[Senate Hearing 108-586]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-586
ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 8, 2004
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-528 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
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
Allen, Hon. George, U.S. Senator from Virginia, opening statement 1
Baker, Rabbi Andrew, Director of International Jewish Affairs,
American Jewish Committee...................................... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Jones, Hon. A. Elizabeth, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of
European and Eurasian Affairs, Department of State............. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Levin, Mark, Executive Director, National Conference on Soviet
Jewry.......................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Mariaschin, Dan, Executive Vice President, B'nai B'rith
International.................................................. 41
Prepared statement........................................... 45
Stern, Ms. Caryl M., Chief Operating Officer, Anti-Defamation
League......................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 27
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from Ohio, opening
statement...................................................... 3
Appendix
Additional Material Submitted by Ms. Caryl M. Stern, Chief
Operating Officer, Anti-Defamation League
Global Anti-Semitism: Selected Incidents Around the World in
2004....................................................... 55
Anti-Defamation League ``A World of Difference''
International Programs..................................... 56
Anti-Semitism in the Egyptian Media.......................... 58
Prepared Statement and Additional Material Submitted by Michael
H. Posner, Executive Director, Human Rights First
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Fire and Broken Glass: The Rise of Anti-Semitism in Europe... 75
Material Submitted by the National Conference on Soviet Jewry
(NCSJ)
Proceeding of NCSJ Side Event: Post-Soviet States Respond to
Anti-Semitism, October 14, 2003............................ 89
(iii)
ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE
----------
Thursday, April 8, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee on European Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in
Room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. George
Allen, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Allen, Voinovich and Sarbanes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Good afternoon to everyone. I call this
hearing of the European Affairs Subcommittee to order. Today we
are holding a follow-up hearing on the subject of anti-Semitism
in Europe. In October of last year, this subcommittee examined
an issue of great interest and looked at it in great detail and
pledged to revisit the issue to see what progress has been made
and what steps have been taken. We are going to follow this
year after year to see what progress has been made both within
the European Union as a whole and also the individual states of
Europe.
This is an opportune time to discuss the goals for the
upcoming Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) Conference. They are having a conference in Berlin on
the role of government in combating anti-Semitism and will
follow that with a Paris meeting on the use of the Internet to
propagate anti-Semitic actions and beliefs.
As was discussed during our hearing last year, in recent
years there has been documented, clear increases in anti-
Semitic incidents throughout Europe. With attacks taking place
with greater frequency in Great Britain, France, Belgium, and
Germany, and other countries, it is clear that anti-Semitism is
on the rise over the last few years. And it is more than just
an aberration. The rise in anti-Jewish activity seems to be
representing a trend that must be acknowledged and therefore
have constructive steps taken to prevent future attacks, as
well as prosecute the perpetrators of such criminal acts.
Whether the motivation of anti-Semitic incidents are events
in the Middle East or deep-seeded dislike of Jewish people, as
I stated in the previous hearing, it is the foremost
responsibility of leaders and elected officials to immediately
publicly condemn such hate crimes. We are fortunate to have
with us many outstanding witnesses today who will help us
analyze this situation and how it can be improved.
I think it is essential that the people of our states and
our countries understand that such actions of intolerance,
because of one's ethnicity or religious beliefs or, for that
matter, race will not be tolerated. And conversely, we cannot
have the people of our states somehow believe that inaction is
appropriate, because that could be construed as condoning such
behavior and may lead to further violent activities.
I am pleased that there has been some acknowledgment of the
anti-Semitism problem by the European Union and a number of its
member countries. The Embassy of France has continued to keep
me informed on its government's efforts to combat anti-Semitism
in France. I understand France has developed a comprehensive
plan for combating anti-Semitism and preventing incidents in
the future. I have been informed that the French Government has
made a number of judicial changes to punish those convicted of
anti-Semitic attacks more severely.
Additionally, new authority has been given to prosecutors
to fully prosecute acts of anti-Semitism. France is also in the
process of instituting educational and media initiatives to
sensitize its citizens on the issue of anti-Semitism and to
promote tolerance among its younger generation.
The United Kingdom, Sweden, and Greece are enhancing their
responses to the problem in a number of ways. Some are seeking
to implement new programs to provide greater flexibility in
prosecuting racially or ethnically motivated crimes, while
others are attempting to use education and the establishment of
holidays to teach the history of the Holocaust, which is also
an important aspect of education.
After sending conflicting signals, the European Union
appears to be taking some steps to acknowledge the rise of
anti-Semitism in its member states. I, like many, viewed the
decision not to release a 2002 study on anti-Semitism as
counterproductive and symbolic of the reticence to acknowledge
the scope of the problem. I am pleased that the European Union
met its commitment to release the report this year and provide
an institutional account of the prevalence of anti-Semitism in
the 15 and soon to be 25 member countries.
I understand that earlier this year the European Commission
conveyed a high-level meeting on anti-Semitism in Europe that
included global leaders on the issue. I further understand that
during this conference the president of the commission called
for the formulation of plans to combat an anti-Semitism
collectively between the commission and their individual
nations.
These are positive statements of purpose and are positive
signs that our friends in Europe are ready to take substantive
action against anti-Semitic violence. However, it is important
that these declarations are followed by concrete actions that
actually result in policies and practices that ensure the
prosecution of perpetrators and, more importantly, prevent
future acts of anti-Semitism.
I am hopeful that the OSCE conference in Berlin will
provide a forum for the development of specific plans to stem
the increased incidents of anti-Semitism in Europe. In
reviewing the agenda for these April meetings, it appears the
overriding theme will be implementing best practices in the
areas most important to combating anti-Semitism.
By focusing on government, law enforcement, education, and
the media, the United States and Europe have a unique
opportunity to further develop a comprehensive strategy for
fighting the problem and promoting religious tolerance. I am
interested to learn what goals and expectations our Government
officials have for these upcoming meetings, as well as those of
our European friends. I believe that these conferences are the
best forum for highlighting the problems of anti-Semitism and,
most important, developing solutions. And I am hopeful that the
shared expectations that we have will yield a constructive
blueprint for eliminating, or at least reducing, anti-Semitism
in the future.
I really do believe, in closing, before we hear from our
witnesses and other Senators, that our European allies should,
and I do believe that they do, share our commitment to freedom
and basic human rights. And I believe that working together
with our friends to find and, most importantly, to implement
the most effective ways to combat anti-Semitism, if we do that,
will further our shared goals of tolerance and strengthen our
shared goal of protecting the rights of individuals,
particularly their religious freedoms.
And I want to thank again our witnesses for being here with
us today. We are going to have a vote. I will tell my
colleague, around 2:45. If there is a way that we can keep the
hearing going with us passing the gavel of leadership, we will
do it. If not, we may have to recess for a moment while I go
and vote.
We do have with us the Senator from Ohio, Senator
Voinovich, who was at the hearing last year and is one who is a
strong advocate of individual rights and certainly who abhors
religious intolerance and anti-Semitism. And before we hear
from our first witness, who I will introduce, I turn it over to
Senator Voinovich for any opening remarks he wishes to make.
Senator Voinovich.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Senator Allen. I appreciate
your convening this hearing today and continuing an examination
of the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, which this subcommittee
began last October. I believe it is important that we continue
to highlight this alarming trend and that we move forward with
discussion on ways that together we can act to combat this
serious problem.
I would like to join in welcoming Assistant Secretary of
State Beth Jones--Beth, it is nice to see you again--who has
agreed to testify today. And I would also like to welcome Caryl
Stern from the Anti-Defamation League; Rabbi Andrew Baker of
the American Jewish Committee; Mark Levin of the National
Conference on Soviet Jewry; and Dan Mariaschin of the B'nai
B'rith. Your organizations have been on the front lines in the
fight against anti-Semitism, and I am glad you are able to be
with us this afternoon.
Now this is a timely and prudent discussion, as the United
States and members of the international community prepare to
gather in Berlin on April 28 and 29 for a conference on anti-
Semitism hosting by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. I am pleased to have an opportunity to
represent the United States as a member of the U.S. delegation
to this meeting at the invitation of Secretary Powell.
It is my hope that recommendations made today will assist
us as we look to institutionalize the fight against anti-
Semitism in the OSCE and we begin to put in place an action
plan to formalize a process to identify, monitor, and measure
efforts to combat anti-Semitism at each of the 55 OSCE
countries.
As our witnesses will testify here today, it is an
unfortunate reality that anti-Semitism continues in countries
around the world. In May 2002, following a disturbing number of
anti-Semitic incidents in Europe, I joined with members of the
Helsinki Commission in a hearing to examine the rise of anti-
Semitic violence in Europe. I was shocked at the reports that I
heard.
And now, nearly two years later, the news is not much
better. The first three months of 2004 have seen numerous acts
of anti-Semitism abroad. For example, in Toulon, France, on
March 23, a Jewish synagogue and community center were set on
fire. In St. Petersburg, Russia, on February 15, vandals
desecrated approximately 50 gravestones in a Jewish cemetery,
painting them with swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti. And it
goes on and on.
It is important to note, unfortunately, that we are not
exempt here in the United States, and that is something that we
should all be very concerned about.
As a member of the Senate, I am committed to doing all I
can to move toward the goal of zero tolerance for anti-Semitism
in the world today, working with my colleagues in the House and
Senate, the State Department, and organizations such as those
represented this afternoon. While this hearing is a step in the
right direction, I believe we can and should do more.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday I introduced legislation, Senate
bill 2292, calling attention the growing problem of anti-
Semitism abroad. And the bill, which we call the Global anti-
Semitism Review Act of 2004, urges the United States to
continue to strongly support efforts to highlight anti-Semitism
through bilateral relationships and interaction with the
international organizations, such as the OSCE.
We were able to get some words in the foreign operations
appropriation and also the State Department authorization bill.
Then, of course, those did not go anywhere. So we finally got
it in the omnibus appropriating bill. But one of the things,
Ms. Jones, that I am concerned about is the language that we
finally ended up with; I do not think it really got the job
done. I would like the State Department to look at this
language that we have put together.
First of all, the bill would require a report to include a
description of physical violence against or harassment of
Jewish people or community institutions, such as schools,
synagogues, or cemeteries, that occur in the country. So
measure that.
Second, report on the response of the government of that
country to such attacks; third, report on actions by the
government of that country to enact and enforce laws relating
to the protection of the right to religious freedom with
respect to Jewish people; and last, the efforts by that
government to promote anti-bias and tolerance education.
It is the last point that I think is important. If we are
truly to be successful, it is imperative that we work to
promote tolerance and bring about a change in the hearts and
minds of those responsible for acts of anti-Semitism and other
hate crimes.
Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate your calling this hearing
today. And I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
Senator Allen. I want to commend you for your bill.
Consider me a sponsor of that measure. This subcommittee is
focused on Europe; that is why our focus is on European affairs
insofar as anti-Semitism. But we know anti-Semitism is not
unique to Europe. We have anti-Semitism in this country that
needs to be deplored and condemned and actions taken, as well
as every continent of the world. So thank you for your
leadership on this matter.
What I would like to do, if we could, is if we could switch
off back and forth so we keep our witnesses on time. A vote has
started. I would like to, before we break for that, at least
hear from Secretary Jones. And if you and I could work this
out, we can keep the hearing and our second panel relatively on
time with the way that the Senate operates.
So let me first introduce our first panel, a panel of one.
Secretary Elizabeth Jones, was sworn in as Assistant Secretary
for European and Eurasian Affairs in May of 2001. She joined
the Foreign Service back in 1970 as an elementary school child.
Her overseas assignments have been concentrated in the Middle
East, Germany, and South Asia. In Washington, she served as the
Lebanon Desk Officer, Deputy Director for Lebanon, Jordan,
Syria, and Iraq, and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in
the Near East Bureau. She also served as Executive Assistant to
Secretary Warren Christopher and directed the Office of the
Caspian Basin Energy Diplomacy.
We would like to hear from you, Secretary Jones, and your
insight into this matter.
STATEMENT OF HON. A. ELIZABETH JONES, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE, BUREAU OF EUROPEAN AND EURASIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Ms. Jones. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
appreciate your inviting me to appear before you today. I also
very much appreciate your leadership on this issue, and yours,
Senator Voinovich. We are very grateful for that. It helps us a
lot in pursuing this issue, which is a very important one for
the United States.
We pursue the work on anti-Semitism using a three-track
approach. We work with and through the OSCE, as you have
already mentioned. We use the Holocaust Task Force. And we
spend a tremendous amount of time with our embassies, our
ambassadors, to monitor the situations and the countries to
which they are accredited, to speak out about this issue as
quickly as possible and whenever necessary, wherever necessary.
In the OSCE, of course the first conference on anti-
Semitism was hosted by the Austrians in Vienna just a year ago,
in June 2003. At the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in
Maastricht in December, we played a very big role in assuring
that the next conference was to take place. And we are very
grateful to the German Government for offering to host the
conference that will take place at the end of April in Berlin.
Secretary Powell hopes to attend that conference, schedule
permitting. He looks forward to that very much to discuss this
issue and to go there as a signal of the strong importance, the
great importance, he attaches to pursuing anti-Semitism around
the world, including in Europe and Eurasia.
The French Government has offered to host a meeting in June
on racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism propaganda on the
Internet, another very important issue for all of us. And the
Belgium Government will host a conference in September on
racism, xenophobia, and discrimination, also a very important
conference and very important that the Government of Belgium
has offered to host it.
The Task Force for Holocaust Education, Remembrance and
Research is a task force that has grown considerably in the few
years that it has been in existence. It now is a 16-member
group. There are other countries that have asked to join the
group and that are working on joining that group. Its focus is
on education and the Holocaust, an area that we certainly think
is terribly important. Mr. Chairman, you have mentioned it, and
Senator Voinovich has as well, as one of the key areas that all
of us use to pursue the anti-Semitism work that we do.
The task force is particularly focused on teacher training,
on documentary films, on essay contests for high school
students, and really working toward helping to train teachers
how to discuss this issue in multiethnic settings, as well,
something that is increasingly important in many places in
Europe.
The third track is the bilateral track. My colleague,
Ambassador Ed O'Donnell, reported to you, Mr. Chairman, in
January on the tasking to develop information about Holocaust
education programs in each country. Our embassies, our
ambassadors, are engaged in a dialogue with senior officials in
the countries to which they are accredited, especially those
that are experiencing the rise in anti-Semitism that has all of
us concerned.
We have also provided the NGOs a further update on the work
that our embassies have undertaken in the various countries.
And once the information is complete, we will share all of the
more updated information with the committee as well.
In more specific terms, we are very engaged in preparations
for the Berlin conference. It is a very important conference
for us. It is a huge conference this year compared to last
year. We are very pleased that former Mayor Koch has agreed to
lead the delegation. We are very grateful that Senator
Voinovich will participate, as a member of the official
delegation, as well the chair of the Helsinki Commission,
Representative Chris Smith, and the ranking minority member on
the commission, Representative Ben Cardin.
There are five distinguished members of the Jewish
community who will participate as part of the official
delegation as well: Betty Ehrenberg, Steve Hoffman, Jay
Lefkowitz, Jack Rosen, and Fred Zeidman. And we are, in
addition, very pleased that the public advisors will
participate as well. Some of them are sitting right behind me
today and will participate in this hearing later. It should be
an excellent delegation. We look forward to a tremendous amount
of very good work coming out of it.
The goals that we have coming out of the conference, the
priorities that we are focused on, are the roles of states and
OSCE institutions in fighting anti-Semitism. The OSCE-
participating states, we believe, need to commit themselves to
collect and share data on hate crimes and to take measures,
including in the areas of education and law enforcement, to
fight anti-Semitism. We are looking for action-oriented ideas
to implement that kind of thing.
We also would like the OSCE to task its Office for
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, to collect and
publicly report statistics on hate crimes, to monitor incidents
of anti-Semitism, to assist states with hate crime legislation,
and to facilitate sharing of best practices to promote
tolerance, particularly in law enforcement and education.
You mentioned the European Union reports. The EU Monitoring
Center Report on Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the
European Union certainly illustrates the need for improvement
and monitoring and data collection. That report, this year's
report, is just out.
The other areas in which we think that--in which we think
improvements are needed and areas in which we are working is
that we think it is appropriate to push for faster reactions
from European governments and political leaders to respond to
anti-Semitic incidents. It works well in some places, not as
well as we would like in other places.
France and Italy have created ministerial committees to
combat racism, anti-Semitism. And as you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, France has heightened security for Jewish properties.
It is undertaking better training for judges who try hate crime
cases. And there are stiffer penalties for perpetrators of hate
crimes. And we look forward to that kind of thing being done in
more countries in Europe.
Tolerance education is becoming the norm. It is becoming
more the norm in countries in Europe. And we would like to keep
working on that. Education is clearly a very important aspect
of the work that we do.
As I mentioned earlier, work on education on the Holocaust
in multi-cultural settings is particularly important. This is
the case in countries in which there are many, many--in which
there is a large Muslim minority. We already know that in
France there are some Muslim students who have walked out of
classes devoted to studying the Holocaust or refuse to take the
class. And we need to overcome that kind of resistance to the
education that is so necessary to fight anti-Semitism.
We plan to continue to work multilaterally and bilaterally,
multilaterally with the OSCE, bilaterally with each of these
countries, and with education ministries, with NGOs in these
countries, as well as the Congress, to deal as effectively as
we can in combating anti-Semitism.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Secretary Jones. And your full
statement will be put into the record here.
Ms. Jones. Yes, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jones follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. A. Elizabeth Jones
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to appear before you today. I would like to take this
opportunity if I may, Mr. Chairman, to compliment you on your personal
commitment and the leadership you have shown in combating all forms of
racism and intolerance, and in particular the scourge of anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semitism again has emerged as a serious problem in Europe and
elsewhere in the world, including here in the United States. I would
also like to underscore our continued commitment to work closely with
the Congress to do everything we can to deal effectively with the new
threat of anti-Semitism, and to ensure that all citizens in Europe and
elsewhere can live their lives in safety and dignity whatever their
race, ethnicity or religious beliefs.
Since last October when the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues
Ambassador Edward O'Donnell appeared before you, the Administration and
Department of State have continued to make the fight against anti-
Semitism one of our highest priorities. Our work runs on three tracks:
first, to work closely with our European allies, and in particular
within the context of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE), to develop concrete, effective ways to address the
problem of anti-Semitism; second, to work through the Task Force for
International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and
Research to educate the current and future generations about the
lessons of the Holocaust; and third, bilateral action led by
Ambassadors and Embassy staffs to work with host governments against
anti-Semitism and hate crimes.
OSCE
Last June in Vienna, the OSCE held a conference devoted exclusively
to the problem of anti-Semitism. The United States was instrumental in
developing a consensus within the OSCE for this meeting. The conference
was highly successful: for the first time anti-Semitism was identified
as a specific human rights issue, distinct from religious
discrimination or ethnic and racial prejudice. While the conference
took no formal decisions, the participants recognized the need to track
anti-Semitic incidents in order to build a better understanding of the
breadth and depth of the issue.
Six months later at Maastricht, the OSCE Ministerial Council
addressed a number of forms of racism, xenophobia and discrimination,
including anti-Semitism that special OSCE conferences had addressed
during the year. During this meeting, which I attended with Secretary
Powell, the Council took a formal decision to follow-up on the Vienna
Conference and welcomed the offer of the Federal Republic of Germany to
host a second conference on anti-Semitism, on April 28-29, 2004. In
addition, the Council approved a meeting on combating hate crimes
fueled by racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda on the
Internet to be held in June in Paris and a conference on racism,
xenophobia and discrimination in September in Brussels.
At Maastricht, the Ministers also encouraged participating states
to collect information on hate crimes and assigned the task of serving
as a collection point for this information to the OSCE's Office of
Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). OSCE members also
agreed to inform ODIHR about existing legislation on hate crimes and,
where appropriate, to seek ODIHR's assistance in the drafting and
review of such legislation.
We are now deeply engaged in preparations for this important, even
historic conference in Berlin. The President has named a number of
leading individuals from the Congress, as well as outstanding NGO
members and private citizens active in the fight against anti-Semitism,
to represent the United States: former Mayor Edward Koch, a strong and
experienced leader for many years in the fight for tolerance and racial
justice, will head the U.S. Delegation. Stephan M. Minikes, our
Ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna, and Special Envoy for Holocaust
Issues Edward O'Donnell will join him. We are pleased that Senator
Voinovich, a distinguished member of this committee and internationally
recognized as a leader in the fight against anti-Semitism and other
forms of intolerance, will also be a member of the United States
Delegation. We are honored by Senator Voinovich's participation and
appreciate the strong leadership and wise counsel he will provide. Two
distinguished members of the House of Representatives will be on the
U.S. delegation and play a strong role for the United States in Berlin:
Congressman Christopher Smith of New Jersey, Chairman of the Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Congressman Benjamin Cardin
of Maryland, a leading member of the United States Helsinki Commission.
Several prominent NGO leaders and private citizens concerned about
intolerance and anti-Semitism in the United States and overseas will
complete the U.S. team.
GOALS FOR BERLIN
What are our goals for Berlin?
Mr. Chairman, building on the work of the anti-Semitism meeting in
Vienna last June and of that of the Maastricht OSCE Ministerial
Council, the United States believes that the objectives of the meeting
in Berlin are to condemn all forms of anti-Semitism, and for the 55
member states of the OSCE to reach agreement on a number of specific
steps to combat anti-Semitism within the OSCE region. Specifically, we
are working intensively to ensure that Berlin will recommend to the
OSCE Ministerial Council that member states commit to:
Ensure that their legal systems foster a safe environment,
free from anti-Semitic harassment, violence and discrimination;
Promote educational programs for combating anti-Semitism;
Support remembrance of and education about the Holocaust and
the importance of respect for all ethnic and religious groups;
Combat hate crimes, which can be fueled by racist,
xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda in the media and
elsewhere;
Collect and maintain reliable information and statistics
about anti-Semitic incidents and other hate crimes, and
periodically report this information to the OSCE/ODIHR in
Warsaw;
Work with the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly to determine
appropriate ways to review periodically the problem of anti-
Semitism; and, lastly,
Encourage future informal exchanges among experts on best
practices in law enforcement and education.
The role of ODIHR, as noted, will be important to our success in
implementing these concrete measures to fight anti-Semitism within the
OSCE area. We believe that ODIHR, along with other relevant
international institutions and NGOs, should closely track anti-Semitic
incidents making full use of all the information available. ODIHR
should report its findings to the OSCE Permanent Council and to the
OSCE's annual Human Dimension Meeting, and make these findings
available to the public. These reports should then be considered in
deciding the priorities of the work of the OSCE as a whole.
We see as an additional task for ODIHR collecting and disseminating
information throughout the OSCE region on best practices for preventing
and responding to anti-Semitism. We believe that ODIHR should actively
engage participating States on their efforts to fight anti-Semitism.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when Jews are being harassed and physically
attacked in Europe and in Canada, the United States and elsewhere in
the world, and when their synagogues, schools and cemeteries are being
defaced, desecrated and destroyed, it is a matter of urgency that we
succeed in moving in the directions that I have just outlined to combat
anti-Semitism.
We are now seeing anti-Semitism in both its old virulent and in new
hateful forms. The traditional anti-Semitism of neo-Nazis and other
far-right hate groups is now part of a broader template. This includes
anti-Semitism masked as anti-globalism, fanned, for example, by a
resurgence of the decades old lies of such works as ``The Protocols of
the Elders of Zion.'' There is also anti-Semitism in the guise of
criticism of the State of Israel that goes well beyond any legitimate
criticism of Israel. We must work together to act resolutely to counter
these lies. The U.S. Government will speak forcefully against hatred
and the hate crimes they produce at the OSCE Berlin Anti-Semitism
meeting. We will seek agreement to the proposals I have outlined, and
we will work to develop with our European allies and NGO partners
further robust measures to fight anti-Semitism.
STRONGER RESPONSE IN EUROPE
Much remains to be done in Europe to tackle anti-Semitism. This
includes, as the recent report on ``Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in
the European Union'' from the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia has pointed out, in the field of monitoring and data
collection on anti-Semitism. But there have been some encouraging signs
as well. European governments and political leaders now react more
quickly and forcefully than even a few months ago in response to anti-
Semitic incidents. There is a growing awareness of anti-Semitism in
Europe and a broader public debate. The Governments of France and Italy
have created inter-ministerial committees to fight racism and anti-
Semitism. In France there is heightened security to protect Jewish
properties, and better training for judges who try hate crimes combined
with new legislation that provides for stiffer penalties. In February,
the President of the European Commission held a seminar in Brussels on
anti-Semitism. Overall throughout Europe, tolerance education is
beginning to become more the norm than the exception.
HOLOCAUST EDUCATION
One of the most important things we can do to defeat anti-Semitism
is to educate the younger generation in Europe on the lessons of the
Holocaust. Let me highlight the work of the Task Force for Holocaust
Education, Remembrance and Research. I know many of you are familiar
with this organization, initiated by Swedish Prime Minister Persson in
1998. Since then, the Task Force has grown rapidly from it original
nucleus of three members to now 16 members and more countries are in
line to join. The Task Force works on the basis of consensus and
without a bureaucracy. The modest annual contribution from each country
of $25,000 has created a fund used to finance projects throughout
Central Europe and in the Baltic countries related to the Holocaust.
Teacher-training, sponsoring high school essay contests and producing
documentary films about the Holocaust are just of few of the types of
projects the Task Force supports. The Task Force continues to be open
to new ways of learning about the Holocaust and ideas to ensure that
its important lessons are not forgotten.
The United States chaired the Holocaust Task Force this past year
before turning over the reins in early March to Italy. One important
new step the U.S. initiated during its Task Force Chair was to
investigate the question of how best to teach the lessons of the
Holocaust in multicultural settings. In France, for example, some
Muslim students have refused to participate in classes devoted to
studying the Holocaust and even have walked out. There are no easy
answers to this predicament, but leading experts in the Task Force have
now taken on this difficult question and we anticipate they will make
progress in the months ahead.
When Ambassador O'Donnell testified before this committee in
October, Mr. Chairman, you asked him about Holocaust education efforts
in various countries in Europe. We tasked our Embassies to develop this
information and provided it to the Committee in January. Now we have
also sent the matrix with this information out to a number of NGOs to
supplement from their own sources what we have learned in order to
gather as complete a picture as possible. Once we have their responses
we will share the updated information with the Committee.
SPEAKING OUT
Secretary Powell has made clear that we must do everything we can
to fight anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. I have
instructed U.S. Ambassadors at our missions throughout Europe and
Eurasia to be both vigilant and vocal in denouncing anti-Semitism in
the countries where they serve. In Greece recently, a well-known
composer used anti-Semitic terms to criticize Israeli policy. While
acknowledging the composer's right to his political opinions, our
Ambassador quickly and publicly criticized the composer's anti-Semitic
terminology. We are similarly vigilant elsewhere in Europe and will
continue to speak out against anti-Semitism and to work with our
friends and partners to combat it wherever it appears.
Mr. Chairman, with that I will conclude my formal remarks. I would
be pleased to take your questions.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. The record, by the way, will stay open for
other comments. Senators may not get here, but may want to
submit questions or comments. And so the record will stay open
for Senators and others who may want to comment or share some
insight with us.
The Department of State is apparently putting considerable
effort into working with international agencies to recognize
and combat anti-Semitism. And I do think it is good that you
point out those countries to the extent we look at best
practices. Senator Voinovich and I were governors, and we would
always talk about best practices as to what states in our Union
would want to do and emulate, or other things that you would
say, gosh, we never want to do something like that.
But looking at best practices is beneficial. You mentioned
France, as I did, improving the prosecution, the education of
the prosecutors, the judges, as well as the penalties for those
who are found guilty of such acts. And hopefully other
countries will emulate that.
What are our top two goals, for the upcoming OSCE
conference in Berlin and Madrid? Do you believe that our
friends in Europe have similar expectations and goals?
Ms. Jones. The top two goals I would list as getting the
OSCE-participating states, the 55 members, to commit themselves
to collect and share data on hate crimes and to take measures,
including education and law enforcement, to fight anti-
Semitism, to come down to very practical measures. And there is
quite a lot of work that has been done. And I have every
expectation that our OSCE colleagues will certainly agree with
that.
The second goal is to task ODIHR, the Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights, to collect and publicly report
statistics on hate crimes, to monitor incidents of anti-
Semitism, to assist states with hate crimes legislation, which
is very important, and to facilitate sharing of best practices
to promote tolerance, to institutionalize ways of doing each of
those things.
Senator Allen. Thank you. We just got a message. Time is
up on the vote. What we are going to do, I apologize to our
witnesses, and I particularly note that one on the second
panel--did you want to ask Secretary Jones any questions?
Senator Voinovich. I sure do.
Senator Allen. Secretary Jones, if you--if everyone could
stand down, we will get back as quickly as possible,
momentarily recessing.
[Recess.]
Senator Voinovich [presiding]. Thank you for your patience.
The chairman asked me to convene the hearing so we could move
on with some of the questioning.
Ambassador Jones, I want to say I appreciate the attention
the State Department has given to this issue. The support of
Secretary Powell has been most appreciated. And I would like to
say Stephan Minikes has really done an outstanding job. I think
he is probably the best person that we have nominated to the
OSCE. He really takes the job very seriously. And he is making
a real difference.
I am very pleased that Secretary Powell has indicated that
he is going to be at the Berlin conference. I know I have
talked to him about it. I really think that his presence there
sends a very large message that this is a very important
priority of the United States. I just wonder, has any effort
been made to kind of line up some of the other folks? Because I
had a meeting with Prime Minister Rop from Slovenia, and as you
know, next year Slovenia is taking over the OSCE. And I drew a
blank stare from him when I asked about this upcoming meeting
and suggested that, you know, that Dimitrij Rupel, the foreign
minister, be there.
Have you made any efforts in that regard to get people
there?
Ms. Jones. We will be making an effort. The Secretary has
just now, at the end of last week, indicated to Foreign
Minister Fisher that he would be able to go, would like to go,
to the conference if he possibly can work in his schedule. We
are planning along those lines.
So we will be going out to our various colleagues in the
OSCE to make sure they know he will be there, as soon as he
authorizes and says that it is more sure than it is right at
this moment. But we certainly agree with you that his presence
will attract the presence of many others, which we think is
very, very important. And we will be working toward that end.
Senator Voinovich. It would be really great if somebody
could work the phones.
Ms. Jones. Absolutely.
Senator Voinovich. Okay.
Ms. Jones. We will depend on our ambassadors to do that in
the first instance. And then we can follow up with them long
distance.
Senator Voinovich. I know a little bit about the OSCE from
my involvement in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. And I know
that ODIHR has X budget. And I am familiar with some of the
things that they are doing. Has anybody given any thought to
the additional money that ODIHR will need to build the capacity
to do what it is that we want them to do? In other words, we go
to Berlin. We can accomplish what we have all talked about. But
unless the resources are there, we are not going to be able to
get the job done. Has anybody thought about how we are going to
deal with that?
Ms. Jones. Senator, I have no doubt that various of my
colleagues have thought about it, including, I am sure,
Ambassador Minikes. And may I just take a minute to say how
much I agree with you about the strength of his leadership. I
very much appreciate his wisdom as we talk through all of the
issues that are involved with the OSCE, but in particular the
organization of this conference.
I do not have at my fingertips information about the budget
issues involved. You are clearly correct that it will take more
money. We have had the good fortune of usually being able to
find money for ODIHR to do the very important work it does,
whether it is on something like this, elections in Georgia,
whatever it is. We have been able to find the resources. I am
convinced we will be able to do that this time. But I would
like to come back to you with more details that I do not happen
to have right this minute.
[The additional information referred to above follows:]
Ms. Jones. We believe that ODHIR has a plan and sufficient funding
to meet its new tolerance and anti-Semitism responsibilities this year.
ODIHR's Director, Ambassador Christian Strohal, has developed a
workplan for implementing the new tolerance mandates given to ODIHR at
the December 2003 Maastricht Ministerial and the April 2004 Berlin
Conference. The OSCE Permanent Council on June 29 approved ODIHR's
request for supplemental funds which, when combined with the almost
$625,000 in additional funds already provided to ODIHR for implementing
commitments made in Maastricht, should be adequate for ODIHR to meet
its objectives for tolerance and anti-Semitism activities in 2004.
The United States is also considering extra-budgetary contributions
to ODIHR for specific tolerance projects. These contributions would
come from existing U.S. funds provided for support of the OSCE's human
dimension activities.
