[Senate Hearing 108-370]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-370
ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 22, 2003
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
92-370 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BARBARA BOXER, California
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BILL NELSON, Florida
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire Virginia
JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia, Chairman
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
(ii)
?
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., U.S. Senator from Delaware, opening
statement...................................................... 3
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado,
statement submitted for the record............................. 6
Senate Concurrent Resolution 7............................... 7
Corzine, Hon. Jon S., U.S. Senator from New Jersey, prepared
statement...................................................... 18
Foxman, Mr. Abraham H., national director, Anti-Defamation
League, New York, NY........................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 48
Harris, Mr. David A., executive director, The American Jewish
Committee, New York, NY........................................ 60
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Levin, Mr. Mark B., executive director, National Conference on
Soviet Jewry, Washington, DC................................... 93
Prepared statement........................................... 95
Levitte, Ambassador Jean-David, French Ambassador to the United
States, letter with attached documents related to the European
reaction to a statement by Mr. Mahathir, Prime Minister of
Malaysia....................................................... 116
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening
statement...................................................... 3
O'Donnell, Mr. Edward B., Jr., Ambassador-Designate, Special
Envoy for Holocaust Issues, U.S. Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 23
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Present state of Holocaust education in European schools..... 31
``The Return of Anti-Semitism,'' article by Craig Horowitz,
the New York Magazine, December 15, 2003................... 40
Smith, Hon. Christopher H., U.S. Representative from New Jersey
(4th), Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, statement submitted for the record..................... 12
Solemn Proclamation, from the Official Journal of the European
Communities.................................................... 122
The Fight Against Anti-Semitism In France........................ 112
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom,
statement by Felice D. Gaer, Vice Chair, submitted for the
record......................................................... 115
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from Ohio, prepared
statement...................................................... 15
(iii)
ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on European Affairs,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen
(chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present: Senators Allen, Voinovich, Coleman, Biden,
Sarbanes, and Corzine.
Senator Allen. Good afternoon. I'd like to call this
hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on
European Affairs to order. I'd like to thank all our witnesses
for appearing before the subcommittee this afternoon.
The purpose of our hearing today is to examine anti-
Semitism in Europe and the best practices that have been
implemented to address the current problem and prevent any
future acts.
During the last 3 years, there have been documented
increases in anti-Semitic incidents taking place throughout
Europe. The desecration of Jewish cemeteries and monuments,
vandalism of Jewish homes, schools, community centers, fire-
bombing of synagogues, violence against Jewish individuals are
all troubling signs that many of the countries of Europe are
not doing enough, possibly, to protect the rights of Jewish
citizens and also, importantly, educate their populace of the
importance of religious tolerance and individual rights.
In 2003, we've seen a number of such incidents throughout
Europe Specifically in a suburb of Paris, a synagogue was
desecrated and vandalized with anti-Semitic graffiti. Books
were scattered on the floors, and torah scrolls were in
disarray.
Over 50 graves were vandalized in Kassel, Germany, in
August of this year. Grave stones in the historic Jewish
cemetery were overturned, and headstones were toppled.
In Greece, two swastikas were spray-painted on a Holocaust
Memorial in February of this year. The desecrated memorial
honors the tens of thousands of Salonican Jews killed by the
Nazis.
In May of 2003, a rabbi in Vienna, Austria, was assaulted
by two youths while walking home from prayer. The assailants
shouted anti-Semitic slurs, kicked the rabbi, and struck his
head with a beer bottle. Thankfully, the two suspects were
apprehended.
More recently, in Russia, an object resembling a bomb with
anti-Semitic slogans attached to it was found in a synagogue.
Fortunately, the bomb was found to be hoax or a fake, but the
message was obvious.
Such examples show that anti-Semitism in Europe is not
confined to one country or region. Instead, it is a widespread
problem that leaves many in the Jewish community throughout
Europe understandably worried and fearful of attack.
Many point, in all of this, to the ongoing violence in the
Middle East, particularly the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians, as reasons for the growing anti-Semitic violence
in Europe. Those type of motives are not an excuse for anti-
Semitism, because, in my view, anti-Semitism is wrong. These
attacks are based on the victims' ethnicity and/or their
religious beliefs. When a person is attacked, threatened or
assaulted because of their race, their ethnicity, or their
religious beliefs, it is my view that government and community
leaders must immediately and forcefully deplore these actions
as unacceptable. All forms of hatred must be immediately
condemned, both vigorously and publicly, to leave absolutely no
doubt in the minds of the citizens that such actions are wrong
and will not be tolerated. Failure to act quickly and to make
these condemnations could be construed by some as condoning
such behavior, and may lead to additional violent incidents.
Law enforcement obviously is key in all of this. It's not
just the statements, but it's the follow up. Following the
clues, following evidence, finding those who are involved, and
prosecuting them to the full extent of the law for anti-Semitic
violence is also absolutely essential. If this is not the
message, then these hate crimes will, unfortunately, go
unpunished, and victims will be denied due justice. More
importantly, the wrong message is sent from the norms of
civilized society.
Now, as we explore this issue, I think it's important to
acknowledge that some efforts have been made in parts of Europe
to stem the growing number of these incidents. Earlier this
year, France began an effort through its Education Ministry to
eliminate anti-Semitism and other types of discrimination in
its schools. Such initiatives should be applauded, as schools
are an optimum place to enlighten children and prevent bigoted
views from carrying forward until adulthood.
To prosecute those committing anti-Semitic acts, France has
developed a new unit to investigate these crimes, and has
enacted legislation to toughen penalties for racist and anti-
Semitic crimes, and encourage local law-enforcement agencies to
aggressively prosecute these attacks.
For its part, the EU has begun to develop a Union position
condemning anti-Semitism and racism, and has enacted measures
to fight discrimination and religious intolerance. These
efforts, as well as strong participation at the recent Anti-
Semitism Conference of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, these are positive steps that
ought to be commended and applauded.
Now, through this hearing, I'm hopeful that we'll be able
to uncover some of the best practices that have been
implemented by both Europe and the United States to combat
anti-Semitism in this country, as well as in Europe. It is
important to realize that the United States is not exempt from
this problem and we must continue to be vigilant in educating
our law-enforcement officials and prosecuting those who commit
anti-Semitic acts in our own States.
Through collaboration with our European allies and sharing
effective programs and initiatives, I believe we can stem the
growing tide of anti-Semitism and better educate people on the
importance of religious and ethnic tolerance.
With that, I'll conclude my remarks, and I know others will
want to make some opening remarks. I know Chairman Lugar will
submit a statement for the record.
[The opening statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar
I am pleased that the Subcommittee on European Affairs is holding a
hearing on ``Anti-Semitism in Europe.'' I want to congratulate Senator
Allen, the chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee, for his
diligence in constructing this hearing and his commitment to the topic,
and Senator Voinovich for his contributions to the hearing and his
ongoing work to promote international religious tolerance.
It is important that the United States oppose anti-Semitism
wherever it is found and work in cooperation with good friends to
overcome this problem. Evidence of anti-Semitism in Europe has
increased alarmingly in recent years. According to Tel Aviv
University's 2002-2003 annual report on anti-Semitism worldwide, more
than 50 percent of violent anti-Semitic incidents reported in 2002
occurred in Western Europe. France, the United Kingdom, and Belgium had
the highest number of reported incidents.
I am hopeful that European governments are beginning to grapple
more seriously with the problem of anti-Semitism. I was pleased last
February when the French education ministry launched a campaign to
combat anti-Semitism and other types of racism in schools. The UK,
Germany and Sweden reportedly also have initiated efforts to combat
racism and anti-Semitism.
Last June, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani led the
American delegation to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe's first transatlantic conference on anti-Semitism. The
conference was an important sign that the U.S. and Europe recognize
that a serious and coordinated response to anti-Semitism is required.
Among other proposals made at the conference, the U.S. delegation
recommended establishing a more uniform reporting system of anti-
Semitic events worldwide. I support the adoption of this idea.
This hearing will provide Members of Congress with insight into the
administration's policy on this issue. It also brings together a
distinguished panel of witnesses from the private sector that will
expand our insights into how we can address anti-Semitism. I thank each
of our witnesses for being with us today, and I look forward to their
testimony.
[The opening statement of Senator Biden follows:]
Opening Statement of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important
hearing.
I wish we didn't have to hold this hearing. But I'm not naive.
Anti-Semitism has been a disgusting aspect of European--and world--
history for nearly two millennia.
This committee has held many hearings on this distasteful topic. In
the summer of 1994, for example, when I was Chairman of the
Subcommittee on European Affairs, we held a series of three hearings on
right-wing movements in Europe--which differed from each other in many
respects, but had as a common thread the old, virulent anti-Semitism.
It goes without saying that one can oppose certain policies of the
State of Israel without being anti-Semitic. On the other hand, anti-
Semites regularly try to conflate the two issues and, moreover, often
distort Israeli actions in the process.
In April 2002 we got a vivid picture of this tactic. In response to
the first wave of suicide attacks against civilians in late March and
early April of that year, the Israeli army went after terrorists in the
refugee camp in Jenin.
The European news media, with very few exceptions, bought the line
of the Palestinian terror lobby hook, line, and sinker. Massacres of
seven or eight hundred civilians were proclaimed as fact.
In response to a petition by Arab Members of the Knesset, the
Israeli Government allowed international observers into the camp. They
found that a total of fifty-two people had died, thirty-three of them
armed terrorists.
Of course the anti-Semites in Europe didn't want to be bothered by
the facts. A really sick stream of vituperation spewed forth all over
the continent--with over-the-top language that went far beyond
criticism of Israeli actions, which themselves, as I said, had been
described completely incorrectly. These statements were blatantly,
unashamedly anti-Semitic, and many of them were made by prominent
Europeans.
I cited a few of them in a floor statement I gave in June 2002 in
support of a resolution that I co-sponsored, condemning the growing
intolerance and acts of persecution against Jews in many European
countries.
The French Ambassador to the U.K. made a demeaning, scatological
reference to the State of Israel, and the only ``scandal'' that
resulted was criticism of the supposed ``indiscretion'' of other guests
for having leaked the story to the press!
Then there was the wife of the President of the European Central
Bank who after flying the PLO flag from her house in Amsterdam
complained that ``Israel is being kept going by those rich Jews in
America.''
A similar example of objectivity came from Oslo where a member of
the Norwegian Nobel Committee declared that she would like to rescind
Shimon Peres's Nobel Peace Prize. Needless to say, she didn't choose to
mention, let alone criticize, Yasser Arafat or the suicide bombers whom
he aids and abets.
Even Germany's Free Democrats, a party with a proud history of
liberalism and tolerance, was shamed by one of its top officials who
explained that the Deputy Director of the Central Council of Jews in
Germany had brought on anti-Semitism himself by his supposedly
aggressive behavior as a television talk-show host!
One must add, sadly, that this troubled individual later committed
suicide, and certainly he was not typical in any way of the Free
Democratic Party.
And, of course, none of the other three statements reflected the
policies of the French, Dutch, or Norwegian governments. But such
utterances by prominent individuals do matter greatly in setting the
tone of public discussion.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the year since the United States Senate
passed the resolution in question, anti-Semitic acts--both rhetorical
ones and physically violent ones--have continued.
Students in a Jewish Day School in Paris were assaulted by a gang
of North African teenagers. In another incident, a rabbi, who is the
leader of a liberal Jewish movement was knifed on a Paris street and
his car set afire.
A Vienna rabbi was assaulted on his way home from prayer.
A Berlin man wearing a Star of David was attacked on a bus by a
group of teenagers who kicked him in the face, spat on him, and shouted
anti-Semitic slurs.
Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated in London, Rome, and other
European cities.
Just last week a new Jewish monument in Belarus was defaced.
Yes, several European governments have responded with declarations
against anti-Semitism, and a few, like France, have stiffened laws
against anti-Semitic and other such violence.
EU member-states are considering a proposal to harmonize their laws
against racism.
But many observers have finally dared to discuss what has long been
a ``dirty, little secret''--namely that the threat of violence from
millions of impoverished, often unemployed Muslim men in Western Europe
has, at the very least, induced governments to temper their reactions
to anti-Semitism. In truth, Europe's relations with the Muslim world
increasingly affect its public diplomacy.
How else can one explain the absolutely scandalous behavior of the
European Union last Friday in Brussels at the meeting of the European
Council, the heads of EU governments?
On the previous day at a summit meeting of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mahathir Mohamad,
had treated the world to one of his periodic ravings, this time about
Jews.
Mahathir's comment on the most heinous crime in history, the
Holocaust, was the following: ``The Europeans killed six million Jews
out of twelve million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy.''
He went on to enlighten the Conference about Western intellectual
history, explaining that the Jews ``invented socialism, communism,
human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be
wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others.''
The United States immediately and publicly condemned Mr. Mahathir's
ignorant bigotry. We would expect no less from our government.
The European Union reportedly was asked to include a similar
condemnation of Mahathir's speech in the lengthy ``Presidency
Conclusions'' ending its own summit meeting last Friday. It chose not
to.
The ``Presidency Conclusions'' offered a perfect opportunity for a
condemnation, since it devoted an entire section to ``External
Relations.''
This section included declarations on the following international
topics:
the WTO,
a so-called ``New Neighborhood Initiative,''
the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership,
the ``Northern Dimension,''
Moldova,
Iraq,
Iran,
Kosovo,
Bolivia,
Guatemala,
the Great Lakes Region of Africa, and even sections on
the Middle East, and
relations with the Arab world.
Mr. Chairman, it is incomprehensible to me that the EU would
publicly comment on these topics but not on the vile, anti-Semitic
speech in Malaysia.
French President Chirac reportedly said that it was not the EU's
place to issue a condemnation. There's real moral leadership!
Mr. Chirac apparently wrote a private letter to the Malaysian Prime
Minister criticizing his remarks. I doubt that many of the one billion
Muslims in the world had access to this letter.
Once again, the EU had a chance to show its true moral colors, and
it failed the test miserably. How could it not forthrightly speak out
against such repulsive nonsense, especially given the weighty
historical burden of European anti-Semitism?
Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure, but I think it exemplifies the same
lack of a moral compass that the EU showed when it voted for Libya to
chair the UN's Commission on Human Rights, on the pathetic grounds that
the chairmanship is rotational by geographic area.
Heaven forbid that Brussels should offend the Africa Group by
rejecting its candidate!
Heaven forbid that the EU should offend the Organization of the
Islamic Conference by publicly repudiating Mahathir's hateful garbage!
This reluctance to speak out is not only morally indefensible; it
is also self-defeating.
Anti-Semitism is to democracy as the dead canary in the cage is to
coal miners: a warning of impending doom. Miners can't compromise with
lethal coal gas, and democracies can't compromise with purveyors of
anti-Semitism.
Mr. Chairman, I am eager to hear the testimony of our expert
witnesses today.
I know Mr. Harris, Mr. Foxman, and Mr. Levin personally--and I have
the highest regard for their objectivity. I met Mr. O'Donnell briefly
when he was our Consul General in Frankfurt and I was enroute to the
Balkans on one of my frequent trips there.
I hope these gentlemen can disabuse me of my continuing impression
of European half-heartedness when it comes to battling anti-Semitism.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. The practice of this committee usually is
that the Chair and the ranking member give statements. In this
case, though, there are Senators who are so interested in this
subject that they want to make statements. I will put into the
record the statements from Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and
Congressman Christopher Smith.
[The prepared statement of Senator Campbell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Co-Chairman of
the Commission on Security and Cooperation
THE FIGHT AGAINST ANTI-SEMITISM CONTINUES
Mr. Chairman, as Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation, and the sponsor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 7, I
welcome this opportunity to address anti-Semitism in the OSCE region.
Kristallnacht occurred on the night of November 9, 1938, during
which Nazis systematically looted stores owned by Jews and set fire to
synagogues across Germany. More than 90 Jews were killed and many
thousands more arrested. This ``Night of Broken Glass'' was intended to
be a signal to German and Austrian Jews to leave as soon as possible.
It was a prelude to the horrors to come during World War II, resulting
in the Holocaust.
With the anniversary of Kristallnacht approaching, today's hearing
on anti-Semitism in Europe is timely, as there is still much to do in
the fight against anti-Semitism. While government sponsored anti-
Semitism is almost unheard of within the participating States of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), inaction
and silence by officials and elected leaders can give the impression of
tacit government approval. For example, anti-Semitic incidents have
been on the increase in Belarus; just recently, one of only two
synagogues in the Belarusian capital was set afire for the fifth time
over the past two years. It is also telling that textbooks in Belarus
include no references to the significant Jewish population from that
country that perished during the course of World War II. The Government
of Belarus should do more to ensure protection of the Jewish community
and its institutions.
Anti-Semitic graffiti is also visible in Greece, such as on the
Corinth-Tripoli highway, and for the third time in 18 months, the
Holocaust memorial in the Jewish cemetery in Ioannina was desecrated
with slogans including ``Out with the Jews'' and ``Death to Jews.'' I
urge the Government of Greece to take measures to address
manifestations on anti-Semitism and speak out publicly when such
incidents occur and pursue those responsible for such acts.
Mr. Chairman, even when governments are proactive, reports of
uncoordinated incidents continue to arise across the OSCE region, from
Russia, France, Germany, to the United States. For example, vandals
recently desecrated a Jewish cemetery and a memorial to concentration
camp victims in two separate incidents in Germany. In one recent
incident, 42 headstones in a Jewish cemetery in central Germany were
spray painted with graffiti including ``Heil Hitler,'' ``Sieg Heil''
and ``Hass,'' the German word for hate. Germany has some of the
toughest laws against anti-Semitic incidents in the world, yet these
deeds still occurred. Our fight against anti-Semitism is obviously far
from over.
On May 22, the United States Senate unanimously passed Senate
Concurrent Resolution 7, a bipartisan effort to raise our collective
voices in the face of growing anti-Semitism and related violence. While
the tide of anti-Semitic violence may be receding, manifestations of
anti-Semitism require continued action. Mr. Chairman, together with
Helsinki Commission Chairman Rep. Christopher Smith, I have worked and
will continue to work to monitor related developments in the OSCE
region and to urge political leaders to address the anti-Semitism at
home and abroad. As part of that effort, I urge the State Department to
work to ensure that the upcoming OSCE Ministerial Meeting endorses the
German offer to host an OSCE follow-up conference in anti-Semitism, in
Berlin next April. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full text of Senate
Concurrent Resolution 7 be included in the hearing record.
[The prepared statement of Representative Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee has convened this hearing to address this reoccurring problem
of anti-Semitism in Europe. This issue is of longstanding concern to
both Houses of Congress, most recently demonstrated by a concurrent
resolution condemning anti-Semitic violence, introduced respectively by
Commission Co-Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell and myself,
which passed the House and Senate this past summer.
Unfortunately, anti-Semitic incidents continue to occur in both
Europe and the United States. While there is a dearth of government
statistics, according to the good research of the Anti-Defamation
League, anti-Semitic incidents in the United States increased by 8
percent in 2002 over the previous year and incidents of anti-Semitism
on U.S. campuses rose 24 percent. The ADL also conducted a survey which
showed that in five European countries, 21 percent of the people
surveyed had strongly anti-Semitic perspectives or views. The survey
found that 17 percent of Americans held strong anti-Semitic views, up
five percent from just five years ago.
Against this backdrop, we must redouble our efforts, both at home
and abroad, to confront and combat anti-Semitic hate. At the
international level, I just returned from leading a congressional
delegation to Warsaw for the annual human rights meeting of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Serving as
Vice Chairman of the U.S. Delegation and delivering the U.S. statement
on the Prevention of Anti-Semitism, I made a series of recommendations
on how OSCE States can fight this reoccurring phenomenon.
For example, considering that not all governments specifically
track anti-Semitic acts or have specific legislation to equip law
enforcement officials, all participating States were encouraged to
inform OSCE's Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) of what legislation they have in place to penalize and punish
the perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence. Where statistics are
available, participating States should also share that information with
ODIHR and other States, and should commit to strengthening their hate-
crime statutes. The U.S. Delegation also recommended that all
governments ensure their education systems accurately teach about the
Holocaust and work to counter anti-Semitic stereotypes and attitudes.
Lastly, participating States were urged to join, if they have not
already done so, the Task Force for International Co-operation on
Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, and to implement the
provisions of the Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on
the Holocaust. I hope these recommendations will be adopted at the OSCE
Ministerial meeting in December.
The United States has specifically endorsed a German offer to host
an OSCE conference on anti-Semitism in spring 2004. In the Germans, we
have found good partners in the fight against this scourge. As was
eloquently and passionately declared in Warsaw by Prof. Gert
Weisskirchen, a distinguished member of the German Bundestag and a
Vice-President of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Germany has
experienced first hand the evil of anti-Semitism, and it must not be
ignored. The German offer originated at the OSCE Conference on anti-
Semitism held this past June in Vienna. Along with Mayor Rudy Giuliani,
I co-led the U.S. delegation to the Vienna conference. It is essential
that we maintain and build upon the international momentum created by
that conference. Through such tireless efforts, other OSCE
participating States have stated their support for the Berlin
Conference, or at least removed their stated objections to it being
convened.
I should also highlight the good work of my colleagues who serve
with me on the Helsinki Commission--Co-Chairman Senator Ben Nighthorse
Campbell and Ranking Member Rep. Ben Cardin, in particular--in voicing
concern about anti-Semitism and other human rights violations and
working for real change. Our efforts to address the violent acts of
anti-Semitism began in earnest in May 2002, when the Commission held a
hearing to raise specific attention to the growing problem of anti-
Semitic violence in the OSCE region. From that hearing a number of
initiatives emerged, the details of which can be found on the
Commission's Web site at www.csce.gov.
At the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Annual Session in Berlin in July
2002, I introduced and successfully secured unanimous approval of a
resolution denouncing anti-Semitism and calling for all OSCE States to
do more. ADL's Abe Foxman joined us in Berlin and made a passionate
presentation at a special forum co-hosted by the U.S. and German
parliamentary delegations. Building upon these initiatives at the OSCE
PA, I introduced a second resolution on anti-Semitism at the Assembly's
2003 meeting in Rotterdam, which was unanimously adopted.
However, much more needs to be done if we are to realize a future
free of anti-Semitic hate and acts. While some may say this endeavor
can never be accomplished, many also said the Soviet Union would never
fall. Together, if we stay faithful to the course, we will hopefully
see an end to this age-old plague.
Mr. Chairman, for my part, I remain committed to building an
international coalition of parliamentary partners committed to
confronting and combating anti-Semitism in Europe.
Senator Allen. And with that, we will proceed in the order
in which folks appeared, unless Senator Biden shows up. I'd
like to have Senator Voinovich and Senator Corzine--Senator
Biden has arrived----
Senator Biden. I would yield to whomever has been waiting.
Senator Allen. I'm going to go to Senator Voinovich, then
you or your designee, however you want to do that.
At any rate, I want to, again, thank all our witnesses, all
the interest here in this hearing, which is a very important
one for individual and human rights. And one person who, for
many, many years has been a strong advocate of individual
rights, making sure that people, regardless of their religion
or ethnicity, have equal opportunities to succeed is Senator
Voinovich, first as Governor, and now as a U.S. Senator.
Senator Voinovich, if you have an opening statement, we'd like
to hear it.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much.
I'd like to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Allen for
agreeing to convene this hearing today to examine the alarming
rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and, quite frankly, the world.
The issue continues to be of great concern to me, and I believe
it is not only appropriate, but absolutely essential that we do
all that we can to highlight this serious problem.
Though some of my colleagues may not be aware, I've had the
opportunity to visit the State of Israel seven times as Mayor
of Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and as a Member of the U.S.
Senate. I will always remember visiting Yad Vashem, in
Jerusalem, in 1980, and again on several other visits, and the
Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv, in 1982. That experience truly
brought home to me the horrors of the holocaust and the role
that anti-Semitism played in leading to the holocaust.
Frankly, I never thought I would see it again in my
lifetime. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism's deadly, ugly head is
rising again, and we're determined to do everything that we can
to stop it.
We are reminded of the urgency and timeliness of this
discussion following the unsettling remarks made last Thursday
by the outgoing Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mohamad Mahathir.
In a speech to the organization of the Islamic Conference, the
outgoing Prime Minister said, quote, ``1.3 billion Muslims
cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a
way.'' Further, he said, ``The Jews rule this world by proxy,''
end of quote.
Such statements do nothing to promote the virtues of
tolerance and understanding as we look to achieve a lasting
peace in the Middle East, but only serve to further hatred and
mistrust. The United States and our allies in Europe and other
parts of the world must strongly condemn such remarks.
As our witnesses will testify today, these remarks were not
made in a vacuum. There is a very real and growing problem, and
it is imperative that we take action to stop this disturbing
trend.
As many of my colleagues are aware, we have seen growing
reports of anti-Semitic incidents in countries that have
traditionally been among Europe's strong democracies, including
France and Germany. These reports--and Senator Allen has done a
pretty good job of characterizing what's going on--are very
troubling to me, and it's imperative that we do all that we can
to take action to combat this problem, both at home and
overseas.
In June, former New York City Mayor Giuliani led the U.S.
delegation to the first conference of the Organization of
Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, dedicated solely
to the issue of anti-Semitism. The conference took place in
Vienna, Austria, during the period of June 19 and 20, bringing
together parliamentarians, officials, and private citizens from
all 55 OSCE participating states.
As a member of the Helsinki Commission during the 107th
Congress, I strongly encouraged the State Department to make
this conference a priority of the U.S. Government. Last
October, many of my colleagues joined me in a letter to
Secretary of State Colin Powell, urging him to call on the OSCE
to schedule this meeting. With the support of Secretary Powell,
Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman, and our Ambassador to
the OSCE, Stephan Minikes, I was very pleased that the current
chair in office of the OSCE did, in fact, agree to put this
meeting on the calendar. It is an important step, I believe, in
the right direction.
Efforts to highlight this alarming trend began in earnest
last year. In May of 2002, the Helsinki Commission conducted a
hearing to examine reports of increased anti-Semitism. During
that hearing, I called on the OSCE to conduct a separate
session on anti-Semitism during the annual meeting of the OSCE
parliamentary assembly in Berlin, in July of 2002. I was
pleased that they did this--in fact, it did take place.
Delegates to the meeting also unanimously passed a resolution
calling attention to the danger of anti-Semitism. The
conference held last June in Vienna was a product of much work
done during the past year.
As we discuss this issue, I could not agree more with the
statement made by Mayor Giuliani just before he left for the
Vienna Conference, in which he remarked, ``The conference
represents a critical step for Europeans who have too
frequently dismissed anti-Semitic violence as routine assaults
and vandalism. Anti-Semitism is anything but routine. When
people attack Jews, vandalize their graves, characterize them
in inhuman ways, and make salacious statements in parliaments
or to the press, they are attacking the defining values of our
societies and our international institutions.''
While we are headed down the right path, I think it's
critical that we take action to followup on that successful
beginning found at the conference in Vienna. OSCE participating
states began to discuss recommendations for action at the Human
Dimension implementation meetings in Warsaw, Poland, last week.
Additionally, a followup conference dedicated to the subject of
anti-Semitism has been proposed to take place in Berlin in
April.
I believe that we should not only encourage this meeting,
but rather we must insist upon it. I'm hopeful that the United
States will work with the OSCE to set a date for this important
meeting now. Too often there is lots of talk, but no action. We
must establish a commitment to action that can be monitored.
As Governor, I used to say that if you can't measure it,
then it's not worth a darn, and I am hopeful that we will be
able to really see sound progress in this area.
In July, I wrote to those individuals who joined Mayor
Giuliani as members of the U.S. delegation to the Vienna
Conference, including Abe Foxman and Mark Levin, who are with
us today, asking them for recommendations for action, things
that can be done to encourage tangible steps rather than just
dialog. I am hopeful that they will share some of their
thoughts with us today. Specifically, I'm interested in their
ideas in how action by OSCE participating states can be
monitored and assessed and how we might recognize those
countries that have made progress, and call on others to
redouble their efforts in this regard. I understand that this
is going to take careful planning and coordination. It will
also involve adequate resources in order to get the job done.
In order to further encourage U.S. attention to this issue,
during the Senate consideration of the State Department
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, I introduced an
amendment that would require the State Department to include in
its annual report on international religious freedom a section
devoted to the subject of anti-Semitism. I was pleased the
Senate agreed to this measure on the 10th of July. This
amendment aims to ensure that the U.S. Government pays close
attention to the issue of anti-Semitism internationally, with
the hope it will encourage our friends, allies, and partners
abroad to do the same thing.
As we continue to examine action that the United States can
take in order to combat anti-Semitism abroad, I would like to
join Senator Allen in welcoming our distinguished panel of
witnesses today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to make this
opening statement, and the remainder of my remarks I'd like to
have entered into the record.
Senator Allen. They will be, and thank you for your very
strong statement and leadership.
[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator George V. Voinovich
I would like to thank Senator Lugar and Senator Allen for agreeing
to convene this hearing today to examine the alarming rise of anti-
Semitism in Europe and, quite frankly, the world. This issue continues
to be of great concern to me, and I believe it is not only appropriate
but absolutely essential that we do all that we can to highlight this
serious problem.
Though some of my colleagues might not be aware, I have had the
opportunity to visit the State of Israel seven times, as Mayor of
Cleveland, Governor of Ohio, and a member of the Senate. I will always
remember visiting Yad Vashem in Jerusalem in 1980, and again on several
other visits, and the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv in 1982. That
experience truly brought home to me the horrors of the Holocaust, and
the role that anti-Semitism played in leading to the Holocaust. I never
thought that I could see it again in my lifetime. I vowed that I would
do everything in my power to make sure that it would never happen
again. Unfortunately, anti-Semitism's deadly, ugly head is rising
again, and I am determined to do everything that I can to stop it.
We are reminded of the urgency and timeliness of this discussion
following the unsettling remarks made last Thursday by the outgoing
Prime Minister of Malaysia [Mohamad Mahathir]. In a speech to the
Organization of the Islamic Conference, the outgoing prime minister
said that, ``1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million
Jews. There must be a way.'' Further, he said, ``the Jews rule this
world by proxy.''
Such statements do nothing to promote the virtues of tolerance and
understanding as we look to achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East,
but only serve to further hatred and mistrust. The United States and
our allies in Europe and other parts of the world must strongly condemn
such remarks.
As our witnesses will testify today, these remarks were not made in
a vacuum. There is a very real and growing problem, and it is
imperative that we take action to stop this disturbing trend dead in
its tracks.
As many of my colleagues are aware, we have seen growing reports of
anti-Semitic incidents in countries that have traditionally been among
Europe's strongest democracies, including France and Germany. These
reports are very troubling to me, and it is imperative that we do all
that we can to take action to combat this problem, both at home and
overseas.
In June, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani led the U.S.
delegation to the first conference of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) dedicated solely to the issue of anti-
Semitism. The conference took place in Vienna, Austria during the
period of June 19-20, 2003, bringing together parliamentarians,
officials and private citizens from all 55 OSCE participating states.
As a member of the Helsinki Commission during the 107th Congress, I
strongly encouraged the State Department to make this conference a
priority of the U.S. Government. Last October, a number of my
colleagues joined me in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell
urging him to call on the OSCE to schedule this meeting. With the
support of Secretary Powell, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman and
our Ambassador to the OSCE, Stephan Minikes, I was very pleased that
the chair-in-office of the OSCE did in fact agree to put this meeting
on the calendar. It is an important step in the right direction.
Efforts to highlight this alarming trend began in earnest last
year. In May 2002, the Helsinki Commission conducted a hearing to
examine reports of increased anti-Semitism. During that hearing, I
called on the OSCE to conduct a separate session on anti-Semitism
during the annual meeting of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin
in July 2002. I was pleased that this did, in fact, take place.
Delegates to the meeting also unanimously passed a resolution calling
attention to the danger of anti-Semitism, which I cosponsored. The
conference held last June in Vienna was a product of much of the work
done during the past year.
As we discuss this issue, I could not agree more with a statement
made by Mayor Giuliani just before he left for the Vienna Conference,
in which he remarked, ``The conference represents a critical first step
for Europeans, who have too frequently dismissed anti-Semitic violence
as routine assaults and vandalism. Anti-Semitism is anything but
routine. When people attack Jews, vandalize their graves, characterize
them in inhumane ways, and make salacious statements in parliaments or
to the press, they are attacking the defining values of our societies
and our international institutions.''
While we are headed down the right path, it is critical that we
take action to follow up on the successful beginning found at the
conference in Vienna. OSCE participating states began to discuss
recommendations for action at the Human Dimension Implementation
Meetings in Warsaw, Poland last week. Additionally, a follow-up
conference dedicated to the subject of anti-Semitism has been proposed
to take place in Berlin next April. I believe that we should not only
encourage this meeting; rather, we must insist upon it. I am hopeful
that the United States will work with the OSCE to set a date for this
important meeting now. Too often, there is lots of talk, but no action.
We must establish a commitment to action that can be monitored. As
Governor, I used to say that if it cannot be measured, then it's not
worth a darn, and I am hopeful that we will be able to really see some
progress in this area.
In July, I wrote to those individuals who joined Mayor Giuliani as
members of the U.S. delegation to the Vienna Conference, including Abe
Foxman and Mark Levin, who are with us this afternoon, asking them for
recommendations for action--things that can be done to encourage
tangible steps, rather than just dialog. I am hopeful that they will
share some of their thoughts with us today. Specifically, I am
interested in their ideas on how action by OSCE participating states
can be monitored and assessed, and how we might recognize those
countries that have made progress and call on others to redouble their
efforts in this regard. I understand that this will take careful
planning and coordination. It will also involve adequate resources in
order to get the job done.
In order to further encourage U.S. attention to this issue, during
Senate consideration of the State Department Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2004, I introduced an amendment that would require the
State Department to include in its annual report on International
Religious Freedom a section devoted to the subject of anti-Semitism. I
was pleased that the Senate agreed to this measure on July 10, 2003.
This amendment aims to ensure that the United States government
pays close attention to the issue of anti-Semitism internationally,
with the hope that it will encourage our friends, allies and partners
abroad to do the same.
As we continue to examine action that the United States can take in
order to combat anti-Semitism abroad, I would like to join Senator
Allen in welcoming two distinguished panels of witnesses who will
testify this afternoon: First, Ed O'Donnell, who succeeds Ambassador
Randy Bell as Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues at the U.S. Department
of State.
I look forward to his testimony regarding the efforts of the United
States Government to combat anti-Semitism abroad. As I have said
before, I believe that we need a strategic plan with regard to our
efforts to tackle this problem, and I am hopeful that he will provide
some insight with regard to the State Department's agenda on this
critical issue.
Our second panel includes three distinguished witnesses who are
actively engaged in efforts to combat anti-Semitism:
Abraham Foxman, who serves as National Director of the Anti-
Defamation League (ADL). Abe has been a leader in efforts to
promote tolerance and awareness of the perils of anti-Semitism.
He testified at an OSCE meeting in Berlin in July 2002, with
regard to this issue, and joined Mayor Giuliani at the Vienna
Conference this June. This month, he has released a book on the
subject [entitled, ``Never Again?: The Threat of the New Anti-
Semitism''];
David Harris, who is Executive Director of the American
Jewish Committee. The American Jewish Committee has also been
actively engaged on this issue, and I am glad that David is
able to join us; and
Mark Levin, who serves as Executive Director of the National
Conference on Soviet Jewry (NCSJ). I have had the opportunity
to work with Mark on this issue extensively during the last
year. Mark testified before the Helsinki Commission on this
subject in May 2002, and he also served as a member of the U.S.
delegation to the Vienna Conference in June.
I sincerely appreciate your time and willingness to be here today,
and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Before I turn it over, I should have said,
the other testimony that will be put in the record is that of
Congressman Christopher Smith, will be included in the record.
With that, I'd now like to turn it over--he is deferring to
you, the Senator from New Jersey, Senator Corzine.
Senator Corzine. Thank you, Senator Allen. And thank you,
Ranking Member Biden. It's hard to be deferred to by the senior
Senator from Delaware. He is such an important voice for reason
and responsibility in our foreign affairs. I feel like stepping
aside.
I have a formal presentation I will put in the record, but
I would like to make some comments that are suggestive of what
I have put in a formal context.
I appreciate very much your holding this hearing. This is
an issue that should be near to each of us, and it is a
requirement that the United States exercise extraordinary
leadership, I think, in pushing back against the anti-Semitism
we see in Europe and around the globe. I think it is our most
moral responsibility to do so. And I actually think that the
tone that we set as a nation is one that, as the sole
superpower, really does set the tone globally, and this sense
of intolerance that's reflected in the litany of circumstances
that you, Mr. Chairman, identified happening in Europe,
intolerable, and the rise of anti-Semitic incidence is truly a
tragedy, particularly in light of the horrific experiences of
the last century that we've all dealt with. And I think the
historical lessons should be obvious, and it is only right that
we both speak out, but, as Senator Voinovich says, we need to
look for real practical actions, as opposed to just talk.
In that vein, I think the recent comments by the Prime
Minister of Malaysia, departing Prime Minister, bespeak of the
seriousness and the breadth with which anti-Semitic views are
held in this world, and it is absolutely imperative that we
speak to these issues, both quickly and forcefully. Frankly,
I'm not clear why one would even meet with Prime Minister
Mahathir after such ugly and, I think, horrific reminders of
what anti-Semitism can be in this world.
I'm proud, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, to
have introduced--last Friday, actually--actually, Thursday
night--Friday night, excuse me--Senate Resolution 247
introduced by my senior colleague from New Jersey, Frank
Lautenberg, condemning Mr. Mahathir's statement. Without direct
and, I think, forceful responses, I think we are not pushing
back from the kind of hatred and intolerance that is reflected
here. And it's certainly what we are trying to address in a
European context in today's hearing, but this is a global
problem. This is not just a European problem. It is one that
deserves the utmost focus and attention, and I appreciate your
holding this hearing. I hope that we do more than hear facts,
that we move forward. And I thank all of the witnesses for
being here today.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Corzine follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Jon S. Corzine
Thank you Mr. Chairman for having called this meeting of your
subcommittee on the vital topic of anti-Semitism in Europe, and for
your courtesy in affording me this opportunity.
There is no international issue on which decisive and sustained
U.S. leadership is more necessary than that of anti-Semitism, in Europe
and throughout the world. Your work on keeping this very fundamental
moral and policy concern before the eyes of the world community has
never been more appreciated or more important than it is now, and I
want to thank you for your leadership in this regard.
The tone and example the United States sets in responding to anti-
Semitism is vital. In responding to anti-Semitism and to every other
form of ethnic, racial, religious or national hatred or intolerance,
the U.S. must setting for itself a high standard of tolerance, mutual
respect and civil discourse. The world community's aspiring to such a
standard, of civilized discourse, will go far in enabling the world
community to resolve its disputes and disagreements though discourse
rather than through force or intimidation.
With respect to anti-Semitism in Europe, it is widely recognized
that this very old and ugly phenomenon is once again on the rise, in
the very seat of western civilization. One would have thought that the
horrendous collective experiences of Europe in the mid-20th century
would have branded indelibly on the collective minds of all Europeans,
and of the entire world, the horrible cost and of anti-Semitism.
But apparently that is not the case.
Instead, Mr. Chairman, we see a pattern since 2000 of accelerating
hatred and violence. Something over half of all anti-Semitic incidents
recorded since 2000 occur in Europe--acts of violence against people
and property, acts of desecration against cemeteries and community
landmarks--as with the Holocaust itself, we are able to document in
great detail the legacy of continuing hatred and intolerance, but still
the hatred continues.
There are historical lessons all of us should have learned long
ago--that virulent and deliberate propagation of racial and ethnic
hatred, of which anti-Semitism is an especially prominent and repugnant
example--is incompatible with responsible political discourse or
leadership.
I therefore want to register my very serious concern that our
President chose not to speak out more forcefully and more quickly on
the matter than he did in response to the Malaysian Prime Minister's
repugnant and virulently anti-Semitic remarks last Thursday at the
Islamic Conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia. Mr. Mahathir's statement
reflected much of what is most reprehensible and poisonous in Muslim-
Jewish relations today.
For the record I have co-sponsored together with many many other
members of this body a bipartisan resolution (S.Res. 247) condemning
Mr. Mahathir's statement.
I am very pleased that President Bush eventually did call Prime
Minister Mahathir out on this; when they met in Bangkok on Monday, Mr.
Bush said Mr. Mahathir's words had been ``wrong and divisive'' and that
the speech stood against everything in which Mr. Bush believes. But,
Mr. Chairman, it should not have taken four days--four days of U.S.
silence while other western leaders were lining up to speak out
forcefully against Mr. Mahathir's hateful words.
My fear is that this delay may have been read by Mr. Mahathir and
some of those leaders who stood and applauded his words as a kind of
permission--a deliberate softening of the U.S. response--it may have
been seen as a signal that world leaders, when they are cooperative
with us in other policy areas, when they win the labels ``moderate'' or
``practical'' that they are free in other spheres to indulge and to
nurture reactionary and hateful forces within their own countries or
within the Islamic world when that suits them.
Mr. Mahathir's reaction was to say that he had been taken out of
context--he then pointed to the world's outraged reaction as somehow
justifying his original anti-Semitic charges.
Mr. Chairman, responsible world leadership does not take hateful
speech, and incitement to religious and ethnic strife lightly--
responsible leadership reacts, condemns and corrects swiftly and in the
strongest terms.
Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Thank you for your statement, Senator
Corzine.
And this is more than in Europe, although I'm only Chairman
of the European Affairs Subcommittee, and it does get into
Russia as part of Europe, and it does shed light on it
internationally. We do have good relations with European
countries, who should share and certainly are most familiar
with the deplorable atrocities of the genocide based on
religious intolerance and anti-Semitism. So that's why the
European Affairs Subcommittee focuses on Europe. But clearly
it's anti-Semitism not just focused on Europe. It also examines
what we can do in our country, as well. And thank you for your
good statement.
Senator Coleman, do you have any remarks that want to share
with us?
Senator Coleman. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, again, thank you for holding this
hearing. It is important. I want to associate myself with the
comments of all my colleagues here, on both sides of the aisle.
This is a worldwide problem. It is one that is certainly, I
think, being fueled by what is taught in many of the religious
schools in the Arab world that has to be addressed. It is a
problem that's rearing its ugly head in American campuses,
American universities, and we have to address that at some
point in time. I'm certainly pleased that you've taken the lead
today here in this setting to address this problem. It's a part
of a larger overall picture that has to be dealt with, but I
want to thank you again for your leadership in helping us deal
with it today.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Coleman.
Senator Biden, my colleague, ranking member.
Senator Biden. Thank you very much.
I was very interested to hear the statements of my
colleagues, and I want to thank you for holding this hearing.
Some suggested to me, you know, why are we holding this
hearing? How are we going to legislate values in Europe? Well,
we're not. Justice Holmes once said that sunlight is the best
disinfectant, but one of the problems throughout modern
European history has been that we have not shed sunlight on
this as often as we should. So I don't think this is an
exercise, merely allowing us to vent our frustrations.
I also want to thank Senator Corzine for his deep and
unabiding commitment to fighting bigotry wherever he finds it.
