[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESPONDING TO ANTI-SEMITISM AND ANTI-ISRAEL
BIAS IN THE UN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY,
AND NGO COMMUNITY
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH,
GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 22, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-738 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey GREGORY MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISAA, California WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
ANN WAGNER, Missouri AMI BERA, California
BRIAN MAST, Florida JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
KEN BUCK, Colorado DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee TED LIEU, California
MARK GREEN, Tennessee SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
ANDY BARR, Kentucky DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
RONNY JACKSON, Texas COLIN ALLRED, Texas
YOUNG KIM, California ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida SARA JACOBS, California
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa SHELIA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MIKE WALTZ, Florida JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, New Jersey JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas
Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
Sophia A. LaFargue, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights
and International Organizations
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania,
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa Ranking Member
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas AMI BERA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia SARA JACOBS, California
JOHN JAMES, Michigan KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
Mary Vigil, Subcommittee Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
WITNESSES
Page
Mr. Natan Sharansky, Chair, Institute for the Study of Global
Antisemitism and Policy........................................ 10
Mr. Yona Schiffmiller, Director of Research, NGO Monitor......... 22
Mr. Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director, Palestinian Media Watch. 35
Mr. Eugene Kontorovich, Director of International Law Department,
Kohelet Policy Forum........................................... 58
Mr. Hillel Neuer, Executive Director, United Nations Watch....... 70
Dr. Sharon Nazarian, Director, Anti-Defamation League National
Board of Directors............................................. 81
Mr. Yair Rosenberg, Staff Writer, The Atlantic................... 94
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 121
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 123
Hearing Attendance............................................... 124
RESPONDING TO ANTI-SEMITISM AND
ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN THE UN, PALESTINIAN
AUTHORITY, AND NGO COMMUNITY
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human
Rights, and International Organizations,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:14 a.m., in
Room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Smith. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Global
Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations
will come to order. And good morning.
The rising tide of antisemitism worldwide is cause for
serious alarm. With no sign of abating anywhere, Jewish men,
women, and children continue to suffer bias, hate, cruelty, and
violence, simply because they are Jewish. This pernicious
manifestation of evil needs to be exposed, and it needs to be
more effectively combated.
The purveyors of antisemitism never take a holiday, nor
should we. Silence is not an option.
A few days ago, as I think everybody in this room knows,
Robert Bowers was found guilty of dozens of federal hate crimes
for murdering 11 people at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue
in 2018, the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history.
In April of 2022, Dan Marsh from my hometown of Manchester
attacked a Jewish man waiting at a stop sign in Lakewood, New
Jersey, stole his car, and ran over two other Jewish men and
stabbed another. He awaits trial on numerous charges, including
antisemitic hate crimes.
Just two weeks ago, Ron Carr also of Manchester, my
hometown, painted swastikas on 15 houses and burnt a house to
the ground. The perpetrator has been arrested and charged with
36 criminal counts.
Today's hearing focuses on rampant antisemitism, anti-
Israel bias, in the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority,
and the NGO community. In the past, I have chaired 20
congressional hearings on combating anti-Semitism, but this
year we are going to do a whole series--and into next year--
that will cover every aspect of this horrible hate.
One of our witnesses today, Dr. Sharon Nazarian of ADL,
notes that antisemitic hate and prejudice is deeply entrenched
globally, including throughout Europe and the United States,
and that the Middle East and Northern African countries have
``by far the highest level of antisemitic attitudes.''
Israel, as we all know, faces an ongoing existential
threat, and it is due in large part to antisemitism. America
and the free world must continually strengthen the bond of
friendship and tangible support for Israel.
Among the distinguished--our distinguished panel of experts
today--and what a distinguished panel--we welcome the legendary
human rights leader and former Soviet political prisoner Natan
Sharansky. As part of the delegation led by NTSJ that included
my good friend Mark Levin, we met with Natan Sharansky's mother
40 years ago--that is, in 1983--in Moscow, who asked us not
only to press for her son's release from the Gulag but to
insist that he get desperately needed medicine. And in every
meeting we had with Soviet officials, Natan Sharansky was what
we began with.
A few years later, Congressman Frank Wolf and I traveled to
Perm Camp 35, the infamous concentration camp where Natan
Sharansky bravely resisted every Soviet attempt to break his
indomitable will. Pushing Gorbachev's glass nose to the limits,
we videotaped every conversation with political prisoners and
shared that with Natan when we got back, as he had just
recently been released, so we gave it to him, and he said,
``They were my friends.''
At a hearing that I chaired in June of 2004, and at the
OSCE Berlin Conference, Natan Sharansky powerfully articulated
his incisive 3D test for identifying antisemitism and said that
it often tries to hide behind the veneer of a legitimate
criticism of Israel.
He said, and I quote, ``Of course, if you want to be
successful in the struggle against antisemitism, as against any
other evil, there must be moral clarity on the issue, what we
are talking about.''
It is important to define the line between legitimate
criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Israel is a strong
democracy and the only democracy in the Middle East. And it is
built on the criticism for both within and without. ``Of
course, we support all forms of legitimate criticism,'' he went
on, ``but it is very important to see the difference, draw the
line between legitimate criticism and antisemitism.''
According to history, D test, criticism of Israel is
nothing less than antisemitism when it passes over into
demonization, the first D, of Jews in Israel. Being legitimized
as the Jewish state, the second D, or applies a double
standard, and that certainly happens all over the world,
particularly at the U.N. And there is one standard for Israel
and another standard for every other country.
Another witness today, Hillel Neuer, executive director of
U.N. Watch, has been a mighty force for the good of exposing
and fighting an unconscionable human bias against Israel,
including at, of all places, the U.N. Human Rights Council. He
underscored that bias late last year again when he pointed out
that the U.N. General Assembly condemned Israel for a total of
15 resolutions targeting the Jewish state in 2022 compared to
13 for the rest of the world.
He said, and I quote, ``The U.N.'s latest assault on Israel
with a torrent of one-sided resolutions is surreal,'' he said,
``despite the fact that Israel is the Middle East's only
democracy, and instead the U.N. is empowering the region's
despots.''
Itamar Marcus, director of the Palestinian Media Watch,
exposes the PLA's unrelenting antisemitic attacks and notes
that ``The combination of political and religious antisemitism
with hatred of Israel, all in the name of Allah, directly leads
to the PA's policy to see murdering the Israelis as heroic and
Allah's will.''
And as a result, 100 percent of the murders of Israelis are
honored, 100 percent of terrorists in jail for murdering Jews
receive PA salaries, 100 percent of terrorists killed while
murdering Jews are declared to be martyrs.
Each of our witnesses are uniquely qualified, have been
leaders for years in this struggle, and are making a
significant difference in this human rights struggle.
Finally, as the author of the original provisions of the
Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, originally the bill
was just going to be a 1-year review, we added a special envoy
and made it an office. It was opposed by some in the State
Department, surprise, surprise, including Colin Powell who
wrote a 4-page letter against it, which only got us even more
worked up to get it passed.
I also am the author of the Frank Wolf International
Religious Freedom Act, which also provides a great push for all
religious bias and prejudice and hate, and also, in 2021, wrote
the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act,
which upgraded and strengthened the special envoy to the rank
of ambassador, reporting directly to the Secretary of State.
And I, like I think every--I know everyone on this panel--
interact regularly with Ambassador Lipstadt and her staff and
are truly grateful for her leadership.
I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague,
Congresswoman Wild.
Ms. Wild. Thank you so much, and thank you to all of our
witnesses, including our virtual witness, for being here on
this incredibly important topic.
And thank you to our chairman for convening this hearing.
Less than a week ago, a man in Michigan with a history of
neo-Nazi associations and antisemitic social media posts was
charged with planning to attack a local synagogue to attack--to
mark the fifth anniversary of the attack on two mosques in
Christchurch, New Zealand.
On the same day that he was arrested, the man responsible
for the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in my home state
of Pennsylvania, the worst single antisemitic attack in our
Nation's history, was finally convicted.
The threat connecting these incidents is clear in my view.
It is the viciously antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic
ideology of white supremacists, who have been emboldened by far
too many extremist far right movements in governments around
the world in recent years, including right here in the United
States.
This was the ideology on display as neo-Nazis stormed the
streets of Charlottesville in 2017 chanting ``Jews will not
replace us.'' I remember watching that on television and just
the horror that I felt as I saw that.
This is the ideology that fuels dangerous conspiracy
theories, like the claim that a cabal of Jews is organized mass
influxes of immigrants and refugees into our societies. This is
the ideology that leads Victor Orban in Hungary, arguably the
most influential sitting leader in the global far right
ecosystem today, to amplify that very same conspiracy theory
and to devote the full force of his government to scapegoating
a prominent Jewish public figure, George Soros, with blatantly
antisemitic rhetoric.
In the year 2023, the forces of antisemitism remain
incredibly deadly and pervasive here in our country and around
the world. And I have to add parenthetically that just
yesterday I learned there was media in my home district,
Pennsylvania 7, about antisemitic leaflets that were being
dropped in neighborhoods from the sky.
Horrifying in this day and age. Horrifying in my own
community. And I received a number of very concerned texts and
phone calls and emails from people in my district, and I was
just stunned. But if you care to look it up, it is in the media
in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
So this is what I intend to devote the bulk of my time in
this hearing to today. But of course there is a disturbing
pattern of antisemitic rhetoric from Palestinian leaders that
has also been present in Palestinian textbooks. And
antisemitism is the driving ideology of the Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organizations.
These antisemitic views must be confronted as well for the
benefit of all, and there is no doubt that there is
antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the United Nations. This
has been documented extensively over the years, including by
the witnesses before us today.
The disproportionate focus of the General Assembly and its
subagencies on the Jewish state should be alarming to all. At
the same time, we know that progress only comes when we are
engaged and we have a seat at the table. Tough, robust,
principled, diplomatic engagement on the international stage,
not retreating and surrendering to isolationism is the only
path forward.
Here is what I also believe. As a steadfast supporter of
the U.S.-Israel partnership, who precisely because of that
strong support that I have, believes passionately in a two-
state solution, I have and I will always support the policy of
using the full force of the vote and voice of the United States
to stand with our ally, Israel, while advancing peace,
security, rights, and dignity for both Israelis and
Palestinians.
I am a proud Jewish American, and my Judaism anchors my
belief in universal rights and dignity. That means two states
for two people living peacefully and securely. That is the only
way we can guarantee that Israel remains a democratic Jewish
state indefinitely while providing equal freedom and justice
for the Palestinian people.
And I say this not just as a member of Congress, but as the
mother of two young adults who have been raised in their Jewish
faith, who have been to Israel on multiple occasions, and who I
want to have the land of Israel there for in their future long
after I might be gone.
In this hearing, and more broadly, I hope that we can focus
on genuinely taking on antisemitism around the world wherever
and whenever it occurs, and that starts with taking on the
forces of white supremacism that seek to deny the fundamental
humanity of the Jewish people. Let us work together to protect
Jewish communities by advancing the landmark U.S. National
Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism that was recently released by
the Biden Administration.
Let us redouble our efforts to support the work of the
Office of the Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism
around the globe. Let us stand together and in doing so
demonstrate that our Nation stands strong against the murderous
poison of antisemitism.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Wild.
I would like to yield to Ms. Manning such time as she may
consume.
Ms. Manning. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith and Ranking
Member Wild, and thank you to all of our witnesses for joining
us today. And hello to my friend, Natan, who I believe is
joining us from Israel.
And, Mr. Chairman, let me say how proud I am to serve with
you as co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for
Combating Anti-Semitism.
The scourge of antisemitism has infected societies around
the world for centuries. It is the hatred of Jews drawn from
conspiracy theories, lies, and malign ideas that has led to the
murder of Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, countless
pogroms, the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews during
the Holocaust, violent attacks on Jews in our country walking
down the streets of New York and Los Angeles and the murder of
11 Americans praying in a synagogue in Pittsburgh.
It is something that I have been working to try to defeat
my entire adult life. It is a history I carry on my shoulders
every day. Anti-Semitism is a persistent, shape-shifting hatred
that knows no bounds. Sadly, it is on the rise here in the
United States and around the world. It is also undeniable that
anti-Israel rhetoric can often fall outside the bounds of
legitimate discussion of policy differences and lurch with ease
into antisemitism.
We must stand against antisemitism in all its forms. That
is why it is so important that members of both parties call for
and help secure the first ever U.S. National Strategy to
Counter Anti-Semitism. This whole-of-society strategy gives us
a one-of-a-kind opportunity not just to counter antisemitism in
this country but to lead countries around the world to do the
same.
I want to congratulate the Biden Administration for taking
this issue seriously and for coming up with a strategy that is
actionable with timelines and accountability, and it contains a
variety of action steps for Congress to take.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress,
with my good friend Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, and the
Administration, to make sure a terrible past is not repeated
under our watch.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Kathy.
We are going to again do a quick mic check with Natan
Sharansky, but I will introduce him and all of our witnesses
very briefly. And your full resumes will be included in the
introduction, but these are the shortened versions.
Natan Sharansky is chair of the Institute for the Study of
Global Antisemitism and Policy. In the past, he has also served
as chairman of the executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel,
as minister or deputy prime minister in foreign government of
Israel. Prior to that, he established a party in order to
accelerate the integration of Russian Jews into Israel. And
before that he was a political prisoner, as we all know, and an
incredible refusenik and a man of great honor and courage.
He is the author of four books and the recipient of
America's two highest awards, including the Congressional Medal
of Freedom and the Presidential and the Congressional Medal of
Honor.
Our second witness, Yona Schiffmiller, is director of
research at NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institute.
His research is focused on issues related to the provision of
humanitarian assistance, including the diversion of aid by
terrorist organizations in Gaza and the West Bank. He has also
researched and written on the nexus between terror-linked NGOs
and U.N. agencies, as well as relationships between these
organizations and donor governments. Important work.
Our third witness is Itamar Marcus, who is the founder and
director of Palestinian Media Watch. For over 20 years he has
researched the Palestinian Authority world and has written
hundreds of reports and articles on PA activity, statements,
education, sports culture, and other frameworks the PA controls
as it relates to the peace process.
