Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
4.2.12
WC: 191694
Is there no sense of shame in that building? Has the word hypocrisy lost all meaning
across the street? Does no one recognize the need for a single, neutral standard of human
rights? Have human rights now become the permanent weapon of choice for those who
practice human wrongs? For shame. For shame.
As I spoke these harsh words in the shadow on the U.N. building, I wondered what my mentor
Arthur Goldberg, who left a lifetime job on the Supreme Court, to go to the U.N., would think of
what I was saying. He always defended and supported me, but he loved and admired the U.N. I
think he would have approved of the thrust of my talk, if not of every word, as he did when
another one of his mentees, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, used powerful words to condemn the
actions of the U.N.
If an organization—governmental or non-governmental—is to remain true to a genuine
commitment to universal and neutral human rights, it must prioritize the use of its resources.
“The worst first” must be its governing criteria. The “worst” has two major components. First
and foremost is the nature and scope of the human wrongs: genocide, mass murder, widespread
torture and mutilation of dissidents, rape as a policy, slavery, genuine apartheid and other
comparable abuses. Second is the inability of victims to secure relief from the judiciary, from
human rights groups, from the media and from other domestic sources. Failure to prioritize is a
sure sign of bias and lack of neutrality. Today’s U.N. and most “human rights” NGOs fail this
test.
My defense of Western democracies, and most particularly Israel, against deliberately exaggerated
charges regarding human rights, led to an offer that presented me with an existential challenge to
my dual identity as an American and a Jew. In 2010, the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin
Netanyahu, urged me to accept the position of Israel’s Ambassador to the U.N. He told me that
in order to serve in that capacity, I would have to become an Israeli citizen, though I could also
retain my American citizenship. I realized immediately that I could never accept the offer, despite
the reality that I would have enjoyed the job immensely. The idea of standing up against the
hypocrisy and double standard of the UN appealed to me. But it was clear to me that I am an
American, not an Israeli. For me to switch sides—even to a nation that is so close an ally to my
own nation—would raise the spectre of dual loyalty that has been directed at Jews since Biblical
times, when they lived as minorities in the lands of Egypt and Persia.'°
After much discussion and arm twisting, I finally persuaded Netanyahu that if I accepted the
position, it might be good for me, but it would not be good for American Jews or for Israel. So I
declined, after promising the Prime Minister that I would be available, as an international lawyer
and an American, to help defend Israel against unjust charges brought by international bodies such
as the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and various UN agencies. I
will also continue to criticize Israel’s human rights record when criticism based on a single
universal standard is warranted by its actions.
15 Quote Exodus and Esther
341
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017428