[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ANTI-SEMITISM ACROSS BORDERS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-10
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-753 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida BRAD SHERMAN, California
DANA ROHRABACHER, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOE WILSON, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina AMI BERA, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
PAUL COOK, California TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
RON DeSANTIS, Florida ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
TED S. YOHO, Florida DINA TITUS, Nevada
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois NORMA J. TORRES, California
LEE M. ZELDIN, New York BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
Wisconsin TED LIEU, California
ANN WAGNER, Missouri
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
Amy Porter, Chief of Staff Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director
Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina KAREN BASS, California
DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York AMI BERA, California
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
Wisconsin THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Paul Goldenberg, national director, Secure Community Network. 7
Ms. Stacy Burdett, vice president, Government Relations,
Advocacy, and Community Engagement, Anti-Defamation League..... 15
Rabbi Andrew Baker, personal representative on combating anti-
Semitism, Office of the Chairperson-in-Office, Organization for
Security and Co-operation in Europe............................ 26
Mr. Mark Weitzman, director of government affairs, Simon
Wiesenthal Center.............................................. 35
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Mr. Paul Goldenberg: Prepared statement.......................... 11
Ms. Stacy Burdett: Prepared statement............................ 18
Rabbi Andrew Baker: Prepared statement........................... 30
Mr. Mark Weitzman: Prepared statement............................ 39
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 70
Hearing minutes.................................................. 71
Ms. Stacy Burdett:
List of cities with no reports of hate crimes.................. 72
ADL and HRF Scorecard on Hate Crime Response in the OSCE Region 74
The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
Organizations:
Wisenthal Center's Overview of Digital Terrorism and Hate...... 76
State Department definition and examples of anti-Semitism...... 78
Statement of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of
America...................................................... 79
Statement of B'nai B'rith International........................ 80
ANTI-SEMITISM ACROSS BORDERS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Smith. The subcommittee will come to order. And good
morning and welcome, everyone. And I thank you for being here
for this very, very timely and, I think, very important
hearing.
The Jewish people have survived and thrived from the times
of biblical antiquity to the present day--quite a feat when you
consider all of the civilizations that have come and gone: The
Hittites, the Assyrians, the Egyptians, Persians, Greece, and
Rome. The presence of Jews has enriched the cultures of many
civilizations and countries, from the Americas, to Ethiopia, to
China.
But just as the Jewish people have endured, so too, has
anti-Semite hatred. This hatred has ranged from prejudiced
slurs whispered in private to the murder of more than 6 million
Jews in the Holocaust.
Seventy-two years after the Holocaust ended, anti-Semites
continue to target the Jewish people for discrimination,
destruction of property, and even death. This hearing will
explore global threats to Jewish communities, the underlying
ideologies, and what actions the United States and other
countries and international organizations should take.
Our witnesses, including Paul Goldenberg, the national
director of the Secure Community Network, addresses ``the
current state of affairs in Europe, specifically the increased
levels of hate-motivated incidents impacting Jewish
communities.'' Mr. Goldenberg also asks whether perpetrators on
both sides of the Atlantic may be feeding each other.
He emphasizes that it is vital that the Congress and the
U.S. Government identify, analyze, and respond to the cross-
Atlantic links between anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic remarks.
I convened this hearing so that we can ensure that we are
scrutinizing the cross-Atlantic connections and the solutions.
Our second witness, Rabbi Andy Baker, a friend for decades
and personal representative of the OSCE co-chair-in-office on
combating anti-Semitism and director of international Jewish
affairs for the American Jewish Committee, testifies in his
written remarks that, after the terrorist attacks in Paris,
Brussels, and Copenhagen,``no longer were governments able to
ignore the situation. They have responded.''
He cautioned, though, that ``problems still remain.
Governments have taken different approaches, and some only in
stop-gap measures.'' Rabbi Baker has warned that we need to be
clear-eyed in confronting and combating anti-Semitism, which
manifests itself on both the right and the left.
And I would note parenthetically, as the one who suggested
we have an OSCE conference back in the year 2000--and,
thankfully, Ambassador Minikes, who was our OSCE Ambassador at
the time, made that dream, working with Andy Baker and a few
other leaders, a reality during the Bush administration. Andy
was the one who wordsmithed the language that became, major
parts of it, what we call the Berlin Declaration, which was an
action plan for the countries of the OSCE--Canada, the United
States, and Europe, Eastern Europe, and Russia--to combat this
pervasive violence against Jews called anti-Semitism.
It was a very important and, I think, remarkable document.
It is still in force, although its implementation--and that is
one of the things that Rabbi Baker seeks to do as Special
Representative, to talk to countries, their governments, to the
NGOs in country to try to persuade them to be far more
proactive than so many of them are.
In his written testimony, our third witness, Mark Weitzman,
director of government affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center,
explored a wide range of ideologies and manifestations of anti-
Semitism. He flagged that the ``regeneration of traditional
anti-Semitism is all the more dangerous because, unlike the
violent extremists of both left and right in radical Islam, it
is now found in government circles and halls of power in
countries that we define as Western democracies.''
Pointing to a trend in Europe and the United States, Mr.
Weitzman notes that ``academic spaces are quickly becoming
hotbeds of anti-Jewish bias, with students each year reporting
greater discomfort at publicly identifying as Jewish or as
supporters of Israel.''
The great Natan Sharansky has taught us powerfully about
the ``new anti-Semitism'' which targets the State of Israel. I
will never forget when Natan Sharansky testified at two
hearings that I chaired. This is about the 18th or 19th hearing
on combating anti-Semitism. He talked about demonization,
delegitimization, and the double standard--the three D's, as he
called it--of modern-day anti-Semitism, on top of, of course,
the virulent form that we have known for millennia of targeting
Jews, killing Jews, and destroying Jewish cemeteries, and all
of the rest of the hate manifestations.
But Sharansky made an excellent point, and he made it at
the Berlin Conference--and Rabbi Baker, I am sure, remembers it
well--when he told all of the foreign ministers and everybody
who was assembled about the three D's. He said, disagree with
Israel on a policy, but as soon as you cross that line and the
double standard and say they don't have a right to exist or
they get disproportionate focus at the U.N. Human Rights
Council and a number of other U.N. agencies--when you demonize
Israel, as they do so frequently, where is China? Talk about
human rights abuse. There is the human rights abuser of the
world, not Israel, and yet Israel gets all the attention. And
then, of course, this idea of a double standard, which is
rampant.
It is a virus, anti-Semitism, that, again, causes the U.N.
Human Rights Council to make Israel the only country
permanently on its debate agenda--the only country.
In this context, I applaud our new Permanent Representative
to the U.N., Ambassador Nikki Haley--and I have met with Nikki
Haley on this very issue--for announcing on Monday that the
U.S. will no longer participate in this frenzy of Israel-
bashing known as ``Agenda Item 7.'' Instead, she said, the
United States will only participate ``to vote against the
outrageous, one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions that so diminish
what the Human Rights Council should be.''
The Human Rights Council is also the body that directed the
High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile a blacklist of
companies working with Israelis beyond the 1949 armistice line,
including Jerusalem's Old City, the location of Judaism's
holiest site. This measure is self-evidently born out of the
anti-Israeli boycott, divestment, and sanctions, or BDS,
movement that is disturbingly present in many European
countries and on college campuses across the United States.
I have met with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and
raised this issue myself last fall and said how disappointed,
how angry so many of us are that he would misuse his position
as High Commissioner to carry on in this way. And, of course,
the Human Rights Council is doing it on steroids.
Let me also say, before I introduce our witness, I want to
also welcome Stacy Burdett from the ADL, again, another
longtime friend and a great leader in combating anti-Semitism.
She has also brought a particular focus to Latin America, a
much welcomed focus.
But for all of your wonderful work, thank you, as well for
your leadership.
Finally, I would also like to associate myself with Mr.
Weitzman's statement when he put it, ``Fighting anti-Semitism
always has been a bipartisan commitment, and in today's
fractured political world it is more necessary than ever that
the U.S. maintain its diplomatic and moral leadership in this
issue.''
And I really thank you for that admonishment, which is so
important. This has to stay bipartisan, because we as Americans
have to combat anti-Semitism anytime and anywhere it manifests
its ugly face. For as long as I have been a Member of Congress,
there has been broad bipartisan support for combating anti-
Semitism.
Just for the record, in 1982, on my first trip, David
Harris, now with the AJC, and a number of other important
leaders, Mark Levin from the National Conference on Soviet
Jewry, invited me to go to Moscow and Leningrad for 10 days to
meet with refuseniks. And what an eye-opening experience it was
to see when there is a state sponsor of anti-Semitism--that is,
the Soviet Union--and the systematic persecution of Jews in
psychiatric prisons and, of course, by making anyone who
applied for an exit visa poor by denying them a job, not giving
an exit visa and then making them poor by denying them any
means to provide for their families. And then, of course,
prison was commonplace.
I visited Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains a few years
later, as a matter of fact, along with Frank Wolf. We went and
videotaped every prisoner we met with. It was at the beginnings
of glasnost and perestroika. And when we showed that to Natan
Sharansky, who had just been released, he said, these were all
of my friends, and they are still there. And, of course, we
kept fighting until they got out.
This hearing will be the first in a series that our
subcommittee will conduct. Our next hearing, we hope to have
the Special Envoy, when he or she is named--and it may be
somebody sitting at this very witness table--to be the Special
Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism.
For the record, back in 2004, I am the one who offered the
amendment to create it. It is a statutory position, and I,
along with the other co-chairs of the Anti-Semitism Caucus,
have done a joint letter asking that the administration name
that person now. And earlier this week, in a meeting with Vice
President Pence, not only did I raise this issue but gave him a
letter asking that that person be named now, because there is
so much to do with by that individual and for that office.
I would like to yield now to the ranking member, Ms. Bass,
for any opening comments she would have.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As I listen to
your comments, one more time I will tell you that I think you
need to do a book talking about your three-decade experience in
fighting for human rights. And I think your opening statement
was another example of that.
I want to welcome the witness and the members of the
audience. Thank you for being here.
We are here this morning to hear from our expert witness
about what is growing anti-Semitism across borders. What is
most important to me is not to hear only the perspective of the
witnesses on the reasons for increased incidents of anti-
Semitism in the world but to learn where this trend is most
prevalent overseas and who is behind the rise in anti-Semitism.
Equally important is to learn how these trends must be
dealt with, assertively or otherwise. I believe that these
trends must be dealt with assertively and that the United
States must take a leadership role in such efforts. We can't
look the other way, either overseas or domestically, regarding
anti-Semitism. We must stand up against all forms of bias. We
can't pick and choose when it is convenient to stand against
bias and when it is not. We must call it out wherever we see
it.
The role of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-
Semitism came into being by way of the Global Anti-Semitism
Review Act of 2004 that the chairman spoke about--because he
authored it. I also believe that it is critical to have a
special envoy at the State Department responsible for
addressing anti-Semitism globally. I oppose reported attempts
by the administration to cut funding for the Special Envoy. I
think it is a position with the goal of monitoring and
combating anti-Semitism worldwide, and the reestablishment of
this position is a priority.
I also want to say that, while today's hearing is to
address what is going on around the world, we do need to
acknowledge what is going on in our own country. We need to
acknowledge the fact that there have been threats at Jewish
community centers around the country, there has been
desecration of Jewish cemeteries.
The community that I represent in Los Angeles, a large part
of it is the Jewish community, and there have been numerous
threats to the Jewish community centers in my district. In
fact, I am meeting with a group of constituents from one of
those centers in the next couple of weeks when we are on our
break.
I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bass. And I appreciate your very
kind comments. And I reciprocate and thank you for your
leadership for all these years too, both in the State
legislature and now here in Washington.
And you are right; the immediate genesis for this hearing
was what is happening in the United States. We are the Foreign
Affairs Committee, but the linkages, obviously, between the two
are inescapable. So thank you for underscoring that so well.
Mr. Suozzi.
Mr. Suozzi. I want to thank you also, Mr. Chairman. This is
the first time I heard you speak at length on this, as a
freshman, and I am very impressed by all the things that you
have done throughout your career and the things that you had to
say today. And I am looking forward to working in a bipartisan
fashion to combat this evil in the world.