I've had a chance to work with Governor Voinovich in the
Balkans, and I've found that even when it has not been in his
immediate political interest--because we all have
constituencies, my State included--Serb, Croat, et cetera--I've
watched this man unabashedly speak out, whenever there was a
disregard for human rights or basic decency.
When they used to talk about Frank Sinatra they would say,
``this is a great young singer,'' and he'd say, ``Tell me where
he is 30 years from now.'' Well, this is a guy who has been
absolutely consistent and unrelenting on these issues, and I
want to pay public acknowledgment to that. We've been in
meetings where it has not been easy to expose the prejudice
that exists in some parts of the Balkans, but he did it. I just
want to acknowledge that.
Mr. Chairman, I wish, as we all do, we didn't have to hold
this hearing, but I'm not naive. Anti-Semitism has been a
disgusting aspect of European and world history for nearly two
millennia now. And this committee has held many hearings on
this distasteful topic, as far back as the summer of 1994, for
example, in the good old days when I was chairman of this
committee--and I'm pleased to serve under my friend here. We
held a series of hearings on right-wing movements in Europe,
which differed from each other in many respects, but had one
common thread to them, and that was that old virulent anti-
Semitism. And it goes without saying that one can oppose
certain policies of the State of Israel, and I do that as well,
occasionally, without being anti-Semitic. On the other hand,
anti-Semites regularly try to conflate the two issues, and,
moreover, often distort Israel's actions in the process.
In April 2000, we got a very vivid picture--this is by way
of reminder--a very vivid picture of this tactic. In response
to the first wave of suicide bombings against civilians in late
March 2002 and early April of that same year, the Israeli army
went after terrorists in a refugee camp in Jenin. The European
news media and a lot of the American news media, but the
European news media, in particular with very few exceptions,
bought the line, without any proof, hook, line, and sinker,
that the Palestinians had put forward, which was that there was
a massacre of between seven- and eight-hundred women, men, and
children in this camp, by the Israelis. And I sat in this dais
and said I did not believe it, and got absolutely blistered for
saying there was no proof yet of that being the case.
Then in response to a petition by Arab members of the
Knesset, in Israel, the Israeli Government allowed
international observers into the camp. I argued they should
have allowed them in immediately, but it was only at this point
that they finally allowed them in. And these international
observers found that 52 people had died, and that 33 of them
were armed and terrorists. Of course, the anti-Semites of the
world, particularly in Europe, didn't want to be bothered by
these facts. And a really sick stream of vituperative
expression came spewing forth all over the continent, with
over-the-top language that went far beyond criticism of
Israel's actions, which as I said, had been completely
misrepresented by the international press. These statements
were blatantly and unabashedly anti-Semitic, and many of them
were made by prominent Europeans.
I cited a few of them in a floor statement I gave in June
2002 in support of a resolution that we voted for condemning
the growing intolerance and acts of persecution against Jews in
many European countries. The French Ambassador to the U.K. made
a demeaning scatological reference to the State of Israel, and
the only scandal that resulted was criticism of a supposed
indiscretion on the part of other guests who were there when he
made those scatological references, for having leaked the story
to the press. The people who leaked the story were criticized,
not the comments criticized.
And then there was the wife of the president of the
European Central Bank, who, after flying the PLO flag from her
house in Amsterdam, complained, and I quote, ``Israel is being
kept going by those rich Jews in America,'' end of quote.
A similar example of objectivity came from Oslo, where a
member of the Norwegian Nobel Committee declared that she would
like to rescind Shimon Peres's Nobel prize. Needless to say,
she didn't choose to mention, let alone, criticize Yasser
Arafat or the suicide bombers, whom he aids and abets.
Even Germany's Free Democrats, a party with a proud history
of liberalism and tolerance, was shamed by one of its top
officials when that official exclaimed that the deputy director
of the Central Council of Jews in Germany had brought on anti-
Semitism himself by his supposedly aggressive behavior as a
television talk-show host--blame the victim. One must add,
sadly, that that troubled individual later committed suicide
and certainly he was not typical of the Free Democratic Party.
And, of course none of these three I mentioned reflect the
policies either of the French, German, Dutch, or Norwegian
Governments. But such utterances by prominent individuals, no
matter who they are, are greatly unsettling, and don't do much
for intelligent public dialog at a time when there's a lot of
disagreement over substantive issues relating to the Middle
East.
Well, Mr. Chairman, in the year since the U.S. Senate
passed the resolution in question, the anti-Semitic acts, both
rhetorical ones and physical violent ones have continued.
Students in a Jewish day school in Paris were assaulted by a
gang of North African teenagers. In another incident, a rabbi,
who was a leader of a liberal Jewish movement, was knifed in a
Paris street, and his car set afire. A Vienna rabbi was
assaulted on his way home from prayer. A Berlin man wearing a
Star of David was attacked on a bus by a group of teenagers,
who kicked him in the face, spat upon him, and shouted anti-
Semitic slurs. Jewish cemeteries have been desecrated in
London, Rome, and other European cities. And just last week,
the new Jewish monument in Belarus was defaced.
Yes, several European governments have responded with
declarations against anti-Semitism, and a few, like France,
have stiffened laws against anti-Semitic behavior and such
violence. And I don't mean to say that we don't have similar
individual acts that occur here. But I dare say there's never
been one that's occurred where there hasn't been immediate,
instant condemnation by all stripes of all parties and all
government officials.
U.N. member states are considering a proposal to harmonize
their laws against racism. But many observers have finally
dared to discuss what has long been a ``dirty little secret,''
namely that the threat of violence for millions of
impoverished, ill-treated, in many cases, and often unemployed
Muslim men in Western Europe has, at the very least, induced
governments to temper their reactions to anti-Semitism. In
truth, Europe's relations with the Muslim world increasingly
affect its public diplomacy. How else can one explain the
absolutely scandalous behavior of the European Union last
Friday in Brussels at a meeting of the European Council, the
heads of the EU governments? On the previous day, at a summit
meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as has
been mentioned by two of my colleagues and I will not repeat,
the Malaysian Prime Minister had treated the world to one of
his periodic ravings, this time about Jews. And I will not
repeat what he said, but he went on to say--beyond what was
quoted here, in order to enlighten the conferees about Western
intellectual history ``that Jews invented socialism, communism,
human rights, and democracy so that persecuting them would
appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with
others.''
The United States immediately and publicly condemned the
Prime Minister's ignorant bigotry. We would expect no less from
our government. The European Union reportedly was asked to
include a similar condemnation of the Prime Minister's speech
in the lengthy Presidency Conclusions, ending its own summit
meeting last Friday. It chose not to. The Presidency
Conclusions--and I will conclude myself in a moment--offered a
perfect opportunity for a condemnation, since it devoted an
entire section to ``External Relations.'' That section included
13 specific references, which I will not go through, from the
WTO to Moldova to Iran, Iraq, Kosovo, et cetera. But there was
no room for the condemnation of Mahathir's statement. Mr.
Chairman, it's incomprehensible to me that the EU would
publicly comment on these topics, but not on the vile anti-
Semitic speech in Malaysia.
French President Chirac reportedly said--and I emphasize
``reportedly,'' I don't know for a fact--that it was not the
EU's place to issue condemnation. Now, there's real moral
leadership. Mr. Chirac apparently wrote a private letter to the
Prime Minister criticizing the remarks. But I doubt that many
of the one billion Muslims in the world had access to that
letter.
Once again, the EU had a its chance to show its true moral
colors, and I think it's failed the test miserably. How could
it not forthrightly speak out against such repulsive nonsense,
especially given the weighty historical burden of European
anti-Semitism?
This reluctance to speak out is not only morally
indefensible, I think it's also self-defeating. Anti-Semitism
is to democracy as a dead canary in a cage is to a coal miner,
a warning, a warning of impending doom. Miners can't compromise
with lethal coal gases, and democracies cannot compromise with
purveyors of anti-Semitism.
We have a very distinguished panel here, Mr. Chairman, all
of whom I know. And I hope these gentlemen can disabuse me of
my continuing impression of European half-heartedness when it
comes to battling anti-Semitism.
And, again, I thank you for holding the hearing, and
apologize for the length of my statement and for my cold.
I yield the floor.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Biden, for your always
interesting and cogent remarks and your experience and strong
stand. We very much appreciate you coming--we hardly recognize
your cold.
At any rate, now we're going to go forward with our panel.
Our first panel is one individual, Ed O'Donnell. He's the
Ambassador-Designate and Special Envoy for the Office of
Holocaust Issues at the Department of State. Prior to his
present post, Mr. O'Donnell was the Director of the Department
of State Liaison Office to the U.S. House of Representatives.
He previously served as principal officer or Counsel General at
the U.S. Consulate in Frankfurt, Germany.
We hope to hear the administration position on anti-
Semitism in Europe and any policies or programs in place to
combat this program.
Mr. O'Donnell, if you're ready, we'd be pleased to hear
from you.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. O'DONNELL, JR., AMBASSADOR-DESIGNATE,
SPECIAL ENVOY FOR HOLOCAUST ISSUES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. I appreciate the invitation to speak
to you today on anti-Semitism in Europe.
As the new Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues with less
than 1 month on the job, I would like to express, in my first
public statement, my appreciation to President Bush and
Secretary Powell for selecting me for this position. Like my
predecessors, I'm honored to be able to assist in bringing a
measure of help and justice to Holocaust victims and their
families. Professionally and personally, I also commit to doing
my part to contribute to fighting anti-Semitism in Europe.
This hearing is an important part of our joint efforts
between Congress and the administration to call attention to
the problem of anti-Semitism and to seek practical solutions,
working together with Europeans who also are deeply troubled by
incidents of anti-Semitism throughout Europe.
My objective today is to state the U.S. administration
policy, describe what we're doing with our neighbors across the
Atlantic, and outline some practical steps to combat anti-
Semitism.
We have made progress in the past year, and we can be
pleased that it appears there has been some decrease in anti-
Semitic violence that surged in parts of Europe in 2002. This
does not mean that we can relax and direct our energies
elsewhere. We need to redouble our efforts, we need to develop
creative approaches to promoting respect for all persons and
religions and to promote understanding toward Jewish
communities in Europe.
The U.S. Government firmly believes that anti-Semitism is
an insidious and continuing phenomenon that undermines basic
values of democracy, tolerance, mutual understanding, and
individual rights and freedoms. President Bush, on May 31 of
this year, in Auschwitz, said, ``This site is a sobering
reminder that when we find anti-Semitism, whether it be in
Europe or anywhere else, mankind must come together to fight
such dark impulses.''
I'd also like to quote Representative Christopher Smith
last week in Warsaw. He said, ``The United States also calls
for ministerial language urging all elected leaders and
government authorities to denounce acts of anti-Semitism when
they occur, as well as seek vigorous investigations and
prosecutions. While strong law enforcement is needed, education
of youth is equally important.''
What we are doing with our European allies is through the
OSCE, and the U.S. has played a very strong leadership role in
urging the OSCE to focus on the threat of anti-Semitism and to
develop practical measures.
Mayor Giuliani, in Vienna, last June, and our delegation,
presented ideas such as: compile and regularly evaluate hate-
crime statistics in a uniform fashion; encourage all
participating states to pass hate-related criminal legislation;
set up educational programs in participating states about anti-
Semitism; and remember the Holocaust accurately; and resist
Holocaust revisionists.
The June meeting showed that OSCE could mobilize for what
will be a long-term sustained effort to combat anti-Semitism.
The U.S. administration undertook a major successful political
push to build consensus for this meeting. As a result, the
first time anti-Semitism was recognized as a human rights
issue, and awareness was significantly raised.
Since June, the U.S. administration has remained active. On
October 14, last week, in Warsaw, at the OSCE Human Dimension
implementation meeting--this is Europe's largest human rights
and democratization meeting--the U.S. delegation continued to
push for concrete strategies dealing with anti-Semitism.
What did we achieve? With the European Union, we won
support to hold a follow-on Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism,
to be held in Berlin at the end of April 2004. We need to build
OSCE-wide consensus for the formal decision of the Foreign
Ministers, but we're confident that that agreement will come
and we will be able to proceed to the Berlin meeting.
By the Berlin meeting, we hope that the OSCE will have
moved from holding meetings on the subject of combating anti-
Semitism to have fully integrated it into the work of the OSCE.
For example, we see the Office of Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights, ODIHR, as a central part of collecting and
analyzing hate-crime statistics by OSCE participating states.
We have seen positive developments in European
organizations. The Council of Europe, for example, has
established cooperation on Holocaust education, including
creation of an official annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. The
NATO organization now encourages aspirant countries to deal
with anti-Semitism, racism, and xenophobia in their membership
action plans. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, in its own
survey about aspirant countries, included information about the
fight against anti-Semitism and related issues.
I also, Mr. Chairman, want to note the work of the U.S.
Embassies and Consulates in Europe, which have been very active
bilaterally. Ambassadors speak out against anti-Semitism and
encourage prompt law-enforcement action by host nations against
criminal conduct. Our diplomatic officials know local Jewish
community leaders. They know local officials and law-
enforcement authorities. We monitor incidents and we express
our concerns very directly.
We also provide information that goes into the annual
report on international religious freedom and annual country
reports on human rights practices. Moreover, our public-affairs
sections in Europe have important programs to foster religious
respect, which counter anti-Semitism.
We believe the bedrock of efforts to fight anti-Semitism is
education. The administration's efforts to prevent future anti-
Semitism in Europe centers on our programs to educate the next
generation of Europeans about the truth of the Holocaust and
the lessons from history.
Secretary Powell, in April, in the Capitol rotunda, said,
``Teaching new generations about the Holocaust . . . is an
affirmation of our common humanity.'' The primary vehicle for
education we use is the Task Force for International
Cooperation on Holocaust Education Remembrance and Research.
This was formed at the initiative of Sweden. The U.S., the
U.K., and Sweden were the initial founding members. This,
today, is a 15-member country, and we have important NGOs and
also the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington and Yad
Vashem in Israel as a part of our work. There are eight
countries that have developed liaison projects with us. The
members of this task force pledge to promote education,
remembrance, and research, to open archives, and encourage an
annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. Currently, the United States
is in the chair. We plan a plenary for December 1st through
3rd. This follows on the meeting in May, and we will review
applications and also new members.
This task force has projects that are small, but the impact
is large. The priority is teacher training for engaging the
intellectual curiosity of teachers and students. The average
project is $13,500 and includes projects such as visits to
concentration and extermination camps, funds for historical
commissions to document the Holocaust, and translation of
scholarly books and articles.
I have one, Mr. Chairman, today, a book that is titled,
``Tell Ye Your Children,'' which is being distributed through
our programs, and we will be translating this into languages in
Eastern Europe. It's by a scholar, Paul Levine, and it's been
very effective, we feel.
I'd also like to quote a letter we received from a Romanian
teacher. She said, ``The visit to the concentration camp of
Auschwitz was the most emotive experience of my life. When I
returned to my school in Romania, I told the students of the
visit and the Holocaust. The students were completely silent,
breathless. One girl asked, `How could this happen in the 20th
century?' In fact, a few days later, a parent asked me for
information to read about the Holocaust.'' This is the kind of
effect we're looking for.
I also want to mention the work that we are able to do
through the German Foundation, the German Foundation for
Responsibility, Remembrance, and the Future, which was
established as a means of justice to former slave and forced
laborers, and has one aspect of it, the Future Fund, that is
forward-looking. Of the approximately $5 billion by the
Foundation, $350 million is allocated for specific projects
about the Holocaust, education, tolerance, and social justice.
Just to mention a few of the projects that are being funded
under this Future Fund is a face-to-face meeting between
survivors and young people. In some cases, in another project,
this includes young people assisting elderly survivors with
shopping and daily activities, and, by doing so, learning of
their experiences during the Holocaust.
The U.S. Government also funds Holocaust Awareness Grants
through our SEED Democracy Commission. We have about $100,000
in the Baltics that's been targeted; and also, in Russia, we
have projects, one of which is 20 seminars for teachers and
young people, and also the production of two brochures about
the dangers of spreading neo-Nazi and racist views.
For the future, our strategy in Europe, Mr. Chairman, is to
work intensively, both bilaterally and through multilateral
institutions, such as the OSCE, to develop effective, practical
ways of combating anti-Semitism, particularly anti-Semitic
violence. Our work is not done. The first goal is to make sure
the Berlin Conference is approved at Maastricht and is a
success in April, resulting in concrete measures such as the
creation of a centralized data base within the OSCE to monitor
anti-Semitic incidents.
We also will continue our address of efforts at Holocaust
education through the task force and the German fund and
bilateral programs through our embassies. We will cooperate
closely with Congress, the U.S. Helsinki Commission, and non-
governmental institutions. We all have important roles to play.
Mr. Chairman, let me thank you again for the invitation to
speak to you today, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Donnell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edward B. O'Donnell, Jr., Special Envoy for
Holocaust Issues, U.S. Department of State
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Senators, ladies and
gentlemen, thank you for the invitation to address the European Affairs
Subcommittee on ``Anti-Semitism in Europe.'' As the new Special Envoy
for Holocaust Issues, with less than one month on the job, I would like
to express in this, my first public statement, my sincere appreciation
to President Bush and Secretary Powell for having selected me for this
position. I have been involved in various capacities with Holocaust
issues during my career as a Foreign Service Officer. Like my
predecessors in this position, I am honored to be able to assist in
bringing a measure of justice to Holocaust victims and their families.
Professionally and personally, I also commit to doing my utmost to
contribute to fighting anti-Semitism in Europe and elsewhere.
This hearing is an important part of the joint effort between
Congress and the Administration to call attention to the problem of
anti-Semitism and to seek practical solutions, working together with
the Europeans who also are deeply troubled by incidents of anti-
Semitism throughout Europe. The United States is involved because of
our enduring commitment to respect for all religions; and we also care
deeply because we are not immune in our own country from hate crimes
and intolerance.
My objective in this testimony is to state U.S. Administration
policy, describe what we are doing with our neighbors across the
Atlantic, and outline several areas where we are working on practical
steps to combat anti-Semitism. We have made progress in the past year,
and we can be pleased that it appears there has been some decrease in
anti-Semitic acts that surged in parts of Europe in 2002. However, this
does not mean that we can relax and direct our energies elsewhere.
Every incident of hate-related crime is tragic and should be denounced,
be it graffiti on a cemetery headstone, an arson attack on a synagogue
or a physical attack against an individual. There is still much work to
be done. We need to develop creative approaches to enhancing respect
for all persons and religions, to promoting understanding towards
Jewish communities in Europe, and, also, in a broader sense, to
supporting our goal in the War on Terrorism, of countering the
religious extremism and intolerance which lead to hatred and violence.
U.S. POLICY
During President Bush's visit to Auschwitz on May 31 this year he
said: ``This site is a sobering reminder that when we find anti-
Semitism, whether it be in Europe or anywhere else, mankind must come
together to fight such dark impulses.'' The U.S. Government firmly
believes that anti-Semitism is an insidious and continuing phenomenon
that undermines basic values of democracy--tolerance, mutual
understanding and individual rights and freedoms.
The Administration fully supports the October 14, 2003 statement to
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) Human
Dimension Implementation Meeting in Warsaw by Representative
Christopher H. Smith. He said, ``The United States also calls for
Ministerial language urging all elected leaders and government
authorities to denounce acts of anti-Semitism when they occur, as well
as seek vigorous investigations and prosecutions. While strong law
enforcement is needed, education of youth is equally important.''
COOPERATION WITH EUROPEAN ALLIES
The U.S. has played a strong leadership role in urging the OSCE to
focus on the threat anti-Semitism presents and to develop practical
measures to combat it. Political momentum and a renewed awareness
regarding anti-Semitism have been created. Former New York Mayor
Rudolph Giuliani led the U.S. Delegation to the June 2003 OSCE Anti-
Semitism Conference in Vienna. The delegation included representatives
from the Administration, Congress and NGOs. Mayor Giuliani and others
in the delegation presented concrete U.S. suggestions including:
Compile and regularly evaluate hate crime statistics in a
uniform fashion.
Encourage all participating states to pass hate-related
criminal legislation.
Set up educational programs in participating states about
anti-Semitism.
Remember the Holocaust accurately and resist Holocaust
revisionists.
The June meeting demonstrated that the OSCE could mobilize for what
will be a long-term, sustained effort to combat anti-Semitism. The U.S.
Administration undertook a major, successful, political push to build
consensus for this meeting. The Vienna meeting recognized anti-Semitism
as a human rights issue for the first time and significantly raised
awareness of this continuing serious problem.
Since June, the U.S. has remained active. On October 14, 2003, in
Warsaw at the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation meeting, which is
Europe's largest meeting on human rights and democratization, the U.S.
delegation pushed hard for the OSCE to turn the U.S. June
recommendations into concrete strategies for dealing with anti-
Semitism. What did we achieve? Importantly, with the European Union, we
won support to hold a follow-on conference on anti-Semitism, in Berlin
at the end of April 2004. We now need to build OSCE-wide consensus for
a formal decision by the OSCE Foreign Ministers when they meet in
Maastricht in December. At the Berlin meeting, our goal will be for the
OSCE to adopt concrete measures for combating anti-Semitism as a fully
integrated part of its work, including through the Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. We will also seek further
concrete progress toward the collection and analysis of hate crime
statistics by OSCE countries to ensure that their education systems
accurately teach about the Holocaust.
In other European organizations, there has been progress as well.
The Council of Europe agreed in October 2002 on several steps
concerning the Holocaust, including in the area of Holocaust education,
and member- countries agreed to observe an annual Holocaust Remembrance
Day during which education about the Holocaust plays an increasingly
important role. In 2003, the European Union extended its European
Racism and Xenophobia Network to include the ten EU candidate
countries.
U.S. Embassies and Consulates in Europe have been very active
bilaterally. Ambassadors speak out publicly against anti-Semitism and
encourage prompt law enforcement action by host nations against
criminal conduct. Our diplomatic officials know local Jewish community
leaders, and work through the local governments to monitor incidents
and express our concern. These diplomatic activities are detailed for
the Congress in the 2002 Annual Report on International Religious
Freedom, and in annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.
Moreover, public affairs sections in U.S. Embassies in Europe implement
important programs to foster religious respect and to counter anti-
Semitism.
EDUCATION
The Administration's efforts to prevent future anti-Semitism in
Europe centers on programs to educate the next generation of Europeans
about the truth of the Holocaust and the lessons from history of the
importance of religious tolerance and respect. Secretary Powell, in
April 30, 2003 remarks in the Capitol Rotunda, said ``teaching new
generations about the Holocaust . . . is an affirmation of our common
humanity.''
The Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust
Education, Remembrance and Research was formed at the initiative of
Sweden, with two other founding members, the United Kingdom and the
United States. The Task Force's mission is to further Holocaust
education, remembrance and research. Today, this important Holocaust
forum includes 15 member-countries with participation by important NGOs
such as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and Yad Vashem. In addition,
there are eight liaison countries, and the Task Force is expanding to
include new countries. Task Force members commit to the Principles of
the Stockholm Declaration to which include: assuming responsibility for
understanding causes of the Holocaust; pledging to promote education,
remembrance and research; opening archives; and observing an annual
Holocaust remembrance day. Currently, the U.S. is in the chair of the
Task Force and will hold a plenary meeting in Washington at the
beginning of December that delegations from more than 18 countries and
120 persons will attend. This will follows a similar meeting we hosted
at the State Department last May.
While projects the Task Force finances are small in cost their
impact is large, with a priority on teacher training to engage the
intellectual curiosity of students. So far this year 27 projects for 11
countries, averaging about 13,500 dollars each, have been approved,
from a budget of less than 300 thousand dollars. Since 2000, 60 percent
of the budget for the Task Force's four working groups has gone to
Holocaust education, or a total of about 400 thousand dollars within
the last three years. In addition to teacher training, types of
projects included: visits to concentration/extermination camps; funds
for historical commissions to document the Holocaust; documentary film
projects about the Holocaust; and translations of scholarly books and
articles.
To give you a picture of the impact of the work of the Task Force,
I would like to quote a recent letter from a Romanian teacher: ``The
visit to the concentration camp of Auschwitz was the most emotive
experience of my life. When I returned to my school in Romania, I told
the students of the visit and the Holocaust. The students were
completely silent. One girl asked: `How could this happen in the 20th
Century?' In fact, a few days later, a parent asked me for information
to read about the Holocaust.''
Also important for the younger generation in Europe is the ``Future
Fund'' of the German Foundation ``Responsibility, Remembrance and the
Future.'' The Foundation was established primarily to provide some
measure of justice to former slave and forced laborers, but one element
of it, the Future Fund, has a more forward looking goal. Of
approximately five billion dollars administered by the Foundation, 350
million dollars is allocated for specific projects. Some of these are
expected to include Holocaust education, tolerance, social justice and
international cooperation in humanitarian endeavors. Currently funded
projects include: textbook writing; video; video interviews with
eyewitnesses; and scholarly projects. One particularly important
activity supports face-to-face meetings between survivors and young
people, and in some cases young people even assist elderly survivors
with their shopping and other daily activities.
The U.S. Government also funds Holocaust Awareness Grants through
the SEED Democracy Commission. Eleven grants to the Baltic countries
totaling over 100,000 dollars support the development of textbooks and
other materials for teachers, and provide other resources on the
Holocaust. Three grants to Russia totaling 43,000 dollars finance 20
seminars for teachers and young people; the production and distribution
of brochures about the dangers of spreading neo-Nazi and racist views;
and a manual for history teachers.
THE FUTURE
Our strategy for the future in Europe is to work intensively, both
bilaterally and through multilateral institutions such as the OSCE, to
develop effective, practical ways to combat anti-Semitism, and in
particular anti-Semitic violence. Our work is not done. The first goal
to make sure the planned Berlin anti-Semitism conference is approved at
the OSCE Maastricht ministerial in December, and is a success in April
resulting in the adoption of concrete measures such as a centralized
OSCE data base to monitor anti-Semitic incidents. Through our embassies
and in other fora we will seek to keep anti-Semitism at the forefront
of attention of governments and the people of Europe. We also will
continue our vigorous efforts to promote Holocaust education through
the work of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust
Education, Remembrance and Research, the Future Fund of the German
Foundation, and bilateral U.S. programs. We will continue to cooperate
closely with Congress, the U.S. Helsinki Commission and non-
governmental organizations, all of which play important roles in
focusing public attention on anti-Semitism in Europe, and in developing
creative, effective and forceful approaches to prevent it.
Let me again thank you for the invitation to review the
Administration's activities in combating anti-Semitism, and what we
have achieved and what we plan for the future. I look forward to your
questions.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell, for your cogent
remarks. We very much appreciate them.
You covered many of the questions that I had. Let me
followup, though, on a few things. First, you mentioned--what's
the title of this book?
Mr. O'Donnell. ``Tell Ye Your Children.'' It's a book by
Paul Levine, a scholar on the Holocaust who chairs one of the
working groups in the International Task Force on Holocaust
Education, Remembrance and Research.
Senator Allen. All right. Here's my experiences, and I'll
followup with questions, and maybe you can see how this is
being utilized. When I was Governor, we created the Virginia/
Israel Partnership so that you'd get the cultural, educational,
business ties being enhanced between Virginia and Israel.
We also, in education, formulated what are called Standards
of Learning in Virginia. And in those standards of learning
were--in the history, mostly in the social studies and history,
were ancient civilizations, the Middle East, and the Holocaust.
And, therefore, teachers in every public school are teaching
about ancient civilizations, and kids are learning about Ionic
and Doric and Corinthian columns and Mesopotamia and so forth,
and Middle East and the Holocaust. And many teachers in
Virginia were funded to go over to Israel, and they have a good
education program there, where you learn all that, as well as
the Holocaust.
And, of course, here we have, in Washington, DC, the
Holocaust Museum, which is the most compelling, emotional
museum I've ever been in, because everyone has their own sense
of going at their own pace, interested in all that information,
and wondering how can human beings be so vicious and so hateful
in killing not just adults, but killing children and
volunteering to do so. It has just profoundly had an impact on
me. And when we had church burnings in Virginia and other
Southern States, I thought--that's why leaders have to--these
are racial, against African-American churches--why it's
absolutely important that leaders stand up, deplore it, make
sure that no one thinks that can be countenanced or allowed,
and obviously prosecute those who are involved.
Now, to get these books, this book, into schools in public
schools in Europe, I don't know if any of them have in their
standards of learning or if they have any curriculum that
requires studying of the Holocaust. If you have something like
that, I think it makes it much more effective than saying,
yeah, our kids ought to learn about the Holocaust and, you
know, maybe we'll have a field trip. Going to Auschwitz has an
impact on people--Auschwitz or any of the other death camps.
How many of them, of these countries, have something like
standards or curriculum development or Standards of Learning--
that do include the holocaust? And how many schools have taken
this book, ``Tell Ye Your Children,'' and have it being taught
to them, as opposed to putting it into the library, where it
might be read. But it's not quite the same having a book in the
library as opposed to required learning and teaching and
testing for the accountability. What gets measured, gets
better, is the way I'd say it. George says it doesn't matter if
it doesn't get measured. Same point, is if it's part of the
standards and curriculum and they're tested upon it, it's much
more likely that that will be imparted, that knowledge, to the
students.
So could you share with us how--if that book or others
similar to it are part of a curriculum in European schools?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I certainly agree with your views on the Holocaust
Museum, which we work very closely with in this task force.
They are very important to our work and everything we do, and
we consult very closely with them.
I'd make a distinction between countries like Germany and
France, where Holocaust as an issue has been in the curriculum
for some time, and the countries we're working with, and the
task force, which are really smaller and less resourced, and
also new democracies. For example, in Eastern Europe. I show
you this book as an example of a work in progress. We're
considering translating this into Hungarian, as well.
These are small projects, and maybe to give you, if I may,
a little more context of the task force, it's by consensus, our
decisions, and it operates like the OSCE. Each member country
contributes $25,000 a year, and that's our budget. So it's a
small amount of money, but it is very effective, and it seems
we are working in smaller ways--maybe better, in this instance.
We're moving forward, and we're expanding the net, and we would
like to invite new countries to join. A part of their joining
would be to do things such as this, undertake the
responsibility to make sure that the Holocaust is a part of the
curriculum. Many countries, I think, do not have Holocaust as
an important part of their required curriculum, in the smaller
countries in Eastern Europe, but that's certainly our goal and
priority, to expand the net and get more books like this into
the hands of students.
This would also be with teacher training, and we're
designing these projects, as well, to really teach the teachers
and, by extension, the students. But that would be our goals.
The goals that I'm speaking of are from the Stockholm
International Forum on the Holocaust, and what we do when we
ask a country--when a country joins, we ask them to commit to
these goals, such as encouraging the study of the Holocaust in
all its dimension, and to commemorate the victims, and to
start--to create a annual day of Holocaust remembrance.
This is work in progress. I wanted to give you a sense of
the type of things that we're doing and our goals for the
future.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Well, thank you.
We'll talk in the--the accountability on the various types
of crimes that are committed and so forth are important. I
think one thing that would be useful is to determine which
countries--and this would be an objective checklist--which
countries have, as part of their educational curriculum,
teaching the holocaust? You mentioned that France does, Germany
does. Does, for example, The Netherlands, or Denmark, Austria,
Italy, as far as the Central European countries? Poland? It
would seem to me Poland certainly would want to have it, as
well as the Czech Republic, Slovak, Hungary, and all the other
aspirant countries, including the Balkans.
And we're doing these on 7-minute rounds, but if you could
get us--or maybe our second panelists can get us--which
countries do and don't have that in education, because every
one of the people--all of the Senators spoken--have talked in
various ways, all recognizing that young people need to
understand the implications of anti-Semitic remarks, swastikas,
and what the implications of that are, as opposed to just some
artistic design.
Mr. O'Donnell. If I may, I'd like to take that question and
respond to you in writing, because I think we can give you a
full picture of where we are on the question of which have the
Holocaust as a part of their curriculum.
[The following information was subsequently supplied.]
Present State of Holocaust Education in European Schools
During the October 22, 2003 testimony of Special Envoy for
Holocaust Issues Edward O'Donnell on anti-Semitism in Europe, Senator
Allen as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations European Affairs
Subcommittee requested additional information on the present state of
Holocaust education in European schools. To obtain the most current
information available, the State Department's Office of Holocaust
Issues (EUR/OHI) tasked U.S. embassies in the 55 member states of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to make
appropriate inquiries of their host governments. EUR/OHI also checked
with the Council of Europe (COE) and consulted other sources.
To provide for a standard presentation of the information we have
gathered, the OSCE member countries are listed alphabetically on the
attached matrix with their responses to four central questions (plus
ancillary remarks) related to Holocaust education. The information
submitted is current as of mid-January 2004.
The responsibility for education in the OSCE countries varies
widely. Most educational systems are centralized, but some are not and
decisions on educational curricula are taken at the state/provincial or
local level. It is clear from our overall research that most European
countries are now placing greater emphasis on Holocaust education in
their school systems, and especially at the high school level in
connection with courses related to the Second World War.
The Office of Holocaust Issues will continue to closely monitor
this important issue, which is directly relevant to combating anti-
Semitism in Europe. We will use the attached matrix to establish a
baseline and will update this analysis periodically for our own
purposes and also for the work of the Task Force on International
Cooperation for Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research.
[From the New York Magazine, December 15, 2003]
The Return of Anti-Semitism
(By Craig Horowitz)
Israel has become the flash point--and the excuse--for a global
explosion of an age-old syndrome. Why has hating the Jews become
politically correct in many places? And what can be done about it?
On the second floor of the plaza hotel, in a gaudy meeting room
with lots of gold-painted wall filigree and faux-Baroque details, about
400 representatives of the Anti-Defamation League from around the
country gathered one recent morning for the group's 90th-anniversary
conference.
As they settled in for a sober two-day program reflecting the grim
situation Jews find themselves in (speakers included John Ashcroft,
Thomas Friedman, and Israel's ambassador to the U.N.), ADL national
director Abraham Foxman rose to give the opening address.
Foxman, a professional noodge who has been sounding the alarm for
more than three decades whenever he senses the slightest whiff of anti-
Semitism--his new book is Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-
Semitism--began slowly, talking in an almost melancholy tone about his
grandchildren and the uncertain future they face as Jews. But Foxman,
who was sheltered during the Holocaust by his Christian nanny, quickly
gained momentum and urgency, cataloguing stark examples of what he
called ``the world's growing crescendo of irrationality.''
He invoked the shattered glass of Kristallnacht and mentioned
Hitler several times, allusions that surely found their target with the
mostly middle-aged-and-older crowd. As he has been doing for more than
a year now, he described the threat to the safety and security of the
Jewish people as being ``as great, if not greater, than what we faced
in the thirties.''
It was Foxman at his best: passionate, indignant, and connecting
naturally with other Jews. His fears are their fears. His hopes for the
future are their hopes. The speech clearly resonated with the audience.
But there was one small problem. The centerpiece of the speech, its
theme, was misleading. There's no question these are troubled times.
But the notion that Jews in 2003 ought to use the Holocaust as a kind
of lens to help them see their current predicament more dearly is, to
say the least, problematic. The analogy no longer holds.
``Comparing what's going on today to the thirties is both wrong and
dangerous,'' says Alan Dershowitz, who also has a new book, The Case
for Israel, which is practically a point-by-point guide for responding
to the Jewish state's critics. ``The old labels don't apply, and the
old diagnoses don't address the problem. They substitute emotion for
reason, and we can't win this war with emotion. We need to look
forward. We need to start thinking about the 2030s, not the 1930s.''
The war to which Dershowitz is referring is the global explosion of
hate and hostility directed at Israel and at Jews themselves. For the
past eighteen months or so, members of the Jewish community--
intellectuals, activists, heads of various organizations, and
laypeople--have been struggling desperately to find an effective
strategy to address the new reality.
It's been slow going. ``The organized Jewish community has just not
reacted strongly enough,'' says Morton Klein, head of the Zionist
Organization of America.
Part of the reason for this is that they are facing a new problem,
an enemy they haven't seen before. The stunning result of the
burgeoning anti-Israel, anti-Zionist emotion is a kind of politically
correct anti-Semitism. Foxman's analogy to the thirties is right in
this respect: It is once again acceptable in polite society,
particularly among people with left-of-center political views, to
freely express anti-Jewish feelings. What only two or three years ago
would have been considered hateful, naked bigotry is now a legitimate
political position.
The new p.c. anti-Semitism mixes traditional blame-the-Jews
boilerplate with a fevered opposition to Israel. In this worldview, the
``Zionist entity'' has no legitimacy and as a result no right to do
what other nations do, like protect itself and its citizens. It is true
that immediately labeling someone anti-Semitic because he criticizes
Israel is a long-standing, often bogus tactic that has been used by
Jews to stymie debate. The new anti-Semitism, however, is in some sense
the inverse problem, with criticism of Israel being a kind of Trojan
horse in which age-old anti-Semitic feelings are concealed.
``Israel has become the Jew among nations,'' says Mort Zuckerman,
who in addition to his media holdings is the former chairman of the
Council of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. ``It is
both the surrogate--the respectable way of expressing anti-Semitism--
and the collective Jew.''
The irony here is that Israel, which was supposed to be the
solution to centuries of anti-Semitism, is providing a flash point and
a kind of cover for p.c. anti-Semitism. Recently, The Forward, the
savvy weekly newspaper that focuses on Jewish life here and abroad,
published its annual list of the 50 most influential American Jews. In
its introduction, in a dramatic public expression of the thing that's
on every Jew's mind, the paper explained that this year's list is
dominated by people shaping the debate over the most critical question
of the day: ``Why has the world turned against us, and what is to be
done about it?''
For most Jews, certainly those tied to the common-sense-based,
moderate political middle, the momentum change is disorienting. How
could this have happened when they believed so strongly in all the
right things, like ending the occupation and dismantling the
settlements? Fair-minded and compassionate, they regularly expressed
concern for Palestinian suffering, and they cheered when Ehud Barak
made an offer that appeared to finally clinch a peaceful two-state
solution.
But when Yasser Arafat walked away from the peace talks and
triggered the incomprehensible wave of suicide bombings, events took a
very strange turn. First, the violence guaranteed the election of Ariel
Sharon. I was in Jerusalem during election week in 2001, and the city
was covered with bumper stickers and signs that read ONLY SHARON WILL
KEEP US SAFE. The intifada also decimated Israel's left. Jews
everywhere wanted something done. Enough was enough. They wanted a show
of force, and they got it.
American Jews felt adrift at first, then angry, as if they'd been
betrayed. If their hearts were in the right place, why hadn't the
results been better?
But after a little more than three years, it's clear the use of
force hasn't worked either. Palestinian violence hasn't stopped. And
the Sharon government's hard line has generated runaway sympathy for
the Palestinians and at least an equal amount of hostility toward the
Israelis. Suddenly, Jews find themselves less and less able to claim
the moral high ground as they are now cast as the villains in the
conflict. No matter what Israel does--negotiate, fight, put up a
fence--it only seems to make things worse.
``I feel sick to my stomach,'' says writer and activist Leonard
Fein. ``I go to meetings where despondence is thick on the table. I
also feel scared because Israel is rudderless.''
Senator Allen. And they may not--you know, some of the
countries, such as Germany, as a federation, and each state
may--Bavaria--I assume all the states, whether it's Bavaria or
Baden-Wurttemberg, regardless, all of the states have it. And
I'm not saying that--I'm saying that the Federal Government
should be running those if they have a more localized approach,
such as in a country like Switzerland. Nonetheless, it would be
a good benchmark for us to see what youngsters are learning.
Thank you.
Now, I'd turn it over to Senator Biden for any questions
you may have.
Senator Biden. Thank you, Senator. I just have two
questions, then I'll yield, and I have another committee
hearing.
By the way, staff points out to me that Lithuania has a
unit on the Holocaust in its basic training manual for the army
conscripts. So there's some movement. The whole picture isn't
bleak in Europe. There's some positive things that are
happening, and I--but, in the shortness of time, it's important
that we dwell on the portions that need to be corrected, in my
view.
I'd like to ask you one question, quite frankly. And, by
the way, Mr. O'Donnell, it's nice to see you here, rather than
greeting me on the tarmac. I appreciate it very much, and I
wasn't nearly as hospitable to you as you were to me when you
greeted me last year, and I thank you for that.
Can you give us your sense--and you may not have an
opinion, or may not want to venture one--but how would you
explain the refusal, if you would, of the European Union to
include in its Brussels Presidency Conclusions the condemnation
of the Malaysian Prime Minister's anti-Semitic remarks? How do
you read it?
Mr. O'Donnell. I really don't think I can comment on the
European Union. What I can say is that we spoke out, our
administration, President Bush and other senior administration
officials, and we spoke out very quickly and very forcefully
with statements such as that Mahathir's comments were wrong and
divisive, hateful and outrageous, offensive and inflammatory.
And we also expect other countries to speak out very forcefully
and directly, and that's part of our pursuit of speaking out
against anti-Semitic statements.
Senator Biden. Well, you and the administration, the
President, are personally to be complimented, because in these
cases, words matter. Words matter.
Well, let me ask one last question, then. There has been
discussion in Europe, as well as here, about the notion that
there's a new strain of anti-Semitism emerging in the European
media and among some European political elites who are critical
of Israel.
Now, we have been very careful, even those who are very
critical of Israel, in this country, to make a distinction,
which is totally permissible, between the conduct of a
government and the religion and ethnicity of a people. And so
even in the United States, those who feel very strongly that
Israel is not on the right path, have made this distinction.
My impression is that anti-Semitism and the old canards are
being used increasingly even by elites to bolster and undergird
their criticism of Israeli policy, almost as an ad hominem
argument, as opposed to a direct and legitimate, and
appropriate for democracy to do, attack or criticism of the
policy of another government.
So my question is, not whether you personally believe--I
don't want to put you in that spot--but is it your impression
that some European political elites and the European media
outlets are using anti-Semitism as a way of being critical or
underpinning their criticism of Israeli conduct? I know that
puts you in a spot. Not what do you think.
Let me phrase it another way so I don't compromise you. And
I warn the next panel, I will try to compromise you. Have you
heard discussion in your formal capacity, when in Europe, of
this subject? Is it being debated, not just by European Jews,
but is it being debated at all, discussed among elites in
Europe as to whether or not this is seeping into the criticism
of Israel, which is fairly universal in Europe, crossing
political parties and lines? Is that something that's up for
discussion at cocktail parties and among, you know, elites, who
you, necessarily, should be and are exposed to? I think that's
the way to ask it. I can't think of another way.
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you, Senator Biden, I appreciate that.
I would like to make two comments, if I may. In Germany,
certainly this is a concern and something we watch from the
embassy and the consulates, and Ambassador Coates certainly is
very active in this area, and is talking to groups. I think
this is a part of what we should be doing and are doing in
embassies to explain our policy and also to explain our concern
about anti-Semitism in Europe.
And it is an issue. I was with a group of young German
politicians and also journalists this morning, and this type of
discussion did come up. And I think that we are all looking at
this issue. And certainly in Germany they're very active in
examining the roots of anti-Semitism. And that's why--one of
the reasons, I think, that demonstrates the importance the
Berlin April meeting of the OSCE. The Germans are very active.
Yes, it is being discussed.
Senator Biden. I thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be back.