Senator Voinovich. What I would like to do is to have
somebody really review this, look at the budget, and be ready
in Berlin to be able to say we are going to need X number of
dollars, and we are willing to ante up the resources and try to
look around the table and see who else is willing to do it. And
then understand if it is going to be something worthwhile, it
is going to have to be continually funded, not just a one-shot
deal.
Ms. Jones. Sir, that is a very good suggestion. And it is
ever more important, because we think now that we hopefully
will have had a second very successful conference, that we can
really focus on actions coming out of the conference for
concrete work to be done in each of the countries, rather than
just having another conference.
Senator Voinovich. My last question deals with the
legislation that I introduced yesterday. I did circulate that
among many organizations here in the United States. And I would
really appreciate the State Department looking at the
legislation. I think the passage of that legislation would also
send a signal to our comrades in the OSCE that the United
States is going to really make this a high priority. And we are
going to be getting information on what is happening abroad.
But the fact that we are going to, as part of our religious
report, zero in on the issue of anti-Semitism, again, I think,
giving it the kind of priority that I think it really needs if
we are going to make any progress over there is important.
Ms. Jones. Senator, we will be very happy to look at your
legislation. Absolutely. As you mentioned, there already is
quite a bit of reporting on each of those issues in the
religious freedom report and in the human rights reports that
we produce every year. We get a tremendous amount of support
from our embassies and the reporting that they do. They are
very, very aggressive about making sure that all of the
incidents are reported, as well as the actions taken by the
governments to which they are accredited, to make sure that
these incidents are being dealt with in the appropriate way.
Senator Voinovich. The other thing that I am concerned
about--and it is not in your bailiwick, but if we are going to
be there and urging other people to do some significant things,
I think it is really important that we are prepared to talk
about what we are doing about anti-Semitism in the United
States. I think that is being dealt with in the Justice
Department right now.
But I would like to know what programs are in place, what
are we doing, how are we following up, and so forth, so that
when the question is asked about what are you doing, we can
say, here is what we are doing. And I know it is not in your
jurisdiction, but it seems to me at this stage of the game we
really ought to look at what we are doing in this area to see
if there are some other things that we could be doing.
I am really concerned that we have a growing population of
various religions in this country. And it seems that,
particularly because of the Iraq situation, some walls are
starting to be built. And when walls are built and people do
not talk to each other, then we have suspicion. And before you
know it, lots of thoughts that are not good. And we ought to be
really working very, very hard to make sure that those walls
are not there. And that means that we have to do a much better
job, I think, of educating and bringing groups together and so
forth.
So like I say, it is not in your area of responsibility,
but I think it is really something that someone should give
some really serious thought to. Because the question will be,
you know, you want us to do this, well, how about you?
Ms. Jones. It is a very, very good point. We will do what
is necessary, from our perspective, from our side, to make sure
that we are ready to answer that question. It is not in my
bailiwick, but to one degree it is in the following respect.
Our embassies do a tremendous amount of work in the education
field, either with ministries of education, with museums, with
other non-governmental organizations in the countries. And one
of the things that they do is they bring over speakers from the
United States who have experience with either combating anti-
Semitism or in multiethnic communities, that kind of thing.
And we have had quite a bit of success with some of the
speakers programs that we have in demonstrating what does work
in the United States and use that to very good effect in
Europe.
Senator Voinovich. I want to congratulate you, as a final
note, on the fact that over the years that I have traveled to
some of these countries , and I have noted just how good the
State Department has been. I know when we were in Poland, they
took us to Majdanik. And there was a lot of publicity that
Senators were interested in, you know, what happened. When we
were in Romania, there were some things going on in terms of
the Romanian Government to fight anti-Semitism. And the State
Department and the embassy facilitated our spending some time
highlighting that.
When I was in Prague before the expansion of NATO, I spent
probably six hours with a Jewish community. And again, the
State Department was really good to try and let people know
that we are concerned about respect for other religions, and
that we are concerned about the Jewish minority in those
countries. So thank you very much.
Ms. Jones. Thank you very much for your comments. I am
very proud of the work that our embassies do. One of the
things, just so you know, that we tell our ambassadors, our new
ambassadors, when they are going out and our deputy chiefs of
mission, is that there are a variety of issues on which they do
not need to wait for Washington instructions. That is one of
them. That is one of the top ones. If you see something that
needs to be done, go do it. Let us know about it, so we know
what good work you are doing, but do not wait for us to tell
you what to do.
Senator Voinovich. Well, I have to tell you that they were
very aggressive in doing their work. And I was pleased. Thank
you.
Senator Allen [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Voinovich.
Secretary Jones, thank you so much for your testimony and
also bearing with the way the Senate operates. We are happy to
have you with us today and also you commitment, as we work
together to fight anti-Semitism. Obviously, our focus on this
subcommittee is Europe, but throughout the world, including the
United States. So thank you for your vigor and your devotion to
your country, as well as our ideas. Thank you.
Now I would like to call our second panel, if we can go
through the shift.
Good afternoon to you all. And thank you for your
forbearance with the way the Senate voting system works.
Our second panel of witnesses, I would like to introduce
each of them briefly. Ms. Caryl M. Stern is the Chief Operating
Officer and Senior Associate, National Director for the Anti-
Defamation League, a leader in anti-bias education, training
and outreach. She has also served as the league's Director of
Education and head of its award-winning World of Difference
Institute.
She is the co-author of Hate Hurts: How Children Learn and
Unlearn Prejudice, and Future Perfect, A Model for Professional
Development.
We are also joined by Rabbi Andrew Baker, who serves as
Director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish
Committee (AJC). He joined the AJC staff back in 1979 and
previously served as AJC's Washington area director. As AJC's
Director of European Affairs, Rabbi Baker coordinated the
development of AJC's extensive projects across Europe with
special emphasis on Jewish communities in Central and Eastern
Europe.
Welcome, Rabbi.
And we have Mark Levin, who is the Executive Director of
the National Conference on Soviet Jewry (NCSJ: Advocates on
Behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States, and
Eurasia). He was appointed to this position in October of 1992
and has been a member of the organization's professional staff
since 1980. From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Levin served as the Director
of the NCSJ's Washington office. Before coming to NCSJ, he
worked for the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Dan Mariaschin serves as the Executive Vice President of
B'nai B'rith International. Previously, Mr. Mariaschin served
in the Political Affairs Department of the American-Israel
Public Affairs Committee and as Director of Middle Eastern
Affairs at the Anti-Defamation League.
Thank all of you all for coming. I do understand that Mr.
Levin has a limited amount of time to testify and answer
questions this afternoon. So with the forbearance of his three
colleagues, I am going to allow Mr. Levin to go first. And then
we will get back to the order in which I presented the
witnesses.
Mr. Levin.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK LEVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWRY
Mr. Levin. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And let me apologize.
It is a previous speaking engagement in Boston that requires me
to try to make a plane. So again, thank you for this
opportunity to testify on anti-Semitism in the Former Soviet
Union.
I want to recognize your leadership and that of Senator
Biden, as well as Senator Voinovich, and your predecessor,
Senator Gordon Smith. This subcommittee's role has been
indispensable in our efforts to fight anti-Semitism and promote
tolerance for many years. I ask that my full prepared statement
be entered into the record of this hearing.
Senator Allen. It is so ordered.
Mr. Levin. Let me underscore the fundamental partnership
that exists between our organizations and the Executive and
Legislative Branches but, in particular, our colleagues in the
State Department, as represented at today's hearing by
Secretary Jones.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to you and your predecessors, I have
had the privilege to appear before this subcommittee on several
occasions and to report on the nature and status of popular and
political anti-Semitism in the successor states of the Former
Soviet Union.
To briefly highlight the most recent incidents, in March
2004, vandals threw rocks into the windows of the only kosher
restaurant in St. Petersburg, Russia, and windows were
shattered in a synagogue in Odessa, Ukraine. In February 2004,
dozens of gravestones were desecrated in St. Petersburg, and
Molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue in Chelyabinsk,
Russia.
In Belarus, we continue to work with the U.S. Government,
Belarusian authorities, and other interested parties to resolve
the ongoing stadium expansion over an historic Jewish cemetery
in Grodno. U.S. Ambassador George Krol and his staff have
devoted ongoing attention to this issue and to the
dissemination of anti-Semitic literature by the Orthodox Church
in Belarus.
I was in Belarus last year. We visited the bookstore where
these books were supposed to have been taken out. And when we
asked one of the church leaders why the books were still in
there, we were told it is impossible, it cannot be. And we
asked them to visit the bookstore so they could see themselves
that these books were still being sold.
These incidents, while paling in comparison to recent
events in Western Europe, reflect a deep current running
through post-Soviet society. During the past two years, in no
small part as a result of Senate and Congressional initiative,
the U.S. Government and the collective European leadership have
launched an effort to address and combat anti-Semitism on an
unprecedented scale and level of cooperation.
Later this month, my colleagues and I, together with
Senator Voinovich and a broad American delegation, will travel
to Berlin for the action-oriented conference being sponsored by
the OSCE and hosted by the German Government. Our goals for
Berlin are ambitious, as you heard from Secretary Jones. But
they are ambitious because the situation is critical. Anti-
Semitism remains a significant endemic problem throughout the
Soviet successor states and across Europe.
While on previous occasions my testimony has addressed the
nature of the problem, today I will highlight examples of the
steps already being taken across the successor states to combat
anti-Semitism and spur the development of more tolerant post-
Soviet societies.
Mr. Chairman, if people are interested in learning more
about the current situation, I would urge them to visit our
website and look at our most recent materials. But I did want
to take this opportunity in the few minutes I have to focus on
what has happened since the last time that you gave me the
opportunity to appear before the subcommittee.
Senator Allen. What is your website address, for the
record?
Mr. Levin. It is www.ncsj.org. Thank you.
Even as the OSCE process continues to evolve and show
results, other multilateral efforts are underway in the Europe-
Eurasia region that merit mention. A series of international
conferences in Kazakhstan have generated publicity and joint
declarations against terrorism and religious extremism. In
Brussels last September, the first Interparliamentary
Conference on Human Rights and Religious Freedom included a
session entitled, ``Anti-Semitism as a National and
International Religious Freedom and Legislative Issue.''
During the OSCE's annual Human Dimension Implementation
Meeting last October in Warsaw, NCSJ organized a side event
titled, ``Post-Soviet States Respond to Anti-Semitism,'' with
participation by dozens of delegations and NGO representatives,
including members of Congress. I will be submitting a separate
report on this event for the record.
Let me again devote my few remaining minutes to an overview
of efforts in just three of the countries once under the Soviet
yoke, Russia, Ukraine, and Lithuania. In Russia, even as
popular anti-Semitism continues to ride the surface of public
discourse, new efforts are leaving their mark and testing the
waters for broader application. Project KOLOT: Women's Voices
was organized by NCSJ in partnership with Jewish Women
International, Project Kesher, and the Russian Jewish Congress.
Initiated with a grant from the U.S. State Department, this 18-
month project engaged ethnic and religious communities on
domestic violence in Russia and created an advocacy model for
religious communities.
Working in Tula and Voronezh, Russia, we brought together
police, city officials, the legal community, women's groups,
human rights organizations, and academia to address a serious
social issue. This collaboration generated a new working
relationship between the ethnic and religious communities and
the police and other city officials and empowered the Jewish
community to work with police and others in fighting anti-
Semitism.
Another program called the Climate of Trust Program, an
ambitious citizen-level program of the Bay Area Council for
Jewish Rescue and Renewal of San Francisco, California,
promotes ethnic and religious tolerance through U.S.-Russian
exchanges among law enforcement and local officials, community
leaders, activists, and educators. Climate of Trust has reached
across Russia and has already expanded to Tajikistan. NCSJ has
been privileged to work with the Bay Area Council on this
initiative.
Just last week, our Ambassador to Russia, Alexander
Vershbow addressed a conference in Moscow that was set up to
train monitors and collect data on discriminatory practices,
establish hotlines and legal clinics, and institute curricula
for the justice system and schools.
The Russian Jewish Congress and the Euro-Asian Jewish
Congress maintain monitoring networks and are developing new
programs to combat anti-Semitism. Ongoing outreach to religious
and political movements is helping to build bridges. Last
month, according to the Federation of Jewish Communities of
Russia, a conference in Volgograd on Russia's controversial Law
on Religions included representatives of 17 religious
organizations and 6 local administrations within the Volgograd
region. The public prosecutor used the opportunity to
acknowledge his inadequate response in the past and declared
that combating anti-Semitism is now a priority.
In Ukraine, the government has been actively enforcing the
law against incitement of inter-ethnic hatred. According to
Ukrainian Chief Rabbi Yakov Bleich, recent legal action against
a prominent newspaper publishing virulently anti-Semitic
articles has already led other like-minded publications to
scale back their appeals to anti-Semitism and extreme
nationalism.
When ethnic violence erupted in Crimea last month, top law
enforcement officials immediately flew to Crimea to resolve the
tensions. Major Ukrainian political parties have signed
agreements of cooperation and support with different umbrella
organizations for national minorities. The President's Council
on National Minorities also serves as an official conduit for
input from religious and ethnic minorities.
In Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine, TKUMA, the National Center for
Holocaust History Studies, has organized curriculum development
and a series of teacher training seminars. A new Holocaust
museum and regional network are in development.
In Lithuania earlier this year, when one of the mainstream
newspapers published a series of anti-Semitic articles, the
prime minister condemned the articles and asked the prosecutor
general to investigate whether the newspaper had violated
Lithuania's law against inciting ethnic hatred. The foreign
minister summoned the ambassadors for European Union candidates
and member states to report on Lithuania's response and
reaffirm his government's commitment to zero tolerance of anti-
Semitism.
The speaker of the parliament expressed similar sentiments.
I hope Lithuania's response in this case can be replicated in
other countries.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate the singular
importance of American leadership in fighting anti-Semitism, in
building strong and pluralistic post-Communist societies, and
in transmitting our values to a new generation of Europeans,
even as the identity and boundaries of Europe are undergoing a
fundamental transformation.
While other governments are also sponsoring educational
training and awareness programs, history continuously confirms
that U.S.-funded programs show the way and set the tone for
international efforts and local initiatives. The new bill just
introduced by Senator Voinovich mandating the State Department
to issue a global country-by-country assessment of anti-
Semitism will push other governments to issue their own
reports, hold accountable those governments failing to take
appropriate measures, and recognize those moving forward.
This is the formula that has allowed our country to lead
the world toward effective enforcement of human rights
standards and respect for religious freedom.
Thank you for your passionate promotion of this proven
strategy in which my colleagues and I are proud to play a part.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark B. Levin
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to testify on anti-
Semitism in the former Soviet Union. I want to recognize your
leadership and that of Senator Biden, as well as Senator Voinovich and
your predecessor Senator Smith. This subcommittee's role has been
indispensable in our efforts to fight anti-Semitism and promote
tolerance for many years. Your collective dedication to this cause has
shaped the policy priorities of successive administrations and impacted
on the lives of hundreds of thousands of Jews who--like so many other
minorities--look to the United States as a bulwark and a beacon.
I also want to mention my colleagues from NCSJ, who are with me
here today. Shai Franklin, NCSJ Director of Governmental Relations, has
devoted much of the past few years to working with the United States
Congress, the Executive Branch, our partner agencies and governments
across Europe and the former Soviet Union, helping to conceive and
establish an international mechanism that we were told could not and
would not exist--the coordinated fight against anti-Semitism. Lesley
Weiss, NCSJ Director of Community Services and Cultural Affairs, has
built a cadre of young activists, student leaders and community
representatives around the former Soviet Union, who are breaking new
ground in relationships with other minority communities, law
enforcement and local officials.
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, American Jewish
Congress, 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. I
am pleased to be joining my colleagues from three of our partner
agencies on this afternoon's panel.
Mr. Chairman, thanks to you and your predecessors, including
Senator Biden, I have had the privilege to appear before this
subcommittee on several occasions, and to report on the nature and
status of popular and political anti-Semitism in the successor states
of the Former Soviet Union. To briefly highlight several recent
incidents since the first of the year, in March 2004 vandals threw
rocks into windows at the kosher restaurant in St. Petersburg, Russia.
Windows were shattered in a synagogue in Odessa, Ukraine. In Kharkiv,
Ukraine, authorities announced the cancellation of a new gas station
project, after the Jewish community objected to its erection adjacent
to a Holocaust-era mass grave.
In February 2004, some 50 mostly Jewish gravestones were desecrated
at a St. Petersburg cemetery, with some overturned and anti-Semitic
graffiti on others. Molotov cocktails were thrown at a synagogue in
Chelyabinsk, Russia. Regarding the ongoing stadium construction over a
Jewish cemetery in Grodno, Belarus, we continue to work with the United
States Government, Belarusian authorities and other interested parties
toward a satisfactory resolution of this unhappy situation. In addition
to his work on Grodno, U.S. Ambassador George Krol and his staff have
devoted ongoing attention to the dissemination of anti-Semitic
literature by the Orthodox Church in Belarus.
These incidents, while paling in comparison to some of the events
in Western Europe, reflect a deep current running through post-Soviet
society, and we are working with governmental and non-governmental
partners on the ground. During the past two years, in no small part as
the result of Senate and Congressional initiative, the United States
Government and the collective European leadership have launched an
effort to address and combat anti-Semitism on an unprecedented scale
and level of coordination. Later this month, my colleagues and I,
together with Senator Voinovich and a broad American delegation, will
travel to Berlin for the action-oriented conference being sponsored by
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and
hosted by the German Government. I should mention two new Web pages in
addition to the official OSCE Web site: the NCSJ-sponsored
Berlin2004.org, providing background, links and updates, and the
American Jewish Committee's ngoforumberlin.org focusing on the series
of non-governmental workshops on April 27.
Our goals for the Berlin conference are ambitious because the
situation is critical. To be sure, anti-Semitism remains a significant,
endemic problem throughout the successor states and across Europe. Much
of the support for advancing this process has come from formerly
communist nations, including successor states, who see fighting anti-
Semitism as indispensable to their transition from the Soviet shadow.
Building on last year's Vienna conference, the first-ever such
international forum on anti-Semitism, Berlin must produce measurable
commitments by the 55 OSCE member states and demonstrate actionable
programs for governments to support and implement. In my testimony
today, therefore, I want to focus on examples of the steps already
being taken across the successor states to combat anti-Semitism and
spur the development of more tolerant post-Soviet societies.
Some programs are significant because they directly respond to the
plague of anti-Semitism, while others exemplify successful delivery
systems for reaching law enforcement, educators, politicians, and
religious or ethnic groups. The appeal of anti-Semitism should diminish
with the rise of a healthy civil society, so ultimately the best
guarantee is community of understanding across a broad spectrum of
interests and issues.
Beyond the diplomatic level, the United States Government can have
a significant impact by funding model programs and transmitting
American lessons where useful. Particularly where local funding is
unavailable, due to dire economic conditions, such U.S.-funded programs
carry additional cache among local officials and the public. Even where
such programs do not address anti-Semitism directly, they can generate
new channels for outreach to law enforcement, local officials, ethnic
minorities, media, educators, and society at large. Addressing anti-
Semitism is much easier to achieve where relationships already exist
among relevant interest groups, and as civil society sinks deeper and
wider roots.
Even as the OSCE process continues to evolve and show results,
other multilateral efforts are underway in the Europe/Eurasia region
that merit mention. A series of two international conferences in
Kazakhstan during the past year have attracted heads of state and other
officials, and religious and ethnic leaders from across Europe, Asia,
and the Middle East--prominent and credible representatives of Judaism
and diverse streams of Christianity and Islam. With the involvement of
the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, these public events have generated
publicity as well as joint declarations against terrorism and religious
extremism, and in support of tolerance and inter-ethnic understanding
and cooperation.
The First Interparliamentary Conference on Human Rights and
Religious Freedom, organized in Brussels last September by the
Institute on Religion and Public Policy, brought delegates from over
two dozen countries, including Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Russia,
Tajikistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. One session was titled ``Anti-
Semitism as a National and International Religious Freedom and
Legislative Issue.'' While anti-Semitism is not exclusively a religious
freedom issue, the multiple manifestations of anti-Semitism can only be
adequately addressed across a spectrum of disciplines and
constituencies.
During the OSCE's annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting
last October in Warsaw, NCSJ organized a side event titled, ``Post-
Soviet States Respond to Anti-Semitism.'' This roundtable discussion
was attended by dozens of delegates and NGO representatives from Europe
and the former Soviet Union, as well as the United States delegation
and Members of Congress. Participants focused on the nature of anti-
Semitism in their countries and opportunities for coordinating efforts
through OSCE and other channels. I will be submitting a separate report
on this event for the record of this hearing.
RUSSIA
In Russia, even as popular anti-Semitism continues to ride the
surface of public discourse, new efforts are constantly leaving their
mark and testing the waters for broader application. Some examples are
funded from overseas, others initiated by the Jewish community, and
some sponsored by local authorities.
Project KOLOT: Women's Voices was organized by NCSJ in partnership
with Jewish Women International, Project Kesher, and the Russian Jewish
Congress. Initiated with a grant from the U.S. State Department, this
18-month project engaged ethnic and religious communities in addressing
the issue of domestic violence in Russia, and created an advocacy model
for training religious communities to participate in civil society.
Working in Tula and Voronezh, we brought together police, city
officials, the legal community, women's groups, human rights
organization and academia to address a serious social problem. This
collaboration generated a new working relationship between the ethnic
and religious communities and the police and other city officials,
opened police protocols to public oversight, and produced informational
leaflets, bilingual training manuals, and a one-day conference with
officials and activists that was the first-ever public discussion of a
social issue between the local government, the police and the Voronezh
Jewish community.
The ``Climate of Trust'' program, an ambitious ``citizen-level''
program of the Bay Area Council for Jewish Rescue and Renewal, promotes
ethnic and religious tolerance through U.S.-Russian exchanges among law
enforcement and local officials, community leaders, activists, and
educators. Components include a tolerance seminar for Russian
participants, joint workshops in San Francisco and Russia, and a week-
long reunion and review. As a result of this program, Regional
Tolerance Centers have been established in three of Russia's seven
Federal Districts; media seminar on police-community relations was held
in Kazan for Internal Affairs Ministry (MVD) officials from across
Russia; hate-crimes manuals are required reading for all police
departments in the Republic of Karelia; and related teacher- and police
cadet-training programs in several regions.
Just last week, U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow addressed a
Moscow conference launching a new anti-discrimination campaign in the
Russia Federation. Initiated under the auspices of UCSJ: Union of
Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union, this program promises to
train monitors and collect data on discriminatory practices, establish
hotlines and legal clinics, and institute curricula for the justice
system and schools.
The Russian Jewish Congress and Euro-Asian Jewish Congress maintain
monitoring networks and are developing new programs to combat anti-
Semitism. Ongoing outreach to religious and political movements is
helping to build bridges. The Moscow Open University, founded by
Russian Jewish Congress President Yevgeny Satanovsky, grants degrees in
philology, history and a variety of other subjects, and represents one
of the first serious attempts to revive Russian intellectual culture.
Last month, according to the Federation of Jewish Communities of
Russia (FEOR), the Tambov Regional Administration held a roundtable
discussion on extremism and tolerance. Participants in the meeting
included numerous regional and local officials, as well as
representatives of other ethnic communities and the mass media. The
Tambov Governor condemned extremism and called for vigilance by
officials at all levels.
FEOR reports that a March 2004 conference in Volgograd, on Russia's
controversial Law on Religions, included representatives of 17
religious organizations and six local administrations within the
Volgograd region. This conference provided the Director of the
Volgograd Jewish Community Center an opportunity to challenge the
Public Prosecutor on inadequate response to anti-Semitic and extremist
incidents. Acknowledging that previous results have been lacking, the
prosecutor declared that preventing anti-Semitism is now a priority for
his office.
In February 2004, Ambassador Vershbow joined the Chief Rabbi of
Bryansk and the head of the Bryansk Regional Administration for a
Jewish community-sponsored conference on xenophobia that included local
representatives of the Armenian community and human rights activists.
Participants, including the administrator and Ambassador Vershbow,
spoke out strongly against recent local cases of anti-Semitic newspaper
articles and vandalism which are now under investigation.
Next month, the American Jewish Committee will be hosting Tatiana
Sapunova, an extraordinary Russian heroine who was injured in May 2002
when she tried to remove a booby-trapped anti-Semitic sign outside
Moscow. This was the first in a wave of similar incidents, involving
real or mock explosives. Although the perpetrators have not been found,
Russian leaders did speak out strongly, and President Vladimir Putin
awarded Ms. Sapunova a medal for her bravery.
UKRAINE
In Ukraine, the wheels are beginning to turn. The government has
been actively enforcing a law against incitement of inter-ethnic
hatred. Recent legal action against a prominent newspaper publishing
virulently anti-Semitic articles has already led other like-minded
publications to significantly scale back their appeals to anti-Semitism
and extreme nationalism. When ethnic violence erupted in Crimea last
month, top law enforcement officials immediately flew down to resolve
the tensions. Major political parties have signed agreements of
cooperation and support with three different umbrella organizations for
national minorities. The President's Council of National Minorities
also serves as an official conduit for input from religious and ethnic
minorities.
The Institute for Jewish Studies, in Kyiv, promotes a range of
programs as well as monitoring and reporting on anti-Semitism in the
media and society. The Kyiv office of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress
last year issued a report on ``The Basic Tendencies of Anti-Semitism in
the CIS States,'' with substantive submissions from Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus, Georgia, and Armenia. Whether or not governments are able to
produce such reports on their own, such publications by independent
non-governmental bodies play a vital role in promoting awareness and
providing a diversity of views.
The new and independent Association of Churches and Religious
Organizations of Ukraine incorporates 18 faiths, including Judaism,
Islam, Catholicism, and the Orthodox Church. The Association's most
recent meeting, in late March, focused on fighting HIV/AIDS,
rehabilitating prisoners, and Ukrainian Mufti Sheikh Ahmed Tamim's call
for a joint statement condemning terrorism. Rabbi Yakov Bleich, Chief
Rabbi of Ukraine, hopes the Association's work can frustrate those
seeking religious justification for their terrorist acts. The
Association is also identifying common ground on such complicated
issues as a new draft religion law and the restitution of communal and
religious properties.
One of Rabbi Bleich's partners in these endeavors is His Beatitude
Lubomyr Huzar, Patriarch of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. When
the Patriarch visited Washington last December, he sought our advice
and assistance in fighting anti-Semitism, promoting better awareness of
Jewish concerns, and using education to promote tolerance among
Ukrainian Greek Catholics and others. ``We have to live as real
neighbors,'' he stressed. ``This is so important for the Church,'' he
said, because Soviet strategy sought to alienate groups from each
other, by planting lies and reinforcing stereotypes. He sees anti-
Semitism as part of the same Soviet approach that kept down his own
church for so many decades.
Given the onetime Soviet inclination to conflate anti-Israel and
anti-Semitic themes, and the contemporary use of Israeli policies to
justify or excuse anti-Semitic violence particularly in Western Europe,
a new art exhibition has made an important statement about the sanctity
of every human life. ``Children Against Terror'' displays artwork by
young victims of the July 2001 Dolphinarium bombing, which killed a
large number of emigre youth from the former Soviet Union, and was
recently exhibited in Dneprotpetrovsk and Kyiv, with the participation
of President Kuchma's wife Liudmila.
In Dnepropetrovsk, Chief Rabbi Shmuel Kaminezki has spearheaded
TKUMA, the National Center for Holocaust History Studies, together with
the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and other partners.
TKUMA has organized a series of teacher-training seminars, curriculum
development, and a new Holocaust museum and regional network are in
development. This new institution already cooperates closely with the
Ukrainian Ministry of Education, research centers around the world, and
the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education,
Remembrance, and Research. It is having a measurable impact on what
students are learning about the legacies of the Holocaust and the costs
of intolerance.
LITHUANIA
In Lithuania earlier this year, when one of Lithuania's mainstream
newspapers, Respublika, published a three-part series of anti-Semitic
articles written by the editor, the Prime Minister condemned the
articles and asked the Prosecutor General to investigate whether the
newspaper had violated Lithuania's law against inciting ethnic hatred.
Lithuania's Foreign Minister summoned the ambassadors from European
Union candidates and member states and aspirants to report on
Lithuania's response and reaffirm his government's commitment to zero
tolerance of anti-Semitism. The Speaker of the Parliament expressed
similar sentiments. We continue to follow this situation, but with
confidence that Lithuania has the capacity and channels to confront
anti-Semitism as lessons learned. I hope Lithuania's response in this
case can be replicated in other countries.
A variety of projects in conjunction with the international
Holocaust Task Force offer innovative examples of the Holocaust as
teaching tool. ``Surviving Ostland,'' a documentary video, tracks the
lives of five Holocaust survivors in Lithuania, for use as a teaching
resource in Lithuanian schools. A multi-phase writing competition, ``My
Grandparents' and Great-Grandparents' Jewish Neighbors,'' challenged
students to record the history of the Jewish communities in their local
area and published a selection of the submissions, combined with a
visit to Auschwitz. In December 2002, Lithuania created a Working Group
on Holocaust Education comprised of governmental and non-governmental
representatives, to coordinate among elementary and secondary schools,
universities, teacher-training and continuing education, textbooks, and
pedagogical methods.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I reiterate the singular importance of
American leadership in fighting anti-Semitism, in building strong and
pluralistic post-communist societies, and in transmitting our values to
a new generation of Europeans--even as the identity and boundaries of
``Europe'' are undergoing a fundamental transformation. While other
governments are also sponsoring educational, training and awareness
programs, history continuously confirms that U.S.-funded programs show
the way and set the tone for other international efforts and local
initiatives, be it creating citizens' groups, running seminars and
exchanges, providing a safety net for unfiltered broadcasting, or
crystallizing the region-wide consensus to fight anti-Semitism.
The new bill being sponsored by Senator Voinovich, mandating the
State Department to issue a global country-by-country assessment of
anti-Semitism, will likewise kindle a willingness by other governments
to issue their own reports on anti-Semitism. By reporting on both the
status of anti-Semitism and government responses to it, it will hold
accountable those governments failing to take appropriate measures and
recognize those moving forward. This is the formula that has allowed
our country to lead the world toward effective enforcement of human
rights standards and respect for religious freedom. Thank you for your
passionate promotion of this proven strategy, in which my colleagues
and I are proud to play a part.
[Additional material submitted by Mr. Levin appears in the
Appendix to this hearing.]
Senator Allen. Thank you so much, Mr. Levin, for your
testimony and for your insight.
This is similar to Senator Voinovich's bill, which I am
happy to sponsor. But shining a light on those who are
succeeding to hopefully have other countries emulate those good
practices, is helpful. And thank you for your dedication.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, some of our
friends in the different governments and communities of the
Former Soviet Union like to say that we only spotlight the
problems and do not address solutions. And I hope today that I
took a few minutes to highlight some of the solutions that are
being put into place.
Mr. Chairman, I can actually, if it is okay, I can stay
until 4:20, 4:30. So if there are other questions, I can wait.
Senator Allen. Okay. Good enough.
In that case, we are going to move right along. Ms. Stern,
we would love to hear from you now.
STATEMENT OF MS. CARYL M. STERN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ANTI-
DEFAMATION LEAGUE
Ms. Stern. Good afternoon. My name is Caryl M. Stern. I am
the Senior Associate, National Director of the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL), an organization that has worked to expose and
counter anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry for over 90
years. I am honored that ADL has been part of the
subcommittee's examination of anti-Semitism in Europe and am
grateful that, Chairman Allen, you have convened this follow-up
hearing.
ADL's experience working with this subcommittee and the
Senate at large on this issue has been all that we could have
hoped for. Our requests, our ideas have been welcomed and
embraced by each of the Senators on this subcommittee. But
allow me to offer a special thanks to Senator Voinovich, whose
commitment to this issue and dogged determination to move
beyond speech to act, concrete action, has inspired all of us
at this table to do other jobs better. And I thank you for
that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my full statement for
the record, which provides an overview of developments since
the subcommittee examined this issue in a hearing last October.
Senator Allen. So ordered.
Ms. Stern. Thank you. And I would like to use my time to
highlight key challenges in the fight against anti-Semitism in
Europe today. I would also like to highlight some action items
for the subcommittee to focus on, which I believe can have a
meaningful and sustained impact on the ground.
I come here before you not only as a representative of ADL
but also as an educator with over 25 years of teaching
experience, a veteran of the anti-bias education field and,
equally important, the child of Holocaust survivor, the
grandchild of a passenger who boarded the SS St. Louis hoping
for freedom and finding none, and as the mom of two Jewish
children.
