International Organizations:
Combating Anti-Semitism in Europe
Michael Whine
This article describes the processes by which Jewish organizations, led
by the major American groups, have tried to alert international organizations
to the threat that anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence in Europe
again poses to Jewish communities and to democracy itself. At a series of
conferences of the OSCE and the European institutions, these Jewish
groups have overcome governments' reluctance to address the issue and
have focused attention particularly on the threats posed by the spillover
of Middle East tensions and the anti-Semitic messages promoted by
Arab states, their media, and Islamist bodies. The Jewish NGOs aim to
encourage the international organizations and European governments to
face up to their responsibilities to protect their Jewish citizens, accept
that anti-Semitism is different from other forms of discrimination, and
begin to monitor and combat the threat through governmental and police
action.
In December 2002, the OSCE's (Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe) Ministerial Council meeting in Porto set in
motion a process that is still in its early stages and whose development
is uncertain. What is certain, however, is that the Jewish participants
mean it to result in some lasting changes in the way that European
countries treat their Jewish communities. This process began in 1990
at the Copenhagen Conference on Security and Cooperation in
Europe when European countries, the United States, and Canada
formally committed themselves to specific measures to combat anti-
Semitism, which were subsequently endorsed by heads of state in
the Charter of Paris.1 However, the issue took on urgency in 2000.
Few Jewish organizations had foreseen what would happen at the
United Nations World Conference against Racism in Durban that
summer.
The Arab states and Palestinian NGOs had successfully worked
on other NGOs, particularly from the Third World, during the regional
preconferences, and what should have been a forum for debating means
to combat racism became one for promoting anti-Semitism, one of
the oldest forms of prejudice. Of course there were other issues, and
some positive outcomes, but any accomplishments of this NGO conference
were completely overshadowed by the Jew-hatred on display from
the Arab and pro-Arab bloc. It was an eye-opening and traumatic
experience for the Jewish representatives.
Durban, therefore, was the catalyst for the Jewish NGOs to seek
relief in other international forums. What propelled them, however,
was the sudden and dramatic rise in anti-Semitic violence around the
world, particularly in Western Europe, that followed the start of the
second Palestinian intifada in September 2000.
The idea that the OSCE could be an effective vehicle for combating
anti-Semitism came initially from the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the
Advancement of Human Rights, but the body to which it is affiliated,
the American Jewish Committee, has provided the focal point for the
Jewish groups' campaign.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Outside of member governments and international human rights
NGOs, the OSCE is little known or understood. It has, in fact, proved
to be one of the more effective international bodies in practical terms,
particularly in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union countries.
Born of the Helsinki Process, which aimed to reduce East-West
tensions, the OSCE brings together the former Warsaw Pact states,
NATO, and CENTO. Its fifty-five member states are represented at
ambassadorial level at its headquarters in Vienna, and their initiatives
are annually discussed and ratified by the states' foreign ministers.
In addition to tension reduction and security, the OSCE works
on the human rights dimension through its subsidiary Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). The ODIHR seeks
to monitor the human rights of minorities within the area and promote
their better treatment, often launching local initiatives.
The Porto Conference
The Foreign Ministerial Conference held in Porto in December 2002
declared its concern over the "manifestation of aggressive nationalism,
racism, chauvinism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and violent extremism,
wherever they may occur." In particular, the statement decried
the recent increase in anti-Semitic incidents (while also condemning
the increase in discrimination and violence against Muslims). The
statement also recalled previous international agreements that had
dealt with the issue - particularly the 1990 Copenhagen OSCE conference;
the Charter for European Security; the Istanbul Summit of 1999,
which reaffirmed full adherence to the UN Charter and to the Helsinki
Final Act; and other OSCE documents, including the decision taken
at a previous Ministerial Council meeting in Bucharest at which anti-
Semitism was also condemned. What made this decision different,
however, was that it authorized the OSCE to take action. It empowered
the organization to make strong public statements against hate speech,
aggressive nationalism, and anti-Semitism and, importantly, mandated
the Chairman in Office (at that time the Dutch ambassador, Daan
Everts) and the Permanent Council, in close cooperation with the
ODIHR, to ensure effective follow-up via the annual Human Dimension
meetings and seminars.2
The Vienna Conference
Although not officially billed as an OSCE conference but only as an
"event," the meeting in Vienna in June 2003, which followed directly
from the Porto meeting, was the first high-level conference by an
international organization to be devoted specifically to anti-Semitism.