Mr. Marcus was appointed by the Israeli government in 1999
to represent Israel in negotiations with the PA, incitement in
the ``Trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee'' that was chaired
by the United States.
Our fourth witness, Eugene Kontorovich, is a professor at
George Mason's Scalia School of Law, and director of its Center
for International Law in the Middle East. He is also the head
of the International Law Department at the Kohelet Policy
Forum, a Jerusalem-based think tank, and is recognized as one
of the world's preeminent experts on international law and the
Israeli-Arab conflict.
He has emerged as pretty much of a one-man legal lawfare
brain trust for the Jewish state according to Haaretz.
We will then hear from Hillel Neuer, who is the executive
director of U.N. Watch, a human rights NGO in Geneva,
Switzerland. Mr. Neuer taught international human rights at the
Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as vice president of the
NGO Special Committee on Human Rights in Geneva.
I know that I frequently--and I told him this a moment
ago--go to his website. When the human rights--U.N. Human
Rights Commission matriculated to the Human Rights Council,
there was no change. All this talk of reform, and Israel is
still an overwhelming focus, you know, to, where is North
Korea? Where is Iran? Where is China? And so many other
despotic states.
So he does an amazing job, and, again, thank you for that
leadership.
Our sixth witness will be Dr. Sharon Nazarian, who is a
member of the Anti-Defamation League's National Board of
Directors, and is president of the Y&S Nazarian Family
Foundation, with a regional office in Israel named for the Ima
Foundation. She is founder of the Younes & Soraya Nazarian
Center for Israel Studies at the University of California,
UCLA.
And, again, thank you for all that ADL does in terms of
chronicling with polls and empirical data this terrible cancer
called antisemitism.
And our seventh witness, Yair Rosenberg, is a staff writer
at The Atlantic, where he covers the intersection of policies,
culture, and religion, and writes a newsletter. He has reported
on antisemitism for over a decade across multiple continents.
Previously a senior writer at Tablet Magazine, he has also
written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the
Wall Street Journal. Thank you as well for being here.
I would like to now just do a mic check to make sure that
Natan Sharansky can provide us with his comments.
[Pause.]
STATEMENTS OF NATAN SHARANSKY, CHAIR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY
OF GLOBAL ANTISEMITISM AND POLICY; YONA SCHIFFMILLER, DIRECTOR
OF RESEARCH, NGO MONITOR; ITAMAR MARCUS, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR,
PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH; EUGENE KONTOROVICH, DIRECTOR OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT, KOHELET POLICY FORUM; HILLEL
NEUER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED NATIONS WATCH; SHARON
NAZARIAN, DIRECTOR, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE NATIONAL BOARD OF
DIRECTORS; AND YAIR ROSENBERG, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC
STATEMENT OF NATAN SHARANSKY
Mr. Sharansky. Dear Congressman Smith, we are comrades in
arms for many years. And Congressman Smith, Congresswoman Wild,
and all the other members, thank you for organizing it, and
thank you for permitting and agreeing that I will speak in such
a way through Zoom.
But please, if the connection will be bad, don't suffer and
move to the other speakers. I will not be upset.
So I am dealing with the problem of antisemitism
practically for the 50--last 50 years as a human rights
activism political prisoner of the Soviet Union, and then as a
minister in Israel government dealing with antisemitism, and
then as the head of Jewish agency.
And let me show--share some of my experience. So recently,
the White House released the first ever U.S. National Strategy
to Combat Anti-Semitism, a very comprehensive plan, and we
thank President Biden, Second Gentleman Emhoff, Special Envoy
Lipstadt, and Ambassador Rice for compiling this comprehensive
plan.
And I have to say that Jewish organizations, Jewish world,
reacted very positively. But there is one point, one paragraph,
in this plan, which caused confusion or mixed reactions. And
I'll read it. There are several definitions of antisemitism
which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase
understanding of antisemitism. The most prominent is the non-
legally binding, working definition of antisemitism adopted in
2016 by the 31 member states of the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance, so called IHRA definition, which the
United States has embraced.
In addition, the Administration welcomes and appreciates
the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts.
So why should this be a problem? Because IHRA definition is
the only one which really connects the old antisemitism
attacking Jews and the new antisemitism attacking state of
Israel.
Well, what should be their connection? I had to answer this
question for many, many years. After all, antisemitism, the
oldest existing hatred directed against Jewish people. And
Israel is a relatively young state, 75 years old. Why
disagreement about the way it was created, the fact that it was
created?
The disagreement with the policy of this or that
government, why it should be called antisemitism? And I have to
say that the--that in the Soviet Union there was no such a
question, because in the Soviet Union it was clear at the
moment. Soviet Union starts new round of attacks on Israel.
Everybody knew that Jews have a problem.
The Jews who have no idea what the word Zionism means, but
they should be concerned about their place of work, about their
career. They should be concerned that they will be demanded
immediately to condemn Zionism, because the Jewish religion
would condemn any connection with Jewish nationalism.
And when another round of attacks on Jews where there is
nationalist or so-called cross-mobilized started almost
immediately moving also. And I believe that it is because
Soviet Union was a dictatorship, and dictatorship always needs
scapegoat, enemy, and there was no better enemy scapegoat,
internal and external, than Jews and the state of Israel.
And that is why when I moved to the free world, I was
really surprised when the year 2000 at the U.N. conference,
which was the first United Nations global conference against
racism, they came with one conclusion, that Israel is an
apartheid state, the one which follows the example of South
Africa. And suddenly all the democratic states in the Middle
East is questioned about the legitimacy of its existence, such
as the cartoons against Israeli leaders look exactly like the
cartoons at the times of Nazis, also with propaganda.
Suddenly, Israel is a tool that is treating Palestinians
exactly as Nazis about treating the Jews, and we--part of the
cultural intersect that Palestinian refugee camps, that is
exactly the Auschwitz of today. And all this, it was insisted
that it is all a legitimate criticism of Israel. That is when I
proposed my three D's: demonization, double standard, and
delegitimization. They were saying these are the main tools
against Jews for 1,000 years.
Of course, being a double standard, in law or without law,
Jewish demonization, the Jews are the claws of Satan, et
cetera, and the famous denial of the legitimacy of Jewish
religion, but replaced entirely, and the famous article by Jews
about the nation. These were the tools.
So I said when there is clear demonization, a double
standard of Jewish state, or the delegitimization of Jewish
state, it should be treated as antisemitic. And then, if you
accept this formally, understand why the treatment of Islam,
the Human Rights Committee of United Nations, is antisemitic,
why BDS movement, which has singled out Israel is antisemitism,
while denial of the right of Jewish people to have their own
state is antisemitism, and of course why demonization of Israel
as some satanic force or neo-Nazi force is antisemitic.
And, in fact, later in 2016, IRHA definition--that is the
exact definition which does deal with the formulas, which gives
examples when criticisms of Israel becomes antisemitic, that is
exactly the demonization, double standard, delegitimization.
So when I was traveling--in the last 20 years, I visited
about 100 American campuses. I could see very clearly how dis-
confident, how badly feel Jewish students, especially Zionist
students, because of this new antisemitism, and vice versa, the
attacks on Jews almost immediately are accompanied by the
attacks on Israel.
So that is like very closely linked phenomenas, and we get
it--that's--when Americans, the antisemitism rise on both
sides. You can't make a deal with this phenomena without
recognizing all of the--part of it. But we really have to have
one definition in order to do this, and that is why IHRA
definition is so important. And that is why I really call
American station does such a wonderful job in building
comprehensive plan to stick to this definition of antisemitism.
We will not be able to win if people on the left will be
attacking antisemitism of the right, and the people on the
right will be attacking antisemitism on the left. There should
be no left and right. Demonization of Jewish people and
demonization of the state of Israel, the double standard of
Jews, the double standard of Israel, delegitimization of Jews
and state of Israel is one and the same phenomena. And please
let's stick by this definition.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sharansky follows;]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Mr. Sharansky, thank you so very much again not
only for appearing today--and I know you have a hard stop at
11:50--but above all for your leadership for the last half-
century. It has been extraordinary. Your bravery is, like I
said at the beginning, the stuff of legends.
I remember asking you once how--because I went to Perm Camp
35 to visit, saw the SHIZO where--the solitary confinement, and
was just--cells and you spent time there. And I remember asking
you once how you got through that, and you did make mention of
how you meditated on the psalms and how important that was to
you.
So, again, I want to thank you, and I know my good friend,
Ms. Wild, would like to just say something as well.
Ms. Wild. Yes. Thank you very much. Sorry for the delay in
getting started, but we really appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very, very much.
I would like to now ask Mr. Schiffmiller if you would
present your remarks.
STATEMENT OF YONA SCHIFFMILLER
Mr. Schiffmiller. Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I thank you for
convening today's hearing and for the opportunity to testify.
Appearing today in my personal capacity, I am director of
research for NGO Monitor, founded by Professor Gerald Steinberg
in 2002 following the antisemitic proceedings of the 2001
Durban Conference Against Racism described both in my written
testimony and by Mr. Sharansky.
NGO Monitor is a globally recognized research institute
promoting democratic values and good governance. By publishing
independent analyses of NGOs, their funders, and other
stakeholders, we work to ensure that decisionmakers and civil
society operate in accordance with the principles of
accountability, transparency, and universal human rights.
In a 2017 presentation, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks,
who served for over 20 years as the chief rabbi of the United
Kingdom, was a member of the British House of Lords and an
internationally renowned scholar, noted that antisemites often
couch their anti-Jewish rhetoric in the language of the highest
ideals of the day.
During the Middle Ages, it was religion; in the 20th
century, science. And today it is human rights discourse, which
is used to mask and legitimize antisemitic agenda.
The pathological obsession with Israel that permeates
institutions and organizations that claim the mantle of human
rights has led to the manipulation, distortion, and perversion
of these truly lofty ideals. In my written testimony, I
summarize several NGO-driven campaigns, including BDS
initiatives, attempts to blacklist and sanction the IDF,
threatening Israel with ICC investigations, and explicit calls
for dismantling the Jewish state.
NGOs that oppose Jewish self-determination have learned
that adopting the language of human rights and international
law is the most effective strategy for achieving their goals.
However, when responding to acts of terrorism and violent
antisemitism, many of these organizations reveal their true
beliefs. Some actors ignore these phenomena altogether, while
others, particularly officials at European government-funded
Palestinian NGOs, justify violence.
In my written testimony, I described Human Rights Watch,
HRW, invokes human rights principles to accuse Israel of
committing apartheid and to lobby for a host of BDS measures.
However, when the rights of Jews are violated, HRW is absent.
In 2021, the ADL recorded 2,717 antisemitic incidents in the
United States, the highest total since the organization began
tracking in 1979.
HRW's 2022 World Report covering 2021 does not mention
antisemitism in the United States even once.
Jews appear to be the exception to the supposed pursuit of
universal human rights. Abhorrent as this indifference is, the
celebration of and justification for violence expressed by
officials at European-funded Palestinian NGOs is uniquely
disturbing.
Take for instance the cases of the Palestinian Center for
Human Rights, PCHR, and Al-Haq, an organization whose terror
ties, as well as its extremely anti-Zionist and international
BDS campaigning, are described in greater detail in my written
testimony.
These two European government-backed NGOs are among the
architects of many of the anti-Israel efforts detailed in my
written testimony, successfully lobbying for the U.N. blacklist
of companies operating beyond the 1949 armistice line,
including American firms, as well as the launching of an ICC
investigation into Israel, a worrying precedent for U.S.
officials and military personnel.
As I describe in my written testimony, Al-Haq in particular
is one of the leading actors seeking to apply the apartheid
label to Israel and defines the Jewish state as inherently
illegitimate.
Last month, as Islamic Jihad and other terrorist
organizations launched over 1,200 rockets towards Israeli
population centers--each one a war crime--PCHR published a
statement in which it ``affirms the Palestinian people to
resist the occupation by all available means, including armed
struggle.'' Under pressure from donors, this text was amended.
Statements by PCHR's board members and by officials at Al-
Haq and other Palestinian NGOs reveal how pervasive those
attitudes are. In a Facebook post published during the
fighting, PCHR board member Nadia Abu Nahla referred to Israel
as ``the Nazi criminal occupation,'' adding ``May the
resistance,'' a euphemism for Palestinian terrorist
organizations, ``have victory.''
Following a January 26 IDF operation in Jenin in which 10
Palestinians, mostly armed members of terrorist organizations,
were killed in a gun battle, Abu Nahla wrote, ``Oh he who
guides the blood vengeances. May you guide our blood
vengeance.'' Are these the words of a human rights defender?
On January 28, 2 days after the gun battle in Jenin, seven
Israeli civilians were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist
outside of a Jerusalem synagogue. In an interview given 2 days
later, the deputy chair of PCHR's board of directors said that
Palestinians are not prevent ``from taking revenge against the
massacres that are occurring in Palestine,'' adding ``The flame
of Palestinian resistance shall not end but continue as long as
there is occupation, settlement, and Judaization.''
Al-Haq officials have also legitimized the text on Israeli
civilians. Following the massacre outside the Jerusalem
synagogue, Al-Haq legal researcher and advocacy officer Aseel
Al Bajeh wrote, ``Why are settlers allowed to be in occupied
Jerusalem, a war crime that the world recognizes?'' Adding
separately ``Forcing Palestinians to defend their right to
resist is another complicity with Israel's colonialism.''
Just yesterday she wrote, ``Shedding Palestinian blood and
destroying entire families and futures is Zionism.'' She
accompanied the statement with pictures of Palestinians killed
in clashes with the IDF this week, including two Hamas members
who murdered four Israeli civilians just 2 days ago and three
members of Islamic Jihad killed last night after they opened
fire at an Israeli border crossing.
There are other such statements from board members and
officials from these and other European government-funded
Palestinian NGOs. But to catalogue them all would require more
time than we have here today.