Senator Allen. All right. Thank you, Senator Biden.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. O'Donnell, I have to say I'm very,
very impressed with the followup you did from Vienna and your
meeting in Warsaw. I said I'm very, very happy with the
progress that you've been making, because that's exactly what I
had hoped would happen as we're following up on that.
Has there been a date established for the meeting in April,
or is that still tentative?
Mr. O'Donnell. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. And I would
like to give the credit to Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith and
Ambassador Minikes, who were at the meeting last week in our
delegation in the U.S. Helsinki Commission. We have dates of
the 28th and 29th of April, and they are set, but it's, of
course, contingent upon formal approval by the Foreign
Ministers in Maastricht in that meeting.
But in talking to Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith and others
on the delegation, that's certainly our goal, that that will be
approved, and she's confident we do have consensus and that
we'll be moving forward to prepare for that meeting.
Senator Voinovich. And the goal would be then to--at the
meeting, to institutionalize this effort in the Office for
Democratic Institution and Human Rights. So it would become
part of the ordinary work of the OSCE ministerial group.
Mr. O'Donnell. We would be using ODIHR, which is in Warsaw,
as the central institution that would collect statistics on
hate crimes, and that would include a number of other
activities, such as helping participating member states and
develop their own national statistics and trying to make sure
they're uniform, as Mayor Giuliani pointed out. So there are a
lot of issues there. But that's certainly our goal, to use
ODIHR as the centerpiece of the reporting on hate crimes and
anti-Semitic incidents, yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I really think it's important that
as you move down the road you have some real specific things
that you're committed to and that you're going to be promoting
with the other members of the OSCE. And I know Ambassador
Minikes is a good one to have there.
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. He's very dedicated. I had a chance to
spend some time with him in Berlin last year.
The other issue--and, again, I am impressed with this Task
Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education--how
is that funded?
Mr. O'Donnell. It's funded by each participating country,
the 15 member countries. It's a contribution of $25,000 a year.
So our total budget that we work with is not large, but we do
have--beyond the monetary resources, we do have participation,
which is quite valuable, from the countries, the member
countries, and that includes government officials, such as
myself and my office, but also people from, for example, NGOs
and scholars and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and, in
other countries, for example, Poland's coming to the meeting in
December. They're bringing the Education Ministry, they're
bringing an NGO representative. So we have a network of people
who have been working on these Task Force Working Groups, and
that's also a contribution of resources.
Senator Voinovich. Well, one of the things that we talked
about that would come out of this meeting is this whole issue
of education. One of the things that drives me crazy with some
of the European groups, is that they've got so many groups that
you can hardly keep track of what they're doing. What would be
interesting is if some linkage could be had between the Task
Force for International Cooperation and the Holocaust, use that
maybe as a benchmark for the meeting at the OSCE and say this
is something that people have been doing, it's working, it's
been effective, and then see if you can't get some more people
that would participate in it, rather than having them come up
with some brand-new way of getting things done.
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, sir.
I just might mention there are two countries that have
applied for membership, Norway--and this will be for our
December meeting here in Washington--and also Romania. Romania
we've been working with, and there are some positive things
that have happened. For example, Romania has decided to form a
Holocaust Commission that will be chaired by Eli Weisel. So
there are some things like that where we can work with
countries, and we're engaging them to do the things that we
would like, in terms of Holocaust education and memorials and
remembrance days.
Senator Voinovich. Well, that's good to hear, from Romania,
because they've had some problems, as you well know.
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, sir.
Senator Voinovich. I think you mentioned, too, the new
nations that we are contemplating bringing into NATO. Our
country has made it very clear that dealing with anti-Semitism
is part of the dues to be a member of NATO, and I was very,
very encouraged that many of the Jewish organizations in this
country and around the world were encouraging these new
countries to come into NATO. That's a wonderful way to followup
on it.
Mr. O'Donnell. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Sarbanes, do you have any questions of this first
panel witness?
Senator Sarbanes. Well, Mr. Chairman, I know you're anxious
to go to the next panel, and I was unable to get here earlier,
so I'll pass on this witness.
Senator Allen. Well, thank you, Senator Sarbanes.
Mr. O'Donnell, thank you for your comments and answering
questions. I look forward to getting that checklist of which
countries have Holocaust education in their curriculum. And I'm
hopeful that this committee will soon have you as Ambassador,
not Ambassador-Designate, as your formal title. This is
probably--we're going to try to get you before this committee--
before recess, we'll get this hopefully accomplished. And,
again, thank you for coming.
I also want to thank people in this committee, Senators in
this committee, for allowing you to come forward without the
usual procedures and so forth.
Look forward to working with you for years to come. Thank
you very much.
Now, our second panel is--if the gentlemen can come
forward, our second panel--and I'll introduce you as you all
get situated there--our second panel includes the following
three gentlemen: Abraham Foxman, the national director of the
Anti-Defamation League, David Harris, executive director of The
American Jewish Committee, and the executive director of NCSJ,
Mark Levin.
Mr. Foxman has worked for the Anti-Defamation League since
1965. He was named the national director in 1987. Prior to
that, he worked in the League's International Affairs and Civil
Rights Divisions. In addition to his position at the Anti-
Defamation League, Mr. Foxman has recently authored a book
titled, ``Never Again?'' with a question mark, ``The Threat of
New Anti-Semitism,'' which was released yesterday. Is that
correct?
Mr. Foxman. Correct.
Senator Allen. And Mr. Harris, Mr. David Harris, has been
the executive director of The American Jewish Committee since
1990. Prior to assuming his current position, Mr. Harris served
as the director of the AJC's Washington-based office of
Government and International Affairs. He is the author of three
books, ``The Jewish World,'' ``Entering a New Culture,'' and
co-author of ``The Jokes of Oppression.''
Mr. Levin is the executive director of NCSJ, which is the
National Conference on Soviet Jewry, and was recently appointed
to this position--well, not recently--was appointed to it in
October 1992, has been a member of the professional staff of
that organization since 1980. From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Levin
served as director of the National Conference of Soviet Jewry's
Washington office. Prior to coming to NCSJ, he worked for the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
We'll hear from all three of these witnesses in the order
in which you're listed on the agenda and also the list of the
order in which I introduced and gave a brief biographical
sketch for everyone of your wonderful achievements and
knowledge.
And so we'll hear first from Mr. Foxman.
STATEMENT OF ABRAHAM H. FOXMAN, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-
DEFAMATION LEAGUE, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Foxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to address this
subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, the convening of this hearing is
just one more example of the kind of ongoing leadership
commitment and focus by members of the committee to spotlight
and combat anti-Semitism, for which we are grateful. It is at
moments such as these that, as a Holocaust survivor, I feel so
privileged to have an opportunity to raise my concerns, our
concerns, with you. So proud. So proud that this country cares,
worries, acts, speaks. And haunted by the thought that if only
in the 1930s, forget about Europe, but in this country, had
there been such deliberations, had there been such discussions,
had the voice been as clear as it is today, then maybe, maybe,
the situation would have been different.
And as we look through Europe, I don't know if we can find
one country where its congressional or senatorial legislative
bodies have spent as much time as we have here grappling,
struggling with this issue.
The hearing is so timely, because, unfortunately, as we've
heard from some of the Senators, we have had a fresh
opportunity to examine a monumental manifestation of anti-
Semitism. But, more important--not what he said, not what he
said, that's not new--where he said it, how he said it is a
little bit new, but the reaction of the international
community, and the reaction in Europe, in particular. Prime
Minister of Malaysia has a record of anti-Semitism. What's
significant is that he decided in his swan song of a lifelong
career, in front of a group of nations, determined not by
culture, not by geography, not by philosophy, but by religion.
What brought those 57 countries together was their faith. And
he believed that the door was open for him, that it would be
acceptable to give a speech which we have not heard, since the
days of the 1930s, by a head of state and for--in fact, called
for a victory by 1.3 billion Muslims against the Jewish people.
And the lessons we need to learn is, No.1, that heads of
state still believe that this can be said with impunity; No. 2,
he was received with a standing ovation, and our so-called
friends and allies, to whom I have written last week, the
President of Egypt, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the
leadership of Turkey, Jordan, stood and applauded. No one
walked out. No one criticized. And in the week since then, we
see words of praise, applause in the Arab world, for what he
said. Maybe that shouldn't come as a surprise.
But then we look at Europe. Europe, which has been in a
paroxysm of anti-Semitic violence in the last 3 or 4 years;
Europe, struggling with a population to which this message of
hate, of religious hate, reaches out; Europe, which has
struggled with desecrations, torchings of synagogues. Only in
the last month, Jews were killed in Moscow, in Istanbul, and in
Casablanca because they were Jews.
And so one would have hoped, Mr. Chairman, that this would
have been a magnificent example of Europe to stand up together
to condemn. I've submitted, in my testimony, the written
testimony, and I won't go in it in detail--suffice it to say
that when history is written of this week, it will report that
there was an angry, loud debate in the Council of Europe, that
at the meeting Thursday night with the Foreign Ministers there
was argument as to whether the word ``anti-Semitism'' should be
used. And there was a victory. The good people said, ``This is
anti-Semitism.'' And so a statement was agreed upon with the
word ``anti-Semitism,'' and it was read as a statement Thursday
night. And I challenge you to find that statement, that
reference, from the EU with the word ``anti-Semitism''
describing Mr. Mahathir's comments. I challenge you to find it
on any Web site of the EU. Because within hours, it was watered
down, within hours, by the intervention and interception--and
even though I will tell you I had a particularly harsh exchange
with the President of France, Mr. Chirac, and I still stand by
the information that we have--by the intervention of France, by
the intervention of Greece, it was watered down. And you would
have difficulty finding on the Web site that condemnation. You
need to be an expert.
And, yes, I think, Senator Biden asked, ``Is it true that
they hid behind process?'' Yes, they did. They said, ``This is
the way we normally act.'' Well, this was not a normal event.
This was an extraordinary hateful anti-Semitic event. And one
needs to compliment, commend, the Governments of Italy, of
Spain, and of Germany, and Netherlands, for they fought a
valiant effort, but you'd never find out, you'd never read
about it, because it doesn't exist anymore.
And then I'm told, by the President of France, about his
letters that he wrote and the condemnations. And, again, I do
not want to take the time. I have submitted the writings and
the letters, and you tell me how strong a condemnation that is.
In fact, I wrote to the President of France today, and I said
to him if his letter to the Prime Minister of Malaysia would
have been as angry as his letter to me, we'd have stood up and
applauded his position. ``Why?'' one of the Senators asked.
It's a lot more of the political expediency, and that's why we
could understand why the Prime Minister of Malaysia, in fact,
in fact, praised France for its reasonable national response.
Whereas, he used the rest of the world's response--first and
foremost, America--as proof of his anti-Semitic tirade that
Jews control; otherwise, there wouldn't have been this response
out there in the world.
And so the lesson to us is that we need to continue to
press our European friends and allies, somewhere's down the
line, our moderate Arab friends. But certainly this is a
continent that has almost been destroyed by hate, by bigotry,
by prejudice, by anti-Semitism. And if they don't understand it
now, and if they don't raise their voice to their Arab friends,
who will?
And so it's very poignant, poignant that this country--you,
the Members of the Senate--so quickly condemned it--this
country, through the State Department, to the Office of the
President, to the President himself.
And I had a conversation with a French diplomat today who
tried to compare what Chirac said to what President Bush said,
and I said, ``You know, we do have a gap in culture and
language, but the gap isn't that large. Read what President
Chirac said, and read what the President''--well, and then he
said, ``Mahathir said today that the President of the United
States didn't say it to him.'' And I said, ``And now you're
talking the word of Mahathir against the words of the President
of the United States?''
Well, our lesson is that we need to be there, because we
are the only leader of the free world who understands whether
it's on terrorism, whether it's on freedom or democracy, and
certainly on anti-Semitism.
Senator Voinovich, I will never forget 2 years ago, when
you led an effort--I was privileged, in Berlin then, to address
a group of parliamentarians, and when history is written, it
was that meeting, it was a rump meeting, it was outside the
procedural foundations of what they were doing, but the United
States, and your delegation, you felt there was a need to
address it. That was the beginning of OSCE meeting on anti-
Semitism. And if the United States and the parliamentarians did
not hear from you, from the American Senate and Congress, there
would be no session next April in Berlin, because they're
looking for excuses.
I have submitted in writing, to be responsive to your
request, some recommendations. The recommendations, they're not
that unique. They're very simple things to do. First and
foremost, is to focus attention. The Ambassador referred to
some of them. We worked with Senator Giuliani--not Senator--
maybe--with Mayor Giuliani--we worked with him on it, we worked
with the American Jewish Committee, we worked with the
Conference on Society Jewry, to develop best practices, to
develop that which has worked here, which hopefully will work
there, but it will need our leadership.
In conclusion, let me say that despite the troubling
assessment that we've heard and I bring to this committee, I
come to you as an optimist, as a believer that we can go
forward from this hearing, from this House, from this House of
Congress, from this country, to make a difference.
As I said to you earlier, I am a survivor of the Holocaust,
and I emerged from that horrific period because of the courage
and compassion of my Catholic nanny and her priest, who hid my
true identity and saved me while a million and a half Jewish
children were not as fortunate. My story is a living reminder
that individuals can make a difference, one life at a time.
Think of an impact you can have from the halls of Congress
and through the bully pulpit of the U.S. Government, and as the
President has done in Asia this week, to confront this
pernicious hatred. Anti-Semitism has a particular place in the
history of Europe, in the history of xenophobia. Focusing on it
and combating it now can only advance the cause of eradicating
all forms of hatred, of bigotry, of prejudice, and racism.
And we, assembled here, know that this is not the work of a
day, but a long-term strategy to build an alliance of values
one country at a time, one minister at a time, one
parliamentarian at a time, to sensitize our allies so that
years from now the Mahathirs of that generation will face wall-
to-wall international condemnation.
Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, there is no greater challenge, and
there is no greater good. And I am humbled by the opportunity
to sit here and to meet with you.
Thank you very, very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foxman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-
Defamation League, New York, NY
My name is Abraham Foxman. I am the National Director of the Anti-
Defamation League, an organization currently celebrating its 90th
anniversary year of working to expose and counter anti-Semitism and all
forms of bigotry. I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the
subcommittee, not just to offer an assessment of the problem, but to
highlight concrete steps that Members of the Senate and the US
government can take to address it.
As nations of the world, including our own, have turned their focus
to the fight against terrorism, we are acutely aware that fighting
anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred is critical, not just on
humanitarian grounds, but as a matter of the national security of all
freedom loving nations.
Mr. Chairman, the convening of this hearing is just one more
example of the kind of ongoing leadership, commitment and focus by
members of the Committee to spotlight and combat anti-Semitism for
which we are grateful.
This hearing is so timely because unfortunately we have had a fresh
opportunity to examine a monumental manifestation of anti-Semitism and
the reaction of the international community and Europe in particular. I
am referring to the poisonous, hate-filled, anti-Semitic speech by
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad just last week.
Let me begin by applauding the Senate for swiftly passing a
Resolution condemning the Mahathir statement. Your action stands in
stark contrast to that of other leaders who responded either with
silence or bitter deliberations over whether it was appropriate to call
anti-Semitism by its name and to criticize it publicly.
At last week's meeting of the Organization of the Islamic
Conference (OIC), Prime Minister Mahathir took the already incendiary
issue of global anti-Semitism to new and dangerous heights in his call
to leaders of the 57 nations assembled for a final victory against the
Jews who ``rule the world by proxy.'' I have attached excerpts of
Mahathir's remarks to my written testimony which you have in front of
you.
The audience at this gathering was made up of the leaders of
nations, most of which have witnessed an upsurge of anti-Semitic hate
over the last three years. Surveys indicate that a significant part of
the populations in these countries believe the big lie that Jews were
responsible for carrying out the attacks of September 11th. Many
opinion leaders and intellectuals in those states claim that the
Holocaust did not happen or was greatly exaggerated by world Jewry in
order to win support for Israel. There has been a proliferation of
anti-Semitic stereotypes--Jews as Nazis, Jews drinking the blood of
Muslims, Jews controlling America--in state-controlled media. And
Muslim residents of European countries, inspired by this outburst of
hate from Islamic media and the Internet, have committed hundreds of
acts of anti-Semitic violence against Jews and Jewish institutions.
But the significance of Mahathir's speech being delivered to this
particular forum lies not merely in the prevalence of anti-Semitism in
those countries but in the fact that this was a meeting of Islamic
nations. This was not a United Nations committee meeting, or the
organization of French-speaking countries, or the Davos Economic
Summit. The OIC member nations are not bound by geography, or politics
or culture--but by religion.
This was a rallying cry to an entire faith, a call to holy war
against the Jewish religion and people by 1.3 billion Muslims. It is
grotesque anti-Semitism with the intent to incite a religious war on an
international scale.
The potential effect of the hatred spewed by Mahathir is
particularly lethal because of the ability of his message to
reverberate across the Muslim world where there are those who are more
than willing to take them at face value, to translate them into
international terrorism and suicide bombs.
It is far from a surprise that Mahathir personally holds these
views. He has a history of which we are aware. In 1997 he blamed Jewish
billionaire George Soros for the currency crisis in his country. In
1984 Malaysia banned a performance of the New York Philharmonic
Orchestra of a work based on Hebrew melodies by Jewish composer Ernst
Bloch.
It is shocking, nevertheless, that 60 years after Europe was
decimated by the worst kind of horror that can result when anti-
Semitism is unleashed and unchecked, after we had come to believe the
world had learned the lessons of the Holocaust, that a head of state
would make a call for holy war against Jews the ``swan song'' of his
decades-long political career.
But what alarms us most is Mahathir's presumption that, in making
this incendiary speech, he was walking through an open door. And
indeed, his confidence was born out by the standing ovation he received
after his remarks.
We were truly dismayed and saddened that among the leaders of 57
countries, including US allies like King Abdullah II of Jordan, Prince
Abdullah Abdul Aziz of Saudi Arabia, and Morocco's King Mohamed VI, no
one stood up, no one walked out, and no one challenged him. Where were
the good people at this summit who should have stood up to proclaim
that Mahathir's words were evil and unacceptable?
INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS
Beyond the speech itself, it is instructive to look at how the
world beyond the OIC reacted, even under the microscope of intense
media scrutiny. And what should engage and concern this subcommittee is
the fact that this incident is emblematic of one of the most difficult
aspects of the new anti-Semitism in Europe which reverberates from the
Middle East and--absent clear condemnation and prevention--has too
often translated into acts of violence, and even murder of Jews in
Europe and elsewhere.
Let us first look at just a sampling of the response from some
leaders of Muslim nations:
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said: ``This was a pep talk
to the Muslim countries for them to work hard and look to the future,
but as soon as you have any criticism of Israel, then there are people
who are very eager to rush to condemnation, even without comprehending
what it's all about.''
Somalian President Abdiqasim Salad Hassan defended Mahathir,
saying: ``The prime minister was not inciting war. He was just saying
that we should be united to face threats from many quarters, including
Israel.''
Yemen's Foreign Minister Abubakar al-Qirbi said it bluntly. ``I
don't think they were anti-Semitic at all. I think he was basically
stating the fact to the Muslim world.''
Days after the controversy roared, Mahathir himself was unrepentant
and defended his comments in a press conference saying: ``My speech was
very clear. I said that the Jews have all the world behind them and
that's why they can defy the United Nations.''
In Europe, the response of those who should be the most sensitive,
because of their history, and their own experience with a leader
rallying nations around this kind of invective, was mixed.
A two-day summit of the European Union Council in Brussels last
week provided the perfect forum to publicly issue a forceful joint
declaration. Italy, which holds the current EU presidency, issued a
strong statement as did Spain, Germany and others.
However we were stunned that representatives to an EU summit in
Brussels had to debate in closed session whether to condemn this anti-
Semitism as part of their concluding declaration. In the end, they did
not see fit to make it a part of the official record of the summit. A
French government spokesperson defended the position saying that it is
not customary policy to deal with such issues in summit declarations.
Beyond the fact that this incident should have compelled them to break
with ``customary policy'', numerous reports indicated that leaders of
France and Greece actually blocked a condemnation that some EU members
asked for. We are not alone in our assessment of the French reaction.
Malaysian newspapers report that Mahathir had expressed his gratitude
to President Chirac for his ``understanding'' of the speech.
I'll read to you the French response so you can see first hand the
kind of reticence we are talking about. Even after an international
outcry, they could only say: ``We have respect for the Organization of
the Islamic Conference. We have respect for the vast community of
Moslems whom this Organization represents. We expect those who speak on
behalf of the OIC to show the same respect towards other faiths, in
accordance with the spirit of tolerance which is also Islam's.''
President Chirac later issued what he must have believed was a stronger
statement saying to Mahathir: ``Your remarks on the role of Jews
provoked strong disapproval in France and around the world.'' The
President of France could not bring himself to use the word anti-
Semitism.
There certainly have been good people of conscience who prevailed
in their own way and were able to mobilize an outcry. But we sorely
regret that, while Mahathir's remarks are proudly posted on the OIC Web
site, visit the official EU Web site and you will find their criticism
makes no mention of the word anti-Semitism and is buried deep in its
document archive. While the hater unabashedly trumpets his message, the
condemnation is muted by dissent within the EU. Let me quote the simple
message that was so difficult for some to accept, hotly debated behind
closed doors:
``The EU deeply deplores the comments made earlier today by Dr.
Mahathir in his speech at the opening of the 10th session of the
Islamic Summit conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia . . . Such words
hinder all our efforts to further inter-ethnic and religious harmony,
and have absolutely no place in a tolerant world.''
We commend those in the international community who took a strong
stand against the incendiary anti-Jewish scapegoating of Mahathir's
speech. In particular, we recognize Italy, Spain and Germany for their
important comments and efforts to rightly denounce and condemn this
speech as anti-Semitic, dangerous and morally repugnant. We salute
those who worked behind closed doors in the EU to push for a rejection
of Mahathir's speech and message.
We are appalled by those who acquiesced, with their silence or even
with public support. We are especially outraged by the actions of
French President Jacques Chirac and Greek Prime Minister Costas Simitis
to block the EU Summit official condemnation. By their disgraceful
behavior, these countries are willingly complicit in spreading these
words of hate.
ADL wrote the leaders of Australia, Germany, Italy, and Spain to
express appreciation for their strong condemnations of Mahathir's
speech, and, on the other side, to France, Greece, Jordan, Turkey,
Morocco, Russia, and others, calling their behavior a ``disgrace to
their countries.''
LESSONS GOING FORWARD
This chapter illustrates yet again that one cannot talk about anti-
Semitism in Europe without confronting the role of the Arab world in
propagating the kind of anti-Jewish myths which flourished in Europe
centuries ago. These canards are being revived and cloaked in theology
and religion. Islamist campaigns within the Muslim world and Europe
have moved the anti-Jewish beliefs within Islam from the fringes, where
they historically resided, closer to the center. This demonization of
Jews and Judaism emanates from houses of worship and from clerics. It
pervades educational systems and government-sponsored media, and it
permeates popular culture well beyond the Middle East.
The ensuing radicalization of youth in Muslim countries and in
Europe has played a large role in the attacks against individual Jews
and Jewish institutions. I have appended to my written testimony just a
sample of recent anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. This is in no way a
quantitative representation but merely to demonstrate that, while the
frequency may vary, the violence continues and presents a real danger
to the security of Jews living in Europe.
Mr. Chairman, even the brief overview I have provided of world
reaction to this one incident leads us to one paramount conclusion--
that the US is unique in its resolve to be a voice of conscience when
it comes to calling anti-Semitism by its name.
Even as the President traveled to Asia to meet world leaders to
bolster US ties with nations on issues of vital US interest, he faced
this issue head on. While others were afraid to mention the words anti-
Semitism, our President spoke boldly and clearly in a face to face
encounter with Prime Minister Mahathir himself. In making his outrage
known on both a personal and public level, the President has left no
doubt that the Prime Minister's anti-Semitism and his continuing
defense of his speech is unacceptable and morally repugnant in the eyes
of the United States.
With similar moral clarity, the Senate swiftly passed a resolution
of condemnation--not at the urging of any organization or religious
community--but instinctively as a matter of clear policy and principle.
It is abundantly clear that the vital task of getting leaders
around the world to denounce the ideology of anti-Semitism that has
gripped the Islamic and Arab world will depend on the steadfastness of
US leadership.
While the last century witnessed the most heinous results of
bigotry unchecked, fortunately, we also have witnessed in our lifetime
powerful examples of how strong US leadership has brought about
dramatic change.
Members of Congress and of this committee are uniquely positioned
to exert such leadership and to build among our allies in Europe a
coalition of those willing to stand up. You are in a position to use
your good offices to recognize constructive and courageous leadership
as well as to criticize those nations and leaders who fail to step up
to the plate.
Parliamentarians in the US and Germany have taken a lead in getting
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to
address anti-Semitism for the first time in a separate meeting in
Vienna. Germany has offered to host an important follow up meeting next
April in Berlin. We urge Senators to look at other relevant
international, regional and inter-parliamentary institutions that might
address the issue.
I mentioned countries like Spain and Italy that have shown courage
in speaking out. Your membership in this Committee, your meetings, your
travel, your bilateral contacts with heads of state, foreign ministers
and parliamentarians provide an opportunity to broaden the alliance of
those who are courageous enough to stand up even where it is unpopular
to do so.
We must reject the notion that a leader who acknowledges anti-
Semitism must pay a price for somehow disrespecting their Muslim
constituency. Surely we oppose all forms of bigotry including anti-
Muslim hatred, but condemning anti-Semitism is in no way a denigration
of any other religion or group.
On the contrary, combating anti-Semitism, especially in Europe,
advances the protection of all minorities. It was anti-Semitism which
infected Europe and dismantled its democratic institutions and
ultimately the freedom of all its inhabitants. Jews have been referred
to as the canary in the coal mine--because concerted attacks against
Jews will not stop there but will endanger the civilized world and
democratic institutions wherever they exist.
I would like to highlight some concrete steps which we hope the
Committee will be able to take. We look forward to continuing to
cooperate and share ideas about how to carry on this fight--armed with
the clear knowledge that we can make a difference.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. European nations must take seriously the ideology of anti-
Semitism coming out of the Arab and Islamic world.
Political, intellectual, and religious leaders must insist
in a variety of forums that, the Big Lie--blaming the Jews for
September 11th, growing Holocaust denial, the spread of the
infamous forgery the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other
manifestations of anti-Semitism in the Arab and Islamic world--
are unacceptable, and call on Arab leaders to do something
about it. The silence of nations in the face of this dangerous
incitement against Jews must end.
Nations of Europe have it well within their power today to
play a very different role in international organizations where
anti-Israel bias has been reflected even in the revival of the
infamous ``Zionism is racism'' ideology. This bias has shown
itself to be easily transformed into outright anti-Semitism, as
we witnessed at the U.N. World Conference Against Racism in
Durban, South Africa in 2001.
Nations must confront the connection between the bias
against Israel internationally and the surge of anti-Semitism
on the streets. While the state of Israel is not beyond
legitimate criticism, states must reject the self-satisfying
rationalization that this bias and violence are manifestations
of disagreement with Israel. Leaders must recognize that the
singling out of Israel creates an environment in which anti-
Semitism flourishes. We cannot let anti-Semitism and efforts to
brand Israel a pariah state seep into the public debate
disguised as political commentary. The ultimate question is not
whether one can criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite,
but whether that criticism reflects a double standard and an
unfair bias against Jewish national self-expression and self-
determination.
2. Recognize anti-Semitism as a human rights violation--de-linked
from Middle East issues. While anti-Semitism has been acknowledged as a
form of racism, there is a reticence to address its re-emergence
squarely within multilateral frameworks for fear of raising the ire of
Arab communities or states, or of running against a political climate
which is increasingly hostile toward Israel. US diplomats and NGOs
repeatedly encounter discomfort with any kind of special focus on the
issue. In the United Nations, language on anti-Semitism or Holocaust
commemoration is dealt with as part of negotiations of language on the
Arab--Israeli conflict and not as a separate human rights or religious
freedom issue. Addressing anti-Semitism head-on should not be viewed as
a Middle East issue or taking a particular side in any regional
political conflict.
Anti-Semitism is xenophobia that infects the community where it
occurs--it should not be treated as a political hot-button issue
related to the Middle East. Even, and especially when support for
Israel may be unpopular, defense of Jewish rights must not be allowed
to fall out of favor.
3. Hate Crime Data Collection and Monitoring.
National and local authorities must call attacks on Jews and
Jewish institutions what they are--anti-Semitism. The first
step is to ensure that incidents are taken seriously and
appropriately categorized as hate crimes. We have witnessed in
some countries incidents rationalized as hooliganism or as
expressions of political disagreement with Israel. They are a
violation of national law in many states and of international
norms and treaties against incitement, religious intolerance,
and hate violence.
Enhance worldwide monitoring efforts by governments and non-
governmental bodies alike. Nations should promote the adoption
of comprehensive hate crime data collection laws and provide
training in how to identify, report, and respond to hate crimes
for appropriate law enforcement officials. It is impossible to
properly assess the scope and nature of the problem without
data collection and public reporting on anti-Semitic incidents.
Nations should allocate funds for national assessments of
hate violence, its causes, the prevalence of the problem in
state schools, the characteristics of the offenders and
victims, and successful intervention and diversion strategies
for juveniles. There is a direct connection between identifying
the nature of the problem and identifying appropriate
educational initiatives to address the problem.
4. Using the Bully Pulpit.
Urge political and civic leaders to utilize opportunities
they have every day to speak out against bigotry. Their
statements and actions to promote tolerance resonate nationally
and internationally. It is hard to overstate the importance of
outspoken leadership in opposition to all forms of bigotry.
These leaders set the tone for national discourse and have an
essential role in shaping attitudes. Further, politicians and
civic leaders should never engage in divisive appeals based on
race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.
Urge parliamentarians abroad to take action. The challenge
is how to replicate these kinds of hearings and resolutions in
parliaments of other nations. Building on the efforts of the US
Congress, it is vital to broaden the alliance of those
parliaments willing to speak the truth about this issue and
take action. Let other parliaments do as Congress has done,
pass resolutions against anti-Semitism and develop national
action plans to combat it.
Urge support for the OSCE Berlin Follow-Up Conference. The
landmark June OSCE conference on anti-Semitism brought together
leaders from 55 states to recognize the problem and forge a
common commitment to follow up on a program of action. The
Berlin follow up meeting will be critical in seeing this
process through to meaningful implementation.
5. Implement Anti-Bias Education. Anti-Bias Education is an
essential building block of combating hatred. History has shown that,
when people of conscience are given tools and skills to stand up
against bigotry, they will do so. The ADL has many programs, some of
which have been highlighted by European governments as ``best
practices'' in the fight against racism. One of our earliest successes,
which is used as a model worldwide, was implemented in Germany in
response to hate crimes against Turkish Muslim immigrants in the early
1990s. I have included a checklist of additional programs we have found
to be successful internationally.
Parliaments should press education ministries to use schools
as a staging ground for anti-bias education. Governments must
act now to provide appropriate teacher training on anti-bias
education curricula and empower students through peer training
programs. From the ages of 3-5 years-old, where children begin
to recognize differences and form attitudes based on those
perceptions, to the college and university level, where inter-
group understanding is critical to fostering a successful
learning environment, anti-bias education is necessary to equip
students with skills and confidence which enable them to
confront prejudice, to become activists against bigotry and
agents for change.
Resources should be allocated to institute and replicate
best practices and promising programs on prejudice awareness,
conflict resolution, and multicultural education through
public-private partnerships, as part of education exchange and
public diplomacy programs.
6. Holocaust Education. The Holocaust serves as a grim reminder of
where intolerance can lead if permitted to flourish and of the absolute
necessity that it be stopped. Following up on the January 2000
Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust,
parliamentarians should seek to implement Holocaust curricula to draw
upon the lessons of this tragic period to illuminate the importance of
moral decision.
ADL developed a comprehensive, interactive secondary level
Holocaust curriculum enhanced with state of the art audiovisual
supplements for use in American high schools. This kind of
curriculum could be easily adapted for use in classrooms
abroad.
One useful model is the ADL's Bearing Witness Program for
Religious Educators. This program helps teachers examine anti-
Semitism and the Holocaust as a starting point for addressing
issues of diversity in contemporary society. Its goal is to
successfully implement Holocaust education in religious
schools. In order to do this effectively, teachers work to
confront and to acknowledge the history of the Holocaust
including the role of Churches and other religious
institutions. This is a collaborative effort between ADL, the
Archdiocese, and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
7. Law Enforcement Training. In talking about grappling with
bigotry with leaders, we often hear about the challenge of changing
demographics. Beyond training in hate crimes response, anti-bias
education for law enforcement professionals helps develop cross-
cultural skills and communication in order to enhance officer
effectiveness and safety by building cooperation and trust with diverse
communities.
A new proposed EU Law Enforcement Training Center would
provide an ideal venue for such training.
Respond to racism and hate crimes in the armed forces.
Ministries of Defense should provide anti-bias and prejudice
awareness training for all recruits and military personnel,
improve procedures for screening out racist recruits, and
clarify and publicize existing prohibitions against active duty
participation in hate group activity. In Austria, ADL training
has been implemented already for 8% of all law enforcement
professionals throughout Austria. In Russia, ADL has provided
training as part of the ``Climate of Trust'' hate crime
training program for law enforcement.
8. Mobilize religious leaders to speak out. The religious context
in which so much anti-Semitism festers--as we see in the Mahathir
incident--compels a response from leaders of all faiths, including
Muslims. At home and abroad, we maintain our vigilance and unequivocal
opposition to intolerance against Muslims. But we respect the faith of
Islam and its leaders enough to hold them accountable for their broad
failure to speak out against anti-Jewish hatred being fed to youth and
other believers as God's truth, as a tenet of faith.
CONCLUSION
Despite the troubling assessment I bring to this committee today I
come to you as an optimist, as a believer that we can go forward from
this hearing, from this House of Congress, from this country, to make a
difference. I am a survivor of the Holocaust. I emerged from that
horrific period only because of the courage and compassion of my
Catholic nanny and her priest who hid my true identity and saved me.
But 1\1/2\ million other Jewish children were not fortunate enough to
meet with those rare individuals of conscience. My story is a living
reminder that individuals can make a difference, one life at a time.
Imagine the impact you can continue to make from the Halls of Congress
and through the bully pulpit of the US government to confront this
pernicious hatred.
We must raise our collective voices against any expression of hate
and to challenge those whose ``violence of silence'' aids and abets its
growth. Anti-Semitism has a particular place in the history of Europe
and in the history of xenophobia. Focusing on it and combating it now
can only advance the cause of eradicating all forms of hatred.
We assembled here know that this is not the work of a day, but a
long term strategy to build an alliance of values--one country at a
time, one minister at a time, one parliamentarian at a time, to
sensitize our allies so that, years from now, the Mahathirs of that
generation will face wall-to-wall international condemnation.
There is no greater challenge. There is no greater good.
Appendix I
SPEECH BY PRIME MINISTER MAHATHIR MOHAMAD OF MALAYSIA TO THE TENTH
ISLAMIC SUMMIT CONFERENCE*
[Source: OIC Web site]
Prime Minister Mahathir:
Alhamdulillah, All Praise be to Allah, by whose Grace and Blessings
we, the leaders of the Organization of Islamic Conference countries are
gathered here today to confer and hopefully to plot a course for the
future of Islam and the Muslim ummah worldwide . . .
The whole world is looking at us. Certainly 1.3 billion Muslims,
one-sixth of the world's population are placing their hopes in us, in
this meeting, even though they may be cynical about our will and
capacity to even decide to restore the honor of Islam and the Muslims,
much less to free their brothers and sisters from the oppression and
humiliation from which they suffer today.
I will not enumerate the instances of our humiliation and
oppression, nor will I once again condemn our detractors and
oppressors. It would be an exercise in futility because they are not
going to change their attitudes just because we condemn them. If we are
to recover our dignity and that of Islam, our religion, it is we who
must decide, it is we who must act.
To begin with, the Governments of all the Muslim countries can
close ranks and have a common stand if not on all issues, at least on
some major ones, such as on Palestine. We are all Muslims. We are all
oppressed. We are all being humiliated. But we who have been raised by
Allah above our fellow Muslims to rule our countries have never really
tried to act in concert in order to exhibit at our level the
brotherhood and unity that Islam enjoins upon us. . . .
From being a single ummah we have allowed ourselves to be divided
into numerous sects, mazhabs and tarikats, each more concerned with
claiming to be the true Islam than our oneness as the Islamic ummah. We
fail to notice that our detractors and enemies do not care whether we
are true Muslims or not. To them we are all Muslims, followers of a
religion and a Prophet whom they declare promotes terrorism, and we are
all their sworn enemies. They will attack and kill us, invade our
lands, bring down our Governments whether we are Sunnis or Syiahs,
Alawait or Druze or whatever. And we aid and abet them by attacking and
weakening each other, and sometimes by doing their bidding, acting as
their proxies to attack fellow Muslims. We try to bring down our
Governments through violence, succeeding to weaken and impoverish our
countries. . . .
With all these developments over the centuries the ummah and the
Muslim civilization became so weak that at one time there was not a
single Muslim country which was not colonized or hegemonised by the
Europeans. But regaining independence did not help to strengthen the
Muslims. Their states were weak and badly administered, constantly in a
state of turmoil. The Europeans could do what they liked with Muslim
territories. It is not surprising that they should excise Muslim land
to create the state of Israel to solve their Jewish problem. Divided,
the Muslims could do nothing effective to stop the Balfour and Zionist
transgression.
Some would have us believe that, despite all these, our life is
better than that of our detractors. Some believe that poverty is
Islamic; sufferings and being oppressed are Islamic. This world is not
for us. Ours are the joys of heaven in the afterlife. All that we have
to do is to perform certain rituals, wear certain garments and put up a
certain appearance. Our weakness, our backwardness and our inability to
help our brothers and sisters who are being oppressed are part of the
Will of Allah, the sufferings that we must endure before enjoying
heaven in the hereafter. We must accept this fate that befalls us. We
need not do anything. We can do nothing against the Will of Allah.
But is it true that it is the Will of Allah and that we can and
should do nothing? Allah has said in Surah Ar-Ra'd verse 11 that He
will not change the fate of a community until the community has tried
to change its fate itself.
The early Muslims were as oppressed as we are presently. But after
their sincere and determined efforts to help themselves in accordance
with the teachings of Islam, Allah had helped them to defeat their
enemies and to create a great and powerful Muslim civilization. But
what effort have we made especially with the resources that He has
endowed us with.
We are now 1.3 billion strong. We have the biggest oil reserve in
the world. We have great wealth. We are not as ignorant as the
Jahilliah who embraced Islam. We are familiar with the workings of the
world's economy and finances. We control 57 out of the 180 countries in
the world. Our votes can make or break international organizations. Yet
we seem more helpless than the small number of Jahilliah converts who
accepted the Prophet as their leader. Why? Is it because of Allah's
will or is it because we have interpreted our religion wrongly, or
failed to abide by the correct teachings of our religion, or done the
wrong things? . . .
Today we, the whole Muslim ummah are treated with contempt and
dishonor. Our religion is denigrated. Our holy places desecrated. Our
countries are occupied. Our people starved and killed.
None of our countries are truly independent. We are under pressure
to conform to our oppressors' wishes about how we should behave, how we
should govern our lands, how we should think even.
Today if they want to raid our country, kill our people, destroy
our villages and towns, there is nothing substantial that we can do. Is
it Islam which has caused all these? Or is it that we have failed to do
our duty according to our religion?
Our only reaction is to become more and more angry. Angry people
cannot think properly. And so we find some of our people reacting
irrationally. They launch their own attacks, killing just about anybody
including fellow Muslims to vent their anger and frustration. Their
Governments can do nothing to stop them. The enemy retaliates and puts
more pressure on the Governments. And the Governments have no choice
but to give in, to accept the directions of the enemy, literally to
give up their independence of action.
With this their people and the ummah become angrier and turn
against their own Governments. Every attempt at a peaceful solution is
sabotaged by more indiscriminate attacks calculated to anger the enemy
and prevent any peaceful settlement. But the attacks solve nothing. The
Muslims simply get more oppressed.
There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and
their people. They feel that they can do nothing right. They believe
that things can only get worse. The Muslims will forever be oppressed
and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews. They will forever be poor,
backward and weak. Some believe, as I have said, this is the Will of
Allah, that the proper state of the Muslims is to be poor and oppressed
in this world.
But is it true that we should do and can do nothing for ourselves?
Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save
themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a
much smaller enemy? Can they only lash back blindly in anger? Is there
no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and
kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?
It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot
be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only
find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our
strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter attack. As Muslims
we must seek guidance from the Al-Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet.
Surely the 23 years' struggle of the Prophet can provide us with some
guidance as to what we can and should do.
We know he and his early followers were oppressed by the Qhuraish.
Did he launch retaliatory strikes? No. He was prepared to make
strategic retreats. He sent his early followers to a Christian country
and he himself later migrated to Madinah. There he gathered followers,
built up his defense capability and ensured the security of his people.
At Hudaibiyah he was prepared to accept an unfair treaty, against the
wishes of his companions and followers. During the peace that followed
he consolidated his strength and eventually he was able to enter Mecca
and claim it for Islam. Even then he did not seek revenge. And the
peoples of Mecca accepted Islam and many became his most powerful
supporters, defending the Muslims against all their enemies.
That briefly is the story of the struggle of the Prophet. We talk
so much about following the sunnah of the Prophet. We quote the
instances and the traditions profusely. But we actually ignore all of
them.
If we use the faculty to think that Allah has given us then we
should know that we are acting irrationally. We fight without any
objective, without any goal other than to hurt the enemy because they
hurt us. Naively we expect them to surrender. We sacrifice lives
unnecessarily, achieving nothing other than to attract more massive
retaliation and humiliation.
It is surely time that we pause to think. But will this be wasting
time? For well over half a century we have fought over Palestine. What
have we achieved? Nothing. We are worse off than before. If we had
paused to think then we could have devised a plan, a strategy that can
win us final victory. Pausing and thinking calmly is not a waste of
time. We have a need to make a strategic retreat and to calmly assess
our situation.
We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply
wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But
today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and
die for them.
We may not be able to do that. We may not be able to unite all the
1.3 billion Muslims. We may not be able to get all the Muslim
Governments to act in concert. But even if we can get a third of the
ummah and a third of the Muslim states to act together, we can already
do something. Remember that the Prophet did not have many followers
when he went to Madinah. But he united the Ansars and the Muhajirins
and eventually he became strong enough to defend Islam.
Apart from the partial unity that we need, we must take stock of
our assets. I have already mentioned our numbers and our oil wealth. In
today's world we wield a lot of political, economic and financial
clout, enough to make up for our weakness in military terms.
We also know that not all non-Muslims are against us. Some are
well-disposed towards us. Some even see our enemies as their enemies.
Even among the Jews there are many who do not approve of what the
Israelis are doing.
We must not antagonize everyone. We must win their hearts and
minds. We must win them to our side not by begging for help from them
but by the honorable way that we struggle to help ourselves. We must
not strengthen the enemy by pushing everyone into their camps through
irresponsible and unIslamic acts. Remember Salah El Din and the way he
fought against the so called Crusaders, King Richard of England in
particular. Remember the considerateness of the Prophet to the enemies
of Islam. We must do the same. It is winning the struggle that is
important, not angry retaliation, not revenge.