These combined experiences have taught me from a very early
age what hate could do, what hate had done, what hate could do
again. Relying on these experiences, I want to offer some
suggestions on areas where governments, on their own and in
combination with NGOs, can enhance, further implement, and
promote programs that have already begun to show progress both
here in the United States and overseas in Europe.
Senator Allen, you said that it is a problem that we share.
We do share this problem with Europe. The ADL annual audit of
anti-Semitism just recently released reported 1,500 reported
incidents, those that were reported, not those that go
unreported, 1,500 alone in the United States this past year.
But before we talk about the solution, we are facing a
daunting challenge in Europe's inability to talk honestly about
the problem. On my last trip overseas, which was just a few
weeks ago, I met with one of the people responsible for the EU
report on anti-Semitism that was just released. And I was very
disheartened by a comment made to me during that conversation.
But I think it indicative of what we are up against.
As we began to discuss what was then the upcoming study,
this person said to me, ``You must remember that Jews have
unhealed scars from what happened last time, very thin skin.
And as a result, the prick of a pin might very well feel like a
sword to you.''
I do not believe we have thin skins. I think we have very
thick skins on this issue. And I do not believe that we are
overly sensitive to the issue of anti-Semitism, any more than
any other minority group in this country that has been accused
of being overly sensitive to the discrimination against them
is. I believe that in the 1930s and 1940s we heard a drum beat,
a drum beat that was soft and got louder and that we put our
faith in the government and the civil institutions of the time,
organized religion, law enforcement, to protect us. And in many
cases, our faith and our fate were misplaced.
But this time we feel strongly that we can put our faith in
the U.S. Government and in America herself, because we
understand in this country that hate against one of us is hate
against all of us. But we will also continue to stand up
ourselves as Jews to ensure that our voices are heard.
Of particular concern to us is our ability to get our arms
around the problem, to truly understand how big is it, where is
it happening, why, what are the trends, are there common issues
or different issues country by country? We cannot get our arms
around this problem because in Europe today the state of
monitoring is atrocious. There is no common language, no common
definitions, no agreement on what indeed is anti-Semitism,
never mind how widespread it is.
Further, there exists no formal system through which to
channel information. If you ask a man or woman on the street to
whom they would report an incident of anti-Semitism, should
they be witness to one, you will often hear conflicting
answers. There is no door at the EU painted with the word
``anti-Semitism, report here.'' There is a door that says
``xenophobia and racism.''
If you want to address the problem, we must insist that
common definitions be put in place. Further, we applaud Senator
Voinovich's initiative to enhance the quality and consistency
of our own U.S. reporting to give us all a better picture of
the nature of the problem.
Until an unless we discover a vaccine against hate, against
anti-Semitism, experience has taught us that education is our
best antidote. Research has shown us that by the age of three
to five years old, our children are not only familiar with
stereotypes, they are already acting on them. By the time they
are high school students, this misinformation melds into fact.
We can and we must break this cycle.
Programs, such as the one I am most familiar with, ADL's A
World of Difference Institute, and others that I am sure my
colleagues at the table address, do just that. In the United
States alone, 450,000 educators have completed an ADL A World
of Difference Institute anti-bias training, bringing anti-bias
education to over 20 million U.S. students.
Based on this success, the program has been exported to
countries such as Japan, Argentina, eight EU member states, and
the Former Soviet Union. However, the success is only as good
as a specific government's commitment and will to implement it
and only as good as the funding holds out for it. I have seen
firsthand the benefit of these programs, having had the
privilege to help to design them. I worked with a group of peer
trainers in Crown Heights following the riots. Half of the
group identified specifically to be part of the program because
they themselves proclaim to be anti-Semites. I watched over
several years as these anti-Semites became activists against
hate. I have seen these programs work.
Anti-bias education must also include learning from the
past. It is imperative that the lessons of the Holocaust not be
forgotten. As the survivor population dwindles, making
firsthand accounts harder and harder to come by, and giving an
open field day to those that deny it even happened, we have
joined together with the Shoah Foundation to developed special
curriculum materials to be released later this year that build
upon Shoah's wide library of video testimony by survivors
themselves.
Because the Shoah Foundation has testimony in multiple
European languages, these materials could have implication and
application for many European countries. And we would hope that
Europe would take advantage similarly.
We have also joined with the U.S. Holocaust Museum and the
Archdiocese here in Washington, D.C., to create a program
called Bearing Witness specifically aimed at teaching Catholic
school teachers how to teach about the Shoah, to teach about
the lessons of the Holocaust. It is a program now being
replicated in five states across the United States and a
program we have received inquiry about from several countries
in Europe.
It is difficult for us here to see the fight against hate
through the lenses and the filters employed by non-Americans.
In the early years of exporting a world of difference, we
learned firsthand we could export a methodology, but that it
had to be implemented by those on the ground. Here we have
laws. We have training programs to ensure that the laws are
understood, applied, and adhered to. In Europe, this is not the
case.
We applaud the Austrian Government in particular, whose
Minister of Interior has followed the example of the U.S.'s
FBI, CIA, and police departments across our Nation, who have
designed and implemented anti-bias training for all officers.
In Austria, this includes training in the unique investigative
techniques necessary to ensure that anti-bias, excuse me, that
bias-motivated crimes are properly identified, properly
investigated, and properly addressed.
We ask again that the United States make this type of
training a key fixture in the FBI Law Enforcement Training
Center in Budapest, as well as similar European training
facilities. If we hope to see better European monitoring, this
type of training is indispensable.
I have outlined in my written statement ADL's hopes for the
upcoming Berlin OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism. Most
importantly, the OSCE Conference must address the twin
challenges of identifying the problem honestly and monitoring
it for the long haul. The OSCE Conference must end with a
declaration that clearly identifies and condemns the new anti-
Semitism in the most accurate, honest way possible.
Given the European atmosphere, as I have described it, this
is an essential component of success. OSCE must be more
proactive in gathering data and encouraging states to institute
monitoring mechanisms. OSCE could follow up with states and
find ways, perhaps through a publication, to put forward a
common data collection model and guidelines for law
enforcement.
The last few years of dealing with the new anti-Semitism
has posed the painful question: How far have we come? Have we
learned the lessons of the Holocaust? The answer is certainly a
work in progress. It is being written in hearing rooms like
this one and in the hearts and minds of all who have been
touched by it.
When reports of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia first emerged,
the ADL ran ads with a simple, understated message: Respond as
you wish the world had responded. The meaning was clear. We
never thought we would be saying the same with respect to anti-
Semitism in Europe again. Now we are asking: Respond as you
wish the world had responded the last time.
You, the Senate, the United States, have answered that call
admirably. And we are finding other allies who share our desire
to broaden the coalition against anti-Semitism. Last week I had
the privilege of sitting with representatives of a dozen of the
United States premier civil rights organizations, convened by
Wade Henderson, Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights. They came together to plan their participation in the
Berlin OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism.
One of these groups, Human Rights First, is submitting for
the record of today's hearing a statement of their concern and
commitment and a preview of an important new report they will
be releasing on anti-Semitism. Their action, like yours today
and beyond, gives us hope that we are writing a very different
chapter in this century than the last, the hope that we will be
united in Berlin and beyond in saying to the world that anti-
Semitism is anti all of us.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stern follows:]
Prepared Statement of Caryl M. Stern
programs to counteract anti-semitism in europe
Good afternoon. My name is Caryl M. Stern, I am the Senior
Associate National Director of the Anti-Defamation League--ADL. For
over ninety years, since 1913, the ADL has worked to expose and counter
anti-Semitism, as well as all forms of bigotry. I am honored that ADL
has been part of this subcommittee's examination of anti-Semitism in
Europe and am pleased to provide an overview of developments and some
progress since the subcommittee examined this issue in a hearing last
October.
The focus of my statement today is to lay out for you
recommendations for how governments can seize on this progress as an
opportunity to put in place programs which can have a meaningful,
sustained impact on the ground. I will highlight some recent
developments, and some of our hopes for the upcoming OSCE Conference on
Anti-Semitism in Berlin which I am sure my colleagues on the panel will
want to address as well.
First let me say that ADL's experience working with this
subcommittee, and the Senate at-large on this issue, has been all that
we could have hoped for. Chairman Allen, thank you for convening this
follow up hearing and for demonstrating that the committee intends to
follow the issue closely and look extensively for measures to stem the
growth of this problem. Our requests and ideas have been welcomed and
embraced by each of the Senators on this subcommittee. Allow me also to
offer a special thanks to Senator Voinovich, whose commitment to this
issue and dogged determination to move beyond speeches or other
statements of concern to concrete action, has inspired us all to do our
jobs even better.
I stand here before you not only as a representative of the ADL,
but also as the author of a book entitled HATE HURTS: How Children
Learn & Unlearn Prejudice (Scholastic, 1999); as a member of the higher
education community of the U.S. both as a faculty member at numerous
institutions and prior to joining the ADL as Dean of Students at
Polytechnic University in New York; as a founding member and the first
Director of the largest and most wide-reaching anti-bias education
project in the world today--the ADL's award-winning A WORLD OF
DIFFERENCE Institute--and, as the child of a Holocaust survivor and the
grandchild of a passenger on the tragic SS St. Louis. These combined
experiences have taught me both the vigor of hatred and the horrors of
what it can bring us to, as well as the significant antidote that can
only be found through education. Relying on these experiences I would
like to offer suggestions on areas where governments, on their own and
in partnership with NGOs, can enhance, further implement and promote
programs that have already begun to show progress both here in the U.S.
and overseas in parts of Europe.
Mr. Chairman, when we deal with the kind of anti-Semitic images and
canards that were used in the 1930's, comparisons to pre-WWII Europe
are inevitable. In the 1930s we heard a drumbeat of anti-Semitism that
began softly and grew. We, the Jews, as well as others, put our fate
and our faith in civil institutions--government, law enforcement,
organized religion--to protect us before the drumbeat overwhelmed us.
Our faith was misplaced. We learned the ultimate lesson about the
danger of complacency. Today we are armed with experience and
knowledge--today we recognize the warning signs and the indicators.
Today--in a very different Europe and with the vital leadership of the
United States, we are seeking out the help of these same institutions
and hoping for a dramatically different result.
We have seen progress. In the last few months while anti-Semitic
incidents have unfortunately continued, there have been hopeful signs:
The European Union held a conference on anti-Semitism in
February at which Romano Prodi, President of the European
commission made an important statement: ``I cannot deny, that
some criticism of Israel is inspired by what amounts to anti-
Semitic sentiments and prejudice. This must be recognized for
what it is and properly addressed.''
In France in 2002, violent anti-Semitic incidents were
reported everyday. Members of the community publicly announced
that they were unsure whether there was a future for Jews in
France. The chief Rabbi advised the community to avoid wearing
kipot or other visible Jewish garb as a matter of security.
Signs of improvement were evident as President Chirac
proclaimed in November that ``when a Jew is attacked in France
. . . It is France as a whole that is under attack,'' and now a
new inter-ministerial working group is taking serious measures
to tackle the problem.
In a few short weeks, in Europe, the leaders of 55 nations
of the OSCE will convene a Berlin conference on anti-Semitism.
However, even with this progress two major points must not be
forgotten:
While 55 countries will attend and participate in the Berlin
OSCE conference, some governments were, frankly, brought along
kicking and screaming and many still hope that after Berlin,
they will not be forced to talk about the problem again.
Unlike the model we are used to here at home in the U.S.,
countering anti-Semitism in Europe, even monitoring it or
condemning it, is still considered controversial.
Appended to my statement you will find a listing of some of the
incidents of anti-Semitism that have taken place in the first few
months of 2004. It is imperative that we remember that the numbers and
statistics that I and others will quote, represent real people, many of
them children. Even in France where the overall rate of incidents is
not rising, the number of incidents aimed at children is rose in 2003.
Each child--each victim, has a name--has a mom or a dad; perhaps a kid
brother or sister; possibly a grandparent; all of whom watch and feel
the hurt and debasement of being singled out, attacked or harassed for
who they are. This common pain--this shared concern for safety and
security has led numerous people to pose the age old question of
``Should I leave?'' or more recently ``When should I leave?''
Allow me to highlight a few major challenges we currently face in
fighting anti-Semitism, along with a few of the most promising
practices that this subcommittee could promote and move forward:
I. The Challenge of Building Political Will
It sounds strange here in Washington DC in the year 2004 to state
that talking about anti-Semitism honestly, especially in Europe,
requires the courage to buck the trend of political correctness.
However, the ``new anti-Semitism'' today is gaining acceptability in
newspapers, on college campuses, at anti-war rallies and at dinner
parties. We are finding it in our classrooms, our board rooms, even in
some dining rooms. We are no longer talking about the kind of racially
based anti-Semitism that we saw in the last century. That kind of
racist mythology is the purview of the extreme right, it is not
acceptable to the mainstream, it is simply out of vogue. It is
considered repulsive even by some we would consider anti-Semites.
The new anti-Semitism is the type that hides behind statements such
as ``I don't have any problem with Jewish people, but I think Sharon is
a Nazi, or Israel is a racist or human rights pariah.'' It also shows
up in political cartoons that depict age old canards of anti-Semitism
in their criticism or Israel. You see some examples of what I'm
referring to in just one of our recent reports on anti-Semitism in the
Egyptian media appended to my statement.
In today's parlance, evil equals racist, or apartheid or terrorist.
And while singling out the Jew as a demon or as racially inferior would
not be embraced, the disproportionate denigration, and demonization of
Israel as apartheid, colonialist, racist, fascist, or even as a
successor to Nazi Germany is downright popular. This is a pernicious
form of critique because it cloaks itself in the credibility of the
moral voice of the intellectual elites and the anti-racism or human
rights movements.
I am not saying that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Not
at all--in fact I invite you to read any of the Israeli newspapers on-
line in English and you will find more open debate and criticism per
capita in Israel than almost anywhere else in the world. But there are
clear criteria and guidelines for criticism of any sovereign state.
Perhaps former Soviet dissident and current Israeli Minister Natan
Sharansky's description of viewing the problem through ``3-D glasses''
best describes what I am talking about. His three D's? Demonization,
Double Standards, & Deligitimization. Demonization--blowing Israeli
actions so out of proportion as to paint Israel as the embodiment of
evil. Double Standard--selectively criticizing Israel or failing to put
the same focus on similar policies or actions of other states. And,
Deligitimization--a denial of Israel's right to exist or the right of
the Jewish people to aspire to live securely in a homeland.
When the Eurobaromter, an European Commission periodic poll, had
Europeans rating Israel as the major threat to world peace--ahead of
North Korea, Iraq, and everyone else--we see the clear effect that
demonization and double standards can have. When European criticism of
Israel is so one-sided and so filled with exaggeration and hyperbole,
it reflects a broader bias. While it may not always equal anti-
Semitism, it certainly feeds anti-Semitism. It is no accident that the
places where Jews feel the most threatened are media markets where the
coverage of the Middle East is filled with sensationalized images that
are food for incitement.
While most Europeans would not want to admit to harboring bigotry
against a Jewish individual, we have reached a point where it seems as
if ``anything goes'' when you are bashing Israel. Two months ago, the
British Political Cartoonist annual competition for 2003 awarded first
prize for a hideous caricature of Prime Minister Sharon devouring the
flesh of a Palestinian baby. Such a cartoon would have been right at
home in a 1930 German newspaper. Against this backdrop, politicians and
law enforcement officials ``understand'' that a synagogue arson or
violence against elementary school students is ``natural'' given
frustration among Muslim youth over the Middle East conflict. When this
happens, it is open season against Jews.
After two years fraught with denial of this problem, we welcomed
the beginnings of awareness about the role that this type of anti-
Israel activity plays in increasing anti-Semitism. We concur and
applaud Romano Prodi's statement that ``This must be recognized for
what it is and properly addressed.'' The U.S. can and must continue to
play a leadership role in insuring that others follow suit:
The U.S. must continue to address the nature and source of
the problem squarely. There has been progress but the problem
will grow until European leaders do more to speak out and to
counter Middle Eastern sources of anti-Semitism flowing into
Europe. U.S. diplomacy has been the vital tool for promoting
and rewarding morally responsible action and to call
governments on their shortcomings. This continues to be an
uphill battle and continued U.S. leadership is essential.
The U.S. must work to secure condemnation of the new anti-
Semitism in forums like the OSCE, UN, and EU. Explicit
recognition and condemnation is still lacking. Bucking this
trend will require U.S. diplomatic muscle. Our EU allies should
be much more supportive of U.S. efforts in the UN to pass a
resolution condemning anti-Semitism.
II. The Need for Greater Monitoring
Considering the challenge of building political will, it is no
surprise that there is a lack of appropriate monitoring. It is critical
that governments come together to create a common language and process
for data collection, as well as appropriate training of those empowered
to collect the data. Without this we cannot comprehensively describe
the problem nor find mechanisms for correcting it.
The value of monitoring has many layers. The very process of data
collection is a powerful mechanism to confront violent bigotry.
Increased public awareness of data collection, promotes reporting.
Studies have repeatedly shown that victims of hate crimes are more
likely to report the crime if they know that a special reporting system
is in place. Moreover, the more crimes reported, the better informed
the public becomes of the extent of the problem and thus the more
demand for a solution and/or a willingness to be part of the solution.
In this particular area, the U.S. has great expertise to lend. The
U.S. truly leads in hate crime data collection, as well as in the
training of those responsible for it. Far more than mere statistics,
the U.S. Hate Crime Statistics Act has increased public awareness of
the problem and sparked meaningful improvements in the local response
of the criminal justice system to hate violence. Police officials have
come to appreciate the law enforcement and community benefits of
tracking hate crime and responding to it in a priority fashion. Law
enforcement officials can advance police-community relations by
demonstrating a commitment to be both tough on hate crime perpetrators
and sensitive to the special needs of hate crime victims. By compiling
statistics and charting the geographic distribution of these crimes,
police officials may be in a position to discern patterns and
anticipate an increase in racial tensions in a given jurisdiction.
The violence of the last two years has underscored the need for
stronger monitoring as well as highlighting some of the failures of
existing mechanisms. The EUMC just released a new report this past week
which we welcomed. But it comes a year after another report was held up
because of concerns that the results of the survey would anger local
immigrant populations who were identified as the perpetrators. Even
following the international furor around this controversy, the EUMC
felt pressure to sanitize their findings in the new report. The report
contained many of the elements we hoped to see but the EUMC press
release down played the critical element of the anti-Semitism in
Europe, and led with the conclusion that ``. . . the largest group of
the perpetrators of anti-Semitic activities appears to be young,
disaffected white Europeans.'' It called the young Muslims from North
Africa ``a further source.'' And their press office succeeded. Indeed,
the resulting headlines in newspapers across the world were that anti-
Semitism had increased, and that disaffected white Europeans were
responsible. The ``new'' nature of anti-Semitism, and the changing
profile of the perpetrator from exclusively extreme right white males
to Muslim immigrant youths was missing.
The U.S. should promote/strongly urge the following:
Nations should adopt comprehensive hate crime data
collection laws and provide training to appropriate law
enforcement professionals in how to identify, report, and
respond to hate crimes.
Governments should fund 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.
OSCE Monitoring. The OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions
and Human Rights (ODIHR) has been tasked by OSCE ministers with
serving as a ``collection point'' for data on anti-Semitic
incidents and other hate crimes. Since so many OSCE
participating states have no data collection laws or
mechanisms, it is vital that OSCE take a much more proactive
approach to encourage states to institute these mechanisms.
OSCE could follow up with states and find ways--perhaps through
a publication--to put forward a common data collection model
and guidelines for law enforcement.
Enhance U.S. Reporting. The efforts of the U.S. to raise
international awareness about this problem have been singular
in their importance and effectiveness. U.S. reporting on anti-
Semitism as a human rights and religious freedom issue is an
indispensable tool in spotlighting the problem as well as a
tool for diplomacy. As with any reporting which originates in
embassies around the world, it varies from place to place. In
order to bolster the quality and consistency of reporting on
anti-Semitism, Congress should ask the State Department to
require explicit reporting on the nature of the problem and
assess government responses to it.
III. Hopes for Success at the OSCE Berlin Conference
Against this backdrop of challenges, we have high hopes that the
upcoming OSCE conference in Berlin will be a success. While we are
encouraged by the attention and focus of the U.S. and the Secretary of
State, we hope Secretary Powell's schedule will allow him to attend to
convey the importance we already know he attaches to this issue--an
ingredient we feel will help to insure success. We would define success
as having the following components:
The meeting must condemn the ``new'' anti-Semitism in the
most accurate, honest way possible. Given the European
atmosphere as I've described it, this is an essential component
of success.
The meeting must result in concrete action. We are pleased
that the suggestions on format and substance of workshops
advanced by the NGOs at this table, as well as by Senator
Voinovich, have been incorporated into the conference program.
We hope the meeting will end with a concrete program of action
by OSCE as an institution and individual participating states.
Out of the meeting must come a defined framework for follow
up. While perpetual meetings are not an answer in and of
themselves, long term follow up is vital as long as the problem
persists. Berlin must be the launch of a follow up mechanism
within OSCE. In addition to ensuring that anti-Semitism is on
the OSCE annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting agenda,
we hope it will spark follow up cooperation among officials
with responsibility for key areas such as Interior Ministers,
and Education Ministers. By establishing Ministerial work-
groups and by defining their challenges and responsibilities,
the framework for follow up will exist.
IV. Promising Practices
In the spirit of the action-oriented tone of this discussion today,
I would like to use my time today to focus on a few of the programs
which experience has shown hold out great hope for success in Europe
today. I would be pleased to discuss them in more detail if you have
questions, and have attached a checklist of ADL programs that have been
identified as ``promising practices'' by governments and NGOs in the
fight against racism and xenophobia, as an appendix to this statement.
These run the gambit of programs implemented in Germany in response to
hate crimes against Turkish Muslim immigrants in the early 1990s to
others that address interfaith issues and Holocaust education. The
appendix also notes formal evaluation information where available.
Programmatic responses and/or proactive practices must include:
Anti-Bias Education. This is an essential building block of
combating hatred. History has shown that, when people of
conscience are given tools and skills to recognize and combat
bigotry, prejudice and discrimination, they will do so. We know
that people are not born to hate--they learn to hate. And, if
we learn it, so might we ``un-learn it'' or prevent the initial
learning from taking place to begin with. Senators should urge
parliaments to use schools as a staging ground for Anti-Bias
Education. Governments must act now to provide on-going Teacher
Training in the use of Anti-Bias Education curricula and
methodologies as well as providing opportunities to empower
students through Peer Training programs. Research has shown
that from the age of 3-5 years-old when children begin to
recognize differences and form attitudes based on their
perceptions of differences, to the college and university level
where intergroup understanding is critical to fostering a
successful learning environment, anti-bias education is
necessary to equip students with the skills and confidence
which enable them to confront prejudice, to become activists
against bigotry and to serve as agents for change. Validated by
the University of Pennsylvania's Graduate School of Education,
the ADL A World of Difference Institute has delivered programs
to over 450,000 U.S. teachers, training them in how to confront
their own biases as well as how to use specially designed
curricular materials. Further, this program has been exported
to eight European countries, as well as to Argentina, Japan,
states of the Former Soviet Union and Israel. The Institute's
Peer Training program is currently in use across the U.S. as
well as in Austria, Belgium (in French & in Flemish), France,
Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain and The United Kingdom.
Government Sponsored Showcases of ``Promising Practices.''
As the populations of European countries become more diverse
through immigration, the need to promote tolerance, respect and
understanding becomes greater, especially for young people.
Governments should host ``showcases of Best Practices'' of
school-based anti-bias education programs, including peer
leadership programs, as well as non-school based programs.
These will allow for maximum exposure of working methods as
well as for exploration of how member countries might adapt
these to their specific country culture.
Holocaust Education. As we have all repeatedly acknowledged,
crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust, serve as grim
reminders of where intolerance can lead if permitted to
flourish and of the absolute necessity that it be stopped.
Congress should continue to support the work of the
International Task Force on Holocaust Education.
Parliamentarians should seek to implement Holocaust curricula
in public schools to draw upon the lessons of this tragic
period to illuminate the importance of moral decision.
Working with Religious Institutions. In the U.S., ADL's
Bearing Witness Program for Religious Educators 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 program is a collaborative effort between
ADL, the Archdiocese, and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Initially offered only in Washington, DC, the program has now
expanded and will be offered in five U.S. cities this summer.
Law Enforcement Training. As so many of countries grapple
with their changing demographics, tensions amongst and between
various ethnic, racial and religious groups are only further
exacerbated by law enforcement professionals who lack strong
intergroup skills, cultural understanding, familiarity with the
concept of a hate crime, and the skills with which to
investigate and/or report on a crime of hate. Beyond training
in hate crimes response and investigation, 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. Institutions like the OSCE's Law
Enforcement Training arm, EU Law Enforcement Training Centers
and the U.S. FBI training academy in Budapest provide
opportunities for such training programs. The FBI Law
Enforcement Training Academy in Budapest should institute an
anti-bias training component as well as hate crime
identification, investigation and monitoring training programs.
An institution like the OSCE law enforcement arm is well poised
to issue publications describing the nature of anti-Semitism
today with the goal of helping governments and law enforcement
agencies know it when they see it. In Austria, ADL has been
contracted to provide such training ultimately to every law
enforcement professional in the entire country. Relying on a
turn-key model, under the direction of the minister of the
Interior, 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.
Responding 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.
Replicate Similar Action in Other Parliaments. So many
important initiatives against anti-Semitism have originated in
hearings like this and are advanced by Members of Congress
moved by their convictions to take action. The challenge is how
to replicate this activity abroad. Let other parliaments do as
Congress has done, convene hearings like this one, pass
resolutions against anti-Semitism, set up caucuses like the
Helsinki Commission or the Congressional Task Force Against
Anti-Semitism in the House and develop national action plans to
combat it.
Conclusion
The last few years of dealing with the new anti-Semitism has posed
the painful question, how far have we come, have we learned the lessons
of the Holocaust? The answer is certainly a work in progress. It is
being written in hearing rooms like this, and in the hearts and minds
of all who were touched by it.
When reports of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia first emerged ADL ran
ads with a simple understated message--respond as you wish the world
had responded . . . the meaning was clear. We never thought we would be
saying the same with respect to anti-Semitism in Europe. Now we are
asking, respond as you wish the world had responded the last time. You,
the Senate, the U.S., have answered the call admirably.
We hope that your work, your commitment, and initiatives like those
I've outlined will command the day. We hope the answer will be
dramatically different than it was the last century.
[Additional material submitted by Ms. Stern is located in the
Appendix to this hearing.]
Senator Allen. Ms. Stern, thank you so much for your
compelling testimony. The Holocaust Museum is an example of
teaching history, but also the lesson I have received from it
and why I am focusing on this is that whenever anti-Semitism,
church burnings, racism appears, it is incumbent upon elected
leaders to condemn it, so that the population, the people who
we serve, recognize that it is not to be tolerated. I think I
speak for all the members who are present here. So thank you
for your testimony.
We would now like to hear from Rabbi Baker.
Rabbi, thank you for being with us this afternoon.
STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL
JEWISH AFFAIRS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE
Rabbi Baker. Senator Allen, Senator Voinovich, Senator
Sarbanes, thank you for this opportunity to be here to speak
again to this subcommittee on an issue that you have addressed
and taken up again, itself a recognition of the seriousness and
importance that it deserves.
I would, if I may, like to submit my full written testimony
for the record and here provide a more abbreviated version of
it.
Senator Allen. It is so ordered. Thank you.
Rabbi Baker. Let me suggest what may be a conceptual
framework with which to look at the problem today and then
speak of how European leaders and European institutions are
responding to it. In essence, I think we have observed in these
recent years an increase in anti-Semitism in Europe. And one
can see it generated from three general sources.
The first is drawn from those traditional elements on the
right of the political spectrum. These include the activities
of neo-Nazis, skinheads and other xenophobic and nationalist
groups, which have a persistent, but limited, danger to Jews
and other minorities in Europe. This is the hate that most
governments know. They are aware of them. They have been
roundly condemned. Police and law enforcement agencies have had
experience in dealing with them.
Many Western European countries with legislation against
racial and anti-Semitic incitement have the tools to combat
them, or at least to keep them in check. Jews are not alone in
being targeted and are often not the primary focus of such
groups. Of parallel concern is, will these elements achieve a
degree of political cohesion? Will they manifest themselves in
the electoral arena?
Most notably, we have witnessed over the years the staying
power of certain right-wing parties, such as the National Front
in France and the Freedom Party in Austria, whose racist and
xenophobic appeals regularly flirt with anti-Semitism as well.
Admittedly, their political obituaries have been written
over the years and have been proven premature. But at the same
time, their reach and their influence does seem to be limited.
Mainstream political parties in Western Europe have either
ostracized them or kept them at arm's length. The same,
however, cannot yet be said for Central and Eastern European
leaders.
The second source of attention has been the violent anti-
Semitic attacks that have originated primarily from Arab and
Muslim populations in certain European countries. Almost absent
before September 2000, they have paralleled the breakdown of
the peace process in the Middle East and events of the ``second
Intifada'' in Israel and the Palestinian territories. In some
countries, notably France, Belgium, and the United Kingdom,
Arab and Muslim youth have been identified as the major source
of physical attacks. Usually governments are reluctant to
acknowledge the specific anti-Semitic nature of these events.
There are two reasons why a clear and candid recognition of
the problem was delayed. In the first instance, the European
establishment viewed these incidents not as anti-Semitism, but
as some unfortunate outburst of the Middle East conflict on
European soil. However, European leaders were late in
recognizing that not only anti-Israeli, but an anti-Semitic
ideology, has taken hold of a growing number of Arab and Muslim
residents in Europe.
There are not only graphic images of Israeli soldiers
attacking Palestinians broadcast on satellite television from
the Arab world, but there is also a steady flow of traditional
anti-Semitic rhetoric, a recycling of Nazi-like propaganda that
is available to Arab viewers in Europe.
Along with this you find in neighborhood mosques and
madrasas sermons and lectures, in which Jews, not Israelis, are
painted as the enemy. The Middle East conflict may well have
fueled this new outbreak of anti-Semitism, but it cannot be
blamed for it altogether.
Additionally, the Arab and Muslim attacks on Jewish targets
reveal a much deeper problem. In fact, they have posed a
challenge to the basic assumptions of immigrant absorption and
the acculturation in much of Europe. In France, it has meant a
potential rupture in its strong secular tradition that eschews
ethnic and religious separatism. In Great Britain, it has
brought into question the tradition of tolerance that has
offered protection to minorities and security to their
communities.
In Germany, it has derailed efforts at immigration reform,
a particular concern of three million Turkish residents. To be
sure, this would be a daunting challenge for the European
Union, whose Arab and Muslim population now numbers between 15
and 20 million, even if it could ignore altogether its anti-
Semitic component.
The third element that defines this problem is, in effect,
one which European leaders have had the most difficulty
acknowledging. It is a new anti-Semitism in which Jews and the
State of Israel have become a special target, a target of an
untraditional array of groups, who may see themselves as
``forces for good'' battling globalization, racism, and
American domination in the world today.
The U.N. conference in Durban, South Africa, three years
ago was perhaps the most notable example of how a gathering
intended to fight racism could give rise to some of the worst
anti-Semitic invective. Those expressions of hostility in which
Israel is labeled a racist state, in which Jews everywhere are
held accountable for its crimes, have been regularly repeated
on the European continent from mass demonstrations to parlor
room gatherings.
Well beyond the bounds of legitimate criticism, the Jewish
state is vilified and demonized. For those Europeans opposed to
the American-led war in Iraq, and you know there are many,
Israel and the Jewish lobby in Washington are sometimes painted
as the sinister manipulators of U.S. policy. In such fashion
are anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism routinely linked.
Because of the politically charged nature of the debate
over the Iraq war, because of the distaste that many Europeans
have for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, it is quite often
difficult to show that a line has been crossed and legitimate
criticism, however sharp and vigorous, has given way and become
another manifestation of anti-Semitism.
Now it has not been an easy task to convince European
leaders that they confront a serious problem, but there has bee
progress. In June of last year, in Vienna, as has been noted,
the OSCE held the first conference in its history devoted
exclusively to the problem of anti-Semitism. Had it not been
for the U.S. Government, and more particularly to pressure from
members of Congress on an initially ambivalent administration,
that conference would not have taken place.
Many Europeans, although they appeared to acknowledge that
anti-Semitism had become a problem in transatlantic relations,
were still hesitant to admit that it was a real problem in and
of itself. The success of the Vienna Conference was an
agreement to hold a second follow-up conference in Berlin at
the end of this month.