More than four hundred participants from governments and NGOs
considered means to prevent anti-Semitism such as awareness raising,
education, antidiscrimination legislation, law enforcement, cultural
preservation, and others.
The Vienna conference was preceded by a two-day seminar on
human rights and anti-Semitism organized by the Jacob Blaustein
Institute. Participants from the larger human rights organizations
and Jewish NGOs sought to learn from each other's experience in
defining and recording human rights abuses. Until that point Jewish
community groups had generally failed to interact with human rights
groups, and they in turn had failed to see anti-Semitism as a human
rights abuse. Methodologies for recording and analyzing anti-
Semitism were discussed, and the conference concluded with a set
of recommendations that noted the rise in anti-Semitism and called
on OSCE participating states to undertake ongoing monitoring,
reporting, and follow-up of the phenomenon. The conference also
proposed that governments undertake educational programs on human
rights and nondiscrimination and launch awareness-raising
campaigns.3
The Vienna conference itself came about because of U.S. government
insistence, with the U.S. ambassador to the OSCE, Steve Minikes,
whose grandmother died in Auschwitz, playing a key role. "The fact
that such a meeting is necessary" stated Everts,
is in itself deplorable, but we would be remiss not to recognise that
this still exists....It is shocking to have to acknowledge that anti-
Semitism has shamelessly recurred after the Holocaust and may even
be on the rise, as witnessed by recent instances....All this is occurring
in the year 2003 in various parts of the OSCE. It will be a grave
mistake to ignore or belittle this in the hope it will prove ephemeral.
We have seen what that cultimately - might lead to.4
The conference began with an address by Bulgarian Foreign Minister
Solomon Passy, and proceeded with a keynote address by Wladyslaw
Bartoszewski, former Polish foreign minister, Auschwitz prisoner,
and cofounder of the underground Zegota Council for Aid to Jews
(Zegota was the cryptonym for the clandestine organization that
provided assistance to the Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland during
1942-1945 and was financed by the London-based Polish Government
in Exile). Eli Wiesel was to have given the second keynote address,
but he was detained by illness and his address was read out for him.
Both of these presentations considered the historical nature of anti-
Semitism. The conference continued with various sessions on legislative
mechanisms, governmental action, governments' role in promoting
tolerance, the importance of education, information awareness, and
so on. Participants expressed concern over the rise in anti-Semitic
incidents and noted that anti-Semitism threatens not only Jews but
society as a whole. Several speakers noted the importance of compiling
statistics on hate-crime and anti-Semitic incidents in a uniform fashion
and subsequently analyzing the data. All agreed that there was a
clear need for legislative action and that the Holocaust should be
commemorated by each country on a special day.
What was clear toward the conclusion was that a separate conference
was required to examine the specifics of countering anti-Semitism,
and the German delegation proposed a follow-up conference to be
held in Berlin during 2004. What was equally obvious, however, to
the Jewish participants was the governments' failure to recognize that
anti-Semitism was now coming from new and different directions.
Keynote addresses by Hebrew University Professor Robert Wistrich,
former French Justice Minister Robert Badinter, and Professor Irwin
Cotler, then a Canadian Member of Parliament but shortly to be
appointed justice minister, stressed this issue. They each noted that
this new anti-Semitism had the potential to be every bit as genocidal
as that of the Nazis, but it was unclear to the Jewish participants if
government representatives had actually absorbed what was being
told them.
Badinter very clearly spelled it out:
In actual fact, the current upsurge of anti-Semitism in France and
other countries in Europe is primarily anti-Zionist in inspiration.
Nothing could be more meaningful, in that respect, than to analyse
the acts of anti-Semitic violence committed in France over the past
ten years. In 1992, there were 20 recorded acts of anti-Semitic violence.