We must build up our strength in every field, not just in armed
might. Our countries must be stable and well administered, must be
economically and financially strong, industrially competent and
technologically advanced. This will take time, but it can be done and
it will be time well spent. We are enjoined by our religion to be
patient. Innallahamaasabirin. Obviously there is virtue in being
patient.
But the defense of the ummah, the counter attack need not start
only after we have put our houses in order. Even today we have
sufficient assets to deploy against our detractors. It remains for us
to identify them and to work out how to make use of them to stop the
carnage caused by the enemy. This is entirely possible if we stop to
think, to plan, to strategize and to take the first few critical steps.
Even these few steps can yield positive results. . . .
The enemy will probably welcome these proposals and we will
conclude that the promoters are working for the enemy. But think. We
are up against a people who think. They survived 2000 years of pogroms
not by hitting back, but by thinking. They invented and successfully
promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that
persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal
rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most
powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world
power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains
also.
Of late because of their power and their apparent success they have
become arrogant. And arrogant people, like angry people will make
mistakes, will forget to think.
They are already beginning to make mistakes. And they will make
more mistakes. There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in
the future. We must seize these opportunities.
But to do so we must get our acts right. Rhetoric is good. It helps
us to expose the wrongs perpetrated against us, perhaps win us some
sympathy and support. It may strengthen our spirit, our will and
resolve, to face the enemy. . . .
There are many things that we can do. There are many resources that
we have at our disposal. What is needed is merely the will to do it, As
Muslims, we must be grateful for the guidance of our religion, we must
do what needs to be done, willingly and with determination. Allah has
not raised us, the leaders, above the others so we may enjoy power for
ourselves only. The power we wield is for our people, for the ummah,
for Islam. We must have the will to make use of this power judiciously,
prudently, concertedly. Insyaallah we will triumph in the end.
I pray to Allah that this 10th Conference of the OIC in Putrajaya,
Malaysia will give a new and positive direction to us, will be blessed
with success by Him, Almighty Allah, Arahman, Arahirn.
Prime Minister's Office
Putrajaya
Appendix II
SELECTED INCIDENTS ACROSS EUROPE/EURASIA IN 2003 \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This listing is in no way meant to be comprehensive or to be a
quantitative representative of the number of incidents in specific
countries but merely to provide examples.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Austria
May 10, 2003--Vienna--A rabbi was physically assaulted by two
youths as he was walking home from prayer in eastern Vienna. After
shouting anti-Semitic slurs, the youths kicked the victim and struck
his head with a beer bottle. According to the Austrian Anti-Terrorism
Bureau for Protection of the Constitution, the suspects were in custody
with charges pending.
Belarus
August 27, 2003--Minsk--A synagogue in the Belarusian capital was
set on fire by unidentified assailants who doused the building's main
entrance with kerosene. Firefighters managed to save the edifice, but
its facade was damaged, according to Yuri Dorn, President of the Jewish
Religious Union of Belarus. The attack was the fifth attempt to burn
the synagogue over the last two years.
May 26, 2003--Minsk--Vandals desecrated a memorial to the thousands
of Jews slain in Minsk during the Holocaust. The vandals scrawled
swastikas, Nazi slogans and anti-Jewish threats on plaques at the Yama
memorial, which marks the site of the ghetto where more than 100,000
Jews were exterminated by Nazi troops during World War II.
Belgium
June 13, 2003--Charleroi--A 32-year-old man of Moroccan descent
attempted to explode a vehicle loaded with gas canisters in front of a
synagogue. He was arrested by police shortly after the incident. The
man reportedly set his own car on fire, but it did not explode. Belgian
Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt condemned the attempted attack but said
he saw no need to raise security around Jewish buildings and
institutions. In April 2002, the same synagogue, situated on the edge
of the city, was hit by gunfire from unknown assailants .France
Paris
July 25, 2003--Paris--A synagogue in the Paris suburb of Saint-
Denis was ransacked and desecrated with anti-Semitic graffiti. Prayer
books were scattered on the floor, the Torah scrolls opened and money
was stolen. ``Juif=mort'' (Jew = death) was scrawled on an outside
wall.
July 20, 2003--Venissieux--Two plaques at a Holocaust memorial were
defaced and broken. The plaques mark the site of a transit camp where
hundreds of Jews from the Lyon region were rounded up before being sent
to Nazi death camps in August 1942.
March 22, 2003--Paris--A number of Jews, including teenagers, were
chased and attacked by anti-war protesters outside the headquarters of
a Jewish youth organization. The protesters were described by witnesses
as ``wearing kaffiyahs.'' One teenage boy was hospitalized for injuries
he sustained while being beaten by demonstrators.
Germany
August 15, 2003--Kassel--More than 50 graves were vandalized at a
historic Jewish cemetery in the central German city of Kassel. Some
gravestones were overturned, while others had headstones weighing up to
2,000 pounds toppled on them. Police were investigating.
July 28, 2003--Saxony-Anhalt--Vandals defaced a memorial to Nazi
victims of a Buchenwald subcamp, plastering the buildings with anti-
Semitic newspapers. Visitors to the Langenstein-Zwieberge memorial
reported the damage to the police, who said that the perpetrators had
used copies of anti-Jewish newspapers from 1933 to 1945, the years the
Nazis ruled Germany.
July 8, 2003--Berlin--A Jewish memorial in Berlin was vandalized.
The vandals apparently threw small paving stones, gouging the surface
of a memorial dedicated to the former Levetzowstrasse synagogue, which
was used by the Nazis as detention center to deport Jews. According to
the police, the incident took place in broad daylight, but the
perpetrators escaped before they could be arrested.
June 27, 2003--Berlin--A 14-year-old girl wearing a Star of David
necklace was attacked by a group of teenage girls on a bus in the
German capital. According to reports, the group first insulted the girl
because of her religion and her Ukrainian nationality and subsequently
hit and kicked her, injuring her slightly. Police were investigating.
Greece
August 4, 2003--Ioannina--Vandals sprayed swastikas and Greek
nationalistic slogans on the outer walls of a synagogue. The town's
Jewish community condemned the attack and urged the police to
investigate.
February 1, 2003--Thessaloniki (Salonica)--Two swastikas were spray
painted on a Holocaust memorial. The memorial honoring the tens of
thousands of Salonican Jews killed by the Nazis has been vandalized
before.
Italy
March 9, 2003--Milan--Anti-Semitic graffiti appeared on the office
of the RAI, the Italian state-owned radio and television network, after
a journalist of Jewish origin was named director. The graffiti read
``RAI for Italians, no to Jews.'' The messages were condemned by
political and popular figures.
Russia
October 10, 2003--An anti-Semitic sign with a fake bomb attached to
it was placed on a roadside south of Moscow in the latest in a series
of copycat crimes that began last year in Russia, the ITAR-Tass news
agency reported on October 10. The sign, with an unspecified anti-
Semitic slogan, was found by a motorist Thursday on a main highway
about 60 kilometers south of the capital, ITAR-Tass reported, citing
Moscow region police.
September 2, 2003--Novgorod--An object resembling a bomb with an
anti-Semitic slogan attached was found at a local synagogue in
Novgorod, 400 miles northwest from Moscow. The ``bomb'' was determined
to be a fake when no explosives were found.
June 28, 2003--Pyatigorsk--On the last weekend in June, a Jewish
cemetery in the town of Pyatigorsk, in the North Caucasus, was
desecrated. Vandals smashed 10 tombstones, including those of Russian
World War II soldiers. It is the only Jewish cemetery in the multi-
ethnic Stavropol Region.
June 22, 2003--Yaroslavl--Windows were shattered and anti-Semitic
graffiti painted on a synagogue in Yaroslavl, a town 300 miles
northeast of Moscow. No one was injured in the incident. The police
were investigating.
Slovakia
January 21, 2003--Banovce nad Bedravou--A 19th-century Jewish
cemetery was desecrated in the western Slovak town of Banovce nad
Bedravou, about 100 kilometers northeast of the capital, Bratislava.
Thirty-five tombstones were toppled and vandals drew a swastika in the
snow by the gate to the cemetery.
Sweden
April 27, 2003--Malmo--Unknown assailants attempted to set fire to
the purification room in the Jewish cemetery in Malmo. The attackers
threw firebombs into the building, but the structure was still
standing. It was the eighth time the purification room at the cemetery
has come under attack.
United Kingdom
August 5, 2003--Manchester--Vandals smashed and toppled 20
headstones in an attack at a Jewish cemetery in Prestwich, in Greater
Manchester. Police are treating the incident at Rainsough Hebrew Burial
Ground as racially motivated. The cemetery has been targeted in the
past.
July 8, 2003--Southampton--Eleven tombstones in the Jewish section
of the Hollybrook cemetery were desecrated with Nazi slogans and
swastikas. Six others were toppled. A spokesman for the Community
Security Trust, which provides security and defense advice for the
Jewish community across Britain, said it was the second attack on
Jewish graves in Southampton in seven months. Police were
investigating.
May 15, 2003--London--Police discovered the desecration of 386
Jewish graves at the Plashet Cemetery in East Ham. The gravestones had
been pushed over. Police are treating the incident as a racially
motivated attack. In addition to three youths, all under 17 and who
were subsequently released on bail, four more youths have been arrested
and were being held in custody.
Appendix III
INTERNATIONAL ANTI-PREJUDICE PROGRAMS OF THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE
Germany
A CLASSROOM OF DIFFERENCE Program integrated into Teacher
Training Institutes of eleven German Laender.
Eine Welt der Vielfalt in Berlin implements ADL A
WORKPLACE OF DIFFERENCE programs.
Participate in the Bertelsmann International Network on
Education for Democracy, Human Rights, and Tolerance. This network
identifies best practice models from programs that foster education,
democracy, human rights and tolerance around the world.
Peer Training supported by Eine Welt der Viefalt, the
Deutsche Kinder und Jugendstiftung and EPTO (European Peer Training
Organization).
Belgium
In conjunction with Centre Europeen Juif d'Information
(CEJI), the ADL Teacher and Peer Training programs are implemented in
French and Flemish Belgium schools.
Foundation support--Evens and Bernheim Foundations.
Italy
In conjunction with CEJI, the ADL Teacher and Peer
Training programs are implemented in the region of Milan.
Foundation support-Compagnia San Paolo.
France
In conjunction with CEJI and the French Catholic School
Network (UNAPEC), the ADL Teacher and Peer Training programs are
implemented in France.
Foundation support-Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation.
Netherlands
In conjunction with CEJI, the ADL Teacher and Peer
Training programs will be implemented this year.
Funding support-Dutch Insurers Association.
Spain
In conjunction with CEJI, Peer Training programs exist and
the ADL Teacher Training programs will begin this year in the region of
Altea.
Greece
In conjunction with CEJI Peer Training programs exist.
Luxembourg
In conjunction with CEJI Peer Training programs exist.
Portugal
In conjunction with CEJI Peer Training programs exist.
The United Kingdom
In conjunction with CEJI Peer Training programs exist.
Austria
The A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE Institute office is responsible
for implementing anti-bias education programs for all Law Enforcement
professionals throughout Austria. To date 8% have participated in
program. Funded by the Ministry of Interior.
In conjunction with CEJI Peer Training programs are being
implemented.
Austrian ADL trainers deliver WORKPLACE programs.
Japan
In conjunction with the Diversity Education Network ADL
Teacher Training programs are implemented in the region of Osaka.
Argentina
In conjunction with the Fundacion Banco De La Provincia
Buenos Aires the ADL WORKPLACE program is being implemented in the
areas of public administration, in the province of Buenos Aires.
Israel
Teacher and Peer Training programs exist in the schools
and in after school programs. Materials are in Hebrew and Arabic.
Children of the Dream program exists initiating a cultural
exchange between Ethiopian-Israeli teens and their native Israeli
counterparts.
Russia
In conjunction with the Bay Area Council for Jewish Rescue
and Renewal, the San Francisco Police Department and San Francisco
District Attorney, ADL participates in the Climate of Trust Russian
Hate Crime Training for Law Enforcement professionals.
In conjunction with CEJI, Peer Training programs will begin in
Hungary, Poland, Ireland and the Czech Republic this year.
In every country materials are translated and culturally adapted.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Foxman. Your entire statement
and recommendations will be entered into the record. Thank you
for your testimony.
Now, I'd like to hear from Mr. Harris.
STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN
JEWISH COMMITTEE, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, am honored to appear before this subcommittee
today, and thank you for the opportunity.
I have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the American
Jewish Committee, the nation's oldest human relations
organization. With offices in 33 cities in the United States
and 14 overseas posts, including seven in Europe, we have an
eye on the world.
For nearly a century, Mr. Chairman, we have struggled
against the scourge of anti-Semitism and its associated
pathologies by seeking to advance the principles of democracy,
the rule of law, and pluralism; by strengthening ties across
ethnic, racial, and religious lines among people of good will;
and by shining the spotlight of exposure on those who preach or
practice hatred and intolerance.
Mr. Chairman, never in recent memory has that work been
more important. We have witnessed, as others have said today,
in the last 3 years in particular a resurgence of anti-
Semitism. Some of its manifestations are eerily familiar;
others appear in new guises. But the bottom line, Mr. Chairman,
is that Jews throughout the world, and notably in Western
Europe, are experiencing a level of unease not seen in the
postwar years.
I myself have been witness, through my frequent contact
with Europe, to the changed situation. I've lived in Europe for
7 years. I speak several European languages. And most recently
I spent a sabbatical year in Geneva with my family when this
new outbreak of anti-Semitism occurred. I have seen, within
that outbreak, a new form of anti-Semitism--the use of
criticism of Israel and Israeli practices as justification for
violence against Jews, who become ``legitimate targets by
virtue of their real or presumed identification with Israel,
with Zionism, or simply with the Jewish people.''
Mr. Chairman, European history, as we know so well,
contains glorious chapters of human development and scientific
breakthroughs, but it also contains too many centuries filled
with an ever-expanding vocabulary of anti-Semitism, from the
teaching of contempt for the Jews, to the Spanish and
Portuguese Inquisitions, from forced conversions to forced
expulsions, from restrictions on employment and education to
the introduction of the ghetto, from blood libels to pogroms,
and from massacres to the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Who better than the Europeans should grasp the history of
anti-Semitism? Who better than the Europeans should understand
the slippery slope that can lead to demonization,
dehumanization, and, ultimately, destruction of a people?
What then can Europe do at this moment to address the
changed situation of the past 3 years? First and foremost, it
can wake up. Precisely because of Europe's history, it is the
countries of Europe that still could take, however belatedly,
the lead in confronting and combating the growing tide of
global anti-Semitism, whatever its source, whatever its
manifestation. That would be an extraordinarily positive
development. And given Europe's substantial moral weight in the
world today, and especially in bodies like the United Nations,
that could have real impact.
To date, however, too many European governments and
institutions have chosen to live in denial or have sought to
contextualize or even rationalize manifestly anti-Semitic
behavior.
Whether anti-Semitism comes in its old and familiar guises
from the extreme right; in its various disguises from the
extreme left, including the combustible mix of anti-
Americanism, anti-globalization, and anti-Zionism; or from
Muslim sources that peddle malicious conspiracy theories
through schools, mosques, and the media to spread hatred of
Jews, Europe's voice must be loud, and it must be consistent.
More importantly, its actions need to match its words.
One encouraging note in this regard has been the strong
condemnation, as my colleague just said a moment ago, by some
individual European governments, including Italy, Spain, the
Netherlands, Germany, and the United Kingdom, in response to
the outrageous anti-Semitic remarks of Malaysian Prime Minister
Mahathir. But, as Senator Biden said, the failure of the
European Union to speak as one last week must be regarded as a
profound disappointment and morally indefensible. Silence has
never destroyed hate.
Apropos Prime Minister Mahathir's speech, it reminds us
once again that, tragically, the center of gravity of anti-
Semitism today lies within the Islamic world. And I would
respectfully urge the larger Committee on Foreign Relations to
consider, at the earliest possible moment, a separate hearing
on this pressing issue.
Mr. Chairman, preserving the memory of the Holocaust is
highly laudable, as many European countries have sought to do
through national days of commemoration, educational
initiatives, as Ambassador-Designate O'Donnell spoke of, and
memorials and monuments, but demonstrating sensitivity for the
legitimate fears of living Jews is no less compelling a task.
Whether it is a relatively large Jewish community in France, or
a tiny remnant Jewish community in Greece, the fact remains
that no Jewish community today comprises more than 1 percent of
the total population of any European country, if that. And many
remain deeply scarred by the lasting impact of the Holocaust on
their numbers, their institutions, and, not least, their
psyche.
When the Greek Jewish community awoke one morning shortly
after 9/11 to read mainstream press accounts filled with wild
assertions of Jewish or Israeli complicity in the plot to
attack America, they understandably felt shaken and vulnerable,
even if the charges were patently false. With fewer than 5,000
Jews remaining in Greece after the devastation wrought by the
Holocaust in a nation of over 10 million, is it any wonder that
these Jews might worry for their physical security at just such
a moment?
Second, political leaders need to set an example. Joschka
Fischer, the Foreign Minister of Germany, is someone who does
have a grasp of the lessons of European history--certainly when
it comes to the Jews--and he also understands Israel's current
difficulties and dilemmas. He has not hesitated to speak out,
to write, and to act.
After all, it is political leaders who set the tone for a
nation. By their actions or inactions, they send a clear and
unmistakable message to their fellow citizens. But how many
such principled and outspoken leaders can we point to today? I
can count no more than the fingers on my two hands. And, to the
contrary, when a French Ambassador to Britain is not penalized
for trashing Israel in obscene terms, what is the message to
the French people?
Third, many European countries have strict laws, stricter
than our own country, regarding anti-Semitism, racism, and
Holocaust denial. In fact, to its credit, the French Parliament
recently toughened the nation's laws still further. These laws
throughout Europe must be used.
In that regard, we were pleased to hear French President
Jacques Chirac, at a meeting last month in New York, speak now
of a ``zero-tolerance policy'' toward acts of anti-Semitism,
and penalties for those found guilty of such acts that would
be, he said, ``swift and severe.'' Better late than never.
No one should ever again be compelled to question the
determination of European countries to investigate, prosecute,
and seek maximum penalties for those involved in incitement and
violence. To cite one specific example, we are watching, with
particular interest, what the British home office will do about
two British Muslim youths who were quoted earlier this year on
page 3 of the New York Times--May 12, 2003--openly calling for
the murder of Jews and whose cases were brought to the
attention of the British authorities in the spring.
Fourth, Europe faces an enormous long-term challenge in
light of major socio-demographic changes. This will require
strategies for acculturation and education in the norms and
values of postwar democratic Europe, including inculcating a
spirit of tolerance and mutual respect.
A recent book in France, the English title of which is
``The Lost Territories of the Republic,'' illustrates the
degree of challenge facing schools and teachers in educating
new generations of young French who have recently arrived in
the country regarding Jews, French history, including the
Dreyfus trial, the Holocaust, the status of women, and
religious tolerance generally.
We are working with some schools in Europe, as I know the
Anti-Defamation League is as well, in an effort to share our
experience in America and to expand the zone of tolerance and
mutual understanding.
And, finally, all countries that aspire to the highest
democratic values, including, but not limited to, European
nations, must constantly remind themselves that anti-Semitism
is a cancer that may begin with Jews, but never ends with Jews.
Anti-Semitism, left unchecked, metastasizes and eventually
afflicts the entire democratic body. Given the global nature of
anti-Semitism, there is an opportunity here for the democratic
nations of the world to act cooperatively.
The United States, to its great credit, has always shown
leadership in this regard in the postwar period. It has been an
issue that unites our legislative and executive branches and
our main political parties.
Much discussion has been heard today about the OSCE
process. This is a step forward, offering the chance to assess
developments, compare experiences, and set forth both short-
and long-term strategies for combating anti-Semitism. This
mechanism, while not in itself a panacea, should be regularized
for as long as necessary and ought to be viewed as an important
vehicle for addressing the issue, but by no means the only one.
And we should always remember that such meetings are a means to
an end, not ends unto themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I have deliberately omitted any reference to
the nations of the former Soviet Union, because my colleague
Mark Levin will address that subject in his testimony.
But before closing, let me offer a positive note regarding
some of the nations of Central Europe, ten of which have been
included in the first and second rounds of NATO enlargement.
And I am proud that the American Jewish Committee supported
both rounds of NATO enlargement. While the history of anti-
Semitism in many countries in this region runs very deep
indeed, we've witnessed important progress in recent years,
particularly with the collapse of communism and the ensuing
preparations for membership in both NATO and the European
Union. There has been a praiseworthy effort by the countries of
Central Europe to reach out to Israel and to the larger Jewish
world, and to encourage the rebuilding of Jewish communities
that suffered enormously under Nazi and, later, Communist rule.
In other words, there's some good news to report here. And
one of the reasons for this good news has been the welcome
recognition by post-Communist leaders that their commitment to
building truly open and democratic societies will be judged in
part by how they deal with a range of Jewish issues emanating
from the Nazi and Communist eras.
Yet problems remain. In some countries, extremist voices
seek votes and attempt to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, but,
fortunately, they are in a distinct minority. And some
countries lag behind in bringing to closure the remaining
restitution issues arising from Nazi and, later, Communist
seizure of property. We hope these matters will soon be
addressed with the ongoing encouragement of our government.
Mr. Chairman, by convening this hearing today, the United
States has once again underscored its vital role in defending
basic human values and human rights around the world. Champions
of liberty have always looked to our great country to stand
tall and strong in the age-old battle against anti-Semitism. In
examining the scope of anti-Semitism today and exploring
strategies for combating it, this subcommittee, under your
leadership, looms large as a beacon of hope and a voice of
conscience. As always, the American Jewish Committee stands
ready to assist you and your distinguished colleagues in your
admirable efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:]
Prepared Statement of David A. Harris, Executive Director, The American
Jewish Committee, New York, NY
Mr. Chairman, permit me to express my deepest appreciation to you
and to your distinguished colleagues for holding this important and
timely hearing, and for affording me the opportunity of testifying
before the Subcommittee on European Affairs of the Committee on Foreign
Relations regarding the state of anti-Semitism in Europe.
I have the privilege of speaking on behalf of the American Jewish
Committee, the oldest human relations organization in the United
States. I am proud to represent over 125,000 members and supporters of
the American Jewish Committee and a worldwide organization with 33
offices in the United States and 14 overseas posts, including offices
in Berlin, Geneva, and Warsaw, and association agreements with the
European Council of Jewish Communities and with the Jewish communities
in Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Spain.
Founded in 1906, our core philosophy for nearly a century has been
that wherever Jews are threatened, no minority is safe. We have seen
over the decades a strikingly close correlation between the level of
anti-Semitism in a society and the level of general intolerance and
violence against other minorities. Moreover, the treatment of Jews
within a given society has become a remarkably accurate barometer of
the state of democracy and pluralism in that society. In effect, though
it is a role we most certainly did not seek, it can be said that by
dint of our historical experience, Jews have become the proverbial
miner's canary, often sensing and signaling danger before others are
touched.
For nearly a century we have struggled against the scourge of anti-
Semitism and its associated pathologies by seeking to advance the
principles of democracy, the rule of law, and pluralism; by
strengthening ties across ethnic, racial, and religious lines among
people of good will; and by shining the spotlight of exposure on those
who preach or practice hatred and intolerance.
Never in recent memory has that work been more important. We have
witnessed in the last three years in particular a surge in anti-
Semitism. Some of its manifestations are eerily familiar; others appear
in new guises. But the bottom line is that Jews throughout the world,
and notably in Western Europe, are experiencing a level of unease not
seen in the postwar years.
I myself have been witness to the changed situation. I spent a
sabbatical year in Europe in 2000-01, and continue to travel regularly
to Europe, stay in close contact with European political and Jewish
leaders, and follow closely the European media.
What sparked this new sense of unease? It cannot be separated from
developments on the ground in the Middle East.
If I may be permitted to generalize, too many European governments,
civic institutions, and media outlets rushed to condemn Israel after
the promising peace talks of 2000 collapsed, despite the determined
efforts of the Israeli government, with support from the United States,
to reach a historic agreement with the Palestinians. Once the
Palestinians returned to the calculated use of violence and terror in
September 2000, for many Europeans it was as if those peace talks had
never taken place. It was as if there had never been a proposal pushed
relentlessly by Prime Minister Ehud Barak, with strong backing from
President Bill Clinton, to achieve a two-state solution that included a
partition of Jerusalem. And it was as if Chairman Yasir Arafat had not
even participated in the talks, much less sabotaged them by rejecting
out of hand the landmark deal offered him.
Israel was widely portrayed in Europe as an ``aggressor'' nation
that was ``trampling'' on the rights of ``stateless'' and ``oppressed''
Palestinians. As Israel faced the daunting challenge of defending
itself against terrorism, including suicide bombings, some in Europe
went still further, seeking to deny it the right reserved to all
nations to defend itself against this vicious onslaught. Such an
attitude, if you will, became a new form of anti-Semitism.
I fully understand that Israel's actions, like those of any nation
trying to cope with a similar threat, may engender discussion and
debate or, for that matter, criticism, but what was taking place in
these circles was something far more malicious. Tellingly, those
engaged in portraying Israel as the ``devil incarnate'' for every
imaginable ``sin'' were totally silent when it came to the use of
Palestinian suicide bombers to kill innocent Israeli women, men, and
children; they were even less prepared to address other compelling
issues in the region surrounding Israel, such as Syria's longstanding
and indefensible occupation of neighboring Lebanon or persistent
patterns of gross human rights violations in such countries as Iran,
Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
The frenzied rhetoric, especially in the media and human rights
circles, kept escalating, to the point where some, including a
Portuguese Nobel laureate, began recklessly using Nazi terminology to
describe Israeli actions. Others, particularly at the time of the
stand-off at the Church of the Nativity, reawakened the deadly deicide
charge, which had been put to rest by Vatican Council II in 1965.
In highly publicized incidents, a few British intellectuals and
journalists called into question Israel's very right to exist, and
there were a number of attempts to impose boycotts on Israeli
academicians and products. In one notorious case at Oxford University,
a professor sought to deny admission to a student applicant based
solely on the grounds that he had served in the Israel Defense Forces.
Of course, we remember the shocking expletive used by the French
ambassador to the Court of St. James regarding Israel, just as we
recall that he was never punished by the French Foreign Ministry. And
who can forget the travesty in Belgium as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon
and a number of Israel military officials were threatened with legal
action under the country's universal jurisdiction law, as were several
prominent Americans, including former President George Bush, until the
country's political leaders finally came to their senses and amended
the law?
I could go on at length describing a highly charged atmosphere in
Western Europe. Israel was accused, tried, and convicted in the court
of public opinion. Furthermore, that court was encouraged, however
inadvertently, by governments too quick to condemn Israel's defensive
actions and by media outlets that, with a few notable exceptions,
presented consistently skewed coverage, frequently blurring the line
between factual reporting and editorializing. It would be enough to
follow the reporting of some prominent Greek, Italian, Spanish, or even
British media outlets for a few days to get a feeling for the
inherently unbalanced, at times even inflammatory, coverage of the
Middle East. The coverage of the Jenin episode in the spring of 2002
was particularly revealing. Israel was accused of everything from
``mass murder'' to ``genocide,'' when the reality was a far cry from
either, as confirmed by outside human rights experts.
Mr. Chairman, I personally witnessed a pro-Palestinian
demonstration in Geneva, just opposite the United Nations headquarters,
in which the chant alternated between ``jihad, jihad'' and ``Mort aux
juifs,'' ``Death to the Jews.'' Similar chants could be heard in the
streets of France and Belgium. To the best of my knowledge, no action
was taken by the authorities in any of these cases.
My children attended a Swiss international school where a 16-year-
old Israeli girl was threatened with a knife by a group of Arab pupils.
When she complained to school officials, the response was, and I quote,
``This is a matter between countries. It does not involve our school.''
My youngest son had a more or less similar experience on the campus
with, again, no action taken by the school authorities.
Is it any wonder that in such an atmosphere many Jews in the
countries of Western Europe became concerned on two fronts? First, they
were worried for their physical safety as they encountered a new form
of anti-Semitism--the use of criticism of Israel and Israeli practices
as justification for violence against Jews, who became ``legitimate''
targets by virtue of their real or presumed identification with Israel,
Zionism, or simply the Jewish people. This became evident in the many
documented threats and attacks that took place against Jews and Jewish
institutions in Europe, especially France. And second, to varying
degrees, they were no longer quite as certain that they could rely on
the sympathy and understanding of their governments for the physical
and, yes, emotional security they needed--the certainty that the state
would be there to ensure their protection.
Strikingly, those governments and institutions to a large degree
professed ignorance of the problem.
For example, the American Jewish Committee met in November 2001
with the then-foreign minister of France. We raised our concern about
growing threats to Jews, as well as growing tolerance for intolerance.
In turn, we were treated to a revealing lecture from the minister.
Initially, he denied there was any problem at all, though the facts
contradicted him. Jews in France were being assaulted, synagogues were
being torched, and Jewish parents were anxious about the safety of
their children. Then he tried to muddy the problem by suggesting that
crime had increased in France and Jews were among its many victims, but
certainly not singled out. That, too, was belied by the facts, namely
the specificity of the attacks against Jews and Jewish institutions.
And finally, he attempted to rationalize the problem by linking it to
the Middle East and inferring that, tragic though the anti-Jewish
incidents were, they were an inevitable consequence of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict and would likely continue until that conflict was
resolved.
Frankly, we were appalled by this response. Could it be that the
foreign minister of a country which had given birth to the Declaration
of the Rights of Man, and which had been the first European country to
extend full protection to its Jewish community, had been unwilling or
incapable of understanding and responding to what was going on in his
own nation? In reality, France fell short in its responsibility to
provide protection to its citizens from the fall of 2000 until the
summer of 2002, a 20-month period during which many French Jews felt
abandoned and left to their own devices.
Meanwhile, French officials created a straw man--the false charge
that France was being depicted as an anti-Semitic country--and went
about refuting it. In reality, those concerned with developments in
France were talking about anti-Semitic acts within France and never
sought to describe the nation as a whole as anti-Semitic, which would
have been an unfair and inaccurate characterization.
While much attention has been focused on France because it is home
to Europe's largest Jewish community and the greatest number of violent
acts against Jews have taken place there in the past three years, the
discussion by no means should be limited to France. During this period,
we have also met with European Union commissioners in Brussels to
discuss our concerns, but with little apparent success. Further, we
have met with government leaders in other Western European countries
and, with the exception of Germany, our efforts to call attention to a
festering problem have fallen on largely deaf ears.
The obvious question is why there has been such a widespread
failure to acknowledge and address a problem as obvious as it is real.
Could it be linked to hostility to Israel, particularly after the
left-of-center Barak government gave way to the right-of-center Sharon
government? Could it be an unwillingness to confront the reality that
within the remarkable zone of prosperity and cooperation created by the
European Union, a cancer was still lurking that needed treatment? Could
it be a fear of antagonizing growing Muslim populations in countries
like Belgium and France, where they were rapidly becoming an electoral
factor and, in some cases, were proving restive because of their
difficulty in integrating? Or could it be a subliminal reaction,
perhaps, to the decade of the 1990s when many countries had been
compelled to look at their wartime actions in the mirror yet resented
those who held up the mirror?
Whatever the reason, it is clear that anti-Semitism still lurks in
Europe, but not only in Europe, of course. Its main center of gravity
today is in the Muslim world. The speech earlier this month by
Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad at the Organization of the
Islamic Conference was a prime example of the use of classical anti-
Semitic themes. And not only did none of the many political leaders in
attendance walk out of the hall to protest his offensive remarks, but
he was greeted with a standing ovation and, subsequently, laudatory
comments to the media by such leading officials as Egypt's foreign
minister.
European history, as we know so well, contains glorious chapters of
human development and scientific breakthroughs. But it also contains
too many centuries filled with an ever expanding vocabulary of anti-
Semitism--from the teaching of contempt of the Jews to the Spanish and
Portuguese Inquisitions; from forced conversions to forced expulsions;
from restrictions on employment and education to the introduction of
the ghetto; from blood libels to pogroms; and from massacres to the gas
chambers at Auschwitz.
Who better than the Europeans should grasp the history of anti-
Semitism? Who better than the Europeans should understand the slippery
slope that can lead to demonization, dehumanization, and, ultimately,
destruction of a people?
What, then, can Europe do at this moment to address the changed
situation of the past three years?
First and foremost, precisely because of their history, it is the
countries of Europe that could take the lead in confronting and
combating the growing tide of global anti-Semitism, whatever its
source, whatever its manifestation. That would be an extraordinarily
positive development. And given Europe's substantial moral weight in
the world today, it could have real impact.
Whether anti-Semitism comes in its old and familiar guises from the
extreme right; in its various disguises from the extreme left,
including the combustible mix of anti-Americanism, anti-globalization,
and anti-Zionism; or from Muslim sources that peddle malicious
conspiracy theories through schools, mosques, and the media to spread
hatred of Jews, Europe's voice must be loud and consistent. Its actions
need to match its words.
To date, experience has shown that a strong European response is
far more likely when anti-Semitism emanates from the extreme right than
when it comes from either the extreme left or the Islamic world. The
reaction must be the same regardless of who is the purveyor.
Preserving the memory of the Holocaust is highly laudable, as many
European countries have sought to do through national days of
commemoration, educational initiatives, and memorials and monuments.
But demonstrating sensitivity for the legitimate fears of living Jews
is no less compelling a task. Whether it is a relatively large Jewish
community in France or a tiny, remnant Jewish community in Greece, the
fact remains that no Jewish community comprises more than one percent
of the total population of any European country, if that, and many
remain deeply scarred by the lasting impact of the Holocaust on their
numbers, their institutions, and, not least, their psyche.
When the Greek Jewish community awoke one morning shortly after 9/
11 to read mainstream press accounts filled with wild assertions of
Jewish or Israeli complicity in the plot to attack America, they
understandably felt shaken and vulnerable, even if the charges were
patently false. With less than five thousand Jews remaining in Greece
after the devastation wrought by the Holocaust in a nation of over ten
million, is it any wonder that these Jews might worry for their
physical security at such a moment?
Second, political leaders need to set an example. Joschka Fischer,
the foreign minister of Germany, is someone who has a grasp of the
lessons of history when it comes to Europe and the Jews, and he
understands Israel's current difficulties and dilemmas. He has not
hesitated to speak out, to write, and to act. After all, it is
political leaders who set the tone for a nation. By their actions or
inactions, they send a clear and unmistakable message to their fellow
citizens. When a French ambassador is not penalized for trashing Israel
in obscene terms, what are the French people left to conclude? The same
can be said of Lech Walesa, the former Polish president, who in 1995
remained silent in the face of a fiery anti-Semitic sermon delivered in
his presence by his parish priest in Gdansk. He only reluctantly
addressed the issue ten days later after pressure from several
governments, including the United States.
Third, many European countries have strict laws on the books
regarding anti-Semitism, racism, and Holocaust denial. In fact, to its
credit, the French parliament recently toughened the nation's laws
still further. These laws throughout Europe must be used. In that
regard, we were pleased to hear French President Jacques Chirac, at a
meeting last month in New York with American Jewish leaders, speak now
of a ``zero-tolerance'' policy toward acts of anti-Semitism and
penalties for those found guilty of such acts that would be ``swift and
severe.'' He also expressed concern about the unchecked influence of
the Internet in spreading anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, and
indicated a desire to explore means for restricting this influence.
No one should ever again be compelled to question the determination
of European countries to investigate, prosecute, and seek maximum
penalties for those involved in incitement and violence.
To cite one specific example, we are watching with particular
interest what the British Home Office will do about two British Muslim
youths who were quoted earlier this year in the New York Times (May 12,
2003) calling for the murder of Jews and whose cases were brought to
the attention of the authorities.
And finally, all countries that aspire to the highest democratic
values, including but not limited to European nations, must constantly
remind themselves that anti-Semitism is a cancer that may begin with
Jews but never ends with Jews. Anti-Semitism left unchecked
metastasizes and eventually afflicts the entire democratic body.
Given the global nature of anti-Semitism, there is an opportunity
for the democratic nations of the world to work cooperatively. The
United States has always shown leadership in this regard. It has been
an issue that unites our executive and legislative branches and our
main political parties.
One venue that currently exists for such cooperation is the 55-
member Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE),
which in June held its first conference devoted exclusively to the
subject of anti-Semitism. This is a step forward, offering the chance
to assess developments, compare experiences, and set forth short- and
long-term strategies for combating anti-Semitism. This mechanism, while
not in itself a panacea, should be regularized for as long as
necessary, and ought to be viewed as an important vehicle for
addressing the issue, but by no means the only one.
Mr. Chairman, I have deliberately omitted any reference to the
nations of the Former Soviet Union because my colleague, Mark Levin of
NCSJ, will address that subject in his testimony. But let me offer a
positive note regarding the nations of Central Europe, ten of which
have been included in the first and second rounds of NATO enlargement.
I should add in this context that the American Jewish Committee was
among the first nongovernmental organizations in this country to
enthusiastically support both rounds of NATO enlargement.
While the history of anti-Semitism in many countries in this region
runs very deep indeed, we have witnessed important progress in recent
years, particularly with the collapse of communism and the ensuing
preparations for membership in both NATO and the European Union. There
has been a praiseworthy effort by the countries of Central Europe to
reach out to Israel and the larger Jewish world, and to encourage the
rebuilding of Jewish communities that suffered enormously under Nazi
occupation and later under communist rule.
In other words, there is good news to report here. And one of the
reasons for this good news has been the welcome recognition by post-
communist leaders that their commitment to building truly open and
democratic societies will be judged in part by how they deal with the
range of Jewish issues resulting from the Nazi and communist eras.
Yet problems remain. In some countries, extremist voices seek votes
and attempt to rehabilitate Nazi collaborators, but, fortunately, they
are in the distinct minority. And some countries lag behind in bringing
to closure the remaining restitution issues arising from Nazi and,
later, communist seizure of property. We hope these matters will soon
be addressed, with the ongoing encouragement of the United States
government.
Mr. Chairman, by convening this hearing today, the United States
Senate has once again underscored its vital role in defending basic
human values and human rights around the world. Champions of liberty
have always looked to our great country to stand tall and strong in the
age-old battle against anti-Semitism.
In examining the scope of anti-Semitism today and exploring
strategies for combating it, this subcommittee, under your leadership,
looms large as a beacon of hope and a voice of conscience. As always,
the American Jewish Committee stands ready to assist you and your
distinguished colleagues in your admirable efforts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
APPENDIX A
Anti-Americanism and Anti-Semitism: A New Frontier of Bigotry
By Dr. Alvin H. Rosenfeld*
* Alvin H. Rosenfeld is a professor of English and Jewish Studies
and Director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and Arts at Indiana
University. He was named by President George W. Bush to the United
States Holocaust Memorial Council in May 2002. This essay was published
by the American Jewish Committee in August 2003.
``Hitler Had Two Sons: Bush and Sharon'' reads the slogan on a so-
called ``peace-poster'' carried in European anti-war rallies; and in
this and countless other crude formulations of a similar nature, one
finds expressed a hostility toward America, Israel, and the Jews that
has been gaining force across much of Europe in the last few years. The
American-led war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, launched in March 2003,
may have brought this animus to a head, but it was in evidence well
before the war began. Indeed, an American Jew visiting Europe in the
spring of 2002 would have been justified in feeling doubly uneasy, for
these passions were then at their most intense: Anti-Semitism of a
vocal and sometimes violent variety was in greater evidence than at any
time since the end of World War II; and anti-Americanism was making
itself felt as an increasingly common and acceptable form of public
expression.
As I intend to show, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism reveal
certain structural similarities and often take recourse to a common
vocabulary of defamation and denunciation. While their developmental
histories may differ, the hostilities they release may converge, driven
as they are by the same negative energies of fear, anger, envy, and
resentment. We are witnessing such a convergence today, with
consequences that have the potential to do serious harm.
In the news media, over the Internet, in street demonstrations, and
in common parlance, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism have taken on
global dimensions and now have a worldwide reach. They have become
intimately bound up with one another, so much so that it sometimes
seems that the growing hatred of America is but another form of
Judeophobia--and vice versa. Precisely what drives these animosities is
not always clear, but their resurgence in our time is an ominous
development and should not be treated lightly. Observing the extremity
of some of the rhetoric being voiced these days about America, Israel,
and the Jews, one becomes aware that it moves well beyond principled
disagreements with American or Israeli policies and into the realm of
the fantastic.
To demonstrate how anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes mingle
in this bizarre realm and to expose the kinds of trouble they can
create, I turn first to an examination of these trends in Germany, a
country in which even the slightest offense of this nature makes one
sit up and take notice. Thereafter I shall look at some of the same
issues on a broader front, examining in particular France, the European
country that seems most seriously infected with anti-American and anti-
Semitic biases.\1\
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF GERMANY
Europe's largest and economically most powerful country, Germany
exerts a sizable influence on the continent's political priorities and
some of its more prominent social and cultural trends. In addition, its
close diplomatic alliance with France and determined effort to act with
that country as a European counterweight to American interests in
foreign affairs puts Germany in the foreground of attention. Add to
these reasons Germany's Nazi past, and it should be clear why any signs
of hostility to Jews and others within its borders warrant serious
attention. German authorities are well aware of the damage their
country could suffer if these tendencies get out of hand, and they
usually make special efforts to restrain the open expression of anti-
Semitic and anti-American biases.
These animosities sometimes seem to have a will of their own,
however, and erupt periodically in ways that can introduce a note of
discord into the country's cultural life and disrupt its normally well-
managed international relations. Tensions of this kind surfaced this
past year on both the cultural and diplomatic fronts.
I was in Germany for two weeks in May 2002, when some of these
trends were coming to the fore. Before describing what I observed,
however, it will be helpful to advance the calendar by a few months and
recall that on September 22, 2002, German voters reelected Gerhard
Schroder to a second term as chancellor. Schroder's victory was by no
means a certainty in the months leading up to the election. In fact,
for most of that time, the polls showed him several points behind his
chief rival, Edmund Stoiber, the prime minister of Bavaria and the
candidate of the conservative alliance of the Christian Democratic
Union and the Christian Social Union parties. In the final weeks of the
campaign, Schroder closed this gap and ultimately prevailed.
According to most commentators, he won the election as a result of
two key factors: his media-savvy handling of a crisis in the eastern
part of the country brought on by a destructive flood; and his clever
but costly strategy of running the last leg of his race not so much
against Stoiber as against President George W. Bush. The American
president, who was accused of ``playing around with war,'' became a
prominent election issue, and Schroder did not hesitate to level heavy
rhetorical assaults against him. The chancellor declared that he would
not ``click his heels'' to an American commander-in-chief and
categorically refused any German support for American military
``adventures'' in Iraq, even if such action had the sanction of a
United Nations mandate. These moves were calculated to attract voters
on the left of the German political spectrum, among whom a militant
pacifism is part of the cultural norm. (In fact, an ingrained pacifism
has become a part of the postwar mentality of much of the younger
generation of Germans.) At the same time, Schroder's evocation of a
special ``German way'' in the formulation of foreign policy might sit
well with nationalist sentiment on the political right. His open
defiance of the United States would also appeal to voters in the former
communist states in the eastern part of Germany, who had been educated
to see America as the enemy and still hold lingering resentments
against it. The strategy worked, and Schroder managed to squeak through
by the thinnest of margins.