We have witnessed over these past months some clear
improvement, some clear progress, in this problem. It has
already been cited that the Government of France, initially
reluctant to even admit to a problem, has taken very strong
steps. A policy of zero tolerance espoused by its interior
minister has dramatically reduced the number of anti-Semitic
incidents. We have seen public solidarity expressed for the
Jewish community by the President of France and by other
national leaders, the creation of a special commission, efforts
to quell the anxiety that many French Jews have experienced,
while also responding to critics from abroad.
We have also heard remarks from European Union leaders,
such as Javier Solana and Romano Prodi, that have sought to
address and at least acknowledge the seriousness of the
problem. It has been referenced already that the European Union
Monitoring Center had commissioned its first report on anti-
Semitism in 2002 and then chose not to release it. In doing so,
they announced they would undertake a new report, which has
just been released to the public a week ago in Strasbourg.
In that report, it clearly documents the increase in the
intensity of the anti-Semitic incidents in five countries in
Europe: Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the
United Kingdom. However, it notes the extreme difficulty in
finding reliable data in a majority of European Union
countries. In fact, several have no provisions at all for the
collection of any form of hate crime information.
The EU Monitoring Center also published a report based on
personal interviews with Jewish leaders and Jewish
representatives in eight countries of Europe. These
impressionistic and subjective views of the problem record in
essence what Jewish antennae pick up today, not only the
empirical data of incidents, but also a sense of the public
mood and the political discourse, and they are never far
removed from the historical context of the Holocaust and post-
war reconstruction.
They describe a more troubling situation, where
considerations of emigration and questions about the future of
Jewish communal life are part of the daily conversations. Thus,
in summation, that report states, ``Probably no other
historical community of our continent has been subject to such
a large scale of vexatious practices, symbolical aggressions,
and violent attacks, which affect the moral and physical
integrity of its members, the normal exercise of their
citizenship, the security of its community buildings and
institutions, its image, its beliefs, its history, and its
solidarity structures, as is the case for the Jews.''
Now to its credit, the Monitoring Center has not shied away
from asserting that anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli expressions
can also constitute a form of anti-Semitism. In particular, the
report asserts that when traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes
are applied to the State of Israel, such is the case. Thus,
depictions of Israel as a deceitful force, as a conveyor of
international conspiracies, as acting for base or crooked
motives, would, by this description, constitute manifestations
of anti-Semitism. It may not be as complete a definition as
some of us would wish, but it is an important step forward,
particularly considering how many people wish to avoid the
subject altogether.
Now, Senator Voinovich, I know you will be going to Berlin
as part of the official delegation to the OSCE conference.
Others of us will be there as well. It will be important at
that occasion for the U.S. Government to address European
leaders directly and to press for clear and tangible steps to
combat anti-Semitism.
I believe these should include establishment of a
comprehensive and ongoing process to monitor and collect data
on anti-Semitic and other hate crimes. Recognition that some of
the most virulent expressions of anti-Semitism today emanate
from the Arab world and their dissemination within Europe must
be curtailed. Acknowledgment that anti-Israeli expressions,
including the demonization and vilification of the Jewish
State, constitute a new form of anti-Semitism. And development
of an operative definition of anti-Semitism, in consultation
with experts in Europe, in Israel, and the United States, that
can be employed by governments and intergovernmental
institutions, such as the OSCE and the EU, in the areas of
monitoring, law enforcement, and education.
Most of the attention given to the subject of anti-Semitism
in Europe today and the main focus of my presentation has been
on developments in Western Europe. It is true that some of the
most troubling manifestations have by and large not
materialized in Central and Eastern Europe. But it would be a
mistake to conclude that anti-Semitism does not pose any
problem for these countries.
I have discussed that matter in my written report. And I am
prepared also to address the subject, if and when there is an
opportunity for questions and discussion.
In conclusion, we are witness to contradictory
developments. Some are deeply troubling while others provide us
with reasons to be hopeful. On a continent which witnessed the
destruction of two-thirds of its Jewish population 60 years ago
and which today is still home to tens of thousands of Holocaust
survivors, any resurgence of anti-Semitism is shocking. We had
thought there was a permanent inoculation to this virus, but we
were mistaken. A taboo has been lifted.
At the same time, European leaders, who have successfully
reconciled their own national conflicts, realize that the
current challenge is to battle the forces of racism,
xenophobia, and anti-Semitism that lie within their borders.
The active involvement of the American Government is not only a
means of prodding them into action, sometimes necessary, but
seldom appreciated, it is also a tangible expression of a
shared commitment that we have to common values and common
goals.
Thank you very much.
Senator Allen. Thank you so much, Rabbi Baker, for your
strong testimony.
[The prepared statement of Rabbi Baker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rabbi Andrew Baker
I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to offer testimony today. This is not the first hearing
this subcommittee has held on the subject, nor my first occasion to sit
before you. The ongoing interest and concern that is reflected in your
actions are also a reflection of the seriousness of the problem. In my
presentation, I shall focus primarily on the discernable trends in the
manifestations of anti-Semitism today in Western Europe as well as on
the responses of European leaders and institutions.
During these past several years we have observed an increase in
anti-Semitism in Europe that is generated from three general sources.
TRADITIONAL SOURCES OF ANTI-SEMITISM
The first is drawn from the traditional elements on the right of
the political spectrum. These include the activities of neo-Nazis and
skinheads and other xenophobic and nationalist groups, which have been
a persistent but limited danger to Jews and other minorities in Europe.
Their activities range from shouting epithets at football games to the
desecration of cemeteries and synagogues to physical attacks on
persons. Governments are aware of them; political and social forces
roundly condemn their activities; and police and law enforcement
agencies have had experience in dealing with them. Many Western
European countries, with legislation against racial and anti-Semitic
incitement, have the tools to combat them or, at least, keep them in
check. Jews are not alone in being targeted and are often not the
primary focus of such groups, whose anger is generated by the pace of
modernity in Europe, the growing number of immigrants and the
diminution of nationalist identities within the European Union.
Of parallel concern is where these elements achieve a degree of
political cohesion and manifest themselves in the electoral arena. Most
notably we have witnessed the staying power of certain right wing
parties, such as the National Front in France and the Freedom Party in
Austria, whose racist and xenophobic appeals regularly flirt with anti-
Semitism, as well. Their political obituaries that have been written
over the years have been proven premature, but at the same time their
reach and influence seems to be limited. Mainstream political parties
in Western Europe have either ostracized them or kept them at arm's
length. The same cannot (yet) be said for Central and Eastern Europe.
ARAB AND MUSLIM PROPONENTS OF ANTI-JEWISH HOSTILITY
The second area of attention has been the violent anti-Semitic
attacks that have originated primarily from the Arab and Muslim
populations in certain European countries. Almost absent before
September 2000, they have paralleled the breakdown of the peace process
in the Middle East and the events of the second Intifadah in Israel and
the Palestinian territories. In some countries--notably France, Belgium
and the United Kingdom--Arab and Muslim youth have been identified as
the major source of physical attacks against Jews and Jewish sites.
Initially, governments were reluctant to acknowledge the specific,
anti-Semitic nature of these events. The former Socialist government of
France even maintained that synagogues and Jewish schools were not a
special target of what was otherwise deemed youthful vandalism.
There were two reasons why a clear and candid recognition of the
true nature of the problem was delayed. In the first instance, the
European establishment viewed these incidents not as anti-Semitism, but
as unfortunate outbursts of the Middle East conflict on European soil.
In the past, European synagogues had been targets of Palestinian
terrorists, and Jews had been the occasional victims of anti-Israel
demonstrators. However, European leaders were late in recognizing that
not only an anti-Israeli, but an anti-Semitic ideology has taken hold
of a growing number of Arab and Muslim residents in Europe. There are
not only graphic images of Israeli soldiers attacking Palestinians
broadcast on satellite television from the Arab world. But there is
also a steady flow of traditional anti-Semitic rhetoric and a recycling
of Nazi-like propaganda available to Arab viewers in Europe.
Neighborhood mosques and madrassas often feature sermons and lectures
in which Jews, not Israelis, are painted as the enemy. The Middle East
conflict may well have fueled the new outbreak of anti-Semitism, but it
cannot not be blamed for it altogether.
Additionally, the Arab and Muslim attacks on Jewish targets
revealed a much deeper problem that European leaders did not want to
confront. In fact, they have posed a challenge to the basic assumptions
of immigrant absorption and acculturation. In France this has meant a
potential rupture in its strong secular tradition that eschews ethnic
and religious separatism. In Great Britain it has brought into question
the tradition of tolerance that has offered protection and security to
minorities. In Germany, it has derailed efforts at immigration reform,
a particular concern of the three million Turkish residents. To be
sure, this would be a daunting challenge for the European Union, whose
Arab and Muslim population now numbers between 15 and 20 million, even
if it could ignore its anti-Semitic component.
A ``NEW'' ANTI-SEMITISM
The third element that defines the problem of anti-Semitism in
Europe today is certainly the one which European leaders have had the
most difficulty acknowledging. It is a ``new'' anti-Semitism in which
Jews and the State of Israel have become a special target of an
untraditional array of groups, who seem themselves as ``forces for
good'' battling globalization, racism, and American domination in the
world today. The UN Conference in Durban, South Africa three years ago
was perhaps the most notable example of how a gathering intended to
fight racism could give rise to some of the worst anti-Semitic
invective. Those expressions of hostility, in which Israel is labeled a
``racist'' state and Jews everywhere are held accountable for its
``crimes,'' have been regularly repeated on the European continent from
mass demonstrations to parlor room gatherings. Well beyond the bounds
of legitimate criticism, the Jewish State is vilified and demonized.
For those Europeans opposed to the American-led war in Iraq (and
there are many), Israel and the ``Jewish lobby'' in Washington are
sometimes painted as the sinister manipulators of U.S. policy. One
Berlin newspaper, which published an article that focused primarily on
the Jewish background of key figures such as Richard Perle, Paul
Wolfowitz and Elliot Abrams, saw fit to illustrate it with a photo of
President Bush meeting in the Oval Office with a group of bearded,
black-robed Orthodox rabbis. In such fashion are anti-Americanism and
anti-Semitism routinely linked. Because of the politically charged
nature of the debate over the Iraq war and the Middle East conflict,
and the distaste that many Europeans have for Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon, it is often quite difficult to show that a line has been
crossed and legitimate criticism--however sharp and vigorous--has
become another manifestation of anti-Semitism.
RECOGNITION OF THE PROBLEM BY EUROPEAN LEADERSHIP
It has not been an easy task to convince European leaders that they
confront a serious problem of anti-Semitism, let alone to press them to
take the necessary measures to combat it. But, there has been progress.
The problem, at least to a limited degree, is now acknowledged, and
governments are beginning to act.
In June of last year in Vienna the Organization on Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) organized the first conference in its
history devoted exclusively to the problem of anti-Semitism. Until that
time the subject, if it was addressed at all, was usually subsumed
under the more general category of ``racism, xenophobia, intolerance,
etc.'' In fact, it was rarely mentioned, but left to be inferred from
the catchall ``et cetera'' at the end. Had it not been for the U.S.
Government (and, more particularly, for the pressure of Congress on an
initially ambivalent administration) that conference would have not
have taken place. Many Europeans, although they were prepared to
acknowledge that anti-Semitism was a problem in transatlantic
relations, were still hesitant to admit that it was a real problem in
and of itself. The ``success'' of the Vienna conference was an
agreement, requiring consensus of the 55 member nations of the OSCE, to
hold a second, follow-up conference, which will take place at the end
of this month in Berlin. In the intervening months, we have witnessed a
growing recognition that the problem is real.
Much attention, for obvious reasons, has focused on France. It has
the largest Jewish community in Europe (estimated at 600,000) and it
has witnessed the greatest number of attacks on Jewish targets.
Increased security and a ``zero tolerance'' policy espoused by a tough
interior minister have dramatically reduced these numbers. Public
expressions of solidarity with the Jewish community by the French
President and other national leaders and the creation of a special
commission on anti-Semitism have sought to quell the anxiety that many
French Jews have experienced while also responding to critics from
abroad.
In recent months, several prominent EU leaders, including High
Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana and
Commission President Romano Prodi have spoken publicly in Brussels
about the seriousness of the problem and seemed to have distanced
themselves--at least in tone--from earlier pronouncements to the
contrary.
EUROPEAN UNION MONITORING CENTRE REPORTS
In 2002 the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) commissioned its first report on anti-Semitism, which
was conducted by researchers at the Center for Research on Anti-
Semitism in Berlin. The EUMC board, citing flaws in its
``methodology,'' decided not to release the study. Since the report
identified both European media coverage of the Middle East conflict and
Arab and Muslim community agitation as sources for the resurgence in
anti-Semitic violence, it was widely presumed that political
considerations were the real reason for its suppression. The EUMC
Director used the occasion of the Vienna Conference last June to
announce that the Centre would undertake a new, comprehensive survey of
anti-Semitism in the EU, using its own resources and reporters.
That report (Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the EU 2002-2003 )
was issued last week. It is thorough and detailed and, wherever
available, draws on collected data for the years 2002 and 2003. In
particular, it identifies an increase in the intensity of anti-Semitic
incidents in five countries--Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands,
and the UK. In several other countries--Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal
and Finland--it reports little evidence of any increase. However, the
collection of reliable data is a serious problem in a majority of EU
countries. Several have no provisions for the collection of any hate
crime information in general, let alone singling out anti-Semitic
incidents. In a number of cases, the EUMC has relied solely on asking
Jewish community leaders for their recollections of past events.
The EUMC has also published a summary report (Preceptions of Anti-
Semitism in the European Union ) based on personal interviews with 35
Jewish leaders and observers in eight countries. These impressionistic
and subjective views of the problem record what Jewish antennae pick up
today--not only the empirical data of incidents, but also a sense of
the public mood and political discourse--and are never far removed from
the historical context of the Holocaust and post-war reconstruction.
They describe a more troubling situation, where considerations of
emigration and questions about the future of Jewish communal life are
part of the daily conversation. Thus, in summation the report states:
Probably no other historical community of our continent has
been subject to such a large scale of vexatious practices,
symbolical aggressions and violent attacks, which affect the
moral and physical integrity of its members, the normal
exercise of their citizenship, the security of its community
buildings and institutions, its image, its beliefs, its history
and its solidarity structures as is the case for the Jews.
To its credit, the EUMC has not shied away from asserting that
anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli expressions can also constitute a form of
anti-Semitism. In particular, the report asserts that, when traditional
anti-Semitic stereotypes are applied to the State of Israel, such is
the case. Thus, depictions of Israel as a deceitful force, as a
conveyor of international conspiracies, as acting for base or crooked
motives, would by this description constitute manifestations of anti-
Semitism. It may not be as complete a definition as some would wish,
but it is an important step forward, particularly considering how many
people wish to avoid the subject altogether.
In undertaking its study, the EUMC made use of its network of
national focal points in each of the fifteen member countries. It is
disconcerting to note that six of them do not even have an explicit
definition of anti-Semitism; and of the nine which do, there is no
single definition held in common.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMERICAN ACTION
In three weeks time the U.S. Government will have the opportunity
to address European leaders directly at the OSCE Conference in Berlin.
On that occasion it will be important to press for clear and tangible
steps to combat anti-Semitism. These should include:
Establishment of a comprehensive and ongoing process to
monitor and collect data on anti-Semitic and other hate crimes;
Recognition that some of the most virulent expressions of
anti-Semitism today emanate from the Arab world and their
dissemination within Europe must be curtailed;
Acknowledgement that anti-Israeli expressions, including the
demonization and vilification of the Jewish State, constitute a
new form of anti-Semitism; and
Development of an operative definition of anti-Semitism--in
consultation with experts in Europe, the United States and
Israel--that can be employed by governments and
intergovernmental institutions such as the OSCE and the EU in
the areas of monitoring, law enforcement and education.
FACING PROBLEMS IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE
Most of the attention given to the subject of anti-Semitism in
Europe today--and the main focus of this presentation--has been on
developments in Western Europe. It is true that some of the most
troubling manifestations have by and large not materialized in Central
and Eastern Europe. But, it would be a mistake to conclude that anti-
Semitism does not pose any problem for these countries. Jewish
communities in this region are small in number. (There are more Jews
today in metropolitan Washington than in the territory between Paris
and Kiev.) They are still in the process of reestablishing themselves
after the Holocaust and the fall of Communism, but it is not easy.
Those experiences have made many Jews reluctant even today to admit
their Jewish identity. Efforts to reclaim Jewish communal property that
had been seized by the Nazis and nationalized by the Communists have
met with limited success in most of these countries, but rarely without
igniting the criticism of populist candidates, who see political gain
through anti-Semitism.
There can be little doubt that the process of NATO enlargement and
the close involvement of the United States with the evolution of the
new member states provided a unique opportunity to press for concrete
steps in the fight against anti-Semitism and the revival of Jewish
communal life. By way of example, only within the last year we have
witnessed the Government of Slovakia paying compensation for Jewish
assets looted by the wartime Slovak state, the President of Romania
establishing an international historical commission to examine the
heretofore taboo subject of the Holocaust in that country, and the
Prime Minister of Lithuania speaking out and his public prosecutor
bringing charges against a newspaper publisher for printing anti-
Semitic articles. Such developments are still not commonplace, but they
are positive and important signals to small Jewish communities.
CLOSING COMMENTS
In conclusion, we are witness to contradictory developments--some
are deeply troubling, while others provide us with reasons to be
hopeful. On a continent which witnessed the destruction of \2/3\ of its
Jewish population sixty years ago and which is today still home to tens
of thousands of Holocaust survivors, any resurgence of anti-Semitism is
shocking. We had thought there was a permanent inoculation to this
virus, but we were mistaken. A taboo has been lifted.
At the same time, European leaders, who have successfully
reconciled their own national conflicts, realize that the current
challenge is to battle the forces of racism, xenophobia and anti-
Semitism that lie within their borders. The active involvement of the
American Government is not only a means of prodding them into action--
sometimes necessary but seldom appreciated--it is also the tangible
expression of a shared commitment to common values and goals.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. We are now joined by Senator Sarbanes of
Maryland, who does have another pressing matter that he needs
to get to. So I would like to recognize you, Senator Sarbanes,
for any comments or insights you would want to share.
Senator Sarbanes. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I did hear both Ms. Stern and Rabbi Baker. But regrettably, I
have another conflicting engagement, as is wont to happen
around here. I just wanted to say, first to commend you very
strongly, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this important hearing,
in a way at a particularly appropriate time. This, after all,
is the week of Passover, which marks the escape of the Jewish
people from bondage in Egypt. The State of Israel very shortly
will mark its 56th anniversary of its founding, its
independence. And next week we observe Holocaust Remembrance
Day.
I share very deeply the concern that, Mr. Chairman, you and
Senator Voinovich and others have expressed about the
resurgence of anti-Semitism. It is very deeply troubling to
read, for instance, in Maariv after they looked at two recent
EU monitoring committee reports that 60 years after the
Holocaust it is once again difficult for Jews to live in
Europe.
We obviously need to be resolute and united in our
determination to get to the root of this ugly and destructive
phenomenon, which as Stephen Byers observed in an article in
The Guardian, ``Anti-Semitism is like a virus and it mutates.''
I just want to make this observation: To be sure, anti-
Semitism is an emergent threat Jewish communities, to Jewish
families, to Jewish life wherever it appears. But it is also a
threat to us all. Nathan Sharansky, Israel's Minister of the
Diaspora and Jerusalem Affairs, made this point simply but
eloquently not long ago when he said, ``History has proved that
anti-Semitism always starts with the Jews but never ends with
them. When anti-Semitism persists, the well-being of all our
people is at risk.''
I very much appreciate the witnesses coming to be with us
today. I want to assure them this is a matter of very deep
concern to members of this committee. And again, Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for the leadership you have shown in convening
these sessions and in closely monitoring and following this
important issue. Thank you very much.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes, for your great
leadership and concern and insight on this over the years. When
we were on the floor, he said, ``Gosh, will that hearing still
be going on?'' I said, ``Yes. We would love to hear from you.''
Thank you again for your leadership and your concern.
Now, the final witness, Mr. Mariaschin.
STATEMENT OF MR. DAN MARIASCHIN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
B'NAI B'RITH INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Mariaschin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
convening this meeting and for the privilege of addressing this
committee on behalf of B'nai B'rith International and its more
than 110,000 members and supporters. I ask that the full text
of my remarks be entered into the record.
Senator Allen. So ordered.
Mr. Mariaschin. As Executive Vice President of B'nai
B'rith, an American-based organization with members in more
than 50 countries around the world, I have viewed the
resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe the past three and a half
years with anguish and alarm.
In my 16 years at B'nai B'rith, dating back to the period
prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, I have visited Europe
regularly to help protect the rights of Jewish communities on
that continent. While anti-Jewish sentiment was still apparent
in the half century that followed World War II, today Europe is
experiencing a degree of anti-Semitism I have not seen in my
adult lifetime. And the re-emergence of this ugly historical
phenomenon has left European Jewry feeling more vulnerable and
disillusioned than at any point since the Holocaust.
Mr. Chairman, the past three and half years has witnessed
hundreds of aggressive, often violent, acts targeting Jewish
individuals and institutions in Europe. These manifestations of
Jew hatred are rooted in a historical anti-Semitism that has
plagued Europe for 2,000 years. The long-standing accusation by
the church that Jews were guilty of deicide fueled anti-
Semitism for centuries. This theologically based anti-Semitism
then gave way to the ethnocentric nationalism of the 19th and
20th centuries, which held that Jews were racially inferior
and, regardless of their efforts to integrate, inherently
disloyal to the state because of their ethnic distinctiveness.
The by-now familiar anti-Semitism of Europe's elite has
been given new life by negative public attitudes toward the
Middle East conflict and by the struggle for Holocaust
restitution as well. These problematic issues have provided
anti-Semites with the intellectual fodder to rationalize and
legitimate their views to their own satisfaction.
Against this backdrop of traditional anti-Semitism, the
pronounced growth of Europe's Arab and Muslim population is
notably occurring. It is an increase in numbers, perhaps 20
million residing in the 15 states of the European Union, and in
ideological radicalization. In Europe, these communities have
immediate and regular access to Arabic language cable TV
networks like Al Jazeera, print publications, and Internet
sites, all of which offer predictably one-sided inflammatory
coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
These outlets employ primitive Jewish stereotypes in
services of their anti-Zionist message, often borrowing symbols
and motifs from Nazi propaganda so as to evoke the virulent
anti-Semitism of Der Sturmer. 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,
Meanwhile, Arabic editions of Mein Kampf sell briskly in London
and other European capitals.
The radicalization of some Europeans Arabs and Muslims has
dovetailed with the rise of the far right, whose standard-
bearers, such as France's Jean-Marie Le Pen and Austria's Joerg
Haider, are generally anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Their
nationalist rhetoric has often features what many consider to
be anti-Semitism, however. And their message of opposition to
European enlargement and integration is threatening to Jews,
who, like other ethnic and religious minorities, are
considerably discomfited by the parochialism and xenophobia of
these right-wing movements.
Even as right-wing extremism inspires fear among European
Jews, the far left is creating further apprehension with the
intensification of its anti-Israel vitriol. Many on that side
of the spectrum, politicians and journalists, have joined labor
unions, non-governmental organizations, and human rights
activists, in polemical assaults on Israel that exceed the sort
of legitimate policy critiques normally expected in democratic
societies.
The decision by European Commission President Romano Prodi
to cosponsor a seminar on anti-Semitism in Brussels in February
was welcomed by those of us who look to European officials to
demonstrate leadership on this issue. Still, much more, much
more, remains to be done. The fact that a draft resolution on
racism recently introduced at the United Nations Human Rights
Commission in Geneva just last week omitted any reference to
anti-Semitism as a form of discrimination is one reminder of
the problem to be overcome.
Sadly, many officials in Europe persist in viewing anti-
Semitism as purely a political phenomenon. Once the Middle East
conflict is resolved or at least subsides, violence against
European Jewry will also diminish, they reason. They have
refused to accept the severity of the problem and fail to speak
out against anti-Semitism with an intensity and a conviction
that the current situation demands.
Former Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark is one
leader who has recognized the importance of combating anti-
Semitism and condemning it forcefully. Unfortunately, now that
the problem is more acute than it has been in decades, few
major officials in Europe--German Foreign Minister Joschka
Fischer and France's former Interior Minister and newly
appointed Finance Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, are two notable
exceptions--have been able to replicate the level of commitment
that Ahlmark has demonstrated during his years of public
service.
A conference convened by the Organization of Security and
Cooperation in Europe in Vienna last summer represented a
welcome attempt by European officials, in cooperation with
their American counterparts, to address the growing problem of
anti-Semitism. The follow-up conference in Berlin later this
month will be a further positive step.
We hope that the Berlin gathering will result in ongoing
mechanisms to combat anti-Semitism. For example, interior,
justice, and education ministers might begin to cooperate
regularly on issues, such as law enforcement and tolerance
training. Furthermore, the OSCE's Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR, which has been referenced
several times before in this hearing, should institute a
process for collecting data on anti-Semitic acts and should
issue an annual report on its findings.
Much to his credit, Senator Voinovich yesterday introduced
legislation that would require the State Department to document
anti-Semitic acts around the world. We thank the Senator for
his strong leadership on this issue and hope that European
officials will follow his timely example, especially now, just
a couple of weeks in advance of the Berlin meeting.
A report released just last week by the European Monitoring
Center on Racism and Xenophobia, also mentioned before, has
reaffirmed the sense of Jewish groups that European officials
have not fully committed and confronted, rather, the sources of
anti-Semitism. After the EUMC provoked intense criticism last
year by suppressing a previous report identifying Muslim
radicals and left-wing pro-Palestinian supporters as the main
sources of the new anti-Semitism, the new study makes scant
reference to those antagonists, focusing instead of the role of
right-wing groups.
The failure of the report to speak honestly about the
actual instigators and the current onslaught of anti-Semitism
prompted one prominent European Jewish leader to ask, ``How can
we effectively fight anti-Semitism when we refuse to identify
the true perpetrators?''
At a roundtable discussion following the presentation of
the EU report, German legislator Ilke Schroeder stressed the
Israel-related dimension of European anti-Semitism, which the
study also minimized. According to Schroeder, who represents
Germany in the European Parliament, the growth of anti-Semitism
can be attributed in part to the ``EU policy against Israel''
and ``anti-Zionist propaganda in the European public.''
Schroeder's remarks point to a truth that is too often
ignored in Europe, that while criticism of any government's
policy should always be expected in the democratic world,
Israel is subjected to a double standard under which criticism
of the Jewish state far oversteps the parameters invoked for
all other governments, both democratic and autocratic, whose
policies might come under international scrutiny.
Indeed, the relentless stream of anti-Israel invective that
often originates in the Middle East, but consistently finds it
way into European society, goes considerably beyond legitimate
policy debate. Such polemical attacks employ overheated,
hateful rhetoric and, all too often, classic anti-Semitic
images and stereotypes.
Mr. Chairman, there can be little doubt that one-sided and
unremittingly hostile attacks on Israel have contributed to a
climate, much as we have witnessed at the World Conference
Against Racism in Durban in 2001, in which the Jewish state is
demonized and presented as a pariah among the nations. A sense
of balance and historical accuracy must be restored. A poll
released by the European Commission last fall underscored the
severity of the problem, as the survey found that nearly 60
percent of Europeans believe that Israel is a greater threat to
world peace than North Korea, Iran, or Syria.
And since many European leaders still cannot accept the
gravity of present circumstances, they need to hear often and
emphatically from U.S. officials, in the administration and in
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 must be
encouraged to use it.
The most recent round of NATO enlargement, formalized at a
White House ceremony last week, has provided an example of the
constructive role the U.S. can play with regard to this matter.
Thanks to America's determined insistence over the past decade,
governments in Central and Eastern Europe came to understand
that they needed to begin properly addressing problems related
to their Holocaust-era past before they could take their place
under the NATO umbrella.
For example, several of the new NATO members have taken
positive steps in the area of Holocaust education and
commemoration, and have either joined or applied to join the
Task Force for International Cooperation and Holocaust
Education, Remembrance, and Research. As the ten Central and
Eastern European countries that have undergone the NATO
admission process take their place among the democratic family
of nations and as NATO continues to expand, the U.S. and the
governments of these countries must remain vigilant and guard
against the possibility that progress on Holocaust-related
issues will stall. America should work with those governments
to vigorously combat anti-Semitism and to encourage their
efforts at Holocaust restitution and memory, which are still
ongoing.
At the same time, the European Union should hold EU-
aspirant countries to the highest possible standard as that
structure prepares to enlarge at the beginning of next month.
Germany, the host country for the upcoming OSCE conference and
the country with the greatest awareness of the Holocaust and
the dangers of anti-Semitism, could have a special
responsibility in this regard. And through its membership in
NATO and the OSCE, its seat at the table of multi-lateral
organizations centered in Europe, the U.S. should urge all EU
member states to make the problem of anti-Semitism a top
priority.
As we celebrate the 350th anniversary of the American
Jewish community this year, we would do well to remember and
take great pride in the words of George Washington, who wrote
to the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, Rhode Island in 1790.
President Washington unequivocally declared, ``The government
of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to
persecution no assistance.'' He continued, ``May the Children
of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to
merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while
everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree,
and there shall be none to make him afraid.''
Washington's message of tolerance has been a glowing
inspiration to American Jews for more than 200 years. As we
have drawn steady comfort from the knowledge that our
government, in the earliest years of our country's history,
took a clear stand against anti-Semitism and warmly offered our
community a level of support and protection that, sadly, our
European counterparts have never enjoyed.
Mr. Chairman, the history of European Jewry in the past
century 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. And let us act now. History demands
nothing less.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mariaschin follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel S. Mariaschin
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the privilege of
addressing this committee on behalf of B'nai B'rith International and
its more than 110,000 members and supporters.
As Executive Vice President of B'nai B'rith, an American-based
organization with members in more than 50 countries around the world, I
have viewed the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe the past three
and a half years with anguish and alarm.
In my 16 years at B'nai B'rith, dating back to the period prior to
the fall of the Berlin Wall, I have visited Europe regularly to help
protect the rights of Jewish communities on that continent. While anti-
Jewish sentiment was still apparent in the half century that followed
World War II, today Europe is experiencing a degree of anti-Semitism I
have not seen in my adult lifetime, and the reemergence of this ugly
historical phenomenon has left European Jewry feeling more vulnerable
and disillusioned than at any point since the Holocaust.
Mr. Chairman, the past three and a half years has witnessed
hundreds of aggressive, often violent, acts targeting Jewish
individuals and institutions in Europe.
In Switzerland earlier this year, Arab students attacked a Jewish
researcher in a campus elevator at the University of Geneva.
In Hungary 16 months ago, more than 100 skinheads interrupted a
Chanukah candle-lighting ceremony in downtown Budapest for over an hour
with shouts of ``Hungary is for Hungarians, and it is better that those
who are not Hungarians leave.''
In Ukraine, 50 youths marched two miles to attack a synagogue in
Kiev, where they beat the principal of the Lubavitch yeshiva and the
son of the Chief Rabbi.
In France, where the problem has been particularly acute, scores of
synagogues and Jewish day schools have been firebombed and desecrated.
The French Jewish Community reported 125 anti-Semitic acts and 463
anti-Semitic threats in 2003 alone.
In Belgium, where politically motivated legal proceedings (now
dismissed) were 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, a widely circulated newspaper called Jutland Posten ran
an advertisement featuring 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 both Berlin and Herford, while Jewish
memorials in Berlin have been defaced with swastikas. Last fall
parliamentarian Martin Hohmann delivered an appalling anti-Semitic rant
to his constituents, in which he referred to Jews as a ``race of
perpetrators.''
In Greece and Spain, newspapers have inundated their readers with
anti-Semitic editorials and cartoons comparing Israeli military
operations to the Holocaust and likening Prime Minister Sharon to
Adolph Hitler. Such polemics have reached a fevered pitch,
characterized by the Greek Jewish Community as ``hysteria and anti-
Semitism'' masquerading as mere criticism of Israeli Government policy.
These manifestations of Jew-hatred are rooted in a historical anti-
Semitism that has plagued Europe for two thousand years. The long-
standing accusation by the Church that Jews were ``Christ-killers''
fueled anti-Semitism for centuries. This theologically-based anti-
Semitism gave way to the ethno-centric nationalism of the 19th and 20th
centuries, which held that Jews were racially inferior and, regardless
of their efforts to integrate, inherently disloyal to the state because
of their ethnic distinctness.