Allow me to conclude with a word on the European funding
that I have been referencing. In recent years, Al-Haq has
received grants from the European Union as well as from the
governments of France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and
Sweden. PCHR has received funding from the European Union as
well as from the governments of Switzerland and Norway and from
U.N. agencies.
The director of PCHR, Raji Sourani, a man who has been
publicly celebrated by the Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, was hosted
this week by Dutch officials in The Netherlands.
In addition to being funded by U.N. governments--excuse me,
by European governments, both organizations are cited and
relied upon by U.N. agencies and mechanisms and have interacted
directly with the ICC. Simply put, this must end. Organizations
like these, of which there are unfortunately many more, should
be expelled from the policy-making community, not funded,
sought after, and consulted with.
Governments, U.N. frameworks, and international legal
bodies, as well as ESG firms and other corporate actors, should
shun these groups and implement effective vetting measures that
ensure that no like-minded actors are supported or their
reporting relied upon in the future. There can be no Jewish
exception to the cause of universal human rights, nor should
those professing violence be permitted to masquerade as human
rights practitioners.
I thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to the subcommittee's questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schiffmiller follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much for your very eloquent
statement, and your written statement just has so much even
more. So I deeply--we deeply appreciate it.
Mr. Marcus.
STATEMENT OF ITAMAR MARCUS
Mr. Marcus. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, esteemed
members of Congress, thank you very much for calling this
hearing, and thank you very much for inviting me.
I appear before you today as head of Palestinian Media
Watch to shed light on a fundamental and lethal component of
Palestinian Authority ideology, which is Palestinian Authority
antisemitism. Palestinian Authority antisemitism is not a
collection of isolated hate speech. By today, it is a
fundamental part of Palestinian ideology, and it is a great
motivator of Palestinian Authority terror.
I will focus today on two aspects of Palestinian Authority
antisemitism, which is the political antisemitism and the
religious antisemitism. The Palestinian Authority political
antisemitism has three stages. The first is presenting the Jews
as inherently evil and endangering not just Palestinians but
endangering all of humanity.
Number two is that Jews are, therefore, hated and
themselves are responsible for antisemitism.
Finally, the Western countries are anxious to solve their
problem of--the Jewish problem by getting rid of the Jews. They
were the ones who initiated Zionism, and they were the ones who
initiated the establishment of the state of Israel to solve
their Jewish problem. Israel, therefore, is a colonial implant
with no right to exist.
Now, I want to show you--give you some examples of this in
Palestinian Authority leadership as well as from their official
media. Already in 2023, this following interview with a
Palestinian researcher, Palestinian Authority broadcast three
times already this year, and it goes as follows.
He quotes, ``Jews are arrogant by nature. They do not
accept the other. The Jewish thinking is based on racism that
caused them to be hated everywhere, and the Jewish thinking is
based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Europeans
hated them and wanted to get rid of them, so they had the idea
of establishing a Jewish state.''
And, like I say, PATV broadcast their entire horrific
interview three times already this year. Elie Wiesel has said
about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, if ever there was a
piece of writing that could produce mass hatred, this is one,
and yet the PA continues to present this as an authentic
document of Jewish plant to subjugate humanity.
Mahmoud Abbas, in a televised speech, said the following,
that 10 centuries of massacres of Jews, as well as the
Holocaust itself, were caused by the Jewish ``social role,
usury, and banks.'' Abbas was literally saying that the
Holocaust the Jews brought on themselves because of the social
role.
Now, just now at the U.N. last month, Habbas spoke, and
this is what he said. Britain and the United States decided to
plant a foreign entity in our homeland for colonialist
purposes. These countries wanted to get rid of the Jews and
profit from them in Palestine. Two birds with one stone.
Abbas was revealing this fundamental of Palestinian
ideology, which is that Israel is the result of settler
colonialism and, therefore, has no right to exist.
Now, what is clear from this is that Palestinian anti-
Zionism is founded in Palestinian antisemitism.
Now, this PA demonization of Jews has been accepted by
Palestinians as fact. And according to a 2014 ADL poll, they
found ``87 percent of Palestinians say it is probably true that
people hate Jews because of the way Jews behave.'' Eighty-seven
percent of Palestinians were hated--Jews are hated because of
the way they behave.
Now, this denial of Israel's legitimacy leads directly to
the PA teaching that Israel will eventually inevitably be
destroyed. And I will give you some examples from children's
education in the Palestinian Authority. This is a Fatah
children's magazine called Waed, and they have quotes in there
like ``There is no invader who invaded this land that did not
leave it defeated. That is what will happen to the Zionist
invaders.''
The goal is to liberate Palestine that was stolen by the
colonialist and aggressive Zionist movement. A key to the
colonialism appears--and this as well--Algeria's experience,
which was the end of French colonial rule, talks about assures
that the Jewish settlers in Palestine will disappear in the
end. Jews will all leave Palestine. This is Fatah education.
Now, I just read a poll this morning which is added in,
which connects to this teaching that Israel will eventually be
destroyed, will disappear. The poll was done by Khalil Shikaki,
the most important Palestinian pollster, and the question was,
will Israel celebrate its 100th anniversary? Sixty-six percent
of Palestinians said no; 27 percent said yes. So two-thirds of
Palestinians have accepted this ideology that Israel inevitably
will be destroyed.
And I will add that as long as Palestinians believe there
is a chance to destroy Israel, that is a great motivator for
terror.
Now, Palestinian Authority antisemitism has also become an
important source for global antisemitism. Last week when Fatima
Mohammed spoke at CUNY University law school graduation, she
said, ``Israel is a project of settler colonialism.'' She was
literally repeating this fundamental part of Palestinian
Authority ideology.
Now, with the political antisemitism embedded in
Palestinian ideology, then comes the religious ideology, the
religious antisemitism, which puts Allah's stamp of approval on
this hatred.
And I will quote some of the things from Mahmoud al-
Habbash. He is the most important religious figure in the PA.
He is Mahmoud Habbas' personal adviser on Islam, and he is head
of the Sharia courts.
And this is what he said on TV. Jews are humanoids,
creatures that Allah created in the form of humans, those who
Allah has cursed and made them apes and pigs.
He also taught that Jews throughout history have worked
together with Satan disseminating evil. Israel, he said,
because it is a Jewish state, is Satan's project, and that is
the reason the Palestinians are in conflict. Again, this is the
most important religious figure in the PA, Habbas' adviser.
This same adviser also taught the religious reason to kill
Israelis. He started by quoting from the Quran where the Quran
says kill them, and then he, in his own words, defined 10
categories of crimes for which to kill people. All are crimes
that he routinely accuses Israel of doing--taking their land,
taking their homeland, et cetera.
So here he was saying the Quran is telling you to kill, and
then he ends with a quote from the Quran, ``Kill them wherever
you find them.'' Again, this is Habbas' adviser on Islam.
Last year during the Ramadan, PATV preacher prayed,
``Allah, delight us with the extermination of the evil Jews.''
And an important Palestinian religious figure who teaches, he
is responsible for teaching preacher training, he said, ``Allah
willing, the end of the Jews and America that supports the Jews
will be in Palestine.''
This combination of political and religious antisemitism
results in the PA's justifying every single murder of every
Israeli and honoring every murderer.
Two months ago, an Israeli mother and her two daughters,
Lucy, Maia, and Rina Dee, were murdered in a drive-by shooting.
After Israel tracked down the killers, the murderers and killed
them, Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh posted pictures of the
murderers of the Dee family on his Facebook page with the text
``Glory and eternity to our righteous Shahids,'' our righteous
martyrs, people who died for Allah.
The automatic Palestinian Authority support for every
murderer, no matter what Israeli is killed, including Israeli
children, can only be understood when recognizing the
centrality of Palestinian Authority antisemitism, which sees
murdering of Jews and Israelis as justified as an ideal act for
Allah.
Now, a new Palestinian poll I mentioned, I found this
morning something also shocking that I want to read to you
related to the support for killing Israelis. Eighty-six percent
of the Palestinian Authority of Palestinians--I am sorry, 86
percent say the Palestinian Authority does not have the right
to arrest members of these armed groups to prevent them from
carrying out attacks against Israel.
The armed groups that are doing all the recent terror, 86
percent of Palestinians say the Palestinian Authority should
not arrest them and disarm them.
Palestinian Authority antisemitism I would say is the
elephant in the room that the international community has
ignored, looking for all sorts of other reasons to blame the
conflict on. It is now embedded in Palestinian Authority world
view and is being echoed in CUNY University and around the
world. It is urgent that PA antisemitism be put front and
center, and discussions about any future solution have to
include a major focus on Palestinian Authority antisemitism.
Only after this fundamental reason for Palestinian hate is
eliminated can the Palestinian Authority be a potential peace
partner and will be the chance for stopping the spread of
Palestinian antisemitism around the world.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marcus follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kontorovich.
STATEMENT OF EUGENE KONTOROVICH
Mr. Kontorovich. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Wild, honorable members of the committee, I am honored to be
invited here to discuss contemporary antisemitism.
Opposing antisemitism is easy because everyone is on your
side. Certainly, in polite society, you won't find anyone
embracing the label. Today the general anathema on antisemitism
makes anti-Zionism a convenient and common substitute. At the
same time, criticism of Israel, as one would of any other
country, is entirely legitimate, thus defining ``antisemitism''
accurately is crucial.
Those who seek to single out, delegitimize, and harm the
world's primary Jewish community claim that they are merely
responding to the bad things the Jewish state actually does.
They have reasons, you see. They have reasons.
The notion of antisemitism, how does one answer this? The
notion that antisemitism only applies to unreasoning, foaming
at the mouth, purely emotional Jew hated, misunderstands what
antisemitism is and has always been as I will show.
These remarks are very timely, because the Biden
Administration's new National Strategy on Anti-Semitism harms
efforts to respond to it by referring to two different and
fundamentally contradictory definitions of it.
The remainder of my testimony explains why the IHRA
definition discussed by Mr. Sharansky is correct in identifying
Israel as a major focus of antisemitism and addresses the
claims made by the Nexus Document cited in the National
Strategy, which argues that double standards against Israel
should not be presumed to be antisemitic.
The only widely accepted definition of antisemitism today
is the working definition of the International Holocaust
Memorial Association, IHRA. It crucially states that anti-
Zionism or anti-Israel conduct can be manifestations of
antisemitism.
IHRA's definition provides several examples, claiming the
existence of Israel is illegitimate for ab initio, the
widespread practice of applying double standards to the Jewish
state or ``requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded
of any other democratic nation.''
This IHRA definition obviously struck a chord. It has been
formally adopted by at least 39 countries, the EU, the EC, the
OSC, most U.S. states, and the vast majority of ideologically
diverse jurisdictions, universities, and entities around the
world.
The U.S. has also adopted the IHRA definition, and the
National Strategy on Anti-Semitism reaffirms that while also
``welcoming what is known as the Nexus Document,'' an effort
designed to undermine the Israel-focused aspect--the Israel
antisemitism of IHRA's definition.
Nexus does not treat as presumptively antisemitic either
the questioning of the basic legitimacy of Israel's existence
or the application of double standards, discriminatory
standards to Israel. According to Nexus, such views may have
legitimate grounds. We will discuss what those may be.
Unlike IHRA's adoption by a wide range of countries, not a
single country has adopted the Nexus definition. So Nexus last
month leaped from discussions of like-minded academics straight
into a White House policy document. While the IHRA definition
remains the only one officially used by the Government, the
National Strategy citation of Nexus harms efforts to respond to
antisemitism by referring to these two different definitions.
Israel bashing is ostensibly directed against the state of
Israel, not the Jews. So how can it be antisemitic? In anti-
discrimination law, American anti-discrimination law, it is
well known that discrimination need not be 100 percent
congruent with the targeted class.
Proxies for race, sexual orientation, and so forth, can be
discriminatory using proxies. Moreover, no one disputes that
the political treatment of a country could potentially be a
proxy for bigotry against the faith or ethnicity of that
country. For example, when the prior Administration adopted
immigration restrictions on five Muslim majority countries,
many members of this House denounced it as a Muslim ban, even
though it cited countries, not religions.
Israel is by far the largest Jewish community in the world,
and the home to the plurality--and soon the majority--of the
world's Jews. The vast majority of American Jews identify
closely with Israel, making Zionism a convenient proxy for
Jewishness.
Unfortunately, some people who understand that proxy--a
country could be a proxy for bigotry, who vigorously denounced,
for example, President Trump's immigration rules as a Muslim
ban, now argue that it is okay to single out Israel and apply
to it double standards. This is a double standard within a
double standard.
The claim that anti-Israel obsession is merely about
Israeli policies needs to be evaluated in a historical context.
For 2,000 years, the obsessive focus on the supposed wrongs of
this one tiny group has resurfaced across an amazing array of
cultures and epochs. From the Romans to the Crusades, from the
Reformation to the Inquisition, from national to international
socialism, the justifications change, the target remains the
same.
Finally, the Jewish people in our times reconstituted their
nation and immediately found it the subject of unparalleled
international defamation and libel. Jews have been hated
sometimes as adherents of a faith, sometimes as members of a
people. Now the extraordinary enmity is aimed at their state.
The coin lands on the same side on every toss. It is an amazing
coincidence. The segue from earlier modes of antisemitism to
anti-Zionism is stunning.
Now, effective antisemites have always sought to justify
their bigotry by claiming that they simply object to the bad
things that Jews do. Capitalism, communism, monarchy-ism, not
accepted Christianity, even Hitler had elaborate policy reasons
for his opposition to Jewry. In contemporary terms, he thought
they harmed global human rights.
The accusations leveled against Israel today resemble those
made by antisemites throughout history. Instead of Jews being
accused of killing Gentile children, Israel is accused of
deliberately killing Palestinian children. Instead of Jews
being accused of causing a plague among Gentiles, Israel is
accused of causing disease amongst Palestinians.
The accusation of apartheid is a modern blood libel, an
absurd big lie, and responding to it justifies it more than it
deserves, but inciteful in ways that cannot be rectified by
mere refutation.