This is very important in my district, and people in my
district are very concerned about this issue. We have had many
threats at our Jewish community centers, and we read the
reports of what is going on throughout the world.
So I want to thank you for your leadership, and I want to
thank the ranking member for her leadership as well.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Suozzi.
Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you.
And I will echo and associate myself with the words
complimenting the chairman for all of his work and commitment
to this issue.
In my district, this is an issue that is affecting many of
the institutions. Anti-Semitism is affecting institutions in
Chicago, throughout the country. It is something of grave
concern. As a Jewish Member of Congress, this is an issue that
is also very personal.
And while I don't have prepared remarks, I would like to
share a very brief story. I got a letter from my cousin when I
first came to Congress 4 years ago reminding me that his
grandfather, my great-uncle, my grandmother's brother, used to
keep a chocolate bar in his drawer. And he did it as a reminder
of what this country offered.
My grandmother's family came from Kiev. They fled the
pogroms in 1912. And that chocolate bar was a reminder of the
opportunity of this great country but also a reminder to him of
where they came from and that they needed to be prepared to
move at any moment, because, as Jews, they were always under
threat.
And at that time, when I received the letter from my cousin
Jordan, I thought, yes, but we are in a different place now.
Four years later, we are seeing a rise of anti-Semitism around
the globe and in this country.
Jordan wrote me a letter recently, talking about his family
on the other side, because the family we share has grown. They
came here in 1912. There are over 100 in the next generation,
in my generation and our children's generation. But on Jordan's
other side, that family was in Gorno. They were not able to
come into this country. They were denied access. And they were
completely wiped out in the Holocaust.
They understand, my family understands the impact of anti-
Semitism and what it can do. And we need to be prepared to
address it.
In January 2015, I went to France with Jewish Federations
of North America to talk to the community there shortly after
the Charlie Hebdo and Hypercacher attacks. France, as you will
touch on in your testimony, has taken direct steps to address
anti-Semitism in its country, and we have seen good progress.
We need to continue to do that in this country. We need to work
with our allies around the world and stand up wherever we can.
So this is a very important hearing. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for taking the lead in calling this hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, but, more
importantly, thank you for the work you and your institutions
do in standing up to anti-Semitism here and around the world.
We need to make sure that ``Never again'' is not just a
motto but is a reality and that we address anti-Semitism,
because it doesn't just affect Jews, it affects everybody.
Thank you very much. And I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Schneider, thank you very much for your very
strong comments.
I would like to now introduce our distinguished witnesses,
beginning first with Mr. Paul Goldenberg, who is the national
director of the Secure Community Network. He is also chairman
and president of Cardinal Point Strategies and a member of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Advisory Council. He is
the former vice chair of the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security's Faith-Based Council and is senior adviser to the
Department's newly established Countering Violent Extremism
initiative.
Mr. Goldenberg is a senior adviser to the Faith-Based
Community Security Program at Rutgers University and, in that
capacity, has worked closely on the ground with European Jewish
communities and European Jewish security groups and, I would
note parenthetically, years back, was the chief promoter and
architect of an initiative to train the trainers, which had a
very, very laudable impact on law enforcement and recognizing
anti-Semitism for what it was and not being just disregarded as
hooliganism or some other crime, looking at that motive. And he
was very, very instrumental in that.
I would like to then introduce our second witness, Rabbi
Andy Baker, who is director of international Jewish affairs for
the American Jewish Community and the personal representative
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's
chair-in-office on combating anti-Semitism. He is responsible
for maintaining and developing AJC's network of relationships
with Jewish communities throughout the diaspora and addressing
the accompanying international issues and concerns.
He has been a prominent leader in addressing Holocaust-era
issues in Europe and in international efforts to combat anti-
Semitism. Rabbi Baker has served as the president of the
Washington Board of Rabbis, president of the Interfaith
Conference of Washington, and commissioner on the District of
Columbia's Human Rights Commission.
We will then hear from Mark Weitzman, who is director of
government affairs and the director of the Task Force Against
Hate and Terrorism for the Wiesenthal Center. He is also the
chief representative of the Center to the United Nations in New
York.
Mr. Weitzman is a member of the official U.S. delegation to
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, where he
chairs the Committee on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial. He
also co-chairs the Working Group on International Affairs of
the Global Forum on Anti-Semitism. Mr. Weitzman has authored
many publications and books and is the winner of the 2007
National Jewish Book Award for best anthology for anti-
Semitism.
We will then hear from Ms. Stacy Burdett, who is the Anti-
Defamation League's vice president for government relations,
advocacy, and community engagement. She heads the Government
and National Affairs Office, which represents ADL to the
Federal Government, foreign Embassies, and policy community on
a full range of ADL issues.
As lead lobbyist on international issues, Ms. Burdett is
the face of ADL to Congress, the administration, and foreign
diplomats. And, as I said a moment ago, I have known Stacy for
so many years and so deeply appreciate her great leadership in
this great and important fight.
I would like to now yield to Mr. Goldenberg for his
opening.
STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL GOLDENBERG, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, SECURE
COMMUNITY NETWORK
Mr. Goldenberg. Thank you. And it is an honor and privilege
for me to be here today. I apologize for being a bit tardy. I
think I rang off too many bells at the security checkpoint
outside, which is not the first time.
So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to
testify today regarding the current state of affairs in Europe,
specifically the increased levels of hate-motivated incidents
impacting Jewish communities. There has also been a wave, as we
all know in this room, of similar events here in the United
States, where perpetrators on both sides of the Atlantic
unfortunately may be feeding into each other.
I am both proud and honored to be here with such a
distinguished group of colleagues today. And I applaud you and
your subcommittee for the steadfast commitment and unwavering
support.
In 2004, as you know, Congressman Smith appointed me to
work overseas through the good efforts of the OSCE, so I speak
to you today through a different set of optics. I am a former
law enforcement veteran, and, as they say in the business, I
see things quite differently. We worked across 10 European
nations, working hand-in-hand with Andy Baker, Mark, and our
colleagues at the Anti-Defamation League for nearly 7 years.
Over the past 2 years, I have had the privilege of working
closely with the Faith-Based Security Program at Rutgers
University, where we are now working abroad in places like
Molenbeek, Brussels, and Copenhagen. And as part of this new
initiative under the leadership of former Attorney General John
Farmer, we have made countless trips in recent months abroad
traveling to multiple European cities. So we speak with some
passion on this subject.
Through these trips, I have been able to gain a firsthand
understanding of the current climate, hearing the concerns of
Jewish communities under threat and assessing what we can all
do collaboratively to assist them.
Just 2 weeks ago, I sat with the Chief Rabbi of Belgium in
the Great Synagogue in Brussels, an institution that survived
several wars, still stood strong after the Holocaust--a
beautiful, celebrated structure that once again is surrounded
by armed paratroop soldiers with long assault rifles. However,
they serve not as an occupying or threatening force but as
protectors of a community.
And similar scenes, we all know, are in Belgium, France,
Denmark, and other Western nations--armed military troops once
again surrounding Jewish institutions just decades after the
Holocaust.
Consider the United Kingdom. There were a record number of
anti-Semitic offenses in 2016. The Community Security Trust
recorded 1,309 anti-Semitic incidents nationwide during that
year, a 36-percent increase from the 960 recorded by the CST in
2015.
Previously, record-high occurrences have been triggered by
anti-Semitic reactions to sudden, specific geopolitical events,
leading to temporary spikes in occurrences. In contrast--and I
can say almost the same for here in the United States--there
was no single, sudden event in 2016.
In 2014, for instance, there were 1,182 incidents recorded
up until that year. This previous highest total coincided with
a conflict between Israel and Hamas, which saw a global, again,
rise in anti-Semitism and incidents of a similar nature. In
contrast, as I stated, there was no single, sudden trigger
event in 2016. And these high numbers of incidents both here
and abroad, I have used the term, are unprecedented.
In Germany, according to the Coordination Forum for
Countering Anti-Semitism, the CFCA, anti-Semitism has increased
in parallel, as they note, ``to the general rise of far-right
crime since the beginning of the migrant crisis.'' The number
of criminal investigations opened following attacks on Jews,
Jewish property, and hate speech against Jews amounted to 2,083
cases during 2015, an increase of 201 percent from the previous
year.
And as I heard Mr. Schneider, Congressman Schneider, a
glimmer of hope still exists in France. Following years of
significant incidents and attacks, the same CFCA report notes a
significant decline of anti-Semitic incidents in 2016, after
2015 was characterized by a rise of anti-Semitic incidents.
Experts that I have spoken to, and many of us have
collaborated with, attribute the decline to a strong and swift
response by the government in launching a campaign against
anti-Semitism in the country. First and foremost, that means
engaging with the nation's law enforcement forces and agencies.
As a result, Jewish communities abroad are not only
rethinking their approach to security, they are already
changing their daily routines, adopting new ways of doing
things, and deciding when and where to go--from synagogue to
grocery store--based not on their desires, but on their fears
and insecurity.
I had the privilege to testify last April before the
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe on
anticipating and preventing deadly attacks on European Jewish
communities. The concerns expressed then and the premonitions
made regarding the migration of hatred, particularly anti-
Semitism, has unfortunately manifested itself in the form of
bomb threats, hate crimes, and cemetery desecrations, as we
have seen as of late right here in the United States. Evermore
connected, these extremist groups in the United States are
borrowing, adapting, and enhancing the tactics and strategies
adapted and adopted in Europe.
Just a few more statistics, unfortunately. According to a
recently distributed report by the New York City Police
Department, they found that hate crimes against Jewish people
more than doubled in the city since the start of the new year
as compared to the same time period in 2016. The report
documents 56 hate crimes from January 1 to February 12, with 28
incidents targeting Jews. In the same 6-week period the
previous year, the total number of hate crimes recorded in New
York City was only 31, with 13 targeting Jews.
A recent ADL report on anti-Semitic acts that targeted
journalists between August 2015 and July 2016 uncovered an
astonishing 2.6 million tweets containing language frequently
used in anti-Semitic speech--again, an unprecedented number.
As part of our own independent research, with regard to
statistics, just over the last 75 days in the United States of
America, from January 1 to March 13, 307--and that number is
fluid, it is changing--307 anti-Jewish incidents across 40
States in 75 days.
Since the beginning of the year, we have exceeded 170 bomb
threats phoned in or emailed to 117 Jewish institutions,
centers, schools, ADL offices, and other establishments,
leading to massive disruptions and evacuations of thousands of
people, to include children and infants.
Indeed, one of the most enduring images of 2017 for the
Jewish community may be the scenes of children being rushed
into the freezing winter temperatures to evacuate JCCs right in
our own backyards, and those of empty cribs abandoned in
parking lots, as dedicated staff members, infants, and toddlers
rolled these mechanisms out of their facilities to safe
locations.
This phenomenon can be summed up briefly by sharing one
incident in Whitefish that we need to note for the record.
Whitefish, Montana--a small, pristine, beautiful town with warm
and welcoming people. The location hosts, in addition to a
small community, one of the most well-known members of the
white supremacist movement in the country.
As Jews throughout the United States were readying their
homes for Hanukkah celebration, the Jewish community of
Whitefish was courageously dealing with intimidation, threats
of violence, and harassment from outside agitators. Marches,
armed marches, were threatened against Jews. Fake news stories
alleging conspiracies by the Jewish community of Whitefish
against their longtime neighbors were alleged. And here is the
most egregious: The pictures of children of the rabbi and
Jewish leaders were posted on neo-Nazi Web sites calling for
the followers to troll and harass the children. Attacks that
specifically target children are abhorrent and unthinkable and
would have the capability to paralyze any American town
anywhere in the United States.