Then their number dwindled significantly between 1992 and
1998: 3 in 1997, just 1 in 1998. In 1999, on the other hand, there
were 9 acts of anti-Semitism. The figures explode starting in 2000,
with 119. Practically all of them, 114, occurred after 28 September
2000 and the outbreak of the second Intifada and the Israeli-Palestinian
clashes, which were widely reported on television. Still more
noteworthy, of the 193 acts recorded in 2002, the majority took place
after [the Israeli army's] offensive in the est Bank and the resurgence
of suicide attacks against the Israeli population in spring 2002, especially
during Passover....Their perpetrators, meanwhile, are hard to
identify and arrest due to the nature of these events. However, out
of 77 people arrested, 55 are of North African origin and 6 of African
origin; all hail from the "sensitive" suburban neighbourhood, notably
around Paris....This is how current anti-Semitism takes its origin
most acutely from anti-Zionism.5
Cotler pointed out that the new, lethal anti-Semitism is frequently
transmitted on the Internet and that a new vocabulary is needed to
combat it. Traditional anti-Semitism is addressed to individual Jews;
the new anti-Semitism is addressed to Israel, the new "collective" Jew
among nations. What makes the new different from the old is that the
new is global and genocidal, calling for the destruction of Israel and
the Jews via a combination of genocide and anti-Semitism. Cotler
referred delegates to the covenant of Hamas, fatwahs originating from
the Middle East, and direct calls for Israel's elimination by states such
as Iran. New anti-Semitism is particularly insidious because of its
sophistication and its disguise as antiracism - by, for example, characterizing
Israel as a Nazi state. Additionally, new anti-Semitism has
become legalized, whereas Israel is singled out for different treatment
by the United Nations and other international bodies.6
The Vienna conference marked a promising start, but it was apparent
that political pressure was required by Jewish NGOs and by America
and Germany, which were now sharing the leadership within the
OSCE, to bring about practical outcomes. For instance, the U.S. delegation
leader, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, stressed the
importance of monitoring and data collection as well as a second
conference.
During the following year, debates at the higher levels of the OSCE
indicated some degree of reluctance by governments, particularly those
within the European Union, to address the issue of anti-Semitism.
However, France's change of heart signaled the beginning of a new
approach. The French government has become increasingly concerned
about the promotion of hate via the Internet, and during that year
announced its acceptance of the proposed second conference on condition
that it could host a conference on cyberhate. Russia, however,
opposed any attempt to further debate the issue, and Britain was
purportedly mostly concerned about the OSCE commitment to zero
budget growth and what it believed to be a more serious problem of
human trafficking. Some representatives also said they were concerned
that the OSCE would further enhance its reputation for the mere
staging of talk shops rather than concrete accomplishments.
The Rotterdam and Warsaw Conferences
A resolution passed, however, at the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
in Rotterdam from 5-9 July lent impetus for a second conference.7
There the U.S. delegation, led by Congressman Christopher Smith,
submitted a draft resolution on combating anti-Semitism that recommended
creating a monitoring system. The resolution was passed by
unanimous vote including a U.S. amendment and another submitted
by the Swiss representative, and Parliamentary Assembly vice-president,
Barbara Haering, that recognized the participating states' responsibilities
to promote tolerance and nondiscrimination. The amendment
proposed by Smith, and agreed by all, urged states that had not
already done so to join the Taskforce for International Cooperation
on Holocaust Education, and to implement the provisions of the
Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust.8
Additionally and perhaps even more importantly, a letter, jointly
signed by Gert Weisskirchen and Christopher Smith, was distributed to
all Parliamentary Assembly members. Weisskirchen, former academic
and foreign affairs spokesman for the Social Democrat Party in the
German Bundestag, and currently an OSCE vice-president, and
Smith, leader of the U.S. delegation and likewise a current OSCE vice president,
stated that they now had the support for a further conference
and for an action program on anti-Semitism from the French, Italian,
Canadian, and Swedish delegations, and asked to personally meet
members of others to enlist their support.9
The quid pro quo for holding the anti-Semitism conference in
Vienna was agreement to hold a separate conference on racism, xenophobia,
and discrimination that would focus on the role of governments
and civil society in promoting greater tolerance and support
for victims of those ills. Here the subtext was essentially one of addressing
the concerns of Muslim communities in Europe, and keynote
addresses were given by the Grand Mufti of Bosnia-Herzegovina,
Mustafa Ceric, and Lord Nazir Ahmed (a Labour Party councillor
from Rotherham, Yorkshire), who both dwelt on European Muslim
communities' fears that they were increasingly being demonized, particularly
by the media. Only a few Jewish NGOs attended this conference,
both to give the Muslim and other minorities space to express
their own particular concerns and also, more important, because it
was believed anti-Semitism needed to be dealt with separately from
other forms of hatred.
The OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw
in October 2003 gave the Jewish NGOs a further opportunity to
lobby for the second conference on anti-Semitism. The Jewish delegates
urged acceptance of the German proposal for a follow-up meeting to
be held in Berlin during 2004, which would move beyond recognition
of the problems toward adopting concrete programs. They further
urged the conference to recommend an "assignment of responsibility"
within the OSCE, possibly through a contact point for monitoring and
reporting on anti-Semitic incidents and promoting a comprehensive
human rights approach by states. They argued that states only now
were beginning to comprehend that anti-Semitism is a mutating virus
that comes from different and sometimes new directions. Some Jewish
communities now felt less threatened by the racist far Right and more
by the spillover of tensions from the Middle East.10
Jewish participants took the opportunity to debate their recommendation
and to lobby specific countries' representatives to support
the German offer. At the end of the meeting, the chairman of the
conference announced that there was a consensus among member
states to recommend to the forthcoming Ministerial Council meeting
in Maastricht that the OSCE accept the German government's offer
to hold a follow-up conference. Again an additional conference was
to be held on xenophobia and racism, which initially the British government
sought to host but subsequently the Belgian government agreed
to take on, scheduling it for September 2004.
The German delegates, led by Gert Weisskirchen and Claudia
Roth, commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid
at the German Foreign Office, informed the Jewish NGOs' representatives
that President Johannes Rau wished to host the conference and
to address it shortly before his departure from office and to coincide
with the state visit of Israeli President Moshe Katzav during May
2004 (in the event the conference took place some time before the
state visit) They suggested that the Jewish NGOs' network discuss
their ideas for an agenda and what their desired outcome was likely
to be.
Steps by the European Union
Parallel to attempts to persuade the OSCE to monitor and combat
anti-Semitism were the moves within the European Union itself. So
far these have resulted in two initiatives, with the prospect of a third
to follow. The first of these was undertaken by the European Jewish
Congress (EJC) with the aim of having the European Monitoring
Centre against Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), headquartered in
Vienna, compile a report on anti-Semitism. That it had failed to do
so counted to its discredit, particularly given that the initiative for its
establishment had come from Jean Kahn, the former president of the
EJC, of the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France
(CRIF), and of the Consistoire (the principal religious organization
in France), of which he remains honorary president.
A series of meetings took place between the EUMC director, Beate
Winkler, and EJC officials in the run-up to commissioning the report
that resulted in the compilation of an evaluation study on anti-
Semitism in each country by Alexander Pollak. This, in turn, led to
the EUMC requesting its National Focal Points within the Racism
and Xenophobic Network of NGOs (RAXEN) to prepare an overview
of anti-Semitism covering May and June 2000 in their respective
countries.
The Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism (ZfA) at Berlin's Technical
University was contracted to analyze the reports and publish a
composite analysis, which it did within the short space of time allowed
for this. However, the result was not well received by the EUMC
board, allegedly because it apportioned much of the blame for the
rise in anti-Semitism to Muslim expatriate communities. The report
itself was not published for nine months after its completion, leading
to serious criticism of the EUMC by the EJC, which remained unresolved
until the report was leaked to the EJC by the Berlin authors.
The reason given by the EUMC management board was that the
report prepared by the Berlin Institute was not reliable enough to
warrant publication and hence a complementary study had been requested
in order to complete the report, whose publication was not
expected until March 2004.
At the same time that this process was unfolding, a poll requested
by the European Commission from the Eurobarometer organization
found that more Europeans saw Israel as a danger to security than
any other state mentioned, which caused outrage within Jewish communities.
A press release from the EJC asked:
Isn't the identity of the rogue states well-known to all Europeans?
Hasn't the European Union published a list of known terrorist organizations?
By singling out Israel as representing the Middle East as a
whole, and excluding any mention of the Palestinians, those who
commissioned the survey knew exactly what they were looking for.
As any pollster knows, "the answer lies in the question."
Why is the European Union incapable of producing a report on
anti-Semitism in Europe, promised two years ago, when it can, within
six months of the Iraqi war publish the results of a large-scale in-
flammatory survey?11
The first EUMC report was released to the press by the EJC in
December 2003. In their covering letter they stated:
The European Jewish Congress has decided to publish the report
of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) in Vienna. The study, prepared by the Anti-Semitism Research
Institute at Berlin's Technical University was confiscated by
decision of the Board of Directors of the EUMC.
This despite a preface endorsing the findings and recommendations
of the study written by the President and by the director of
the EUMC.
The EJC condemns this unilateral and eminently political decision....
This report on anti-Semitic acts in the European Union will
be simultaneously broadcast on the websites of the national Jewish
communities affiliated to the European Jewish Congress.12
The second report, prepared by former Luxembourg Foreign
Ministry spokesman Victor Weitzel and Warsaw University Professor
Magdalena Sroder on "Perceptions of Anti-Semitism in the European
Union," was published side by side with the main country-bycountry
analysis as "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the EU
2002-2003" on 31 March 2004. These long-awaited analyses were in
fact a reasonable effort even given the limited amount of time allowed
for their preparation, and the controversy surrounding their publication.