Just as the classic blood libel resonated with religious
preoccupations of earlier ages, today's claims resonate with
the ethnic justice concerns of our own times. That is the power
of apartheid. That in our times several members of Congress can
level such accusations against the Jewish state is truly
distressing.
Now I want to say that the Nexus Document says there may be
a valid reason for people to care more about Israel. They say
maybe people care about Israel because Israel gets more U.S.
foreign aid than other countries.
Now, in my written testimony, I have a chart of how much
aid different countries get from the United States. And as you
will see, Israel does in fact get more, and there are--there is
much more hostility to Israel. I have various measures of
hostility to Israel, New York Times' resolutions.
As you see, after Israel it drops off very
disproportionately. Egypt, King Jordan, massive recipients of
U.S. aid. They don't get half of the criticism of Israel, not
in Congress, not in the United Nations, and not in the pages of
The New York Times.
So whatever this phenomenon is, it seems to only work for
Israel, this aid-focused justification.
And, finally, I will close by pointing out of course
countries around the world have very harsh policies against
Israel. I have a table in my testimony where I show U.K.'s
votes against Israel. Are these other countries voting against
Israel because of U.S. foreign aid? It doesn't stand to reason.
So this form of antisemitism is one of the dominant forms
of our day and must be taken very seriously.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kontorovich follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Mr. Neuer.
STATEMENT OF HILLEL NEUER
Mr. Neuer. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
important hearing. I have come here directly from the United
Nations Human Rights Council session underway now in Geneva to
report to you about the antisemitism and demonization of Israel
that is taking place there and in many other parts of the
United Nations.
Now, the U.N. Charter guarantees ``the equal treatment of
nations large and small.'' Yet if an alien from another planet
would visit the United Nations and listen to its debates, read
its resolutions, and walk through its halls, it could logically
conclude that a principal purpose of the world body is to
censure a tiny country called Israel.
At the General Assembly, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, in
2022, there was one resolution on Iran, one on North Korea, one
on Syria, and 15 on Israel. At the World Health Organization,
every year its annual assembly deviates from global public
health for a special debate singling out Israel.
There is no such focus on Syria where hospitals are
repeatedly bombed by Syrian and Russian forces, nor on North
Korea, one of the worst health systems in the world. On the
contrary, the WHO recently elected North Korea to its executive
board.
At the U.N. Human Rights Council, most of the world's worst
abusers get a free pass. Worse, many abusers sit on the
Council, including China, Cuba, Eritrea, Qatar, and Pakistan.
None of these has ever been censured. And last month when it
came time to appoint a chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council
social forum, they decided to appoint the Islamic Republic of
Iran. I want to commend all of the members of Congress who have
written to complain about that.
While dictators are honored, a democracy is scapegoated.
The only country in the world with a standing agenda item at
the Council is not China, which violates the basic human rights
of 1.5 billion people, a fifth of humanity, nor is it Iran,
which beats, blinds, and poisons women and girls for the crime
of protesting, it is Israel.
From the Council's creation in 2006 to today, the Council
has adopted two resolutions on Sudan, three on Venezuela, 14 on
Iran, 16 on North Korea, 42 on Syria, and 103 on Israel. So
more on Israel than on Iran, Syria, and North Korea combined.
Now, in May 2021, after Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired
thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian centers, the Council
met in special session and created a Commission of Inquiry
targeting Israel. It is the first such commission with no end
date. It is mandated to report in perpetuity. Its scope
includes not only the war of that year but all events leading
up to it and since. They have the unprecedented mandate to
examine ``root causes of the conflict,'' including alleged
``systematic discrimination based on race.''
As chair of the inquiry, the Council decided to appoint
Navi Pillay, who has signed petitions lobbying governments to
``sanction apartheid Israel.'' She is the objective chair. U.N.
Watch documented her extreme bias in a legal request demanding
that she recuse herself. This was completely ignored.
Another commissioner is Miloon Kothari. I just heard him
speak two days ago in Geneva. Last summer he gave an interview
where he ranted about ``the Jewish lobby,'' and he questioned
Israel's right to be a member of the U.N. He was condemned by
numerous countries and U.N. officials for antisemitism, yet he
remains in his post.
In this regard, I want to commend the U.S. Ambassador to
the Human Rights Council for her superb work, Michele Taylor,
in leading 27 member states this week to object to this
Commission of Inquiry and to call for an end generally to anti-
Israel bias at the Council.
Now other Council officials need to be examined. Last year
the Council appointed Francesca Albanese as its ``special
rapporteur on Palestine.'' The mandate in fact is to
investigate only ``Israel's violations.'' U.N. experts are
obliged to be objective. Before she was appointed, we informed
the Council that Albanese has repeatedly equated Palestinian
suffering with the Nazi Holocaust, accused Israel of war
crimes, apartheid, and genocide. In a 2014 Facebook post, she
wrote that America is ``subjugated by the Jewish lobby.''
The Council knew all of this and appointed her. One year
into the post, she has repeatedly legitimized terrorism and
addressed the Hamas Conference where she said, ``You have a
right to resist.''
Mr. Chairman, because of our work exposing and fighting
this kind of discrimination, we are now being targeted. U.N.
Watch, the Swiss nonprofit association that I direct, was
founded in Geneva 30 years ago by former U.S. ambassador and
civil rights leader Morris Abram. We have never received
funding from any government and are supported solely by
charitable donations.
Our reports and speeches exposing anti-Israel prejudice,
combating dictatorships at the Human Rights Council, are seen
worldwide.
In retaliation, the powerful chief of the Council's
secretariat, Mr. Eric Tistounet, is running a campaign of smear
attacks, censorship, and harassment against me and our
organization. He tampers with speakers' lists to prevent us
from taking the floor at the Human Rights Council.
According to whistleblower testimony by his former
colleague, Emma Reilly--she has appeared on BBC and reported in
Le Monde--Mr. Tistounet justified his actions by falsely
claiming that U.N. Watch was ``an Israeli GONGO,'' which means
a fake government operated NGO.
When discussing U.N. Watch with its colleagues, Ms. Reilly
reports that this chief of the Human Rights Council secretariat
would frequently use antisemitic tropes to the effect that we
were controlling members states or controlling NGOs behind the
scenes.
In October, we filed a complaint with the Secretary General
of the United Nations, which can be found at UNWatch.org/abuse.
Based on leaked internal emails and whistleblower testimony,
our complaint documents how Mr. Tistounet, in violation of U.N.
rules, systematically orders his staff to manipulate speakers'
lists to prevent U.N. Watch from speaking at the Human Rights
Council.
For example, at least year's June session, 2022, we
requested to speak for 36 interactive dialogues. Groups close
to Mr. Tistounet received about 15 speaking slots. We received
zero.
Mr. Tistounet has concocted a fictitious rule, especially
for us, demanding to see our speeches in advance, enabling him
to draft reprimands, which he would then hand to the chair at
the podium to read out against me without any basis. According
to leaked internal documents, which he has never disputed, when
Mr. Tistounet learned in 2007 that I was the victim of a false
arrest due to mistaken identity, he sent out a celebratory
email to his 50-member staff at the Human Rights Council.
The chief of the Human Rights Council secretariat
instructed his U.N. employees to secretly go to an internet
cafe to anonymously defame me online to post the material next
to videos of my speeches about the Council.
Finally, according to leaked emails, Mr. Tistounet told his
staff to think of ways to have me physically detained by U.N.
security in order to block me from entering the Council chamber
in Geneva.
Now, we filed a detailed complaint about all of this with
Secretary General Guterres in October. The United Nations
Assistant Secretary General Martha Lopez replied that it would
be considered ``as per internal procedures.'' Eight months
later, nothing has happened.
On the contrary, in the current June-July session of the
Council, from which I have just come here, I have just received
word from my colleagues in Geneva that the speakers' lists were
again manipulated by Mr. Tistounet. Groups that are close to
him, like Amnesty International, received 19 speaking slots. We
are being prevented from speaking more than once.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, because of our work to expose
antisemitism and other forms of prejudice and injustice at the
Human Rights Council, its chief of staff is trying to censor
and silence us. He doesn't want the world to know.
We appeal to the United States and other countries that
care about human rights to demand that this bigoted and corrupt
official be suspended, and that the Secretary General create an
independent investigation as requested in our complaint.
In conclusion, U.N. bodies routinely apply double standards
to Israel, not expected of other democracies. Singling out the
world's only Jewish state for opprobrium in a way that is
wholly disproportionate to its deficiencies. U.N. officials
have claimed that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor,
drawn comparisons of current Israeli policy to that of the
Nazis, or accused Israel of ``genocide.''
Under the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, it is
clear that the actions of numerous U.N. bodies and officials
are antisemitic in effect, if not intent.
I want to thank this committee for taking up this urgent
matter, and especially you, Chairman Smith, for your
leadership.
I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neuer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Neuer. If you could,
we will put together a letter to Guterres and others laying all
of this out. We will ask the Administration as well to double
down on their efforts. You know, I am glad you pointed out the
27 nations. That was a good step in the right direction.
But to ostracize you, to smear you personally and the
organization, is outrageous. And even the seemingly mundane
idea of manipulating the speakers' lists, that becomes all
important because you lose your right to speak, and that can't
happen.
So everything you can give us to--about the complaint, and
I guarantee--matter of fact, I would say with my colleagues
here, we will make sure--I mean, I did meet with Secretary
Guterres 2 months ago for a lengthy--I did not bring up your
complaint. I didn't know about it. I am sorry. But I will take
it to him in New York.
Mr. Neuer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SHARON NAZARIAN
Dr. Nazarian. Good morning, Chairman Smith and Ranking
Member Wild. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this
important meeting.
I also would like to thank the chairman and Congresswoman
Manning for their continued leadership as co-chairs of the
Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Anti-Semitism.
Thank you for the entire committee for your bipartisan
commitment to fighting antisemitism and your support for a
strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
Since 1913, ADL's mission has been to stop the defamation
of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment
to all. I am proud to support that mission as a member of the
ADL's national board of directors and previously as senior vice
president for international affairs, where I led our efforts to
fight global antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.
We are currently witnessing an alarming increase in
antisemitism and anti-Zionism at levels unseen for decades.
ADL's domestic and international surveys, as well as our annual
audit of domestic antisemitic incidents, provide ample evidence
that antisemitic attitudes and incidents are on the rise in the
U.S. and have not diminished globally.
Moreover, our research shows that antisemitism is
increasingly a trans-national issue. Hate and prejudice knows
no boundaries in our globalized world that connects people
through travel, technology, and social media.
ADL's global 100 index of antisemitism, first fielded in
2014, found that 1 billion adults across 102 countries harbor
significant antisemitic incidents. Sentiments, excuse me. A
follow-up survey this year found that approximately 1 in 4
adults in European--in 10 European countries with some of the
largest populations--Jewish populations subscribe to dangerous
antisemitic tropes, hateful charges such as Jews controlling
the government or being more loyal to Israel than to their own
countries.
Too much power in business, too much control over the
government, responsibility for world wars, these ideas do not
live in a vacuum. They affect real people. From Johannesburg to
Paris to Santiago, time and time again I have heard from
members of the Jewish community who have lived under a constant
deluge of anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
This hate knows no borders. Anti-Semitic conspiracy
theories and harassment continue to spread online. ADL surveys
consistently show how Jews are targeted online because of their
identity. In 2022, ADL's online hate and harassment survey
found that 37 percent of Jewish respondents were harassed
online because of their religion.
As an Iranian American who fled my country of birth because
of antisemitic persecution, I know personally the consequences
of inaction. The tyrannical Iranian regime did not just
demonize Jews, it took away our homes and livelihood, and
continues to threaten Israel, deny the Holocaust, and oppress
women and religious minorities to this day.
And while ADL has worked to be a leading voice fighting
hate, we cannot do this work alone. The United States and the
international community must adopt a whole-of-government and
whole-of society approach to address a global threat of this
magnitude.
We enthusiastically welcome the release of the historic
U.S. National Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism and its embrace
of the IHRA definition. We hope it will serve as a model for
future efforts globally and for the international community to
replicate it.
Global leaders must recognize the gravity of the threat of
growing antisemitism. Many countries and entities, including
the EU, OAS, and OSCE, have taken concrete steps in the fight
against antisemitism, including strategies and appointing
envoys.
We welcome the U.N.'s stated commitment to work on this
issue, but the U.N. cannot deny its own history in fermenting
antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Leaders must denounce all
manifestations of antisemitism, including anti-Zionism, and
plans are only as strong as its implementation.
So global challenges require global solutions. We urge
Congress and the members of this committee to take concrete
steps to fight global antisemitism in the world and online,
including ensuring that the Administration has all the
resources it needs to implement the National Strategy to
Counter Anti-Semitism, funding and growing the Office of the
Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, supporting
tech policy reform that addresses antisemitism online, and we
all know education is key.
So passing the Holocaust Education Anti-Semitism Lessons
Act, the HEAL Act, and pushing for greater global education on
the Holocaust and antisemitism. And, finally, urging your
partners in the international community to do the same.
So thank you for your time, and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Nazarian follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Rosenberg.
Mr. Rosenberg. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, members
of the committee, I am very happy to be here. My voice, another
story. I will do my best and I thank you for bearing with me.
Thank you for inviting me today to testify on the subject
of antisemitism I covered for over a decade as journalist. For
the record, I am against it. That line might sound like a joke,
but it wasn't always the obvious position in this body. In
1934, Pennsylvania Representative Louis McFadden stood on the
House floor and bemoaned alleged Jewish control of the American
economy. ``Is it not true,'' he declared, ``that in the United
States today the Gentiles have the slips of paper, while the
Jews have the gold?'' We have come a long way since then. In
the past, it was not uncommon for Jews to be called before
parliaments and political leaders. However, the intent was not
to protect them, but to persecute them.
There are people, as you have heard on this panel, who come
from countries like the former Soviet Union, Iran, that
repressed their Jews in living memory. So I think I speak for
everyone at this table when I say I am grateful to be here. I
am grateful to you for being here. And I am grateful to live in
an exceptional country where a conversation like this is not
just possible, but desired.