But at a price. Angela Merkel, leader of the opposition Christian
Democrats, went on record on the day of the election as saying,
``German-American relations were never as bad as they are this evening.
. . . This is a high price to pay for this campaign.'' \2\ Wolfgang
Schauble, a fellow Christian Democrat, agreed, stating, ``German-
American relations are at their lowest level since the founding of the
state in 1949.'' \3\ Coming from two prominent members of the political
opposition, these views are not surprising, but other, less partisan
voices confirmed this negative assessment. Christian Hacke, a political
scientist at Bonn University, for instance, declared: ``For the first
time in fifty years a German government has become anti-American in
both style and substance. This is a catastrophe.'' \4\ Seemingly
agreeing with this sentiment, Donald Rumsfeld, the U.S. secretary of
defense, saw German-American relations as ``poisoned'' and refused to
meet with Peter Struck, his German counterpart, at an international
meeting of allied defense ministers in Warsaw shortly after Schroder's
victory.
Whether for opportunistic or other reasons, a change of attitude
toward America was becoming apparent in Germany. Moreover, while
Schroder certainly exploited anti-American feelings for his own
purposes, he did not have to newly create them. Such sentiments were
there already and, as Henry Kissinger wrote at the time, may now be a
``permanent feature of German politics.'' \5\ It did not take long for
these sentiments to surface aggressively under the sanction that the
German chancellor's blunt and highly public criticism of the American
president had seemed to give them. In one especially notorious
incident, Schroder's justice minister, Herta Daubler-Gmelin, reportedly
compared President Bush's tactics toward Iraq to those of Hitler:
``Bush wants to divert attention from his domestic problems. It's a
classic tactic. It's one that Hitler also used.'' \6\ In another
instance, Ludwig Stiegler, a member of Parliament from Mr. Schroder's
party, likened Mr. Bush to an imperialist Roman emperor bent on
subjugating Germany. (Embarrassed by these incidents, Schroder relieved
both of his colleagues of their jobs in the postelection period, but by
then the damage had already been done.) If further proof were needed
that the climate had turned nasty, it was provided by Rudolf Scharping,
Schroder's former defense minister, who reportedly stated, at a meeting
in Berlin on August 27, 2002, that President Bush was being encouraged
to go to war against Iraq by a ``powerful--perhaps overly powerful--
Jewish lobby'' in the United States.\7\ In Scharping's formulation,
reminiscent of older, far-right claims about excessive Jewish power,
anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism come together as common bedfellows.
ANTI-BUSH DEMONSTRATIONS
I was in Berlin on May 22, 2002, when President Bush came for a
stay of less than twenty-four hours. It was his first trip to Germany
and followed an earlier visit to the White House by Chancellor
Schroder. (As matters transpired, it was probably to be the last visit
to the White House by Schroder or any other German government official
for a long time.) Anti-Bush sentiments, including popular derision of
the American president as an unruly Texas ``cowboy,'' had surfaced long
before this visit and intensified notably during the president's brief
stay in Berlin. Ten thousand German police, some in riot gear and
backed up by armored vehicles, were assigned to safeguard him. The
center of Berlin was cleared of all traffic, and the area around the
Brandenburg Gate, where the president's hotel was located, was closed
off almost entirely.
Public protests began on Tuesday and carried on for two more days.
On Wednesday, a crowd estimated at 20,000 was out on the streets, most
peacefully demonstrating, but some determined to be more aggressive in
voicing their opposition to the American president. Signs denouncing
Bush as a ``terrorist'' and a ``warmonger'' were on display, together
with others declaring that ``war is terror'' and demanding a ``stop
[to] Bush's global war.'' By now, such public displays of oppositional
politics had become common fare throughout Europe and were hardly
restricted to Germany. But to be in Berlin at the same time as the
American president and observe that it was deemed necessary to field a
small army of German police to protect him was startling. One is no
longer surprised to learn of virulent anti-Americanism in places like
Cairo, Tehran, and Ramallah, but to witness the public torching of
America's flag in the capital of a European country that supposedly is
a close ally was disconcerting and brought me to reflect on what was
stirring in Germany to fuel such passions.
German spokesmen took pains at the time to explain that these
protests were not directed at America per se or at the American people
but only against specific policies being promoted by President Bush. In
part, such explanations ring true, but only in part. There is
widespread dislike of what is commonly denounced as American
``unilateralism'' and open displeasure over America's pulling away from
international agreements on the environment, ballistic missiles, trade,
and other things. Many West Europeans do not take well to this American
president's personal style any more than they like his policies, and
this generation of Germans, in particular, has been nervous about what
they see as his penchant for aggressive use of the military to solve
international problems.
These and a host of other differences had contributed to a widening
gap between Washington and Europe--a ``continental drift'' that had
preceded President Bush's assumption of office, but his coming into
power brought numerous problems to the fore. It was precisely to quiet
German nerves on these matters, and especially on the matter of a
possible war with Iraq, that President Bush came to Berlin and
addressed the German Parliament. As one commentator put it at the time,
he could not possibly settle people's minds on all of these issues with
even the best of speeches, but he gave a ``moving and important speech,
if there's anyone left in Europe to be moved.'' \8\
The skepticism in these words is justified, for the more closely
one looks at anti-American rhetoric, the more one sees that it often
moves beyond criticism of specific policies to expose envies, fears,
and resentments of a deeper kind. These are not new, and no matter what
it is that may prompt them, their recurrence and exaggerated expression
suggest that a cultural repetition compulsion is at play. Consider the
following news items, for instance, taken from the German press:
A cover page of Stern magazine . . . showed an American missile
piercing the heart of a dove of peace. . . . Prominent German
politicians also freely [have] expressed such attitudes. Oskar
Lafontaine, deputy cochairman of the Social Democratic Party
[SPD], called the United States ``an aggressor nation.'' Rudolf
Hartnung, chairman of the youth organization of the SPD,
accused the United States of ``ideologically inspired
genocide'' in Central America, among other places. Another SPD
politician, state legislator Jurgen Busack, had this to say:
``The warmongers and international arsonists do not govern in
the Kremlin. They govern in Washington. The United States must
lie, cheat, and deceive in an effort to thwart resistance to
its insane foreign policy adventures. The United States is
headed for war.'' \9\
Students of German political history will recognize that, while the
language quoted is of a piece with today's accusatory rhetoric, it
actually comes from the Germany of the early 1980s. Some twenty years
ago, when another American president was regularly identified with the
Wild West and denounced as a trigger-happy cowboy, Germany's media and
many of its political figures were voicing the same charges against
President Reagan now made against President Bush. The images in both
cases were virtually identical: Governed by political leaders who are
not only crude philistines but reckless and aggressive warriors,
America is a menacing country that threatens world peace. It is for
this reason that, in confronting German and other European views of
America, one is tempted to consider anti-Americanism not just as a form
of cultural and political criticism but as a form of psychopathology.
DEFINITION OF ANTI-AMERICANISM
To understand its nature, let's borrow a working definition of
anti-Americanism from Paul Hollander's book on the subject: The term
``anti-Americanism,'' Hollander writes, denotes a ``particular mind-
set, an attitude of distaste, aversion, or intense hostility the roots
of which may be found in matters unrelated to the actual qualities or
attributes of American society or the foreign policies of the United
States. In short, . . . anti-Americanism refers to a negative
predisposition, a type of bias which is to various degrees unfounded. .
. . It is an attitude similar to [such other] hostile predispositions
as racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism.'' \10\
Hollander is correct in recognizing that anti-Americanism implies
more than taking a critical view of real American shortcomings, but
rather has an irrational side. It expresses a sharp distrust and
dislike not just of what America sometimes does but of what it is
alleged to be--a mighty but willful, arrogant, self-righteous,
domineering, and dangerously threatening power. What we confront here
are fantasies that posit an untamed, ferocious country, unrestrained by
moral conscience or international laws--in short, an ``American
abomination'' or ``American peril.'' Observing that America is
sometimes seen in just such terms, Hollander correctly notes the
resemblance of anti-Americanism to other kinds of deeply felt aversions
and hostilities, including those that fuel anti-Semitism. The link
between these two biases became evident during my time in Germany last
spring.
GEORGE BUSH AND ARIEL SHARON: PARALLEL IMAGES
One way to observe this linkage is to reflect on the two figures
who, more than any others, seem to occupy the German and general
European imagination today as larger-than-life figures of menace:
George Bush and Ariel Sharon. Popular images of the American president
as a wild man and a warmonger have already been cited. As exaggerated
as these are, they are at least matched, and sometimes even superceded
in their extremity, by the images projected of Ariel Sharon. Ever since
the Israeli prime minister's visit to Jerusalem's Temple Mount, on
September 28, 2000, Sharon has been regularly described in the German
media in terms that demonize him as a ``bull,'' a ``bulldozer,'' a
``warmonger,'' and a ``slaughterer.'' He has been compared to Hitler
and Nero and said to be ``Israel's highest-ranking arsonist.'' Other
references peg him as a ``political pyromaniac,'' an ungainly ``old war
criminal,'' a ``right-wing extremist,'' a ``warhorse,'' and
``catastrophe personified.'' In addition to these epithets, Sharon is
frequently referred to in terms of his physical traits and mocked as
being ``constipated'' and ``pot-bellied,'' a ``fat, lonely old man'
with the ``sluggish gait of an elephant.'' He is also described as
being ``politically deranged'' and thirsty for Palestinian blood.
(According to Die Welt, ``a lot of blood clings to his hands, starting
from his Kibiya days in the 1950s, to Sabra and Shatila, up to his most
recent provocation in the mosque in [September] 2000.'') In sum, the
Israeli prime minister is seen as a loathsome monster running amok, the
very personification of ``the ugly Israeli.''
Insofar as Ariel Sharon is seen as representative of his country's
Jewish populace, Israeli society too is being portrayed as implacably
brutal and as associated with the rule of war criminals.11 It is little
wonder, then, that Israel has taken on something like pariah status and
is sometimes even referred to as ``the most hated country in the
world.''\12\
The distinction of being reviled in such terms is one that Israel
shares with only one other country: the United States of America. The
two are now commonly denounced as ``outlaw nations'' or, in the
demonology of Muslim orators, as ``the Great Satan'' and ``the Little
Satan.''
German political rhetoric does not generally approach anything so
extreme, although the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk not long ago
named America and Israel as the only two countries today that strike
him as being ``rogue states.''\13\ More typically, Germans are content
if they feel they have the right to ``criticize'' Israel. At the same
time, they bristle at the thought that some of the more extreme forms
their criticism may take might themselves be subjected to criticism not
to their liking. In the run-up to the German elections in the spring of
2002, for instance, when the FDP politician Jurgen Mollemann seemed to
lend public sanction to the murderous assaults of Palestinian suicide
bombers against Israeli civilians, Jews in Germany were troubled.
Michel Friedman, a prominent figure in the Jewish community of
Frankfurt and the host of a popular television talk show, was
especially sharp in his criticism of Mr. Mollemann, who in turn
excoriated Mr. Friedman, declaring that it was figures like Ariel
Sharon and Friedman himself, ``with his intolerant and malicious
manner,'' who provoke anti-Semitism in Germany.\14\ Although Mr.
Mollemann's colleagues in the FDP were slow to react to these ill-
tempered charges, Jews in the country immediately recognized that in
blaming the Jews for anti-Semitism and then complaining that he was
being unfairly called to task for doing so, Mollemann was employing a
tactic from the familiar repertoire of anti-Semitic cliches. At about
the same time, Martin Walser, a prominent German writer, published a
highly controversial novel, Tod eines Kritikers (``The Death of a
Critic''), which liberally exploited this same repertoire by projecting
an altogether contemptible Jew as one of his main characters. Walser's
novel was roundly denounced as a ``document of hate'' by some critics
and defended by others. Before long, a debate about lifting the taboos
regarding criticism of Israel and Jews living in Germany became another
in a long series of German debates about anti-Semitism and the burden
of Holocaust memory on postwar German society.\15\
PAIRING AMERICA AND ISRAEL AS ROGUE STATES
To return to Sloterdijk's singling out of America and Israel as
rogue states: Pairing the two countries in this way is hardly new, nor
is the temptation to link them as outlaw nations indulged in only by
German intellectuals. Some thirty years ago, the British historian
Arnold Toynbee remarked that ``the United States and Israel must be
today the two most dangerous of the 125 sovereign states among which
the land surface of this planet is at present partitioned.''\16\ And
more recently the British columnist Polly Toynbee, granddaughter of
Arnold, has written that ``ugly Israel is the Middle East
representative of ugly America.''\17\ Numerous other references of this
kind could be cited as well, linking the Jewish state and the United
States as paramount threats to world peace. The message is unsubtle and
can be handily summed up by a few words on a popular sign-board carried
at European peace rallies: ``Bush and Sharon, Murderers,'' or, in a
more extreme formulation of this same charge, ``Bush + Sharon =
Hitler.''
What lies behind these obscenities is worth pondering. The easy
application of Nazi-era references to Israel and America is one of the
most repugnant features of present-day anti-Semitic and anti-American
rhetoric. It is also becoming commonplace, and not only in the
sensationalizing language of the mob talk that often accompanies street
demonstrations. The Portuguese writer and Nobel Prize laureate Jose
Saramago famously likened the Israeli siege of Yasir Arafat's compound
in the West Bank city of Ramallah to nothing less than Nazi actions
against Jews in Auschwitz.
The Israeli incursion into Jenin, which cost the lives of twenty-
three Israeli soldiers while killing some fifty-two Palestinians, most
of them armed fighters, was likened to ``Leningrad'' and denounced as
``genocide.'' Others in Europe, mainly on the intellectual left, think
in similarly extravagant terms. When they say ``Israeli'' or ``Jew''--
and in the minds of many, the two have become almost one--they are not
far from thinking ``oppressor'' or ``murderer.'' The shorthand term for
this despised type is now ``Sharon'' or, stated simply but perversely,
``Nazi.''
President Bush is similarly branded, his visage adorned with
swastikas and his name changed to ``George W. Hitler.'' As in the case
of the former German Minister of Justice, such coarse semantic switches
are now made all too easily, as if an off-the-cuff association of the
president of the United States with the most monstrous figure in German
history were both natural and acceptable.
As Dan Diner has shown convincingly in two recent books on this
subject, anti-Americanism has a well-established history in Germany
dating back at least to the nineteenth century. Animated at times by
cultural motives and at other times by political motives, German
hostility to America crystallized ideologically in the early twentieth
century as a reaction to modernity itself. Urbanization,
commercialization, secularization, social mobility, mass culture,
meritocracy, democracy, feminism--these and other components of
modernity were considered unwelcome encroachments on traditional ways
of life. In opposing them, German critics of the United States tended
to conflate fears and resentments regarding America's alleged imperial
hegemony with similar fears regarding imagined Jewish money, power,
influence, and control. Diner quotes Max Horkheimer to this effect: ``.
. . everywhere that one finds anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism is also
prevalent.'' Horkheimer further explains that America is frequently
singled out as the scapegoat for a host of German and general European
problems, brought on, at the time he was writing, by ``the general
malaise caused by cultural decline.'' In seeking causes for this
malaise, people ``find the Americans and, in America itself, once again
the Jews, who supposedly rule America.''\18\
Horkheimer was hardly alone in this analysis. Following the defeat
of Germany in World War I, numerous others expressed anti-American
sentiments in ways that directly implicated the Jews. According to
Diner:
It became commonplace to characterize America, according to the
words of Werner Sombart, as a ``state of Jews'' (Judenstaat).
In particular after Taft's presidency, this view saw the
``Jewish'' influence on public life in the United States as
having gained the upper hand. Jews were thought to be pulling
the strings in the trade unions, which were also centers of
power and influence. During the war they succeeded in moving
into big capital and supposedly profited substantially from
Allied war loans. Jews were also believed to have considerable
intellectual influence. In early nationalist literature, for
instance, Wilson's Fourteen Points were depicted as a product
of Jewish minds. The ``enslavement'' of Germany was also
ascribed to the Jews.\19\
In the aftermath of World War I and into the Nazi period, charges
of this kind became prevalent in Germany, and an ideologically tempered
anti-Americanism intimately linked to anti-Semitism became commonplace.
It saw American culture as degenerate, its debased condition a function
of Jewish influence. ``My feelings against America are those of hatred
and repugnance,'' Hitler said, ``half-Judaized, half-negrified, with
everything built on the dollar.''\20\ Beyond purportedly corrupting
culture, however, this presumed Jewish influence was seen to be
everywhere: in the person of Bernard Baruch, Wilson's hand-picked
representative at the Versailles Conference, who was prominently
identified as a Wall Street financial magnate who allegedly had pushed
hard for war to advance his personal fortune as well as the aims of
Jewish world domination; in the person of Henry Morgenthau, Roosevelt's
secretary of finance during World War II, who was widely seen as a
Jewish avenger out to destroy Germany economically; and other
``Jewish'' influentials who were regarded as hostile to German
interests, such as New York mayor Fiorello LaGuardia; Felix
Frankfurter, the law professor and Roosevelt confidante; and even
President Roosevelt himself, sometimes (mis)identified as being really
named ``Rosenfeld.'' America, in sum, was under a ``Jewish
dictatorship'' and, as such, implacably anti-German. Indeed, it was the
Jews, so the charge went, who forced the United States to enter the war
in the first place.\21\
Following the defeat of Nazi Germany, blatant conspiracy theories
were not commonly voiced in Germany. Nevertheless, the notion that
Jewish ``influence'''' continued to make itself felt in invidious ways
hardly disappeared, and to this day polls of German public opinion
regularly show sizable numbers of Germans affirming the notion that
Jews exercise too much power in world affairs. Jews are believed to do
so in their own right and through their alleged ``control'' over
American foreign policy. For instance, in 1991, prominent figures on
the German left held Jews responsible for the first Persian Gulf war,
alleging that the battle was being waged on Israel's behalf, not
Kuwait's. As Sander Gilman summed up the mood at the time, the Gulf War
``showed how anti-Americanism in Germany and especially anti-Jewish
resentment in the peace movement and among its fellow travelers saw the
war as an American/Jewish/Israeli invasion. The virulent shouts that it
was Israel that was causing the Gulf War, rather than Iraqi
expansionism, simply echoed the cries against American imperial
hegemony that carried on the anti-Semitic associations of Jew and
American from the nineteenth century.''\22\
A ``CABAL'' OF NEOCONSERVATIVES
The issues examined here within a German context are now observable
on a much broader front, and the Jews once again have been blamed for
propelling America into war in the Persian Gulf. A powerful ``cabal''
of American supporters of Israel--Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle,
Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, William Kristol, and others of the so-
called ``neoconservative war party''--are said to be shaping American
foreign policy and to have pushed President Bush into attacking Iraq to
serve the ends of a stronger Israel. In this view, President Bush is
portrayed as little more than a client of Ariel Sharon, and American
national security interests remain in the grip of the ``Zionist lobby''
or powerful ``East Coast'' influentials--code words employed by writers
who seem to believe, but generally will not bring themselves to say
outright, that the Jews are really running America's affairs.
The use of coded language has gone so far that it is no longer
unusual for writers who comment on the neoconservative movement to use
the term ``neocon'' as synonymous with ``Jew,'' excepting those with
similar views who lack Jewish roots. Whenever such inferences are
drawn, it is now common to point to ``plots'' underway that threaten to
steer American policy in the wrong direction--namely, the direction its
Jewish manipulators, and not America's elected officials, would have it
go.
Antiwar conservatives like Patrick J. Buchanan espoused conspiracy
theories regarding the origins of the war against Iraq. Buchanan wrote
in the American Conservative on March 24, 2003:
Here was a cabal of intellectuals telling the Commander-in-
Chief, nine days after an attack on America, that if he did not
follow their war plans, he would be charged with surrendering
to terror. . . . What these neoconservatives seek is to
conscript American blood to make the world safe for Israel.
They want the peace of the sword imposed on Islam and American
soldiers to die if necessary to impose it.\23\
But it wasn't only right-wingers like Buchanan who claimed that the
war served Israel's, not America's, security objectives. On the left,
too, there were those who saw the war as being waged at the behest of
Israel and, more cynically, also in pursuit of American Jewish
political support. In writing about the ``power'' of the neocons in the
New York Review of Books, Elizabeth Drew refers to both of these
motives.
Because some--but certainly not all--of the neoconservatives
are Jewish and virtually all are strong supporters of the Likud
Party's policies, the accusation has been made that their aim
to ``democratize'' the region is driven by their desire to
surround Israel with more sympathetic neighbors. . . . But it
is also the case that Bush and his chief political adviser Karl
Rove are eager both to win more of the Jewish vote in 2004 than
Bush did in 2000 and to maintain the support of the Christian
right, whose members are also strong supporters of Israel.\24\
To those who share these views, the Jewish hand is to be seen
virtually everywhere. Robert J. Lieber, summing up the conspiracy
theory in the Chronicle of Higher Education, found that it had many
proponents:
A small band of neoconservative (read, Jewish) defense
intellectuals, led by the ``mastermind,'' Deputy Secretary of
Defense Paul Wolfowitz (according to Michael Lind, writing in
the New Statesman), has taken advantage of 9/11 to put their
ideas over on an ignorant, inexperienced, and ``easily
manipulated'' president (Eric Alterman in The Nation), his
``elderly figurehead'' Defense Secretary (as Lind put it), and
the ``dutiful servant of power'' who is our secretary of state
(Edward Said, London Review of Books).\25\
The tendency to ascribe exaggerated power to Jews in public life is
not new--nor is the belief that ``Jewish power'' is deployed to achieve
Israeli objectives. Here, for instance, is how the historian Perry
Anderson puts it:
Entrenched in business, government, and media, American Zionism
has since the sixties acquired a firm grip on the levers of
public opinion and official policy toward Israel. . . . The
colonists have in this sense at length acquired something like
the metropolitan state--or state within a state--they initially
lacked.\26\
Sentiments of this nature exist among Germans, but they are usually
muted, especially with reference to Jews. With regard to America, the
German rhetoric became less inhibited in the time leading up to the
invasion of Iraq. The writer Peter Schneider recently said that he has
``never seen so much anti-Americanism in my life, not in the Vietnam
war, never.''\27\
The public voicing of such sentiments regarding both Jews and
Americans is by no means confined to Germany. Abandoning coded language
altogether, Tam Dalyell, a member of the British Parliament from the
Labour Party, told an interviewer for Vanity Fair flat out that both
Tony Blair and George Bush were ``being unduly influenced by a cabal of
Jewish advisers.'' Never mind that most of George Bush's closest
advisers are Protestants or that most of those helping to guide British
Middle East policy are also not Jewish.\28\ To Mr. Dalyell and others
like him, it has become open hunting season on Jews, and even the
suspicion of Jewish ancestry is enough to inspire wild accusations.
We are living at a time when hostility to America has become almost
a worldwide phenomenon, and a parallel dislike of Israel and distrust
of the Jews frequently accompany this hostility. When a member of the
Canadian Parliament can be heard to declare on television, ``Damn
Americans. I hate those bastards''; when a French diplomat posted to
England is widely quoted as referring to Israel as that ``shitty little
country'' pushing the world toward war; when a prominent Irish poet
denounces Jewish settlers living on the West Bank as ``Nazis [and]
racists'' who ``should be shot dead'' and is on record as stating, ``I
never believed that Israel had the right to exist at all,'' we are in a
troubled time.\29\
FRENCH ANTI-SEMITISM AND ANTI-AMERICANISM
Much of the worst of this trouble has taken place over the past two
years in France, where anti-Americanism has become highly vocal in both
political and cultural life and anti-Semitism has turned more openly
aggressive than at any time since the end of World War II. These
antagonisms reflect a political disposition toward the Middle East
conflict that is highly critical of Israel and also sharply at odds
with the United States, understood to be Israel's guardian. French
attitudes toward both countries are often negative. It is small wonder
then that militant members of France's large Muslim communities openly
proclaim their hatred of the United States and regard French Jews as
surrogate Israelis whom they feel entitled to abuse at will. Some have
been doing just that, as if the verbal violence against Israel in the
French media can be taken as justification for physical assaults
against French Jews.
At the same time, teachers who are prepared to teach about the
Holocaust in French classrooms are often intimidated from doing so by
angry Muslim students, some of whom act aggressively to prevent
knowledge of Jewish victimization during World War II from being
disseminated in the schools. The subject has fallen effectively under a
taboo, and many of these schools are now almost extraterritorial
enclaves.\30\ The suppression of this history, together with frequently
expressed attitudes of hostility toward Israel, adds to the unease of
Jews in today's France.
Anti-Jewish hostilities began to surge in France in the fall of
2000 and have continued in waves of greater or lesser virulence to this
day. On the night of October 3, 2000, a synagogue in the town of
Villepinte, not far from Paris, was set ablaze. French police at first
explained the incident as accidental, but six Molotov cocktails
discovered at the site belied the notion that the building's near
destruction was the result of nothing more than a trash fire.\31\
Within the next ten days, four more synagogues in the greater Paris
area also were burned, and nineteen Jewish homes and businesses
likewise became the target of arson attempts. There have been hundreds
of other assaults against individual Jews and Jewish property
throughout France, most of them perpetrated by young Muslims. In the
spring of 2002, the front gates of a synagogue in Lyon were
intentionally rammed by two cars driven by masked and hooded men, and
the synagogue itself was then set on fire. In April, the Or Aviv
Synagogue in Marseilles was torched, and in Toulouse shots were fired
at a kosher butcher shop. A bus carrying Jewish children to the Tiferet
Israel School in Sarcelle was stoned; shortly afterward, the school
itself was destroyed by fire; the same happened to the Gan Pardess
School in Marseilles; Molotov cocktails were thrown at a Jewish school
in Creteil and at a synagogue in Garges-les-Gonesse; Jewish students
have been assaulted at Metro stops in central Paris and subjected to
verbal and physical abuse in schools; Jews walking to synagogue have
been variously insulted and harassed; a Jewish soccer team was roughed
up at Bondy, a suburb of Paris; and in March 2003 Jewish teenagers were
beaten with metal bars during antiwar protest marches in the French
capital; banners equating Sharon with Hitler and intermingling the Star
of David with the Nazi swastika have become familiar sights at these
marches; and at some, shouts of ``Kill the Jews!'' can be heard.
French authorities were slow to acknowledge the true character of
these outrageous actions and for too long passed them off as part of a
general social unruliness that reigns in France's often destitute
immigrant suburbs. Criminal acts against Jews, in other words, were to
be understood as merely part of a more general phenomenon of heightened
criminality in French cities as a whole. Or the anti-Jewish violence
was explained away as part of a ``natural'' interethnic rivalry, an
inevitable spillover onto French shores of the continuing violence
between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. President Jacques Chirac for
a time even insisted, ``There is no anti-Semitism at all in France.''
Jewish houses of worship were being set on fire, but during the height
of these outrages, neither Chirac nor then Prime Minister Lionel Jospin
saw fit to visit the sites of the desecrated synagogues. (Only later,
on the eve of his reelection campaign in the spring of 2002, did the
French president bother to pay a sympathy call to Le Havre, where a
small synagogue had been attacked.)
The sheer volume of assaults on Jews and Jewish institutions render
such public denial untenable, however, and in recent months, with the
appointment of Nicolas Sarkozy as the new interior minister, a greater
resolve to curb such violence seems in evidence. And well it should,
for the dynamic of French anti-Semitism long ago moved beyond public
slurs against Jewish symbols to open aggression against Jews and Jewish
property. Between January and May 2001, more than 300 attacks against
Jews took place in France. By the spring of 2003, the number of such
hate crimes since January 2001 stood at over 1,000. Marie Brenner, who
has reported on these incidents extensively, notes that in the first
three months of 2003 there were already 326 verified reports of anti-
Jewish violence in Paris alone. While any analogies to Vichy would be
far-fetched, the social environment has clearly changed for Jews in
today's France, and the country no longer seems so hospitable. As
French writer Alain Finkelkraut recently put it, ``To their own
amazement, [French] Jews are now sad and scared.''\32\ Some are leaving
the country for Israel or are giving serious thought to settling in the
United States or Canada.
The outbreak of violent anti-Semitism in France has occurred at a
time when anti-Americanism has also become a more prominent feature of
French political and intellectual life. Hostile attitudes toward
America are not new but have a history in France that dates back to the
eighteenth century. The degree of French antipathy to the United States
has heightened in the last few years, however, for reasons that are as
much related to France's ambivalence about its place in the new Europe
and its reduced standing in the world as about real policy differences
with America. The latter are not insignificant, as became all too clear
in the diplomatic feud that Paris aggressively waged with Washington
during the run-up to the war against Iraq. However, over and beyond the
tensions between the two countries that accompany France's
determination to present itself as a rival power to America in the
international arena, the polemical nature of French anti-Americanism
has deeper causes.
The best analysts of this phenomenon are the French themselves, and
in the past two years French authors have produced a number of
perceptive books on the obsession with and national disdain for
America. Among the best of these are Philippe Roger's L'Ennemi
americain: Genealogie de l'antiamericanisme francais (``The American
Enemy: A Genealogy of French Anti-Americanism'') and Jean-Francois
Revel's L'Obsession anti-americaine: Son fonctionnement, ses causes,
ses inconsequences (``The Anti-American Obsession: Its Functioning,
Causes, and Inconsistencies'').\33\ In addition to these studies, there
has also been a spate of books on ``Why the Whole World Hates
America,'' which exemplify the very phenomenon that the analytical
studies set out to clarify. The most extreme of these is Thierry
Meyssan's L'Effroyable imposture (``The Frightening Deception''). Its
bizarre thesis is that the received accounts of the 9/11 terror attacks
are mostly an American government fabrication; in fact, so Meyssan
alleges, the strikes were actually carried out by reactionary elements
of the American military. Yet this outlandish work quickly became a big
hit, selling almost a quarter of a million copies in the first few
months of publication. While one would be hard put to find many serious
people in France who would credit Meyssan's argument as plausible, his
book's popularity underscores the basically irrational, but evidently
appealing, character of French anti-Americanism.
David Pryce-Jones partly clarifies the psychological grounds of
this appeal in commenting on Phillipe Roger's study: ``Since the
eighteenth century, the French have been treating America less as a
real country than as a theater in which to work out fears and fantasies
of their own.''\34\ Or, in the words of Roger himself, ``We keep
creating a mythological America in order to avoid asking ourselves
questions about our real problems.''\35\
WHY ANTI-AMERICANISM FUNCTIONS LIKE ANTI-SEMITISM
Anti-Americanism, in this understanding, clearly has some benefits
for those who embrace it. It functions as both a distraction and a
relief, diverting attention from issues that can be divisive within
French society: ongoing economic concerns, political discord, the
challenges of absorbing large and still growing immigrant populations,
and vexed questions of national identity in a society rapidly becoming
more diverse in its ethnic, racial, and religious makeup. To one degree
or another, many European countries have problems of this nature, but
not all of them look to place the blame for their troubles on America.
To the degree that France does, it gains neither credit nor effective
help. Far from being an efficient way to engage real problems, anti-
Americanism is no more than a trumped-up means of diverting attention
from them.
Seen in this light, anti-Americanism functions in much the same way
that anti-Semitism has over the centuries--as a convenient focus for
discontents of many different kinds and a ready-made explanation of
internal weaknesses, disappointments, and failures. It is, in short,
both fraudulent and counterproductive.
The French writer Pascal Bruckner precisely captures the self-
deluding nature of anti-Americanism and sees its link to anti-Semitism:
``We delight in casting all our sins onto this ideal scapegoat, because
everything that goes wrong in the world can be laid at Washington's
door. In the imagination of many intellectuals and political leaders,
America plays the role the Jews once did in National Socialist
demonology.''\36\
If hostility to America were confined to the French elites that
Bruckner singles out, it would be bad enough, but there is evidence
that anti-Americanism is now broadly shared by the French public at
large. At the height of the war against Iraq, for instance, Le Monde
published the results of a poll that showed 30 percent of the French
actually wanted Iraq, and not the coalition led by America, to win the
war.\37\ This view is of a piece with notions, also broadly held in
France and elsewhere, that between George Bush and Saddam Hussein, it
was the American president who was the more menacing figure and the
greater threat to world peace. Such judgments are less political in
nature than pathological, but they can take on a political resonance of
a harmful kind. In light of such extreme prospects, Bruckner concludes:
``It is hard to tell what is most hateful in present-day anti-
Americanism: the stupidity and bitterness it manifests or the willing
servitude that it presupposes toward a superiority it denounces. . . .
The time for being anti-American has passed.''\38\
One can only voice a hearty ``amen'' to Bruckner's words and add to
them the wish that the time for being hateful to Jews might also
quickly pass. Unfortunately, though, most of the signs point to an
increase rather than a lessening of anti-American and anti-Semitic
hostilities. Indeed, many of the same kinds of developments described
within the borders of Germany and France have been occurring across
much of Europe over the past two years or so and show no signs of
diminishing. According to a recent report, the number of anti-Semitic
attacks in Great Britain increased by 75 percent during the first three
months of 2003.\39\ There has also been a rise of such incidents in the
Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere. In
all of these countries, anti-American resentments have surfaced
alongside resentments of Israel, and allegations are commonly made that
``Zionist interests'' and the ``Jewish lobbies'' are working
manipulatively behind the scenes to the detriment of the world order.
In an especially irresponsible display of such accusations, the New
Statesman of London on January 14, 2002, ran a cover displaying a gold
Star of David piercing the British Union Jack over the caption ``A
Kosher Conspiracy?'' Similarly vicious graphics have appeared in
newspapers and journals elsewhere in Europe. Almost everywhere, the
passions that give rise to regular denunciations of Israel and
conspiratorial charges against the Jews are blended with sentiments
that British writer Michael Gove says produce ``myths of America the
Hateful.'' ``Yankee-phobia,'' as Gove calls it, and Judeophobia have
now coalesced, and what they have produced is not good: ``Both America
and Israel were founded by peoples who were refugees from prejudice in
Europe. Europe's tragedy is that prejudice has been given new life, in
antipathy to both those states.''\40\
WHO IS AN ANTI-SEMITE?
What has brought us to such a sorry moment, how long it is likely
to last, and what its consequences may be are matters that deserve
serious reflection. Yet not everyone agrees that Europe is witnessing a
serious increase in hostility to either Jews or America. The former, it
is argued, is an unpleasant but limited affair, carried out mostly by
disaffected Muslim immigrants, who are themselves subjected to acts of
racial hatred and discrimination. What Jews label as anti-Semitism is
something that really does not exist in Europe in any substantial way,
but whose ``purported existence is being cynically manipulated by some
in the Israeli government to try to silence debate about the policies
of the Sharon government.''\41\ In this view, the Jews are seeking to
squelch criticism of Israeli actions against the Palestinians by
putting those who make such criticisms beyond the pale. In the words of
one British commentator, ``Criticize Israel and you are an anti-Semite
just as surely as if you were throwing paint at a synagogue in
Paris.''\42\ To cite the words of another, Timothy Garton Ash, ``Pro-
Palestinian Europeans [are] infuriated by the way criticism of Sharon
is labeled anti-Semitism.''\43\ Those who are so accused, the argument
goes, then turn against their accusers and brand them as media
manipulators working on behalf of the ``Jewish lobby'' to advance
Jewish and Israeli interests.
This is a vexed and increasingly contentious issue. No one likes to
be called an anti-Semite, and no one should be called an anti-Semite
who is not one. At the same time, anti-Semites exist, and their words
and actions cause great harm. It should come as no surprise, then, that
Jews who are alert to the resurgence of anti-Jewish hostilities in
Europe are naturally concerned and are not reluctant to call attention
to them. They understand that Israel, like all states, makes its share
of mistakes and should not be immune from criticism. At the same time,
legitimate criticism of Israeli policies sometimes escalates into
condemnation of Israel as an entity. Especially on the left, the
European debate about the Arab-Israeli conflict has taken on the
character of a polemic about the Zionist project itself and calls into
question the moral standing of the Jewish state and sometimes even its
right to exist. At its furthest extreme, such ``criticism'' of Israel
amounts to a rejection of Israel, mirrored in the vilification of the
Israeli prime minister as a ``war criminal'' comparable to Milosevic
and of the Israeli people as latter-day fascists or Nazis. In the
Muslim world, these views are standard fare, but they show up in Europe
as well. To call them anti-Semitic is to call them by their proper
name.
On another level, the European media debate about Israel is less
crude and not necessarily hostile in tone, but its obsessional quality
and its espousal by people who focus their criticism almost exclusively
on Israel and show little interest in injustice elsewhere in the world
raise questions of another kind. Shalom Lappin, a professor at King's
College, London, has written about this phenomenon in an especially
perceptive way and comes to conclusions that are sobering. After making
the by-now ritual acknowledgment that not all criticism of Israel is
unfair, he demonstrates that a lot of European commentary is in fact
excessive, historically inaccurate, and distorted by ideological
prejudices:
A large part of the contemporary European left has inherited
the liberal and revolutionary antipathy toward a Jewish
collectivity, with Israel becoming the focus of this attitude.
While acculturated intellectuals and progressive Jewish
activists are held in high esteem, a Jewish country is treated
as an illegitimate entity not worthy of a people whose history
should have taught them the folly of nationalism. The current
intifada is regarded as decisively exposing the bankruptcy not
so much of a policy of occupation and settlement, but of the
very idea of a Jewish polity.\44\
In other words, the arguments that some of Israel's most determined
critics now pose are no longer about 1967 and political issues
involving territories that Israel has held since the Six-Day War, but
about 1948 and existential issues involving the fundamental right of
the Jews to a state of their own. Hostility to Israel along these
lines, in sum, is the result of a basic failure to reconcile with the
idea of Jewish political independence and national sovereignty. Such
opposition was prominent in some circles prior to the establishment of
the Jewish state. No less a figure than Karl Marx, for example,
famously held that a ``state which presupposes religion is not yet a
true, real state'' and that ``the political emancipation of the Jew . .
. is the emancipation of the state from Judaism.''\45\ But the
reappearance of this idea after more than half a century of Jewish
statehood is astonishing. Lappin correctly claims that attitudes of
this kind render illicit any idea of the Jewish people as a nation.
Deeply rooted in both religious and secular European culture, as well
as in the Islamic world, such attitudes represent an aversion to the
idea of Jewish empowerment itself and, in essence, delegitimize the
State of Israel in its present configuration. Most Jews would see the
public voicing of such an aversion as inherently anti-Semitic. But
whatever one calls the propagation of such ideas is less important than
the recognition of their fundamentally hostile character. Not to see
them for what they are and not to resist them would be to live in
denial, a luxury that Jews, of all people, cannot afford.
DENIAL OF ANTI-AMERICANISM
Just as there are those who deny that anti-Semitism exists, there
are also those who deny that anti-Americanism exists. They stress that
the world publicly expressed its sympathy for America in the immediate
aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist strikes against New York
and Washington, and they claim America has squandered the goodwill it
enjoyed at the time through its arrogant and ill-conceived policies in
the international arena.
It is true that large numbers of people in many countries displayed
solidarity with America following the shocks of 9/11, a solidarity they
evidently could express readily so long as they perceived Americans to
be victims. (As Pascal Bruckner reminds, us, though, ``By the evening
of September 11, a majority of our citizens, despite their obvious
sympathy for the victims, were telling themselves that the Americans
had it coming.'' \46\) At times, the world's sympathy has also flowed
toward the Jews, when it has been perceived that they, too, have been
victimized. Assertions of American or Jewish strength, however, seem to
quickly neutralize these benevolent reactions and turn them into their
opposite.
Some of what animates anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, in other
words, is distrust of American and Jewish power and the fear that such
power will be used in menacing ways. ``The American administration is
now a bloodthirsty wild animal,'' declared British playwright Harold
Pinter, long before a drop of blood was spilled in the second Gulf War;
\47\ and, similarly, bloodthirsty behavior was also widely attributed
to Ariel Sharon. In both cases, it is the specter of the unrestrained
use of force that seems to generate such concerns. They are heightened
many times over when the Jews are imagined to be the ones who actually
control such might and can unleash it anytime, against anyone, and in
unpredictable ways. In a climate of such exaggerated feeling,
restraints on political rhetoric fall away. So an American congressman,
Representative James Moran, Democrat of Virginia, charges in public,
``If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for
this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the
Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the
direction of where this is going, and I think they should.'' \48\ An
American poet, Amiri Baraka, links Israel to the terrorist attacks
against the World Trade Center, alleging that the Jews had advance
warning of what was coming on September 11 and stayed home from work in
the Twin Towers on that day; and various people throughout the world
indulge in the fantasy that the space shuttle Columbia disaster was
actually the work of ``a secret Jewish-Israeli conspiracy.'' \49\ As
evidenced by these and other similarly wild charges, conspiracy
theories about the pernicious effects of American-Jewish ``power'' seem
widespread.
As already noted, some of what drives this lunacy may be fear, but
analysts of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism also recognize other
factors at work. Writing shortly after 9/11, the British historian
Bernard Wasserstein noted:
A century ago, anti-Semitism was called ``the socialism of
fools.'' Now something similar threatens to become rampant:
anti-Americanism. Psychologically, it fulfills some of the same
functions as anti-Semitism. It gives vent to a hatred of the
successful, and is fueled by envy and frustration. . . . Like
historical anti-Semitism, [anti-Americanism] transcends
ideological barriers and brings together economic, social,
religious, and national animosities in a murderous brew.\50\
The brew is a poisonous one, mixing such noxious ingredients as
classical anti-Semitic blood libel charges and conspiracy theories
about a Jewish drive for world domination with annihilationist
rhetoric, directed against both Israel and America. As part of this
destructive mix, Hitler-era language, as we have seen, is often used to
smear the American president and the Israeli prime minister, and
Holocaust denial also sometimes figures in. In such a climate, Jews are
regularly denounced as ``Zionist pigs'' and Americans as rapacious
thugs and murderers. In general, when Jews are now demonized, anti-
American charges are likely to proliferate as well. It is a heady
combination, especially in the Muslim world, where the language of
violence has helped to unleash the most destructive forces aimed at
those who are routinely condemned as ``the enemies of Islam''--
preeminently ``Crusaders'' (= Americans) and ``Jews.'' \51\
In analyzing this situation, Josef Joffe, editor of the prominent
German newspaper Die Zeit, finds a number of common links:
Images that were in the past directed against the Jews are now
aimed at the Americans: the desire to rule the world; the
allegation that the Americans, like the Jews in the past, are
invested only in money and have no real feeling for culture or
social distress. There are also some people who connect the two
and maintain that the Jewish desire to rule the word is being
realized today . . . by the ``American conquest.''
Joffe also sees envy as a factor contributing to a common hostility
against Americans and Jews:
They are the two most successful states in their surroundings--
the U.S. in global surroundings, and Israel in the Middle East.
