UN Arab Charter on Human Rights: SWC and UN Human Rights Head Exchange Correspondence

February 1, 2008

UN's Arab Charter on Human Rights:
SWC and UN Human Rights Head Exchange Correspondence

Current Status: In a response back to Leo Adler, Ms. Arbour requested a private meeting in Geneva to discuss the issue further.

First letter:

Dear Louise,

I feel that I can address you on a personal level, given our somewhat conjoined backgrounds:

 

I was also born in 1947, I too lived in Montreal. We both have a link to Osgoode Hall Law School, which I attended and where I am an adjunct professor, just as you taught there. We worked together at the first-ever International Criminal Court seminar in Canada in January, 2002. And, a couple of years ago, we met in Geneva to discuss issues pertaining to the recent Lebanon-Israel war and the "new" UN Human Rights Council.

We have a common background in criminal law, with an emphasis on human rights. Me as a practicing lawyer and now as Director of National Affairs of the NGO Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, and you as a judge who worked her way up to the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

We understand the need for democratic values to be strengthened and the necessity of democracies to be vigilant against terrorism's inroads. I was honoured to be appointed to the Cross Cultural Roundtable on National Security, while you had the distinction of being a prosecutor in the Criminal Tribunals charged with bringing the world's worst offenders to justice.

 

Why do I go into such detail? Because I and countless other of your admirers are now former admirers.

 

We are profoundly disappointed by the positions that you have taken vis-a-vis Israel and, more recently, with regards to the Arab Charter on Human Rights and its proclamation of "Zionism as a form of racism........(to be) condemned and efforts must be deployed for their elimination."

 

You are quoted in the media as claiming that this Charter is an important step towards a regional system of promoting and strengthening human rights. Yet this is a region awash with countries which proudly proclaim their Arab and Islamic character, while being absolutely opposed to Jews (in this case) having equal nation-status rights in the region.

 

To these States, human rights is a joke and a toy to be played with to obtain the Western world's largesse. To them, peace treaty or no peace treaty, Israel-bashing, based upon the premise that Jews are not entitled to their own homeland, is an established ethos which has led to over 100 years of Jew-baiting, murder, warfare and acts of terrorism.

 

Most sinister is the Charter's call for the elimination of Zionism. And let there be no mistake or misunderstanding of what these States ultimately mean when they say what they say about Zionism. They mean the eradication of a democratic, Jewish State which is home to more than Jews. It means the end of the Zionist dream which had its modern start when the journalist Theodore Herzl witnessed virulent antisemitism coming from "civoilized" Frenchmen purportedly dedicated to liberty, equality and fraternity, during the Dreyfus Affair. It means the continuation of what Winston Churchill called "this horrific crime that has no name." The crime that we now call the Holocaust. It may even mean war, as has happened several times. It certainly means further acts of terrorism, as is now occurring.

 

The Charter's preamble, repeated in article 2, is an exact echo of the odious, ill-advised and now discredited "Zionism is racism" UN resolution, proferred and championed by the same Arab nations as are behind this Charter. Did you approve of that resolution too? Be honest, tell us if you did. Don't hide behind the rhetoric of legalese mumbo jumbo. Come out of the closet and let us see you for what you realluy are.

 

But, if you don't believe that Zionism (the Jewish aspiration to a National Homeland) is racism and if you don't believe that Zionism should be eliminated, because the Jews, like the Arabs and the Muslems, like the English and the French, like the Italians and the Chinese, like everyone everywhere, have a right to a homeland of their own, then please say so and let us see if you are still the champion of justice. .

 

To have someone of your background and stature applaud the Arab Charter's out and out racism is profoundly disappointing, disheartening, embarrassing and perplexing. Those of us who know you and your past works are aghast. We implore you to speak out against this terrible document which does nothjing to advance human rights or peace in the Middle East. We beg you to be a true champion of human rights.

 

You see, I still want to believe in the Louise Arbour that I am conjoined with.

 

Leo Adler
Director of National Affairs
Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies
Toronto, Canada


First response:

Dear Leo,

I am presently travelling and responding to you briefly from my Blackberry. I hope that we will have an occasion to talk about these issues at greater lenght in the near future.

I urge you to look on OHCHR wbsite at the statement I issued earlier this week on the UN day of Holocaust remembrance, which I hope will dissipate any fear you may have that I tolerate anti-semitism in any of its forms.

I also ask you to look at the statement we issued yesterday to expand on our earlier statement on the Arab Charter. It would have been vastly preferable to have this second statement part of the original one, or may be to have said nothing. Large organisations do not always work to the standards of perfection that we all wish they would.

I'm sure you can appreciate that we deal on a day to day basis with a lot of challenging issues, presently Kenya amongst others.

I'm not making excuses even less looking for admirers.

I hope we can talk about this and other issues related to our common pursuit of justice and human rights for all.

Sincerely,

Louise


2nd letter:

Dear Louise,

Thank you for your letter.

I appreciate that you wanted to say more and that we should talk. I am certainly prepared to do that in Geneva at a time of your choosing. However, let me be blunt.

I understand that organizations, large and small, do occasionally, as you said: "not work to the standards of perfection that we all wish they would." I also don't doubt that you have a very heavy daily load, such as Kenya today.

The problem is that these "lapses" mainly seem to involve Israel. The UNHRC appears to be obsessed only with Israel, as you admitted to me in Geneva.

Louise, you are the world's chief human rights officer. You are the lightning rod which nations and leaders look to. Your obligation is to be a catalyst for positive change. Yet, when it comes to Israel (which surely cannot always be at fault), this duty appears to be cast aside.

The Arab Charter is patently racist in the manner in which it attacks Zionism. As I said before, it was an echo of the disgracing and disgraced "Zionism is racism" resolution passed by the UN General Assembly. It was also a reflection of the assault upon Israel and world Jewry that occured in Durban I and, therefore is a harbinger of the upcoming Durban II.

That being clear, silence was not an option for you or your position. But neither was your initial statement appropriate. More importantly, why is it that with respect to Israel, your office has a habit of saying one thing - usually highly and unfairly critical of Israel, thus getting the media attention, and then, sometimes, as an after-thought, correcting or expanding or modifying the original statement? And, I might add, usually to a much-diminished media focus.

Furthermore, the issue is not the Holocaust or any comments that you made to commemorate it. In fact, pointing to laudatory speeches about the Holocaust simply obscures the real issue: do you agree that Jews have a right to a free and independent homeland of their own in the Middle East?

That is, do you accept Zionism as a valid, legitimate expression of the yearning of Jews to such a nation-state, just as exists in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Arab Republic of Egypt, France, China, and so on?

It is that question which I ask you to answer clearly and cogently. It is that answer which frames your perspective and your agency's attitude.

Without a clear response, the answer is glaringly clear - and it is not a pretty picture.

Sincerely,

Leo

 

Powered by Blackbaud
nonprofit software