That said, I think there is a general sense backed up by
data and events that you have heard that in the last decade
antisemitism has gradually worsened rather than abated in
America and around the world which raises the question, if more
people than ever are aware of the perils of anti-Jewish
bigotry, why does it persist?
Well, I want to argue that a major reason for this is that
the stories that we tell about antisemitism and where it comes
from are too narrow and convenient. For some people, talking
about anti-Jewish prejudice understandably means talking about
neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the far right. For others,
as reflected in the framing of this hearing, it means talking
about anti-Israel sentiment that too often lapses into
antisemitism.
I reported on both of these stories at length. These
narratives dominate the discourse because they contain real
truth, but also because they are easy for partisans to tell
about their ideological opponents. But they aren't the whole
story and I would like to tell you a different one right now
because until we challenge the comfortable conversation about
antisemitism, I think we are unlikely to impact the problem.
That story goes like this. For almost as long as there have
been Jewish people, there has been anti-Jewish prejudice. This
bigotry predates the United States of America and the modern
state of Israel. It is older than capitalism and communism,
Republicans and Democrats, progressives, and conservatives. And
it precedes Christianity and Islam. Because of this while
antisemitism is expressed by all of these communities, it can't
be caused by them. The source has to be something more
fundamental. What would that be?
Well, consider recent antisemitic incidents that on the
surface seem to have little in common with each other. In 2018,
as we have heard, a white supremacist massacred 11 congregants
at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue. In 2019, assailants
tied to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement shot up a Kosher
supermarket in Jersey City, killing three. And in 2022, an
Islamic extremist held an entire congregation hostage in
Colleyville, Texas for much of the Jewish Sabbath.
To take another odd example, both the Supreme Leader of
Iran's Islamic theocracy and Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh
shooter who hated Muslims posted memes on social media alleging
Zionist control of American politics. During the 2016
Presidential race, which I covered, supporters at campaign
events for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were captured
on camera claiming that Zionists run America's finances. I have
links to those incidents in my written testimony and it is
instructive viewing.
What unites all of these seemingly disparate antisemitic
actors? It is not their identity or background, but rather
their adherence to a conspiracy of Jewish control. The
Pittsburgh white supremacist believed that Jews were
responsible for flooding the country with the brown people that
he hated as part of the so-called ``Great Replacement of the
white race.''
One of the Black Hebrew Israelites sympathizers in Jersey
City wrote on social media about how Jews control the
Government and the British Islamic extremist who targeted the
Texas synagogue did so, bizarrely, because he thought American
rabbis held sway over the U.S. authorities and could free
someone from prison.
This is not, as you might have noticed, how we usually
think about antisemitism. Most people parse it understandably
as a personal prejudice like many others in which a bigot
simply despises a group because they are different, too Black,
too Brown, too Muslim, too Jewish. Anti-Semitism is a personal
prejudice, but it is also something else. It is a conspiracy
theory about how the world works that blames sinister string-
pulling Jews for social and political problems and this is the
kind of antisemitism that as we have seen is more likely to get
people killed, because many well-meaning individuals don't
understand how it works though and to miss much of it.
That is a problem because while the antisemitic conspiracy
theory is pre-political, it is regularly expressed politically
in ways designed to evade our defenses. Today, fewer people
would fall for Congressman McFadden's bald claim that ``the
Jews control our politics and economy.'' But substitute George
Soros or the Rothschilds or the Zionists or Israel and suddenly
the antisemitic argument regains its appeals and respectable
people and institutions, as we have heard, start nodding their
heads and suggesting maybe we should debate the subject.
Because people have been--long been conditioned to conceive of
Jews in an underhanded fashion, it doesn't take much to update
the ancient conspiracy theory to persuade contemporary
audiences. And thanks to centuries of material blaming the
world's problems on its Jews, conspiracy theorists seeking to
scapegoat someone for their sorrows inevitably discover that
the invisible hand of their oppressor belongs to an invisible
Jew.
Now to be clear, actors like Soros or state of Israel
possess real power and influence and certainly warrant critique
for how they exercise it. I have written both of those
critiques. The problem is rather that such criticism is too
often replaced with conspiracy in which the Jewish target is
transformed into an avatar of absolute evil who stands behind
the world's ills. This way of thinking threatens democracy
because as long as prejudiced people pin their societies'
problems on Jewish culprits they will be unable to organize
collectively to rationally solve them. The conspiracy theory
threatens both Israelis and Palestinians because when the
conversation over their conflict is captured by antisemites,
legitimate criticism cannot be heard and both parties
inevitably lose. And of course, it threatens Jewish people
everywhere which should be enough reason for us all to oppose
it.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much as well, Mr. Rosenberg, for
your reporting, your writing, and for being here today.
I have a number of questions but I'll just do a few and
then yield to my colleagues and, hopefully, we will have time
not be interrupted by votes for a second round.
You know, you get insights, you know, on trips to Israel. I
will never forget, I made one trip, always bringing up
antisemitism, but I met with a group of Palestinian students.
It was at the Catholic University of America in Bethlehem and
three fourths of all the students happened to be Muslims. And
it was about a two hour town meeting. It was all their top
leadership student-wise, you know student council presidents
and everybody. And we got very quickly to 9/11.
Now in my district we lost a number of people to 9/11, you
know, they were in the Twin Towers, obviously, and these
students all asserted with absolute certainty that no Jews died
in 9/11 and that the Jews were responsible for it. Well, I know
and I told them this and I argued with them very, very
aggressively that I knew many of the families who died. I
worked on a lot of things relevant to compensation and
everything else with the Special Master and all that and there
were so many of the families and so many of them were Jewish,
Jewish widows, Jewish families, and they all know who did it
and were killed in the process. I mean, at least our Government
did a very good job with the 9/11 Commission, so effectively
run by Tom Kaine and Lee Hamilton. You know, ferreted out the
information in a very, very comprehensive way.
And they persisted and it just underscored to me, and I am
sure maybe to you, that hate speech and antisemitism always
employs lies and hyperbole and scapegoats and just causes--
smears people, as you are being smeared, Mr. Neuer, in order to
get their way. They don't care about the truth.
So I walk away with that as another one of those instances
and then when you go through and, again, all your statements
were outstanding, and as I delve into what was actually written
and what you ladies and gentlemen wrote, the quotations from
the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and the like are
just--I mean, one from Palestinian Media Watch, Mr. Marcus,
where you say the PA director of preacher training taught on PA
TV, ``Allah willing, the end of the Jews in America that
support the Jews will be in Palestine.''
They are talking about total annihilation, total
destruction, and also so many of the quotes that all of you
have mentioned that are just--let me just say to Mr.
Schiffmiller, and maybe you want to comment on it further, I
have been disgusted with Amnesty International Human Rights
Watch. It used to be that Amnesty International were about
political prisoners and they had a very stellar reputation for
taking the sides in an objective way, naming the country, for
political prisoners. They have reneged on all of that.
I was here when they had the apartheid fights, again, in
South Africa, and I supported those sanctions. Apartheid is an
abomination and thankfully it is in trash heap of history. But
to sit there and take that type of language and smear Israel
with it is appalling. And Human Rights Watch is doing the exact
same thing and I just find it appalling.
I have had them, representatives of those groups, come and
testify on other issues, but, you know, it just occurred to me,
I am going to boycott them. Any hearing I have in human rights,
Amnesty is not invited, nor is Human Rights Watch, because of
their smear, their horrible smear. And you might want to speak
a little bit further to that if you would like to.
I ask all of you, how is the Taylor Force Act being
implemented? Are you satisfied with what the U.S. Government is
doing?
Mr. Neuer, you mentioned about the good work that was done
with the 27 nations that have objected, but generally speaking,
how up the chain of command has it gotten to, does it get to?
President Biden's desk, so that he talks the war evaders?
Certainly to our Secretary of State, because I believe many
countries take their cue on how high up that chain the protests
go. And it is not where we ought to be and we will be as a--and
we know our ambassador-at-large is doing a very good job and
she has direct access, I wrote the law, to the Secretary of
State.
But my hope is that there will be--especially as a result
of your amazing testimonies, and this great group of people who
all work every day on combating antisemitism, we are at a pivot
point. It is getting worse. And maybe if you could speak to
that as well. And I have so many other questions, but I don't
want to take away from my other colleagues.
But I just hope--you know, we do far more than we have
done, maybe some resolutions would be--we have done them in the
past and we will do them again.
Brad, you have done resolutions. We have all done them. And
I think we need to circle and think with an action plan on for
things we ought to be doing.
So Mr. Schiffmiller.
Mr. Schiffmiller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To your question
about amnesty or to your point about Amnesty, I mention in my
written testimony that the Mayor of Frankfurt has accused
Amnesty of promoting ethnic cleansing for a lot of the rhetoric
that it has been promoting. And, particularly, you mentioned
the apartheid claims that are made by Amnesty. One of the
things that set Amnesty apart from a lot of the other
organizations that are pushing this sort of rhetoric is they
have made a concerted effort to try to detach Jewish history
from the land of Israel because that is not politically
convenient for them. And so they have made a concerted effort
to try to say Jewish presences in the old city of Jerusalem,
Jewish historical sites in other parts of the country are
places that should not be visited, should not be accessible to
people and they have really made a major assault on Jewish
cultural rights and Christian cultural rights in order to
achieve a specific political outcome.
Mr. Marcus. Thank you. I would like to talk about Taylor
Force Act and it is very significant. It has always been
discussed here in Congress. The Palestinian Authority was
already condemning it and when it passed, the Palestinian
Authority has probably said hundreds of times that they will
never, ever stop paying a salary to terrorists. And this is
significant, and this was mentioned, the Palestinian Authority
claims that they have an international right to what they call
resistance and they claim that that resistance includes the
right to kill any Israeli.
And I am going to tell you where the blame for that is. I
actually put this as an appendix in my written document, but I
want to just specify it here. There are two U.N. Resolutions,
3236 and 3246, from 1974 and 1975, and these resolutions say
that the Palestinians have a right to use all means to get
their rights.
Now, in one of them, in U.N. 3246, it also talks about
liberation from colonial and foreign domination and the ability
to use all means, including armed struggle. And they also talk
about specifically Palestine there.
So what is going on here? The U.N. with this decision
completely adopted the Palestinian Authority narrative that
Israel is a colonial country with no right to exist and,
therefore, Palestinians have the right to use armed conflict
against Israel. They, therefore, say that they have a right to
kill Israelis. They say Taylor Force Act is wrong because their
prisoners are prisoners of war with U.N.-guaranteed rights to
kill Israelis.
One of the things that--one of the recommendations that I
put in the written testimony is that the United States should
initiate the same way with Zionism is racism which was passed
at that same time, was canceled. These two resolutions, 3236
and 3246, should--must be canceled because they tell the
Palestinians that they have an international right to use all
means and they translate this into murdering civilians.
We are actually preparing a full report on the endless
number of times they have cited these resolutions to justify
killing and to condemn Taylor Force. That is the first thing in
terms of an action that I think the United States can do is to
move ahead on that.
The second things is the Palestinian Authority, the Taylor
Force Act says the United States--the Palestinian Authority
can't get any American money and the Palestinians claims
ignored it. And they have managed to finance. When I say
managed, for over two years now, they have only been paying 70
percent or 80 percent of the salaries of their civil servants
and they are not quite managing, but they don't care if people
suffer. They continue to pay salaries to terrorists.
What I think could be done and I also list this as one of
the recommendations, if the punishment for the Taylor Force
Act, for a violation of Taylor Force would have personal impact
on individuals. And I am talking about designating the people
in the Palestinian Authority who are involved in the pay of the
salaries to terrorists and awarding to the families of the
martyrs to designate them to be aliens that are ineligible to
travel to the United States. I think the designating of
individuals who are involved in this will take it from a
general, okay, we're losing some money, will have a personal
impact and weaken the list of every single Palestinian leader
and the administrator who is involved in paying----
[Crosstalk.]
Mr. Smith. Because the Magnitsky Act would be a tool that
we could use to----
Mr. Marcus. We will prepare that document for you. Okay.
Thank you.
Mr. Kontorovich. Chairman, first of all, I want to relate
to what you said about Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and their
apartheid blood libel and very strongly applaud the stance you
have taken about engaging with them because it is exactly when
otherwise mainstream institutions start to spread, when
otherwise polite institutions start to spread these kinds of
lies, that is what gives them respectability.
And, indeed, apartheid is part of a broader effort to use
international law language and international law concepts in a
sui generis way and create unique applications of international
law, sometimes even unique international rules that apply just
to say Israel apartheid is an extreme example, but its name is
an Afrikaner word that was meant specifically to describe South
Africa. They could have just said racism, bad discrimination,
but they wanted to go all the way with apartheid because this
is fundamental in delegitimization of Israel.
For example, in international law, a country's borders,
there is a universal rule of international law that says when
you have a new country, its borders are the borders of the last
top level administrative unit in the territory. This sets the
borders around the world. It sets the borders in the Middle
East, except for Israel.
In international law, there is a rule that says and I am
quoting International Committee of the Red Cross, ``occupation
ceases when the occupying forces are driven out or evacuate the
territory.'' They dropped a footnote, ``except for Israel-
Gaza.''
In international law, a country's capital is where a
country chooses to place it except for Israel. Indeed, classic
antisemitism sought to restrict where Jews can live leading to
the invention of the ghetto. That was invented for Jews.
Today, international law is distorted to plan the entire
areas of Holy Land off limits to Jews and as my research shows,
Israel is the only country that has been accused of war crimes
for letting their people live in certain places, despite many
territorial disputes around the world and addressing this legal
ghetto in international law is a fundamental step we need to
take.
As for Taylor Force, I want to point out two points. First
of all, Taylor Force requires that the Government publicize the
Palestinian Authority's pay for slay efforts, that it make
known in the United States to people what the Palestinian
Authority is doing. That has not been aggressively implemented.
And secondly, there is a way in which money is getting from
the United States to the Palestinian Authority and directly and
is very disturbing the World Bank. The World Bank obviously in
the United States is a significant supporter, picks the
president. The World Bank not only funds the Palestinian
Government generously, it specifically whitewashes its pay for
slay program. It is supposed to make reports on every country
what their finances are like.