The by-now familiar anti-Semitism of Europe's elite has been given
new life by negative public attitudes toward the Middle East conflict,
and by the struggle for Holocaust restitution, as well. These
problematic issues have provided anti-Semites with the intellectual
fodder to rationalize and legitimate their views to their own
satisfaction. Comments such as the reference by a former French
ambassador to Britain, who used a shocking expletive to describe Israel
at a London cocktail party, or the criticism by a Swiss politician of
``international Judaism'' in the wake of negotiations with Swiss banks
over Holocaust-era assets and accounts, could be seen as examples of
this trend. Or 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.''
Against this backdrop of traditional anti-Semitism, the pronounced
growth of Europe's Arab and Muslim population is notably occurring. It
is an increase in numbers--perhaps 20 million people residing in the 15
states of the European Union--and in ideological radicalization. France
alone has six million inhabitants with roots in the Maghreb region of
North Africa; much of the rampant anti-Jewish violence in France has
been committed by individuals who count themselves among this
population.
In Europe, these communities have immediate and regular access to
Arabic-language cable TV networks like Al Jazeera; print publications;
and Internet sites, all of which offer predictably one-sided,
inflammatory coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict. These outlets
employ primitive Jewish stereotypes in service of their anti-Zionist
message, often borrowing symbols and motifs from Nazi propaganda so as
to evoke the virulent anti-Semitism of Der Sturmer. 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. Meanwhile, Arabic editions of Mein Kampf sell briskly in
London and other European capitals.
The radicalization of some of Europe's Arabs and Muslims has
dovetailed with the rise of the far right, whose standard-bearers--such
as France's Jean Marie Le Pen and Austria's Joerg Haider--are generally
anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim. Their nationalist rhetoric has also
often featured anti-Semitism, however, and their message of opposition
to European enlargement and integration is threatening to Jews, who,
like other ethnic and religious minorities, are considerably
discomfited by the parochialism and xenophobia of these right-wing
movements.
Even as right-wing extremism inspires fear among European Jews, the
far left is creating further apprehension with the intensification of
its own anti-Israel vitriol. Left-wing politicians and journalists have
joined labor unions, non-governmental organizations, and human rights
activists in polemical assaults on Israel that exceed the sort of
legitimate policy critiques normally expected in democratic societies.
Their dogma, reflexively accepted in much of Europe, begins with the
premise that in the Middle East conflict the Palestinians are the
victims and Israel their brutal persecutor. This view has led the
Norwegian Confederation of Trade Unions, for example, to call for a
national boycott of Israeli products, as well as a ban on official
contacts between union members and Israeli representatives. Meanwhile,
a similar anti-Israel and anti-Jewish fervor caused the ironically-
named World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa in 2001
to degenerate from a high-minded, principled gathering into an ugly,
anti-Semitic hate-fest.
The decision by European Commission President Romano Prodi to co-
sponsor a seminar on anti-Semitism in Brussels last month was welcomed
by those of us who look to European officials to demonstrate leadership
on this issue. Still, much more remains to be done. The fact that a
draft resolution on racism recently introduced at the United Nations
Human Rights Commission in Geneva omitted any reference to anti-
Semitism as a form of discrimination is one reminder of the problem to
be overcome.
Sadly, many officials in Europe persist in viewing anti-Semitism as
purely a political phenomenon; once the Middle East conflict is
resolved or at least subsides, violence against European Jewry will
also diminish, they reason. They have refused to accept the severity of
the problem, and failed to speak out against anti-Semitism with an
intensity and a conviction that the current situation demands. Former
Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Per Ahlmark is one leader who has
recognized the importance of combating anti-Semitism and condemning it
forcefully. Unfortunately, now that the problem is more acute than it
has been in decades, few current officials in Europe--German Foreign
Minister Joschka Fischer and France's former Interior Minister and
newly-appointed Finance Minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, are two notable
exceptions--have been able to replicate the level of commitment that
Ahlmark has demonstrated during his public service.
A conference convened by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe in Vienna last summer represented a welcome
attempt by European officials, in cooperation with their American
counterparts, to address the growing problem of anti-Semitism; the
follow-up conference in Berlin later this month will be a further
positive step. We hope that the Berlin gathering will result in ongoing
mechanisms to combat anti-Semitism. For example, interior, justice, and
education ministers might begin to cooperate regularly on issues such
as law enforcement and tolerance training. Furthermore, the OSCE's
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) should
institute a process for collecting data on anti-Semitic acts and should
issue an annual report on its findings. Much to his credit, Senator
Voinovich today introduced legislation that would require the State
Department to document anti-Semitic acts around the world. We thank the
Senator for his strong leadership on this issue and hope that European
officials will follow his timely example.
A report released just last week by the European Monitoring Center
on Racism and Xenophobia, however, has affirmed the sense of Jewish
groups that European officials have not fully confronted the sources of
anti-Semitism. After the EUMC provoked intense criticism last year by
suppressing a previous report identifying Muslim radicals and left-wing
pro-Palestinian supporters as the main sources of the ``new anti-
Semitism,'' the new study makes scant reference to Muslim antagonists,
focusing instead on the role of right-wing groups. The failure of the
report to speak honestly about the actual instigators in the current
onslaught of anti-Semitism prompted one prominent European Jewish
leader to ask, ``How can we effectively fight anti-Semitism when we
refuse to identify the true perpetrators?''
At a roundtable discussion following the presentation of the EU
report, German legislator Ilke Schroeder stressed the Israel-related
dimension of European anti-Semitism, which the study also minimized.
According to Schroeder, who represents Germany in the European
Parliament, the growth of anti-Semitism can be attributed in part to
the ``EU policy against Israel'' and ``anti-Zionist propaganda in the
European public.''
Schroeder's remarks point to a truth that is too often ignored in
Europe: That while criticism of any government's policies should always
be expected in the democratic world, Israel is subjected to a double-
standard, under which criticism of the Jewish state far oversteps the
parameters invoked for all other governments--both democratic and
autocratic--whose policies might come under international scrutiny.
Indeed, the relentless stream of anti-Israel invective that often
originates in the Middle East but consistently finds its way into
European society goes considerably beyond legitimate policy debate.
Such polemical attacks employ overheated, hateful rhetoric and, all too
often, classic anti-Semitic images and stereotypes. One astounding
example of such vitriol aired on Gaza Palestine Satellite TV less than
a month ago, when a prominent Palestinian cleric said of the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict, ``Here are the Jews today taking revenge for
their grandfathers and ancestors, the sons of apes and pigs. Here are
the extremist Jews demanding their rights . . . This is the extremist
tendency of Jews. They are extremists and terrorists who deserve death,
while we deserve life, since we have a just cause.''
Mr. Chairman, there can be little doubt that one-sided and
unremittingly hostile attacks on Israel have contributed to a climate--
much as we witnessed at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban
in 2001--in which the Jewish state is demonized and presented as a
pariah among the nations. A sense of balance and historical accuracy
must be restored. A poll released by the European Commission last fall
underscored the severity of the problem, as the survey found that
nearly 60 percent of Europeans believe that Israel is a greater threat
to world peace than North Korea, Iran, or Syria.
And since many European leaders still cannot accept the gravity of
present circumstances, they need to hear often and emphatically from
U.S. officials, in the administration and in 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 must be encouraged to use it.
The most recent round of NATO enlargement, formalized at a White
House ceremony last week, has provided an example of the constructive
role that the U.S. can play with regard to this matter. Thanks to
America's determined insistence over the past decade, governments in
Central and Eastern Europe came to understand that they needed to begin
properly addressing problems related to their Holocaust-era past before
they could take their place under the NATO umbrella. For example,
several of the new NATO members have taken positive steps in the areas
of Holocaust education and commemoration, and have either joined or
applied to join the Task Force for International Cooperation on
Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research.
As the 10 Central and Eastern European countries that have
undergone the NATO admission process take their place among the
democratic family of nations, and as NATO continues to expand, the U.S.
and the governments of those countries must remain vigilant and guard
against the possibility that progress on Holocaust-related issues will
stall. America should work with those governments to vigorously combat
anti-Semitism and encourage their efforts at Holocaust restitution and
memory.
At the same time, the European Union should hold EU-aspirant
countries to the highest possible standard as that structure prepares
to enlarge at the end of this month. Germany, the host country for the
upcoming OSCE conference and the country with the greatest awareness of
the Holocaust and of the dangers of anti-Semitism, could have a special
responsibility in this regard. And through its membership in NATO and
the OSCE--its ``seat at the table'' of multilateral organizations
centered in Europe--the U.S. should urge all EU member-states to make
the problem of anti-Semitism a top priority.
As we celebrate the 350th anniversary of the American Jewish
community this year, we would do well to remember and take great pride
in the words of George Washington, who wrote to the Hebrew Congregation
of Newport, Rhode Island in 1790. President Washington unequivocally
declared, ``The government of the United States . . . gives to bigotry
no sanction, to persecution no assistance.'' He continued, ``May the
Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to
merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while everyone
shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be
none to make him afraid.'' Washington's message of tolerance has been a
glowing inspiration to American Jews for more than 200 years, as we
have drawn steady comfort from the knowledge that our government, in
the earliest years of our country's history, took a clear stand against
anti-Semitism and warmly offered our community a level of support and
protection that, sadly, our European counterparts have never enjoyed.
Mr. Chairman, the history of European Jewry in the past century 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; and let us
act now. History demands nothing less from us.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Being a Jefferson scholar and since
Jefferson was the author of the statute of religious freedom,
the first freedom, I always like hearing from good Virginians.
And I may adopt and view that George Washington quote. That is
good.
I know Senator Voinovich only has a few minutes. So I am
going to turn it over to Senator Voinovich for questions that
he may wish to pose to you all.
Mr. Levin, can you stay with us for five minutes?
Mr. Levin. Yes.
Senator Allen. You both have about the same amount of
time.
Senator Voinovich. We are on the same schedule.
Senator Allen. Proceed, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Just a general comment is that
underlying everything that has been said here, Mr. Mariaschin,
about your observations, underscores how important this
conference coming up in Berlin is going to be in terms of all
of the concerns that you have expressed here today. And we have
to make sure that when we leave there, it fulfills our
expectations, and we really get something done.
In that regard, I have been very impressed with words about
programs such as Climate of Trust. And I would really
appreciate if I could have a list of all the various programs
that are being executed around the world and their receptivity
and their success. Because one of the really neat things that
we can do when we go over to Berlin is to highlight the
programs that are really making a difference and use them as
benchmarks.
I will say that our effort is making some real inroads. Mr.
Levitte, who is the French ambassador, came to see me a couple
of weeks ago to talk to me directly about what France is trying
to do in terms of stepping up to the table and realizing they
have a problem and something needs to be done. I notice that
Abe Foxman did have something nice to say, although he said
there is anti-Semitism that is of crisis proportion in France,
so that there is no time to relax.
I think that is really it. I think that we have this
wonderful opportunity to make a difference, and we should
certainly take advantage of it. I am also interested in working
with all of you on the whole issue of what we are doing here in
the United States. I think, as I mentioned to Beth Jones, that
it is much easier for us to come to others and ask others to do
things that we are doing right here in the United States of
America. I hope this legislation I introduced passes, and that
this is the kind of thing that is instituted in those
respective countries.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, and I want to thank the
witnesses for coming here today. I look forward to seeing you,
many of you, in Berlin.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. And thank
goodness you are going to be one of the key leaders from our
country, advocating our principles in Berlin. There is no doubt
that this is a great opportunity. There is a great deal of
meaning to that if one thinks of all that has transpired in
that city from the days of the Nazis to the days of it being
divided between freedom and the Communist world with the Berlin
Wall. The Germans are to be commended for hosting the
conference there. It is not easy for them to remember, but they
do and should, as we all should.
And so, I know you have to leave, Senator Voinovich.
Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allen. Mr. Levin, I know you have to catch your
flight.
Mr. Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
again.
Senator Allen. Thank you.
Let me just conclude with these few observations and maybe
finish with a question to you all. There are certain threads
that always come through hearings. The value of a hearing like
this is to have everyone recognize that your testimony, your
insight, your perspectives, and that of the United States
Senate, on this issue is one that is of concern to the people
of the United States.
This bolsters the cause of the delegation, which really
will be carrying on those Jeffersonian principles of individual
freedom to Berlin as we share with our friends and allies the
ways that we are going to be trying to measure and improve and
make sure that this virus that we call anti-Semitism, if it is
afflicting someone, that it is cured quickly and does not
spread. It may be a virus that is never cured, but you can
contain it as best you can and say that it is not acceptable.
When you are talking about going on a practical level, and
I always think what gets measured gets better, number one, you
have to deplore things--the words, the rhetoric, all of that is
important to speak from one's heart. That motivates and
inspires people. But then one needs to also measure. Otherwise
all you do get is rhetoric.
Many of you all mentioned how the monitoring, the common
definitions, the approaches. A lot of what people like to do is
say, all right, where are the incidents? And the incidents and
the anti-Semitic actions do not come from just one group. This
virus afflicts people from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts
of religions, or no religion.
We had a hearing in this subcommittee just recently, I
guess it was last week. And it had to do with the aftermath of
the terrorist bombings in Madrid, Spain, and what was that
impact on the war on terrorism and what were the Europeans
doing as far as their own counterterrorism efforts and how we
do need to work with our European friends to intercept the
finances of terrorists, how we have to share information of
where they are going and so forth.
But even in something as deadly as terrorism there is not
uniformity. They are French, they are German, they are Danes,
they are--well, maybe not Danes in it. But regardless, they are
different countries. They are all different languages. Sure,
the Swiss speak three different ones, but the point is this
sort of effort for law enforcement, even in counterterrorism,
the Europeans are not there yet. They have different justice
systems. They are trying to maybe harmonize it. They do have
the sharing of some criminal information. That is not
consistent with law enforcement in each one of the countries.
I am not saying this as an excuse, but it is something
that, as one examines things, you learn and realize that as we
try to get this monitoring and a common definition and a common
or an accepted crime reporting system, it is a challenge for
the whole European Union and one that, as that goes forward, I
think will actually help in the measurement of progress.
But once you have accurate reporting, then you can then
determine, all right, what was the punishment, what were the
sanctions. That is assuming that someone was caught. But if a
crime was committed, how many were solved, and then what was
the punishment.
So I thank you all for bringing this up. I think we are
actually taking steps in the right direction in this country.
And I think for the most part, not in every single case, but
for the most part, in Europe they are taking the right steps.
It is not there yet, but in the right direction.
But which ones, what measurements or what sort of specific
ideas do you think would be achievable to result in measurable
reductions in the incidents of anti-Semitism? Let us start with
you, Rabbi.
Rabbi Baker. Senator, I think you have identified one of
the clear challenges, or clear problems, that is faced, even
within the European Union and its current 15 members. As we
have seen in this Monitoring Center report, not only is there
no common definition of anti-Semitism, in the center's own
fifteen focal points in each of these countries, six of them
have no operative definition of anti-Semitism whatsoever. Of
the nine that do, they themselves report that there is not a
single definition that is held in common.
Now at the end of this month, we will see ten new members
joining the European Union. One can be certain they are not out
there recording these data and incidents. And when we approach
the subject in Berlin as full members of the OSCE, I think we
can also recognize the OSCE does not even have an office that
until now has accepted the mandate that it should be dealing
with these issues.
Presumably, ODIHR will now do this. This was the result of
the Maastricht decision at the end of the last calendar year.
But surely, not much will happen unless it is really pushed.
This is so critical, I think, because there is a circular
problem. We have said, going back several years now, to
European leaders, there is a problem of anti-Semitism in
Europe. Their first response to us was, ``Well, we don't see
it.'' Well, one of the reasons they did not see it was there
was no mechanism for recording it.
Add to this the additional problem that many Jews in
European countries have good historical reason for being
suspect of the ability of their own governments and their own
governmental institutions to really look after their needs and
their concerns. So this is yet again something that needs to be
overcome.
I think that we can, throughout the process of the OSCE and
taking advantage of the conference in Berlin, demand that other
countries join together to provide also the same kind of
reporting and data collection that we are doing, that some
European Union countries are doing, that its Monitoring Center
is asking all of them to do, and that should now be broadened
to encompass these 55 nations and to put real teeth into what
ODIHR itself is being asked to do, as an ongoing institution to
monitor, collect, and analyze the incidents of anti-Semitism
and other manifestations of hate crimes in these countries.
Perhaps one way to try and ensure that it is clearly
defined and focused would be to ask for a special rapporteur to
deal with the issue of anti-Semitism, or at least some clear,
responsible individual or office within that structure that
will, as Ms. Stern mentioned, address anti-Semitism in Europe.
We have noted that in most of the international
declarations, declarations of intergovernmental groups such as
the OSCE, they speak of condemning intolerance, racism,
xenophobia, et cetera, et cetera. All too often, we have
recognized anti-Semitism is simply the term left in the et
cetera. It is time to really make it front and center the
recognized problem we know it to be.
Senator Allen. Good. Just adding the phrase ``anti-
Semitism,'' I can imagine how you could debate endlessly and
just say, well, that is certainly included in there, along with
hatred. Good point. If you can actually get that agreed upon,
that would be a significant success.
You know, in this country, if there was an anti-Semitic
action, if somebody desecrated a Jewish synagogue or a
cemetery--and this has happened in Virginia--who are people
going to call? One of you posed this rhetorical question. In
this country, I think they would call, if it happened in
Richmond or Henrico County, they would call the local police. I
guarantee you they would not be calling some federal agency.
It may be eventually that the local sheriff's office or
police office would get with the state police. And then to the
extent you would maybe want to, you would get the FBI involved.
But I think the reality of it, as you get into some of these
practical matters, that is going to have to get figured out in
a lot of areas for crimes and crime reporting in Europe. You
have hit on something that I think will be measurable. If anti-
Semitism is added to that list of deplorable actions, that will
say a lot. Then whatever the laws are and the justice systems,
whether they are under English common law or Code Napoleon,
what they do about it obviously will be for their sovereign
rights.
Ms. Stern, what do you think is the number one thing that
we could get done? We actually have about five minutes, and
then we have to clear out.
Ms. Stern. Short answer.
Senator Allen. Yes.
Ms. Stern. I will echo what Andy said, as I think part of
number one. And then, the second part is to make sure that when
this conference ends there is a plan for further action. That
there be, you know, again, one perspective, that we create
ministerial working groups at, say, a high enough level that
the issue does not go back to the bottom of the pile, and that
we recognize monitoring is the first step, not the last step.
And monitoring without education will not change the problem.
And that we have to look at in this country, when we first
instituted hate crimes statistic collection, we recognized
early on that if we did not train those responsible for that
data collection, we were not going to get accurate data
collection. And that has been a multi-year process, probably
best exemplified by the higher education environment, in terms
of the reluctance to acknowledge incidents for fear that it
would hurt them in the open marketplace, and yet there is the
need for us to be cognizant of those events.
We need to create systems in Europe where people will
understand what it is that they are monitoring in order to
effectively investigate and legislate those rules.
Senator Allen. Got it. We do have to have a follow-up.
That is why I want follow-up hearings. Count me as one who will
continue to follow up.
You are right on education, as well. And the best way to
measure it in education, I have found, as a former governor,
when we put in our standards of learning in Virginia for
English, math, science, and history, we put in the Holocaust as
one of those parts of history that our students needed to
learn. And if you have a standard and you have testing to make
sure students are learning it, it will be taught.
So, you are right on education for the young people, and,
also, for the teachers. The teacher education and sensitivity
is very important, as well.
Mr. Mariaschin. Senator, I think my colleagues referenced
something earlier, and Ms. Stern referenced it specifically,
something as simple as a definition to come out of this OSCE
conference, a definition of anti-Semitism. It is
incomprehensible to me that between the end of World War II in
1945 and until February of this year, when the EU under Prodi's
chairmanship held this one-day seminar, there has been no
Europe-wide definition by any of the various European groups
over these years of what anti-Semitism is, no definition at
all.
Senator Allen. Which country has a definition? I just want
to interrupt. Which country or countries has a definition which
you would find to be an acceptable or desirable definition?
Mr. Mariaschin. Well, we have been working on various
models for this. There have been various proposals in the last
several months that have come out. And we have been working
with the State Department and others in advance of the OSCE
meeting to get a full definition. And a full definition to me
would include reference to this demonization of Israel and the
use of anti-Semitic symbols and language that relate to Israel
because then it would take away the cover.
So much of this anti-Semitism lies under the cover of,
well, it is criticism of Israel, and I think that European
leaders oftentimes have been willing to accept that because it
is the easier path. It does not get to the anti-Semitism, which
is inherent in it.
So I think this need for a definition is extremely
important. And then, of course, the monitoring and all these
other things that have been suggested. But if we have gone
nearly 60 years without an accepted definition, then there is
really something wrong in Europe.
Senator Allen. But no country presently--and we have heard
commentary, positive commentary, about what several countries,
France and others, have done. Do they end up--say a desecration
of a Jewish facility, say a synagogue or if there is an assault
and battery on someone on account of his or her religion, then
they just have that as an enhanced punishment, or do they have
a definition? Does France have a definition?
Mr. Mariaschin. I do not know if there are. I think that
generally speaking--
Senator Allen. I was just thinking that--the reason I say
that is that if you actually have one country within the
European Union that has come up with one, just like states of
the Union who have different, you know, definitions of certain
crimes. And you say, well, that is a good one. We like what
they are doing in North Carolina. Let us adopt that one. Or you
say, gosh, look at this goofy law they have in some state; we
certainly do not want to have that kind of law in our state.
But--
Rabbi Baker. Senator, the German Government does have a
pretty extensive operative definition used by its Office for
the Protection of the Constitution, which is the body that
monitors and records racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic
incidents and attacks. In fact, in the context of working
together with Ambassador Minikes, we have sought to, at least
in the first instance, take some of that language to present it
as the possible language of a draft declaration.
It has not met with universal acclaim, I must say, and one
of the reasons is, parenthetically, as Dan Mariaschin has
noted, that it does state that anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli
expressions can also be a form of anti-Semitism. This has been
one of the political hot potatoes, if you will, that many
governments want to avoid, if possible.
Senator Allen. But Germany has that definition that even
includes Israel or anti-Israel statements?
Rabbi Baker. In this government agency's most recent
report, it does provide this form of a definition. Yes.
Senator Allen. It seems like a first draft, so to speak.
At least it is something established by a European country. I
think the fact that Germany has it makes it all the more strong
and should be more accepted by others. That is just my
horseback reaction.
Rabbi Baker. We think so, too. I wish it were so.
Senator Allen. We have not solved this virus or developed
a cure for this virus of hatred at this hearing, but we
certainly very much appreciate your testimony, your insight,
and also the plan of action. I also like having hearings and
saying: All right. What are we going to do? Need measurement,
which means this is just kind of functionary type issues of
process without a measurement. And that measurement, which I
have number three, but the measurement is you ought to have a
relatively common or consistent definition of anti-Semitism and
make sure that definition of crimes or hate crimes includes
anti-Semitism, as well as making sure and measuring in the
education curriculum or standards, however they may use that
phraseology in European countries, make sure education is
involved, as far as the Holocaust, hatred, intolerance.
Because, my friends, what we are fighting in this war on
terrorism, it may be a hundred years war that we are facing, is
one of hatred. People who are not tolerant of other people who
have different views or religious views, in particular. Some of
it is religious. Some of it is dictatorial. But it is
terrorism.
For those of us who think all people are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness, so to speak, but more important freedom
of expression, so long as you are not harming someone else, and
certainly what we call in Virginia the first freedom, and that
is the freedom of one's religious beliefs.
One's rights should not be enhanced nor diminished on
account of their religious beliefs. That is the first freedom,
as far as I am concerned. It is one that must be protected if
we are going to have freedom flourish throughout the world. I
thank you all for your attention, your dedication, and your
love of liberty.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Additional Material Submitted by Caryl M. Stern,
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League
GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITISM: SELECTED INCIDENTS AROUND THE WORLD IN 2004
Australia
January 5, 2004--Hobart--Vandals used poison to create anti-Semitic
slogans on the lawns of Tasmania's Parliament House. The words ``Kill
the Jews'' and several swastikas were burned into the lawns.
Austria
January 18, 2004--Hinterbruehl--A Holocaust memorial was
desecrated, with the word ``lie'' spray painted over a historical
plaque. The memorial near Vienna is at the site of a former
concentration camp.
Canada
March 19-21--Toronto--A weekend-long rash of anti-Semitic vandalism
was perpetrated on a Jewish cemetery, a Jewish school and a number of
area synagogues. Twenty-two gravestones were overturned in the cemetery
and other structures, such as benches and plaques, were destroyed.
Swastikas were painted on the walls and on outside signs of the
synagogues, along with slogans calling for death to Jews, and a number
of windows were broken. The previous weekend, swastikas and anti-
Semitic messages were sprayed on doors, cars and garages of over a
dozen homes in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood not far from the
cemetery and synagogues.
France
March 23, 2004--Toulon--A Jewish synagogue and community center was
set on fire. According to media reports, the arsonist broke a window
and threw a Molotov cocktail into the building. There was minor damage
and no injuries.
January 23, 2004--Villiers-au-Bois--Two gravestones marked with
Stars of David were damaged in the World War I cemetery of Villiers-au-
Bois near the English Channel coast.
January 20, 2004--Strasbourg--A parked minibus used to transport
children to a Jewish school in the eastern French city of Strasbourg
was burned. Police are investigating the attack as an arson.
January 20, 2004--Strasbourg--Police reported that a group of
assailants hurled stones at the door of a Strasbourg synagogue.
January 20, 2004--Paris--A Jewish teenager was injured in an attack
by Muslim youths at an ice-skating rink. The youths shouted anti-
Semitic insults at the 15-year old boy before kicking him in the head
and jaw with ice skates.
Russia
March 29, 2004--St. Petersburg--The city's only kosher restaurant
had its windows broken by vandals.
February 15, 2004--St. Petersburg--Vandals desecrated about 50
graves in a Jewish cemetery, painting swastikas and anti-Semitic
graffiti on headstones. Police are investigating.
January 27, 2004--Derbent--An explosion shattered several windows
in a synagogue in Derbent in the southern region of Dagestan.
Ukraine
March 23-24--Odessa--Vandals broke several windows of the Osipova
Street Synagogue. No one was injured.
__________
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE ``A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE'' INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
The world is getting smaller. As people around the globe are
embracing the richness of diversity, they are also facing its
challenges. Unfortunately, social exclusion, anti-immigrant bias,
racism, anti-Semitism and other forms of prejudice persist and are on
the rise. Responding to this need, the ADL's A World of Difference
Institute, working with a diverse array of private and public partners,
has successfully adapted a number of its anti-bias education programs
and curricular resources for an international audience of educators,
students, law enforcement officials and community and government
leaders. ADL's education collaborations around the globe include:
A World of Difference Institute's First European Partner--Germany:
``We have adapted the program in German schools and implemented it
across the country with great success. ADL is one of our
closest and most outstanding collaboration partners . . . (and)
we have been able to get a detailed impression of their
outstanding work and highly recommend it.''--Bertelsmann
Foundation, Germany
Through the generosity of the Bertelsmann Foundation, and in
coordination with the Bertelsmann Group on Policy Research at the
Center for Advanced Policy Research, University of Munich, the A
Classroom of Difference program has been instituted in Teacher Training
Institutes of eleven German Laender. This partnership, first begun in
1995, has now reached more than 15,000 students.
This relationship led to multi-year participation by ADL 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. The A World of Difference Institute's
programs were profiled in the Network's book, Tolerance Matters,
published in 2003, and The Power of Language, published in 2001.
The A World of Difference Institute, known as Eine Welt der
Vielfalt in Germany, maintains a broad network of trained trainers
throughout the country, implementing not only teacher training
programs, but also Peer Training for youth. This effort is coordinated
in collaboration with ADL's other primary education partner, Centre
Europeen Juif d'Information (CEJI) European Peer Training Organization
(EPTO) and the Deutsche Kinder und Jugendstiftung.
The long history of success and support of the program in Germany
has resulted in the adaptation and translation of numerous ADL resource
materials and curricula, including the ADL's Anti-Bias Elementary Study
Guide, Trainers Manual, and a Peer Training Manual.
Evaluation:
``There is now a more sensitive behavior in the classroom and less
name-calling.''--German Educator
``During the program I spent a lot of time thinking about myself and
my behavior. I became aware of a lot of things which were
completely different for me before and which I've always taken
for granted. I'm grateful for that change of perspective.''--
German Student
In 2002, a formal evaluation of the A World of Difference Institute
program in Germany was conducted. Findings indicate high levels of
acceptance of the training materials provided by educators and
students, indicating that lessons and resources are being regularly
incorporated within classes by participating teachers. Students report
a broadened knowledge about prejudice and its consequences as a result
of participating in the program; as well as greater confidence to voice
their opinion in situations of conflict. Finally, the study found that
\2/3\ of the students reported that their fellow students' behavior was
more considerate and responsible after completing the program, and also
improved and increased the positive relationships students had with
their teachers.
In Partnership with the Centre Europeen Juif D'Information (CEJI):
Providing Programs Throughout Western Europe
``The guiding principles and core activities of the Institute's
program have proven to have academic credibility and practical
relevance in the numerous national contexts within Europe. (The
program) has a pedagogically solid core structure which is
highly adaptable to the various needs of different cultures,
communities and contexts.''--Centre Europeen Juif d'Information
Working with our partner, the Centre Europeen Juif d'Information
(CEJI), and with the support of the European Commission's COMENIUS
Programme, the Institute's A Classroom of Difference was launched in
Belgium, France, Italy, and the Netherlands in 1997. CEJI, through a
network of highly trained country coordinators, provides teacher
training programs throughout these countries. Further, through the
creation of the European Peer Training Organization (EPTO), CEJI
adapted and now delivers ADL' s comprehensive Peer Training Program
throughout Europe. Specific country highlights include:
Belgium: With support from the Evens and Bernhheim Foundations,
teacher training and Peer training programs are implemented in French
and Flemish schools. The Anti-Bias Study Guide and all training
materials have been translated into French and Flemish with careful
adaptations to the Belgian context.
Italy: With initial funding from the Sao Paolo Foundation, the
model for training in Italy has been two-tiered, with simultaneous 12-
hour teacher training and Peer Training workshops. In addition to
training materials translated into Italian, efforts are underway to
translate the Anti-Bias Study Guide as well.
France: In conjunction with CEJI and the French Catholic School
Network (UNAPEC), the Teacher and Peer Training programs have recently
been launched in France. Support from the Charles Leopold Mayer
Foundation has assisted in increasing activity in France, with a focus
on outreach to French Catholic schools.
Netherlands: Peer Training has been provided since 1996 and with
recent support from the Dutch Insurers Association, this effort
continues to grow and expand to include Teacher Training as well. The
Institute's Anti-Bias Study Guide and training materials have all been
translated in Dutch.
Additional Peer Training Programs: In addition to the above
mentioned countries, EPTO provides Peer Training throughout Europe in
the following countries, including, Spain, Greece, Luxembourg,
Portugal, Germany and the United Kingdom. In conjunction with CEJI,
Peer Training programs have also recently begun in Austria, Hungary,
Poland, Ireland and the Czech Republic.
Evaluation:
In 2002, the Department of Development and Evaluation of Training
Programs (SEDEP) of the University of Liege completed an independent
evaluation of the European A Classroom of Difference program managed by
CEJI. The study found that more than 75% of educators reported the
program to be useful and effective, providing a context, approach and
exercise that could be used directly in the classroom. The study
recommended greater emphasis on the theoretical underpinnings of the
program in the training programs, as well as increased curricular
resources for teachers to use directly with their students. These
recommendations have been incorporated into adaptations to the Train-
the-Trainer program and on-going professional development for European
trainers, as well as a focus on enhanced curricula translations and
adaptations.
Austria: Expanding the Reach
``I like how emotionally difficult topics were treated and it is an
education that fosters communicative and social competence''--
Law Enforcement Officer, Salzburg
``A program that is applicable to both the professional and private
daily life''--Vocational Training Institute
Begun in 2001, with funding from the Ministry of Interior, and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the A World of Difference Institute staff
in Austria launched anti-bias education programs for law enforcement
and other professionals throughout Austria. Extensive adaptation of
ADL's Training manual, law enforcement training materials and
elementary study guide has taken place, and a network of more than 40,
half of whom are law enforcement professionals, has been developed.
Funded by the Ministry of Education and working in conjunction with
CEJI, and the Boltzmann Institute, the Peer Training program is now
also available to Austrian youth. As part of this initiative, the
Manual for School-Based Coordinators of the Peer Training Program has
been adapted for Austria.