In closing, beyond death and destruction, we know that
these hate groups and terrorists, whether neo-Nazi, white
supremacists, or Islamic extremists, they seek to create a
sense of fear and vulnerability. If they are successful, this
can be more impactful than any attack on us, the Jewish people,
the American people, forcing us to not only query the safety
and security of the societies we live in, but causing us to
question our own ability to protect our neighborhoods and
families and, with this, potentially causing us to change our
behavior, retracting from our daily lives, our way of living,
compromising our beliefs, whether that means altering how we
dress or, even more disconcerting, after the recent bomb
threats, hearing that some who have come to relish and rely on
the remarkable services offered by these Jewish community
centers--they will be reassessing their members, grounded on
fear.
The American Jewish community very much remains open for
business. We are back in our houses, we are back in our
centers, we have been back in our schools, we are back in our
institutions. We are training; we are working with our police
agencies. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the FBI
have done a remarkable job working with the community each and
every day. So we are very much open for business, remain open.
I look forward to any questions that you may have, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Goldenberg, thank you very much for that
very, very powerful testimony and those insights.
Before going to our next witness, at the request of our
distinguished ranking member, we will go to Stacy Burdett. She
has invited her, and, unfortunately, the gentlelady has a
schedule conflict that she has to be at. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,
same thing. She probably will come back.
But I would just note for the record that the chairman
emeritus is the chairman of the Middle East and North Africa
Subcommittee. She is a co-chair of the Bipartisan Taskforce for
Combating Anti-Semitism, and recently appointed to the Council
on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council by Speaker Ryan. She
will be back shortly, but she wanted to convey to you that she
appreciates your being here and your testimony.
I would also like to just recognize Ira Forman, who was the
Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism from 2013 to
2016.
Thank you so very much, Mr. Special Envoy, for being here,
for your work, which was greatly appreciated by all of us. And
know that you will be invited--we want you to come and give
your insights perhaps at the next hearing, when we have the
administration here, as well, with the new Special Envoy.
I would like to now ask Ms. Burdett if you would proceed.
STATEMENT OF MS. STACY BURDETT, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, ADVOCACY, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, ANTI-DEFAMATION
LEAGUE
Ms. Burdett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you, Madam Ranking Member, for inviting me here, and thank you
for your leadership in convening this hearing.
And thank you, Mr. Suozzi. We are all freshmen here. We are
all learning new lessons. We are all taking on new commitments.
And you don't have to chair a committee to make an impact on
this issue. So you are honoring me with your time today.
I would like to request that my full statement and
attachments be made part of the record.
Mr. Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Burdett. Thank you.
And I would like to just take some time to highlight a
couple of key lessons that I think can complement what my
friends and colleagues are saying.
We have learned a lot from the moment that we are in, and
we have to take those lessons very quickly and turn them into
lessons that animate our actions.
Anti-Semitism is a global problem. You have heard from my
colleague and friend Paul Goldenberg, no country is immune, not
even a remarkable country like ours. And the fight for policies
and institutions is one that we have to fight every day. The
chairman knows from his work in the OSCE, vital democratic
protections and freedoms, they are not self-executing.
And we are in that fight right now, and our success is
extremely consequential, not just for Jewish communities but
for America, for its moral leadership, for societies around the
world.
And, Madam Ranking Member, for every community in the
United States that feels a little more unwelcome or unsafe
today, the fights against anti-Semitism and hate are
inextricably connected. When we have fought anti-Semitism in
America and around the world, everyone and their children sleep
a little bit easier at night. So thank you for that important
message.
I have appended to my testimony a map of this country that
illustrates what probably is imprinted in Paul's mind every
night when he goes to sleep, a map of where these threats are.
We know that conspiracy theories are taking center stage in
everyone's political debate--ours, countries all over the
world. And they can broadcast that hate. David Duke and the
alt-right can go right into the palm of your hand and scare you
right where you live; or engage in trolling and doxing, like
what Paul described in Whitefish, Montana, where you post
people's information publicly. And you don't even have to say
anything, you don't have to threaten anything. You can just
say, ``Tell them how you feel. Tell these Jewish people how you
feel. Don't do anything illegal.'' That is extremely personal,
close to the bone.
And we have learned that these threats start online, but,
boy, they move offline into the real world, where they are very
dangerous.
ADL is increasing our investment in this area. We have just
last week announced the opening of a new Center on Technology
and Society that will be based in Silicon Valley. We have
already been engaging with industry leaders in Europe, in the
United States, all over the world, and using multilateral fora,
international organizations that are the purview of this
subcommittee, like UNESCO, like the U.N.'s Alliance of
Civilization, like the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. Those are fora where lawmakers and
policymakers like you are networking with each other to adopt
best practices, codes of conduct. We are networking in
international fora with NGOs. And both sides of this table, we
have our international fora, where we can band together to
fight this cyber harassment.
My colleague also referenced a big data study that ADL
released during the election campaign. And those 10 billion
impressions of anti-Semitic tweets--I think we all were paying
attention--they targeted about a dozen journalists, Jewish
journalists, in ways that we know made those reporters stand up
and say, I am going to give it a moment of thought before I
cover a candidate or an individual in an honest way; it might
not be worth it to me to be so harassed. So that gives us
pause.
So the government has a primary responsibility to make
people feel safe, to model good behavior, and to spotlight the
problem. I have included 10 recommendations. I hope they are
all easy. I want to just highlight a couple, because I think
you are going to get a lot of good recommendations today.
America's human rights and democracy programs that former
Special Envoy Ira Forman has expanded, enhanced, mobilized,
energized, put them, as the chairman said, on steroids--those
programs, they are part of our foreign affairs machinery, and
they can't be effective on the cheap. Every single one of you
is going to cast a vote about our foreign affairs budget, and I
would like you to keep in mind that our ability to fight anti-
Semitism around the world depends on having the resources to
engage the world successfully.
I just want to highlight one other area, and this is in my
recommendations as well. One of the most remarkable things we
do as a country, when we report human rights violations in
every country in the world, when we spotlight those problems,
we are not only setting a moral marker, setting a tone that we
hope other countries will follow, we do something vital, we
lead by example. We have always done that. Our moral leadership
deeply matters in this world and in this fight.
And when a monster goes to a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis
to turn over 100-and-some heavy tombstones, that is a powerful
attack on the presence of that community. Whether it is in
Missouri or in Pennsylvania or in central Europe, you are
saying: Your perpetuity, your children, your presence is
offensive to people; be afraid.
And we want to make sure that not only are governments
around the world reporting these incidents--please take a look
at my second appendix. It is a scorecard of 57 countries,
where, with the help of Rabbi Baker and Chairman Smith, we now
have data in 57 OSCE countries.
But I want you to remember, please, one number: 3,441.
Three thousand four hundred forty one. That is the number of
American police departments that don't report any hate crime.
When a monster comes to that cemetery, nobody tells the FBI. We
don't know what is happening there.
Paul is correct, law enforcement does a remarkable job. We
are a model for the world. But we have to fight for our
standing as a country that leads by example.
And so, in California, all over the world, in Elizabeth,
New Jersey, in Patterson, New Jersey, in Newark, there are just
too many people there, too much diversity to believe that there
were zero hate crimes in 2015.
So, for freshmen, for Mr. Suozzi, you can leave this
chamber, and law enforcement in your State and in your
district, they care very much what you think about the
importance of making sure that we lead by example and that we
bother to tell the FBI when people in our communities are
targeted by hate.
I can't thank you all enough for your attention and for
your leadership.
And I would like to make an additional request. Perhaps it
might be helpful if I would enter into the record a list of
cities in the United States with over 100,000 residents who
either report zero hate crimes or don't bother to give an
answer at all. That is a good followup item for every Member of
this body.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burdett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Burdett.
Thank you, Ms. Bass.
I would like to now yield to Rabbi Baker.
And, without objection, your last request will be made a
part of the record.
STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE ON
COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRPERSON-IN-OFFICE,
ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE
Rabbi Baker. Chairman Smith, thank you for this opportunity
to testify, but thank you and your colleagues for the
leadership you have shown, really, over a very long period of
time. I think we all know and you cited earlier, the U.S.
effort in the case of the OSCE, but in other areas, to get
countries to focus on this problem, to really step up and
address it was critical, starting with that first OSCE
conference and all the various other things that have followed.
It should also be noted that before the U.S. Government
really got engaged, it was you and other Members of Congress
that pushed an administration, often not because of opposition
to the subject but worried about complications, difficulty
within the OSCE, the consensus process, and other things.
So, without the advocacy here, I think much of what we have
been able to do would not have succeeded. And it is a lesson
that we need to keep in front of us even as we go forward.
I would like for the record that you accept my written
testimony. And here I will simply try to highlight what I have
tried to present more as a kind of progress report and, again,
with a particular focus on the problem in Europe.
Security, as you have already heard, has been a paramount
issue. And the fact is, for many years, we had a real
difficulty in getting governments to recognize the challenges,
the very need for security that Jewish communities were
witnessing.
It had much to do, I think, with the advocacy of many of
the organizations represented here and so on to get governments
to pay attention. But, at the same time, and tragically, it was
only after some of these terrorist attacks, deaths in Brussels,
in Paris, in Copenhagen, that governments at least began to
recognize the problem.
But doing something was another issue altogether. And we
have seen success, but we know it is only partial.
Congressman Schneider referenced France earlier. It is true
that, because of what we saw there, the government stepped
forward. It literally mobilized the military. And so every
school, every synagogue, every community building was
protected. And incidents went down last year, and in
significant numbers. Even, it appears, the number of Jews
leaving France, a real problem itself, has decreased.
But the Jewish community knows, and we have now seen, this
was not a permanent step, that security is no longer there, the
government can't afford to do this, and, in fact, terrorist
threats are present throughout the country. So what will
happen? How to keep that attention, how to keep that
mobilization is still not certain.
In Sweden, which has the largest Jewish community in
Scandinavia, we have seen them begin to mobilize, recognize the
security needs are real. We have pushed governments to come
forward with funding. In effect, the mere practice of your
religious freedom is challenged if people are fearful of going
out in public, being physically identified as Jews. In some
cases, simply attending a Jewish event has caused people to
second-guess and think about what they are doing.
So, in Stockholm and Malmo, there are new efforts. Paul and
I recall particularly visiting Malmo and, at the time, seeing
the embattled nature of that Jewish community. There is now
security support. We didn't have that before. There are more
funds going to support community institutions. But more is
still needed. And the communities in both places will still
tell us, yes, we have some help, but the governments, which
have begun to mobilize, need to do more.
In a place like the UK, we have probably the best example
of good cooperation between a Jewish community and government
authorities. The UK's Jewish Community Security Trust has been
monitoring incidents, and has, in fact, been directly training
police. And there is, not only in this relationship, something
that has provided a real security net for the Jewish community,
they are now being asked to help assist in providing security
for other religious communities in the UK. It is a model, and
it is one we have cited before and deserves recognizing still
again.
It is also work, as we know, the problem not only with
cyber hate but of conveying information through the Internet
and through social media and finding some very good ways of
using that to alert a Jewish community when there are problems
or when there are steps that are being taken.
And, finally, the OSCE's ODIHR has been implementing,
developing a multi-year program known as Words Into Action
specifically to focus on problems of anti-Semitism, with
security being one of them. With significant funds coming from
the German Government, the first measure they will take is
producing a guideline, a security toolkit, if you will, on what
governments, what NGOs, what different authorities should be
doing when it comes to Jewish community security. This should
be presented later this spring, first in Europe, but we
certainly hope they will come here and we will have an
opportunity to share what their recommendations are here in the
United States.
Turning to a second issue, we have made efforts to convey
the importance of having a clear and comprehensive definition
of anti-Semitism. This goes back, as you know, over a decade.
It may have been when the first studies were done in the
European Union in 2003 and 2004; even the monitors conducting
those surveys didn't have a full appreciation of anti-Semitism
and what it was. Yes, maybe they understood hatred, prejudice,
and discrimination toward Jews, but anti-Semitism presenting
itself through conspiracy theories about Jews, anti-Semitism
through the vehicle of Holocaust denial, and, as you cited in
referencing Natan Sharansky, understanding how Israel can
itself be a target or a form of anti-Semitism, as when it is
declared of racist endeavor, when its very existence is
challenged, or when analogies are drawn to the Nazi treatment
of Jews. This is not criticism, it is anti-Semitism.
