In May 1991, back when I was an active member of Amnesty International's New York Speaker's Bureau, I was invited to speak about AI's concerns in Latin America to a Mensa convention in Tarrytown, NY.
One of the attendees seemed determined to push an agenda of his own. During a Q and A section of the talk, he said that AI's criticism of Israel was unjustified and unfair. Seeking to engage, I asked him on what basis he said that. He responded that Israel was a democracy and it's neighbors weren't, yet AI seemed to determine to focus only on Israel. I told him that was not true. I had a list of AI's publications that included several reports in such countries as Syria, Egypt, Tunisia and Iraq. I pointed out that I had participated in prisoner cases in Tunisia and Algeria in the recent past as well as campaigns focusing on Iran and Egypt.
He replied that Israel was in a state of war with its neighbors and that you couldn't judge Israel in the same fashion as other countries. I asked him to clarify my understanding of what he was saying: did he believe that there should be a different standard for Israel? He replied that you really shouldn't use the same standards for Israel. I told him that if he believed that there should be more than one standard and Israel's human rights record should not be judged by the same standards as others, then we really had nothing to talk about.
This is just more of the same. Scott has more.
Israel has gone native.
Posted by: LosGatosCA | October 22, 2009 at 10:12 PM