Japan
``We have been feeling keenly the need of the diversity education in
the Japanese society. As a result of the Institute's program,
we are glad to say that the effectiveness of the diversity
education has been recognized by Japanese people little by
little, and more people are interested in these programs for
schools and community''--Osaka Diversity Education Network
In collaboration with the Osaka Diversity Education Network twenty-
five elementary and secondary educators have formed a network of
trainers that deliver the A Classroom of Difference workshop for other
educators, parents and students. The Trainers' manual and the
elementary study guide have been translated into Japanese.
Argentina
Funded and organized through 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. The
Trainers Manual has been translated into Spanish.
Israel
Since 1994 the A World of Difference program has provided education
institutions, governmental ministries and independent organizations
with training. In collaboration with the Youth Division of Ministry of
Education Teacher and Peer Training programs exist in four different
schools and in after school programs, and Peer Training and the
elementary study guide materials are in Hebrew and Arabic. Workshops
are continually provided to commanders of the Border Patrol through the
Israel Defense Forces.
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
__________
ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE EGYPTIAN MEDIA
CONSPIRACY THEORIES
``. . . this stage used the Jewish crematoria in order to link and
to call attention to this term (anti-Semitism) and to encourage
the feelings of the sin complex against the Jews, especially in
the Arab countries. All of the Zionist economic and media
forces that control the world, were subjugated to stand behind
this purpose, so that it would succeed in spreading this
terroristic manner of speaking to the western decision makers,
in addition to Christian churches, writers, thinkers and
politicians . . .''
Al-Ahram, ``Anti-Semitism: Zionist Creation of the Semantic Terror''
by Dr. Fathi al-Baradi'i, February 19, 2004.
``. . . Israel tries, brilliantly, to create a mix between what
can be considered as anti-Semitic feelings or hostile feelings
towards foreigners in general, and the phenomenon of criticism,
objection and attack against its policy in Palestine . . . It
is natural that Tel Aviv uses the bombing of the two synagogues
in Istanbul as typical. (Tel Aviv) also raised it's voice in
order to complain about the rising hostile feelings towards the
Jews in Europe . . . There are dozens of similar minor events,
which Israel is inflating with reason or without so that the
sword of anti-Semitism will stay on the Europeans' necks.''
Al-Ahram, ``Anti-Semitism'' by Salama Ahmad Salama, November 23,
2003.
``. . . We condemn this suspected attack (on the attacks on two
synagogues in Istanbul). However, we do not see it unlikely
that someone did it or that it was a Zionist plan, from
greediness to attract the worldly sympathy towards the Jews . .
. Moreover, we do not see it unlikely that that these two
attacks in Istanbul were planned and done in the manner of what
Israel aimed in the Lavon affair . . . Again--we do not see it
unlikely that the aim of these two attacks was to improve the
image of the Jew and the image of Israel . . .''
Al-Wafd, ``Egyptian Concerns'' by 'Abas al-Tarabili, November 20,
2003.
``. . . Why don't we interpret this event as an attempt to improve
the ugly image of Israel within the European world's mind? . .
. Do we see it unlikely that the Jewish terror organizations
committed this criminal crime? . . . If we want to look for
those who committed this crime, we will only find those secret
associations and anonymous organizations where the fingers of
the international Zionism mingle in order to distort the image
of the Arabs and Muslims, having this take the place of the
terror image of America and Israel in the minds of the European
world.''
Al-Wafd, ``Turkey's Jews'' by Jamal Badawi, November 18, 2003.
``. . . As opposed to the expectations, the book `The Jewish
Danger--the Protocols of the Elders of Zion', which was added
to the show-window of the Semite books near the Torah, so that
the visitors from all of the world's nationalities who arrive
to the museum . . . Al-Usbu' met with Dr. Yusuf Zeidan, the
Director of the Museum of Manuscripts, and the one who decided
to present the book. He said: `When my eyes fell upon this rare
copy of this dangerous book, I immediately decided to put it
near the Torah of all things, although it is not a divine book.
However, it became one of the Jews' sacred things, their first
constitution, their Halacha (literally: their religious law)
and their way of life. In other words, it is not only an
ideological or theoretical book. The book of the Protocols of
the Elders of Zion may be more important than the Torah amongst
the Zionist Jews in the world, who manage through it their
Zionist life'.''
Al-Usbu', ``The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the front of the
Museum of Manuscripts'' by Jihan Hussein, November 17, 2003.
``. . . Not only the USA surrendered to the Jewish robbery--it was
preceded by Germany since Israel, strongly supported by the
USA, imposed in the 60's payment of 70 million dollars per year
for a period of twelve years as compensation to Israel for what
the Nazi regime did to Jews during the famous crematoria and
the Holocaust, which became deemed the holiest events to the
Jews, who manage to collect a huge (amount of) money, and is
used as a basis to international prevention and robbery . . .''
Al-Ahram, ``Anti-Semitism or Victory to the Truth?'' by As-Sayyid
Yasin, November 6, 2003.
Karikatir, November 2003
Al-Ahram, The cartoon's headline: ``The American Parliament
Imposes Sanctions Over Syria,'' October 19, 2003.
``. . . The Jews' properties and activities definitely provide
them with influential power in the American society, and this
provides Israel the automatic American support!''
Al-Ahram, ``The Jewish Lobby . . . and the Modern American Era,'' by
Mursi 'Atallha, September 4, 2003.
``The Israeli presence in Baghdad became the Iraqi talk of the
day. Prayer leaders and preachers of mosques warned the Iraqi
citizens and forbade them from selling or renting their
properties to Jews who are filtering in under false names and
identities. Rumors spread in Baghdad about the efforts of a
persistent Israeli to buy important institutions and real
estate properties in sensitive areas in the capital Baghdad for
a higher price than its real value, which in turn raised the
real estate prices in general. The Iraqis are interpreting the
intention of some Jews to buy real estate in Baghdad as an
organized intention to penetrate into the Iraqi economic life
in order to control it in the future. They said that this
phenomenon reminds us of what happened to the Palestinians in
1948 and the similar ways that were used in order to steal
their land.''
Al-Ahram, ``Did Israel Get What It Wanted from the Iraqi War?'' by
Yusri Ahmad 'Azbawi, August 22, 2003.
``It is clear that Israel is striving to build something like the
Jewish settlements in north Iraq, which will be a starting
point for its control over north Iraq's oil and economy. Israel
will not stop at sending many delegations . . . The beginning
may be insignificant and sometimes we will not pay attention to
it, and even minimize it, but Israel, as usual, starts like
that and then expands and invests what it has in order to reach
their goal at the end. The Arabs have to be careful to follow
seriously all of these steps in order to confront it before it
gets out of control and becomes a cancer of difficult
treatment.
Al-Ahram, ``Arab Affairs: Israel in Iraq'' by Abed al-Mu'ti Ahmad,
July 7, 2003.
comparisons with nazism/racism
``. . . Israel entered the era of racism against Semitism--worse
than what happened in Nazi Germany. (Israel) needs centuries to
repair what Sharon ruined''.
Al-Ahram, ``Attitudes'' by Anis Mansur, December 15, 2003.
October, the cartoon is portraying PM Sharon and Hitler as
lovers, December 6, 2003.
``. . . If we want to understand the truth of Zionism, we would
find that Zionism is the lower kind of racism. Moreover,
through its ugliness it excelled the other racist groups of its
kind . . . though they did not commit the crimes that the
Zionist entity committed to humanity . . .''
Al-Ahram, ``The Shame in the Zionist Nature'' by Dr. Jamal Salama
'Ali, November 15, 2003.
The writer claims that the Zionist movement, which he calls
``racist imperialist nationalism'', is based ``on the alliance
between the conservative forces and even more racist ones, as
long as it serves its interests, as it was expressed through
the applause of Zionist leaders and thinkers of Hitler when he
rose to the government, since they shared with him the belief
in race superiority and the objection to the assimilation of
the Jews with the Arian race . . .''
Al-Ahram, ``Our Claimed Hostility towards Semitism or their Hostility
towards Humanity?'' by Salah Salem, November 4, 2003.
``The experience of Europe after World War II exists always and
ever in spite of the fact that there were circumstances that
pushed the Germans to wave the flags of Nazism, which intersect
the Sharonic terror we witness in the occupied territories . .
. Actually it (Hamas) is a victim of the reality of the
occupation which carries out daily terror, which we saw only in
Fascist regimes . . .''
Al-Ahram, ``Banning the Hamas: The European Support of the Israeli
Terror'' by Dr. 'Amr ash-Shobaki, September 16, 2003.
``In spite of the crimes made by Israel, this era's Hitlerism and
the Zionist Nazism--it cannot be said that the Judaism commands
support it . . .''
Al-Ahram, ``This is not Theory'' by Dr. Layla Takla, July 8, 2003.
``The Palestinian people were subject to the ugliest kinds of
torture, suffering, pain, death and all the other crimes that
Israel commits against the Palestinians. (Israel) brought back
to (peoples') minds the Nazi actions, and proved that there is
a connection between Nazism and Zionism!!!''
Al-Ahram, ``The Last Chance'' by Sa'id 'Abed al-Khaleq, July 5, 2003.
demonizing jews/israelis
Al-Ahram, The cartoon's headline: ``The Sharonic Cake,''
November 22, 2003.
Al-Ahram, The ``Israeli negotiator'' on the right is saying:
``Sit and let's negotiate. Why do you stand?'' November 1,
2003.
Al-Ahram, In Arabic: ``No comments,'' October 13,
2003.
``. . . The Egyptians are Considering Suing the Jews for Gold the
Israelites Took from Egypt According to the Egyptian weekly,
Al-Ahram al-'Arabi, Nabil Hilmi, faculty of law dean at the
University of Al-Zaqziq, ``is planning a law suit in a Swiss
court in order to take back the stolen Egyptian gold from the
Pharaohnic era which was stolen by the Jews when they went out
of Egypt thousands years ago''. Hilmi said that in light of the
fact the Jews have been saying recently that they created the
Egyptian culture and that they are asking from Switzerland for
the property of Jews who died during World War II, a lawsuit
will be submitted to the Swiss court. Hilmi said that ``the
stealing of gold is understandable. It is a clear theft of
resources and treasures of a hosting country, which goes
together with the Jews' morals and nature.''
Al-Ahram al-'Arabi, ``The Gold War between the Egyptians and the
Jews'' by Sharl Fu'ad al-Masri, August 9, 2003.
anti-semitism in egyptian society: the cairo book fair
In January 2004, Egypt hosted its annual book fair in Cairo, the
largest literary event in the Arab and Muslim world which attracts many
people and includes books from all over the Arab world. The following
is a selection of books displayed at the book fair, which contain anti-
Semitic text, Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories about Jews:
Dr. Sina 'Abed al-Latif Sabri, The Features of the Jewish
Personality and its Nature as it Seems from their Humor,
Damascus: 1999.
Muhammad Jarbu'a, Exempting Hitler from the Holocaust
Accusation, Lebanon: An-Nida, 2002.
From the back cover: ``Hitler started his annihilation of the
Jews for their being a morally debased nation. Thus, he treated
them as guilty for their crimes--which demands their death . .
.''
Muhammad Sa'id Mursi, Everything about the Jews.''
The following list appears on the front cover (above):
Belief, History, Prophets, Semitism, Killings, Assassinations,
Conspiracies, Personalities, Leaders, Rabbis, Palestine and the
Intifada.
Muhammad 'Isa Da'ud, The Bomb: Jews whom God transformed into
Monkeys and Pigs, Madbuli as-Saghir, 2003.
'Ali Hasan Tah, The Zionist-Jewish Racism and the
Ideological-Religious Dimension--A Research of the Religious
and Historical Background of the Racist Activities of the
Zionist Entity in Palestine, Lebanon and Others, Beirut: Dar
al-Hadi, 2002.
The book's index:
1. Zionism and the three religions
The integration between the religions and the
sectarianism
The sources of the religious Zionist thought
The Torah and the Talmudic texts and the racist
and inhuman operations of the Jewish Zionist state
Legal opinions and preaching of Rabbis
2. The Christian Zionism and the American attitude
The European Zionist Christianity
The American Zionist Christianity
3. Al-Quds is ours
Dib 'Ali Hasan, Encyclopedia of the Jews' Crimes, Damascus:
Al-Takwin, 2004.
From the back cover: ``This document is dated to more than
212 years. It warns of the dangerous danger of the Jews in
America. The original copy of this document exists in the
Franklin Institute, Philadelphia. . . . All of the chaos and
the troubles in the USA today are made by the Jews''. Editor's
Note: The Franklin ``Prophecy'' is a classic anti-Semitic
canard that falsely claims that American statesman Benjamin
Franklin made anti-Jewish statements during the Constitutional
Convention of 1787. It has found widening acceptance in the
Muslim and Arab media, where it has been used to criticize
Israel and Jews in news articles and statements.
Muhammad Nimr al-Madani, Were the Jews Burned in the Ovens?,
Beirut: Al-Manara, 2001.
The book is ``dedicated to every Arab reader, so that the
book will turn him from being a supporter to someone who
opposes the lie of annihilation''.
Mazen an-Naqib, The Murder--from the Jewish Scriptures and
the Protocols of the Elders of Zion unto Knightless Horse,
Damascus: Al-Aawael, 2004.
From the book's index:
The third part: from the Knightless Horse to the Jewish
Scriptures and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
The world conspiracy
The secrecy of the goals and personalities
The Elders of Zion
A stop in front of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
The Jews' holy scriptures
The Talmud and the Kabala
Who wrote the Protocols?
What do the Protocols of the Elders of Zion claim?
__________
Prepared Statement and Additional Material Submitted by Michael H.
Posner, Executive Director, Human Rights First
PREPARED STATEMENT
Chairman Allen and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
convening this important and timely hearing on anti-Semitism, and for
providing us the opportunity to submit the views of Human Rights First,
formerly the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
Human Rights First's mission to protect and promote human rights is
rooted in the premise that the world's security and stability depend on
long-term efforts to advance justice, human dignity, and respect for
the rule of law in every part of the world. Since we began our work in
1978, we have worked both in the United States and abroad to support
human rights activists who fight for basic freedoms and peaceful change
at the local level; to protect refugees in flight from persecution and
repression; to help build strong national and international systems of
justice and accountability; and to make sure human rights laws and
principles are enforced.
Anti-Semitism--which we define as hatred or hostility toward or
discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group--is
racism. We believe that anti-Semitic acts need to be confronted more
forcefully and treated as serious violations of international human
rights. Moreover, anti-Semitism is a challenge requiring the concerted
action of governments and everyone concerned with putting human rights
first. Unfortunately, it is all too often only organizations directly
representing the ``victimized'' community--in this case, Jewish
organizations--which make concerted efforts to publicize and combat
threats and violence directed against a particular religious, ethnic,
or racial group. While the work of groups like the Anti-Defamation
League and American Jewish Committee, from whom you are hearing at
today's hearing, is critically important and to be applauded, it is
important to note that their involvement does not relieve governments,
the United Nations and its regional organizations, or private human
rights groups of their obligations to address anti-Semitism as an
integral part of their work.
Human Rights First has been working to combat anti-Semitism and
other forms of discrimination for many years, through advocacy for
improved monitoring, reporting, and remedial action to combat anti-
Semitism, participation in national and international fora, and, more
recently the publication of findings and recommendations concerning the
phenomenon in Europe. In August 2002, we published Fire and Broken
Glass: The Rise of Anti-Semitism in Europe, which documented the
alarming rise in anti-Semitic violence in Europe. A copy of that report
is attached to this testimony, and we would be grateful to have it
included in the hearing record.
In that report, we noted that with a few exceptions national
governments, intergovernmental organizations, and nongovernmental
organizations had not responded adequately to the growing scourge of
anti-Semitism. We detailed in particular the inadequate efforts of
European governments and institutions to monitor and report on anti-
Semitic violence, and to develop effective measures to combat it. Our
emphasis on the hate crimes information deficit responds to the failure
of many European governments to provide even basic reporting on the
crimes that force many in Europe's Jewish communities to live in fear.
Our premise is that timely, accurate, and public information on racist
violence is an essential starting point for effective action to
suppress it.
This hearing is being held at a time when anti-Jewish bombings,
arson, and personal assaults in Europe are proliferating in an
environment of incitement to violence. Yet despite a continued high
rate of anti-Semitic threats and attacks in large parts of Europe, only
a handful of the fifteen governments of the European Union
systematically monitor and report on these and other manifestations of
racist violence. An even smaller proportion of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe's 55 member states do so.
Addressing the Continuing Problem
Threats and attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions have continued
at a high level since mid-2002, when Fire and Broken Glass was first
published. The list of attacks on synagogues, desecrations of Jewish
cemeteries, and vandalism of Holocaust memorials--among the visible
manifestations of anti-Semitic violence--is now long. Hundreds of other
attacks on individuals, because they are Jewish or thought to be
Jewish, are no less chilling to the Jewish communities of Europe,
though less likely to make the headlines.
The November 15, 2003 bombings of two synagogues in Turkey, a
member of the Council of Europe, shocked the world and shook that
country's small Jewish community. The blasts killed 24 people and
wounded at least 300.\1\ In France, there were at least two arson
attacks on synagogues in 2003 \2\ and more recently, on the night of
March 22, 2004, a Molotov cocktail was thrown at a Jewish community
center in Toulon that houses a synagogue.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Turkey probes synagogue bombing,'' BBC News, November 17,
2003, http://news.bbc.co (accessed March 1, 2004).
\2\ Stephen Roth Institute, ``Anti-Semitism Worldwide 2002-2003'',
http://www.tau.ac.il (accessed March 10, 2003.
\3\ ``Jewish center in southern French city set afire in arson
attack,'' from AFP and Reuters reports, International Herald Tribune,
March 24, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other potential atrocities were stopped through effective police
action. On June 6, 2003, a man tried to blow up a car, packed with
canisters of gas, in front of a synagogue on rue de la Boucheterre in
Charleroi, Belgium; the blast was averted and the man arrested.\4\ A
year earlier, on April 22, 2002, up to eighteen gunshots were fired at
another synagogue in Charleroi.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Belgian police thwart attack on synagogue in south of
country,'' Jerusalem Post, June 14, 2003, http://209.157.64.200/focus/.
\5\ Anti-Defamation League, ``Global Anti-Semitism: Selected
Incidents Around the World in 2002,'' July 25, 2002, http://www.adl.org
(accessed August 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Germany in September 2003 police made arrests in a reported plot
to explode a bomb on November 9, the anniversary of the 1938 pogrom
known as Kristallnacht, the terrible ``Night of Broken Glass.'' The
target was the cornerstone-laying ceremony for a new synagogue in
central Munich which hundreds of senior political leaders and members
of the Jewish community were expected to attend. At least twelve
members of extreme right-wing groups were arrested in connection with
the plot. German President Johannes Rau attended the ceremony, held as
planned.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Home to Germany's second-largest Jewish community, Bavaria's
capital begins construction of a synagogue and cultural center that
organizers hope will help the city's reestablished Jewish population
flourish and grow,'' Deutsche Welle, November 11, 2003, http://www.dw-
welle.de (accessed March 25, 2004). See also William Boston, ``On the
March Again? A Plot to Bomb the Site of a New Synagogue Raises Fears
that German neo-Nazis are Turning to Terror,? Time (Europe), September
29, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both perpetrators and victims are often young people. In Berlin, a
group of youths attacked a 19-year-old Orthodox Jew visiting from the
U.S. as he left the subway on May 14, 2003. They threw fruit at him and
asked if he was Jewish; when the young man didn't answer, they beat
him. Also in Berlin, a 14-year-old girl, who was wearing a Star of
David necklace, was attacked by a group of teen-aged girls on a bus on
June 27, 2003. After taunting her about her religion, the group of
girls hit and kicked her, causing minor injuries.\7\ Scores of similar
incidents, involving groups of young people attacking visibly Jewish
individuals, often while using public transport, were also reported in
France.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Anti-Defamation League, ``Global Anti-Semitism: Selected
Incidents Around the World in 2003,'' http://www.adl.org (accessed
March 5, 2004).
\8\ See, for example, the chronologies of anti-Semitic incidents
presented by the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions of
France (http://www.crif.org), the Anti-Defamation League (http://
www.adl.org), and the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel'Aviv University
(http://www.tau.ac.il).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organizations in several countries have noted an alarming level of
both verbal and physical abuse against Jewish students in and around
schools in both 2002 and 2003. On April 10, 2002, attackers threw
stones at a school bus of the Lubavitch Gan Menahem Jewish school in
Paris as students were boarding; one student was injured. On May 16,
2003, a Jewish schoolgirl from the Longehamp School in Marseille was
attacked and verbally abused by a group of ten girls from a nearby
school.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Stephen Roth Institute, Anti-Semitism Worldwide 2002/3, http://
www.tau.ac.il (accessed March 10, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jewish schools have also been targeted. In the Jewish community in
Uccle, Belgium, the Gan Hai day-care center was ransacked, on July 9,
2003, with excrement thrown against windows and posters in Hebrew.\10\
A pre-dawn arson attack on the Merkaz HaTorah Jewish school in Gagny, a
suburb of Paris, on Saturday, November 15, 2003, destroyed a large part
of the building. (President Jacques Chirac responded to the attack with
a ringing pronouncement that ``When a Jew is attacked in France, it is
an attack on the whole of France.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ EUCM, ``Manifestations of anti-Semitism,'' p. 44, citing BESC.
\11\ ``France vows to fight hate crime,'' BBC News, November 17,
2003, http://www.bbc.co.uk (accessed March 12, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jews and Jewish sites were also under attack in Russia and
elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. A grenade was thrown at a
synagogue in Derbent on January 25, 2004, and three molotov cocktails
were reportedly thrown at a synagogue in Chelyabinsko on February 4,
2004.\12\ Arsonists attempted to set fire to a synagogue in Minsk,
Belarus, on August 27, 2003 by dousing the doorway with kerosene. The
facade of the building was damaged in this, the fifth arson attempt in
two years.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Jewish Agency for Israel, available at http://www.jafl.org.il
(accessed March 2004).
\13\ Anti-Defamation League, ``Global Anti-Semitism: Selected
Incidents Around the World in 2003,'' http://www.adl.org (accessed
March 5, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Road to Berlin
With Fire and Broken Glass, Human Rights First underscored its
commitment to remain actively engaged in the effort to identify anti-
Semitic activities and improve the means for investigating, reporting,
and more effectively combating them. Our recommendations there are
intended as a starting point for a much larger discussion about how
anti-Semitism and other forms of racism can better be addressed as a
more central element of the global human rights debate.
In June 2003, Human Rights First republished Fire and Broken Glass
in a French-language edition, as part of the organization's
participation in an extraordinary meeting on anti-Semitism convened in
Vienna that month by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE). This first meeting of its kind concluded with a proposal
by Germany to hold a follow up meeting of the OSCE on anti-Semitism,
now to take place on April 28-29, 2004 in Berlin. We and many partner
organizations will be there to take part.
Since the Vienna OSCE conference, human rights, civil liberties,
and Jewish community groups have increasingly worked together.
Preparation for the conference to be held in Berlin at the end of this
month has helped cement this collaborative relationship. Human Rights
First is working closely with the Anti-Defamation League, the Jacob
Blaustein Institute, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, in
particular, in developing a strong message for the Berlin conference.
Working together has enormously strengthened our capacity to raise
international awareness of the threat posed by anti-Semitism--and to
work with European governments for change.
The United States' commitment to meetings like the Berlin
conference is an important factor in our relations with European
governments in the fight against anti-Semitism. To this end, we have
been pressing the Bush Administration to demonstrate leadership by
ensuring that the official U.S. delegation includes Secretary of State
Colin Powell, or another very senior official if the Secretary cannot
attend. Arid we have been preparing a follow-up report to Fire and
Broken Glass, to be issued in time for the Berlin meetings, which will
analyze what has happened in the period since the issuance of that
earlier report.
Our new report will document continuing anti-Semitic violence
across Europe since August 2002, including attacks on Jewish
individuals and institutions in recent weeks. The overall level of
violence remains intolerably high. From synagogue bombings to the
vandalism of religious schools and the desecration of cemeteries, to
attacks--both physical and verbal--on Jewish individuals, anti-Semitic
violence remains an all too common problem throughout the European
continent.
We do recognize that over the past two years, some national
governments and international institutions, as well as the media, have
begun to devote more attention to anti-Semitism. The OSCE itself
deserves credit for placing the issue higher on its agenda, including
by convening an historic conference last June in Vienna and now in the
leadup to the Berlin conference. And just last week, on March 31, the
European Commission's European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) issued a 345-page report on anti-Semitism in the
fifteen member states of the European Union.
These and other efforts suggest that leading European officials and
institutions finally are acknowledging anti-Semitism as a critical
problem warranting attention at the highest levels of government and
society.
Even so, however, there has been very little progress made in
improving mechanisms for monitoring and reporting at the national level
on anti-Semitism--a critical step in the process of developing means
for more effective redress. We cite disparities, for example, in the
collection and reporting of data by governmental institutions in
countries like Belgium in comparison with what leading nongovernmental
organizations have tracked and disseminated. The OSCE's 2004 report
notes starkly that a majority of E.U. nations conduct no systematic
monitoring of anti-Semitic incidents.
The upcoming OSCE Berlin conference provides an opportunity to
address these remaining shortcomings--if the participants can agree on
a plan of action that includes establishing specific mechanisms for
monitoring both (1) incidents of anti-Semitism in OSCE member
countries, and (2) how national governments are responding. As noted
above, Human Rights First has been actively engaged with U.S.
Government officials, other leading nongovernmental human rights
organizations, and Jewish community organizations in preparing for the
Berlin conference. I look forward to participating there, and in
carrying our message to government officials and other nongovernmental
groups from Europe--and in helping maximize the likelihood that the
conference will produce concrete results.
Viewing Anti-Semitism Through the Human Rights Lens
But whatever the results from Berlin, in beginning to address what
we have termed the continuing ``information deficit'' with respect to
anti-Semitism, better documentation alone will accomplish little if
governmental authorities do not come to grips with their obligations
under international human rights law to combat anti-Semitic violence
within their borders.
Indeed, international human rights law and practice provide the
framework for establishing that national governments do have the legal
responsibility to take proactive measures to both deter and prosecute
actions taken with anti-Jewish animus. The time for politically-
motivated excuses for inaction is long past; European governments need
to move to adopt stronger legal measures to address anti-Semitic
violence.
Mr. Chairman, today's hearing reflects the interest in, and concern
of, this Subcommittee with respect to anti-Semitism both in this
country and abroad, including in Europe. Human Rights First looks
forward to working with you and other Members of Congress, including
those who will be attending the OSCE conference in Berlin in three
weeks' time, to ensure that the fight against all forms of anti-
Semitism remains a high priority in the months and years to come. While
anti-Semitism in the United States fortunately has not reached the
levels, nor presented the dangers, that it has in some countries in
Europe, the United States Government must remain vigilant--even as it
encourages our friends in Europe and other members of the OSCE to
improve their own monitoring, reporting, and enforcement.
We look forward to working with you, as well as human rights
officials at the Department of State and elsewhere in the government,
to ensure that the response to anti-Semitism is as effective as
possible, and that the victims of threats and violence know that
governments and nongovernmental organizations alike are doing whatever
they can to combat the climate of fear that again exists for many Jews
in Europe and beyond.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share our perspectives with
the Subcommittee.
__________
FIRE AND BROKEN GLASS: THE RISE OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE (PREPARED BY
LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS\1\ IN 2002)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lawyers Committee for Human Rights is now known as Human Rights
First. This report, Fire and Broken Glass: The Rise of Anti-Semitism in
Europe, was updated in 2004 and released as Anti-Semitism in Europe:
Challenging Official Indifference, and is available on the internet at
[http://www.humanrightsfirst.org].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOREWORD
A year ago the United Nations convened the third World Conference
on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,
in Durban, South Africa. The conference was intended to highlight
particularly serious patterns of racism and racial discrimination
around the world and to shape appropriate global responses. The meeting
succeeded in raising public attention with respect to some particularly
egregious situations--not least the plight of 250 million victims of
caste discrimination (among them the Dalits of India--the so-called
``broken people,'' or ``untouchables'').
Further, the conference provided a long overdue acknowledgment of
the criminal nature of slavery (``that slavery and the slave trade are
a crime against humanity and should always have been'') and
recommendations for the repair of its lasting consequences for people
of African descent around the globe.
The conference also made clear that racism and racial
discrimination need to be placed more squarely on the international
human rights agenda. But what was positive in the conference process
was seriously undermined when the World Conference itself became the
setting for a series of anti-Semitic attacks. Directed primarily
against representatives of Jewish groups, these attacks were fueled by
the heated debates at the meeting concerning Israeli practices in the
West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the racist anti-Jewish animus displayed
represented considerably more than criticism of Israeli policies and
practices.
Most of the offensive behavior occurred during meetings of
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and individual participants in a
forum that paralleled the intergovernmental conference. Throughout the
five-day NGO forum, anti-Semitic cartoons and materials were
distributed widely and on display, tolerated by the forum's
nongovernmental organizers. Representatives from Jewish organizations
were denied access to some meetings--either physically excluded or
shouted down and attacked when they were present and tried to speak.
Efforts to put anti-Semitism on the nongovernmental agenda were roundly
defeated by an assembly of representatives and individual participants
in procedures that were neither democratic nor principled.
Rather than serving as a forum for correcting racial and religious
intolerance and hate, the public meetings and exhibition halls of the
Durban conference became a place where pernicious racism was practiced
and tolerated. Important recommendations adopted by the conference
despite this environment, with a real potential to advance the fight
against anti-Semitism--and other forms of racism--have as a consequence
received inadequate attention. Some of these recommendations,
concerning government monitoring and reporting on racist violence, are
discussed here.
The outbursts at Durban reflect a growing trend toward anti-Semitic
expression and violence in many parts of the world. As this report
makes clear, there is an alarming rise in anti-Semitic violence in
Europe: but it is on the rise in other parts of the world as well.
Unfortunately, with the notable exception of Jewish organizations and a
number of other human rights and antiracist groups and institutions,
the world community--governments, intergovernmental organizations , and
nongovernmental organizations alike--has not responded adequately to
this growing problem. Anti-Semitism is racism. Anti-Semitic acts need
to be confronted more forcefully and treated as serious violations of
international human rights.
This report highlights the inadequacy of efforts by European
governments to systematically monitor and report on anti-Semitic
threats and violence--and to develop effective measures to stop it. We
define anti-Semitism as hatred or hostility toward or discrimination
against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group. Governments and
inter-governmental organizations need to routinely incorporate facts
about anti-Semitic assaults, arson, vandalism, desecration of
cemeteries, and the proliferation of anti-Semitic materials on the
internet into a wide range of existing human rights reporting
mechanisms. Though some Jewish organizations, like the Anti-Defamation
League and the American Jewish Committee, are doing excellent reporting
on these issues, their involvement does not relieve governments, the
United Nations and its regional organizations, or private human rights
groups of their obligations to address anti-Semitism as an integral
part of their work.
In the pages that follow, we outline the scope of anti-Semitism in
Europe and examine some of the efforts by European governments and
institutions to monitor and confront the problem. In our view these
efforts are insufficient. Too often European leaders have downplayed
anti-Semitic acts as inevitable side-effects of the current crisis in
the Middle East. We reject this reasoning as an abdication of
responsibility. Criticism of Israeli policies and practices is not
inherently anti-Semitic. But when such criticisms and related actions
take the form of broadside attacks against ``Jews'' or the ``Jewish
State,'' they become racist.
In this report we make a series of recommendations as to how these
abuses can better be investigated and reported in the future. These
recommendations are intended as a starting point for a much larger
discussion about how anti-Semitism and other forms of racism can better
be addressed as a more central element of the global human rights
debate. At the end of last year's Durban meeting, we wrote that ``[t]he
subjects of this conference are the human rights issues of the 21st
century. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance
affect each of us in our own communities. All of us--governments, the
UN, NGOs--must find constructive way to discuss and combat these
problems.''
Events of the last year only underscore the continuing importance
of meeting that challenge, and, with regards to anti-Semitism, history
emphasizes the urgency of doing so with force and with vigor.