And we have had success in getting governments, in getting
organizations to recognize the value of a comprehensive
definition, starting with that EUMC working definition a decade
ago, and now looking to individual countries to employ it. Our
own Government and the office of the Special Envoy has used a
version of that definition. With great success last year--and
considerable kudos to my colleague Mark Weitzman--the IHRA, the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, essentially took
that definition and managed to secure its adoption for use by
IHRA and its 31 member countries.
With that in mind, the OSCE chair last year, German Foreign
Minister, now President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said he
wanted to secure the adoption by the OSCE for use in the OSCE
of this definition. It was a considerable hurdle to get 57
countries to agree by consensus. Coming down to the wire in
Hamburg, as you know, we ultimately got 56 of those 57
countries to agree. Only one, the Russian Federation, stood in
the way for reasons I can go into later if you are interested.
They were more excuses; they weren't legitimate reasons.
We very much hope it will be possible, changing dynamics
perhaps, that during this calendar year, we could get the
Russians to come onboard and, with the assistance of the now
Austrian OSCE chair-in-office, try to push for that adoption in
December 2017.
In the meantime, the UK Government has formally adopted
this definition. We have managed to get Justice Ministers in
Germany and Austria to say they will use it in training judges
and prosecutors. We have even a formal statement by all of the
EU countries within the OSCE endorsing this. So we hope more
steps can be taken to put it into use.
I will turn to a third area. It is one that has been with
us, but, in fact, it is flaring up yet again, and that is the
question of balancing principles of religious freedom with
maybe more secular forces in society. And I speak now about the
elemental practices for Jews and for Muslims--they go back
really to biblical times--of ritual circumcision and of ritual
slaughter. They really are elemental to practicing religion
today, but they have been under attack. Animal rights activists
and children's rights advocates, maybe with genuine, legitimate
motives, but they would seek to ban this practice of slaughter
and limit the ability to circumcise our youth, our infants.
In this process, Jews now have to defend something they
have been doing literally for centuries. It may not be in its
initial intent an anti-Semitic campaign, but it surely is often
in its result. By the way, it also links Jews and Muslims
together. And so, where there have been some success, it has
really depended on an alliance as both communities confronting
this problem together.
Finally--and with this, I will close--we have to recognize
there is still great unease at a very uncertain political
climate when we look across the European continent. We see the
success of right-wing, nationalist, xenophobic parties and
movements, in some cases winning at the ballot box, finding
their way into parliaments, even threatening, as we have seen
in a couple of countries, to ascend to serious positions, such
as the office of President.
In many cases, these are parties and movements that are
virulently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Roma, but anti-
Semitism has also been a significant part of them. And Jews do
not feel comfortable even if it appears that the first target
is someone else. In fact, as we have learned here in America,
as has already been stated, I think our ability to combat anti-
Semitism, to feel safe and secure, is part of the larger fight
to combat racism, discrimination, and xenophobia across the
board.
Having said that, Europe has some special challenges today.
There are significant numbers of Arabs and Muslims, many more
coming in as part of refugees and migrants from north Africa
and from the Middle East. Many of them have attitudes, come
with, frankly, sentiments and views that are anti-Israel and
anti-Jewish, and also in many cases anti-Western.
The societies that have received these people, also that
have had some difficulty in assimilating and integrating those
who have come before them. They need to recognize this and try
and step up and do more. The fact is Jewish communities have
often confronted this significant increase in incidents of
harassment or attack coming largely from parts of these
communities. Not all governments are willing to confront this
with a clear-eyed approach. And if they don't, they are not
going to really be successful in figuring out strategies to
deal with it in the short-term when it comes to security, but
long-term when it comes to educational efforts and the like.
So here, too, we need to keep focus on what is in front of
us, I think, to recognize we have had success, we have
attention. We need to keep the support and the moral focus here
in America to really assist us in this continuing combat, this
continuing battle that we are waging across the ocean in
Europe.
So thank you again for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Rabbi Baker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Rabbi Baker, for that very extensive
set of recommendations and the overview that you have provided
us.
And, without objection, your full statement--and this goes
for all of our distinguished witnesses--and any attachments you
would like to make a part of the record, so ordered.
Mr. Weitzman?
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK WEITZMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER
Mr. Weitzman. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. I would
like to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to you
for your leadership in Congress and internationally, as well as
for your personal activism on this issue, which we know has
extended beyond just the legislative field but really to going
out and intervening in cases directly. And your leadership is
much appreciated.
I also want to thank the ranking member and the members of
the subcommittee. And as a fellow New Yorker, my appreciation
to Mr. Suozzi for his remarks and his presence on this issue as
well.
Anti-Semitism today is no longer limited to verbal
expressions of hate. It is fueled by the stream of propaganda
that radical Islamists put out online and the financial/
political contributions to this campaign that come from some
Muslim states and organizations. An increasing number of
terrorists have translated words into action and assaulted and
murdered Jews throughout Europe and targeted Jewish
institutions in Europe and the U.S. They have been joined in
recent years and recent months by members of the radical right,
extremists coming from all aspects of society and fringes of
society, who have targeted Jews as their primary target.
Continuing almost 20 years of efforts, next week the Simon
Wiesenthal Center will be releasing its Digital Terrorism and
Hate Electronic Report of extremism and anti-Semitism on the
Internet, which includes grading the social media companies. We
see that there is a frequent correlation between the amounts of
propaganda and extremism and hate that come out online and the
surge in radicalization and terrorism that often follow.
However, I would like to focus my remarks here on something
that is somewhat different, and it is an aspect of political
anti-Semitism, especially Holocaust distortion, that we can now
see in growing circles of Western democracy and Western
democratic countries.
To focus on one country in particular as a prime example of
this, I would like to turn my attention to what is happening in
Poland currently, where we have high-ranking officials, such as
the Minister of Defense, who has in the past accepted the
possibility that the classic text of anti-Semitism, the
``Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' are perhaps, in fact,
true. And he claimed that ``experience shows that there are
such groups in Jewish circles.'' Two other ministers have
declined to condemn the Protocols.
A prominent extremist Catholic radio station that has been
condemned by the Vatican for anti-Semitism and by the State
Department as one of Europe's most blatantly anti-Semitic media
venues continues to find favor in government circles, having
received grants totaling millions of dollars over the past
year, and even had a postage stamp recently issued in its
honor.
Some of the quotes from people, the head of the radio
station and commentators on the station, include: ``The U.S.
media and entertainment industry are dependent on the Jewish
lobby. It is similar to the Stalinist terror, which was
organized and implemented by Jewish communism.'' That speaker
recently toured and spoke in New York, New Jersey, and
Massachusetts in an effort to raise money and continue
spreading the message of hate, not just locally but
internationally.
The director of the Polish Institute in Berlin was recently
fired for allegedly giving too much attention to Jewish
subjects.
And, finally and perhaps most importantly, an amendment to
a law that is being proposed in the Polish Parliament claims
that whoever publicly claims, contrary to historical facts, the
Polish nation or Polish state's responsibility or partial
responsibility for Nazi crimes can be criminalized with a
potential 3-year sentence. That means, in effect, that anybody
who refers in a conversation, in writing, in research to murder
of Jews during the Holocaust period by Poles has potentially
committed a criminal act and can be sentenced to up to 3 years
in prison.
I went to the files, the archives of the U.S. Holocaust
Memorial Museum and just picked out three witness testimonies,
survivor testimonies of survivors. And these are in my written
remarks. And these survivors all testified to their experience
where they found that the local population had been more deadly
than the Nazis.
And for all sorts of reasons, and this is found in many
cases throughout occupied Europe, through the Baltics, through
other countries in Eastern and central Europe, this is not an
uncommon experience. But those survivors, in the twilight of
their years now can be found liable and sentenced for just
recalling what happened to them and giving their impressions of
that. And this is now potentially entering into law into
Poland.
It will also have a greatly chilling effect on future
research as well as freedom of speech in that country, where
young scholars may be inhibited from even studying the
Holocaust, people may be inhibited from publishing their
research and their findings, and it is an attempt to
essentially legislate history for political purposes.
The prime focus of that has been Princeton professor, Jan
Gross, whose remarks in an interview he gave to the German
newspaper last year have been potentially seen as falling in
violation of one of these types of laws. Charges were
investigated and considered being brought. The first prosecutor
in the case declined to bring charges. The superior reopened
the investigation in what appears to be, again, a politically
motivated effort.
Poland is not the only case. It was, perhaps, the most
acute, but it is not, by far, the only case. The Ukraine has
passed a similar law about anyone shaming the reputation of the
fighters to Ukrainian independence, who include the partisan
units that are responsible for murdering 100,000 Poles and tens
of thousands of Jews.
In Russia, a law that forbids publication of what they
described as falsehoods about the Soviet Union's role during
World War II, has been used to convict the journalist who
wrote, ``The Communists Germans jointly invaded Poland sparking
up World War II. That is, communism and Nazism closely
collaborated.''
As we know it is an historical fact that in September 1939,
Poland was invaded on both sides by both those countries. Yet,
to state that in Putin's Russia, now appears to be against the
law.
In Croatia, the Jewish community has felt compelled to
boycott official Holocaust commemorations over the past 2
years. A former Minister of Culture in Croatia embraced the
Ustase, the Croatian collaborators, defended their actions in
articles that he published, and was photographed in his younger
days wearing the Ustase hat, and screened a film in the
Jasenovac concentration camp that minimized the number of
victims casting doubt on the authenticity of historical
accounts of what happened in that camp.
Recently, plaques have been put in front of the camp with
Ustase slogans, leading to the boycott for the second year by
the Jewish community.
In Hungary, a proposed Holocaust museum was to be directed
by a woman who has written articles with anti-Semitic themes in
them. And the content was highly questionable. Statues were
proposed to figures who collaborated with the Nazis, including
one such figure, an historian, who, as a minister in the
Hungarian Government and is a member of Parliament introduced
the Hungarian version of the Nuremberg laws, stripping Jews of
their right to protections of citizenship and opened the way to
the eventual deportation and murder of almost 450,000 Jews.
Writers who had collaborated with the Nazis and written
anti-Semitic works, were inserted into the school curriculum. A
number of other issues went on to the point, again, where the
Jewish community felt compelled to boycott the official
commemorations of Hungarian Holocaust remembrance.
Fortunately, there has been some successful pushback on
this. The IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance, has intervened both in Hungary and in the Polish
issue. I participated as part of a four-member IHRA delegation
that went to Poland to discuss this with the Polish Government
in December. We are still waiting to hear positive results in
Poland.
But in Hungary, through the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance, through the direct intervention of
Chairman Smith, who wrote a pivotal letter to Prime Minister
Orban about the statues, through the efforts of Special Envoy
Forman in the State Department, the Hungarian Government, the
Prime Minister of Hungary, announced that they would not erect
any more statues. They would hold off on the statues. They have
held off on continuing work on the museum, saying that they
would only put the final exhibits in--the museum was built and
currently exists as a shell, but they would only put the
exhibits in with the approval of the local Jewish community, as
well as international experts. And, in many ways, that shows
the power of the international body and the United States that
work on these issues to intervene positively on it.
But this is some of the background to the American Jewish
community's consternation to the White House statement
regarding the January 27 on the Holocaust that omitted mention
of Jews. Even a mistake seen in the context of this background
can be used by people with bad intentions.
And as one crude example, last week, the Seattle synagogue
was vandalized with the slogan, ``The Holocaust is fake
history'' put on it.
So I would like to conclude by reiterating a number of the
sentiments that we have heard before and the recommendations,
particularly in regard to the special envoy. And I would even
like to suggest my institution has offered a suggestion that
that position be upgraded to Ambassador level, to raise it in
status and show, once again, America's political and moral
leadership on this issue, which is needed more now than ever
before.
I commend the bipartisan efforts on this. As you heard, we
are firmly committed to seeing the fight against anti-Semitism
as a bipartisan fight, and I am happy that Members of Congress
in both Houses have joined in that very strongly.
I would also like to mention the Anti-Semitism Awareness
Act, which is now sitting in Congress, which is an act that
attempts to ask the Department of Education to use the working
definition of anti-Semitism as a tool to be able to gauge
whether anti-Semitism has in fact, happened on college
campuses, and it gives us internationally accepted tools to the
hands--it puts it in the hands of those people dealing with the
issue on U.S. college campuses.
