Obama's Durban II Critics: Nattering Nabobs of Negativism
Last week, President Barack Obama opted to boycott the United Nations Conference against racism in Geneva (also know as Durban II) set to take place in April of this year. The Obama administration made clear to the Islamic nations driving the Durban II agenda that as long as the conference was structured as a bash-Israel fest, the United States would have nothing to do with its proceedings.
This support for Israel by the new administration highlights two important points about Obama and his die-hard, ideological opponents. First, the President has once again illustrated that he works hard to keep his campaign promises. Second, it highlights the tenacity of Obama's ideological opponents to invariably find him to be intensely anti-Israel -- even if that evidence runs up against cold hard facts.
During last year's presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to reengage in the U.N. and argued that the concept of a conference against racism had value. However, he also stated on the Simon Wiesenthal Center presidential candidate questionnaire that, "If our efforts to keep the conference on a responsible path are not working, and the conference planning committee is not cooperative, the U.S. will not participate."
As President, Obama sent a U.S. delegation to mid-February pre-conference proceedings. The purpose of such a delegation was to explore whether the agenda of the conference could be salvaged from those who merely wished to focus on demonizing Israel, constricting the right of free speech (when it came to attacks on radical Islam) and highlighting the U.S.'s history of racism by calling for reparations for slavery. When it became clear that there was little hope for refocusing the conference on the world's very real problems of racism, the President announced that it would serve no constructive purpose for the U.S. to attend. This announcement, over a month before the conference begins, will undoubtedly lead to a boycott by other democracies.
The administration's die-hard foes could not wait for last week's announcement. As soon as the administration took its first moves to try to salvage the conference, they pounced. It was not just the knee-jerk Republican organizations who screamed that the President's actions represented an "extremely disturbing change in American foreign policy regarding Israel." One commentator at National Review online stated, "What is new is that the new president of the United States doesn't care about the U.N.'s reincarnation of 'Zionism is racism.'" At the rabidly right-wing American Thinker web site, we were told, "Well, file this info in the 'this was predictable' column." The article went on to breathlessly report that the U.S. would attend Durban II. Richard Heideman, a Republican-leaning Jewish activist, predicted, "the chances that U.S. President Barack Obama will boycott a conference against racism are slim....because that's his mindset."
I would like to revive a phrase that William Safire once penned for Vice President Spiro Agnew - "nattering nabobs of negativism." Many of these new nattering nabobs are made up of those Jewish critics of the President who are intent on proving his bad intentions toward Israel no matter what the facts show.
One would hope that even Obama's toughest opponents might admit they were wrong about the administration's policy on Durban II. The President, as promised, tried to change the direction of this U.N. conference, but when it was clear that he could not, he used his international credibility to discredit the coming disgrace of Geneva.
Sadly, for the nattering nabobs of negativism, ideological rigidity trumps any acknowledgement of reality. Within hours of the administration's announcement of its boycott of Durban II, one of the "savants" at the American Thinker declared, "Too late, Mr. President. Your imprimatur is all over that draft."
When we engage in this game of scoring partisan points at all costs, our community loses. When facts are trumped by ideological combat, our community loses. When positive policy outcomes take a back seat to scoring partisan points, our community loses. At a time when Israel and the Jewish people do truly face existential threats, a hardheaded, reality based view of politics surely must overcome the politics of knee-jerk negativism.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Boycotting is the wrong response. The right response to racist speech is engagement, not fingers-in-ears, foot stamping, whining, anti-semit
Is Israel a racist STATE, or is it not? Yes? No? WHY OR WHY NOT? Talk about it!
When it comes to Mideast politics, people conflate terms that should not be conflated. For instance, conflating the state of Israel with the religion called Judaism is a mistake. Conflating "Jewish" with "Semite" is also a mistake: One is a religion, the other is a race. Arabs are Semites, too, and many Jewish people are not Semites. These conflations are positively Orwellian and prevent people from having rational discussions about Middle East conflict.
People who refuse to discuss socio-reli
The decision to leave Durban was made because the statement was in contravention to the first amendment. No American President would be allowed to sign this statement.
To charges of antisemitism, there's no overreaction.
EVERY appointment, and policy decision follows the same tract (except Hillary): vocal supporters of Jimmy Carter and Walt and Merscheimer's modern retelling of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Not a hidden anti semitism, but open, proudly displayed.
You won't see swastikas in today's intelligent antisemities but euphemisms. Make no mistake that this is the most anti Jewish administration in history.
Openly advocates idea that Jews control the government and direct American policy.
Reestablished diplomatic relations with Syria
First phone call to Mahmoud Abbas
First interview with Al Arabiya
Decision to GO to Durban planning and when Holocaust denial phrases were being discussed NO objections raised.
At same time decision to RECONSIDER Durban (not pull out), they announced FULL PARTICIPATION in UN Human Rights Council, a body in it's history has issued more condemnations of israel than 191 other nations COMBINED.
EVERY appointment, Susan Rice, to a cabinet level position, Robert Malley, Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, (on board of Amnesty International just called for US arms boycott of Israel, General Jones, who advocates US troops IN ISRAEL to protect Palestinians, Chas Freeman, who not only supports the Walt-Merscheimer book but published it.
Parading Dennis Ross as special advisor during campaign, but instead appointing George Mitchell, a Lebanese American as special middle east envoy.
OH NOES A LEBANESE!
Who's racist now?
The important thing is not to attend a conference but to achieve peace in the Middle East. That means pressure on all sides and regaining the role of a truly neutral broker. skipping the conference is just fine. Now we have to talk to Syria, push Israel and the Palestinians toward peace, undercut Iranian influence in the Fertile Crescent, etc. Let's get on with it already.
Because boycotting over DRAFT paperwork makes perfect sense. Read them, the finalized portions are highlighted and last I checked include nothing about Israel. Please point me to the portions of this DRAFT (the further writing of which we will be sitting out - at least that is my understanding of a boycott), that equates the state of Israel with Judaism. Or stop doing same when speaking of this.
On further consideration this may actually make sense as we would become embroiled in this argument on a global scale while trying to reach an agreement with Iran, is President Obama avoiding taking sides in this (statements to the contrary) because standing pat will hurt our other negotiations less than actively supporting Israel in Durban II further than we have?
Where did you read them, I'd love the read the drafts?
Mr. Forman,
The United States has shown repeatedly that we don't care about racism, classism, sexism, human rights, etc. Our politicians have gone out of their way to explain that our policies are based on realpolitik. We are now guided by pragmatism and there is not hesitation in establishing and maintaining relationships with murderous dictators as long as they serve our interests. When they stop kowtowing to us we will eliminate them - ask our buddy Saddam Hussein.
The Obama Administration is continuing the Bush policies for missile strikes inside Pakistan; torture; rendition for torture; illegal wiretaps; status of prisoners at the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan; and workplace immigration raids, etc., etc., etc. I doubt that we are not participating in this meeting because we are taking a stand against anti-Zionism. We don't take stands against anything anymore, its just not practical. Somewhere there is a monetary reward for our withdrawal from the conference.
Rest assured the government of the United States will stand by Israel as Palestinian's land is stolen and turned over to Israeli's in the form of settlements.
I'm seriously hoping Obama steps up and withholds aid and such from Israel unless they stop the settlements. Even the majority of Israelis don't support the settlements.
Thank you President Obama for your courageous decision to boycott what has become a RACIST conference rather than a conference to address Racism.
Well thank you Mr. Forman, this has to be said
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