Michael Posner,
Executive Director, August 2002
fire and broken glass: the rise of anti-semitism in europe
On July 12, the online wire of the Associated Press included a
story out of the Welsh city of Swansea, where a synagogue had been
vandalized the night before. According to the story, which was not
picked up by any major American newspaper, a group of youths broke into
the synagogue, destroyed one of the temple's Torah scrolls, drew a
swastika on the wall, and attempted to burn the building down before
fleeing.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``British Synagogue Damaged by Vandals,'' AP Online, July 12,
2002, reprinted in 2002 WL 23896197 (2002). The story did run in
Canada. See, ``Vandalism Attack Heavily Damages Another Synagogue in
Britain,'' Canadian Press, July 12, 2002, reprinted in 2002 WL 23891437
(2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Swansea break-in, the second such vandalism of a British
synagogue in three months, is being investigated by local authorities
as a hate crime--a crime driven by anti-Jewish animus.\2\ This
desecration of synagogues occurred within a broader pattern of anti-
Jewish attacks in Britain--and across Europe. In April 2002 alone the
Jewish community in Britain reported fifty-one incidents nationwide,
most of them assaults on individuals.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Vandals attacked a synagogue in London's Finsbury Park on April
27, smashing windows and furniture, daubing a swastika on the rabbi's
lectern, and strewing religious articles around the premises--although
nothing was reported stolen. Stephen Moss, ``Desecrated,'' Guardian
(London), May 2, 2002.
\3\ Ibid., citing the Community Security Trust.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elsewhere in Europe firebombs and gunfire were directed at Jewish
targets. At around midnight on March 31, two firebombs were thrown into
a synagogue in the Anderlecht district of Brussels, Belgium's capital
and the seat of the European Union. The interior of the synagogue was
badly damaged.\4\ In the previous month, a rash of graffiti had
appeared on Jewish owned shops in Brussels declaring ``Death to the
Jews.'' On April 22, up to eighteen gunshots were fired at another
synagogue, this one in Charleroi.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See, for example, Joelle Mesken and Olivier Van Vaerenbergh,
``Les synagogues, proies du feu et de la haine ordinaire, Le Soir,
April 2, 2002; and Frederick Delepierre and Benedicte Vaes, ``Comment
enrayer la spirale de la violence?,'' Le Soir (Brussels), April 3,
2002.
\5\ Anti-Defamation League, ``Global Anti-Semitism: Selected
Incidents Around the World in 2002,'' July 25, 2002, http://www.adl.org
(accessed August 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As gasoline bombs were thrown in Brussels late on Sunday night,
March 31, fires still smoldered from a series of attacks across France
that weekend. In Strasbourg, the seat of the Council of Europe, the
doors to a synagogue were set alight that Saturday; while in Lyon, an
estimated fifteen attackers wearing hoods crashed two cars through the
main gate of a synagogue earlier the same day and set fires there.
On March 31 alone, a pregnant Jewish woman and her husband were
attacked in a Lyon suburb, requiring her hospitalization; a Jewish
school in a Paris suburb was badly damaged by vandals; and in Toulouse,
shots were fired into a kosher butcher shop. That night, a synagogue in
Nice was attacked with a firebomb, and in Marseille attackers set
alight and burned to the ground the Or Aviv synagogue. Despite the
deployment of police to centers of the Jewish community, the violence
in Marseille continued.\6\ A week after the synagogue attack, the Gan-
Pardess school was set on fire, its windows broken with stones, and its
walls daubed with anti-Jewish graffiti.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ The incidents were reported in the French and Belgian media,
and summarized in ``French, Belgian synagogues burned,'' April 1, 2002,
http://www.CNN.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-Jewish attacks have continued at a high level in France since
late 2000, when attacks were reported on forty-three synagogues and
three Jewish cemeteries in the last three months of the year alone. A
synagogue in the Paris suburb Trappes was burned to the ground, while
synagogues were damaged by fire in Villepinte, Clichy, Creil, Les
Lilas, and the synagogue in Les Ulis was attacked on three occasions.
Then, as now, officials down-played the racist, anti-Semitic nature of
the attacks, suggesting they were an inevitable side-effect of the
crisis in the Middle East, where protests and violence had broken out
in what became known as the second intifada.
A surge of anti-Jewish violence in Russia was also a part of the
mosaic of racist violence across Europe in 2002. In the incident most
widely reported in Western news media, Tatyana Sapunova was badly
injured on May 27 by a rigged explosive charge, when attempting to take
down a roadside sign near Moscow that declared ``Death to Jews.'' Other
booby-trapped signs bearing similar messages were reported elsewhere in
the country. In a welcome and unprecedented gesture, Russian president
Vladimir Putin honored Tatyana Sapunova for her civic courage in a July
11 ceremony--and condemned racial and religious intolerance.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Sabrina Tavernise, ``Bomb Attack Shows That Russia Hasn't
Rooted Out Anti-Semitism,'' New York Times, June 1, 2002; and Steven
Lee Myers, ``Putin Cautions Russians on Intolerance,'' New York Times,
July 26, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The incidents in Swansea, Brussels, Strasbourg, Marseille, Moscow,
and other European towns and cities earlier this year occurred as a
number of organizations worldwide--most prominently the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL) in the United States--have drawn increasing attention,
both here and abroad, to the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, a problem
that appears to be intensifying.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The campaign to draw attention to the attacks in the media
appears to be meeting with some success, as evidenced by the Washington
Post's June 24 editorial, ``Anti-Semitism in Europe.'' See, ``Anti-
Semitism in Europe,'' Washington Post, June 24, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hate Crimes--The Information Deficit
The emphasis of this report is on the proliferation of violence
against persons and property in Europe that is driven by anti-Jewish
animus--and the failure of governments to accurately report and
effectively engage in concerted action to combat this racist violence.
In both east and west, European governments have done too little to
monitor, report, and act on the many levels required. The failure of
some governments in Western Europe to do even basic reporting on hate
crimes targeting the Jewish community (and other minorities) is a
principal focus of this report. Yet timely, accurate, and public
information on racist violence is essential for effective action to
suppress such violence.
By addressing only the information deficit that clouds the real
scope and nature of anti-Semitic violence in Europe, the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights does not want to understate the broader
issues arising in the fight against anti-Semitism and other racist
intolerance. Yet the educational and other programs required to address
anti-Semitism in the long term can be effective only if accompanied by
immediate action to acknowledge and to combat violent criminal acts
motivated by anti-Jewish hatred.
Similarly, while this report is about anti-Jewish violence in
Europe, its recommendations apply to the broader plague of racist
violence that affects many of Europe's minority communities. Racist
violence against minorities such as the Roma, and in particular against
Europeans and immigrants of North African, Middle Eastern, and South
Asian origin, also requires urgent attention by European governments,
nongovernmental organizations, and the international community.
Accessible disaggregated data is required in order to report accurately
on racist violence, to identify particularly vulnerable groups, and to
generate effective antiracism measures. The fight against racism should
not itself be balkanized, as if in a competition between advocates for
each of the groups bloodied by racism. Nor should particularly
egregious forms of racism be overlooked.
Europe's extreme nationalist groups show a frightening fervor and
consistency--and a disturbing unity--in their promotion of violent
anti-Semitism. The same racist extremists who attack synagogues may
also attack Turkish immigrants in Berlin, French citizens of North
African origin in Paris, or South Asians in Britain's towns and cities.
A similar unity is required of the antiracist effort in Europe to
combat this. The rise in violence against Jewish communities across
Europe is part of a broader pattern of racist violence--but the
severity, pan-European scope, and historical roots of this violence
requires particularly urgent attention as a part of this larger effort
to combat racism. In view of the calamitous record of anti-Semitism in
Europe, every effort must be made to ensure that this scourge is not
permitted to gather momentum again.
The increasing incidence of racially-motivated attacks against Jews
and Jewish institutions across Europe has been well-documented by
nongovernmental bodies, most notably the ADL, along with the American
Jewish Committee (AJC), the Simon Wiesenthal Center (SWC), and the
Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and
Racism at Tel Aviv University.\10\ Similarly, the U.S. Government has
taken notice, with the Helsinki Commission--the American Government's
liaison agency with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE)--holding a high-profile hearing on May 22 to address the
issue\11\ and with both the House of Representatives and the Senate
subsequently passing unanimous resolutions echoing the Commission's
concerns.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See, Stephen Roth Institute, ``Global Anti-Semitism: Selected
Incidents Around the World in 2002,'' available at http://www.adl.org
(accessed July 15, 2002) (describing, country-by-country, hundreds of
reported anti-Semitic attacks since the beginning of the calendar
year).
\11\ For a transcript of the hearing, see, http://www.csce.gov
(last visited July 15, 2002).
\12\ See, H.R. Con. Res. 393, 107th Cong. (2002); S. Res. 253,
107th Cong. (2002). Both passed unanimously. At the Eleventh Annual
Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, a supplementary ``item'' on
anti-Semitic violence in the OSCE region, proposed by American
congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ), passed unanimously. See, Tovah
Lazaroff, ``OSCE Condemns Anti-Semitism,'' Jerusalem Post, July 9,
2002, at 4; 148 CONG. REC. H4380-01 (daily ed. July 9, 2002) (statement
of Rep. Smith).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet, whereas nongovernmental organizations have released a
considerable amount of material on the increasing incidence of attacks,
many European governments have been less forthcoming in documenting the
upsurge in anti-Semitic violence.\13\ The French Government, which, for
much of early 2002, made few public statements about the rising tide of
anti-Jewish violence,\14\ has yet to release official statistics on
such incidents in 2002. In a June 2002 statement, a French spokesman
acknowledged that ``A series of inexcusable assaults--physical,
material and symbolic--has been committed in France against Jews over
the past 20 months,'' while suggesting this was simply a spill-over of
the Middle East conflict into Europe (most of the incidents were laid
to ``poorly integrated youths of Muslim origin who would like to bring
the Mideast conflict to France'').\15\ The involvement of extremist
nationalist groups in anti-Jewish violence, a longstanding source of
anti-Semitism in France and elsewhere in Europe, has found little
reflection in these public statements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, for example, the website of the Anti-Defamation League.
\14\ Including an incident where President Chirac stated that he
had seen no evidence of an increase in anti-Semitic violence. See,
Abraham Cooper, ``At Last, France Tackles Anti-Semitism,'' Wall Street
Journal, (European Ed.), July 15, 2002.
\15\ Francois Bujon de l'Estang, Ambassador of France in the United
States, ``A Slander on France,'' Washington Post, June 22, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, the Governments of Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom,
and Russia, where a majority of the other attacks have been
concentrated, have made public statements condemning the upsurge in
violence. But these governments have released little detailed
documentation of anti-Jewish violence, and have, according to
nongovernmental observers, done too little to abate the rising tide.
Systems for collection, analysis, and reporting information from
European capitals differ widely. While most governments release limited
information on anti-Semitic acts, what statistical data is available
generally allows only the identification of broad trends. Statistics on
registered incidents appear to vastly underestimate the extent of the
problem--with some exceptions.
The criteria applied in data collection and statistical analysis
and reporting by NGOs also vary widely. In some cases, reporting on
anti-Semitism--and other manifestations of racism--blur criminal acts
of violence with incidents of hate speech, a tendency that is echoed in
the news media. This notwithstanding, human rights organizations and
the independent media in Western Europe often report on violent anti-
Jewish incidents. Their reporting points clearly to a severe and
pernicious rise in this violence that cannot be attributed to any one
factor.
Governments, despite periodically adhering to multilateral pledges
to combat racism and anti-Semitism, and acknowledging treaty
obligations to do so, find little tangible pressure to undertake close
monitoring and reporting. The reality is that public information is
required in order to generate the political will to address the problem
and to inform decisions on how best to do so.
A Pattern of Intimidation and Violence
The Swansea incident and others in many parts of Europe are part of
a prolonged surge of violent threats and attacks on individuals and
community institutions solely because they are Jewish. This racist
violence has included physical assaults on individuals --and fire-
bombings, gunfire, window smashing, and vandalism of Jewish homes,
schools, synagogues and other community institutions. Vandals have
desecrated scores of Jewish cemeteries across the region, daubing anti-
Jewish slogans, threats, and Nazi symbols on walls and monuments, while
toppling and shattering tombstones.
Jews and people presumed to be Jewish have been assaulted in and
around centers of the Jewish community, in attacks on Jewish homes, and
in more random street violence. Attackers shouting racist slogans have
thrown stones at children leaving Hebrew-language schools and
worshippers leaving religious services. In street violence attackers
shouting racist slogans have severely injured people solely because
they were thought to have a Jewish appearance.
How are anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic acts distinguished from random
violence in a violent world? Sometimes the nature of the target alone
is sufficient reason to conclude that an arson attack, stone throwing,
or other violence is motivated by discriminatory animus (a synagogue or
a kosher shop, for example, is set alight; a Jewish cemetery is
desecrated). In many cases, even when the target of an attack is less
clearly singled out because of a real or imputed Jewish identity, the
self-identification of the attackers with neo-Nazi extremist groups,
assailants' statements at the time of an attack, expressly anti-Jewish
graffiti, or other elements give reason to believe them anti-Semitic.
Such acts are manifestations of both racist violence and religious
intolerance, directed at the Jewish people as a whole.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discrimination (1966) states that the term `` `racial
discrimination' shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or
preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic
origin. . . .'' (art. 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hate speech--spoken, broadcast, and published--provides a motor and
a backdrop to anti-Jewish violence. In Europe, this is particularly
chilling, as hate speech often involves immediate incitement to racist
violence while openly harking back to the racist terror of the
Holocaust. Extremist political groups openly endorse the past horrors
of the Holocaust or implicitly do so by denying its reality, even where
European law makes such statements punishable as crimes.
Threatening racist speech often also provides the immediate context
of physical acts of violence. Racist speech may provide evidence of
motivation by which some acts of vandalism or related violence can be
distinguished from random acts. Thugs who both break windows and daub
swastikas on walls make their anti-Jewish animus explicit. Public
officials and senior political leaders have themselves made racist
anti-Jewish statements, disparaging the Jewish religion and members of
this faith as a people. Other public officials remain silent concerning
attacks on Jews and symbols of the Jewish community, or attribute
racist violence and threats to common crime or political protest.
The resulting environment, particularly where anti-Jewish attacks
occur with relative impunity, is a climate of fear and encouragement
for further hatred and violence.
Even where public security agencies act promptly to halt and punish
anti-Jewish violence--and other violent racist attacks on minorities--
they may address this violence as just one aspect of a larger pattern
of racist violence and xenophobia. Shamefully, anti-Jewish attacks are
too often left largely to the Jewish community itself to document and
protest.
The Regional Monitoring Bodies
Most European governments publish little official information on
anti-Jewish and other racist violence, while monitoring and reporting
norms vary significantly from country to country. Across the region,
there is a paucity of official information concerning individual
attacks on the Jewish minority and there is little meaningful
statistical data. With some exceptions, detailed statistical
information is either not compiled or is compiled without
differentiating between attacks on distinct minorities.
In some cases, monitoring and reporting blurs racist violence and
offensive speech into a single category. This practice is not limited
to European institutions: the Department of State's annual Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices often does the same in reporting on
anti-Semitic and other racist ``incidents.'' Considerably more is
published by official bodies in the E.U. on racist and intolerant
speech, in turn, than on the detail of anti-Semitic attacks on persons
and property.
Concern for improved data collection has frequently been expressed
as a necessary step toward the identification of discrimination in
public policy, in particular as concerns criminal justice and the
equitable provision of public services. Such data is also required to
identify government failings to fulfill obligations to protect minority
groups against discriminatory action, and in particular violence, by
private citizens. The posture of the state toward racist violence
against a particular group can be put in the spot-light by
disaggregated data on the full spectrum of violent crime--showing in
some situations that police condone or encourage private violence
against minorities. Impunity for attacks on certain minorities, in
turn, can be a factor in the generation of further such violence. Data
accurately reflecting the reality of racist violence, by public
officials or others, provide crucial benchmarks by which to
independently assess the need for remedial action.
Several European intergovernmental institutions were created
expressly to monitor and combat racism, and are available to assist
governments in the region in the implementation of legislative,
criminal justice, educational, and other antiracism measures.
The Council of Europe's European Commission on Racial Intolerance,
ECRI, provides a range of ambitious programs intended to make European
anti-discrimination norms a reality, including express measures to
monitor and combat anti-Semitic speech and violence. ECRI has one
member appointed by each member state, serving in an individual
capacity. Its stated aim is ``to combat racism, xenophobia, anti-
Semitism and intolerance at a pan-European level and from the angle of
the protection of human rights,'' and it is an effective voice to this
end.\17\ But it cannot alone compensate for the failings of its member
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ For background on ECRI's origins, see, ECRI, http://
www.coe.int (accessed July 23, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its annual report covering the calendar year 2001, ECRI
identified racial discrimination--including anti-Semitism--as a blight
on Europe. Of particular concern was ``the problem of racist violence
which has erupted on several occasions in a number of countries''--a
considerable understatement. ECRI stressed ``[a] rise in the spread of
anti-Semitic ideas,'' while deploring a trend in which ``[a]cts of
violence and intimidation against the members and institutions of the
Jewish communities and the dissemination of anti-Semitic material are
increasing in a number of countries.'' \18\ ECRI has not, however,
issued a general recommendation on anti-Semitism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ ECRI, http://www.coe.int (accessed July 23, 2002). Special
attention was also given to a rise ``in occurrences of xenophobia,
discrimination and racist acts against immigrants or people of
immigrant origin, refugees and asylum-seekers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ECRI's country by country reporting is based on a procedure in
which draft reports are submitted on a confidential basis to member
governments for discussion and reviewed in the light of this
dialogue.\19\ The statistical reflection of racist incidents in the
country reports is limited by the systems for data collection and
dissemination of each of the member governments--even when generally
critical conclusions may be drawn. In its March 2000 report on Belgium,
for example, ECRI highlighted the absence of official reporting on
incidents and complaints of discrimination, while giving little
alternative information on the extent of anti-Semitism--and other forms
of racism--resulting in acts of violence in the country: \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ECRI, http://www.coe.int (accessed July 15, 2002).
\20\ ECRI, Second report on Belgium, Adopted on 18 June 1999, made
public on 21 March 2000, http://www.coe.int (accessed July 26, 2002).
The scarce use made of antiracist laws and civil remedies in
cases of racial discrimination [is] reflected in the current
lack of detailed information on complaints of racist and
xenophobic acts, the number of complaints of racial
discrimination filed with the courts, the results of the
proceedings instituted in these cases and the compensation
granted, where appropriate, to the victims of discrimination.
ECRI expresses its concern at this situation, since accurate
and comprehensive statistics constitute indispensable tools to
plan policies and strategies in the fields of combating racism
and intolerance and to monitor their effectiveness. It
therefore encourages the authorities to develop an adequate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
system of statistical data to cover the above mentioned areas.
Notwithstanding the noncompliance by Belgian authorities with
ECRI's recommendations, unofficial sources reported some 2,000 anti-
Semitic incidents in Belgium in the nine months since the September 11
attacks on the United States (the reports did not distinguish violent
crimes from other incidents).\21\ As a corollary, there was no
reference whatsoever to anti-Semitism in the Department of State's
report on Belgium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, ``Jews Suffer Surge of Hate On
Streets of Belgium,'' Daily Telegraph (London), May 30, 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the failure of governments to report on anti-Semitic
and other racist violence, ECRI has identified the absence of common
criteria with which to monitor and report attacks against members of
particular minorities as an obstacle to its antiracism work in many
parts of the region.
In 1997 the European Union created a new institution, the European
Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), to combat racism,
xenophobia and anti-Semitism in Europe. EUMC, like the Council of
Europe's ECRI, has pressed for better data collection, transparency,
and analysis of incidents of racist violence by European governments.
EUMC has also published comparative surveys of anti-discrimination
legislation in member states, prepared by independent experts.\22\ In
its 1999 annual report, echoing ECRI, it called for special action in
the area of information collection, analysis, and dissemination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ EUMC, Anti-discrimination Legislation in EU Member States: A
comparison of national anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds
of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief with the Council
Directives. The information for the EUMC study was compiled by a group
of independent experts which is part of the project Implementing
European Anti-Discrimination Law, a joint initiative of the European
Roma Rights Center, Interights, and the Migration Policy Group. The
Belgium report, last updated June 19, 2002, is available at http://
www.eumc.eu.int (accessed August 8, 2002).
The various reports in Europe on racism in 1999, whether the
subject of the national media, the official authorities or
NGOs, reveals that no country of the European Union is immune
from it. To gain an accurate and comprehensive picture,
however, requires a certain degree of uniformity and/or common
definition among the Member States on the subject of racial/
ethnic minorities and the methods of data collection. At
present this does not exist. The EUMC is still therefore
lacking a complete set of tools to monitor racism effectively.
Another important area hampering reporting is that criteria
used to draw up statistics differ in the EU Member States.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ EUMC, http://eumc.eu.int (accessed July 29, 2002).
In its 1999 recommendations, EUMC also stressed the importance of
``collecting and publishing accurate data on the number and nature of
racist and xenophobic incidents or offences, the number of cases
prosecuted or the reasons for not prosecuting, and the outcome of
prosecutions.'' In gathering data at the European level, EUMC
encouraged governments to draw upon both their own resources and those
of nongovernmental organizations, research bodies, and international
organizations. ``Statistical, documentary or technical information,''
in turn, was to be collated in a form facilitating effective courses of
action.
In its most recent annual report, published on December 18, 2001,
EUMC expressed concern at the continuing crisis of racism in Europe and
found that little progress had been made toward systems of consistent
and comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Systems of recording
racially motivated crimes in police statistics still varied widely
between member countries, and under-reporting of violence appeared to
be the norm.
In commenting on trends in 2000, EUMC's 2002 report observed that
``extensive increases in racial violence,'' including anti-Semitic
attacks, were reported in France, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the UK. In
contrast, ``racist crimes'' were simply not identified separately in
crime statistics from Belgium, Greece, Ireland and Portugal. Statistics
reported, in turn, were ``challenged by human rights organizations'' in
some countries, notably in Italy, Spain, and Germany, where police
records ``are minimal in comparison with statistics collected by
NGOs'':
Italian NGOs recorded 259 racist murders between 1995 and
2000, whereas the Italian police authorities recorded not a
single case. For statistics on racist attacks, the Italian NGO
records show more than ten times as many crimes as the official
figures. In Germany the NGOs recorded five times as many racist
murders as the police. Racist propaganda or ``incitement to
hatred towards ethnic minorities'' is well documented by the
police authorities in some of the Member States.
As a step to meet the information challenge, EUMC acted to create
its own network of monitoring and reporting in member states, with the
acronym RAXEN--Reseau europeen d'information sur le racisme et la
xenophobie (European information network on racism and xenophobia),
which began its work in 2000. RAXEN was tasked with defining common
criteria for data collection, to be proposed to member governments. But
its efforts to this end, and to improve collection, are still at an
early stage.
Both ECRI and EUMC, the preeminent European agencies combating
racism, have addressed the rise of anti-Semitism intensively since the
year 2000, and addressed some of the difficulties of monitoring and
combating these and other racist trends in the region. The sister
agencies have made extraordinary efforts toward public education to
counter racism and to promote effective measures to criminalize and
punish racist acts through the justice system. Harmonization of data
collection and dissemination concerning racist acts has been central to
the recommendations of both organizations.
The reports published by ECRI and EUMC on racism in member states
illustrate the disparities of national reporting on racism in general
and on anti-Semitic expression and violent crime in particular
countries. Reporting by the United States government on human rights
practices and on religious intolerance around the world, in turn,
echoes these failings, often repeating almost verbatim European reports
limited largely to generalities, and tending to emphasize often
illusory improvement.
Reporting on anti-Semitism and other forms of racism prepared by
nongovernmental organizations often provides detailed information on
specific acts of violence and instances of racist expression which
serve as a check on government failings. This information, however, is
often difficult to interpret on a comparative basis, as the criteria
applied to reporting on incidents of different kinds are not always
clear or consistent.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ There are exceptions to the rule: see, for example, the U.S-
based Anti-Defamation League's detailed explanation of the methodology
employed in its reporting and analysis of anti-Semitic incidents in the
United States. See, ADL, ``A Note on Evaluating Anti-Semitic
Incidents,'' in 2001 Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, http://
www.adl.org (accessed July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The annual reports of EUMC since 1999 have included capsule
descriptions of racism and xenophobia in member countries, while
stressing the inadequacy of the government reporting on which the
system depends. In the 1999 report, detailed references to anti-Jewish
violence were uneven, closely reflecting the strengths and weaknesses
of member governments' reporting regimes.\25\ A section on the United
Kingdom, for example, made no reference to anti-Semitism. In coverage
of Germany, in contrast, EUMC reported the desecration of forty-seven
Jewish cemeteries in 1999--while stressing that this was an
improvement, a decline from the toll a year before. No other reference
to expressly anti-Semitic acts in Germany appeared--as victimized
groups were not distinguished clearly in the statistics provided on
racist violence.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EUMC, Annual Report, 1999, http://eumc.eu.int (accessed July
25, 2002).
\26\ ``Of the 746 acts of violence reported `with racist/xenophobic
motives,' 60 percent concerned `people of foreign descent,' while of
10,037 criminal offenses considered hate crimes, more than 66 percent
`fell . . . under the category of propaganda offenses.' '' Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its 2002 report, on the year 2000, EUMC provided further detail
on anti-Semitic acts in Germany, noting that the system of data
collection there ``is broader and more detailed than in many other EU
Member States.'' Police reports on violent crimes ``with right-wing
extremist motives'' totaled 939, ``out of which 874 were assaults, 48
arson or bomb attacks, 2 were cases of murder and 15 attempted
murders.'' Twenty-nine violent anti-Semitic crimes were recorded,
including an arson attack on a synagogue in Efurt, and the desecration
of fifty-six graves in Jewish cemeteries.
ECRI addressed anti-Semitism in the United Kingdom only briefly in
its second country report, providing no detail apart from an expression
of concern at ``the occurrence of anti-Semitic incidents and the
circulation of anti-Semitic literature.'' \27\ The Department of
State's 2002 country report on the United Kingdom, in turn, cited no
official sources on anti-Semitism there. It said only that, the Board
of Deputies of British Jews, a nongovernmental organization, had
reported 310 ``anti-Semitic incidents in 2001, in contrast to 405 in
2000,'' while stressing that public expressions of anti-Semitism ``are
confined largely to the political or religious fringes.'' No further
detail was provided. (The country report was equally vague about
attacks on Muslims in the wake of September 11, referring to ``isolated
attacks . . . throughout the country.'') \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ ECRI, Second report on the United Kingdom, Adopted on 16 June
2000 made public on 21 March 2001.
\28\ Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices,
2001, http://www.state.gov (accessed July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
France has been the object of particular criticism for its response
to anti-Semitism. Some observers have protested that the government
responded slowly to the rise of attacks in late 2000, initially
advising the Jewish community ``to remain quiet and inconspicuous.''
\29\ As noted, anti-Semitic attacks increased dramatically there,
particularly in Paris and its suburbs, with a high level of violence
sustained throughout 2001 and into 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Stephen Roth Institute, Tel Aviv University, Update, Annual
Press Release of Stephen Roth Institute, April 8, 2002, available at
http://www.tau.ac.il (accessed July 15, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although France was last the object of an ECRI country report in
June 2000, ECRI's findings on monitoring and reporting there reflect
continuing obstacles to effective antiracism action to counter anti-
Jewish attacks.\30\ The ECRI report, produced in consultation with the
French Government, at that time placed anti-Semitism firmly within a
larger milieu of racist intolerance propagated by far right political
groups, while stressing that reports of anti-Semitic violence and
harassment had decreased. Citing the findings of the official human
rights commission, however, it found that almost half of the total
number of acts of intimidation recorded were of an anti-Semitic
character.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ ECRI, Second Report on France, Adopted on 10 December 1999,
made public on 27 June 2000; all country reports are available on
ECRI's website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ECRI report did not refer expressly to acts of violence in its
breakdown of acts of intimidation. But ECRI highlighted the
difficulties posed for monitors in France, where government agencies by
law do not distinguish between ethnic or racial groups in their
records:
As noted in ECRI's first report, due to the French Republican
egalitarian approach, there is officially no categorization of
ethnic or racial groups in statistics. The main categories used
are therefore ``foreigners'' and ``citizens,'' while ethnic
monitoring is contrary to the Constitution and expressly
prohibited by the Criminal Code. ECRI emphasizes that, given
the consequent difficulties to the collection of accurate data
on the incidence of racial discrimination as well as on social
indicators concerning parts of the French population, a
reconsideration of this approach would be beneficial.
EUMC's 1999 reporting on France, in turn, cited only broad
statistics from the report of the official National Consultative
Commission on Human Rights (Commission Nationale Consultative des
Droits de l'Homme, CNCDH), on a rise of ``racist and anti-Semitic
violence,'' from 27 incidents in 1998 to 36 in 1999. It said four
people were ``injured as a result of anti-Semitism.'' In its annual
report for 2000, the EUMC continued to highlight the inadequacies of
government reporting.\31\ The CNCDH's annual report for 2001 provided
statistics as well as detail on some individual cases of anti-Semitic
violence. The commission noted that its statistical findings are based
on Ministry of Interior information, which distinguishes ``anti-
Semitism from other forms of racism,'' and that particular attention
has been given to anti-Semitism in particular since the dramatic rise
in incidents in late 2000.\32\ The statistics, however, are clearly
based only on a small set of the most extreme cases of violence during
the year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ EUMC, Annual Report 2000, http://eumc.eu.int (accessed July
25, 2002).
\32\ Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de l'Homme,
Rapport de la Commission Nationale Consultative des Droits de L'Homme,
March 21, 2002, http://www.commission-droits-homme.fr (accessed July
25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the most recent annual report of the CNDCH, released in March
2002 and covering 2001, the commission stressed the gravity of anti-
Semitic violence in France, while apparently reflecting the weakness of
the Ministry of Interior's data collection. The report documents just
twenty-nine such incidents--all high profile cases, and most involving
dramatics attacks on Jewish schools and synagogues. These included
fifteen assaults on synagogues and other places of prayer--most
involving firebombs--and arson attacks on four Jewish schools. Three
incidents of stone throwing at worshippers leaving synagogues were also
registered in the chronology included in the report. Just two incidents
cited involved physical assaults on individuals. In contrast,
nongovernmental organizations reported hundreds of incidents.
Recent actions of the French Government, particularly the new
interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, give some cause for hope. Minister
Sarkozy, who met in mid-July with Rabbi Abraham Cooper and Dr. Shimon
Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, vowed that he would do
everything necessary to stop criminal attacks against the Jewish
community in France, adding that these anti-Semitic attacks have all
been hate crimes. Sarkozy has also vowed to change the culture of the
police and has instructed them to deal with these attacks as hate
crimes. As part of these measures, his office has reportedly promised
to release monthly statistics on all criminal acts in France.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See, Center Officials to Meet With New French Interior
Minister to Discuss Anti-Semitism in France, Press Release, July 8,
2002, available at http://www.wiesenthal.com (last visited July 16,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Standards and Implementation
The building blocks of international human rights law were shaped
in the wreckage of World War II and the searing reality of Europe's
death camps and racist ideologies. ``[D]isregard and contempt for human
rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the
conscience of mankind,'' declaims the preamble of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), in introducing its common
understanding of the rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by all people.
The Universal Declaration has as its bedrock principle the equality of
all human beings--and the entitlement of all to fundamental rights and
freedoms without discrimination of any kind.
From these foundations the international community crafted tools
through which to put into practice the principles of equality and non-
discrimination, notably the treaties by which governments accept
binding obligations. The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, ICCPR (1966) transformed the anti-discrimination principles of
the Universal Declaration into treaty law. Article 2 of the ICCPR
requires each state party:
To respect and to ensure to all individuals within its
territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized
in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such
as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other
opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other
status.
The treaty, to which 148 states are now party, requires governments
to report on the measures adopted to give effect to the rights
recognized, and established the Human Rights Committee to review these
reports.\34\ The committee, known as a treaty body, issues comments and
recommendations on government reports and also issues general comments
interpreting the provisions of the covenant. The first Optional
Protocol to the ICCPR (with 102 states party) recognizes the competence
of the committee to receive and consider individual complaints of
violations of rights protected by the covenant by states party to the
protocol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Status of Ratifications of the Principal International Human
Rights Treaties as of 10 July 2002, available at http://www.unhchr.ch
(accessed August 8, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A companion treaty to the ICCPR addresses racial discrimination
alone. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination, CERD (1966), defines racial discrimination
broadly--in consonance with modern questioning of the very concept of
race. Racial discrimination:
shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or
preference based on race, colour, descent, or national origin
which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the
recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equally footing, of
human rights and fundamental freedom in the political,
economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
The convention, to which 162 states are party, obliges governments
``to nullify any law or practice which has the effect of creating or
perpetuating racial discrimination.'' To this end, it obliges
governments to condemn and eliminate racial discrimination by both
public officials and private individuals, and to oppose discriminatory
practices even in the absence of discriminatory intent.