Israel is in fact a constant reminder to the Arab world of its
failure in economic, social, political, and gender-related
development. So much so that it is difficult to decide whether
the Jews are hated because of their close alliance with the
U.S., or whether the U.S. is hated because of its alliance with
the Jews.\52\
To many, Americans and Jews are not only paired but are now
virtually interchangeable as targets of a common hostility. During the
Nazi period, a popular slogan clearly identified the source of
Germany's troubles: ``The Jews are our misfortune.'' Today it is the
Americans who are the focus of such an exaggerated grievance. But the
Jews have hardly disappeared. Rather, negative images of them have
blended with negative images of Americans, and the two together--
symbolized by the ubiquitous bogeymen, ``Bush and Sharon''--are
commonly denounced in a single breath. Indeed, in France one now finds
the new coinage ``Busharon'' to designate this invented ogre. As a
French Jewish woman recently put it, ``When they say 'America' they
think 'Israel,' and when they think 'Israel,' they think 'Jewish.' ''
\53\
FANTASIES AND THEIR ANTIDOTES
Or, one could say more accurately, they don't think at all. For
what I have been describing has very little to do with real Americans
and real Jews and points instead to largely phantasmagoric figures that
inhabit the heads of growing numbers of people throughout the world. In
confronting the passions that fuel anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism,
in other words, we enter the realm of symbolic identities and see
mostly spectral figures--imagined Americans, imagined Jews.
A phenomenon as widespread and intensely animated as this one is
not likely to soon pass from the scene. The branding of the United
States and Israel as outlaw nations is a serious matter, and the
political, ideological, and religious passions that give rise to such
hostility will not quickly dissipate. Writing in 1985, years before the
American-led wars in the Persian Gulf, Stephen Haseler predicted:
``Anti-Americanism is here to stay, as long as the United States
retains its powerful role on the world stage.'' Since it is unlikely
that America will soon reduce its power or the reach of its global
presence, it is also unlikely that opposition to it will lessen; on the
contrary, it is likely to only increase. Some fifteen years ago,
Haseler, in fact, accurately predicted the present moment with uncanny
insight:
The United States will continue to be isolated at the United
Nations; anti-American protests and rioting will increase;
tensions within America's alliance systems will continue; and a
powerful intellectual and emotional critique of the direction
of American foreign and defense policy can be expected at
home.\54\
The new era ushered in by the terror attacks of 9/11 was not in
sight when Haseler offered this view, but otherwise his prognosis is
accurate.
As to what might be done to counter such developments, the best
antidote to anti-American animosities, Haseler avers, is not a
lessening of American power and resolve but the opposite--a reassertion
of American strength and self-confidence. Such assertions of national
will were marshaled impressively in the war against Iraq, and yet it is
precisely the projection of such power that unnerves people abroad and
contributes to their wariness of the United States. Ironically,
therefore, while it may be true that nothing succeeds like success,
success American-style seems to have the unintended consequence of
provoking the kinds of fear and resentment that help to foster anti-
American sentiments.
As for antidotes to anti-Semitism, these are harder to identify,
largely because anti-Jewish passions have been around for so long and
are energized today on so many different fronts. In the Muslim world,
Jew-hatred is now pervasive, but in Europe and elsewhere, anti-
Semitisms of every imaginable kind--political, social, cultural,
theological, economic--are no longer held in check by the taboos that
have restrained them in recent years but circulate openly and broadly.
Judeophobias are so many and various today, in fact, that a full
taxonomy would require a large book. The reemergence of such hostility
has come as a shock, especially to those who have thought that the
scandal of the Holocaust was so great as to inhibit public
manifestations of anti-Jewish feelings for generations to come. In
fact, though, that sense of the scandalousness of the Holocaust has
greatly weakened over the years or been perversely transferred to
Israel, which is repeatedly accused of resembling a Nazi state for its
allegedly ``genocidal'' treatment of the Palestinians, who have been
elevated to supreme victim status as the ``new Jews.''
Among the many pernicious elements in the repertoire of anti-
Semitic stereotypes, the inversion and manipulation of the Holocaust is
potentially the most lethal. For those intent on usurping the history
of Jewish suffering and mobilizing it against the Jewish state are also
intent on bringing about the end of that state by delegitimizing the
very ground of its existence. If, after all, there really is no
difference between Israelis and Nazis, then Israel itself has no moral
basis for continuing. That is what the sinister equation ``Sharon =
Hitler'' really means. Adding the name of the president of the United
States to this formula, as in the vile epithet at the beginning of this
essay, only deepens the aggression and adds to the challenges that we
face in a world in which anti-Semitism, a notoriously light sleeper, is
now awake and stirring and has been joined by a resurgent anti-
Americanism. Neither is new, but their convergence is potent and the
obsessive focus of so much of their negative energies on Israel and on
America as a faithful ally of Israel is ominous. Unless they are
effectively checked, the two together will influence the condition of
life for Americans and Jews in the years ahead in ways that will not be
easy for either.
June 27, 2003
NOTES
\1\ The National Consultative Committee on Human Rights, a French
government watchdog organization, reports an ``explosion'' in anti-
Semitic incidents in France in 2002--a sixfold increase over 2001 in
acts of violence against Jewish property and persons. See Elaine
Sciolino, ``French Rallies against War Shift Focus to Israel,'' New
York Times, March 30, 2003.
\2\ New York Times, September 23, 2002.
\3\ Wolfgang Schauble, ``How Germany Became Saddam's Favorite
State,'' Wall Street Journal, September 19, 2002.
\4\ Charles P. Wallace, ``Recalcitrant Ally,'' Time, September 23,
2002.
\5\ Henry Kissinger, ``Why U.S.-German Rift Could Set Europe Back
100 Years,'' Scotland on Sunday, October 20, 2002.
\6\ New York Times, September 20, 2002.
\7\ William Safire, ``The German Problem,'' New York Times,
September 19, 2002.
\8\ Robert Kagan, as quoted by Steven Erlanger, ``Wary Praise for
Berlin Speech,'' International Herald Tribune, May 24, 2002. For a
well-informed analysis of the growing divisions between Europe and
America, see Kagan's brief but important book, Of Paradise and Power
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003).
\9\ Paul Hollander, Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad
1965-1990 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 381. Hollander
republished this book, adding some new material to it, under the title
Anti-Americanism: Irrational and Rational (New Brunswick, N.J.:
Transaction Publishers, 1995). For more on anti-Americanism, see
Stephen Haseler, ed., The Varieties of Anti-Americanism: Reflex and
Response (Washington, D.C.: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1985) and
Anti-Americanism: Origins and Context, a special edition of the Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, ed. by Thomas
Perry Thornton (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988). For studies
specifically focused on manifestations of anti-Americanism within
Germany, see Andrei S. Markovits, ``On Anti-Americanism in West
Germany,'' New German Critique, Issue 34 (Winter 1985), pp. 3-27 and,
by the same author, ``Anti-Americanism and the Struggle for a West-
German Identity,'' in Peter H. Merkl, ed., The Federal Republic of
Germany at Forty (New York: New York University Press, 1989), pp. 35-
54; see also Konrad Jarausch, ``Intellectual Dissonance: German-
American (Mis)Understandings in the 1990s,'' and Berndt Ostendorf,
``The Americanization-of-Germany Debate: An Archaeology of Tacit
Background Assumptions,'' in Frank Trommler and Elliott Shore, eds.,
The German-American Encounter: Conflict and Cooperation between Two
Cultures, 1800-2000 (New York: Berghan Books, 2001), pp. 219-33, 267-
84. For a highly informed study of the history of German anti-
Americanism and its links to anti-Semitism, see Dan Diner, Verkerhrte
Welten (Frankfurt: Vito von Eichborn Verlag, 1993), published in
English translation under the title America in the Eyes of the Germans:
An Essay on Anti-Americanism (Princeton, N.J.: Markus Wiener
Publishers, 1996); Diner republished this book, with new material,
under the title Feindbild Amerika: Uber die Bestandigkeit eines
Ressentiments (Munich: Propyla4en Verlag, 2002).
\10\ Hollander, Anti-Americanism: Critiques at Home and Abroad,
p.viii.
\11\ Citations are from a report commissioned by the American
Jewish Committee entitled ``The Mideast Coverage of the Second Intifada
in the German Print Media, with Particular Attention to the Image of
Israel,'' June 2002, http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.-
asp?did=539. The report was done by scholars at the Duisburger Institut
fur Sprach-und Sozialforschung and covered the period from September
2000 to August 2001.
\12\ Avishai Margalit, ``The Suicide Bombers,'' New York Review of
Books, January 16, 2003.
\13\ Sloterdijk made these remarks in an interview that appeared in
the Austrian journal Profil, September 24, 2002.
\14\ Michel Friedman, vice president of the Central Council of Jews
in Germany, came under a barrage of negative publicity recently when he
was the object of a drug raid that allegedly turned up traces of
cocaine in his home and office. His subsequent suspension from his
television talk show and the lack of charges against him brought new
discussions of what is ``normal'' in German Jewish life. See Mark
Landler, ``German TV Host Finds Shoe on Other Foot,'' New York Times,
June 27, 2003. Mollemann died on June 5, 2003, in a parachuting
accident in Marl-Loehmuhle that police officials consider a possible
suicide. There were hostile comments made after Friedman's drug raid
that Mollemann should have lived to see Friedman's humiliation.
\15\ For more on Mollemann, Walser, and related matters, see Alvin
H. Rosenfeld, ``Feeling Alone, Again'': The Growing Unease among
Germany's Jews (New York: American Jewish Committee, International
Perspectives 49, 2002).
\16\ Toynbee's words are cited by David Brooks in ``Among the
Bourgeoisophobes: Why the Europeans and Arabs, Each in Their Own Way,
Hate America and Israel,'' The Weekly Standard, April 15, 2002.
\17\ Polly Toynbee's words are quoted by Murray Gordon in The ``New
Anti-Semitism'' in Western Europe, American Jewish Committee,
International Perspectives 50, 2002.
\18\ Diner, ``America in the Eyes of the Germans,'' pp. 26, 21.
\19\ Ibid., p. 62
\20\ Hitler's words are cited in ibid., p. 83.
\21\ Ibid., pp. 63, 97.
\22\ Sander Gilman, in the Introduction to ibid., p. xiv.
\23\ Patrick J. Buchanan, ``Whose War?,'' The American
Conservative, March 24, 2003.
\24\ Elizabeth Drew, ``The Neocons in Power,'' New York Review of
Books, June 12, 2003, p. 22.
\25\ Robert J. Lieber, ``The Neoconservative-Conspiracy Theory:
Pure Myth,'' The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 2, 2003. See also
David Frum, ``Unpatriotic Conservatives: A War Against America,''
National Review, April 7, 2003, pg. 40. Frum labels this movement
``paleoconservatism'' and describes it as wishing ``to see the United
States defeated in the War on Terror.''
\26\ Perry Anderson, ``Scurrying Towards Bethlehem,'' New Left
Review (July-August 2001). For a brief but penetrating analysis of
Anderson's position, see Shalom Lappin, ``Israel and the New Anti-
Semitism,'' Dissent, Spring 2003, pp. 18-24.
\27\ Schneider's words are cited in Nina Bernstein, ``Young Germans
Ask: Thanks for What?'' New York Times, March 9, 2003.
\28\ Colin Brown and Chris Hastings, ``Brit MP Dalyell Attacks Bush
and Blair's `Jewish Cabal,' '' The Telegraph, May 3, 2003.
\29\ Nicholas D. Kristof, ``Losses, Before Bullets Fly,'' New York
Times, March 7, 2003. For further examples of North American invective
against Israel and the Bush administration, see Lawrence F. Kaplan,
``Toxic Talk on War,'' Washington Post, February 18, 2003. See also
``Hateful Name-Calling vs. Calling for Hateful Action,'' New York
Times, November 23, 2002.
\30\ Emmanuel Brenner, Les Territoires Perdus de la Republique
(Paris: Mille et une nuits, 2002).
\31\ For a report of this incident and much else of a similar
nature, see Marie Brenner, ``France's Scarlet Letter,'' Vanity Fair,
June 2003, pp. 106-128. See also Murray Gordon, The ``New Anti-
Semitism'' in Western Europe (New York: American Jewish Committee,
International Perspectives 50, 2002), and Michel Gurfinkel, ``France's
Jewish Problem,'' Commentary, July-August 2002, pp. 38-45. I owe much
of the information here recorded about French anti-Semitism to material
in these sources.
\32\ Finkelkraut's words are taken from a paper he delivered at a
YIVO-sponsored conference on anti-Semitism, held in May 2003 at the
Center for Jewish History in New York.
\33\ For a well-informed review of this literature, see Tony Judt,
``Anti-Americans Abroad,'' New York Review of Books, May 1, 2003, pp.
24-27.
\34\ David Pryce-Jones, ``The Latest Paris Fashion . . . and Also
an Old One: Anti-Americanism in the Land of Tocqueville,'' National
Review, November 11, 2000.
\35\ Quoted in John Vinocur, ``Why France Disdains America,''
International Herald Tribune, October 9, 2002.
\36\ Pascal Bruckner, ``Europe: Remorse and Exhaustion,'' Dissent,
Spring 2003, p.14.
\37\ Brenner, ``France's Scarlet Letter,'' p. 128.
\38\ Bruckner, ``Europe: Remorse and Exhaustion,'' p. 15.
\39\ The figures are from the Community Security Trust, which
monitors anti-Semitic incidents in the U.K. ``Hundreds of Graves
Desecrated,'' BBC News (May 9, 2003), http://news.bb.co.uk/2/hi/uk.
\40\ Michael Gove, ``The Hatred of America Is the Socialism of
Fools,'' The Times (London), January 8, 2003.
\41\ Peter Beaumont, ``The New Anti-Semitism?'' The Observer,
February 17, 2002.
\42\ Ibid.
\43\ Timothy Garton Ash, ``Anti-Europeanism in America,'' New York
Review of Books, February 13, 2003, p. 34.
\44\ Shalom Lappin, ``Israel and the New Anti-Semitism,'' Dissent,
Spring 2003, p. 23.
\45\ Karl Marx, ``On the Jewish Question,'' Deutsch-
FranzosischeJahrbucher, 1844, http://www.yorku.ca/hjackman/Teaching/
1000.06b-fall2002/ojq.html. Deutsch-Franzosische Jahrbucher, find date
or.
\46\ Bruckner, ``Europe: Remorse and Exhaustion,'' p. 12.
\47\ Pinter's words are quoted by Norman Mailer in ``Only in
America,'' New York Review of Books, March 27, 2003, p. 49.
\48\ Representative Moran's remarks are quoted in ``Congressman Is
Chastised for Remarks on Jews and Iraq Policy,'' New York Times, March
12, 2003.
\49\ Shlomo Shamir, ``Anti-Semitic Shuttle Conspiracy Theories
Swamp the Internet,'' International Herald Tribune Online, http://
www.iht.com /cgi-bin/generic.cgi?template=articleprint.tmplh&Articled=
87387.
\50\ Bernard Wasserstein, ``Anti-Semitism and Anti-Americanism,''
Chronicle of Higher Education, September 28, 2001.
\51\ On anti-Semitism in the Muslim world, see Bernard Lewis,
``Semites and Antisemites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice, with
a New Afterword'' (New York: Norton, 1999), and Robert S. Wistrich,
``Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger'' (New York.: The
American Jewish Committee, 2002).
\52\ Joffe's words are quoted in Yair Peleg, ``Enemies, a Post-
National Story,'' Ha'aretz, English edition, March 9, 2003.
\53\ See Craig Smith, ``French Jews Tell of a New and Threatening
Wave of Anti-Semitism,'' New York Times, March 22, 2003.
\54\ Stephen Haseler, ``The Varieties of Anti-Americanism,'' pp.
42, 43.
APPENDIX B
Letter from the Anti-Semitism Front
BY DAVID A. HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
July 31, 2003
Much has been written and said--and rightly so--about changing
attitudes toward Jews. There is no need to restate the case at length.
Suffice it to say that an increasing number of Jews--and some non-Jews
as well--have noted a growth in anti-Semitism, including new mutations
of the world's oldest social pathology, and, as disturbingly
importantly, a steady decline in the antibodies that have fought it off
in the postwar period.
This change appears most pronounced in Western Europe, where
various combinations of anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism,
and anti-globalization are merging in a dangerous mix. Purveyors tend
to come overwhelmingly from the precincts of the universities, the
intelligentsia, the media, and the extreme left.
And, of course, the extreme right, finding new life in railing
against the growing immigrant populations in Western European
countries, may have put the Jews on the back burner for the moment, but
the essential ingredients of racism, xenophobia, and, yes, anti-
Semitism remain intact as the pillars of their ideology and pose no
less a long-term threat to us.
The principal danger, though, emanates from within the Islamic
world. Since Muslims comprise a majority in 56 countries and a growing
minority in scores of others, in essence, this represents a global
phenomenon.
IIt would be highly irresponsible to paint with a broad brush
stroke and suggest that all Muslims are implicated, when in fact this
is far from the truth. At the same time, it would be equally
shortsighted to pretend that anti-Semitism is non-existent in the
Islamic world, or restricted to a tiny number of extremists, or nothing
more than discontent with this or that Israeli policy. The problem is
real, it is serious, and it can't be swept under the rug.
By contrast, in the United States, Jews have felt relatively secure
and immune from the disturbing trends abroad, believing in the
``exceptionalism'' of American society. Yet a series of recent and
highly publicized events on American campuses and in the lead-up to the
war in Iraq has raised concerns about whether these are simply isolated
and ephemeral incidents or, conversely, harbingers of more to come from
a country undergoing profound sociocultural changes.
What's been less discussed, however, is what to do about all this.
Let's be realistic. Given its longevity, anti-Semitism in one form
or another is likely to outlive us all. That seems like a safe, if
unfortunate, bet. No Jonas Salk has yet come along with an immunization
protocol to eradicate forever the anti-Semitic virus, nor is any major
breakthrough likely in the foreseeable future.
Even the devastation wrought by the Shoah did not engender any
moral compunction on the part of the Kremlin about pursuing its own
postwar anti-Semitic policies, including what can only be labeled as an
attempt at cultural genocide. The same was true in Poland, a Soviet
satellite, when a new wave of anti-Semitism in 1968 targeted the few
remaining survivors of the Holocaust.
Europe's sense of responsibility and guilt for acts of commission
and omission during the Shoah, such as it may have been, is rapidly
waning. Instead, we hear any number of unapologetic references from
various quarters to Israelis as the ``new Nazis,'' descriptions of Jews
as ``manipulative,'' ``clannish,'' and ``excessively influential,'' and
even paeans to terrorists and suicide bombers as ``freedom fighters.''
Not very encouraging, is it, especially against the backdrop of a
Holocaust that took place on European soil and that was preceded by
centuries of mistreatment of Jews?.
And not long after celebrating the milestone of an observant Jew
being selected by a major political party for the second spot on its
presidential ticket, American Jews have witnessed the ``poet laureate''
of New Jersey, who bizarrely ascribed placed blame for 9/11 to on
Israel, being given a standing ovation by audiences at such leading
universities such as Yale. Meanwhile, pro-Palestinian students are
planning a national conference at Rutgers in October that calls for a
Palestinian state ``from the river to the sea'' and glorifies homicide
bombers who kill Israeli women, men and children. And a U.S.
congressman publicly called on Jews to press the Bush administration
regarding Iraq, suggesting that Jews, having allegedly pushed for war,
were uniquely positioned, by dint of the power ascribed to them, to
stop it.
At the same time, we've learned something about how best to try to
contain anti-Semitism, marginalize it, discredit it, and build a
firewall around it. In other words, we've come to understand what's
likely to work and, for that matter, what's not.
Given everything that's going on, this may be a good moment to
review, however briefly (even if this letter is not short), various
strategies. I've identified at least eight key ``actors'' in the fight
against anti-Semitism.
First, let's get down to basics.
Even aAt the risk of stating the obvious, societies based on
democracy, pluralism, and equality before the law are the best
guarantors for Jews or any minority (and, unquestionably, for the
majority as well). Freedom and respect for all mean freedom and respect
for everyone.
When that notion is deeply entrenche, the results can speak for
themselves. Among the best examples, perhaps, was the Danish rescue of
its Jewish population, who were targeted for deportation by the
occupying Nazis exactly sixty years ago. The Jews were seen as Danes
who happened to attend a different house of worship. In helping the
Jews, non-Jewish Danes felt they were simply assisting fellow Danes, an
entirely natural and unexceptional thing in their own minds.
Second, democraticsuch societies are a necessary but insufficient
condition for defending against anti-Semitism (or other forms of
racially, religiously, or ethnically motivated hatred). Translating
lofty ideals into daily realities requires many things, not least the
exercise of political leadership. And this is where we meet head-on the
challenge of what works and what doesn't.
Let me explain this point at some length because it is especially
important. Political leaders set the tone for a country. By their
actions or inactions, by their words or silence, by their engagement or
indifference, they are able to send messages of one kind or another to
the nation as a whole.
With few exceptions, leaders in Europe in recent years have fallen
short when it comes to confronting anti-Semitism.
It's hardly worth considering the role of leaders in those Muslim
countries where the problem is most virulent because they've either
been encouraging anti-Semitism, perhaps with just a wink and a nod, or
else they've lacked the courage and will to tackle it. In any case,
democracy, pluralism, and equality before the law are rare commodities
in such places.
Still, I can't help but wonder what would happen if a prominent
Arab leader like President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt would wake up one
morning and decided that enough is enough--anti-Semitism is not only
wrong, but a stain on the Arab self-image of tolerance and moderation--
and lead a campaign in the Arab world against those who demonize and
otherwise dehumanize Jews. The effect would be electrifying. Dream on,
you probably say, and I can't argue with you, but hope does spring
eternal.
In Europe, with few exceptions, leaders in recent years have fallen
short when it comes to confronting anti-Semitism.
Take the case of Lech Walesa, the hero of the Solidarity movement.
In 1995, as president of democratic Poland, he attended a church
service at a Catholic church in Gdansk. The priest, Rev. Henryk
Jankowski, a known anti-Semite, did not disappoint. He referred to the
Star of David as ``associated with the symbols of the swastika as well
as the hammer and sickle,'' and that wasn't the half of it.
What did President Walesa do in response? Did he walk out of the
sermon? Did he issue a statement immediately after the service? Did he
disassociate himself from Father Jankowski? No, none of the above.
Instead, he simply chose to remain silent.
The American Jewish Committee met with President Walesa shortly
after this incident took place. It was a revealing session.
We pressed the Polish leader to speak out and quickly. We argued
that any further delay would only reinforce the image that Father
Jankowski's venomous remarks were acceptable to Walesa and that such
unabashed expressions of anti-Semitism were, as a consequence,
legitimate in mainstream Polish society.
He pushed back, contending that he knew Father Jankowski well
enough to know that he was not an anti-Semite and, furthermore, there
was no point in turning a small incident into a national story.
We responded that the presence of the Polish president in the
church during such a sermon made it, by definition, a national, indeed,
an international, story. and the onus was on Walesa to repudiate the
priest's bigotry.
Our message, we feared, fell on deaf ears. We left the meeting
feeling we had utterly failed in our mission.
Ten days after the sermon, though, and with pressure coming from
the U.S. and Israeli governments, the president grudgingly issued a
statement, but the damage had been done. A not-so-subtle message had
already been sent to the people of Poland. And, in any case, there was
no specific condemnation of the priest, only some general words about
Walesa's repugnance of anti-Semitism and his appreciation of the Star
of David.
Or take the case of Jacques Chirac, the French president. No one
who knows him would ever suggest that he harbors any anti-Semitic
feelings. To the contrary, he has always demonstrated friendship for
the French Jewish community, even if his foreign policy is heavily
tilted toward the Arab world.
Yet this leader, who had the courage in 1995 to accept French
responsibility for the crimes of Vichy--something none of his
predecessors had done--was painfully slow to react to the wave of anti-
Semitic attacks that hit France starting in the fall of 2000.
And, to be fair, since there was a government of ``cohabitation''
between Chirac and Lionel Jospin, the prime minister at the time and a
Chirac foe, Jospin's cabinet was no quicker to respond than the
president. Yet Jospin, like Chirac, was known as a friend of the Jewish
community.
Why, then, the delayed reflexes when these leaders must have
understood that not only Jews were under attacked, but--and this point
must be emphasized again and again--the highest values of democratic
France as well?
Whatever the reasons, and there is much speculation about them, the
bottom line is that, however unintentionally, inevitably, a message was
sent out to the perpetrators--North African youth living in the suburbs
of major French cities--that their despicable acts were not taken
terribly seriously. The result: they concluded they could act with
impunity.
Incidentally, in the past year since a new prime minister and
cabinet have taken office, a very different--and much tougher--message
has been projected, especially by the Mminister of the Iinterior,
responsible for law enforcement, and the Mminister of Eeducation. Some
positive results have been achieved, even if though the challenge is
enormous, and the French Jewish community at least no longer feels a
sense of total abandonment by the government.
Let me offer one other example, though it involves only indirectly
non- Jews. Nonetheless, it is instructive.
Beginning in the early 1990s, shortly after German unification,
right-wing violence against so-called foreigners erupted. The towns of
Rostock, Molln, Hoyerswerda, and Solingen became synonymous with
expressions of hatred. In Solingen, for example, five women of Turkish
origin were killed when skinheads torched a home. And in Rostock, not
only was a shelter for foreigners, mostly Vietnamese and Romanian
gypsies, burned to the ground, but many town residents took to the
streets and openly encouraged the right-wing extremists.
Chancellor Helmut Kohl, a decent man who skillfully presided over
the mammoth task of German unification, underestimated the significance
of these tragic events.
Rather than speak out forcefully and seek opportunities to identify
with the targeted victims, thereby sending a message of inclusion and
compassion to the nation, he adopted a low profile, to put it
charitably. When the American Jewish Committee and others urged the
chancellor to be more visible, a spokesman indicated that Kohl did not
engage in ``condolence tourism.'' I wish he had.
I could offer many more examples.
It's striking how many times we've raised the issue of anti-Semitis
with European leaders in the last couple of years, and raised the issue
of anti-Semitism, only to be told, in the case of a European Union
commissioner, that she was ``unaware of its existence,'' or, in the
case of a foreign minister, that there was no evidence of anti-
Semitism, even as a poll had just come out indicating that anti-Semitic
stereotypes were a serious problem indeed in his country. Why the blind
spot? Why the denial? Again, there are several possible explanations,
none of which offers any reassurance.
By way of contrast, Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister,
challenged his compatriots to confront the problem of anti-Semitism
frontally. In a newspaper article he wrote:
Do we actually comprehend what Nazi barbarism and its genocidal
anti-Semitism did to us, to Germany, its people and its
culture? What Hitler and the Nazis did to Germany's Jews they
did first and foremost to Germans, to Germans of the Jewish
faith! Albert Einstein was as much a German as was Max Planck.
. . . That is why the question whether German Jews feel secure
in our democracy and, though even today this can only be a
hope, might one day be able to feel ``at home'' in it again, is
not a minor one, but a question par excellence about the
credibility of German democracy.
More such thoughtful and courageous statements from political
leaders, bolstered by appropriate actions, are precisely what's are
needed. In America, perhaps, we've come to expect them, as when our
government publicly condemned the rash of anti-Semitic canards blaming
Jews for 9/11 or, just before, boycotted the hate fest under UN
auspices at Durban. But elsewhere, at least when it comes to Jews, such
statements and actions have been far less frequent or forceful.
Frankly, given Europe's historical record, it should be precisely
these countries--knowing as they do where the slippery slope of hatred
can lead--which assume worldwide leadership in the struggle against the
cancer of anti-Semitism. Wouldn't that send a powerful message about
learning from the past? We've challenged many European leaders to play
just such a role, but admittedly with only limited success to date.
The words of Soren Kierkegaard, the nineteenth-century Danish
philosopher, ought to serve as a useful reminder: ``Life must be lived
forward, but can only be understood backward.''
The third area for consideration is the role of law, law
enforcement, and the judiciary.
This gets tricky, I realize. American and European laws on what
constitutes a punishable crime in the realm of incitement can be quite
different. There are varying approaches to the proper balance between
protecting free speech and criminalizing the propagation of racial or
religious hatred.
For instance, a number of European countries, including Austria,
Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland, have laws that make
denial of the Holocaust a criminal offense, whereas the United States
does not.
As one illustration, Switzerland adopted a law in 1994 that outlaws
``public denial, trivialization and disputation of genocide or other
crimes against humanity,'' with a maximum prison sentence of three
years.
Ironically, we hear persistent complaints from countries like
Austria and Germany that much of their anti-Semitic material, including
video games and books, originates in the United States. The problem has
only grown more acute because of the rapidly increasing popularity of
the Internet. We are often asked if there isn't a way around First
Amendment protections to stop these unwelcome American ``exports.''
Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, as we learned in a recent meeting
with the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State:
It is an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting
words or behavior with intent or likelihood to stir up racial
hatred against anyone on the grounds of color, race,
nationality, or ethnic or national origins. Under recent anti-
terrorism legislation, the maximum penalty for the offense was
increased from two to seven years' imprisonment. Under the same
legislation, it is also now an offense to stir up hatred
against a racial group abroad, such as Jews in Israel [emphasis
added].''
The range of ways in which democratic, law-based societies seek to
deal with hate speech and hate crimes could fill volumes, as would an
evaluation of such efforts.
Moreover, there is an entire body of international conventions (and
organizations) to consider in the struggle against anti-Semitism.
The Soviet Jewry movement relied heavily on such instruments as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Helsinki Final Act to
buttress the case for the rights of Jews in the USSR.
So, too, do we need to consider as tools the protections enshrined
in documents like the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination and the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights. Article 20 of the latter document, as one example, includes the
following language: ``Any advocacy of national, racial, or religious
hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or
violence shall be prohibited by law.''
One recent and effective use of an international organization was
the two-day meeting in Vienna devoted to anti-Semitism that was
convened by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Importantly, there is agreement among the governments involved to
gather again next year.
The topic of national and international law and covenants, touched
on only briefly here, is unquestionably important. In the final
analysis, it goes without saying, what really counts is not just the
laws and mechanisms on the books, significant though they may be, but
the degree of commitment to their implementation and enforcement.
Fourth, there is the media, which, as we all well know, plays an
extraordinarily powerful role not only in shaping individual attitudes,
but also in influencing the public policy agenda and priorities of
decision-makers. As someone once suggested, ``If CNN didn't report on
it, did it ever actually happen?''
In parts of the Muslim world, of course, the media, whether in
government or private hands, or the murky space in between, is a
convenient vehicle for propagating anti-Semitism. Professor Robert
Wistrich, an expert on anti-Semitism and the author of a superb
monograph for the American Jewish Committee entitled ``Muslim Anti-
Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger,'' offers several examples of the
media's role in peddling unadulterated anti-Semitism.
In Europe over the past three years, there have also been numerous
documented instances of anti-Semitic images and stereotypes seeping
into mainstream, not fringe, outlets.
Among the most disturbing developments were during the period of
the Church of the Nativity standoff, when some newspapers reawakened
the deicide charge--finally put to bed by the Catholic Church, in 1965,
at Vatican Council II--and, more generally, the transference of Nazi
images onto Israel, with the Israeli prime minister equated with the
Fuehrer, the Israeli military likened to the Wehrmacht or even the SS,
and the West Bank represented as an Israeli-run concentration camp.
Such depictions go well beyond any conceivable legitimate criticism
of Israel to something far deeper and more pernicious, and must not be
left unchallenged.
Here in the United States, while there have been some distressing
images, my principal concern has more to do with belated--and
insufficient--reporting on anti-Semitism in the Arab world as well as
its reemergence in Europe. The media must be helped to understand the
significance and newsworthiness of these issues. It's certainly not a
lost cause, but it is an uphill battle.
To be sure, there have been stories here and there and the
occasional column or editorial. But they have been relatively few and
far between. I was especially struck by the lack of media interest in
the Wistrich study, which, incidentally, makes for hair-raising
reading.
Released at a press conference at the National Press Club in May
2002, it generated only a few articles, all in the Jewish or Israeli
press. A Reuters reporter covered the event and filed a long story,
but, we later learned, her editors apparently didn't find the topic of
sufficient interest. One wonders what it would take to capture their
attention on the subject. And this is not the only such example,
either.
The study of Saudi textbooks, cosponsored by the American Jewish
Committee and released in January 2003, met essentially the same fate.
The major media outlets never reported on what was the first detailed
report documenting the hatred and contempt of the West that Saudi
children are taught from Grade One. Is this not deemed relevant to a
fuller understanding both of 9/11 and the larger war on international
terrorism?
Fifth, there is the role of the ``values'' community, including
religious, ethnic, racial, and human rights leaders and their
institutions.
Ideally, each of these actors should regard an assault on any one
constituency, e.g., an anti-Semitic or racist incident, as an attack on
all--and on the kind of world we are seeking to create--and respond
forcefully. In a way, without wishing to stretch the analogy, it would
be akin to a NATO member seeking support from other members under
Article 5, which deems an attack on one as an attack against all.
Alas, there is no charter binding the values community, although
there is an important provision in the Fundamental Agreement between
the Holy See and the State of Israel, signed in December 1993, which
might provide a model. Article 2 includes the following language:
The Holy See and the State of Israel are committed to appropriate
cooperation in combating all forms of anti-Semitism and all kinds of
racism and of religious intolerance, and in promoting mutual
understanding among nations, tolerance among communities and respect
for human life and dignity.
Virtually identical language could be used to create a charter for
nongovernmental organizations committed to advancing human relations
and mutual respect. What's needed, in effect, is a Coalition of
Conscience in the voluntary sector.
Meanwhile, there are best-practice examples that can help guide us.
Shockingly, a cinder block was thrown through a bedroom window
displaying a Chanukah menorah in Billings, Montana, ten years ago. It
was the room of a five-year-old boy. Fortunately, he wasn't hurt. What
followed was quite remarkable.
Led by local church leaders, the police chief, and the editor of
the Billings Gazette, the town, previously quite apathetic, responded
by placing thousands of paper menorahs in the windows of shops and
homes. It was an exceptional and effective way of reacting. It said to
the hate mongers: We are one community and we will not allow you to
divide us.
In the same spirit, responding to the wave of arson attacks
targeting African-American churches in the south in the 1990s, the
American Jewish Committee joined with the National Council of Churches
and the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, in a display of
ecumenical partnership, to raise millions of dollars to rebuild the
damaged houses of worship. Moreover, AJC adopted the Gay's Hill Baptist
Church in Millen, Georgia, and helped construct it from the ground up
after it was completely destroyed in an act of hate.
The concept of a Coalition of Conscience also explains why the
American Jewish Committee sent a delegation to a mosque in Cologne,
Germany, in 1993 to attend the funerals of the five women of Turkish
origin killed in their home in Solingen, and why, more recently, we
chose to mobilize our resources to assist Muslim victims of Serbia's
ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.
Every major religion has a variation of the golden rule. As Rabbi
Abraham Joshua Heschel once remarked, ``We are commanded to love our
neighbor: this must mean that we can.'' We can, but do we?
Words are important, but timely and principled actions are what
really count. And those within each faith tradition committed to the
values of compassion and concern for all must lead the way.
Sixth, there is the long-term and irreplaceable role of education.
As the Southern Poverty Law Center put it:
Bias is learned in childhood. By the age of three, children
are aware of racial differences and may have the perception
that ``white'' is desirable. By the age of 12, they hold
stereotypes about numerous ethnic, racial, and religious
groups, according to the Leadership Conference Education Fund.
Because stereotypes underlie hate, and half of all hate crimes
are committed by young men under 20, tolerance education is
critical.
About 10 percent of hate crimes occur in schools and
colleges, but schools can be an ideal environment to counter
bias. Schools mix youths of different backgrounds, place them
on equal footing and allow one-on-one interaction. Children are
naturally curious about people who are different.
There are a number of tested and successful school-based programs
designed to teach mutual respect. Incidentally, I'm not a big fan of
using the word ``tolerance'' in this particular case; it strikes me as
rather weak. The goal should not be simply to teach people to
``tolerate'' one another, but, ideally, to respect and understand one
another.
That said, organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center,
Facing History, the Anti-Defamation League, and the American Jewish
Committee have all developed acclaimed programs used in schools across
the U.S. and, increasingly, in other countries where diversity is a
factor in the population, which these days is just about everywhere.
And the State of New Jersey has led the way in creating a curriculum
based on the lessons of the Holocaust for all high-school students.
The challenge in the United States, given its vast size and
decentralized school system, is to reach enough schools, then to get a
long-term commitment to inclusion of such programs in the curriculum.
Moreover, there is a need, of course, for adequate teacher training and
also for monitoring impact, both over the short term and the longer
term as well.
In addition to such programs, the American Jewish Committee has
developed another model for schools. Named the Catholic/Jewish
Educational Enrichment Program, or C/JEEP, it links Catholic and Jewish
parochial schools in several American cities. Priests and rabbis visit
each other's schools to break down barriers and familiarize students
with basic elements of the two faith traditions. Students who might
otherwise never meet have an opportunity to come to know one another.
The goal is to ``demystify'' and ``humanize'' the ``other,'' and it
works.
Again, as with the curriculum-based programs, the biggest challenge
here is the sheer number of schools and the resources involved--not to
mention the occasional bureaucratic hurdle--in order to reach anything
approaching a critical mass of students.
(It remains to be seen what impact Mel Gibson's upcoming film,
``The Passion,'' will have on Catholic attitudes toward Jews, but,
given current reports, it is hardly likely to be positive.)
One more word on education. When schools in Saudi Arabia or
madrassas in Pakistan teach contempt, distrust, or hatred of others, be
they Christians, Jews, or Hindus, or, for that matter women, we face a
whole other challenge.
Shining the spotlight of exposure on these school systems is vital,
which is why the American Jewish Committee cosponsored the Saudi study.
Sharing the information with governments that have influence in these
countries is necessary. For instance, Saudi spin doctors talk of the
``enduring values'' between their country and the United States.
Surely, then, that gives Washington some leverage in Riyadh. And from
our long experience in dealing with problematic curricula and
textbooks, perseverance is the key; Things seldom happen overnight.
Seventh, there is the role of the individual. In a more perfect
world, the combination of family environment, education, religious
upbringing, and popular culture all lead in the same direction--to
molding individuals with a strong commitment to the values of mutual
respect and mutual understanding, social responsibility, and moral
courage.
Our world is far from perfect. We may never succeed in completely
eliminating anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred. Still, we must
always strive to build the kinds of societies in which the altruistic
personalities of the good women and men of Denmark, or the French
village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon (described as ``the safest place in
[Nazi-occupied] Europe for Jews''), or the likes of an Abraham Joshua
Heschel, Jan Karski, Raoul Wallenberg, Martin Luther King, Jr., or
Andrei Sakharov, are increasingly the norm, not the exception.
As I look around today, I see countless decent people, whether in
the United States or elsewhere, who reject any form of anti-Semitism.
But, frankly, there are too few prominent non-Jews of the likes of a
Per Ahlmark, the former deputy prime minister of Sweden, prepared to
speak out on the danger posed by contemporary anti-Semitism.
And finally, in the struggle against anti-Semitism, new or old, we
must take into account the key role of the Jewish world, including the
State of Israel and local, national, and international Jewish
organizations.
The Jewish community looks radically different than it did, say,
sixty or seventy years ago. Today, there is an Israel; then, there was
not. Today, there are sophisticated, savvy, and well-connected Jewish
institutions; then, Jewish institutions were much less confident and
sure-footed.
Collectively, we have the capacity to track trends in anti-
Semitism, exchange information on a timely basis with other interested
parties, reach centers of power, build alliances within and across
borders, and consider the best mix of diplomatic, political, legal, and
other strategies for countering troubling developments.
We may not succeed in each and every case. But we've come a very
long way thanks to a steely determination, in Israel and the Diaspora,
to fight vigorously against anti-Semitism, while simultaneously helping
to build a world in which anti-Semitism--and everything it stands for--
is in irreversible decline.
APPENDIX C
Testimony of Ambassador Alfred H. Moses, Former President, American
Jewish Committee, before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, On ``Combating anti-Semitism in the OSCE Region.''--December
10, 2002
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to thank you for the privilege of addressing this
inter-parliamentary forum on behalf of the American Jewish Committee
and its more than 125,000 members and supporters.
As a Past President of the American Jewish Committee and current
Chairman of its Geneva-based UN Watch institute, and as an American
with a record of four decades of service to my country and to the
causes it champions around the world, I have viewed the resurgence of
anti-Semitism in Europe the past two years with alarm.
Prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, I visited Europe
regularly to assist in the flight of Jews and Christians from Communist
oppression, particularly in Romania, where I later served as U.S.
Ambassador.
While anti-Jewish sentiment was still apparent after World War II,
it was visibly and encouragingly in decline in the ensuing decades,
only to reemerge in the last few years in forms not previously seen. We
are witnessing a reemergence of anti-Semitism that has left many
European Jews feeling more vulnerable and, as a consequence,
disillusioned and even more frightened than at any time since the
Holocaust.
Mr. Chairman, the past two years have seen hundreds of aggressive,
often violent, acts targeting Jewish individuals and institutions in
the OSCE region.
Just last Wednesday night, 300 skinheads interrupted a Chanukah
candle-lighting ceremony in downtown Budapest for over an hour with
shouts of ``Hungary is for Hungarians, and it's better that those who
are not Hungarians leave.''
In Ukraine earlier this year, 50 youths marched two miles to attack
a synagogue in Kiev, where they beat the Lubavitch principal of a
yeshiva.
In France, the problem has been particularly acute. Scores of
synagogues and Jewish day schools have been firebombed and desecrated.
In the month of April 2002 alone, the French Jewish community reported
119 anti-Semitic acts and 448 anti-Semitic threats--while the
Government was dismissing these outrages as simple acts of vandalism.
In Belgium, where politically motivated legal proceedings (now
dismissed) have been brought against Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon, the Chief Rabbi and a friend were assaulted and spit upon by a
gang as they left a restaurant.
In Denmark, the widely circulated newspaper, Jutland Posten, ran a
radical Islamic group's offer of a $35,000 reward for the murder of a
prominent Danish Jew.
In Germany, morbid reminders of the Holocaust have appeared in the
form of slogans like ``Six million is not enough,'' which was scrawled
on the walls of synagogues in Berlin and elsewhere. Jewish memorials
have been defaced with swastikas, Jews have been attacked in the
streets--leading some German municipal officials to warn Jews not to
wear identifiable Jewish symbols.
In Greece, newspapers have bombarded readers with anti-Semitic
editorials and cartoons comparing the Israeli military operation in
Jenin--where false cries of ``massacre'' have since been disproven--to
the Holocaust and likening Prime Minister Sharon to Adolph Hitler. Such
polemics reached a fevered pitch of hysteria and antisemitism in
Greece.
These manifestations of Jew-hatred are rooted in a tradition of
anti-Semitism that has plagued Europe for centuries. The historic,
theologically based Judeophobia gave way to an ethno-centric
nationalism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in which Jews
were viewed as an alien presence in the states of Europe, leading to
suspicion, vilification, exclusion, expulsion and, ultimately, for two-
thirds of the Jews of Europe, extermination.
The historical anti-Semitism of Europe has been given new life by
voices on both the political right and the left. There are a number of
factors at work here:
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and its distorted image in
much of the popular media in Europe, has provided a pretext for
anti-Semitic characterizations of Israel and its leaders and
attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions.