However, further controversy was to bedevil their release, on
this occasion caused by the mishandling of the launch. The press
release that accompanied them suggested that the far Right remained
the main promoter of anti-Semitism within Europe, whereas the body
of the first report, and particularly the general assessment, suggested
otherwise, confirming the views of Jewish community leaders and
defense agencies.
In the report's conclusions, the authors state that:
there is indeed evidence to support the view that there is a link
between the number of reported anti-Semitic incidents and the political
situation in the Middle East. Furthermore, some of the data
indicates that there have been changes in the profile of perpetrators.
It is not any more the extreme right that is mainly responsible for
hostility towards Jewish individuals or property (or public property
with a symbolic relation to the Holocaust or to Jews) - especially
during the periods when registered incidents peak. In some countries,
like Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden
and the UK, a varying proportion of victims of hostility classify
perpetrators to be "young Muslims," "people of North African origin,"
or "immigrants."13
The final section, on proposals for action, likewise contains sensible
and balanced recommendations.
The second initiative, undertaken again by the EJC and with the
Council of European Rabbis, was designed to have the European
Commission itself learn about anti-Semitism so as to take informed
action. Here again the process was bedeviled by an initial reluctance
on the part of the European institutions to acknowledge the issue and
the direction the new anti-Semitism was coming from.
This began with a series of meetings between EJC leaders and
elected European Commission leaders from 2003 onward. Among
these was a meeting in November 2003 between Italian President Silvio
Berlusconi, then president of the European Union, EJC and World
Jewish Congress (WJC) leaders. Berlusconi requested a brief report
that he could use to promote the process within European institutions,
and the EJC undertook to provide such a report. This document again
pointed out that anti-Semitic violence began to rise in the wake of
the second intifada, and that incidents rose and fell after tensions in
the Middle East.
In December 2003 EJC leaders briefed EC President Romano
Prodi, following which he undertook to organize a joint seminar to
inform EC leaders. This, however, was almost derailed by the publication
of EJC President Cobi Benato. and WJC Chairman Israel
Singer's opinion piece in the Financial Times that accused European
institutions of intellectual dishonesty and moral treachery in handling
the issue of anti-Semitism. The Jewish leaders cited the Eurobarometer
opinion poll and the alleged suppression of the EUMC study, and
asserted: "Anti-Semitism can be expressed in two ways: by action
and inaction. Remarkably, the European Commission is guilty of
both . . . let us not mince words: both of these actions were politically
motivated, demonstrating a failure of will and decency."14
The seminar was finally held in Brussels in February 2004 under the
auspices of the European Commission, the EJC, and the Conference of
European Rabbis. A succession of Jewish leaders voiced their increasing
concern at the damage being done to Europe by its failure to
confront rising anti-Semitic levels. Prodi, while seeking to dismiss the
Eurobarometer poll and the temporary shelving of the EUMC report,
nevertheless showed real concern and put in motion what is hoped
will develop into the third initiative. This is the creation of an oversight
committee composed of EC and EJC officials to monitor anti-Semitism
within the EU.15
At the same time that this process was unfolding, the WJC was
seeking to resurrect a UN General Assembly Resolution condemning
anti-Semitism that had been circulated by Ireland in November 2003,
and that had met strong Arab opposition and been withdrawn. In
January 2004 WJC and EJC leaders met with Irish Prime Minister
Bertie Ahern, who by then was also president of the European Union,
having succeeded Berlusconi. They requested that the European Union
take strong measures against the recurrence of anti-Semitism in
Europe, that it support the EC-funded seminar on anti-Semitism, and
that Ireland once again bring forward its resolution condemning anti-
Semitism to the UN General Assembly.
The Council of Europe
The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
is an agency responsible to the Directorate General of Human Rights
of the Council of Europe (CoE), working in parallel with the EUMC
but with a focus on legislative action against racism. ECRI's work
primarily involves country visits and the preparation of country reports
that chart any progress or problems encountered by the CoE member
states in enacting legislation and other measures to defeat racism.
It, too, has noted the rise in anti-Semitism in recent years and in early
2004 began preparing a recommendation on fighting anti-Semitism.
