only U.N. member state not allowed to participate in full because U.N. states continue to prevent it from gaining equal membership in a regional group. The U.N. remains without a definition of terrorism, never having transformed the names of Palestinian terrorists from abstract entities into the targets of specific U.N. condemnation or consequences of any kind. And any day now we can expect the secretary-general to continue his pattern of denouncing Israel's lawful exercise of self-defense as "extrajudicial killing" or as a morally reprehensible contribution to "a cycle of violence." In other words, U.N. demonization of Israel and the green light to the killers of Israelis that such demonization portends will not skip a beat. This is the face of modern anti-Semitism.

Jews everywhere are indebted to the willingness and ability of Israelis to live and breathe self-determination. When contemporary political issues are set aside, and an affirmation of the centrality of the Jewish state's well-being to the Jewish people's well-being is not key to a commemoration of the Holocaust, "never again" is an empty phrase. Worse, situated in a place where a U.N. General Assembly resolution said Zionism was racism until 1991 and the 2001 U.N. Durban Declaration delivers the same message, it plays into the hands of those who would separate Jews from Israel for no other reason than to divide and conquer.

The speaker of the Italian senate, Marcello Pera, was the only non-Israeli participant who was prepared to stand against the wheeling and dealing in the backrooms, telling the General Assembly that the anti-Semitism of "today...feeds on...insidious distinctions...made between Israel and the Jewish state, Israel and its governments, Zionism and Semitism. Or...when the struggle for life led by...Israelis is labelled 'state terrorism.'"

The less-cynical response to our original question — about the meaning of "never again"? Some Holocaust survivors such as Nesse Godin and Congressman Tom Lantos were able to speak directly — during the unofficial lunchtime break organized by Bnai Brith, in a room far from the General Assembly. Some people listened. Some people heard. The pictures of Auschwitz are still in the front hall of the U.N. for a little while longer. A blow was struck against Holocaust deniers. And for one day, the democratic state of Israel was not the most reviled member of the U.N. (less than half of whose members can be called "free" according to Freedom House).

When all was said and done, however, the U.N. got a lot more than it gave. Improving the image of the U.N. and its secretary-general could prove more costly than Israelis have bargained.

— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting professor at Touro and Metropolitan Colleges in New York..
 

[Tolik]

Anne Bayefsky's NRO Archive

• Never Again? (01/27)

• W & Human Rights (01/24)

• Undiplomatic Imbalance (12/13)

• Fatal Failure (11/30)

• W.'s U.N. Mandate (11/09)

• The Principled President (10/21)

• Meet the Graders (10/04)

• U.N.derwhelming Response (09/24)

• Had Enough? (07/17)

• The Kerry-Kofi Plan for America's Future (05/03)

• Business as Usual (04/26)

• U.N. vs. Israel (04/20)

• The Human Rights of Israelis (02/26)

FreeRepublic posts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=AnneBayefsky

 

[Tolik]

Nailed It!

This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of good stuff that is worthy attention. I keep separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson, Lee Harris, David Warren, Orson Scott Card. You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about).

[squirt-gun]

Yes, the UN is just a political cadaver and most reasonable people might say a hopeless institution of little practical value to civilization.

However, on this particular issue one must remember that approximately 10 time more non-military Christians were killed during WWII than Jews and these people have no huge and continuing force for remembrance of their victimhood as do the Jews.

The USSR lost approximately 17 million civilians alone with the Ukraine experiencing it's own genocide which is certainly on a par of horror experienced by the Jews.

The point to be made is that civilization as a whole was victimized and that such victimization was not the exclusive experience of the relatively small number of Jews who were murdered as a fraction of the total.

[Mi-kha-el]

600,000 massacred in Ruwanda or 2 mln killed by Pol Pot thugs in Kampuchea or 2 mln Armenians killed by the Turks was a relatively small number as compared to the slaughtr-house which is today's world. No small number for them though. Something in your approach is faulty.

[Kelly_2000]

"Yes, the UN is just a political cadaver and most reasonable people might say a hopeless institution of little practical value to civilization.",/i>,p> I think that you must focus this comment on the political impact that the UN has in the world forum, such as the Security Council. The relief aid that the UN is responsible for delivering world wide by tireless volunteers should not come under fire.

[Kelly_2000]

"Yes, the UN is just a political cadaver and most reasonable people might say a hopeless institution of little practical value to civilization.",,p> I think that you must focus this comment on the political impact that the UN has in the world forum, such as the Security Council. The relief aid that the UN is responsible for delivering world wide by tirelesss volunteers should not come under fire.

[Tulsa]

dunno what this means, i recall 6 million jews, do you mean 60 mil christians in ww2??

17 mil for russia sounds right but where are the rest??

& keep in mind the low total number of jews, so the fraction lost (1/3) was much greater than any other group..

or maybe not, seems like 32+ mil unborn is about 1/3 of american unborns, so you may have a point..but you also get mine

[Mi-kha-el]

The official figure of WWII casualties is 50 mln total, including military and civilian deaths. He is just ranting and rambling.

[Tolik]

There is one aspect of Germans exterminating Jews and Gypsies that is absolutely unique.

The bloody XX century knows many other genocidal killings. But all of them were perpetrated by the killers that did not have reputation of being civilized. Yes, the Left was willingly overlooking crimes of communists in USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, but they still looked upon Soviets, for example, as a work in progress. The militaristic Japan committed atrocities to Chinese, Koreans and others on the level not at all lower than Germans. Still, they were a dangerous enemy, but they were not perceived as great contributors to civilization.

On another hand, Germany's contribution to civilization in culture and science is immense. It makes its quick degradation into the industrialized murderers so much more shocking and unbelievable.

Anyway, the whole point of Anne Bayefsky's article is totally different. She points out the usual UN hypocrisy in looking kind of sorry for the long dead Jews and keeping the business as usual in opposing the self defense of the alive Jews.

[squirt-gun]

Re # 7....See:http://www.angelfire.com/ct/ww2europe/stats.html

There are varying number on Jews killed in this period of horror with the lowest I have found at 3.8 million. The most common figure used by most is 6 million.

There were approximately 60 million people who died (including the Jews mentioned and a mix of other religions) but by far the largest sector of dead were Christians. Also the low estimate on the total of those who perished was at 48 million, mostly in the USSR and including some 7 million in the Ukraine who were exterminated in a genicidal excess by Stalin.

A point usually ignored by most here on FR and elsewhere is that far more Christians were killed during the period leading up to and including WWII than Jews.

I believe Each life, Jew or non-Jew, was as good as any other and that there should be an equality in death for all-----I repeat---all of these people. All should be remembered and not just the Jews who represent a very small number of the total.

[squirt-gun]

Re # 9

I agree with most of what you say but not the following: The bloody XX century knows many other genocidal killings. But all of them were perpetrated by the killers that did not have reputation of being civilized.

The Russians have had high culture for centuries and yet Stalin found it easy to kill millions, white Russians Ukrainians, etc. Starving, shooting, barbarism of the lowest kind.

Also, Japan has had an elegant civilization for centuries, even defeating the Russian Navy early on with high tech and brilliant naval strategy. Yet, the Japanese looked on Westerners as uncivilized barbarians and were guilty of some of the most horrific crimes against humanity throughout China, the Dutch East Indies and elsewhere.

The Germans had no exclusivity on barbarism as has been suggested herein.

Have a nice day.

[Tolik]

I want to clarify the point:

While Russia was not barbarian, and did contribute heavily in literature and music and some in science, its total contribution to Western civilization was much much lower than German's. For the quantitative analysis I'd refer you to the "Human Accomplishment" by Charles Murray . The word "pogrom" did come to English from Russian language (despite the effort of Russian humanists to eradicate this evil itself). Communist genocide of Stalin's era was directed against some peoples: Ukrainian Holodomor of 1931-32: artificially orchestrated famine was to subjugate both Ukrainians as a nation and farmers as bearers of capitalist spirit; 1942 transfer of Chechens, Tatars and some others as alleged Nazi sympathizers with 50% mortality rate on the road to Siberia. Still other cleansings of Lenin's/Stalin's time were ethnically blind.

During the WWI/ Russian Civil War the Germans occupied large chunk of Ukraine. Their military machine was strong and brutal, but otherwise they were remembered better than waves of Reds, Whites, Greens ravaging through Ukraine. Some Ukrainian Jews did not want to believe the rumors of German atrocities in the WWII and did not escape occupation and were exterminated, just because of this relatively positive memory.

 Japan had its own distinctive culture as you rightly show, but in the self-inflicted isolationism, its effect on the Western civilization was low. They were perceived (note: perceived) as less civilized, so their atrocities were looked from the West under a prism of low expectations.

I hope you see my point. I make no excuses for anybody monstrosity, but in no other time a civilization as accomplished as German's fell so low and so quickly as under the Nazi rule.

Another point. Lots of Christians were killed during the WWII. The difference is that they were not killed BECAUSE they were Christians. Same as 300 thousand Jews soldiers of the Red Army were killed not because they were Jews, but because they were soldiers. But other millions of Jews and all Gypsies who did not escape were killed BECAUSE they were Jews and Gypsies. Same as Tutsi were killed by Hutus BECAUSE they were Tutsi. I find this difference being important.

[squirt-gun]

Re # 12 Lots of Christians were killed during the WWII. The difference is that they were not killed BECAUSE they were Christians.

OK....You win the entire point as this is an undeniable fact.

I don't beieve in any God but have no problem with people who do..... Lets hope civilized people everywhere can henceforth somehow escape the wave of Muslim barbarianism that is now among us.

Have a great day.