Sandinista Stupidity
A former leader of the Nicaraguan revolution and member of the current ruling party in his country,Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, is the current head of the UN General Assembly. A Roman Catholic priest and former 'moderate' within the revolutionary guard of that old revolution, d'Escoto has been incredibly stupid in trying to prevent the new ISraeli UN Ambassador, Professor Gabriela Shalev, from speaking at the UN's special commemorative plenary session marking 60 years since the UN adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights scheduled for today.
As reported in Haaretz newspaper, d'Escoto "tried to cancel speeches that were to be given by representatives of the unofficial regional group known as "Western European and others," after he learned that Israel's ambassador was to represent the group as its rotating chairman." When the European bloc refused to go along with this plan, d'Escoto added an Arab representative to speak. Thus, a commemoration turned into yet another chance to bog the world body down in pointless symbolism rather than move forward in a new era. Has d'Escoto noticed that we have a new president about to take over in the US who actually BELIEVES in the UN and has appointed a hefty UN Ambassador from the US to take on global issues in a multilateral fashion? If the left can finally put aside its losing revolutionary aura, perhaps the moderate left can move a global agenda that not only brings peace to the Israelis and the Palestinians--a just peace based on the human rights of both people, but does so while enhancing the world body for all peoples.
Sadly, much of the "left" loves its pointless symbolism. And being less a movement than a loose grouping of splintered my-cause-firsters, this is why the left often tends to prefer "losing pure" over the thought of succeeding and having to unite in common cause to advance everyone by degree rather than score symbolic victories with little real-world significance from the outside.
While no one can approach the right-wingers in outright malevolence, the left takes no back seat when it comes to self-sabotaging stupidity.
This explains their premature disappointment with Obama, who seems to prefer to get some good things done once he takes office next month, rather than make grand empty gestures that will ultimately prove empty.
December 10, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Old Grouch and old Jo Ann Mort,
You self-described moderates were the same sort of timid political fence-sitting types who were opposed to demonstrative action in the 1980s against South African apartheid. Maybe not you personally, but I doubt you have ever been on the front lines of anything and have little to no room to so callowly critique people who've devoted and risked their lives to make the change you let other people make for you. Why are you so afraid of someone taking a stand that actually means something? Because you can't or won't?
Your day is not here, like you think it is. The only way anything positive or progressive has happened has been when dedicated people risked it ALL for the cause. Not like you, who won't even risk your reputation.
December 10, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann,
What does a new president in the US have to do with Israel's standing in the UN? Anyway, people who "believe in the UN" would, I think, believe in its resolutions. As one of the most prominent targets of critical UN resolutions over the years, many of which address human rights concerns and issue UN directives or requests that Israel has still failed to act on, I don't know what business Israel has speaking at a commemoration of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
I also think it is spurious to try, as you do, to link mountains of legitimate criticism of Israel with outdated revolutionary leftism.
The diplomatic move here would have been to avoid this issue entirely, and its "pointless symbolism", by keeping both Israel and its Arab rivals out of the commemoration. But it looks like Israel found a back door to a soapbox. So what options does the "stupid" d'Escoto have?
December 10, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is exactly right. The point of the UN is to allow the World to express its views without the Anglo-American filter. Only George W. Bush thinks "the world community" is represented by London and Washington.
BTW, the siege of Gaza continues. Who cares what the Israeli Ambassador has to say?
December 10, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign.
December 10, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The stupid Sandinista likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to apartheid and called for an international boycott awhile back. The Israeli dignitary called the stupid Sandinista an "Israel hater" because he supposedly hugged the Persian Hitler.
According to Ynet, the Israeli dignitary: "intends to begin her address by asserting the holocaust as the basis for the UN's Human Rights Decree" No doubt, the Arab terrorist chosen to speak will, once again, invoke the antisemitic spectre of Gaza without mentioning the Saudi penchant for public beheadings.
Obamabots are supposed to realise that it's time to get over SOME of the icky stuff that happened in the past and embrace the future by telling the stupid Sandinista to STFU already.
December 10, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment has absolutely no value.
December 10, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann, I hate to be the one to break this to you but a lot of people in the world don't like Jews. Read a little about the history of the 20th century. Those who do the hating will always claim they have a reason. If you want a sampling, I suggest your read many of the comments here at TPM.
December 10, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Lord. Balance, balance , balance.
It's fine for both of them to speak.
In the first place it was wrong for d'Escoto to try and silence the Israeli ambassador.It's more than fitting for an Israeli to speak about Human Rights given the massive assault on the rights of the Jewish people most recently during the Holocaust
Nor was there any need for an Arab to balance the Israeli. Just as there's no
need for us to oppose the occasional near unanimous(as opposed to the clearly tendentious) resolution condemning an Israel action- on the grounds it's unbalanced. If it merits condemnation, it merits condemnation no matter what other terrible actions go uncondemned.