Are they engaged in fiscally-prudent policies? And they
have a normal report about the Palestinian Authority. It reads
like any other report that they would write. They write about
their pension system. They write about government corruption,
mismanagement, except seven percent of the budget is just
missing. So to ignore that and white wash that in their reports
is something shocking and it is not because they don't know
about it.
Mr. Neuer. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your
commitment to intervene in the matter that we raised of the
Human Rights Council harassment and censorship of our
organization for speaking out against antisemitism and anti-
Israeli prejudice.
I will note that the same individual involved here, Mr.
Eric Tistounet, the Chief of the Human Rights Council
Secretariat, has also been accused of handing over the names of
Chinese dissidents to Beijing in advance of their speaking at
the Council so that these exiled dissidents could have their
families--so that China could pressure their families back home
to prevent them from speaking. This was documented in a BBC
documentary called The Whistleblowers and Emma Reilly has
testified about this.
Mr. Chair, you asked about how high up the chain it goes in
terms of the United States Government speaking out on these
issues, whether it reaches the table of the President and of
course, the higher it goes, the more it will make an impression
either on the United Nations or on other states. I don't know
the answer to that question.
I don't know how high it goes, but I absolutely agree that
the United States must show that these issues are a priority
and that means it would have to come from the highest level,
whether it is the Secretary of State or whether it is the
President. In that regard, I will note something that is
mentioned in my written testimony. The United States last year
decided to give $344 million to UNRWA. Now that organization
could have a humanitarian role to play, but in our report in
March, together with a group IMPACT SC, we identified 133 UNRWA
teachers and staff who were found to promote and violence,
antisemitic hate and violence, on social media. An additional
82 teachers affiliated with 30 UNRWA schools were involved in
distributing hateful content, antisemitic content to students.
An example is a teacher in Lebanon for UNRWA, Elham
Mansour, who wrote on Facebook, ``By Allah, anyone who can kill
and slaughter any Zionist and Israeli criminal and doesn't do
so, doesn't deserve to live. Kill them and pursue them
everywhere. They are the greatest enemy. All Israel deserves is
death.'' This is a teacher of Palestinian children. We are
paying for it. I am a Canadian citizen. I live in Switzerland.
All of our Western countries are paying for it. The United
States is giving $344 million.
Now, the U.S. made certain demands, but are they made at
the highest levels? Are they made at serious levels? I am not
sure because when we report these things, the immediate
reaction of UNRWA is not to call us and say, who are these
teachers, can you help us root out the hate? But it is to smear
us. Again, the same approach. And so I do hope that the United
States will speak out on these issues at the highest level.
Finally, I just want to pick up on something that you, Mr.
Chairman, indicated about how the group's Amnesty and Human
Rights Watch have betrayed their founding mission and have
resorted to the worst kinds of anti-Zionism, accusing Israel of
being an apartheid state. You know, one of the individuals I
mentioned, Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur at the
U.N. on Palestine, she was condemned by the Special Envoy, the
United States Special Envoy on Anti-Semitism, Deborah Lipstadt
and by the U.S. Ambassador of the Human Rights Council for her
comments such as America is subjugated by the Jewish lobby and
other rabid forms of anti-Israel hate and supporting terrorism.
You know, not long ago, about a year or two ago, she gave
an interview in Italian and she said, she looked up to the
heavens and she said in Italian, there are two groups that have
issued reports on apartheid and picking up on what Eugene just
mentioned, how these groups legitimize hate. And she said we
need to thank these two groups, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch
because they liberated the word, they liberated the word. And
she is right. Because these established groups made these
reports, someone like Francesca Albanese who praises the
antisemite Roger Waters who praises Hamas and empowers them,
she is empowered by these groups. So I think it is important to
note this. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. For the record and I appreciate you bringing up
UNRWA, we are planning a hearing on UNRWA. I have had one, too,
before and we actually went through the textbooks during the
course of that hearing and the antisemitic hatred was replete.
They claimed they cleaned it all up. I don't believe that for a
moment, so we will be doing that hearing.
And the second thing is, especially as the major donor for
UNRWA, second is that we are going to be looking at UNESCO as
well which the Biden administration says he wants to rejoin and
they are claiming all kinds of arrearages that they claim we
owe. And we left there because of the antisemitic work that
they were doing, but also they recognized Palestine as a member
state which they had no right to do.
I would like to now yield to Ms. Wild.
Ms. Wild. I am going to pass to Mr. Phillips in the
interest of his schedule. I am going to be here for the
duration, so go ahead, Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Ranking Member Wild and Mr.
Chairman, to our witnesses, greetings, and to all of you here
and watching and care about this terrible disease. It is an
ancient disease. It is not unique to any time or place. It
predates the United Nations. It predates any NGO about which we
are speaking. And it certainly predates the Israeli-Palestine
issue.
I am an American because of antisemitism. My great-great-
grandparents fled Russia because of Tsar Nicholas II and that
was 130 years ago and five generations later, I am now a member
of the United States Congress and I have to bear witness along
with some of my colleagues here today of January 6th, the
insurrection in the Capitol which was terrible. What was
equally terrible was to see a man in the hallway that day
wearing a shirt, here at the behest of the former President
Donald Trump, that said Six Million Wasn't Enough. Six Million
Wasn't Enough. I had to bear witness to that in 2021 in this
country.
And my point is that this is not unique to the
organizations about which we are speaking. It is not unique to
any part of the world. It is just as big of a problem in the
United States of America as it is anywhere else. So I want to
start with that.
Dr. Nazarian, can you talk about the links between
nationalism and white nationalism in the United States and
antisemitic movements around the world?
Dr. Nazarian. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. I think your
comments are exactly right and we are all disheartened to watch
that display on January 6th in our nation's Capitol.
As I mentioned before, as an Iranian-American who left Iran
because of religious Jewish persecution, coming here and seeing
our democracy under attack on that day was really something I
think my father never thought that bringing us to this country
we would face such a scene.
The connection between white supremacy and antisemitism and
its global connotation is powerful. We have seen at ADL through
our research that the ideology between white supremacy which is
the idea of white replacement, white genocide, the Great
Replacement theory, has now been interconnected and spread
globally in France, in Germany, whether it is QAnon or other
manifestations of this ideology which has antisemitism at its
rooms, but also racial hatred of all forms. And what connects
all of this is the mechanism used to divide society. So it is
targeting Jews. It is targeting other groups. It is using the
idea of others coming in, replacing us, and that you see in
Hungary. You see in Poland. And so the manifestation of this
transnational ideology is a real threat.
As we think about--we testified before a congressional
committee in 2018. I did personally, looking at the
transnational nature of white supremacy, and so we have to
understand what is happening in our country, first and
foremost. We have to--our law enforcement at ADL, number one,
provider of training for law enforcement on these very issues.
Our Center on Extremism tracks white supremacist groups and
their ideology, their manifestos that they put out. And then we
track and we see the same wording, the same language, you know,
tracks between U.S., in Europe, in Australia, in New Zealand
with Christchurch, so this transnational nature of white
supremacy is a threat that we all have to be very concerned
about and paying attention to. So I thank you for raising that.
Mr. Phillips. And in your estimation, is there anything
that those of us who are trying to combat antisemitism might be
doing that actually might be promoting more of it?
Dr. Nazarian. So look, I think the national plan that was
just unveiled by the Biden administration is a true road map
for what we need to be doing as a whole of society. Without it,
and we looked at the European countries. Each one by one came
up with their own national strategy. The European Union came up
with it and we looked and learned from them and incorporated
some of their learning.
It has to be a whole of society and a whole of government
approach and that is why we are so thrilled about this plan
because it is over two dozen agencies that are involved, all
sectors of U.S. society from the corporate sector to every
agency to civil society. We all have to be responsible. So I
think what is happening in the world is divisiveness and
political leaders using this ideology in order to get what they
need. But have to fight against that.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you. Well, my time is running out. I
just want to end with a few points that we need to fight
antisemitism, not just around the world, but in this country as
well. I as a Jewish American, member of the United States
Congress, I need space and place to criticize any country, at
any time, for any reason if I see it just and I think we have
to maintain space and place to criticize Israel sometimes, too.
Sometimes it is antisemitic. I think we can all agree. We
cannot limit that space though to a point where it becomes
anti-democratic.
And then lastly, there is messaging about maybe leaving the
U.N., defunding, parting from it, and I would just make the
case that that is analogous to leaving the U.S. Congress
because you don't like what is going on it. My God, we would
all be gone here very quickly. It is better to be at the table,
in the room, in the arena. I just want to part with that and
say thank you to those trying to fight this terrible disease.
We must do it together. And we must recognize that it is in the
heart of our own country right now as well. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Wild.
Ms. Wild. Thank you very much and I associate myself with
the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Phillips.
This is going to be kind of a general question for all of
you and then I am going to pass to my colleagues, but I have
many more questions, depending on how long we go.
I am a big believer that the hallmark of a democracy is
that citizens should be free to criticize their own government
without serious repercussion and I am someone who has actually
done so with administrations of both parties here in the United
States. And I also believe that this liberty should extend to
our democratic allies. They should be able to comment on and
criticize our Government, constructively, as we should be able
to with them. Our European allies come to mind. There is
frequent interchange of--with countries that we clearly enjoy
an allied relationship, very supportive relationship, but we
don't always see eye to eye.
Often though when we express concern about the actions of
the Israeli Government, we are labeled and especially and
ironically by some of our colleagues across the aisle, our
Republican members, and others in the fervent pro-Israel
community sometimes, as antisemites. I find this label,
especially when it is thrown about by members of Congress who
have very little understanding of Judaism or Israel, including
some who are QAnon followers, to be a very offensive statement
as you can imagine.
So to all of you in the interest of time, I am going to ask
you perhaps to be satisfied if one of your colleagues says
something that is similar to what you would say to defer, but
to all of you, I want to know what you believe is the point
where healthy criticism of Israel and I am talking about
Israel, not Jews, becomes antisemitism, especially specifically
when spoken by an elected representative in the United States
Government?
Who wants to go first?
Mr. Rosenberg. I will take about 30 seconds.
Ms. Wild. Sure.
Mr. Rosenberg. I am sure we can do it. So I am not going to
be able to solve it in 30 seconds. The unsatisfactory answer is
that as a reporter I found that when you are trying to figure
out is something antisemitic or not, you have to look at the
context, you have to look at the person and their history, and
you have to make considered judgments.
I think some of the conversation we heard here about
specific definitions of antisemitism is the sort of thing that
intellectuals love to do which is if you just get the language
exactly right and have the right words on the page, that
somehow that obviates the need for judgment, but that is not
actually true.
In the specific case, I think I spoke a little bit, too,
how I--you know, adjudicated many cases that come across my
desk when I get asked these questions, as a reporter or my
editor asks me to write about it, which is we have a long
history of antisemitic ideas and tropes. We have this idea of a
Jewish conspiracy that controls the world and is responsible
for all sorts of social and political ills. If someone is
simply doing a find and replace, inserting Israel where the
Jews used to be, so now it is Israel controls the Government.
Israel controls the media.
As Pakistan's Foreign Minister ironically said on CNN in
2021, and Israel did not turn off CNN, it was unclear why, but
these things happen, people believe them. If someone is doing
that, I don't think it takes a great genius to figure out,
right? And you don't need to be fooled. There is someone trying
to update something that is an ancient way of talking about
Jews.
Anti-Semitism likes to dress itself up, respectively. The
word antisemitism that is where it comes from. Jews didn't make
up this word. A non-Jew named Wilhelm Marr, a German
nationalist, popularized the term because he founded a group
called the League of Antisemites, which sounds like he handed
over the Marvel Universe to Mel Gibson. But it was a real
thing.
Ms. Wild. I'd be interested in hearing from Mr. Kontorovich
or Mr. Neuer on this.
Mr. Kontorovich. Thank you. So, I think there's a couple of
things to look at. One, and I agree, I would associate myself
with Mr. Rosenberg's comment, that context matter. And,
particularly, quantity and volume matters. Right? So, the
Representatives in the U.S. Congress have the whole world to
work with.
And one of the striking things for example about the United
Nations, where Israel, well, between 1967 and 2016, whenever
they last counted, was accused of violating the Geneva
Conventions 500 times, compared to all the other countries in
the world two times. It's the volume.
And, you know, what's an appropriate volume? You can get,
you can understand that by the context of how other countries
are talked about.
And, secondly and related, so, intensity and frequency.
Second related to this is double standards. And that's why IHRA
is so crucial in identifying double standards.
We normally consider using double standards to be a form of
discrimination. If there is some ethnic group that is having a
law or a rule applied to it and it's not being applied to
another ethnic group, we say, that's a problem.
We say that's discriminatory. All the more so if the rule
doesn't even exist. If it's only being--if it's sort of
invented in the context of Israel as many of these
international rules are.
So, that is why the use of double standards. And the very
quick check, are the things you're saying or doing about
Israel, does it apply with how you deal with other situations
in the world?
I can--I cite in my testimony some examples of prominent
critics of Israel, including some people in this House, who say
look, we're just against settlers, we're just against
occupation, who've actively fundraised for pro-settler or pro-
occupation movements in other parts of the world.
Nagorno-Karabakh, which I understand was another hearing
Mr. Smith had yesterday, and others. So, you know, there's
occupied territories around the world, that gives you a very
good check.
So, consistency is a good way of doing it. And I'd add one
more highlight. Certain things, you know, while volume and
frequency is important, certain things are such blood rivals,
are resonant of such a divisive misery trope.
Apartheid, which is a word that's also been used in this
building, again, because it is so fundament--if you say Israel
has discriminatory policies, if you say Israel like America,
you know, has problems with minority rights, like many western
democracies struggle with, that's one thing.
But, when you go to apartheid, because what's the remedy to
apartheid? Ending the regime. So, that's essentially a call to
end the state of Israel as we know it.
Ms. Wild. Thank you. That was very helpful. I'm going to
ask--I'm going to pass at this point. Mr. Smith, do you want to
call your next witness?
Mr. Smith. Yes.
Ms. Wild. I'm sorry, your next questioner.
Mr. Smith. Mr. McCormick, do you have any questions?
Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank
you all for being here today. This is quite an honor.
It's interesting that some people would think that some of
this stuff is contrived when it talks about the discrimination.
But, I've literally had people call me up, very educated
people, and talk to me about this idea that somehow or another,
the Jews are responsible for the Corona virus.
I'm not joking. I'm talking about highly educated people
talking a whole conspiracy theory. And the way they come up
with this and the things they read are just, it baffles me.
But, to add onto that, there is not just a conspiracy, but
an open ended, easy to observe relationship between China and
the U.N. right now. And seeing what the U.N. does right now,
how many times, I'll ask the Director, Mr. Director, how many
times has the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions
condemning Israel? Approximately?
Mr. Neuer. In the year 2022 there were 15 resolutions on
Israel. And there was one on Iran, one on Syria, one on North
Korea, and 15 on Israel.
There have been hundreds over the years.
Mr. McCormick. Hundreds?
Mr. Neuer. Yeah.
Mr. McCormick. Hundreds, yeah. And every year probably at
least double digits, right?
Mr. Neuer. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCormick. Okay. And how many against the Palestinian
Authority?
Mr. Neuer. The Palestinian Authority is never condemned by
the United Nations.
Mr. McCormick. Never?
Mr. Neuer. No.
Mr. McCormick. This is the United Nations. I believe that
they have some sort of headquarters in this area, or at least
in this country, which is--drives me crazy. But, to watch the
United Nations now conspiring with China and Palestine.
And watching this new idea that somehow or another they're
going to come up with a solution that hasn't been thought about
in this peace process that's going to carve out something for
Palestine against everything that we've ever fought for in the
last, since Israel has been established in the modern era. It
baffles me.
But, I just want to point out that we don't have to look at
conspiracy theories. We can literally see it right in front of
our eyes.
We can see the United Nations being antisemitic, and quite
frankly, anti-American, because this is a relationship that
we've had since the original founding of the new Israel, if you
will.
I think we can all agree that the United Nations has done
nothing, nothing to be evenhanded. And it has been nothing but
heavy-handed against Israel.
Could we agree on that? Anybody want to disagree with that?
So, I will take that as an affirmative, I think. Silence is
considered affirmative.
So, where do we go from here? In my opinion, I would just
like to state that the United Nations is becoming troublesome.
And yet, we fund it in a very large way, the United States
does, with no accountability for what they do against Israel as
a country, or against our interest as it relates to Israel.
So, I'd just like to state for the record that I have a big
problem with the United Nations and its funding. I'm just going
to say it for the record, because of its antisemitic and anti-
American behavior.
With that, if anybody wants to make a comment in that
regard. And be bold. Make your statements. This is the place.
You're on TV.
Make your statement, make your case to the American people
and to everybody around the world why we see this
discrimination and how it's affecting the world order and
inhibiting the peace process.
I open it to the floor.
Mr. Neuer. Well, thank you, Congressman. Certainly, we see
grave distortions of the U.N.'s founding principles. Our
organization U.N. Watch supports the U.N. Charter, which speaks
of freedom, international peace, and security. Was founded by
the great liberal internationalism in the post-World War II
era, led by the United States.
But, sadly dictatorships in too many U.N. bodies, not all,
but in too many U.N. bodies, they dominate. You mentioned
China. China is a regular member of the Human Rights Council.
The United States, to its credit, tried to introduce a
resolution about one million Muslim Uyghurs who are put into
camps. The Human Rights Council shot it down. Would not even
hold a debate on that subject. China holds sway.
I mentioned moments ago to the Chairman that one of the
leaders of the Human Rights Council Secretariat hands names of
dissidents over to China, which allows them to pressure their
family members back home so that they won't testify.
China played a very nefarious role at the World Health
Organization where two of the Goodwill Ambassadors, one of them
is the wife of the Chinese dictator, is a WHO Goodwill
Ambassador. Another one is a Chinese broadcaster who used his
role as a WHO Goodwill Ambassador to promote propaganda on
behalf of the Chinese regime during the period of the Corona
virus.
So, there is a concern that dictatorships like China, Iran
in the past month had a trifecta of U.N. wins. I mentioned here
that the Islamic Republic of Iran was appointed Chair of the
Human Rights Council Social Forum. We've circulated a text, we
would like a country to adopt it, to overturn that absurd
decision.
Iran was elected a Vice President of the U.N. General
Assembly a few weeks ago. Was elected Rapporteur of the United
Nations General Assembly Committee on Disarmament and
International Security, which is absurd given that it is the
perpetrator menace of the very problems that committee is meant
to address.
Mr. McCormick. So, I know I am out of time. So, I'm going
to have to cut you short. But, I do want it for the record, to
support what you're saying.
And actually the absurdity continues if you look at the
last ten people who have been put in charge of Human Rights in
the United Nations is laughable. And so, I just want to say,
I'm not really sure I'm in favor of the United Nations anymore
because of that.
They are corrupt and they are governed by dictators and
theocracies and other unfair people who administer this quote/
unquote justice. Thank you.
Mr. Marcus. Thank you. I want to add to what was said about
the U.S., about the United Nations condemnation of Israel.
Go on and take it to the next level. The United Nations
condemnations of Israel, and I would say also, the European
Union and many of the European countries constant condemnation
of Israel isn't just making Israel feel bad.
For the Palestinian Authority it's seen as a motivator that
they don't have to come to the peace talks. It's a motivator
that what they're doing is right.
It's a motivator that they're quote/unquote, resistance is
accepted by the international community. It goes way beyond
just giving Israel bad press.
It actually becomes a motivator of the Palestinian
Authority to become more intransigent. The Palestinian
Authority hasn't come to the negotiating table in so many
years, in so many years because they feel that they can get by
international pressure on Israel what they can't get from
negotiations.
So, the United States, your opinions in the United Nations
have to be careful, because they are absolutely creating a wall
in the way of negotiations by their over-condemnation of Israel
and over-accepting of the Palestinian side in many of the
issues that are really supposed to be for negotiations.
Mr. Smith. Excellent point. Ms. Manning.
Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask, Mr.
Rosenberg, I would like to start with you. You've written and
spoken about the fact that antisemitism is malleable.
How it appeals to different types of extremists on both
sides. And how viewing it with partisan blinders, only calling
it out when it's politically convenient, actually harms the
fight against antisemitism.
So, what can be done, in your opinion, to educate and help
people better understand the unique shape-shifting nature of
antisemitism, the danger of buying into conspiracy theories,
and get them to join forces to help defeat it?
Mr. Rosenberg. I really appreciate the question. I do
recognize that trying to sell a nonpartisan approach to any
issue in the U.S. Congress is kind of like trying to sell a Red
Sox hat at Yankee Stadium. But, I'm going to do my best.
As you've heard from my remarks, and I think you even heard
up here from the Representatives, you heard Representative
Smith talk about leading with people in the Middle East who
believe that the Jews were behind 911. And then, you had
Representative McCormick talk about people from his district
saying the Jews are behind the Corona virus.
I would wager to guess that the people you met with,
Representative Smith, were not particularly sympathetic to
Republican policies. And the people however writing to
Representative McCormick were probably sympathetic and even
thought he'd listen.
Like were more sympathetic to Republican policies. But,
rather united them with this conspiracy theory, this way of
thinking about Jews and about the world. This seeking simple
solutions and scapegoats for our collective problems.
And if we focus on these sort of more fundamental
underlying issues rather than trying to pinpoint the exact
identity of who said it, and whether or not they're on my team,
so should I apologize or look another way, maybe we just talk
about in terms of principals instead of partisanship, and ideas
instead of individuals.
And if we can orient ourselves to think that way, and
certainly that's how I try to write about it, I think that we
can then start talking about this in a healthier way.
And I think that a lot of that boils down to trying to like
almost erase. When you see an antisemitic, a statement that's
allegedly antisemitic, or someone says about Jews, block out
who said it. Don't actually look at who they are or what their
affiliations are and judge that in a vacuum. Teach people the
history of antisemitism. Right? We had a big conversation here
about Israel. The Israel conversation is like 12 steps up. Like
Israel is a relatively recent invention and it's a complicated
story.
There's a lot of antisemitism that we can actually agree on
that we've documented in history. You teach a lot of that to
people, and you teach them those principals, people are smarter
than you think, and they can apply those pretty well to the
Israel conversation and figure out when someone is speaking to
them in an antisemitic fashion or simply being very critical of
Israel.
But I find we often skip steps and we jump to the most
controversial and political and partisan topics. And everyone
goes into their corners.
But if we start it, you know, at the ground level. If
curriculums started with those sorts of things and only after
once people have those tools, said, okay, now let's talk about
some of these complicated statements about Israel. I think
you'd be surprised at how many people could actually figure out
this issue themselves.
Ms. Manning. Thank you for that. Dr. Nazarian, as you know,
as you've discussed, we have witnessed an uptick in U.S.-based
extremists reaching out to their counterparts abroad and vice
versa.
And countries around the world are struggling to counter
misinformation online, especially on social media, which we
know fuels extremism and antisemitism. So, what can we do to
counter the rapid spread of online extremist propaganda and the
growing spread of transnational violent extremism and white
supremacy?
And I want to add to that, is there also an obligation on
all of us to educate consumers to be better at, people to be
consumers of information?
Dr. Nazarian. Thank you, Representative Manning for asking
that very important question. Everything that happens in real
life and we've been discussing are critically important.
What happens online is a megaphone of everything that's
been discussed. Right? So, we have to acknowledge that that,
the power of social media and the platforms are just amplifying
everything that we've been discussing here.
What can we do? ADL has been at the forefront of holding
social media companies responsible for enacting their own terms
of service.
Now, we know that we as trusted flaggers, when we flag
antisemitic rhetoric, white supremacist narratives, all of that
online, they tend to react and say, okay, we'll take that down
for you.
What they are not doing, is first of all, doing the same
thing with individuals who are flagging. They are not enacting
their own terms of service. And number two, they are not doing
it proactively.
They have the software. They have the mechanism to know
what language and what narratives are being propagated online
that should be taken down.
So, having legislation, we are looking to all of you as our
members of Congress, that provides transparency and holds the
platforms responsible for instituting their own terms of
service.
And we at ADL have already started to push these plans in
California and in Nevada to really look at legislating and
forcing social media companies to enforce their own terms of
service and have transparency about the data and about what
kind of stuff they're taking down and what they're not.
Ms. Manning. We look forward to getting that information
from you. And, out of respect to my colleagues who have been
waiting patiently, I am going to yield back.
Mr. Smith. Yes. Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this important hearing. And thank you for allowing me to
participate.
You know, there really are two discussions here. And I want
to touch briefly on both of them. You know, on a personal note,
I grew up as an Arab American with a nice Arab name in an
almost all Jewish neighborhood.
Our Boy Scout troop was at the temple. And it was Orthodox,
so Saturdays were different for me then they were for some
other Boy Scouts. And I ended up working for a rabbi delivering
poultry. I never understood that, in fact, antisemitism could
be accused of being, oh, well, it's the same. They do the same.
But I came to Congress, and I began working with many of my
namesakes throughout the region. Some progress has been made,
and I give credit to it. But I began hearing the, oh, well,
here's what's happening in Israel. Here's what they do. I
hadn't seen it in society. So, I began looking.
And I've been to Israel and to the West Bank and to Gaza
more times than my first Chairman, I think. I think Henry Hyde
was still asking if I had a girlfriend there.
And, as I went there--no. I began to see--[Laughter.]
Still looking. But I began to see something, which was
amazing. Which is, we have two systems, not just on each side
of Jerusalem, East and West Bank, so to speak, but we have two
systems of government.
One that is in Israel, where there is bias. There are
mistakes. People do out of greed and other reasons, slight
Palestinians and Arab-Israelis, and for that matter, each
other. But a system of law allows, all the way to the Supreme
Court, adjudication. And it often reverses the wrongs, just as
in the United States it would.
You go to the West Bank, you don't find that. You go to
Gaza, you don't find that. And, quite frankly, you go to almost
all of the Arab world, you don't find that.
I happen to be of Lebanese descent, so, I'm always proud
that we almost have a democracy in Lebanon. And it almost
works. But when you look at the entire Arab world, it's almost
always one man, one vote, one time. The majority rules and
there is no debate after that as to fairness. Fairness is
whatever the majority provides.
That's not true in Israel. Partially because you never
really have a true majority. But, also because the system is
built on a culture that I think we should all celebrate and
respect.
And to that extent I just came back from Paris. And it
still slays me that founding members of the United Nations of
Western Europe continue to part of antisemitism. The United
States continues to not do enough.
I chair the Judiciary's Intellectual Property Committee,
and your point is exactly right. The tools exist to find at
least the repeat offenders and bring them down.
And I will say that that's one of my goals, is not to make
up new rules. Not to force some sort of European style hate
speech, because that sometimes promotes antisemitism as much.
But, because we in fact can find the habitual repeat offenders
who represent most of the cumulative hate that then breeds on
it.
Mr. Marcus, you particularly look at the Palestinian area.
And one thing I want to make sure we get out here today, and I
know this is about antisemitism, not just about the Arab
Israeli conflict, but the teachings that are still going on in
Palestinian schools.
If you would comment on what we're dealing with there. And,
on whether you see any improvement in the kind of move,
hopefully, away from blatant antisemitism in the countries that
have signed the Abraham Accords.
Where do you see that progress? Because I'd like to have at
least one minute of hope that my next trip overseas will be to
people who are trying to be part of the solution.
Mr. Marcus. Okay. Well, the good news is--thank you very
much for the question. The good news is that the, many of the
countries who have signed onto the Abraham Accords reports of
it that on their schoolbooks and they're significantly better.
They're significantly better.
There's a, I think also, and you can actually go over it,
and I think it imposes measuring antisemitism and then other, I
think the Gulf States come out much better than the Palestinian
Authority does.