Israel, closely identified with the United States, has
become a surrogate target for anti-American and anti-
globalization protests--making Jew-bashing an all-too-common
mode of attack.
Holocaust restitution issues have opened much that was long
dormant--both bank accounts and anti-Semitic feelings.
Those right-wing parties that have always been anti-Semitic
at their roots have gained new vigor in Europe by playing on
anti-immigrant and anti-foreigner sentiments, which easily
spill over into anti-Semitism. Jean-Marie Le Pen and Joerg
Haider may be the best-known proponents of these views--but
lesser-known and just as dangerous political personalities are
on the rise in other Western European states.
These factors have provided traditional antisemites with new
intellectual cover to rationalize their anti-Semitism--and swell the
ranks of the new forces of hate.
Comments such as the reference by the French ambassador to Britain,
who described Israel with a well-reported epithet not to be repeated
here, or the criticism by a Swiss politician of ``international
Judaism'' in the wake of the Swiss bank negotiations, are but examples,
as are the words of a Liberal member of Britain's House of Lords:
``Well, the Jews have been asking for it and now, thank God, we can say
what we think at last.''
I know from my personal experience that anti-Semitism is never far
below the surface in Central and Eastern Europe. Openly anti-Semitic
political figures--among them Vadim Tudor of Romania, Vladimir
Zhirinovsky of Russia, and Istfan Czurka of Hungary--are among the
names most familiar to this Commission, but they are not alone.
Against this backdrop, the pronounced growth of Europe's Arab and
Muslim population presents another factor. The Muslim community in
Europe today may number close to 20 million. In France alone, some six
million inhabitants with roots in the Maghreb region of North Africa
are not integrated into French society nor held to the same standards
when it comes to acts of violence. It is generally understood that most
of the recent attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions in France have
been carried out by members of this community.
Arabic-language cable TV networks such as Al Jazeera, print
publications, and Internet sites, which offer predictably one-sided,
inflammatory coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, are also
spreading virulent anti-Semitism. The Arabic media is awash in a
``tidal wave of antisemitism,'' according to Professor Robert Wistrich
in an American Jewish Committee report, Muslim Anti-Semitism: A Clear
and Present Danger. These outlets employ primitive Jewish stereotypes
in service of their anti-Zionist message, often borrowing symbols and
motifs from Nazi propaganda. Thus, one sees images of Jews as ghoulish,
even satanic, caricatures with misshapen noses, and of Israelis bearing
swastikas or drinking the blood of children. During the Ramadan that
just ended, Arabic communities were treated to satellite broadcasts
from Cairo and throughout the Middle East of a televised version of the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Today, Arabic editions of Mein Kampf
sell briskly in London and other European capitals.
Sadly, many officials in the OSCE region persist in viewing anti-
Semitism as a purely political phenomenon related to the Middle East
conflict; once the Middle East conflict subsides, violence against
Jews, they claim, will also diminish. They have refused to recognize
the severity of the problem as a longstanding issue of hate, racism,
discrimination and, ultimately, human rights. Too often, they have
failed to speak out against anti-Semitism with a pragmatism, intensity
and a conviction that the current situation demands. They have also
ignored the way in which the ``new anti-Semitism'' uses criticism of
Israel and Israeli practices as a justification for acts of violence
against Jews. As I stated at the outset, the problem of anti-Semitism
today is more acute than it has been in decades.
There are exceptions to the prevailing lack of official will and
vision in confronting anti-Semitism--few, unfortunately, as inspiring
as that offered by German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer. But since
many leaders in the OSCE region still cannot accept the gravity of
present circumstances, they need to hear often and emphatically from
U.S. officials, in the Administration and in the Congress, that anti-
Semitism is again a serious problem in Europe, one that they must
address. The United States has a great deal of positive influence at
its disposal, and should use it.
The most recent round of NATO enlargement, announced at the Prague
Summit last month, provided an example of the constructive role that
the U.S. can play in this arena. Thanks to America's determined
insistence over the past decade, governments in Central and Eastern
Europe understand that they must address problems related to their
Holocaust-era past before they can finally join NATO. The actions these
countries have taken in this regard are directly connected to the NATO
aspirations of their governments. For example, Romania--one of the
seven republics formally invited to NATO accession talks last month,
and a country I know well--has officially rejected the rehabilitation
of its fascist war-time dictator, Marshal Antonescu, while the
government has instituted a Holocaust studies program at its military
academy in Bucharest and a course on tolerance at the University of
Cluj, long a hotbed of Romanian-Hungarian tension--and even violence.
As Romania and the other six countries slated for NATO accession in
2004 undergo further review in the lead-up to ratification, the United
States must remain vigilant lest these governments backslide on these
issues. The Prague Summit is not the end; the Administration and the
Congress must continue to hold these countries accountable in combating
anti-Semitism and should encourage their ongoing efforts at Holocaust
education and commemoration.
At the same time, the European Union should be encouraged to hold
EU-aspirant countries to the same standard as that structure enlarges.
Germany, as the country with the greatest awareness of the Holocaust
and of the dangers of anti-Semitism, has a special responsibility in
this regard.
Through its membership in OSCE--its ``seat at the table'' of a
multilateral organization centered in Europe--the United States should
work with EU member-states to make the problem of anti-Semitism a top
priority.
Inter-governmental mechanisms such as the Council of Europe's
European Commission on Racism and Intolerance and the European Union
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia have not effectively
addressed the scourge of anti-Semitic acts. The United States and
Germany have already shown leadership to overcome this failure.
The resolution adopted at the Parliamentary Assembly in Berlin was
the key step initiated by you, Congressman Smith, together with German
Parliamentarian Gert Weisskirchen, to mobilize participating states.
Later, U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE Stephan Minikes led the way in
Warsaw and beyond to garner support for the first-ever separate OSCE
meeting on anti-Semitism, which we expect to take place in 2003. By
focusing on the issue through an international forum, national experts
and policy-makers will be able to create a system to assess and analyze
the origins of anti-Semitism in order to build the legal and
educational standards to eradicate the scourge.
Mr. Chairman, only last week Jews around the world marked the
holiday of Chanukah, a festival that celebrates the triumph of freedom
over tyranny--in which leadership made the critical difference. In our
lifetimes, we have seen freedom's hard-won victory over oppression
across Europe--vanquishing Nazism and throwing off the yoke of
Communism. And we have seen the unique, irreplaceable role of political
leadership in these struggles.
I recall, twenty years ago, celebrating Chanukah with my then-young
daughters in a small Romanian village deep in the Carpathian Mountains.
As we marked the Festival of Lights with our Romanian brethren, a
menacing group marched on the synagogue in darkness. Suddenly, a
Romanian police force appeared, turned back the mob--and saved this
small remnant of Romanian Jewry that had gathered to light the lights
of Chanukah. Violence was averted by official action, and the Chanukah
celebration continued on.
Mr. Chairman, the history that befell European Jewry in my lifetime
is a tragic one. With anti-Semitism now at its greatest peak since the
most tragic of all human episodes, the Holocaust, let us be mindful of
this history. Let us speak out; let us use our influence; let us
remember the price of inaction or denial; and let us act now.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you for your very strong statement,
and we will stand strong for freedom on this committee, and I
know I speak for my colleagues, as well. In Virginia, we call
religious freedom the first freedom, since Mr. Jefferson
authored the Declaration, the Statute of Religious Freedom, and
we're very proud of that. And thank you for your strong
statement.
Now, we're going to conclude the panel with Mr. Levin.
STATEMENT OF MARK B. LEVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWRY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, it is also my privilege to appear
before you today.
I ask that my full prepared statement be entered into the
record.
Senator Allen. It will be.
And, Mr. Harris, your full statement and recommendations
are in the record, as well.
Mr. Levin. As you know, NCSJ is an umbrella organization of
nearly 50 national agencies, including the ADL and the American
Jewish Committee, and over 300 local community federations and
community councils across the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing the
leadership you have demonstrated since assuming the helm of
this subcommittee, as reflected by your initiative in calling
this hearing. I also want to recognize the leadership and
commitment of your colleagues, who I'm sorry aren't here right
now, but I've had the privilege of working with Senator Biden
and Senator Sarbanes for more than 20 years on the plight of
Jews in the now former Soviet Union, but on human rights issues
in general, and with Senator Voinovich over the last couple of
years. And it's through the commitment of you and your
colleagues that we've been able to move forward on so many
issues. And that's why, again, it is a privilege to be here.
My testimony will focus on governmental responses to anti-
Semitism, region-wide efforts at coordination, and how the
United States can play, and is playing, an instrumental role.
American leadership has already advanced the campaign
against European anti-Semitism in significant ways. By
facilitating a new consensus to support concerted action,
primarily through the OSCE, the U.S. Government and Congress
have begun breaking down the excuses for inaction.
The Senate has an opportunity to continue the U.S. role in
ensuring respect for human rights at home and abroad. This
committee can help dispel the myth that anti-Semitism is a
consequence of Israeli or American policies.
Fittingly, several post-Soviet states have demonstrated
their early support for the OSCE initiative. Some of these
societies harbor endemic anti-Semitism, but they are taking
steps to confront and neutralize it, to educate the public, and
protect minorities from popular or politically motivated
threats. Most still have a distance to travel, but they realize
the imperative.
Last June, in Vienna, the OSCE launched a new framework
that explicitly recognizes anti-Semitism as a distinct human-
rights concern and a real threat to regional stability. This
historic step would have been impossible without strong support
from Capitol Hill, including Senator Voinovich's intervention
at a particularly critical moment.
It is vital to begin collecting information and proposals
from all 55 OSCE participating states--now--so that the data on
anti-Semitic hate crimes, constructive legislation, and
education and media initiatives can be assembled in time for
next spring's OSCE conference in Berlin. It is vital that the
United States sustain this momentum with high-level
representation at the OSCE ministerial in December, ideally by
Secretary of State Powell.
Government response to anti-Semitism in the successor
states has been improving during the past few years. Several
countries, with a long history of anti-Semitism, have
undertaken efforts to implement laws against incitement, to
speak out against anti-Semitism, and to promote research and
education regarding Jewish heritage, the holocaust, and
tolerance. But many difficulties remain.
While official or state anti-Semitism has been relegated to
the past, popular anti-Semitism persists. Even leaders who
speak out strongly against anti-Semitic rhetoric or activities
often avoid repudiating anti-Semitic speeches by political
allies and challengers.
We hold the leaders responsible, not for the sentiments of
their constituents, but for their commitment to impacting those
sentiments. To be truly free societies, whether in France or
Russia, anti-Semitism cannot be considered a risk-free
political device. There must be consequences, be they legal,
political, or social.
Important elections are approaching in Russia and Ukraine.
In the past, politicians in both of these countries have been
tempted to resort to anti-Semitic appeals to further their
standing in the polls. We are watching the situation very
closely. It is our hope that we don't see a repeat of what we
have seen in past parliamentary and Presidential elections in
both of these countries.
In several countries, government officials still tend to
classify anti-Semitic violence as hooliganism rather than anti-
Semitism. Belarus has a mixed record, reflecting the need for
more involvement by the national, regional, and local
authorities in addressing issues of vandalism, cemetery
desecration, and construction over Jewish graves. These
difficulties are only compounded by a sweeping new religion law
which enshrines the Orthodox Church as the preeminent faith. In
the last several weeks, Mr. Chairman, in Belarus, there have
been several anti-Semitic acts, acts of desecration, acts
against Jewish institutions.
Our work is far from complete, and we must not allow the
latest Western European eruption of anti-Semitism to make us
forget about the very real and ongoing societal undercurrent of
anti-Semitism which persists, especially in the former Soviet
Union. Beyond bolstering frameworks like the OSCE, there is
much that we, as a nation, must do to fill them with substance
and content. Some programs and laws that have succeeded at home
may be applicable to situations in Western and Eastern Europe.
We must work with the local communities in the successor states
and elsewhere to tailor our approach as much as to empower
emerging leaders on the ground. Close contact and cooperation
with local activists reinforces their role in society and
enhances the legitimacy of citizen-based advocacy.
The responsibility of the United States, as a nation
steeped in its own history of intolerance, must be to motivate,
but we must also be willing to bear some of the cost of
realizing this investment in humanity. If some of these nations
in the former Soviet Union continue to lag in their democratic
progress, the response should be to increase, rather than
reduce, assistance to non-governmental and citizen groups.
Rather than reducing American-funded broadcasts to Central and
Eastern Europe, these should be broadened and infused with even
greater attention to pluralism and minority issues. Mr.
Chairman, NCSJ and a host of organizations here and abroad know
of the Senate's commitment and effectiveness on this issue.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity and for the
continued leadership that you and your colleagues have shown.
Mr. Chairman, in my prepared statement, I have a series of
recommendations for the OSCE, specifically, and for the U.S.
Government, in general.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark B. Levin, Executive Director, NCSJ:
Advocates on Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States and
Eurasia
Mr. Chairman, Senator Biden and Members of the Subcommittee, it is
my privilege to appear before you today. I am joined here today by my
colleagues, Shai Franklin, NCSJ's Director of Governmental Relations,
and Lesley Weiss, NCSJ's Director of Community Services and Cultural
Affairs.
As you know, NCSJ is an umbrella of nearly 50 national
organizations and over 300 local community federations and community
councils across the United States. We coordinate and represent the
organized American Jewish community on advocacy relating to the former
Soviet Union, and our membership includes the American Jewish
Committee, Anti-Defamation League, B'nai B'rith International,
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, United Jewish
Communities, and many other well-known agencies devoted to promoting
tolerance and combating prejudice and anti-Semitism around the world.
This combined experience and expertise has significantly informed my
comments to you today.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by recognizing the leadership
you have demonstrated since assuming the helm of this Subcommittee, as
reflected by your initiative in calling this hearing. We have long
appreciated Senator Biden's leadership on our issues of concern,
particularly this body's consistent bipartisan commitment to combating
anti-Semitism. I must also pay tribute to Senator Voinovich, whose
personal role during the past two years--including his service on the
U.S. Helsinki Commission--has been instrumental in securing concerted
international coordination on today's topic.
My testimony will focus on governmental responses to anti-Semitism,
region-wide efforts at coordination, and how the United States can play
and is playing an instrumental role.
A major feature of European history--both recent and distant--is
deep-seated anti-Semitism and anti-Jewish violence. The upsurge of
anti-Semitism in Europe during the past two years is often attributed
to Muslim or Middle Eastern communities. The responsibility for law
enforcement and shaping public attitudes, however, resides with
European society as a whole, with European governments, and with
multilateral security and humanitarian agencies. Since the 19th
century, the United States Senate has actively addressed European anti-
Semitism with the understanding that European stability is incompatible
with unchecked popular or state-sponsored anti-Semitism.
Mr. Chairman, American leadership has already advanced the campaign
against European anti-Semitism in significant ways. Europe's
instinctive tendency to address anti-Semitism as a mere manifestation
of broader xenophobia and bigotry, rather than as a distinct and
separate form of human rights violation, is a misreading of history.
Rather than an outgrowth of generalized ethnic hatred, anti-Semitism is
the medieval and modern prototype for the racial and ethnic bigotry
that has sadly become diversified throughout the continent. Only by
addressing anti-Semitism as a unique phenomenon can Europeans begin to
correct the social ills of broad-based xenophobia.
By facilitating a new consensus to support concerted action,
primarily through the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), the United States Government and Congress have begun
breaking down the excuses for inaction. Against the backdrop of U.S.
leadership in the Middle East crisis, and given the history of U.S.
leadership during the decades of Cold War confrontation, the Senate has
an opportunity to continue the U.S. role in ensuring respect for human
rights at home and abroad--focusing on concern for renewed anti-Semitic
violence in Western Europe and the former Soviet Union.
In highlighting the efforts by Members of Congress and the United
States Government, this Committee can help dispel the myth that anti-
Semitism is a consequence of Israeli or American policies, that anti-
Semitism is somehow an outgrowth of newer strains of intolerance, or
that combating anti-Semitism need not be a priority for nations seeking
to emulate the progress of Western nations.
Fittingly, it is such newly democratic nations that have stepped to
the forefront in this cooperative effort. Among the post-Soviet states,
Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Georgia and others
demonstrated their early support. Bulgaria, Poland and Romania,
reemerging from decades of Soviet domination, have also led the way
with the United States, Germany, and a few other Western nations. Some
of these post-Communist societies still harbor endemic anti-Semitism,
but they are taking steps to confront and neutralize it, to educate the
public and protect minorities from popular or politically motivated
threats. Most still have a distance to travel along this path, but they
realize the imperative. They also realize the necessity of
transnational cooperation, and have supported the effort to open a new
track of the historic Helsinki process, one devoted to combating anti-
Semitism.
Last June, at the first-ever OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism,
governments began to share information, ideas and commitments for
combating anti-Semitism at home and throughout the OSCE region, under
the chairmanship of the Netherlands. They did so within a new framework
that implicitly recognizes anti-Semitism as a distinct human rights
concern and a real threat to regional stability. This historic step
would have been impossible without strong support from Capitol Hill,
including Senator Voinovich at a critical point, and in turn the
commitment and talents of American diplomats including former Special
Envoy for Holocaust Issues Randolph Bell, and Stephan Minikes, U.S.
Ambassador to the OSCE. The leadership and presence of former New York
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani set the tone for delegations from the other 54
participating states.
Concretizing this break with ``business as usual'' means providing
an effective mandate through this winter's OSCE Ministerial Council,
setting a high profile for next year's Berlin conference on anti-
Semitism, assigning a specific responsibility within the Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), and ongoing
consultation and oversight among participating States. It is vital to
begin collecting information and proposals from all 55 OSCE
participating states now, so that data on anti-Semitic hate crimes,
constructive legislation and education and media initiatives can be
assembled in time for next spring's conference in Berlin. It is vital
that the United States sustain this momentum with high-level
representation at the Maastricht Ministerial in December, and by giving
all possible support to the new and well-qualified Special Envoy,
Ambassador-Designate Edward O'Donnell.
FORMER SOVIET UNION
Government response to anti-Semitism in the successor states has
been improving during the past few years. Several countries with a long
history of anti-Semitism have undertaken efforts to implement laws
against incitement, to speak out against anti-Semitism, and to promote
research and education regarding Jewish heritage, the Holocaust, and
tolerance.
While official or state anti-Semitism has been relegated to the
past, political anti-Semitism by individual parliamentarians and local
officials persists. Even leaders who speak out strongly against anti-
Semitic rhetoric or activities often avoid repudiating anti-Semitic
speeches by political allies and challengers. We hold the leaders
responsible, not for the sentiments of their constituents but for their
commitment to impacting those sentiments. To be truly free societies,
whether in France or Russia, anti-Semitism cannot be considered a risk-
free political device. There must be consequences, be they legal,
political, or social.
In past elections in Russia and Ukraine, media and politicians have
been tempted to resort to anti-Semitic appeals. As both countries
prepare to enter a new cycle of national elections, we look to the
leadership of these countries, their parliaments and political parties
to act responsibly and to strongly denounce any appeals to anti-
Semitism. Delaying a response until after the election only reinforces
the impression that anti-Semitism is a safe campaign tactic.
Even in countries like Ukraine, where public anti-Semitism is rare
and the state has supported the Jewish community revival and prosecutes
perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence, officials still tend to classify
such crimes as ``hooliganism'' rather than anti-Semitism.
Belarus has a mixed record, reflecting the need for more
involvement by the national government in encouraging regional and
local authorities to address issues of vandalism, cemetery desecration,
and construction over Jewish graves: at Grodno and Mozer, where new
construction is unearthing Jewish remains as I speak; at the Yama
memorial in the Minsk ghetto, where vandals defaced prominent memorial
sculptures and plaques; at the Kuropaty gravesite, where then-President
Clinton dedicated a memorial bench that has since been damaged twice;
at Gomel, where Jewish remains are being unearthed to make room for new
Christian burials. These difficulties are only compounded by a sweeping
new religion law, which enshrines the Orthodox Church as the pre-
eminent faith.
Dr. Yevgeny Satanovsky, President of the Russian Jewish Congress,
recently complained that anti-Semitic media and extremists from Western
Europe are inspiring a new wave of anti-Semitism in his country. Russia
certainly has its own indigenous forms of anti-Semitism, but Western
European nations must recognize that anti-Semitism is a cross-border
phenomenon, particularly as the European Union consolidates and
expands. And Western neglect and excuses for popular anti-Semitism send
a dangerous signal to the East that anti-Semitism is acceptable in
modern society. Fortunately, U.S. leadership and post-Communist
vigilance are beginning to challenge the complacency and remind
governments of their obligations to their citizens and neighbors.
What positive example can Western Europe offer to its eastern
neighbors? Surely, many cultural and political accomplishments come to
mind. Yet, when it comes to sensitivity on minority issues, sadly,
Western Europe has taken too much for granted. Thus it is not
surprising that Russians can defend restrictions on minority faiths by
pointing to comparable practices in France, Belgium, and Germany. Nor
is it surprising when successor states defend votes in favor of anti-
Israel and seemingly anti-Semitic United Nations resolutions by
claiming to follow ``the Western European example.''
Mr. Chairman, when I testified before a similar hearing of this
Subcommittee in April 2000, I quoted former Czech President Vaclav
Havel, who has written: ``The time of hard, everyday work has come, a
time in which conflicting interests have surfaced, a time for sobering
up, a time when all of us--and especially those in politics--must make
it very clear what we stand for.'' Havel and I were both referring to
the so-called ``new'' democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, but
events of the past two years necessitate a broader reading.
We do not judge post-Communist governments by what they found among
the shards of Soviet tyranny, we judge them by their commitment to
moving forward. We hold them accountable for efforts to condition
public attitudes through education and public statements, and we
challenge them to enact and enforce laws to protect minorities and
others. How can we afford to hold Western governments to a lower
standard?
At a March 2002 conference in Bucharest, organized by the American
Jewish Committee, Latvian Jewish leader Gregory Krupnikov remarked,
``There is no state anti-Semitism. Obviously there is some level of
public `street' anti-Semitism, although it does not differ from the
degree of anti-Semitism that typically exists in Europe.'' Fortunately,
Latvia has not experienced ``the degree of anti-Semitism'' prevailing
in Western Europe during the many months since the Bucharest
conference. Latvia, so long under the yoke of Soviet occupation and the
site of the worst kinds of atrocities during the Holocaust, was among
the few courageous nations in Durban to vocally denounce the anti-
Zionist and anti-Jewish draft platform of the 2001 World Conference
Against Racism. However, we are disappointed that wartime pro-Nazi
military units are still being honored with monuments and marches,
including the recent dedication of a new memorial at the Lestene
cemetery with the participation of government officials.
In the former Soviet republics, we need to continue supporting
programs that foster tolerance and understanding, public campaigns to
lift the cloak of legitimacy from those resorting to anti-Semitism,
official condemnations of actions or statements that diminish the
humanity of any individual or group, and legal and institutional
commitment to this cause.
According to the latest report by the Federation of Jewish
Communities of the CIS and Baltic States, anti-Semitism is an ongoing
trend to which the authorities are responding with increasing
consistency. In Bryansk, Russia, where the municipality hired security
guards for a Jewish school, they proved ineffective in stopping anti-
Semitic vandalism and the community has retained private security. In
Novgorod, a newspaper editor is now under investigation for inciting
national discord during last year's mayoral election. In Volgograd, the
regional administration sponsors a newspaper that regularly publishes
anti-Semitic articles. In Estonia, a local court convicted a woman for
selling a newspaper published by the banned Russian National Unity
movement.
Behind these results lie decades of hard work by this Committee and
many U.S. Government bodies, and by non-governmental organizations and
their counterparts in the former Soviet Union. This work is far from
complete, and we must not allow the latest Western European eruption of
anti-Semitism to make us forget about the very real and ongoing
societal undercurrent of anti-Semitism which persists, especially in
Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova.
Having already addressed the mechanism for regional cooperation in
fighting anti-Semitism, I would like to list the key lessons we have
learned in the former Soviet Union:
The need to monitor incidents and attitudes, practices and
policies, in the successor states has never been so obvious in
light of the alarming developments to their west. Monitoring
empowers local activists, it compels our diplomats to become
experts and advocates in this area, and it reminds foreign
governments and societies that these issues are integral to the
Western culture they seek to emulate. Sharing this data on a
regional level promotes additional awareness and coordination.
Legislation to counter extremism and racial violence is also
gaining support in the region, as evidenced by the new Russian
law. At the same time, unfortunately laws that set up two
classes of religion--traditional and non-traditional--or
abdicate decision-making authority to local officials give
further credence to the notion that the state can decide which
religious groups are legitimate and which are not.
Without enforcement of laws on the national and local
levels, obviously, no legislation can have an impact. This
requires active supervision by senior officials, as well as
training programs for police, government workers and community
leaders in tolerance and in combating hate crimes.
Without an effective court system, either violators go free
or public opinion doubts the fairness of their sentencing. This
may be the most neglected facet of efforts to reduce outbreaks
of anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and to transform post-Soviet
societies. If judges cannot become role models, their
statements and decisions ultimately have little impact.
Public education efforts are gaining momentum, particularly
in the Baltic states, which are teaching their children the
lessons of the Holocaust, and the United States would do well
to redouble support for such efforts. To be truly successful
and far-reaching, these efforts must be undertaken at the
earliest possible age, but should also encompass opportunities
for adult learning.
The ``bully pulpit'' is not only available to presidents.
Public statements by government leaders at every level are
indispensable to motivating society, bureaucracies, and
legislators. Official condemnation of anti-Semitism and calls
for greater protection of minorities help shape public
attitudes and reduce ambiguity.
Religious leaders must also take responsibility. The
Lithuanian Catholic Church condemned anti-Semitism three years
ago at a bishops' conference, and expressed regret that during
the German occupation ``a portion of the faithful failed to
demonstrate charity to the persecuted Jews, did not grasp any
opportunity to defend them, and lacked the determination to
influence those who aided the Nazis.'' Together with Jewish
Women International and Russian-based partners, NCSJ recently
concluded a State Department grant to promote tolerance within
religious communities in two Russian cities.
U.S. POLICY
In large part due to Congressional initiative, the U.S. Government
has multiple channels for addressing anti-Semitism overseas. Among
these are the U.S. Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, or
Helsinki Commission, which is headquartered in the U.S. Congress; the
U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom, the Office of
International Religious Freedom, and the Ambassador at Large; the U.S.
Government Roundtable on Religious Freedom; the Special Envoy for
Holocaust Issues; and annual reviews such as the State Department's
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and on Religious Freedom.
The involvement of the non-governmental community in each of these
processes is a cornerstone of their authority and their success, and
NCSJ has participated within and alongside the official U.S.
delegations to numerous international fora during the past 30 years,
most recently in Vienna at the June 2003 OSCE Conference on Anti-
Semitism and just last week in Warsaw at the OSCE Human Dimension
Implementation Meeting. (I would ask to include NCSJ's Warsaw statement
in the record of this hearing.)
Beyond bolstering frameworks like the OSCE, there is much that we
as a nation must do to fill them with substance and content. Some
programs and laws that have succeeded at home may be applicable to
situations in Western and Eastern Europe. These include the well-known
initiatives by the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish
Committee, and other members of the NCSJ umbrella. At the same time, we
can identify programs that have worked in Europe and consider how to
adapt them to an American context.
We must work with the local communities in the successor states and
elsewhere, to tailor our approach as much as to empower emerging
leaders on the ground. Close contact and cooperation with local
activists reinforces their role in society and enhances the legitimacy
of citizen-based advocacy.
Without a doubt, the United States must commit more human and
financial resources to initiating, aiding and propagating effective
tolerance and enforcement mechanisms overseas. With the spread of
freedom and return of national sovereignty to Eastern and Central
Europe, we are seeing a long-awaited readiness to take real steps in
combating anti-Semitism and the myriad other forms of xenophobia it has
engendered and legitimized. We are also seeing a grudging and growing
recognition in the West of its own problems and obligations.
The responsibility of the United States, as a nation steeped in its
own history of intolerance, must be to motivate. But we must also be
willing to bear some of the cost of realizing this investment in
humanity. Whether through direct funding, non-governmental grants or
government-to-government partnerships, the United States must follow
through. Representing an umbrella of national organizations and local
communities, NCSJ urges the Senate to support full or increased funding
for the overseas programs that are fulfilling the unprecedented
potential for tolerance and pluralism in Europe. If some of these
nations continue to lag in their democratic progress, the response
should be to increase rather than reduce assistance to non-governmental
and citizen groups. Rather than reducing American-funded broadcasts to
Central and Eastern Europe, these should be broadened and infused with
even greater attention to pluralism and minority issues.
Mr. Chairman, NCSJ and a host of organizations--here and abroad--
know of the Senate's commitment and effectiveness on this issue. Thank
you again for this opportunity, and for the continued leadership that
you and your colleagues have shown.
[Attachment].
NCSJ: ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF JEWS IN RUSSIA, UKRAINE, THE BALTIC STATES
& EURASIA
Statement to the 2003 OSCE Implementation Meeting, Working Session 12:
``Prevention of Discrimination, Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-
Semitism''--Warsaw, October 14, 2003
DELIVERED BY SHAI FRANKLIN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
Distinguished Moderator and Delegates,
I would first commend to your attention the concise recommendations
assembled by a coalition of non-governmental organizations, including
NCSJ, and to express appreciation for the dedicated work of the
American delegation, headed by Ambassadors Pamela Hyde Smith and
Stephan Minikes.
As the representative of an organization relating to issues in the
Baltics and the Soviet successor states, which has worked within the
Helsinki process since its inception, I also wish to highlight the
constructive leadership of parliamentarians including our own Members
of Congress who are attending today, who have worked with Dr. Gert
Weisskirchen to forge a multilateral coalition of legislators from
across the OSCE region. Dr. Weisskirchen's colleague, German Delegate
Claudia Roth, first proposed a 2004 Berlin conference on anti-Semitism
this past June and is here again with the same passionate call; I urge
any delegations that have yet to endorse the 2004 conference to do so
today.
As an umbrella organization that includes nearly 50 national
American Jewish organizations and 300 local community groups, including
a number of those participating here, NCSJ would like to associate
itself with the interventions of those partner organizations.
Last June, at the first-ever OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism,
governments began to share information, ideas and commitments for
combating anti-Semitism at home and throughout the OSCE region, under
the chairmanship of the Netherlands. They did so within a new framework
that implicitly recognizes anti-Semitism as a distinct human rights
concern and a real threat to regional stability.
Of the series of worthy recommendations, with which you are all
probably familiar, I wish to highlight just a few: Training of law
enforcement, education of youth and the public, and meetings of experts
on these and other topics--opportunities that occur outside this and
other chambers, in between the periodic assemblies. These are just a
few of the many examples.
Notably, in advocating for a separate OSCE focus on anti-Semitism,
nations once under Communist control are among the leaders: Latvia,
Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, and others. These so-called
``new'' societies do take seriously both the threat of anti-Semitism
and the necessity of coordinating a transnational strategy through the
OSCE. This was evident a few minutes ago during the side event focusing
on post-Soviet responses.
By enunciating the OSCE's substantive commitment, Europe and North
America are breaking with a collective past that began with anti-
Semitism, propagated an abundance of hatreds and phobias, and retains
the disguise of latent neglect and a cloak of ``cultural context''.
To become the truly free society that the Helsinki process promised
we should be, all participating States must assume responsibility for
the safety and acceptance of all faiths and ethnicities. Sixty years
since the Holocaust, Europeans and North Americans are finally breaking
unequivocally with the past--not by commemorating it, by repudiating
it, or by forgetting it, but by applying its lessons to ongoing
manifestations of anti-Semitism.
Concretizing this break with ``business as usual'' means providing
an effective mandate through this winter's Ministerial Council, setting
a high profile for next year's Berlin conference on anti-Semitism,
assigning a specific responsibility within ODIHR, and ongoing
consultation and oversight among participating States.
Without directly and distinctly addressing contemporary anti-
Semitism, we cannot say we are better than our predecessors, nor can we
ensure lasting protection from newer forms of prejudice and hatred.
Nations that were not free 15 years ago already appreciate this
imperative, and they have reiterated it here.
The specific recommendations for governments and society are well
documented in the report from Vienna. The recommendations for the next
steps in the OSCE process are summarized in the NGO statement which I
referenced. What the delegates here today can contribute to this
process, beyond your own recommendations and initiatives, is to prepare
the ground for Berlin, to work with your governments on clear and
strong language in the 2003 Ministerial Declaration, and to create an
oversight and coordination function within ODIHR.
Thank you very much.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Levin.
I'm not sure when the other Senators will get back, but let
me start with the questioning.
You all shortened your remarks, and it's good testimony and
recommendations and appendices that you've all presented. All
have commented, one way or the other, that some countries,
whether it's France or others, have actually put in stronger
laws for anti-Semitic or hateful acts or religious bigotry
actions, not verbiage, but for actions--and they seem to be, I
suppose, relatively new laws, which ought to be commended. Can
you determine how they're being prosecuted, do you see a trend?
First of all, passing a law is very important. That's
absolutely essential. Then there is the enforcement, the
prosecution, and what sort of sentences are handed down or
meted out to those who are found guilty of these specific
crimes. Is it too early, or can any of you share with us how
you feel that those laws are being enforced and carried out?
Yes, sir, Mr. Foxman.
Mr. Foxman. There are also laws on the books of Europe on
verbiage, by the way, because they do not have the
constitutional first amendment, as we do, and there are certain
expressions, in terms of Naziism and Holocaust denial, which
are punishable by expression. And, in fact, we had a conflict-
of-laws problem with our Internet. You cannot buy ``Mein
Kampf'' in Germany or Austria, but you can buy it by Internet.
And so there are delicate issues that need to be resolved with
respecting our constitutional provisions and their legal
provisions.
The question you ask is a very good one, and it does not
lend itself to a general trend analysis, because the laws are
on the books. Whether there is a will to implement them, act
against them, depends on the political atmosphere, depends on
the party in power, depends on the pressure from America,
depends on all kinds of other factors.
Take France, for example. France has all the laws needed to
fight anti-Semitism, and yet during the period of 2000, 2001,
and 2002, they didn't do very much--there were over 400
incidents of violent anti-Semitism--because nobody issued the
orders, nobody indicated that it's significant, et cetera.
After the election, however, all of a sudden there is
implementation, and there are arrests, there are statements
from Chirac down to the Minister of Interior to the police
chiefs, et cetera, that this is a crime in France and that it
will be prosecuted.
And so there are cycles out there. In Russia, for example--
and Mark can be more specific--the statements are good, the
laws have been finally enacted, and President Putin speaks out
very frequently, and yet the order hasn't gone down to arrest,
to prosecute, and then you take a look, sometimes when they do,
what the sentences are.
So it's a question of political will. It's no longer a
question--same question that you asked earlier about Holocaust
education. The list that you're going to get is many countries,
and what Mr. Harris said is, ironically and interestingly,
there is so much more activity in the former Soviet Union, in
the Bulgarias, and the Hungarys, Romania. Now we'll probably go
in excess to teach, or at least proclaim that it's teaching,
the Holocaust.
So it's not a question of the laws, it's not a question of
the statements; it's the question, ``So you have the book. What
are you doing with it?''
Argentina, for example, has a textbook on the Holocaust.
Well, so what? Sweden put together a conference which talked
about the responsibility, the need, to teach the lessons of the
past and the future. It's there. The material is there. I need
to say, $25,000 for a country in a task force to deal with
educating on the Holocaust in Europe is almost sadly laughable.
And because they also don't have budgets for textbooks, they
don't have budgets to teach their teachers how to teach, and
they have another defense mechanism, if they want it, and that
is, we don't--that all the education is done locally. So we
have now engaged, as the committee has and the ADL has, we are
offering services to teach prejudice reduction, to teach
Holocaust education. We are offering services to teach law
enforcement how to be sensitive to difference, more tolerant.
Because law enforcement is what helped Hitler--you know, he
broke--they broke down the system for him.
So that by looking at the laws, Mr. Chairman, you don't
have an answer. One needs to take a look at, ``So what do they
do with them?'' How many arrests? How many, in fact--and this
is why we're talking about monitoring. We talked last June, in
this year, Vienna, about setting standards for monitoring. So
one is to designate what is a anti-Semitic act, and then what
can be done and should be done.
So we need some standardized criteria for them. And, again,
we need to lead them, we need to urge them, we need to help
them, and only then can we answer your question.
Senator Allen. Well, the reason I asked the question is
that it's good to have laws on the books, but then you have to
enforce those laws. In some cases, what you're saying is that
it vacillates or is uneven?
On the education, I'm not going to tell folks in other
countries how to run their school systems, anymore than I like
the Federal Government telling us in Virginia what we ought to
do. However, a good way of determining whether or not it is
just a book on a library shelf or a book that, ``Here, your
students can read this if you so desire,'' is to determine if
they have accountability. Is there testing, is this one of the
subjects that students will be tested upon, just like the
reading and writing and spelling of the Polish, French or the
Danish languages. I mean, if that's part of it, like
mathematics and so forth, then you recognize that they are
serious about it. Otherwise, it's a mere suggestion. But if
it's a requirement, a standard that is tested----
Yes, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could make two
comments----
Senator Allen. Sure.
Mr. Harris [continuing]. In response to what you've just
said.
On the issue of education, I agree completely on its
importance, but I don't think we should underestimate the
challenges faced in countries like France. I made reference to
this in my testimony moments ago. There are some schools in
France that cannot follow the national curriculum. And in
France there has been a national curriculum since the
Napoleonic days. The teachers cannot teach the segments on the
Dreyfus case, they cannot teach the mandated segments on the
Holocaust, because the students are resisting it, challenging
the teachers, and not permitting them to teach as the
curriculum requires because of the highly charged atmosphere.
Mostly, this involves students from North Africa. This has been
amply documented. To his credit, the Minister of Education in
France is trying to grapple with this issue. The curriculum
itself is fine in France. That's not the problem.
And the second issue is to followup on what was said by my
colleague a moment ago on political will.
Let me take you, just for one moment, into a room where we
met with the Foreign Minister of France in November 2001. He
was joined by the then Foreign Minister of Italy and the
Director General of the Spanish Foreign Ministry. The three of
them sat there with a delegation from the American Jewish
Committee in New York, and we raised the very same concerns
we're raising here, Mr. Chairman, regarding the vulnerability
of Jewish communities.
His response to us was three-pronged, and I think this goes
to the issue of political will. The issue was not the law; the
issue was the will. His first response was denial. He became
rather upset, and he challenged us. ``After all,'' said he, ``I
know my country better than you do. There is no problem of
anti-Semitism.''
We pointed to the documented attacks, we pointed to
statements by Jewish leaders. He went to the second level of
response, which was obfuscation. He admitted the fact that
there were attacks, but he said they were in the context of a
rising crime rate in France and growing insecurity for all
French. Well, indeed, there is a growing crime rate in France,
but the specificity of attacks against synagogues or Jewish
children en route to a Jewish school is not part of a general
crime problem; these are hate crimes.
And then he moved to a third level of response, which I
would call rationalization. He admitted there was a problem
finally, after a long discussion, but he said, ``You know, it's
linked to the Middle East, and you have to understand, these
young teenagers from North Africa, who are rather poor, whose
parents are often unemployed, watch Al Jazeera, see the
oppression by the Israelis of Palestinians, get angry, go out
in the streets, and take it out on the surrogates for Israel,''
meaning Jews.
And what he said was, ``The answer to this is to find the
solution to the Middle East problem.'' Is that the answer you
would expect from a country that gave birth to the Declaration
of the Rights of Man in 1791? Is that the response we expect?
So the laws are there. The educational curriculum is there.
The real challenge is the political will.
Senator Allen. Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, in the former Soviet Union, it's a
combination of developing the will, developing the laws,
developing the educational institutions. We have to remember
that we're dealing with a region that more or less has been
open or free for a little more than a decade. And to have
leaders speak out and address these issues in a forthright way
is important, to have laws developed is important, to have
those laws implemented becomes even more important, but we have
to remember we're dealing with countries whose institutions--
the institutions, whether they be legal, educational, medical,
cultural, were perverted for over seven decades. So they're
starting from the beginning, and in the beginning it is
important to have leaders speak out, it is important to develop
laws and, again, to have those laws implemented.
But let me give you two quick examples of what's happened
in the region. Over the last several months, in Belarus, in a
town called Grodno, there has been an ongoing effort to re-bury
Jewish remains that have been dug up during the renovation of a
soccer stadium. Unfortunately, in the 1950s and 1960s, a soccer
stadium was constructed on top of a Jewish cemetery in the
middle of this city. A year ago or so, there was an attempt to
begin a renovation that would bring the stadium up to European
stadiums so Belarus could host European and international
soccer competitions. Well, during this process, not hundreds,
but thousands of remains were discovered. And rather than
taking the time to re-bury them or store them until the
appropriate religious leaders could take over, they threw them
aside. Some were dumped in a warehouse, some were just left on
the streets surrounding the stadium. We began a process,
working with the local Jewish community, to try to get local
authorities to be more sensitive, to be more concerned about
what was going on. It proved to be futile for many months.
We have tried to engage the national government, which
actually was somewhat responsive, and they did begin a dialog
with the local officials. It wasn't until a few weeks ago that
the local authorities began to address this issue forthrightly.
And the only reason they began to address the issue is because
a group of American Jews demonstrated in front of the Belarus
mission in New York, a group of three or four hundred people,
who promised that if the issue wasn't addressed, there would be
thousands the next week or the next month.
And with our support the Governor of the region is now
willing to have all the remains collected and re-buried, and to
look at developing an appropriate memorial at the site of the
soccer stadium.
The reason I mention it is because, up until this point,
the level of what I would call anti-Semitic rhetoric was very
high in this town of Grodno, directed not just at local Jewish
leaders but at national and international Jewish leaders, that
this was part of a Zionist conspiracy to embarrass these local
officials.
The second example, and I'll make it very brief, is the
fact that the President of the Russian Federation, as Mr.
Foxman has said, has spoken out numerous times now, when there
have been anti-Semitic incidents in his country. The hope is
that he will begin to direct his law-enforcement officials to
go after these individuals who have engaged in these types of
crimes. The record in Russia is not a good one right now, but I
think a lot has to do with understanding, with education,
education of the law-enforcement officials, both the police and
the prosecutors.
Senator Allen. I'm going to turn it over to Senator
Voinovich, allow him to ask questions.
In listening to your responses here on this and also in
reading your testimony, the rationalization that you were
talking about in France, the third level, after denial and
obfuscation, was there's a lot of citizens from North Africa. I
assume you're saying that that they are Muslim, from North
Africa, former territories of France. And your testimony--``the
major feature of European history,'' I assume you're talking
about it in Russia, ``is anti-Semitism is often attributed to
Muslim or Middle Eastern communities.''
My question is this just an excuse of blaming people who
have a different religion than the predominant religion in
Russia or France or other countries? I assume you're saying
there are Muslim students that they can't teach these courses
to, or this curriculum to, in France. Mr. Harris, you brought
that up.
The other question--and I know this is very sensitive, but
it's important for us to fully understand this--is this a
rationalization or an excuse for them not to enforce the law?
Are they trying to blame people who are of Islamic faith, for
their failures to enforce the law or have a curriculum that
applies to all the people of their country? Or enforce the law
for all the people in the country, regardless of their
religious belief, their ethnicity, or their race?