Now unfortuately more balance.
Jo-Ann , I think you're wrong to oppose d'Escoto's invitation to an Arab speaker.
Once again there's no need for that balance.No Arab suffers because an Israeli talks about human rights. But in this case the balance is affirmative .Rather than a resolution being vetoed , an extra person is being allowed to speak.
And it's also fitting for an Arab to speak given most recently the sufferings in Gaza. A non-combatant Arab civilian who dies as a by-product of the Israeli blockade has been deproved of his human rights . Calling it collateral damage won't restore them..
Which was equally true of the killing of the Dresden Germans and the Hiroshima Japanese.Of which I approved . As I might well approve of the Gasa Blockade(I'm aware of Israeli opposition to that term but I would be taking sides if I avoided it) were I living in Siderot.
It's possible, maybe even correct, to deplore the assault on the human rights of your enemy while simultaneously approving the action.
December 10, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please note that the blockading of the Gaza coastline and walling off of Gaza began long before rockets starting coming from Gaza. As usual, to justify Israeli policy you have to fiddle with the chronology. Not surprising: The policies can't be morally justified without lots of fiddling.
December 10, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
as readers of tpmcafe can imagine (at least those who have read me) I do not support the blockade of Gaza by Israel, even though I also do not support Hamas. I believe that Israel should not engage in collective punishment. My point about the UN was that Israel's role happened to come up since they have a rotating leadership position within the Europe caucus-but D'scoto chose to penalize them -
December 10, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
unofficial regional group known as "Western Europeans and others"
What's the origin and purpose of this group?
December 10, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh come on. Do you really think Israel just "happened" to be in the monthly rotating leadership position in time for this commemoration? Politics by the WEOG got the Israeli ambassador her chance to speak, and so countervailing politics made sure an Arab representative would have equal time.
December 10, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K's arguments are far more persuasive than Jo-Ann Mort's so far. Still like to hear why this group exists.
December 11, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you think the world community is entitled to a self-serving platform at least as ludicrous as the State Department publishing a human rights report on other countries? Until Guantanamo is closed, we should zip it.
December 11, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a guess....maybe they pay 80% or more of the U-N's bloated expenses with their taxpayer dollars and Euros....and want to have more of a say in an organization that is desperately needed but is often a burlesque of itself.
Am I getting warm?
December 12, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Israel has not been forced to abide by UN resolutions that are decades old. It's hardly surprising that a great number of people are aware of this and take exception to it.
December 11, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jo-Ann-
Miguel d'Escoto's anti-Israeli agenda is neither stupid nor irrational, but comes from personal experience. Israel militarily supported the Somoza dictatorship that helped to kill tens of thousands of Nicaraguan civilians. Undoubtedly, d'Escoto had friends among those killed. Israeli weapons also enabled the genocide (as formally characterized by the United Nations) in Nicaragua's neighbor, Guatemala. There, the Guatemalan military used Israeli weapons as it slaughtered hundreds of thousands of indigenous Guatemalans. As a Jew, I personally felt appalled when I had Israeli made Uzis pointed at me when visiting Guatemala in the 1980s.
Perhaps d'Escoto's moves were clumsy and unconstructive, and your point is well taken on that note. But I would cut him a bit of slack. Rather than hanging onto a "revolutionary aura," I believe the modern Sandinistas have abandoned it by cynically engaging in politics (such as supporting a national abortion ban) to regain power. But in context, I have far more understanding of Sandinista obstruction of Israeli associations with human rights ceremonies. And to those who equate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-semitism -- pleeez, give it a rest.
December 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid Sandinista update:
US-born Maryknoll trained d'Escoto is denying the Israeli reports about his alleged efforts to short-circuit Shalev's speech and has been receiving death threats. In addition, Israel held U.N. Special Rapporteur Richard Falk " almost incommunicado" for 30 hours prior to shipping him back to NY. Richard Falk is an American Jew and was taxed with examining the human rights situation in Jerusalem, the WB and Gaza in addition to the humantitarian crisis in Gaza.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45126
The Financial Times report on the latest UN shenanigens includes the information that the very recent death threats were on "English language blogs".
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dbbf7d30-cb11-11dd-87d7-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
Perhaps, in the future, "someone" should be a bit more skeptical about stories emanating from the Israeli Mission at the UN during what is an ongoing war between the parties involved.
For sure, TPMCafe readers should be more skeptical about thin attempts by Jo Ann Mort to demonize critics of Israeli actions.
December 15, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink