This is the most reasonable article in support of Israel that I have ever read. It outlines in just a couple of pages why we should be cautious in our denunciations of any human rights violations (without even mentioning the obvious target of philosophy), why the world is not taking much greater atrocities with the same "seriousness," and most surprisingly of all, defends a position first put forward (to my limited knowledge) by Slavoj Zizek, I believe in his book On Violence. That solution is inaction.
Henry-Levi points out perspicuously that many of the denunciations of Israel have to do more with the fact that it is embroiled in a peculiarly religious conflict than with any notions of actual "racism." The very idea that "blasphemy" could become an offense to the international community, and that criticism of religion (Islam in particular) should be defined as "racism" is deeply troubling. I would find this impossible were I not familiar with the cowardice of western liberalism on the one hand and its brazenness on the other. We could see ourselves (in the west, mostly Europe), were Durban II taken seriously, either defending Islamic ideology in the name of pluralism or crushing all true forms of religion by that same name.
Though it's a good article, it inadvertently highlights the trouble with liberalism in the west. In its caricatures of religion, it finds itself trying to come to grips with the most militant forms of faith, and never dealing with the day-to-day realities of man's search for meaning. Either we get inundated with attempts to blame the west for religious militancy, because guilt is the liberal ablution, or we get inundated with ridiculous attempts to "discredit" "religion," because clearly nobody who is not liberal is rational. This post is not a defense of conservatism, which is not a whole lot better. Rather, I just find this vomit-inducing dichotomy to be unnecessary and insulting to the vast majority of believers, especially the Christian ones. I note Henri-Levy's use of the word "Church" as a catch-all to denote representatives of religion, and to draw parallels with Voltaire. We are not here dealing with anything even remotely like the church of Voltaire's day. The political power of Christendom was very unique, and the subsequent wars of religion were over that power - which, frankly, was an illegitimate power according to Luther and Calvin, if not Zwingli, whose death on the battlefield drew little sympathy from Luther. We are dealing with a specific set of ideologies in conflict, and the Christian religion does not exacerbate their conflict - on the contrary, it renounces it!
I can understand, frankly, why (though I do not condone it) someone would want to label criticism of religion "racism." Many people in religious circles did not come to faith by any action of their own, and they don't feel at liberty to abandon it by any such action either. I feel that way about my faith, being of the Reformed tradition. I wouldn't call someone a racist for criticizing Calvinism, because I don't expect them to understand it in the least, and because I understand that there are much greater evils than the criticizing of reformed theology that can be described as racism. Those things ought to be dealt with on an entirely different plane, and it is shameful that some would dilute the term by coopting it for their agenda simply for its linguistic and legal power (again, as liberals are also wont to do - this one is from their playbook). This all reinforces the now old and obvious dialectic between fundamentalism and liberalism. They cannot exist without one another, and nothing in between can exist for either of them. Neither is responsible for the other in any personal or legal sense - I think it's more appropriate to say that they deserve and create each other. It's just a shame that the vast majority of people who stand in between get stepped on by governments who think themselves righteous, whether that be through their ecumenism or their rigidity.
Have we any rights? Not really, according to those whose tradition made up "rights" to begin with. None, at any rate, except the right to remain silent.
