I've read a lot about Durban but didn't know much about Robinson. So I did some googling.

I found this in NGO Monitor - she spoke out very plainly against the antisemitic nature of the events in Durban. At one point she declared "I am a Jew", while objecting strenuously to a book of antisemitic cartoons.

http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=1025

I don't know the whole story obviously but this piece suggests that Robinson tried to get the conference back on track and spoke out against the bigotry there.

Given Mary Robinson's thoroughgoing record of appeasement, at times a rather obsequious appeasement, that single instance, Sophia, reflects little or nothing more than a face-saving, token (and unfruitful) attempt to correct what did occur, and what she presided over, at Durban I. After all, what else could she do? She was essentially "caught red handed" since she was handed the information by Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Again, what could she do? Given her situation and her leadership role, she arguably did the absolute bare minimum when in fact she could and should have changed the course of Durban I much more dramatically and decisively than she did. She was the executive in charge, not a mere participant.

I've never been one to shy away from criticizing the Jewish community when I've thought they've deserved it, but Robinson, given her record, is an exceedingly poor choice, and a telling one in that her record is pervaded by gross acts of appeasement and even avowals of allegiance in favor of Sharia dictates at times.

During the 1989 visit to Israel, Tutu remarked "If I'm accused of being antisemitic, tough luck," and in response to questions about his anti-Jewish bias, Tutu replied, "My dentist's name is Dr. Cohen." (Simon Wiesenthal Center's Response magazine, January 1990)

Roger or Richard?
And some of my best friends are Jews! Chomsky, Judt, Finkelstein, Kasrils.

Wasn't soundly vetted. That's what we're now hearing, from Tevi Troy at NRO based upon a source who indicates "she was not fully vetted, but that the White House feels that backing down at this point would make things worse."

But this sounds like a CYA sop thrown to critics. And how would it make things worse? With Robinson's allies and with Ireland perhaps, but in the main it would correct a mistake, a big one imo.

And the fact she's shortly going to be touring Israel and environs with Carter and Tutu is just sad. Good grief. And Tutu should attend to So. Africa, where one in four male youths engage in rape as a form of social bonding, and that's but one tell-tale indicator of what goes on in S.A.

h/t Israel Matzav

Imo this whole set of complaints against the Robinson selection should continue to be carried forward in an aggressive manner, not with personal vindictiveness against Robinson, but with principled and well grounded criticisms and with intentions of a concerted political effect. E.g., statements from the Senate and House floor would be in order, continued grass roots commentary and praxis in general is likewise warranted.

This is an issue in and of itself (her selection should be withdrawn) and it's yet another issue that reflects upon Obama's incompetence and his ideological proclivities that are wrong-headed at some very elemental levels.

Too much can be made of this selection, but the greater temptation is to make too little of it.

With respect, I think the statement shouldn't be focused on Robinson or at least, not solely on Robinson - but rather on the entire slanderous and disgusting spectacle of Durban I. Note that the antisemitism hasn't ceased but has gotten worse.

So the broader focus has to be on racism - racism against Jews - by extension other minorities, women and gays - discrimination that has actually found a platform in the UN which is the absolute last place that bigotry like this should be found let alone perpetrated.

I think a big problem is ignorance. Durban I was overshadowed by 9/11 and, in the Middle East, by Intifada II and the Iraq and Afghan wars and ensuing violence including all the terrorism, Lebanon, Gaza, events within Lebanon and now Iran. At least people acted more responsibly in regard to Durban II. But it wasn't nearly enough.

Complicating this is the disgusting spectacle of the so-called Human Rights group at the UN and attempts to create anti-blasphemy rules geared toward protecting a certain religion - not people but an ideology.

That is simply unbelievable in modern times - it's against all the ideals of freedom and human liberty but also against the spirit of unbiased inquiry.

it's as though people were saying Communism is sacrosanct and cannot be criticized, or Catholocism or the Republican Party - it's a direct attack on an essential human freedom: the right to dissent, to ask questions, and to do it openly and peacefully.

Unfortunately all this strangeness has been focused on Israel and the Jewish people.

I hate to say it but much of the Western Left has dropped the ball here. Indeed little is being said or done to show support for the people of Iran who are also struggling for their rights.

I don't get it:(

I think it plays to her favor that quote that you found, but that seems small mitigation. The fact that ADL has come out against her, and even AIPAC is criticizing the White House, and particularly the statements by Tom Lantos made extemporaneously...that's a lot of weight on the other side of the scales.

You know how this works...those cartoons she was reacting to were so overt that she had to say something -- it would have been a direct strike against the "I'm not antisemitic I'm just criticizing Israel" facade that people like Robinson try to put up. She had to say something so it gave her a chance to pose for a moment. The weight of the evidence (including her actions since) is well against her.