Just two other brief mentions: We have also appealed to the
Attorney General for the creation of a task force to deal with
the issue of anti-Semitism--the wave of anti-Semitic threats
that the American Jewish community is currently facing. And
that ties into the other recommendation that I would add, which
is the creation of a special portfolio, or the addition of a
portfolio that draws together on the domestic front the issue
of anti-Semitism as a special envoy to the State Department for
foreign affairs. There is no similar focal point in the United
States for the issue of anti-Semitism, and we believe that it
is time to create that point and, thus, coordinating address--
to address the issue of anti-Semitism.
And, finally, I would like to suggest that the Internet
service providers as well also adopt both the definition of
anti-Semitism, and a working definition of Holocaust denial and
distortion as a tool to use in measuring their presence of
anti-Semitism and their actions that they can take against it
online.
Finally, just to conclude and repeat what I said before,
when governments try to legislate history for political
purposes, when the Holocaust is taken out of context, is
whitewashed, when Holocaust distortion opens the doors for
traditional anti-Semitic themes to reenter the governing halls
of society, then that is a problem and a challenge and a
threat, not only to Jews, but to American democratic values all
over.
So I thank the subcommittee for the community to make this
statement and for the leadership and activism that you have
shown in the past, and I hope to continue cooperating and
working together in the future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weitzman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
Mr. Smith. Mr. Weitzman, thank you for your extraordinarily
effective leadership and your recommendations and your analysis
of the state of affairs as of today and looking forward.
Let me just ask you if that report that will be released in
about a week, is that something we might be able to include in
our record? Because we will leave the record open if you----
Mr. Weitzman. We usually--it usually comes out in
electronic form. I could see if we have a version that we could
include. We will try to do that.
Mr. Smith. If you would, that could be helpful, I think,
for the record, and for all of us to read and digest.
Mr. Weitzman. Absolutely. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. The Ambassador-at-Large, that is something that
we are looking at, legislative text right now, so we will get
back to you on how we are proceeding on that.
In November 2015, I authored H. Res. 354, and it passed
418-0 on the House floor. Many of you helped us with the text,
with the analysis of what ought to be in there, and I deeply
appreciate the insights you provided. And we did call, in the
operative part of the resolution, urging the United States
Government to work closely with the European governments and
their law enforcement agencies to ``formally recognize,
partner, train, and share information with Jewish community
security groups to strengthen preparedness, prevention,
mitigation and response related to anti-Semitic attacks and to
support related research initiatives.'' There are many
operative clauses, but that was the first.
And I am wondering if, in your view, that happened. Do you
believe it is going to happen, you know, hopefully in an
expanded way, or, at least, consistent with this request of the
administration, because it is an ongoing request? And Rabbi
Baker, if you might--others, if you would like as well--maybe
share with us what you think are best practices. We need to
share every best practice we have, but what can we learn from
the UK, from France, and others, particularly the United
Kingdom, which I agree with you have done much--they have so
many challenges, particularly in London. You and I were there
at the House of Commons when we both spoke to a large group, of
lawmakers from around the world, and it was very clear that the
United Kingdom was really trying to step up to the plate on
these horrific crimes. Are there things we might learn from
them?
But, again, this was passed in 2015, so there were--and Ira
Forman probably could provide us some information on this as
well--how well that was implemented, because it was bipartisan,
418-0, and your thoughts going forward with the new
administration to make sure that there are no gaps?
Rabbi Baker. Well, we could----
Mr. Smith. Paul, if you want to start, then we will go
right down the line.
Mr. Goldenberg. So I think I will address the police aspect
of it, which is----
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Goldenberg [continuing]. Where I am very engaged and
involved abroad right now.
We are working on the ground in Belgium with the Belgian
police. We are actually working on the ground in Molenbeek. You
have an area called Soblan, which is a very heavily Jewish
area, and, of course, you have Molenbeek, which is an area that
the majority of the population is Muslim. And we are working on
the ground there with the police building--it is called BCOT,
building communities of trust between these communities, this
is through the Rutgers project, in particular, a colleague of
yours, Chairman Smith, Congressman Smith, which is John Farmer,
former Attorney General of New Jersey.
So it is engaging the communities, the security groups, and
the police. It has been a bit of a challenge, but I will tell
you, I think there has been tremendous progress over the past
24 months. It is really about compelling the national police
agencies, or the local police agencies, to share information
with the Jewish communities, really demystifying the process.
That is extremely integral to better communications between the
two.
The Jewish communities need information. They need
information that will allow them to be safer, and the law
enforcement agencies also need to work much more
collaboratively with those Jewish security agencies not only
for the sharing of information, but joint training, joint
exercises, et cetera, because it is really a quid pro quo:
Information comes up, and information comes down. So it is
really creating a clear pathway of communication between the
national and local police agencies and the Jewish communities
that are sworn to protect them.
We have a much more mature relationship here. The American
Jewish community, through the works of SCN, Security Community
Network, ADL, and other organizations, it has been a very
mature relationship. These relationships have been for decades,
I know. And there are some really remarkable best practices
here that, for years, have been shared with our colleagues
abroad.
At the end of the day, these communities have to rely on
their local police, and that is where it starts, and that is
where, unfortunately, it----
Mr. Smith. Could I ask you, as to Stacy Burdett's point
about local police here and in Europe? Is it getting down to
that level so that the local law enforcement--I mean, we put
that into our resolution as well, ensure law enforcement
personnel are effectively trained to monitor, prevent, and
respond to anti-Semitic violence, and partner with Jewish
communities. And that second part, partner with Jewish
communities, is so extremely important so that there is that
dialogue, so if there is something that is happening, or there
is a threat, there is a response that is informed by law
enforcement.
Mr. Goldenberg. Is that here in the United States or
abroad?
Mr. Smith. Here and abroad.
Mr. Goldenberg. If I will tell you, here in the United
States, absolutely. The relationships between State, local, and
Federal law enforcement are absolutely extraordinary. And I
know--I am not going to speak for the Anti-Defamation League,
but our two organizations are in constant contact every day
with our State, local, and Federal law enforcement agencies.
They not only have been sharing information as best they can
with regard to active investigations, but I will tell you
during this situation where we see nearly 170 bomb threats
against Jewish centers, that the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security deployed nearly 120 professionals. Every State in the
country has what is called a protective security advisor. These
are very high-level experienced individuals that were literally
deployed to work and engage with the Jewish community centers
not just for partnership purposes, but to provide real, viable
expertise to them. So that is how far it went.
And we met with the FBI just recently, 2 weeks ago, with
Director Comey. And, undoubtedly, every Jewish leader that
walked out of there had an extremely high level of confidence
in the Bureau, what they are doing, and how engaged they are.
Mr. Smith. If I could just walk right down.
Rabbi Baker. So let me outline where I think we have
succeeded and where your legislation clearly resonates, and
where there are still challenges, at least in Europe.
One of the significant challenges has been to, essentially,
get those European Jewish communities themselves to engage, to
develop the kind of professionalism to know how to handle
security issues, and that varies greatly community by
community. As we mentioned, the UK and France are very good
models. Other countries are coming to this late. But there are
efforts, really, to get all of them up to a certain level.
At that point, the concern is also the kind of
relationships that can develop with local and national
authorities; police, intelligence gathering agencies, and the
like.
That also varies greatly from place to place. That is one
of the sad realities, and we have tried to leverage good
practices in one country to encourage, to push other countries
to follow suit.
As you may recall, in my OSCE role, I made an official
visit to Copenhagen, which happen to have been 5 months before
that terrorist attack that left one security volunteer dead.
Authorities in Denmark said to me, we have a ``relaxed
approach'' to security. A ``relaxed approach.'' And by that,
they meant, they were concerned, that their citizens would feel
uncomfortable if they saw armed police in front of buildings.
And so for that reason, they weren't providing police in front
of the synagogue or the school with, ultimately, the tragic
results that took place.
There was a mindset that had to be addressed, and
ultimately changed. And in dealing with this issue of security,
if the governments don't recognize the genuine threat, it is
hard to feel you are going to succeed.
Those terrible incidents maybe have helped galvanized that
attention. But it still has challenges in finding its way into
the different communities and municipalities.
We mentioned the challenges in Malmo, Sweden. When I was
there this past September, and I asked the person responsible
in the municipality for security, about there really not being
any give-and-take communication with the local Jewish
community, he said to me--and he is a veteran himself of
police--I don't get responses from Stockholm, from the national
government, when they know we have threats in this community.
So part of the problem isn't just the communication between
Jewish community professionals and government, it is even
within governments themselves that leave groups, leave people
vulnerable. So this has been part of these issues, clearly,
where you can, and some of these best practice models, point to
good cooperation, sharing of information, not only of threats,
but of collecting data and the like. Because, often, Jewish
communities with professional monitoring agencies will find
that community members, who have experienced incidents, will
report to them even if they are reluctant to report to police.
They know they are going to be taken seriously. And a good
relationship means that same information can then find its way
to government authorities.
So those are some of the examples where, again, we have had
progress, but still challenges remain.
Mr. Smith. Go ahead, Stacy.
Ms. Burdett. I just want to suggest three ideas on this
topic: You asked about local law enforcement. We are in a
period of transition. We haven't heard an affirmation of the
Department of Justice's commitment to train law enforcement on
data collection, reporting, hate crime investigations,
prosecutorial skills that they need. That is something that is
very high on our wish list as we look at these bomb threats and
the rise in hate crimes in the country.
So every day is a good day to reaffirm. If you want to see
the best hate crime training manual that I have seen, the FBI
has one, and we should use it. It is very good. It includes
scenarios that all kinds of NGOs have worked on.
And speaking of training manuals, I know, Mr. Chairman, it
can be important when a Member of Congress inquires into a
government program. You know quite well the international law
enforcement academies that our FBI runs on every continent, and
the ILEA has a hate crime curriculum that they are using. It is
a training that has been delivered. It is a propriety document,
and it might be something that you might want to request from
the State Department INL, to take a look at that curriculum and
how it is being used and how is that existing training on hate
crime, how we can make sure that it is also helping law
enforcement officers get the skills to address anti-Semitism.
So that is just our own training that we are already doing.
And we also have an existing interagency initiative that
has been, for a while, coordinated out of the White House that
brings together law enforcement agencies to make sure there is
a coordinated and vigorous effort to investigate hate crimes
and reach out to communities. So those are three very concrete
things that I think would be useful if it were requested by
Members of Congress. Thank you.
Mr. Weitzman. I just would like to add two very brief
points. One is that my colleagues are continuing their training
sessions on digital terrorism and hate with law enforcement on
a basic local level. We just had a session in Chicago about 2
weeks ago. But I also point out one area of concern, which
Rabbi Baker can certainly address as well very deeply, that we
hear periodically through some of the European countries that
they no longer want to bear the costs of paying for security,
and they would like to pass that on to the local Jewish
community. I find that very troubling, and I think it is
something that we need to reemphasize the point that security
is something that needs to be provided to all citizens without
their having to pay extra for the right to live and exist in
those countries.
Mr. Smith. Just a few final questions, then I will yield to
my good friend from New York.
In one of my previous hearings that I have had, as I
indicated quite a few, about 18 or 19 on combating anti-
Semitism, and every time we learn things that just jump off the
page as--didn't know it was that bad here or there, or that
this particular practice was emerging as a more common and
prevalent practice.
One of them, in February 2013, I chaired a hearing on
``Anti-Semitism, A Growing Threat To All Faiths,'' and we tried
to bring in how Catholics, Muslims, and others need to speak
out more robustly against anti-Semitism. But we did have one
individual, Willy Silberstein, from the Swedish Committee
Against Anti-Semitism, testify, and I had a number of press
people who came afterwards and said, Sweden? It is that bad in
Sweden? And he said--and you mentioned it, Rabbi Baker, in your
comments orally about Sweden, briefly, but he said, Let me
start by telling you about Shneur Kesselman. He is a rabbi born
in the United States. He is working in the Swedish city of
Malmo, which is rather infamous for its anti-Semitism in recent
years. What differs him from other Jews of Malmo is that people
can see that he is Jewish. He wears traditional clothes.