Mr. Harris. I think there are as I said, Mr. Chairman, in
my testimony, three principal sources of anti-Semitism that we
have been watching carefully, all of us. One is the traditional
extreme right anti-Semitism.
Senator Allen. That's more of the neo-Nazi.
Mr. Harris. Neo-Nazi and then its more recent incarnations,
Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front, which got nearly 20 percent
of the votes in the first round of the French Presidential
elections in the spring of 2002. And there are other similar
parties.
Senator Allen. Now, when you take Le Pen, Le Pen, Le Pen is
very anti- as best as I understand and I'm not an expert on
French politics--but is very anti-immigrant and anti-North
African.
Mr. Harris. The irony is that among groups that are
otherwise deeply divided on issues, we tend to become the
uniting force for them. So you have the extreme right and its
traditional anti-Semitism, which also today, as you say,
manifests itself in anti-immigrant, xenophobic forms. And you
have the extreme left, for whom, there is a kind of mix of,
increasingly, anti-Americanism, which I think we may need to
take far more into account here in our calculations, together
with anti-Zionism, which questions the right of the Jewish
people to self-determination, and, if you will, anti-
globalization. And these three groups come together in various
forms and often in what we would consider an anti-Semitic
manner.
And the third is the growing Muslim population in Europe.
Let me be clear. We're not trying to paint everyone with a
broad brush stroke. No one is accusing all Muslims, much less
all of anyone, of anti-Semitism. But we'd be equally naive, I
believe, to deny the fact that within the Muslim populations of
Europe, there are those who have been infected, either through
teaching of the mosques or the media, with the virus of anti-
Semitism.
Is Europe trying to blame the Muslims? I don't believe so.
I would say, to the contrary, Europe is afraid of further
arousing restive Muslim populations that are already on the
margins of society, and that, in some respects, show the
symptoms of the inner-city pathology that we have known in this
country, that is, the cycle of social problems. And so
precisely because governments are afraid of arousing them
further, I think they've backed off of it.
When you add to that the European interest in North Africa
and the Middle East--the political, diplomatic, economic, and
energy interests--all the more reason why they're reluctant to
take on this problem frontally, for fear of being labeled anti-
Muslim.
Mr. Foxman. Mr. Chairman, it's everything that Mr. Harris,
plus. And that is, when--the French say, it's not we. This is
not France. France is not anti-Semitic. Nobody said France is
anti-Semitic. We said, you know, there's anti-Semitism in
France. But the response is a denial, it's not me. It's they.
It's they. They do it. They're doing it. And you know why
they're doing it? Not as Frenchmen. They're doing it because
they're upset about what's going on in the Middle East. So,
yes, it is denial. Yes, it saying they're not Frenchmen.
And the irony of all of this is, if you log on today to the
right-wing neo-Nazi Web sites in this country, you will find
this bizarre--no longer bizarre to us, because we've seen it--
the right-wing extremists have now found a new poster boy. And
the poster boy of the right-wing neo-Nazi hate groups in this
country for this week is the Prime Minister of Malaysia. They
are praising him.
Now, we also know, look, on the other part of the Web site,
they're anti-black, they're anti-brown, they're anti- OK? But
for this moment, they're anti-Jewish, can say that they're
anti-African-American, they're anti-Arab, they're anti-Muslim,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So that plays there.
You know, from time to time, it's pure political
expediency. Mr. Chirac and company, before election, were not
willing--forget about the greater issue of enraging the Muslim
world, which we now--is being explained why, you know, he was
so nice to Mahathir, but it was votes. Ten percent of the
population of France is votes. It backfired, because in the
primary, Le Pen did well, because the people who are xenophobic
hate the other, voted for Le Pen because they felt that Chirac
and the ruling government was not dealing with the prime
problem with issues of--with the other issues. And after the
primary, the government began to change.
So it plays all kinds of roles, whether it's politics,
whether it's political expediency, whether it's history,
whether it's culture, and whether it's the blame game, or to
put it off. All of it comes together, tragically, primarily
today in Europe.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, a bit of good news, if I can. In
the Central Asian countries, Jews and Muslims have been living
together in some cases for thousands of years.
Senator Allen. Central Asia?
Mr. Levin. In the Central--in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
Kurdistan, Tajikistan, and in some of the Caucasus countries,
as well. So, in fact, the leadership in the--the Jewish
leadership in the Central Asian countries have held several
meetings among--that included Jewish, Muslim, and Christian
religious leaders.
I was in Kazakhstan in late February with a number of other
representatives of American Jewish organizations, and we
participated in a conference that brought together the
political and religious leadership of the Central Asian
countries, and it belies the fact that for some, particularly
who try to use it as a crutch, that Jews and Muslims can't live
together and that the problems in the Middle East are the cause
for everything that's happening throughout Europe and the rest
of the world. In Russia and Ukraine, as Mr. Harris talked about
in other parts of Europe, you know, we call it a Red-Brown
Coalition that sometimes--that comes together, where the
Communists and the ultra-nationalists have common cause. And
usually it's centered around the Russian-Ukrainian Jewish
citizens.
Senator Allen. Thank you, gentlemen.
Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Thank you for
coming today.
What I'm interested in is institutionalizing a procedure so
that we can move forward and make some progress, one that can
be monitored and one that can bring in the best ideas. You've
got specific problems--how do you deal with countries that have
got more Muslims coming in? How do you--in terms of education--
how do you reach them? There are best practices. There are a
lot of things that are out there. And the question I have is,
how well do you think we're doing, in terms of this effort with
the OSCE, to move forward and to institutionalize this effort
to eliminate the cancer of anti-Semitism?
Mr. Foxman. Well----
Senator Voinovich. I mean, I was impressed with Mr.
O'Donnell about what has happened. I just wonder, from your
perspective, what do you think?
Mr. Foxman. Well, I think it still needs work. I think
we've--there's been a tremendous amount of progress. And,
again, we've said it--I think all of us said it in our own
ways--it wouldn't have happened if not for the leadership of
the Secretary of State, your leadership, Senator, others,
Senator Smith, others, who wherever they went raised the issue
and said this is important, this is a cancer, this is a disease
that needs to be addressed.
Now, many of those who acquiesced, acquiesced thinking this
is a one-shot deal, we'll do it, we'll get over it, and we'll
move on, and don't bother us.
Senator Voinovich. OK.
Mr. Foxman. They're now learning that it's not. And so the
next step forward was, well, let's do it with xenophobia, let's
do it with Islama-phobia, let's do a potpourri, a smorgasbord
of ``isms,'' and, you know, everybody will be happy.
And I think they're also realizing today all of us are
working out there. There are some European nations who
understand that unfortunately this disease is 2,000 years old,
unfortunately on the European Continent it destroyed six
million in our lifetimes, forget about the 2,000 years before,
and that, at the very least, it merits to focus on this disease
until we get an antidote, what to do with it and about it.
We, the American Jewish Committee, the ADL, and others of
us, have used the September visitations to the General Assembly
as an opportunity to do one-on-ones and three-on-ones with most
of certainly the European nations. And with everyone, on our
agenda was the second conference. And most of them have made
commitments that they've lived up to and said that they will so
instruct the Prime Ministers, the Prime Ministers will so
instruct their Ambassadors. We'll see in December at the
meeting. The Warsaw meeting indicated that there is a consensus
moving forward, although there are some who are still opposed
to it.
So I don't think it's a done deal. And from that
perspective, to set standards and to get monitoring, we're not
there yet. We need to talk about it. That will be very
difficult. But we're still in a phase of convincing them that
there's a need, it's their need, not only our need, it's for
their democracy, it is a canary in the coal mine of democracy,
it is--if you want to measure civility in Europe, that's what
it's all about. But we still need that--and they operate by
consensus--that consensus and then the will. If we have that
consensus and it happens again, we can then face the issues of
standards, which will be difficult. What constitutes anti-
Semitism? What constitutes an act? Now, these are very serious
questions which we'll have to grapple with.
We haven't come to an agreement in this country, in terms
of the monitoring. Federal monitoring is different than state
and local. We do the monitoring, the ADL does the monitoring,
but there's again different numbers because of our definitions,
but at least we're on the same track. I think we--I think the
question's very important, because we can't relax yet. And then
we can hand it over to the professionals to try to determine
standards, definitions, et cetera. But we still need to cross
that hurdle that it's an accepted consensus that this is what
it should be.
Mr. Harris. Senator Voinovich, I would just like to add one
suggestion, and that is that if the chairman would agree, at
least in principle, that one year from today you schedule
another hearing such as this on anti-Semitism in Europe, and
let it be known early, because I can tell you that there was a
great deal of interest in the fact that you were holding this
hearing, that many European governments were very well aware of
this hearing and chose to watch it very carefully. I think it's
important that Europe and the world know that there will be an
ongoing scrutiny of these issues by the U.S. Senate. So I would
urge the continuation of this process in which we're engaged
today.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the real issue is--and, Mark, I
apologize that I had to step out during your testimony, but
what we've been trying to do is to try and make sure that we
get your best input on what it is that we're going to
accomplish in April at that meeting, and what are some concrete
steps that can be taken. Can we institutionalize it, and get
the OSCE involved in it? That involves staffing and
monitoring--and come up with some practical things----
Mr. Foxman. And funding.
Senator Voinovich. And funding, exactly. I mean, he was
just talking about the task force on education, and that
$25,000 a country, that's not very much. Salt in the soup. But,
anyhow--around here, at least--but all I'm saying is that I'm
really interested in getting the best thoughts that can be
used--work through the State Department, have them make the
commitment, get them to the meeting, get down to--dot the i's,
cross the t's, get this institutionalized, start the process of
monitoring, develop strategies that deal with some of the
specific problems that are out there in various countries,
finding out best practices, as I mentioned before, from some
other place. You know, I'd be interested in whether you think
that makes sense or not.
Mr. Levin. Senator, I think everything you said makes a
great deal of sense, and much of what you suggested I think is
in all three of our testimonies. I think, you know, a couple of
concrete steps to take right away is to reiterate the
importance that you attach to the OSCE process to our
administration. We've been in the forefront, we have to remain
in the forefront. It would be vitally important to have a
strong congressional delegation participate in the Berlin
meeting. Last week, a number of our organizations were in
Warsaw attending the Human Dimensions meeting under the OSCE,
and there was a congressional delegation. And the fact that
three or four, maybe five, U.S. Members of Congress were there
spoke volumes to their European counterparts.
Mayor Giuliani, in Vienna, made a suggestion about tracking
hate crimes as a first step. I think, as Mr. Foxman has said,
it's tracking, it's education, it's doing all of this, and
there's no reason it can't be done under the OSCE. It's one of
the few umbrella organizations, that includes Western and
Eastern European countries together, and we should take
advantage of that.
Senator Voinovich. And their sole purpose is to monitor
human rights. I remember being in Moscow and sitting down with
the head of the Duma there and talking about, several years
ago, some anti-Semitic remarks being made by members of the
Duma, and wondering what are they going to be doing about it?
There's a lot of in-your-face, ``what are you guys doing?''
type of thing. So I think it's the organization to really get
the job done and, frankly, might give it some more meaning.
Mr. Harris. Senator Voinovich, the OSCE will do its job if
there's the political will at the highest levels in member
countries to ensure that it does its job. And if there is not
the political will, or if the signals are mixed or weak, then I
fear that the OSCE will become a relatively ineffective
instrument.
President Bush has himself expressed concern about growing
anti-Semitism in Europe. It's important that at the level of
the President and the Secretary of State, this conversation
continue to take place with their European counterparts to
ensure that there is instruction from the highest levels in the
European capitals to continue this process, both within Europe
and as a part of the transatlantic dialog.
Senator Voinovich. Well, the thing that's neat about this
is that some of these countries that you might think might be
recalcitrant have also made some very strong statements, and
they're making it very difficult for somebody to say, we don't
want to participate in this, when Chirac has made certain
statements and Germany has made certain statements, and other
places. You know, they're onboard. The issue was, then, actions
speak louder than words.
And the other thought, and I don't know whether it makes
sense or not, I'd be interested in, that meeting, patting some
people on the back for some good things that they've done to
address this issue.
Mr. Foxman. Well, it goes to your best practices. I think
what we should do together is find those best practices and
find them in as many countries as we can, and appreciate them
and reward them and show them off. Again, we have to be careful
it's not, I mean, you know, ``we do.'' And there are some good
things going on, which may need encouragement, which may need
funding, which may need support. Absolutely. And, again, it's
very preliminary, but maybe there should be a day that deals
just with best practices where we reward, award, embrace,
appreciate, you know, find ways of doing it, so there's an
incentive, starting even now, that they know that in April
Sweden can be, you know, praised for what they've done, or
France for the Minister of Education. Absolutely, absolutely.
One of the best Holocaust creative approach that has come up.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I did that in my state. We had a
Governor's challenge every 2 years dealing with racism in Ohio
and dealing with good inter-human relations. And what we did
was, we honored communities for what they had done. And that,
in itself, was good. The others who were there got a chance to
see what they were doing, and there was some feeling of, you
know, this is the right thing to do, and get onboard.
Mr. Foxman. Senator, we still honor righteous Christians
from 60 years ago, because that's the best lesson, best
message, that one can give, in terms of what people can do,
even today, 60 years later. And I believe now we should do it
with their children. We should honor their children so that
they know what heroes of humanity their parents and
grandparents were. So that--I don't know anything else that
works better. I'm living proof that it works. I'm here.
Mr. Levin. And, Senators, there's no reason why it can't be
done in the U.S. Congress. Bring your counterparts to recognize
what's been done.
Senator Voinovich. Mr. Chairman, I think what might be
really worthwhile is that maybe the organizations that are
represented here today could come back with some ideas on how
to make the meeting in Berlin the most worthwhile that it can
be, to do some preliminary work and get it to our people that
will be at the OSCE meeting in Maastricht--to maybe have a
little background on it. And if you could share that with us,
we could get a letter signed by the chairman and the members of
the Foreign Relations Committee urging the administration to go
forward and move on this, and let them know that we're behind
it, and also indicate to them that if there's some resources
that they're going to need to get the job done, that we're
willing to even make that available to them so they can do the
job they're supposed to be doing.
Because, I'll tell you, I like the idea of coming back here
a year from now, but if we don't really get into this and start
to spend some time on it, it won't happen. It won't. It really
won't. This is tough stuff. It is. And I'm hoping, Mr.
Chairman, that the position that you and I and some others have
taken on Iraq is going to help the situation. I think the fact
that we show that we're interested in setting up a democracy in
that part of the world.
And I think the other thing that we need to do is to raise
awareness to the stuff on television every night. If they say
they're for the State of Israel, then they need to take action
and get the anti-Semitism out of their children's textbooks and
get the propaganda off television. I mean, these are
significant signs that people mean business. And I think what
it boils down to is, it's almost like a full-court press, it's
like OSCE and then some efforts over here. But to have a
regular plan in place to just keep staying on this and grind
away at it every day and be persistent and be unrelenting. And
I think if we do that, then I think we can be successful.
What do you think?
Senator Allen. I think they're good ideas. As we conclude
this hearing, I have several observations. Yes, I think those
are good ideas that I'll take under consideration.
No. 1--and I'll close with four points--No. 1, the funding
issue--granted, $25,000 is just not enough, but regardless, the
point is, it's leadership. You did it as Governor of Ohio, I
did it as Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia in having
the Holocaust as part of the curriculum. All of our history
standards, science standards, and all that, we didn't wait
around for the Federal Government to give us money, or the
United Nations or some other country, we made it a priority.
And most of these countries, particularly the Western European
countries, can fund it themselves. In fact, most of the Central
European countries can. It may be a different situation for
Eastern European countries. Regardless, they don't need the
United States to be funding their textbooks.
Now, there are certain things that I do think are
important, when you get the media into Eastern and Central
Europe, and that is radio and TV, to make sure they are getting
unbiased media, nformation and news. I think that's a value,
just as Radio Marti is into Cuba to go into those countries,
where the concept of individual rights, individual freedoms and
religions rights have not taken root very long. They've been
under either Communist dictatorships or monarchies, either way,
not very satisfactory or enlightened forms of government.
The OSCE, this is point No. 2--this is an organization that
seems to be a logical, formal conduit that we ought to use. I'm
not saying ``use'' in a bad sense, but utilize in such a way as
to get these ideas, these measurements and these benchmarks
achieved. That's something there is an agreement on, their
participation.
Third, that's the whole reason I held this hearing. And I
know it's a controversial hearing on a controversial subject,
and we didn't want to upset anyone, but it is important to
shine the light on what is going on, examine it, recognize that
we're concerned about it, look at best practices or ways of
measuring improvement in those areas. I think that we ought to
have ongoing scrutiny in this subcommittee and, indeed, the
whole committee, if you wanted to make it worldwide. Our focus,
of course, is Europe on this committee, and, obviously, it does
get into a few other continents. Nonetheless, this will be an
ongoing scrutiny that we'll have, I will say, as chairman of
this subcommittee.
Fourth, and this is where you see some of the optimism. You
listen to these problems in some of these countries that are
democracies, they're representative democracies, and it makes
you appreciate this country, our foundation and values. I
mentioned the Statute of Religious Freedom but, you know, it
took a long time before our country was a perfect union. This
is not a country without blemishes, insofar as our race
relations, our treatment of people of different ethnicities,
religions and certainly women. Women didn't have the right to
vote until the last century. Same with African-Americans, until
the mid 1860s, and then, even then, it wasn't until the 1960s
that true civil rights and equality was afforded to people who
are African-American.
And so in this country, we are finally at that more perfect
union, where there is a tolerance, there is a respect for
people of different races or ethnicity or religion. We find
people of the Jewish faith or Muslim faith getting along.
They're neighbors. They might not agree on everything, but,
nevertheless, there's not the hatred. You find people who are
Pakistani and Indian getting along well here. And that's
something that's really wonderful about this country and really
something to celebrate. How we can be that shining light for
the rest of the world is very important. This country is
prosperous, free, there's opportunity, folks' rights are not
enhanced, nor diminished on account of their religious beliefs.
That's is, in itself, an empowering principle of our country.
And so while we say we're the model, we need to be careful
and respectful that it took us a long time to reach that
perfect union and that true equal opportunity for all people in
this country.
Some of these nations have been breathing the sweet nectar
of freedom for just 10 years, or a decade, and so we need to be
helpful, be respectful, but also understand that we need to be
firm that anti-Semitism, discrimination, hatred on the basis of
someone's religion or ethnicity cannot be tolerated. But let's
do it in a way that's sensitive and, therefore, effective in
achieving our shared goals.
And I thank all three of you gentlemen and my good
colleague, Senator Voinovich, for your participation. We will
fight on for freedom together.
Thank you. And the committee meeting is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:05 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
----------
Additional Submissions for the Record
The Fight Against Anti-Semitism in France
1--THE SITUATION IN FRANCE
The Jewish community in France is the second largest in the world
after the United States, except for Israel.
French Public Opinion
When President Chirac met with leaders of American Jewish
organizations in New York on September 22, 2003, he said: ``France is
not an anti-Semitic country. It [anti-Semitism] has never been in its
culture and never will be.'' President Chirac recalled that he had
acknowledged the responsibility of the French state during the Nazi
occupation and added that it was important to remember the Resistance
and the help that many French people had given to members of the Jewish
community.
Recent polls confirm that the French are not anti-Semitic: 80% of
young people say they would have no problem living with a Jewish
partner. 87% consider anti-Semitic acts disgraceful and believe there
should be severe penalties (UEJF poll, 2000). As of April 2003, 85% of
the French said they are sympathetic to the Jews, compared with 82% in
2002 and 72% in February 1990 (CSA, Le Figaro, 2003).
Figures on Anti-Semitic Acts in France
The first figures available for 2003 show a marked decrease in the
number of anti-Semitic acts (172 anti-Semitic acts from January to
August 2002, 72 for the corresponding period in 2003; 647 anti-Semitic
threats from January to August 2002 against 247 for this period in
2003--see attached report). These are encouraging figures which
strengthen the determination of the French authorities in pursuing
their policy of zero tolerance.
French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy was awarded the 2003
Tolerance Prize of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for his work in
combating anti-Semitism in France. ``Confronted with anti-Semitism and
racism, I know only two words,'' said Sarkozy: ``Zero tolerance.''
``You don't explain anti-Semitism and racism,'' he said: ``You fight
it.'' President Chirac fully supports zero tolerance.
2--STEPS TAKEN TO COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM
2.1 A Tougher Law. Parliament beefed up legislation against anti-
Semitism, passing a law on February 5, 2002 mandating tougher penalties
for racist, anti-Semitic or xenophobic offences. The law, now in force,
was adopted unanimously--proof that the people's representatives are
united and determined in the face of a phenomenon that will not be
tolerated. Whereas prior legislation penalized racist behavior when it
was manifestly that, it is now possible to penalize individuals more
severely for attacks or insults when the investigation shows that anti-
Semitism is the hidden reason for the offence.
2.2 Robust Measures Adopted.
The French authorities are closely monitoring anti-Semitic
incidents in France so as to be able to respond immediately. In
liaison with organizations representing the Jewish community in
France, the authorities have refined the statistical counting
method of anti-Semitic incidents so that it is much more
precise than before;
A prevention/protection squad has been set up consisting of
13 units of mobile forces (1,200 CRS-riot police and mobile
gendarmes); these units have been deployed specifically to
protect synagogues, local associations and schools in
consultation with representatives of the Jewish community;
Law-enforcement response to anti-Semitic offences is very
strict: public prosecutors have been instructed to ensure that
there are no delays in prosecuting offenders. Whenever the
perpetrators of anti-Semitic offences have been identified and
convicted, the sentences have been quite harsh (immediate
imprisonment not suspended sentences, including for damage to
property).
These firm measures, which reflect the government's determination,
have largely contributed to the drop in the number of anti-Semitic
offences.
2.3. Lastly, the government has taken the fight against anti-
Semitism to schools. Let nothing pass without explanation and
punishment is the maxim that sums up the principle of the approach to
combating anti-Semitism in schools in France.
On February 27, 2003, Education Minister Luc Ferry presented a ten-
point program of action to deal with the problem of anti-Semitism and
racism in schools. It includes special teams in schools to identify and
track incidents with the aid of mediators, tougher penalties, and
handbooks for teachers. The minister explained, ``It's important to
intervene at the slightest incident, even if it's verbal, and to let
nothing pass without punishment and explanation.''
Help for teaching staff: teams have been set up in schools
to monitor for incidents;
Tougher penalties have been introduced for anti-Semitic or
racist comments. Immediately an offence is known, it is
reported to the judicial services and youth protection
services. School chancellors have been instructed to be
absolutely firm in such matters.
Education in tolerance: a ``Holocaust Memorial Day'' is now
observed in French schools for the remembrance of the Holocaust
and the prevention of crimes against humanity. France chose
January 27 for this day, the anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz. The initiative, a proposal by France, was adopted at
the colloquium of the International Action Group for the
Remembrance of the Shoah, currently chaired by the United
States, and the seminar of education ministers organized by the
Council of Europe in October 2002.
3--TACKLING ANTI-SEMITISM AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
3.1 To be effective, the fight against anti-Semitism has also to be
addressed at the international level. France sent a delegation led by
Robert Badinter, a distinguished French jurist and intellectual, to the
special meeting of the OSCE on anti-Semitism in Vienna in June 2003
which it fully supported and at which it took an active part. France is
in favor of a follow-up conference. The French parliamentary delegation
to the OSCE aligned itself last February, in Vienna, with the letter of
intent on anti-Semitism, signed by Congressman Smith, (Republican, New
Jersey) and German Parliamentarian Gert Weisskirchen (of the SPD
party), to bolster efforts against anti-Semitism in OSCE member states.
3.2. New forms of communication, especially the Internet, are
wonderful for promoting human rights but at the same time they can be
used for hateful expressions of racism and anti-Semitism in defiance of
national or international legislation prohibiting such ``speech.''
Since the suit against Yahoo in 2000, France has been working
actively in several international bodies for a collective debate on
anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia on the Internet. The government
raised the matter in the G8 bodies for example.
France was instrumental in ensuring that the question of the
Internet and anti-Semitism was placed on the agenda of the OSCE
conference on anti-Semitism. In spite of misgivings by some
delegations, the third session will be devoted to the role of the
media, including new technologies and the Internet.
As president of the G8, France proposed a discussion on ways to
prevent the Internet from being used for anti-Semitic comments and
incitement to racial hatred and violence, and the prosecution of
offenders.
France also took a key role in the negotiations in the Council of
Europe on the Cybercrime Convention and additional protocol on racism
and xenophobia. France made a point of being one of the first
signatories of the convention and protocol.
Anti-Semitism in France--Comparative Tables: 2002 and 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January............................ 3 3
February........................... 2 4
March.............................. 32 15
April.............................. 118 23
May................................ 12 10
June............................... 8 10
July............................... 3 6
August............................. 0 1
Total:........................... 178 72
September.......................... 4
October............................ 2
November........................... 7
December........................... 2
Total 2002:...................... 193 acts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January.......................... 33 34
February......................... 26 40
March............................ 46 56
April............................ 448 58
May.............................. 47 27
June............................. 26 19
July............................. 15 10
August........................... 6 3
Total:......................... 647 247
September........................ 18
October.......................... 20
November......................... 27
December......................... 20
Total 2002:.................... 732 threats
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom
On October 14, 2003, U.S. Commission on International Religious
Freedom Vice Chair Felice D. Gaer addressed the special session on
anti-Semitism at the Annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OS CE) in
Warsaw, Poland.
Ms. Gaer stated that acts of anti-Semitism must be seen not as
hooliganism, but as ``a form of human rights abuse that states should
vigorously combat by implementing their worldwide human rights
commitments.'' She called on the OSCE Ministerial Council, at its
December 2003 meeting in Maastricht, Netherlands, to accept the German
government's invitation to host a special meeting on anti-Semitism in
Berlin in 2004. She also urged the OSCE to report regularly on the
implementation of OSCE member states' commitments to combat anti-
Semitism. Ms. Gaer was participating with the U.S. delegation to the
OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting.
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom requests the
following remarks be included in the ``Anti-Semitism in Europe''
hearing record for October 22, 2003.
Statement by Felice D. Gaer, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on
International Religious Freedom
I am speaking on behalf of the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom, which is an independent United States government
agency that monitors conditions of freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion around the globe. The Commission makes independent policy
recommendations to the U.S. administration and the Congress on how to
advance this fundamental right and all those related to it through U.S.
foreign policy.
We have emphasized a simple but extremely important point: that
acts of anti-Semitism must be seen for what they are: they're not
hooliganism; they are human rights abuses. They are a form of human
rights abuse that states should vigorously combat by implementing their
worldwide human rights commitments.
Anti-Semitism is both a local and an international problem,
requiring states to take concrete steps on both the domestic and
international levels. Recognition of a resurgence of anti-Semitism
throughout the OSCE is a good first step. The OSCE Conference on Anti-
Semitism last June provided a constructive venue to examine the problem
and propose programs and practices to address it. We must move beyond
recognition of the problem to concrete action within the OSCE to ensure
that all participating states are living up to their commitments in
this area, in particular to combat anti-Semitism, as contained in the
1990 Copenhagen Document: These include adopting laws to protect
against incitement to violence based on discrimination including anti-
Semitism, and providing the individual with effective remedies to
initiate complaints against acts of discrimination.
The German government invited states to a meeting on anti-Semitism
in Berlin in 2004, and we urge the HDIM to recommend its acceptance
and, in turn, urge the Ministerial meeting to endorse it.
The history of anti-Semitism in the OSCE region has unfortunately
been a distinctive one and its recent resurgence in the OSCE countries
has followed its own course, as well. States that have had the most
success in combating anti-Semitism have done so by taking measures
specifically aimed at eradicating anti-Semitism, including some within
the context of measures to combat discrimination, intolerance,
xenophobia, etc. In other words, a separate track and separate
attention is needed.
Statistics, monitoring, reporting publicly and regularly about
compliance and violations are essential to realize any serious human
rights commitments.
We emphasize the need for:
Assignment within OSCE, perhaps in the Office of Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights of the responsibility to monitor
and report regularly on anti-Semitic incidents and the
implementation of state's Copenhagen commitments.
Review of state compliance within the OSCE on a regular
basis.
Acceptance of the German invitation to host an OSCE meeting
on anti-Semitism in Berlin.
The meeting in Berlin should be different than the first, and
participating states and the ODHIR should ensure that the meeting moves
us forward in evaluating the strategies, documentation, commitments,
and implementation of the OSCE states with regard to the struggle
against anti-Semitism.
In terms of international cooperation on combating anti-Semitism,
as with many human rights issues, the OSCE is a key venue through which
to advance this. And the OSCE has a special obligation to exhibit
vigorous leadership on this issue to show the rest of the international
community that this is an important issue and that political will can
make a real difference in combating anti-Semitism. We hope that kind of
leadership will be emerging in other international and regional
institutions. But we have been disappointed by their failure to address
this topic seriously in their reporting and other human rights work. We
earnestly hope OSCE will not continue in their direction. That is why
the recommendations that emerge from this meeting are so vital and so
closely monitored.
In conclusion, we reiterate: anti-Semitism is not hooliganism, it's
human rights abuse.
______
Ambassade de France
aux Etats-Unis
October 23rd, 2003
Dear Sir,
Please find attached a few documents related to the European
reaction to a statement delivered by Mr. Mahathir, Prime Minster of
Malaysia:
-- Statement of the European Presidency
-- Letter sent by the French President to the Malaysian Prime
Minister
-- Letter sent by the French President to Mr. Foxman
(Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League)
-- Letter to the editor sent by the French Charge d'Affaires
in Tel Aviv to the Israeli newspaper ``Maariv.''
Best regards,
Jean-David Levitte
L'Ambassadeur
______
Mr. Prime Minister,
The quality and long-standing nature of our relations have made it
possible for us many times to exchange views about the international
situation in all frankness.
It is in this spirit that I believe it is my duty today to convey
the thoughts elicited by your speech on October 16 at the opening of
the Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Your remarks on the role of Jews provoked very strong disapproval
in France and around the world. Even though you and your government
were careful to reject all accusations of anti-Semitism, these remarks
can only be condemned by all those who remember the Holocaust.
You are certainly aware of the statement by the Presidency of the
European Union on October 17.
I noted with interest moreover that your speech at Putrajaya
included in particular condemnation of suicide attacks and clear and
courageous thoughts for the world's Moslems and their leaders, comments
that I can only approve.
That is why the French authorities have appealed for reciprocal
respect between the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the
other faiths in accordance with the spirit of tolerance which is also
Islam's.
[Complimentary close]
Jacques Chirac
______
President of the European Commission
Brussels, December 8, 2003
The Honourable Robert Wexler
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Europe
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representaeives
Washington, D.C. 20515
USA
Dear Mr. Wexler,
Thank you for your letter of 21 July regarding incidents of anti-
Semitism in Europe.
I align myself fully with High Representative Solana's reply of 30
July to your letter addressed to him. There is no complacency in Europe
with regard to the scourge of racism in all its forms, including
discrimination on the grounds of religion, be it Judaism, Islam or any
other religion. We must never allow our vigilance in this respect to
waver.
The European Union's founding fathers undertook a brave and radical
experiment to rescue this continent from the scourge of intolerance,
nationalism and xenophobia. We are still building our European Union on
shared values of tolerance and pluralism. Europe's history casts a long
shadow, and it remains constantly within our field of vision. This is
why we continue to place such emphasis on concrete measures to combat
racism and intolerance.
I will not repeat High Representative Solana's derailed inventory
of actions undertaken by the European Union in this respect, nor his
clarification regarding the work of the European Union Monitonng Centre
on Racism and Xenophobia. Let me simply reaffirm the intention of the
European Commission to work tirelessly with EU Member States to fight
racism both within our own borders, and in the wider global context.
The Anti-Defamation League's recent report on the rise of anti-Semitism
in the United States \1\ shows that there is no room for complacency on
either side of the Atlantic. We hope therefore that the European Union
and the United States can work together to combat discrimination in all
its forms wherever it occurs in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/4243_12.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, let me again underline the importance of distinguishing
between legitimate political expressions and criticisms of the policies
of the government of Israel on the one hand, and anti-Semitism on the
other. As High Representative Solana wrote in his letter to you, the
European Union will not tolerate anti-Semitism, nor will it tolerate
any insinuation that its policy towards the Middle East is driven by
anti-Semitism.
Yours sincerely,
Romano Prodi
President
______
European Union
Delegation of the European Commission
Washington, 22 October, 2004
The Honorable George Allen
Chairman, Subcommittee on European Affairs
Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman,
I am writing to you to provide some material for the official
record of your subcommittee's hearing on ``Anti-Semitism in Europe'' to
be held on 22 October 2003. This is a serious subject which merits
investigation leading to a better understanding in the United States of
the European Union's position and policies in the area of over all
human rights protection. I have attached copies of letters of the
European Union's High Representative, Javier Solana, and the European
Commission's President, Romano Prodi, who were each sent letters of
inquiry on this same subject earlier this summer by four members of the
House of Representatives, Messrs Wexler, Lantos and Ackerman and Ms.
Ros Lehtinen. The correspondence outlines in some details about the
European Union's role in the establishment of the concept of protecting
the individual and preventing any form of discrimination based on
ethnic, religious or national origins among other things for anyone
living in the boundaries of the European Union. It also addresses some
of the concerns I understand are of interest to you for the purposes of
your hearing.
I would note that when the founding members of the European
Communities signed the Rome Treaty, there was no provision in that
document regarding these types of rights, because all of the six
founding countries had just signed the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed also in Rome
on 4 November 1950. The two treaties were considered mutually
compatible at the time and therefore there was no need to merge the two
concepts.
However, with the growth and development of the European Union
during the 1980s and early 1990s it became apparent that additional
rights of citizens of the EU needed to be explicitly delineated within
the EU legal system. This required a modification of the Rome Treaty
which began with the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastricht
(entered into force November 1, 1993), Article F.
Subsequently the Treaty on European Union was amended by the
Amsterdam Treaty (entered into force February 1999) whereby the prior
Article F was changed to Article 6. This is currently in force.
``Article 6
1. The Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy,
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law,
principles which are common to the Member States.
2. The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 and as they result from the
constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as general
principles of Community law.
3. The Union shall respect the national identities of its Member
States.
4. The Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to
attain its objectives and carry through its policies.''
The Treaty on European Community as amended and consolidated by
Amsterdam also introduced Articles 12 and 13 and now reads:
``Article 12
Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without
prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any
discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. The
Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article
251, may adopt rules designed to prohibit such discrimination.
``Article 13(*)
1. Without prejudice to the other provisions of this Treaty and
within the limits of the powers conferred by it upon the Community, the
Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after
consulting the European Parliament, may take appropriate action to
combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion
or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.
2. By way of derogation from paragraph 1, when the Council adopts
Community incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws
and regulations of the Member States, to support action taken by the
Member States in order to contribute to the achievement of the
objectives referred to in paragraph 1, it shall act in accordance with
the procedure referred to in Article 251.''
Member states of the European Union whether the historic founding
members or the applicant countries must provide that their legal
systems enforce these specific measures in the EU Treaties, just as
they must enforce all other parts of the EU Treaties. Indeed, several
of the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe had to amend
their own constitutions in this area to remove any law that provided
discriminatory practices in order to be successful candidates for EU
membership. Membership in the European Union is far more than
membership in a simple trading area. It has a substantial normative
setting power that is advancing the principle of the protection of the
individual by law and democratic institutions across the continent of
Europe. This is an element of the EU which I find Americans often under
estimate or don't quite fully appreciate.
At this point in time I should point out that the standards of
guarantees and protections of individuals and groups of citizens of the
EU are established at the EU level, what in the US would be termed the
``Federal Level.'' However, unlike the US, the responsibility for
enforcement of the provisions in the EU falls to each of the member
state governments and their judicial and law enforcement agencies. This
is true of much of European Union policy such as custom controls and
other EU regulations. Member States must adjust their internal legal
structures to not conflict with EU law, but further they must adjust
policing authorities to enforce EU laws. This is perhaps a different
interpretation of Federalism from the US version where a Federal
bureaucracy tends to enforce only the Federal Laws and State
authorities look primarily at state law. In the EU, member state
governments must enforce both sets of law.
For the record, I have also attached a copy of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights that will become an integral part of the European
Convention, which will in the near future become the functioning
equivalent of a constitution for the enlarged European Union of twenty-
five member states. Let me conclude by thanking you for the opportunity
of providing these statements to your subcommittee for inclusion in the
formal record of the hearing and let me also assure you that I fully
agree with the sentiments rejecting anti-Semitism as strongly expressed
in the letters from President Prodi and High Commissioner Solana.
Sincerely,
Dr. Gunter Burghardt
Ambassador-Head of Delegation
______
Brussels, 29 July 2003
Hon. Rep. Robert Wexier
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Europe Hon. Rep. Tom Lantos
Ranking Member
House International. Relations
Committee
Hon. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Middle East
& Central Asia Hon. Rep. Gary Ackerman
Ranking member
Subcommittee on Middle East
& Central Asia
Honorable Members of Congress,
Thank you for your letter to me of July 21 2003. Allow me to repeat
my thanks to you for giving me the opportunity to attend the joint
Europe and Middle East Subcommittee meeting on June 25 2003 in
Washington. I value such contacts as an important contribution to
transatlantic understanding, and I was pleased to be able to discuss
with the Subcommittee the many areas of policy where the European Union
and the United States are co-operating in an intense and productive
fashion.
In your letter you raise one specific point that came up during our
very wide-ranging discussions, namely the issue of anti-Semitism in
Europe. I will attempt to answer the points in the same spirit of co-
operation that you raise them.
To begin with, allow me to recall what I have said repeatedly in
public about the scourge of anti-Semitism. None of us must ever be
complacent. Racism, in all its forms, is a poison that will be removed
from our societies only with vigour and determination. The acts of
anti-Semitism that have taken place in several parts of Europe are
outrageous and simply cannot be tolerated, regardless of their source
or motivation. This is the sincerely held view of all in the European
political mainstream, as reflected in the conclusions of the Council of
the European Union on 25-26 April 2002.
You have criticised my reluctance to characterise these acts of
anti-Semitism in Europe as constituting a ``wave of anti-Semitism'' and
you refer to several reports to support your criticism. I do not wish
to enter into a polemic about what statistical threshold must be
breached before the word ``wave'' is correctly applied. However we
characterise it, I do not for a moment deny that there has been a
significant number of expressions of anti-Semitism in several parts of
Europe, both violent and non-violent. The fact is that a single act of
anti-Semitism is one act too many. European political leaders recognise
this fact and have committed themselves by word and deed to addressing
the problem.
The European Union entirely agrees with your emphasis on treating
anti-Semitism as a form of racism and racial discrimination.
Consequently, anti-Semitism is an integral part of EU initiatives
against racial discrimination. The European Union's Institutions have
condemned intolerance, racism and xenophobia on numerous occasions. In
1997--the European Year against Racism--we introduced Article 13 in the
Treaty establishing the European Community, giving the Community new
powers to combat discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic
origin, religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation.
The EU's commitment to combat discrimination was further underlined
by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which was
jointly proclaimed by the EU Institutions on 7 December 2000. Article
21 of the Charter prohibits all discrimination based on any ground such
as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features,
language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion,
membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or
sexual orientation.
In 2000 the EU Council adopted a package of measures on the basis
of Article 13 of the EC Treaty. Council Directive 2000/43/EC prohibits
any direct or indirect discrimination based on such grounds, notably in
the fields of access to employment, access to vocational guidance and
training, employment and working conditions, membership of
organisations, social protection, social advantages, education and
access to and supply of goods and services. The Directive applies to
both the public and private sectors within the EU. A second Directive
(Council Directive 2000/78/EC) establishes a general framework for
combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief,
disability, age or sexual orientation.
Furthermore, in November 2000 the EU adopted an Action Programme to
Combat Discrimination and support activities designed to promote
measures to prevent and combat discrimination based on racial or ethnic
origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. With
a budget of EUR 14,15 million in 2001 this programme has funded a wide
range of activities.
The European Union is considering further measures in the fight
against racism and xenophobia. The European Commission has presented a
proposal for a framework decision with two main purposes: firstly to
ensure that racism and xenophobia are punishable in all Member States
by effective, proportionate and dissuasive criminal penalties, which
can give rise to extradition and surrender, and secondly to improve and
encourage judicial co-operation by removing potential obstacles. The
proposed instrument provides that the same racist and xenophobic
conducts would be punishable in all Member States, which would define a
common EU criminal approach to this phenomenon.
Great efforts are also being made to mainstream the fight against
racism into all aspects of Community policies and actions, at all
levels, as provided for by the 1998 Action Plan Against Racism. Areas
concerned include, in particular, employment, the European Structural
Funds, education, training and youth programmes, public procurement
policy, research activities, external relations, information work and
cultural and sports initiatives.
Your letter refers to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia. This Centre was established in 1997 with the express
purpose of providing the Union and its Member States with objective,
reliable and comparable information on the phenomena of racism,
xenophobia and anti-Semitism in order to help them when they take
measures or formulate courses of action within their respective spheres
of competence. Since its inception the EUMC has treated anti-Semitism
as a form of racism and racial discrimination, and, as such, anti-
Semitism has been included in the regular monitoring reports the EUMC
receives from its national focal points and subsequently publishes in
its annual reports.
I understand that in the context of this work, the EUMC has
continuously drawn attention to the lack of comparable data and
definitions of anti-Semitism at the national level in the EU. To
encourage the establishment of clear criteria for reporting racist
acts, and thereby to improve monitoring at national level, is one of
the EUMC's ongoing objectives. The EUMC has repeatedly stated that
without such data collected at Member States' level it is difficult to
draw conclusions about the extent, nature and trends associated with
all forms of racism. I have been informed that the European Commission
and the EUMC are both carrying out work related to improving data
collection and data comparability, and I am sure that U.S. experience
in this field will be taken into account in their deliberations.
In your letter you refer to a draft report of the EUMC on anti-
Semitism. Having contacted the EUMC, I understand that its Management
Board examines reports to determine their suitability for publication.
I am told that the Board assesses reports on the basis of specific
criteria associated with the relevant study and general quality
standards. I have been informed that the draft report in question, as
has been the case with a number of other reports, did not meet the
criteria of consistency and quality of data. The decision was therefore
taken to refrain from publishing a report at this moment, as it would
neither contribute authoritative data, nor enhance the discussion on
anti-Semitism or bring added value to the debate.
I am pleased that you recognise that legitimate political
expressions and criticisms of Israel cannot be equated with anti-
Semitism. The European Union will not tolerate anti-Semitism, but
neither can it tolerate any insinuation that its policy towards the
Middle East is driven by anti-Semitism. To criticise acts and policies
simply cannot be equated with hatred for an entire people. We are
neither anti-Israeli nor anti-Palestinian. We are pro-peace, pro-
security, pro-justice.
I hope that I have assured you that the issue of anti-Semitism is
of the utmost importance to the European Union, and that real efforts
are being undertaken to address this scourge. I am sure that you will
agree that all of us, on both sides of the Atlantic, must remain
vigilant to combat racism and discrimination in all its forms.
Yours sincerely,
``signed''
Javier SOLANA