The Mary Robinson dilemma 
Gerald Steinberg
November 23, 2005
Canadian Jewish News
Original Source: http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=7845

How should we respond to people who joined the political war against Israel and are now trying to rehabilitate themselves? 
Mary Robinson is a case in point, as are Chris Patten and Terje Roed Larsen. They all played key roles in the demonization campaign between 2000 and 2004, but have since changed jobs and are now trying to repair relations with Jewish groups. Should we agree to co-operate, or should we hold them morally culpable for their past enmity? 
Mary Robinson, formerly the president of Ireland and then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, was the first down this path. In 2004, she went to New York to join Columbia University law school’s Human Rights Institute, and she has received honorary degrees at McGill University and elsewhere. This activity is reportedly part of an effort to be elected the first female secretary general of the United Nations, which would require the American and (perhaps) Canadian governments to overlook her earlier Israel bashing. 
The Israel bashing began during her tenure in Ireland, where she was instrumental in pushing the European Union to provide massive support to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Later, she presided over a UN Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) that was used as a battering ram against Israel. Robinson promoted Palestinian victimization, including the fiction the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the result of “occupation,” while the UNHRC sanctioned “all available means” (meaning terror) in attacks against Israel. 
She condemned Israel’s efforts to save Israeli lives as “excessive and disproportionate force,” falsely accusing the Israel Defence Forces of shooting at her car (the evidence showed the attack came from Palestinians). At the same time, real crimes against humanity in Sudan, Libya, China and Rwanda were being overlooked. 
Ignoring warnings, Robinson led the UNHRC and the non-governmental organization (NGO) network into the UN-sponsored World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, in 2001. Its resolutions re-labelling Zionism as racism and absurdly trying to include Arabs as victims of anti-Semitism were drawn up in an earlier meeting in Tehran that excluded Israelis and Jews. 
But now Robinson is trying to revise her image. She has not apologized for Durban, but admits to some excesses, and has been very vocal in condemning classical anti-Semitism. The question is whether this partial atonement is enough to accept her as a future ally. 
Similar questions arise regarding Chris Patten, Britain’s last governor in Hong Kong and the EU’s commissioner for external relations during the Palestinian terror campaign. Patten and the EU actively promoted the myth of Palestinian victimization, falsely accused Israel of “war crimes,” and poisoned the image of Israel among many Europeans. Patten also presided over huge payments to Arafat that were used for terror and corruption. He blocked an open investigation into the payments by the European Parliament, and a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office remains secret, in violation of basic democratic principles. 
But, like Robinson, Patten is now trying to rehabilitate his reputation after leaving the EU. Upon his appointment as chancellor of Oxford University, he appeared before Jewish audiences, condemned the anti-Israel academic boycott and decried anti-Semitism. The standard denunciations of “Israeli occupation” that were part of his tenure at the EU have stopped. 
Finally, there is the complicated case of Terje Roed-Larsen, the Norwegian official who served for many years as the UN’s special envoy to the West Bank and Gaza. He was one of Arafat’s most frequent visitors during the terror campaign, in contrast to Arafat’s isolation by Israel and the United States. Larsen also helped promote the myth of a massacre by Israeli forces in the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002 by repeatedly referring to “horrifying and shocking” scenes in media interviews. 
But before Arafat died, Larsen criticized the Palestinian leadership, and Arafat declared him persona non grata. After being appointed the UN’s special envoy for Lebanon, Larsen has pressed Syria to leave Lebanon, and he has begun focusing attention on Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups. Larsen has also been appearing before Jewish groups, who face the dilemma of whether to focus on past sins or on future co-operation. 
In all three cases, the key requirement for forgiveness – unambiguous public admission of error – is absent. To deter similarly immoral behaviour in the future, it’s important to demand a full accounting for past actions. At the same time, the opportunity to move cautiously toward future co-operation should be welcomed.