For some years now, he has been systematically harassed.
People spit on him, throw cans after him, threaten him, and
call him things like a bloody Jew. He points out in his
testimony that there is a large group of Muslims there. He does
make the point that a large portion of the Muslim immigrants in
Sweden are not anti-Semitic, but also that there are some that
are. And that seems to be the game changer in that particular
nation.
And I am wondering, if they can't get it right in Sweden,
which is known for its nonviolence and very tolerant attitudes,
it is not a good sign, in my opinion. So I wonder if you might
speak to that, Rabbi, what you found most recently in Sweden.
Has it gotten any better?
I remember at the Berlin Conference, the chief rabbi of
Berlin and I had dinner together, and he said it is not what it
looks like here. He said, If I travel with traditional garb,
and I get onto a tram or a bus, I take--or feel and will--it is
not just something he senses. He will have comments made. And
he said, this is in Berlin in 2004. And he said, you know, so
many Jewish individuals go out of their way to de-emphasize
their Jewish character and--by not wearing traditional garb, as
this particular man in Sweden did. So that was a take-away from
me with the chief rabbi in Berlin.
Let me also say, Rabbi, if you could maybe speak to this,
as you might know, as you all know--you know it for certain,
because you helped us write it, and gave insight--the
International Religious Freedom Act bill, the Frank Wolf bill
that I am the prime author of, it took years to get enacted, it
was signed in late December, has a number of strong, mutually
enforcing provisions to it. And I think it will make a
difference. It requires far more robust training than our State
Department officers, DCMs and departing Ambassadors are getting
as of now. They have not gotten it.
The dream of 1998, when the IRFA bill was passed, Frank
Wolf's bill, was that, okay. They have left that out. It is
about time that combating anti-Semitism and all of the other
religious freedom issues were really included in that training,
and it turned out to be far less than what any of us thought
the implementation phase would include. We now have good,
strong language that makes it much stronger. And, again, Ira
worked on that, as you pointed out in your number six
recommendation. So we have to make sure to monitor that and
that it is being done well.
But we also put in a provision, Rabbi, and you referenced
this in your oral remarks, about the persecution of lawyers,
politicians, or other human rights advocates seeking to defend
rights of members of religious groups or highlight religious
freedom violations, prohibitions on ritual animal slaughter or
male infant circumcision, to include that in the annual IRFA
reports. So that will be in this report. It is required by this
legislation. It was signed into law in the middle of December.
So we are going to make sure that that is in there.
Because, you know, as Sharansky said in Berlin, you can't
fight something if you don't chronicle it. So we have to get
the chronicalling going in this aspect as well. So you might
want to speak to Sweden and to this provision.
Rabbi Baker. Sure. With regard to Sweden--and I did,
actually, also see Willy Silberstein when I was there this past
September, and as I noted before, I was in Malmo.
Actually, for the first time, they did apprehend and
prosecute a perpetrator of an attack on this rabbi in Malmo. I
guess that is good news. And I think we have been able--they
have been able to find him in an apartment closer to the
synagogue, so at least he is not this sort of visible target
that he had become.
The fact is that the challenge goes much beyond just this
single rabbi.
Malmo has really been the entry point for refugees and
migrants coming into Sweden. And as I mentioned earlier, many
of them come with attitudes from their host countries, anti-
Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-Western in various ways. In 2013,
there were 800 foreigners that the city had to deal with.
In 2015, they had 13,000. So the challenges are really
dramatic, and they are not necessarily up to it. I think we
recognize that.
One bit of, I want to say, positive news--and this also
concerns Malmo--are efforts to secure a rabbi that will come to
the city with a specific focus of working on interreligious
and, in particular, Jewish-Muslim activities. And in this case,
the Swedish Government would fund this project. At the time I
was there, they were trying to identify someone. I don't know
whether it has yet been implemented, but I think that was a
good effort to say, let's see what we can do. Because we know,
as I have said earlier, much of this difficulty goes with
attitudes in the Muslim community. And this would be a program
focused, really, explicitly on that.
I am very happy to know that in the International Religious
Freedom Report this issue will be identified. We have been
pushing, also, within the OSCE and hope and expect that there
will be a conference later this year, probably in July, that
will focus on religious freedom and ritual practice to try to
bring together those forces that are making efforts to push
back on these restrictions and, again, to say, this is an
essential element of freedom of religion and religious
practice.
I think, as we have seen before--when we have a U.S. report
on interreligious freedom, on human rights, on anti-Semitism,
it gets attention. Our respective organizations may do
something similar. We will put out our reports, but in reality,
governments truly pay attention if the U.S. Government is
citing this.
So thank you so much for being able to see that this
happens.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Suozzi.
Mr. Suozzi. Mr. Chairman, let me say, again, that I want to
thank you for your leadership on these issues. And I want you
to know this is a very important issue to me, combating anti-
Semitism, and human rights in general. And I will always try
and serve as a partner to you in any efforts you have in this
regard.
I want to thank the witnesses for their fantastic work that
they have done with their careers and throughout their lives on
these issues. And I want to welcome them here today. To make
you feel welcome, I want to say bruchim habaim, and welcome you
here to Washington today and thank you for the work that you
are doing. Again, I am a former mayor and county executive and
very comfortable with the issues you are talking about
regarding law enforcement, having overseen very large police
departments as Nassau County executive, and a smaller police
department as Glen Cove mayor and know how important local law
enforcement, both here in America and abroad, and the training
that they receive on these issues is so essential. So, anything
the chairman wants to try and promote in that respect, I will
be happy to support him in those efforts.
It is important we say on the record that Jews have been
persecuted for centuries, as all of you know, but it is
important that I say it as well. And that, you know, this is a
persecuted minority. There are over 2 billion Christians in the
world. There are 1\1/2\ billion Muslims in the world. There are
900 million Hindus in the world. There are 376 million
Buddhists in the world. There are 23 million Sikhs in the
world, and there are only 14 to 15 million Jews. And when you
think about the number of 6 million people annihilated during
the Holocaust, what an incredible statistic that is. And the
persecution that the Jews have suffered for centuries is
something we have to start worrying about again today.
We need to look at what is happening in the world right
now. There are other minority groups that are being
discriminated against, and there is something that is happening
related to the Internet, something that is happening related to
our political dialogue and the way that people treat each other
generally in high public places, in the way that they talk to
each other with a lack of civility, where it has become almost
acceptable to demean people and to treat people with less than
their human dignity.
And I wanted to ask each of you to just tell me what you
think is happening in the world today that we are seeing these
rises happen? What are the factors that are contributing to
this uptick in hate crimes, certainly, for Jews, certainly, but
throughout our societies throughout the world today. What is
happening? Is it the Internet? Is it people that were
underground before, it is easier for them to express themselves
utilizing social media? Is it because of leadership in the
world? Is it because people feel threatened because of their
economic circumstances? What is it that is happening in the
world today that we see this uptick in anti-Semitism and other
discrimination?
Mr. Goldenberg?
Mr. Goldenberg. Well, one of the things--and my
distinguished colleagues could probably really elaborate more
so on what I am going to say, but I am not looking to simplify
it, but I had the honor of working closely with you when you
were county executive, I am very aware of the good works you
did out in the county on bias crimes and hate crimes----
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you.
Mr. Goldenberg [continuing]. Working with the police
department.
And as someone that, actually, was responsible for the
prosecution and investigation of these crimes in the State of
New Jersey for the Attorney General's office, I am speaking,
again, through a different set of optics. Back in the day when
we were investigating these types of crimes, and we had
leaflets, calling for death to the Jews or Jews to the ovens,
which are extremely heinous in itself, those words were
leafletted on maybe 100 cars. And those that were distributing
the leaflets would get tired and go back to their basements and
go back to their disheveled printers. And I am not making light
of this, by no means.
Today, Congressman, with a single click of a finger, you
can reach tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, some
of which are now much more emboldened. They feed off of each
other.
You know, but the old cliche, some say, well, the Internet,
First Amendment, sticks and stones will break your bones, but
there are statistics to show that dozens and dozens and dozens
of individuals who have been involved, or engaged, or have
perpetrated murders tied to extremist views, have done so
because they were inspired through the Internet. Stormfront,
one of the most vial, vial Internet sites out there, Breivik in
Norway, who killed dozens of children; Miller, who shot three
wonderful human beings out in Kansas City; and our latest
individual that just was found guilty for shooting nine
wonderful souls down, taking out nine wonderful souls in
Charleston, South Carolina. The common denominator between them
is they visited the same site. They visited the same site.
So it is the old cliche, it is the best of times and the
worst of times, because we have this wonderful tool. But,
again, my colleagues can elaborate much more.
Mr. Suozzi. That is the point Tom Friedman makes in his
most recent book, ``Thank You for Being Late,'' is that, you
know, the Internet makes this opportunity for makers to do
great things and for breakers, the people that want to try to
take us down.
Rabbi Baker. Well, you ask a real challenging question,
because there is an uptick. And the why is really one, I think,
we all wrestle with.
It reminded me of something that goes back now, I think,
almost 25 years. AJC, at the time, was doing attitude surveys
in different European countries. We would ask how people felt
about Jews as neighbors and so on, but about other minority
groups too, to really try to get a more comprehensive picture
not only of anti-Semitism, but of other prejudices. We were
presenting one of these surveys done in Germany at a press
conference in Berlin. There was a pretty significant degree of
anti-Jewish feeling, but also anti other-group sentiments, I
want to say, maybe, ranging from maybe 20 percent up to, maybe,
80 percent in terms of the degree of negativity depending on
the group.
And someone asked about such surveys at the time in the
United States, and there have been. And what was interesting
was the range of negative attitudes. The range itself was much
lower. Maybe beginning at 5 or 6 percent, and going up, in the
worst case, to 20-plus percent depending on the group.
One of the Germans in this press conference said, as a way
of explaining the more negative responses there, maybe people
here are just more willing to speak their mind, to tell you
what they really feel and that, perhaps, those surveys done in
America, people were inhibited; they didn't want to say what
they really felt.
And it seemed like an answer, although at the time my
colleague said, well, you know, maybe that is true. But the
first step, at the very least, is to make saying those things
taboo. Even if you think it, you shouldn't feel free to say it.
And, so, it has always struck me, this is a basic lesson.
It goes whether it is the old way of communicating in broad
sides, or just in public speeches, or in the new means we have
today, but it comes back to the same thing: We need to, as a
first step, at least, make sure these kinds of racist,
xenophobic, anti-Semitic expressions, aren't acceptable. And we
all have a role in doing that.
Mr. Suozzi. That is an excellent point, Rabbi. Thank you.
Mr. Weitzman. I agree with what both my distinguished
colleagues have said before, and I would say that just to make
it very graphic, when I--one of the first articles I wrote
about extremism on the Internet was for a conference at Oxford,
I think, in the year 2000. And I entitled it, ``The Internet is
More Powerful Than a Sword.'' And that was, actually, the
message at that point that was taken from the writings of the
neo-Nazi online. They, themselves, saw it as more powerful.
Actually, if we begin, and want a good understanding of this,
Stormfront, which Paul mentioned, is basically credited with
being the original neo-Nazi site online from 1995. Actually,
the reality is already in the mid-1980s, in the old dial-up BBS
systems, we found a neo-Nazi site from West Virginia, for
example, was one of the first online. And it became the
prototype. It had a library of neo-Nazi writings, it had a list
of race traders, things of that effect on it, point systems
where people were already targeted, ranging from leaders of
civil rights organizations, Federal judges, Jewish leaders, et
cetera, and it was already established by the turn of the
millennia.
So this that has been prevalent ever since the technology
began. And it teaches us, it is not the technology; it is the
human beings involved with it. So what my colleague said I
agree wholeheartedly, I think that the sense of responsibility
is something that is lacking.