The interpretation and implementation of the convention lie with
the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which
receives periodic reports from governments on their implementation of
the treaty. General recommendations issued by the committee concerning
articles of the convention have provided essential interpretive
guidance for measures to combat discrimination. Government action as
well as inaction can violate obligations under the convention--there is
no excuse for complacency or indifference by a government toward either
public or private discrimination, particularly when this involves
violence.
The provisions of international treaty law barring racial
discrimination are further buttressed in Europe by regional human
rights instruments, notably the European Convention on Human Rights
(1953), and strong European institutions for the protection and
promotion of human rights. European commitment to combating
discrimination was further reinforced by the adoption of Protocol No.
12 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which was opened for
signature on November 4, 2000. There is no lack of a legal foundation
for strong governmental measures to halt and deter anti-Jewish violence
and violence against Europe's other minorities. European governments
and intergovernmental bodies have acknowledged, however, that further
national and regional initiatives are required to impel stronger
protections in practice.
European nations made a strong commitment to the improvement of
national and international efforts to document and respond to patterns
of racist violence and expression in the regional conference held in
Strasbourg in October 2000 in preparation for the World Conference
Against Racism, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance. The commitments
made in the European Conference against Racism highlighted the link
between effective measures to combat anti-Semitism--and other forms of
racism--and comprehensive monitoring and reporting of racist incidents.
The European Conference, for example, recommended the collection
and publication of data on the number and nature of racist, xenophobic,
or related incidents or offenses or suspected ``bias crimes'' as a
building block of measures to combat racism. It further called for data
to be collected and published on the number of cases prosecuted, and
the outcome--or the reasons for not prosecuting. The Strasbourg forum
also stressed the need for data to be broken down to include
information on the race, ethnicity, or descent (and gender) of the
persons reported harmed. The information required, in turn, was to be
collected in accordance with human rights principles, and protected
against abuse through data protection and privacy guarantees.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Council of Europe, General Conclusions of the European
Conference Against Racism, Strasbourg, October 16, 2000, ``Conclusions
and Recommendations of the European Conference Against Racism,'' para.
12, available at http://www.coe.int (accessed July 25, 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The European Conference also highlighted the scourge of anti-
Semitism as meriting particular attention, stating in its conclusions:
The European Conference, convinced that combating anti-
Semitism is integral and intrinsic to opposing all forms off
racism, stresses the necessity of effective measures to address
the issue of anti-Semitism in Europe today in order to counter
all manifestations of this phenomenon.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Ibid., para. 29.
The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Alvaro Gil-
Robles, also declared solemnly in the General Report of the European
Conference that ``racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and intolerance
pose a mortal danger to human rights,'' and singled out the advocates
of discrimination as a particular concern. The statement observed that
the ``very dangerous game'' of ``seeking out and pinpointing
scapegoats,'' and fueling the ``hatred of difference'' finds particular
expression in anti-Semitism:\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Council of Europe, General Report, October 16, 2000, http://
www.coe.int (accessed July 25, 2002).
[T]here are those who use anti-Semitic prejudice, whether
implicitly or openly, to further their political interests. We
are all aware of the destructive effects of anti-Semitism on
democracy. We cannot divorce the fight against anti-Semitism
from the fight against all forms of racism, for it is one and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the same struggle.
Many of the Strasbourg meeting's recommendations were ratified and
elaborated upon in the program of action agreed upon at the World
Conference in Durban--a slate of useful recommendations that emerged
despite the acrimony of the final stage of the conference process.
Recommendations for action at the national level to combat racist
violence, for example, included: ``Enhancing data collection regarding
violence motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance.'' \38\ The means to this end were elaborated at
length in a section on ``data collection and disaggregation, research
and study,'' in which the conference urged governments:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Section 74 (b) (v); section (b) (iii) encourages the creation
of working groups of community and law enforcement representatives ``to
improve coordination, community involvement, training, education and
data collection, with the aim of preventing such violent criminal
activity.'' The final report of the World Conference is available on
the website of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, http://
www.unhchr.ch (accessed July 10, 2002).
To collect, compile, analyse, disseminate and publish
reliable statistical data at the national and local levels and
undertake all other related measures which are necessary to
assess regularly the situation of individuals and groups of
individuals who are victims of racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance; . . .\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Ibid., section 92.
The full text of this section of the World Conference program of
action is included as an appendix to this report.
The Durban action document also reminded governments of their
reporting requirements at the international level--as parties to the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
This included both periodic reporting to the committee, and reporting
on progress made to respond to the recommendations of the committee. To
this end, governments were encouraged ``to consider setting up
appropriate national monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure
that all appropriate steps are taken to follow up on [the commission's]
observations and recommendations.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Section 76, Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impact of the practical recommendations made in Strasbourg and
in the final documents of the World Conference itself has been severely
undermined by the backwash of post-Durban recriminations. To a large
extent they remain unread outside small circles of relevant technical
staff in United Nations and regional antiracism programs. Yet their
relevance in the fight against anti-Semitism and other forms of racism
may ultimately be shown at the national level, as important
contributions to public policy development.
Addressing the Information Deflect
The Lawyers Committee for Human Rights has identified several
important steps to improve the recognition and reporting of anti-Jewish
violence, and recommends that governments:
acknowledge at the highest level the extraordinary dangers
posed by anti-Semitic violence in the European context;
establish clear criteria for registering and reporting
crimes motivated by racial animus, sometimes described as bias
crimes or hate crimes;
make public reports of racially motivated crimes through
regular and accessible reports;
distinguish clearly in reporting between acts of violence,
threatening behavior, and offensive speech;
make transparent government norms and procedures for
registering and acting upon racially motivated crimes and
offenses;
cooperate fully with Europe's regional inter-governmental
organizations charged with combating racism, xenophobia, and
anti-Semitism, and with the human rights mechanisms of the
United Nations;
cooperate fully with nongovernmental organizations concerned
with monitoring and taking action against racist violence and
intimidation.
The Lawyers Committee believes there is an important role for the
United States to play in encouraging its European allies of the Council
of Europe, the European Union, and the member countries of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to improve their
monitoring and public reporting of anti-Semitic acts and other forms of
racist violence.
In pursuing this goal, the United States should also improve its
own reporting and action on racist violence world-wide. To this end,
the standards of the Department of State's Annual Country Reports on
Human Rights Practices, and in particular the Annual Report on
Religious Freedom should be raised in order to report more accurately
and comprehensively on anti-Semitism in Europe and on government
actions and omissions in addressing this scourge. These reports should
not simply accept that a lack of official government information on
anti-Semitic violence is the whole story; nor should they reflect
clearly misleading reporting from official sources without balancing
this with reports from nongovernmental organizations.Particular care
should be taken not to emphasize only vague improvement when the basis
for such an analysis can not be quantified.
To this end, Congress should insist that staffing and resources be
reinforced in the Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor, and that the Bureau's guidelines for preparing these
reports require an accurate reflection of the nature and patterns of
racist violence and of government actions to combat them.
APPENDIX
From: Report of the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Program of
Action \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Report of the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, Program of Action,
chapter III, Measures of Prevention, Education and Protection Aimed at
the Eradication of Racism, Racial Discrimination, National, Regional
and International Levels, http://www.unhchr.ch (accessed July 10,
2002).
Data Collection and Disaggregation, Research and Study
92. Urges States to collect, compile, analyse, disseminate and
publish reliable statistical data at the national and local
levels and undertake all other related measures which are
necessary to assess regularly the situation of individuals and
groups of individuals who are victims of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
(a) Such statistical data should be disaggregated in
accordance with national legislation. Any such
information shall, as appropriate, be collected with
the explicit consent of the victims, based on their
self-identification and in accordance with provisions
on human rights and fundamental freedoms, such as data
protection regulations and privacy guarantees. This
information must not be misused;
(b) The statistical data and information should be
collected with the objective of monitoring the
situation of marginalized groups, and the development
and evaluation of legislation, policies, practices and
other measures aimed at preventing and combating
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance, as well as for the purpose of determining
whether any measures have an unintentional disparate
impact on victims. To that end, it recommends the
development of voluntary, consensual and participatory
strategies in the process of collecting, designing and
using information;
(c) The information should take into account economic
and social indicators, including, where appropriate,
health and health status, infant and maternal
mortality, life expectancy, literacy, education,
employment, housing, land ownership, mental and
physical health care, water, sanitation, energy and
communications services, poverty and average disposable
income, in order to elaborate social and economic
development policies with a view to closing the
existing gaps in social and economic conditions;
93. Invites States, intergovernmental organizations, non-
governmental organizations, academic institutions and the
private sector to improve concepts and methods of data
collection and analysis; to promote research, exchange
experiences and successful practices and develop promotional
activities in this area; and to develop indicators of progress
and participation of individuals and groups of individuals in
society subject to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia
and related intolerance;
94. Recognizes that policies and programmes aimed at combating
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance should be based on quantitative and qualitative
research, incorporating a gender perspective. Such policies and
programmes should take into account priorities identified by
individuals and groups of individuals who are victims of, or
subject to, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and
related intolerance;
95. Urges States to establish regular monitoring of acts of
racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
intolerance in the public and private sectors, including those
committed by law enforcement officials;
96. Invites States to promote and conduct studies and adopt an
integral, objective and long-term approach to all phases and
aspects of migration which will deal effectively with both its
causes and manifestations. These studies and approaches should
pay special attention to the root causes of migratory flows,
such as lack of full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms, and the effects of economic globalization on
migration trends;
97. Recommends that further studies be conducted on how racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance may
be reflected in laws, policies, institutions and practices and
how this may have contributed to the victimization and
exclusion of migrants, especially women and children;
98. Recommends that States include where applicable in their
periodic reports to United Nations human rights treaty bodies,
in an appropriate form, statistical information relating to
individuals, members of groups and communities within their
jurisdiction, including statistical data on participation in
political life and on their economic, social and cultural
situation. All such information shall be collected in
accordance with provisions on human rights and fundamental
freedoms, such as data protection regulations and privacy
guarantees.
__________
PROCEEDINGS OF NCSJ SIDE EVENT:
Post-Soviet States Respond to Anti-Semitism
October 14, 2003, Warsaw Poland
HELD IN CONJUNCTION WITH 2003 HUMAN DIMENSION IMPLEMENTATION MEETING,
ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE (OSCE)
Moderated by Shai Franklin, NCSJ Director of Governmental Relations
Shai Franklin
I would like to welcome everyone to this side-event organized by
NCSJ, formerly known as the National Conference on Soviet Jewry. Due to
a fortunate series of events about 15 years ago, we were compelled to
change our name. The ``National'' refers to the United States: we are
an American organization. We represent an umbrella of 50 American
Jewish organizations and 300 communities across the United States. Some
of those organizations are with us here today, and we have not only the
United States Government as a partner, but fortunately many, many
governments as partners and they are represented here as well.
Our intention today for the next hour, hour-and-a-half, is to allow
a more focused conversation on issues relating to anti-Semitism in the
former Soviet Union and post-Communist Europe, and what the lessons are
from those experiences of combating anti-Semitism that we can apply to
the OSCE framework in the next formal session of the [HDIM] meeting
next door.
We know that anti-Semitism continues to exist in most of Europe,
including in the former Soviet Union, but we have seen that there are
steps being taken in many of these countries--in most of these
countries--to address anti-Semitism. I hope that some of the lessons
shared here today can be applied to other countries, whether it is to
the United States or to Western Europe. Some have observed, even, a
flow of anti-Semitism from the West to the East during the past several
years, so that might be something to address as well.
Let me just convey, in advance, the apologies of our American
delegation who are arriving from another meeting and will be joining us
shortly. But since we are fortunate enough already to have such a good
representation here of interested parties and governments, I would like
to begin and turn the microphone over to those who wish to relate their
insights as to the nature of anti-Semitism, the importance and success
of combating it on the governmental and societal levels, and
recommendations for where the OSCE can play a useful role.
I would ask only that you identify yourself and your organization
or delegation, and try to keep your initial presentation brief so we
can hear from as many people as possible in this short time. We are
recording this session so that there will be some record, although this
will not become an official record of the OSCE, of course. So, I invite
whoever would like to make some observations first: I know we have a
delegate from the Russian Federation, several delegates from Ukraine,
Azerbaijan, Armenia, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic--and
you don't have to be from the former Soviet Union in order to
participate in these discussions. You can speak in English or in
Russian, as you see we have very qualified translation.
Dr. Vera Gracheva Senior Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE
Thank you very much. My name is Vera Gracheva and I am not alone
here in representing the delegation of the Russian Federation--as you
can see, there are many of us. First of all, I would like to respond to
the commentary made by our chairperson that the organization was
required to change its name due to the fortunate events in the
beginning of the 1990s. Probably this comment is not very much relevant
to the subject matter of this meeting, however, I feel that it would be
a simplification to call this event as ``fortunate.'' All of the events
which led to the collapse of the USSR were accompanied by a great
multitude of other negative phenomena. All those conflicts that took
place in the territory of the former Soviet Union would have been
unthinkable in the days of the USSR. The collapse of the USSR has been
accompanied by very severe social and economic earthquakes, and a very
significant reduction in the standards of living of all the people
inhabiting the territories of the former Soviet Union. Thus,
unfortunately, the social and economic problems and the objective
difficulties that we face have led to the exploitation of these
difficulties by the political circles who use them to promote their
political purposes and to suggest the population seek an external
enemy, which is the most primitive, the simplest form of justifying the
events.
I am not in the position to talk on behalf of other countries of
the former Soviet Union, but I may say that as far as Russia is
concerned, the issue of anti-Semitism is a very deeply, historically
rooted issue that was already present in the days of tsarist Russia.
But in Russia it is not a matter of ethnic or religious issues, it is
rather an issue exploited for political purposes. By saying this, I
also would like to underline that it has nothing in common with the
official policy of the government or the state. By ``political'' I mean
that the anti-Semitic issues are exploited by the nationalistic parties
and movements who use anti-Semitism to promote their ideas. Therefore,
anti-Semitism in Russia should be regarded in the context of
intolerance, of xenophobia, so these are all other accompanying
phenomena that usually go hand in hand with social and economic
problems.
We believe that the upbringing of the youth is of utmost
importance--that is, to bring the youth up in such a manner that they
grow resistant to such phenomena as anti-Semitism, xenophobia, and
other extreme reactions. Therefore, I do believe that the OSCE as an
organization can have a major contribution in the upbringing, including
the ODIHR. Thank you very much, and I'm afraid I've taken up quite a
lot of time from the other participants.
Rustem Ablyatifov Head of International Relations Division, State
Committee of Ukraine for Nationalities and Migration
Good afternoon, my name is Rustem Ablyatifov. I am the
representative of the Ukrainian Government. I would like to underline
that Ukrainian legislation bans any discrimination on the grounds of
race, color of skin, confession and other features, and obviously this
also relates to the ban of discrimination against the Jewish
population.
The Ukrainian Jewish community is a community of great influence,
and it is also a very constructive community that has contributed much
to the development of the independent, democratic Ukrainian state. I am
proud to mention in this group that, through all these years of the
independent Ukraine, we have not noted any anti-Semitic incident or
disrespect toward the Jewish population on the part of the Ukrainian
Government. Whatever anti-Semitic incidents we have had, those were
incidents on the lower level of the general population. The last sad
incident that took place in Kyiv was a group of young football fans who
threw stones at the principal synagogue in Kyiv, and this incident was
promptly dealt with by law enforcement.
The positive actions taken by the Ukrainian Government have been
acknowledged by the representatives of the Ukrainian Jewish community,
and they have noted that, yes indeed due to the government's
activities, there is no place, there is no room whatsoever for anti-
Semitism in Ukrainian society.
We believe that the root of all anti-Semitism is ignorance, and the
primary tool to deal with anti-Semitism is education. We have to start
proper education at the grammar-school level. Together with the
association of social and cultural groups, we have conducted a series
of lessons on tolerance in Ukrainian schools and we intend to organize
such lessons on tolerance in the future as well. Thank you very much
for your attention.
Shai Franklin
Thank you very much. I want to recognize the head of the U.S.
delegation, Ambassador Pamela Hyde Smith, who has joined us, and I
neglected to mention that we have at least one delegate from Lithuania
as well. We just heard from the Russian delegate about the importance
of education and from the Ukrainian delegate about the success of law
enforcement. I would like to turn briefly to another aspect of
combating anti-Semitism, which is the legislative framework. We are
honored to have with us two members of the U.S.-Helsinki Commission.
They just arrived from the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE in Rome,
and I would ask Congressman Ben Cardin of Maryland and Congressman
Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania to share some of their reflections on
where various countries in the OSCE are succeeding and where the OSCE
can play a more useful role.
Representative Benjamin Cardin U.S. House of Representatives(D-
Maryland)
Thank you. First, let me thank NCSJ for their convening of this
forum, this opportunity for us to talk with each other, and for their
longstanding leadership in combating anti-Semitism. We came to Warsaw
with four members of the United States Congress because we thought it
was very important for us to be here to underscore the work of the OSCE
in fighting anti-Semitism. We thank Ambassador Smith, the leader of our
delegation, for her incredible service on human rights issues. She
gives us great credibility in our chair in the commitment of our
country to the human rights dimension.
It was through the leadership of the chairman of our
[Congressional] delegation, [Congressman] Chris Smith, who is here,
that we were able to move forward within the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly resolutions to single out anti-Semitism for special meetings.
We pursued that agenda because of the rise of anti-Semitism in each of
our OSCE states, and we thought it was very important to have a
conference solely focused on what we can do to fight the rise of anti-
Semitism. We believe that we are on the verge of accomplishing that
through the [2004] Berlin Conference, which we hope will be sanctioned
at the [December 2003 OSCE] ministerial meeting, and I want to thank
many people in this room who made that possible, including the
leadership at NCSJ.
As a parliamentarian, I believe I have a responsibility to show
leadership and speak out when people in my country do things that can
provoke anti-Semitism. We have seen, in recent weeks, high-level public
officials making comments that are irresponsible at best, anti-Semitic
at worst. In too many of those cases, their fellow government officials
are silent. One of the matters that I hope will come out of our
conference is a commitment by leadership to speak out to--make sure
that, if there are problems within our own community, we speak out
against it. And for your record, we will submit the letters that our
commission has sent--signed by Chairman Smith and myself, and by
Congressman Pitts--to officials in other countries who we believe must
be held accountable for their lack of leadership. And, now, with Mr.
Pitts' agreement, I think I've talked long enough, so you can hear
directly from the Chairman of our delegation, Chris Smith, who as I
said was one of the leading--the leading--person in moving forward the
anti-Semitism agenda for special attention.
Representative Chris Smith U.S. House of Representatives (R-New
Jersey); Chairman, U.S. Helsinki Commission
First of all, I apologize for being late: our press conference went
over. It is a distinct honor and a privilege to join you at this side
meeting to discuss the ongoing problem of anti-Semitism. It's good to
see you all again. We are old and good friends. And also you should
know that Mark Levin (who is the Executive Director of NCSJ) and I made
our first trip--it was my first trip--to what was then the Soviet
Union, to Moscow and Leningrad, in January of 1982. So I truly believe
I have been mentored by the NCSJ on the issue of persecution, anti-
Semitism, and--in the case of the Soviet Union--how to effectively
advocate for the release of individual refuseniks and political
prisoners.
I am a Republican, Ben is a Democrat. We are united in our concerns
for Jews around the world, but right now in particular, this rising
tide of anti-Semitism that we see occurring. The Parliamentary Assembly
of the OSCE has already held three summits, and your organization
played an important role in those summits on anti-Semitism: one each in
Washington, Vienna, and Berlin. Many of us believe that the [2004]
Berlin summit by the OSCE itself--not only the Parliamentary Assembly,
but the [broader] organization--can be a watershed event.
The months leading up to the event ought to be fully utilized to
chronicle individual and collective instances of anti-Semitism in each
of the [OSCE member] countries. Then the conference itself can become a
catalyst for accountability, but also for forward action after the
conference. And the effort has to be comprehensive, from education--
textbooks, how our school systems are dealing with intolerance, and
especially Holocaust remembrance--to what political figures are doing
when they express anti-Semitic views: are they chastised for it? Do
their colleagues--does their government--speak out against it? And, of
course, a complete review of hate-crimes legislation, to ensure there
is a criminalization of this hate, this incitement of violence.
I do believe that this conference can also have a laudable--perhaps
indirect, but laudable--impact on the Middle East itself. It has been
my view that, far too often, European powers enable the PNA
[Palestinian National Authority] and others, including Yasser Arafat,
to engage in acts of terrorism by not holding them to account. And,
again, just to conclude, many of us have brought up talking about
education, the ongoing problems with UNRWA--the UN Relief and Works
Agency--to which the U.S. has contributed $2.5 billion. Yet, a review
of the textbooks and much--but not all--of the leadership shows at
least a tolerance, if not an embrace, of suicide bombings. Thank you
for your vigilance, and let's use this window of opportunity to hold
these countries to account, including the United States, so there will
be no anti-Semitism.
Shai Franklin
Thank you very much for your leadership, Congressman Smith, and for
the leadership of all the Helsinki Commissioners over the past 20-25
years. A lot of the delegations that are here today are here because of
work that the U.S.-Helsinki Commission did with many organizations and
many Western countries. I'm very pleased to call on Congressman Pitts
to share his comments.
Representative Joseph Pitts U.S. House of Representatives (R-
Pennsylvania)
Thank you. One thing about going last is that it's all been said.
Let me first thank NCSJ for convening this important side event with
Members of Congress and delegations from former Soviet republics, along
with NGOs. Thank you very much for allowing us to be here. One of the
questions at the press conference that the American delegation just had
was from a reporter who asked if we did not feel that the OSCE had
become an outdated institution. In response, our chairman said indeed
it was not. The agenda and the items we are discussing are very
relevant, and this is one of the few forums where NGOs can meet with
government officials, as in sessions like this one.
As we discussed the upcoming meeting in Berlin on anti-Semitism,
one of the reporters asked if this was just going to be a place for
making speeches--a debating society--or if there would be a plan of
action. Our chairman responded, one of the things we hope develops as
we plan the conference is, indeed, for a creative plan of action with
various follow-up activities after the conference. These would include
many practical steps that could be taken, but chief among them would be
education--our education of the young. Children do not naturally hate
other people. They're taught to hate. The education of our young and
the type of curriculum that they have in their schools is extremely
important--whether it's a madrasa in Pakistan or whether it's schools
in all of our countries.
Back in the 1980s, I used to visit the Soviet Union and its
republics and meet with Jewish refuseniks and other people who were
being persecuted, and advocated on their behalf with the officials of
the government. As my colleague Congressman Cardin said, I think those
of us in government who are considered government leaders have an
obligation to speak out against injustice. Silence is consent.
And as we travel in many of these countries [today], the human
rights picture is quite varied, but one thing that is needed is
engagement by all of us, with one another, so that misunderstanding,
misrepresentation, can be nipped in the bud and we can, through
engagement, encourage our colleagues--whether they be parliamentarians,
government officials, NGOs, or citizens--to do what you're doing, and
that is to speak out strongly against the scourge of anti-Semitism.
Representative Ben Cardin
Let me just introduce my wife, Myrna, who has joined us. I do that
because in 1987 she traveled to Vienna on behalf of Soviet Jews to meet
with Soviet officials. And, yes, we've made a lot of progress since
1987, but we still have a long way to go. Thank you.
Shai Franklin
We actually have a team with us today, because the Cardins both
have been active in legislative leadership and community leadership on
issues that we work with for a number of years. In fact, one Cardin
used to chair NCSJ--but that's from the other side of the family. I
want to call on the Belarus representative of the Union of Councils for
Soviet Jews who wanted to speak, and then the delegate from Azerbaijan
also wants to speak. Please let me know if you want to speak as well,
and we'll try to get everybody a chance.
Artur Livshyts Belarus representative, Union of Councils of Soviet
Jews
Thank you very much. And first of all, I want to thank NCSJ for
making this meeting happen, and I think it's very important. I
represent an organization called Union of Councils for Soviet Jews.
This organization was founded in the 1970s as a coalition of local
grassroots action councils, supporting freedom for Jews of the Soviet
Union. And as the Soviet Jewry movement grew, gathered steam in the
1970s, more individuals, more councils became involved and the Union of
Councils for Soviet Jews grew into the large organization that has
eight member councils in North America, and eight bureaus on the
territory of the former Soviet Union.
In the Republic of Belarus, the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews
does the monitoring of xenophobia and anti-Semitism. Also, we try to
work with Jewish organizations and government by preventing acts of
vandalism, acts of anti-Semitism.
Once, Albert Einstein said that anti-Semitism is a shadow of the
Jewish people, and it is really true. And it's true that anti-Semitism,
as a specific form of xenophobia, has been, is and will be everywhere
that Jews are, and even where there are no Jews. So, the problem is not
where anti-Semitism is, the problem is how strong and aggressive it is.
And I think the problem is in the quantity of anti-Semitism.
Speaking of Belarus, Belarus is a multi-national, multi-
confessional country and throughout the ages, and in the present time,
relations between confessions--talking about countries of the former
Soviet Union--are probably the most tolerant. So I agree with the
Russian delegate talking about anti-Semitism in Belarus. It is not a
common process in society. It's a result of activity of groups, of
individuals.
Now I can say that the Belarusian Government--is ready to fight
anti-Semitism [generally], but is not ready to fight individual acts of
anti-Semitism. State anti-Semitism stopped to be one of the elements of
social force, but we still have some acts by state officials.
And we're talking about education here, and I think that the OSCE
should concentrate on the education of state officials in the
countries. And I'm talking about the cultural level, education of
individual state officials, and that's the work that should be done,
because I have many examples of the lack of this education: We see the
destruction of former synagogues--not only in Belarus, [throughout] the
former Soviet Union--and the reconstruction of stadiums that are built
on the former Jewish cemeteries, and without consulting the Jewish
community.
Shai Franklin
Thank you. We're now going to hear from the delegate from
Azerbaijan. I see that we have been joined by diplomats from Israel,
and Latvia, and the Netherlands and there may be others that I'm not
aware of, so I apologize if I've overlooked any other delegations.
Seymur Mardaliyev Attache, Department of Human Rights, Democratization
and Humanitarian Problems, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Azerbaijan
Good afternoon. My name is Seymur Mardaliyev, and I am the
representative of the Azerbaijani delegation and the Ministry of Ethnic
Relations. In my brief speech, I would like to talk about the
experience of Azerbaijan, where historically for centuries Jews and
Jewish communities have lived and cooperated with society without any
manifestations of anti-Semitism.
For centuries, Azerbaijan has been one of a few countries in the
world with several dozen ethnic minority groups and confessional groups
that spread all over around the world. The high level of tolerance
among the Azeri people has brought about the development of ethnic
minorities in Azerbaijan, including Jewish communities, who have been
able to maintain and develop their culture and religious traditions for
centuries.
And I would like to give you the specific example of an activity
conducted by our government. Namely, we have created a separate
institute--this is the forum of three confessions. These are the
principal confessions of Judaism, Islam and Christianity, and this
forum has been created following the initiative of the leaders of the
Muslim communities in the Caucasus. Therefore, no one should be
surprised by the fact that the representatives of the Jewish people
have lived in the territory of Azerbaijan for the past 2,600 years.
Today, five different Jewish communities live in Azerbaijan, and
they maintain wonderful relations with other Jewish communities in the
United States, Israel, and Europe.
Apart from that, in Azerbaijan function 20 miscellaneous non-
governmental organizations, cultural organizations and Jewish charity
organizations--and apart from them, such international organizations as
Sochnut [Jewish Agency for Israel], Vaad HaHatzolah and ``Joint'' [the
American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee] also function in our
country.
In the previous presentations, we have heard the participants
talking about the destructions of synagogues in their countries. As far
as Azerbaijan, we have not faced destruction, but on the contrary, the
construction, the erection of new synagogues. So by March 2003, there
were five synagogues functioning in Azerbaijan and since March, another
synagogue has been erected, which is the largest synagogue in the
Caucasus region.I would like to emphasize that the construction of the
new synagogue was possible not only due to the financial contribution
of Jewish communities living in Azerbaijan, but also due to the
financial contribution by the leaders of Muslim communities and by the
Bishopric of the Orthodox Christian Church in Baku.
I obviously could give many more examples of tolerance in
Azerbaijan, but currently I would like to focus on the perspective of
Azerbaijan in this respect. My government highly assesses and cherishes
the results of the Vienna conference on anti-Semitism, which took place
in June 2003. This conference, that was--effective and timely, was an
opportunity to exchange many opinions and views in the area of anti-
Semitism. It was also an opportunity to talk about the events' efforts
by governmental bodies, non-governmental institutions, civil society
groups and OSCE member states, as well as recommendations [that] have
been developed in the field dealing with anti-Semitism.
And we believe that only effective, practical implementations of
the resolutions developed during such conferences would be able to
facilitate the lives of those people who unfortunately are still being
persecuted today.
And finally, I would like to put forward a specific suggestion on
Azerbaijan's part, that following the Vienna conference, we would be
very much blessed--glad--to become hosts of yet another meeting/
conference, of whatever scale, in Baku, Azerbaijan. Thank you very much
for your attention.
Shai Franklin
Thank you, and I look forward to returning to Baku for a future
conference, as you suggested. The delegate from Belarus has asked to
speak to us. Please.
A Delegate from Belarus
Thank you very much. Please, I would like to introduce myself. I am
a representative of the Committee on Religious and Ethnic Groups, and I
am a member of the Belarusian delegation.
First of all, I would like to talk about the role of the
organization that has the current name of [NCSJ] Advocates on behalf of
Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia. And, there is no
mention of Belarus in the name of the organization; perhaps this is an
indication of the current status. In June this year, the leaders of
your organization visited our countries, and met with leaders of our
institutions, including the head of my institution. Unfortunately,
[NCSJ Executive Director] Mr. Mark Levin, who took part in that
meeting, is not present here today.
At this point, I would not delve into the details describing the
life of the Jewish community, but additional material shall be
distributed tomorrow, which will be another opportunity to learn about
the life of the Jewish community.
In brief, I would like to say that for more than seven centuries,
Belarus has been the center of European Jewry, if I may use this term.
And one of the examples of the inter-ethnic relations is the fact that
there were no pogroms against the Jewish population, also in the days
of the Russian empire. The only exception could be the so-called
``nationalization'' of certain towns.
As far as the incidents of xenophobia and anti-Semitism are
concerned, we strongly believe that any such incident should be looked
into, prosecuted, and punished. As far as the incidents are concerned--
the incidents that take place in Belarus--there are the incidents of
libels and offensive attacks against cemeteries and buildings, and we
have several dozen such incidents annually. However, if we compare it
to the situation in other countries, such incidents in other countries
may be measured in the thousands. Nevertheless, I do emphasize that
each act of xenophobic behavior should be seriously dealt with,
prosecuted, and punished. But still, I would like to draw your
attention to the fact, to the much lower rate of such incidents in our
country.
We welcome the contribution that has been made by the organization
represented in this room by Mr. Livshyts. Our Azerbaijani colleague has
mentioned the number of synagogues in Azerbaijan; I would like to
mention that we have 47 Jewish organizations that are all incorporated
in the Union of Jewish Associations and Communities. Moreover, we have
three different Jewish religious communities that live in Belarus.
Also, I just would like to state that Mr. Livshyts has spoken on behalf
of his organization.
And finally, I would like to state one fact and make one statement.
First, how can we talk about anti-Semitism in a country where only a
minor percent of the population suffers from the incidents based on a
hostile attitude toward the people of Jewish origin. And the second
statement is just as my colleague has mentioned, that the principal
problem with anti-Semitism is how to deal with it regarding varying
manifestations of its intensity, and how to deal with anti-Semitism
even where there are no Jews.
I would like to disagree with the above-mentioned statement, but I
think that the real factor, the real factor that shows the current
state of affairs is that Belarus enjoys the most comfortable situation
among the countries of the former Soviet Union with regard to anti-
Semitic behavior. And finally, I would like to say that we will be most
grateful for cooperation with all those who struggle against anti-
Semitism in any of its forms.
Shai Franklin
Thank you very much, and thanks to all of you for joining us. We're
going to break now in order to allow people to reassemble for the
formal OSCE session on anti-Semitism. Though the first session this
morning did not end on time, that does not mean that the afternoon
session will not begin on time. And, I would like to thank our
diplomatic delegates and our non-governmental participants. I find
myself agreeing more with my colleague from the Union of Councils than
with the representative of the Belarus Government, but the important
thing should be not what the situation on the ground is, but what
governments are doing to respond to it. And that's why it is so
important that everybody--whether it's Belarus or Azerbaijan--everybody
is here in this room and next door to address these issues.
Thank you very much.
__________