It established a working group and in March 2004 circulated its
draft General Policy Recommendation No. 9, which ECRI adopted
in final form in June 2004 and is scheduled for public release in
September 2004.16
Parallel to this, three Members of the European Parliament, Jean
Thomas Nordmann, Glyn Ford, and Leonard Sacrédeus, submitted
a resolution to the Parliament condemning anti-Semitism and urging
the European Council and Commission to take the necessary steps
to coordinate their actions to combat anti-Semitism. They asked that
the European Commission report back to the Parliament with plans
for future action.17
The Berlin Conference
The OSCE Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism at the end of April
2004 was preceded first by a workshop organized by the American
Jewish Committee that focused on education to combat anti-Semitism,
and second by a major NGO Forum that addressed a wide
range of relevant topics. Both events brought together Jewish and
non-Jewish educators from the member states. While recommending
historical and Holocaust education within the region, the participants
noted that such education must be broadly anchored and
identify anti-Semitism as the dominant ideology within National
Socialism. In their conclusions they noted that while Holocaust education
is an obligatory part of school curricula in some countries, in
others Jewish pupils are subjected to threats. They also asserted that
Holocaust education must establish links to various communities of
remembrance since, while the Jews were the primary victims, others
suffered too. However, and importantly, they pointed out that historical
education is not sufficient in itself: education must focus on
current phenomena, and in particular educators must confront anti-
Semitism that comes from sections of the Muslim community and
anti-Semitic forms of criticism of Israel.
The organizers hope that their decisions will provide a basis for
OSCE initiatives in teaching against anti-Semitism and for tolerance.18
Diplomatic negotiations before the Conference itself focused on
the desire of the U.S. and German governments, together with the
Jewish NGOs, to produce a declaration that would recognize the
singularity of anti-Semitism among other forms of racism, point to
the origin of much of the current problems, and initiate practical
countermeasures. This almost proved a stumbling block, and negotiations
and rewrites were carried on over a period of several months
with the Jewish NGOs hoping to persuade the U.S. State Department
and German Foreign Ministry of the importance of a declaration that
reflected the new realities.
The resultant declaration states "unambiguously that international
developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere
in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism."19While not as strong
as some would have wished, it nevertheless broke the logjam in pointing
to the source of much current anti-Semitism. The Berlin Declaration
also committed participating states to collect and maintain reliable
information and statistics about anti-Semitic and other hate crimes,
and to work with the Parliamentary Assembly to determine appropriate
means of periodic review of the problem of anti-Semitism. It
tasked the ODIHR to work on systematically collecting and disseminating
information, identifying best means for preventing and responding
to anti-Semitism and, if requested, to offer advice to
participating states in their efforts to fight it.20
The decision has still to be endorsed by the Ministerial Conference
in December 2004, but it marks a significant step forward in identifying
the problem and devising a program to counter it. Notably, on 21
June in a speech at UN headquarters, UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan publicly called on UN member states to endorse the Berlin
Declaration and specifically cited the paragraph about political events
never justifying anti-Semitism.21
The Paris Cyberhate Conference
Likewise, a French-sponsored OSCE meeting on cyberhate held in
Paris in June agreed on practical initiatives and in particular on identifying
ways to address anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet that
do not endanger freedom of information and expression. It had been
thought that the differing European and American approaches to
combating cyberhate might prove a stumbling block, and indeed there
was some press criticism that the Europeans had failed to convince
the Americans to overcome the restrictions of the First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution, but also a recognition that there might be
other ways of dealing with the problem. A questionnaire circulated
among OSCE states seeking information on Internet usage and laws
to combat cyberhate had only been returned by under half the states
and showed that much more research was needed.
The resultant declaration, therefore, noted that participants had
agreed to jointly identify effective approaches to defeating racist, xenophobic,
and anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet that do not
endanger freedom of expression, but also that an appropriate followup
should be considered at the next Ministerial Meeting of the OSCE.22
The Way Forward
Given that the Jewish NGOs and community representatives have
demonstrated to their governments and the international bodies that
much of the "new" anti-Semitism comes increasingly from Muslims,
as a spillover of Middle East violence or a result of Arab states'
propaganda beamed to Europe, what prospects are there for these
states and organizations to deal with it effectively?
The size and demographics of Jewish communities, compared to
Muslim communities, ensure that Jews will have a declining political
say. Muslims increasingly outnumber Jews throughout Western
Europe, and in some countries are starting to show a political cohesion
that propels them toward voting as a religious bloc.
Church responsibility for anti-Semitism in Europe, at least in its
western and southern parts though not in the central and southeastern
areas, is declining and the Catholic Church at least has acknowledged
its complicity in anti-Semitism and moved toward reconciliation. Other
churches have yet to take the same step but in northern and northwestern
Europe, and particularly in Germany, they have embarked on
the process.