And I would also add that I think one of the things that we
allow--and you made the point of political language becoming
debased and very highly charged. And Chairman Smith has
referred to Natan Sharansky's remarks a couple of times
already. I think what he was pointing out and talking about was
how the criticism to Israel became hostility to Israel. Israel
became identified and accepted as identification in certain
elite circles, media circles, and so on, identified with Nazi
acts, with an apartheid state, with genocide, with
concentration camps, and this was then extended to the totality
of the Jewish people.
The effects of the Holocaust were turned around, were
inverted, where the victims became the perpetrators. So we have
a system, or a culture, where, in certain ways, very highly
emotionally charged language was used to create not just
disagreement, but hate, and stereotypes were built into it. The
opposition that Rabbi Baker mentioned to some of the
traditional acts of Jewish religious practice, some of which
were aimed, by the way--and I heard it firsthand from the
parliamentarians in Norway, for example, that these acts were
aimed originally at the Muslim community there and Jews were
collateral damage that went along with it.
But they reverted back to traditional stereotypes of Jews
as blood-sucking, vampiric figures, and these were in
mainstream newspapers. So we saw that entering the mainstream
of society. And I think, in essence, what we are talking about
is that anti-Semitism used to be marginalized, used to be
thought of as extreme. What we have seen in recent years, is
through political anti-Semitism, and now through Holocaust
distortion and other means, it has entered the mainstream of
society with the effects that we see today where Jews
throughout the world, including the Western world, feel
imperiled in ways that are really, frankly, unparalleled in
recent memory.
So I think the leadership question is major; I think the
sense of responsibility in terms of political speech, in
general, anti-Semitism in particular, is very important, but I
think the leadership shown the actions of this subcommittee and
yourself pave a way and a model that we hope more people will
emulate.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you.
Ms. Burdett. So the question you ask is so perplexing,
because every public attitude survey that we see about our own
country, you can look in Germany at a similar trend, the
American people, the German people, people in communities are
growing more tolerant of each other. More people in America
today have favorable views of Jewish people than they have
before, and that is true of other groups as well. But the
hatred has such a microphone right now. It is hard to hear that
tolerance.
And I think, you know, my colleagues have touched on a
point, the Internet is anonymous. Think about what it took to
bring down the Klan. It is not that the people in klavern
believed our arguments that their values were not as good as
ours. It is because they had to take off their hoods and show
their faces, stand behind that hatred.
And, you know, our CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, keeps
reminding us that the people who used to burn crosses on front
lawns are now burning up Twitter. And so my colleagues are
right, it is just another platform for the same thing.
There is anger. There is a vacuum of leadership, and we are
all, all of us, on both sides of this table, we are in a battle
for an evidence- and a decency-based marketplace of ideas. And
it goes from the global level to a very personal level. If you
shoot hoops in the congressional gym with someone from the
other party, you are less likely to believe it the next time
one of your colleagues tells you that that guy's group is out
to get you or your agenda. I say ``guy,'' because we are in the
gym in this scenario.
Mr. Suozzi. There are women in the gym, too.
Ms. Burdett. Oh, okay.
Mr. Suozzi. I worked out with some Republican women today.
Ms. Burdett. Good for you. All politics is local, as you
know from being a county executive.
So your statements today, our visible partnership,
communities see that. And when we can sit here as nobodies at a
table and bring our expertise and give you a list of our ideas,
and know that this chairman is quite likely to take all of the
ideas and turn them into action and then some, that is a very
powerful example for people to see.
Mr. Suozzi. Thank you very much.
Ms. Burdett. We are on the way.
Mr. Suozzi. That image you gave of the idea of taking the
hoods off Klan members is a very good image. Which is, you
know, transparency and exposing things, sunlight is the best
disinfectant, and that goes with all things in government, but
certainly on this issue, exposing the people that are behind
these actions and talking about it publicly is so important,
and that is why it is so important that the chairman held this
hearing today, and that all of you came. Thank you, again.
Mr. Goldenberg. Mark, I think you stirred this a little
bit. One of the things we did find in working across the 10
countries--Andy and I traveled probably even more than that, as
well as Stacy and I--synagogues and Jewish centers in Europe
have become lightning rods for what happens geopolitically, and
that should not be the case. These synagogues, these precious--
they are more than infrastructure, in some cases, 100 years
old, and in some cases it could be 10 years old.
These are the fabric of the nations where they sit. They
are part of their fabric. And I think that that is something
that we cannot allow, this continuum, evening amongst the
police ranks, to believe in some of these countries that if
they are attacking a synagogue, it is got to do, or associated
with what is happening geopolitically 2,000, 3,000 miles away,
because that is not the case. What is happening geopolitically
2,000, 3,000 miles away, is happening 2,000, 3,000 miles away.
But there are those that will use that as an excuse. We
have to keep reminding people, including the security services,
the national security services, these are your houses; these
are your institutions; these are your synagogues; these are
your schools; and your Jewish centers, and they need the same
protection. They belong to you. And that is something that our
collective groups are working on right now. More than a
reminder, but that is about training. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you. I would just add before yielding to
Mr. Sherman, that that was the exact point that Natan Sharansky
was making with his three Ds: Demonization of Israel,
delegitimization, and double standard. And nowhere is that more
rampant than at the United Nations, particularly the Human
Rights Council, which is why, as I said in my opening, our new
Ambassador to the U.N. has really drawn a line, has a zero-
tolerance attitude toward that pernicious hypocrisy, which is
rampant.
I have gone to the Human Rights Council myself several
times, and before that, when it was called the Human Rights
Commission, and was appalled to see countries whom I have great
respect for Western democracies, who all of us have great
respect for. They have matured, to use the word that was used
earlier, democratic traditions, just joining in the parade and
bashing Israel unjustly. Then that reverberates back to the
attack on the synagogue, because it riles people up, and now,
as was pointed out, with a click of a button, people get this
misinformation, this hate, and then they act on it.
So, thank you for all of those comments.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me
participate in this hearing, although as a member of the full
committee, I am not a member of this subcommittee. And I want
to commend you for being the author of the Global Anti-Semitism
Review Act of 2004 that established the Special Envoy to
Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism----
Mr. Smith. If the gentleman would yield? I was the House
sponsor, Mr. Voinovich was the Senate sponsor. But when his
bill came over, which called for a 1-year review, I offered the
amendment to make it a permanent office, and then also, to
establish the special envoy that Ira so thankfully led for
several years.
Mr. Sherman. Yes.
Mr. Smith. Just so it is clear.
Mr. Sherman. And I also have a personal connection to that
office, since my wife was the first Deputy Special Envoy. And I
take family pride in her work on the report on global anti-
Semitism issued by the State Department in March of 2008.
And my first question for our panel is: We did write that
report. It is almost 10 years ago. I am not saying we can write
one every year, but should we be writing one every decade? Do
we need another report on contemporary global anti-Semitism?
Yes, Ms. Burdett.
Ms. Burdett. It is always a good idea to highlight issues
and do special reports. If you look at the annual country
reports on human rights and international religious freedom,
you will see that Ira Forman and the team that is still working
every day in the State Department do not get much sleep before
those reports are due.
And what you have done to require these good public
servants to ask every single Embassy in the world to report on
anti-Semitism, when you pull that together, it is a terrific
snapshot. Your legislation was game-changing, and we have eyes
on the problem in places we never did.
Every 10 years it would be very, very wise to do a similar
kind of report. And I know Mrs. Sherman's expertise was
absolutely essential to that successful report, and you are
wise to be very proud of her.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
One thing that that report does is it defines anti-
Semitism, basing its definition, in large part, on the European
Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia's working
definition of anti-Semitism. And defining anti-Semitism is
important, but especially in dealing with what I would have to
describe as far left wing, or misguided left-wing anti-
Semitism. On the extreme right you see references to Nazis. It
is pretty obvious that it is anti-Semitic.
But you also see attacks on the Jewish people where the
attacker defends it, says, oh, I am not anti-Semitic, just
anti-Zionist. And there needs to be a definition that
distinguishes between legitimate criticism of a Government of
Israel, something most members of this panel have engaged in
from time to time; and a holding Israel up to a standard that
no other country is held to, or claiming that of all the
countries in the world, that this is the one country that
should be abolished.
What I wonder, though, is that the U.S. Department of
Education doesn't have a definition of anti-Semitism, has not
yet adopted the State Department definition. Does it undermine
us in talking to other countries about anti-Semitism in their
country that we are defining anti-Semitism by a standard that
we don't apply here domestically?
Rabbi?
Rabbi Baker. I think it is a quite pertinent question, and
I would turn it around and say our ability to be a strong
advocate in pressing foreign governments, as we are, to employ
the working definition, whether it is in police training,
whether it is in training judges and prosecutors, whether it is
in monitoring anti-Semitism, would certainly be enhanced if we
can cite our own example in the United States of putting it to
use.
We all would hold the view, I know my organization does,
when this issue first came up in the last Congress--that this
working definition is a very useful educational tool. If it is
a useful educational tool for the justice ministry of Austria,
I would say it is a useful educational tool for the Department
of Education here, which is concerned about monitoring and
addressing problems of anti-Semitism on college campuses.
And if I could also speak to your first question. A U.S.
global report about anti-Semitism, even if it has the same
information--and, by the way, it is increasingly having much
more, I think. We know what is gathered. But even if it has the
same information as our own Jewish organizations might report,
has an impact that is unparalleled in getting governments'
attention. So having that report really allows us and everyone
else to go in and to push these governments, who are now taking
notice. And, finally, it has also educated, let's be candid,
our own American diplomats. As Embassies have a responsibility
to monitor what is going on, they are becoming more sensitive
to what this is about. And, again, in these places, that
definition is a very helpful tool.
Mr. Sherman. It has been my experience in Congress that one
of the best ways to affect what people do is to ask them the
right question. And by asking all of our Embassies on a
continuing basis to ask their host governments what are they
doing about the anti-Semitism, you drive policy in the right
direction.
Mr. Weitzman?
Mr. Weitzman. I just would like to add as well, as you
know, the 31-member nations of the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance officially adopted a variation of the
working definition of anti-Semitism. And in the negotiations
and conversations with the countries leading up to that, its
adoption, and my colleague, Dr. Robert Williams, from the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum was instrumental in assisting in this
process as well, we found very often the question raised of
what is the United States' position on this? We were able to
refer to the State Department Web site and the documents on the
Web site, but that, obviously, only dealt with external and
multilateral relationships. It didn't deal with the domestic
case at all.
So having this definition through the Anti-Semitism
Awareness Act that is now being held up in Congress, we think
would be very powerful and very strong and send a message not
only to domestic constituents in the United States in terms of
the people on campus, even clarifying it for the
administrators. It is a tool for the administrators and the
people dealing with this issue on campus, as well as for the
protection of students, but it also sends a message externally
as well to other countries that we are basically putting into
practice what we are preaching, that our moral voice and
political leadership is strong on this issue, and we feel it
applies as well to the United States.
Mr. Sherman. And I think it undercuts our foreign policy
across the board when people can point to an example where we
have a standard to hold other countries to, and we refuse to
impose that standard on ourselves.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, I strongly support it.
But, frankly, it shouldn't take that. The Department of
Education has a responsibility to enforce title 6. I have
worked with that Department over the last 10 years, and we got
a clear statement that title 6 applies to anti-Semitism,
although the statute says national origin and race, that that
clearly, applies to the Jewish people as well, and to bigotry
against Muslims as well.
If the Department of Education has determined that it has a
responsibility to deal with anti-Semitism on campuses, it has a
responsibility to have a definition of anti-Semitism. And one
would wonder why they wouldn't adopt the same definition that
has been adopted by so many organizations with a tweak here,
with a tweak there, and, especially, why they wouldn't adopt
the same definition of anti-Semitism that the State Department
uses for our foreign policy.
I want to shift to Hungary. I would like to know more about
this--and I am may mispronounce it--Vitezi Rend. It is my
understanding that there are two rival organizations using the
same name. Is there any doubt that this organization is an
anti-Semitic organization?
I will ask this to Rabbi Baker, and then see if everyone
else has a comment.
Rabbi Baker. You know, this is an organization
reconstituted from a prewar organization that was, certainly,
anti-Semitic, Fascist, part of the supporters, followers of
Admiral Horthy, and----
Mr. Sherman. And a pro-Nazi probe organization during World
War II.
Rabbi Baker. Exactly that. Exactly that.
So I don't know that it has much influence today in
Hungary, but the reality is this is its origin, and it was
around this sentiment, these ideological views, clearly, anti-
Semitic, that it was re-formed.
Mr. Sherman. I mean, if somebody formed an organization
called the Nazi Party of California, they may not publish a
manifesto that is anti-Semitic, they don't need to. They name
themselves the Nazi Party of California, and they have
associated themselves with the Nazi Party of Germany and the
role it played in world history.
So we don't have to wait for today's Vitezi Rend to publish
an anti-Semitic manifesto. They have named themselves after or
claim to be a continuation of an organization that was a pro-
Nazi organization in Hungary in the 1930s and 1940s.
Rabbi Baker. I think they knew what they were doing when
they chose their name.
Mr. Sherman. Yeah.
Now, I am going to get down in the weeds on this. I am told
that members of this organization add a ``V'' as an additional
middle initial to show their support for the organization. Are
you aware of that practice?
Rabbi Baker. I am not.
Mr. Sherman. Okay.
Rabbi Baker. But maybe the others----
Mr. Sherman. Gotcha.
I want to thank you for your work, thank the chairman for
holding these hearings, and yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Just a few followup questions. And thank you for your time
and, again, for elaborating so well on your responses to the
questions.
Ms. Burdett, you made a very important, I think,
observation about Latin America, which you might want to
elaborate on. You point out that in Latin America, over the
last few years, there has been a region-wide increase of anti-
Semitic expressions and attacks directed at Jewish individuals
and institutions, primarily via the Internet and social media.
You point out that Venezuela continues to be a country
where state-endorsed anti-Semitism is systematic and affects
government policies every day for life for Jews.
In Argentina, where the Jewish community has been the
target of the infamous anti-Jewish terrorist attacks--and I did
visit that community center myself and was just struck by the
ongoing broken-heartedness by those who run that center and the
fact that the Iranian perpetrator of those crimes--the alleged,
but I think the evidence is very clear--continues to be not
held to account.
And then you point out the smaller countries, like Costa
Rica and Uruguay, where anti-Semitism was practically
negligible are now facing new challenges. And you give an
example in Uruguay where a Jewish businessman was stabbed to
death by a man who said that he killed a Jew following Allah's
order.
You point out that your Cyber Safety Action Guide has now
been translated into Spanish for dissemination there.
But if you could speak to some of this and maybe on Iran's
influence.
Not to get into, relitigate at this hearing the Iranian
nuclear deal, which I think was egregiously flawed--and you
don't have to comment on any of that, but I think it is a
matter of when and not if that Iran gets nuclear weapons
pursuant to those huge gaps in that agreement.
But, that said, they are getting a boatload of money. They
have already gotten billions of dollars; they will get more.
And that helps Hezbollah, that helps a whole lot of people. But
we know that Iran is the worst, largest state sponsor of
terrorism, and they certainly are anti-Semitic to the core.
And their influence in Latin America--I was in Bolivia a
few years ago trying to get a Jewish businessman out of prison,
Jacob Ostreicher, and had three hearings on his case alone,
went down there. Our Embassy wasn't doing squat at first; they
did get further involved. I went to the Palmasola Prison where
he was. But the anti-Semitic view of Evo Morales and the others
is palpable. And I add to that, their affection for Iran is
equally disturbing.
So Iran's influence in Latin America--Venezuela, we know
they are close. And Argentina, again, has this ongoing,
festering sore. So if you could speak to it.
Ms. Burdett. Well, I want to first say that the fact that
this body has refused to let go of the questions around this
investigation--I know there is a resolution circulating in the
House, and I know your colleague from Florida, Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen, who was here earlier, has been very active and
engaged in this issue and looking at the Iranian connection.
Our organizations, too, thought that the JCPOA with Iran
wasn't strong enough, wasn't ironclad enough.
And I think a number of the incidents that we are dealing
with in the community are a result of this infectious
influence. And we know that Iran practically has anti-Semitism
and the export of anti-Semitism as a policy. And so, when the
Supreme Leader calls Israel a cancerous tumor or when their
Ministry of Culture endorses a Holocaust cartoon contest, that
crosses every border.
And we support your efforts to shed more light on that
investigation and to infuse that investigation with our
assistance to expose that connection. So I think, from a
governmental side, you are doing your part, and, as advocates,
we are spotlighting the permeation across borders of the hate
that makes those incidents possible.
Mr. Smith. If I could, to Rabbi Baker, in your written
testimony--and I appreciate your leadership on this--you point
out that the chair-in-office, Steinmeier, had tried to get the
definition of anti-Semitism adopted. Only one country, Russia,
blocked it.
And just for the record, I have it here, without objection,
I will put into the record that definition--it is very short--
but also the State Department's elaboration on it, which I
think gives it additional understanding.
Will a new attempt be made within the OSCE to get that
definition adopted across all countries, including Russia? And
if you could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it.
Rabbi Baker. I really hope so.
There is no question that the kind of leadership that the
German Foreign Minister showed was unique. And the current
chair, I believe, is open, if we are able to show that there
could be a consensus, to bring it up at the ministerial this
December in Vienna.
I think the support from Members here, Chairman Smith and
those who are part of the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, will also be important for this.
We need to find ways to bring Russia around on this issue.
As I have noted in the past and in conversations with you, when
I met with them, they explained to me they had two problems
with that adoption of the definition. One concerned the views,
they said, of their own Jewish experts, who they claimed
opposed it, which really was not true. Another was the fact
that it referenced the IHRA definition, and they said they were
not members of IHRA. I asked them, ``So are those the only two
problems?'' And they replied, ``Well, for now.''
So we know that it is not so much addressing them as
legitimate reasons, but finding the ability to be able to say
there are, not just for now but permanently, no objections.
Maybe we can tweak the actual language to provide something
that would be suitable. But if we can--and we will try--to
secure Russian support for this or at least non-opposition,
then I very much hope we can come back and perhaps succeed in
December.
Mr. Smith. One final question for me, and then I will yield
to my colleague if he has any additional ones.
Obviously, Security Council Resolution 2334 was a disaster,
in my opinion. It also had embedded in it language that I think
is very injurious or could give amplification to the BDS
movement.
And, perhaps, Mr. Weitzman, you might want to speak to
that.
I have met with Prince Zeid, the High Commissioner for
Human Rights. And I am beyond troubled, angered, as I believe
and hope--I know you are--that compiling lists of companies
that the U.N. High Commissioner has taken it upon himself to do
is a very, very dangerous precedent, somehow suggesting the
illegitimacy of Israel and East Jerusalem being one and the
same.
Any final determination between the Palestinians and
Israelis, as we all have said a thousand times, needs to be
negotiated between the two entities. To have this,
increasingly, imposition of an outcome dictated by the United
Nations and its bureaucracy is troubling, but when there is
also an economic threat posed by BDS, that raises it even
further. And that will have more impact, in my opinion, in
Europe than it will here, although it will impact us here as
well, as those companies are listed that do business in areas
that are in contention with United Nations.
And maybe if you could just elaborate too on that there are
right-wing and there are left-wing strong manifestations of
anti-Semitism. We see it. I guess what came out, Rabbi Baker,
to me, in those very early meetings in Vienna and then Berlin
and then followup meetings was hatred from the left and the
right. I remember when we were pushing Holocaust remembrance in
France, it was the teachers union and the leftists who were
most adamantly opposed to any kind of teaching of students of
the Holocaust. So the left and the right has shame on its face,
in my opinion, the extreme left and the extreme right.
But BDS is also something that the left is pushing. Maybe
you might want to speak to that as well.
Mr. Weitzman. Thank you.
In regards to the United Nations, I think one of the things
that we have seen is really the vigorous pushback by Ambassador
Haley in leading the U.S. delegation to make it very clear that
we will not tolerate crossing a certain line of what is really
acceptable political discourse and what is not.
And we were very encouraged by the reaction of the
Secretary-General in not only rejecting the flawed report that
came out that linked Israel to apartheid practices but actually
taking it down from the U.N. Web site, which already actually
caused at least one diplomat to resign in protest over it. But
it was really unprecedented, and we are very cheered that the
Secretary-General took a strong step on that. And we hope that
that is showing a little bit of a shift back to a more rational
and decent approach by the U.N.
I think, in terms of BDS, one of the things that we have
seen is that, again, a number of States in the United States,
as well as a number of cities, have passed laws against BDS
recently, over the past year or so, which are something that I
think will strengthen the backbone, even though it wasn't
necessarily, I think, a lot of cases that this was not
necessarily a practical step as much as an expression of
political will and an expression of common belief that BDS is
not only against Israel and not only anti-Semitic but is
fundamentally un-American. It challenges freedom of speech,
freedom of opinion, and, as such, I think most Americans would
reject it instinctively.
What happens in Europe, again, I think the United States
can play a very strong role in positioning itself as a leader
against BDS and in making sure that, given the prominence of
the U.S. industries, that BDS fails, as it has failed in so
many other places.
I will say, in terms of right-wing and left-wing extremism,
one of the points that I would like to just make briefly is
that there has been a sea change in right-wing extremism in the
United States over the past generation or so.
People had referred to the Klan, and if you look back at
Klan history and documents, they originally came about, and
even through the 1960s and the civil rights period, they
claimed fealty to a vision, a flawed and totally historically
inaccurate, but idealized vision, of the United States as an
antebellum Southern vision of a place where slavery and
religious persecution were embedded in the Constitution and,
thus, were American ideals.
The generation that we have starting in the later part of
the 20th century is a generation of extremists who see
themselves at war with the United States. They consider the
U.S. Government Zionist-occupied government territory. And that
is one of the reasons why they are so ready to go into violent
acts, because, to them, a state of war already exists with the
Jews who control the U.S. Government and people down to postal
workers who have been murdered because they wore a government
uniform.
That has then translated it into the rhetoric that we see
sometimes on the extremes of the alt-right and so on, who
consider themselves at war with established political
institutions and political norms in the U.S. And I think that
is one of the things that we have to recognize, the shift
between the traditional extremism and the new status that we
have now.
And, of course, again, the left-wing extremism is very
often filtered through traditional--going back to Communist
opposition to Israel, to opposition to Jews as a distinct
religion, both of which are fundamentally opposed by communism,
and even the erasure of Jews from history, as the infamous
plaque at Babi Yar under Communists basically talked about the
victims of fascism in a generic sense, at Auschwitz as well,
taking away and erasing the specificity of the Jewish
experience in that period.
Rabbi Baker. Just to be very brief, I think one of the
phenomena of anti-Semitism is that it can link haters from all
across the spectrum who literally have nothing else in common.
It almost defies any rational understanding.
We have come to see and expect it as part of a right-wing,
xenophobic ideology. It has traditionally been there in Europe,
and in almost all of these nationalist parties anti-Semitism is
a piece of it.
At the same time--and, again, I reference having been
relatively recently in Sweden--you have now a growth, it was
pointed out to us, of these--in many cases, they are minority
groups, hip-hop and rap artists engaged in concerts to combat
racism that use overtly anti-Semitic language in their lyrics.
So how do you square this?
The fact is it is a phenomenon we are seeing not only, as
Mark has indicated, from the historical notions of what
communism or socialist movements may have done, but even in
what would almost be a kind of ``post-movement'' Europe today,
where, still, figures on the left--they may be literary
figures, musical figures, or others--have folded in this--
again, it may start as anti-Zionism, but it often comes full-
blown as an anti-Semitism with all of those negative
stereotypes of Jews. It is there.
Mr. Smith. That concludes the hearing.
I want to thank you again for your extraordinary
leadership, each of you, and for giving us the benefit as a
subcommittee and, by extension, the Congress--because we will
share this widely with the leadership, especially your
testimonies today. And as the record is obviously produced, we
will get that out to key policymakers as well. Because, again,
you have provided a treasure trove of insight and expectation
as well as the experience. And past is prologue; we need to
learn from the past and also face these new challenges as they
emerge.
So thank you so very, very much.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]