American and German support for highlighting and combating
anti-Semitism as a threat not only to Jewish communities, but to
democracy as a whole, are seen by the Jewish NGOs as vital. Without
these countries' continued encouragement, European institutions
would not have begun the process of self-examination and
criticism.
So far, though, that process has been confined to good intentions
and declarations by elected and official elites. How does this get translated
to the street level? Can the many official communiqués start to
make a difference?
Clearly, the implementation process will be a long one. Persuading
states, some of whose law enforcement agencies have been used to
police and suppress their populations, to change and begin to protect
citizens requires a climate change. Sensitizing them to recognize anti-
Semitism for what it is, and then record and monitor anti-Semitic
violence according to internationally accepted standards, requires
much training. Educating children, and their parents, toward tolerance
of Jews and other minorities, when some of their governments barely
acknowledge their complicity in the Holocaust, will be an equally long
and difficult task.
What the Jewish NGOs can, however, bring to this implementation
process is a "qualitative" approach that must counterbalance their
lack of voting strength. For fifty years Jewish NGOs have pioneered
tolerance teaching, particularly among law enforcement agencies.
Close, working cooperation between Jewish communities' defense
agencies and their respective national law enforcement agencies have
led to mutual benefit and to understanding Jewish fears and concerns,
as well as sensitizing the police to react swiftly and more effectively.
Police forces have learned that attacks on Jewish communities do not
end with the Jews.
Jewish educational bodies have pioneered antiracist and Holocaust
teaching, and have themselves funded museums and institutes that
promote these initiatives. Likewise, Jewish communities have pioneered
interfaith discussions not only between themselves and Christians but
also among the three Abrahamic faiths. The Bendorf dialogue between
Jews and Christians, now extended to Jews, Christians, and Muslims,
the International Council of Christians and Jews, the Jewish-Catholic
dialogue in Rome, Britain's Holocaust Education Trust, the Anti-Defamation League's teaching of tolerance programs for law enforcement
agencies, and others are exemplary endeavors in the process of
defeating anti-Semitism in Europe.
The European institutions, foremost among them the OSCE, the
European Commission , and the CoE, should embrace Jewish expertise,
not just to defeat anti-Semitism but also to defend and promote
democracy in Europe.
* * *
Notes
1 Charter of Paris for a New Europe, Heads of State, 19-21 November 1990,
Paris, p. 7.
2. Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, Decision No. 6,OSCE Ministerial Council,
7 December 2002, Porto.
3. Recommendations of the Seminar on Human Rights and Anti-Semitism,
Convened by the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human
Rights, 19-20 June 2003, Vienna.
4. "OSCE Participating States Ready and Willing to 'Take Up the Gauntlet'
and Fight Anti-Semitism," Press Release, Chairman in Office, 19 June 2003,
Vienna.
5. Address by Senator Robert Badinter, former minister of justice, former president
of the Constitutional Council, OSCE Meeting on Anti-Semitism, 19 June
2003, Vienna.
6. Irwin Cotler, MP, "The Role of the Media in Conveying and Countering
Prejudice," Session 4, Information and Awareness Raising, OSCE Meeting
on Anti-Semitism, 20 June 2003, Vienna.
7. Resolution on Combating Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century, Rotterdam
Declaration of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and Resolutions Adopted
during the Twelfth Annual Session, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 5-9 July
2003, Rotterdam.
8. Amendments to the Supplementary Item on Combating Anti-Semitism in
the 21st Century, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 5-9 July 2003, Rotterdam.
9. Letter of Intent; Action Programme: Confronting and Combating Anti-
Semitism in the OSCE Region, 10 December 2002; Statement of Solidarity,
submitted by Gert Weisskirchen MdB, Christopher H. Smith MC, July 2003,
Rotterdam.
10. Recommendations OSCE HDIM 2003, Working Session 13 on Prevention
of Discrimination, Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism, submitted by
American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Centre for Information
and Documentation on Israel (CIDI), Consultative Council of Jewish
Organizations, European Jewish Congress, Jacob Blaustein Institute for the
Advancement of Human Rights, Magenta Foundation, NCSJ Advocates on
Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and Eurasia, Tolerance
Foundation of Moscow, 15 October 2003.
11. "Incendiary Poll," press release, EJC, 3 November 2003, Paris.
12. Report on Anti-Semitism: Commissioned but not published, press release,
EJC, 1 December 2003, Paris.
13. Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the EU 2002-2003, European Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna, p. 319, 31 March 2004.
14. Cobi Benato. and Israel Singer, "Europe's Moral Treachery over anti-Semitism,"
Financial Times, 5 January 2004.
15. "Europe against anti-Semitism for a Union of Diversity," joint seminar of
the EJC, European Commission, Conference of European Rabbis, 19 February
2004, Brussels.
16. Draft text of ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 9 on the fight
against anti-Semitism, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance,
22 March 2004, Strasbourg.
17. Written Declaration on Anti-Semitism, European Parliament (DC\
529686EN.doc), 29 March 2004.
18. "Results of the European Workshop: Education on anti-Semitism," American
Jewish Committee Task Force on Education on anti-Semitism, 18-20
April 2004, Berlin.
19. Berlin Declaration, OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, Berlin, 28-29 April
2004 (PC.DEL/696/04).
20. Ibid.
21. "Jews Everywhere Must Feel that the United Nations Is Their Home Too,"
speech by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, 21 June 2004 (www.un.org/
News/Press/docs/2004/hr4773.doc.htm).
22. Conclusions by the Chair of the OSCE Meeting on the Relationship between
Racist, Xenophobic and anti-Semitic Propaganda on the Internet and Hate
Crimes, OSCE, 16-17 June 2004, Paris (PC.DEL/514/04).
* * *
MICHAEL WHINE is communications director of the Community Security Trust and director of the Defence and Group Relations Division of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. He is a consultant to the European Jewish Congress and has represented it at the OSCE. He writes regularly on anti-Semitism, extremist politics, and terrorism and contributes the United Kingdom chapter for the following annual publications: Extrême Droite et National-Populisme en Europe de l'Ouest (Centre de Recherche et d'Information Socio-Politiques, Brussels), Anti-Semitism World Report (Institute for Jewish Policy Research, London), and Anti-Semitism Worldwide (Tel Aviv University).
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect
those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
The above essay appears in the Fall 2004 issue of the Jewish Political Studies Review, the first and only journal dedicated to the study of Jewish political institutions and behavior, Jewish political thought, and Jewish public affairs.
Published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (http://www.jcpa.org/), the JPSR appears twice a year in the form of two double issues, either of a general nature or thematic, with contributors including outstanding scholars from the United States, Israel, and abroad. The hard copy of the Fall 2004 issue will be available in the coming weeks. This issue focuses on "Emerging Anti-Semitic Themes."
From the Editor - Manfred Gerstenfeld
Foreword by Natan Sharansky
Foundations of an Israeli Grand Strategy Toward the European Union by Yehezkel Dror
Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism by Robert Wistrich
Watching the Pro-Israeli Media Watchers by Manfred Gerstenfeld and Ben Green
Abusing the Legacy of the Holocaust: The Role of NGOs in Exploiting Human Rights to Demonize Israel by Gerald M. Steinberg
International Organizations: Combating Anti-Semitism
in Europe by Michael Whine
Confronting Reality: Anti-Semitism in Australia Today by Jeremy Jones
Anti-Semitism in Canada by Manuel Prutschi
Anti-Semitism in Germany Today: Its Roots and Tendencies by Susanne Urban
Iceland, the Jews and Anti-Semitism, 1625-2004 by Vilhjálmur Örn Vilhjálmsson
The Persistence of Anti-Semitism on the British Left
by Ben Cohen
Suing Hitler's Willing Business Partners: American Justice
and Holocaust Morality by Michael J. Bazyler
A Case Study: Madison, Wisconsin, U.S.A.: A Battleground
for Israel's Legitimacy - by Joel Fishman
An Analytic Approach to Campus Pro-Israeli Activism
Case Study: John Hopkins University by Yonit Golub
Jewish Political Studies Review
ORDER FORM
Invoice No. ________
Date _______________
Annual Subscription Rates:
|
Individual
|
Institutions
& Libraries
|
Students
|
Outside Israel:
|
$26
|
$40
|
$20
|
In Israel:
|
NIS 70
|
NIS 110
|
NIS 40
|
Back Issues or Single issues - $12 each
Enclosed is my check for US$/NIS: ____________
Name: _____________________________________________________________
Address: _____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
All checks should be made payable and mailed to:
IN THE US:
Center for Jewish Community Studies
Baltimore Hebrew University
5800 Park Heights Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21215
|
IN ISRAEL:
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
13 Tel Hai Street
Jerusalem 92107 ISRAEL
|