So, we have a fundamental problem with the Palestinian
Authority, which is different than the rest of the Arab world.
And, for that reason, the schoolbooks are not better.
The education of the children, there is an absolute message
that Israel has no right to exist. Earlier today I quoted some
quotes from a Fatah educational magazine called Waed,
absolutely Israel has no right to exist. Israel eventually will
not exist.
What happened to the French and----
Mr. Issa. This is the ruling party.
Mr. Marcus. Yes. This is the ruling one. What happened to
the French in Algeria will happen to all the Jews, will
eventually leave Palestine.
This is--these are fundamentals of Palestinian Authority
education and not just the Hamas. This is the PA. And that's
where the massive work has to be done.
It's changing the messaging to the people, because the--as
I also pointed out earlier, the people are accepting the
messages. We see in polls that the people adopt the messages of
the Palestinian Authority.
One poll earlier I mentioned, is that 87 percent of
Palestinians who were polled felt that Israelis were hated and
brought the hatred on themselves. They were hated because of
their own behavior.
Now, that is a fundamental Palestinian Authority message to
its people. So, we see the input has terrible output. And this
is why we've been for years screaming about the input.
And, today, tragically we're seeing the results of this,
where the Palestinian populations today are more and more
extreme. In the poll that I mentioned this morning, Hamas is
ahead of Fatah. Both, if our elections were held today, Hamas
would get, I think it was 7 or 8 percentage points more than
Fatah.
Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, would get more than
Mahmoud Abbas. And, unfortunately, the only one who would do
better is Marwan Barghouti, who is a Fatah man who is sitting
in jail right now with five life sentences for murdering five
people.
So, a killer has become, has been put on the pedestal by
the Palestinian Authority. And the people have accepted it. And
that's why over the years, like I've spoken in many places, and
sometimes they say, oh, that's just incitement.
Oh, no, it's not just incitement. You're teaching a whole
population how to see Israel, how to see Jews. And today, we
have the tragic results of a population that really does not
believe in peace with Israel.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And
thank you for this hearing.
Mr. Smith. Ms. Jacobs.
Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
being here. You know, I'm the youngest Jewish member of
Congress. And I care a lot about antisemitism and the future of
Israel, my family who served in the IDF, who still live in
Israel.
And I've had many conversations with my colleagues here
from all ranges of the political spectrum who are deeply
concerned about what we're seeing in Israel. Around policies
that undermine Israel's judicial system and create conditions
that aren't conducive to a two state solution.
A lot of the rhetoric we're hearing out of the current
Israeli government that I would argue is as inflammatory as
what you are citing coming from the PA about, you know, the
Palestinian state not having a right to exist.
And I especially hear from young American Jews who are
having a really hard time right now, because they see an
Israeli government that does not live up to their values that
they were taught as Jews. That they don't feel is representing
them.
And yet they are then told that any criticism they try and
have of that is antisemitism. And I actually think it's really,
really dangerous, both for the actual fight on antisemitism and
for the future of Israel.
That we are conflating legitimate criticism of deeply
problematic policies with antisemitism. And I think we need to
reject the false notion that we have to choose between standing
up for Israel's democracy and working to eradicate antisemitism
around the globe.
My cousins who are sending me selfies from the protest in
Tel Aviv, I don't think anyone thinks they're antisemitic. And
yet, sometimes when we try and express the same things, we are
called that here in the United States.
So, I guess Dr. Nazarian, I just wanted to ask you like,
can you talk a bit about what you think explains the rise of
antisemitism in the U.S. over the last five years?
And whether or not it's really some people on the left who
have some concerns about policies or, you know, as we've heard,
folks on the right wearing shirts that say six million weren't
enough when they tried to attack us here in the Capitol.
And also, as you think about this balance, how would you
advise those of us who want to make sure we are elevating these
legitimate criticisms, how do we separate anti-Jewish rhetoric
from criticism of the state of Israel and its policies?
Dr. Nazarian. Thank you, Representative Jacobs. And I think
we touched on this question a little bit. But, I'll start just
by saying, as far as ADL is concerned, when it comes to
differentiating between valid criticism of Israel and
antisemitic motions, we have three very clear lines.
Number one, if all Jews are held responsible for Israeli
policy, that's antisemitic. Number two, if the right to self-
determination of the Jewish people is prevented, that is
antisemitic.
And finally, if you use antisemitic tropes,
characterizations, and place that onto the Jewish state, that
is antisemitic. Now, robust criticism of Israeli policy is just
as valid as robust criticisms of American policy or any other
democracy in hopefully any other country.
So, that is very clear. And I think making sure that we're
not crossing that line, and not diminishing the value of the
term antisemitic, is very important.
What we're seeing in the state, in the city of Tel Aviv,
and I'm heading there tonight, my family is there right now. I
am here today because of the importance of this hearing.
And I--my family right now is being honored. My mother is
being honored with an honorary Doctorate. So, I knew that I
couldn't----
Ms. Jacobs. Congratulations.
Dr. Nazarian. Thank you. But, this is such an important
hearing for me to participate in. And so, thank you for
including me.
That is a testament to the robustness of Israel's
democracy. The fact that you have had nonviolent protests of
upwards of 100s of thousands for 28 weeks in a row, shows the
robustness of Israel's democracy.
And raising very real issues about some of the judicial
decisions that are being now floated, and we'll see where they
go. And also about what the people of Israel want as a
character for the Jewish and democratic character of the state
of Israel.
Now, we at ADL are concerned about the current government
makeup, this coalition. Some of the ministers in there, some of
the values they've espoused, and some of the narratives they've
used. And we have called it out, as is our responsibility to do
so.
So, I believe that what causes antisemitism, we have to be
very clear about. There's not one cause, there are multiple, as
it is in the U.S. And we see also the same thing globally.
There are those who, you know, use white supremacist
ideology, there's those who use anti-Zionist ideology. And
they're used to use Islamic extremism. So, all of this, and
Europe is perfectly like the perfect place where this is all
working in the same place.
But, here in the U.S., we know that Europe is a harbinger
of what's coming. And we have to be careful. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. And I just want to point out,
you know, just a few weeks ago we voted here in H.R. 5, the so-
called Parent's Bill of Rights. And Republican leadership
actually rejected my amendment that would have included
language stating that the actions carried out during the
Holocaust and the sentiments of antisemitism are immoral.
And I think it's important that we recognize the strong
relationship between antisemitism, racism, xenophobia,
Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. And, you know, I
used to work at the U.N. I think the U.N. does really important
work around the world.
I think that oftentimes we talk about the U.N. focusing so
much Israel, and at the same time, we here as American Jews, we
do feel like there's a special connection to Israel. We do want
the U.S. to have a special relationship with Israel.
And a special relationship goes both ways. A special
relationship both means we are very supportive of Israel and we
should have a right to criticize what they are doing. The
special relationship has to go both ways.
And so, I'm really disheartened to hear of all of this
rhetoric undermining the very important work the U.N. does
around the world. And I think that it's dangerous for our
national security and for our ability to build alliances around
the world, which is the most important thing that keeps the
U.S. safe.
So, I know my time is up. I'll let my colleagues speak.
But,----
Mr. Smith. Mr. Schneider, thank you.
Ms. Jacobs. Yeah, this entire hearing has been pretty
disheartening as an American Jew.
Mr. Schneider. I'm almost speechless. But, I'll proceed.
Wow. So, it's a great time to be a Jew in America and the
world. We can't lose sight of that.
But, as we've talked about here, antisemitism fearfully,
disgracefully is on the rise in the United States and around
the world. It is crucial we stand up to it.
And one thing as we have heard today very clearly, that
antisemitism has been rampant at the U.N. for a very, very long
time. And I'll come back to it, because I think Israel has made
progress at the U.N.
But, the focus on Israel in so many ways at the U.N. that
has been highlighted in these, in this testimony, is critical.
And I think it's also crucial to note that antisemitism, Mr.
Marcus, as you have said, is core to the message Palestinians
are sharing with their people, and critical as a tool the PA is
using to delegitimize Israel.
And so, I think that's all crucial. Mr. Marcus, maybe going
back to things we all learned in elementary school, but maybe
is important to note here.
What is the timing of the origination of modern Zionism? I
know it's not his question, but.
Mr. Marcus. Well, where is the beginning of modern Zionism,
are you talking about Herzl?
Mr. Schneider. Yeah.
Mr. Marcus. Yeah.
Mr. Schneider. It goes back to the late 19th Century. And,
as my colleague Mr. Phillips said, his family came here because
of antisemitism.
I have a picture of my maternal grandmother and her family
who fled Kiev in 1912 because of the pogroms. What was the
source of pogroms? It was antisemitism. Which many of us have
faced that throughout our lives.
A question about apartheid that has been brought up. This
is for anyone. The name Khaled Kabub mean anything to anybody?
It's a Supreme Court Justice in Israel. A Muslim Supreme Court
Justice.
Another random question, anyone watch the U20 World Cup?
The team that came in third, worth clapping for, Israeli team.
First time they qualified. Only Jews on that team? No. Of
course not. In fact, one of the goal scorers in that third
place game was a Muslim.
Apartheid is separation; in a country that has Muslims on
their Supreme Court, that celebrates the victory of their
soccer team, football team, as I guess they would call it to
the regular, would be separated. Not the case. But that is what
we face in so many places around the world.
I don't know if this is for Mr. Neuer or someone else.
We've been trying to get Israel--or not Israel--Europe to take
action. And, by the way, I think our definition is the right
definition. I wish the White House had stuck to it. But why is
it so difficult to get European governments and other
organizations to see what, from the testimony here, appears to
be so obvious? Mr. Neuer?
Mr. Neuer. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I thank
you for your remarks concerning the absurd smear that Israel is
somehow an apartheid state.
It's not only false and defamatory for Israel and Israelis
but does a disservice to the true cause of apartheid. Anyone
like me who has been to South Africa and seen what happened
there will understand how that undermines the struggle against
apartheid in that country.
As to why Europe and other governments don't see things, I
mean, we, you know, Abba Eban, Israel's legendary statesman and
Ambassador to the United Nations once quipped that if Algeria
were to introduce a resolution at the United Nations declaring
that the earth was flat and that Israel was responsible, it
would pass by 154 to 12, with 25 abstentions.
And that quote was made years ago, but it remains true
today. And a number of these countries who support these
resolutions are European democracies.
I mentioned each year there are 15 resolutions singling out
Israel at the General Assembly, about 10 of those 15 are
supported by EU democracies. And why do so many countries
support the resolutions against Israel?
I mean, we see several factors. One is vote trading. The
United Nations works by vote trading. You vote for me, I vote
for you.
There's sometimes you can actually even see letters that
are leaked about countries. China one--sorry, Saudi Arabia and
Russia promise to vote each other onto the Human Rights
Council, even though they're rivals in the region.
So, there are, you know, vote trading plays a very
important role. Israel can offer you one vote. The Islamic
states can offer you 56 votes. So, it's 56 to one, it's a no
brainer.
Mr. Schneider. Repeat those numbers?
Mr. Neuer. Yeah. There are 56 Islamic states at the United
Nations. There is one Jewish state. So, they come--they sponsor
these resolutions against Israel.
And, in exchange, you can get support from 56 votes at the
United Nations for whatever your cause may be. For yourself or
for your country. That's quite significant.
There is the historic influence of oil and gas. African
countries were told years ago, you will not get oil if you vote
for Israel, if you have relations with Israel. That continues
to play a role in the world.
Sovereign wealth funds, you may or may not get billions
from the Qatari sovereign wealth fund if you vote for a
resolution that they support.
And I would finally mention fear of terrorism. If your
country will be one of the ten that will stand with Israel,
such as the United States or typically Canada, sometimes
Australia. If you'll be one of the handful of countries that
stand with Israel, you may face terrorism in your country.
So, all of those are rational factors that we may not like
but can understand, we are politic. But, I would have to add
that as the historian Jacob Talmon commented, that Israel today
has become the Jew among the nations.
And if in history, because as Mr. Rosenberg mentioned,
we're dealing with concepts that date back thousands of years
that are in public, in our consciousness. We may not even be
aware of it, subconscious.
You know, in Europe where I live, when there was the black
plague, Jews were accused of poisoning the wells. And today, if
there's human rights abuse, if there's racism, if there's
health violations, it's the Jewish state that is blamed.
Mr. Schneider. And I'm over my time. I have one yes or no
question. And we can talk about it in writing. But, UNRWA, you
mentioned UNRWA.
And my broad question is, UNRWA has all kinds of problems.
We talked about their education issues. And I'm of one mind
that UNRWA has outlived its usefulness and it's the only
organization that's been around for 70 years.
The things that UNRWA does that are necessary, services
provided, are there, and it's a yes/no, are there other
entities that are perhaps better positioned to do that today?
Mr. Neuer. Yes.
Mr. Schneider. Yes, so. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for
holding this hearing. Thank you for allowing us who aren't
members of the subcommittee to participate, and for your
decades of incredible dedication on human rights.
I see at least three streams of antisemitism. One is an
extreme left that hates at least Israel, because it's pro-
American. And also sees the opportunity for an alliance with, I
think you said 56 countries.
There's also Islamic extremists. And finally, there's the
far right that gave us Hitler and many before and many after
him.
There's an argument here, Zionism versus antisemitism. One
could have said in the 1880s, you could be an anti-Zionist. And
say look, there's already people living there. We shouldn't
move there.
You could also be an anti-Californian in this country, in
the 1840s or '30s and say hey, that's part of Mexico. It
shouldn't be part of America.
You can say that the Slavs should not have moved to eastern
Europe, the Turks should not have moved to Anatolia, and the
Arabs they should not have moved to North Africa.
But, the fact is that every other country is accepted as a
right to live where they are not, notwithstanding that with the
exception of perhaps the Neanderthals, just about everybody has
moved to where they are. And, of course, there are no
Neanderthals.
So, to say that, you just put it in context. You could say
down with Israel and say, you're not an antisemite. But if I
sat here and said down with Albania, most of you would think I
was an anti-Albanian. You can't hate the only Albanian state in
the world and say that there should be not an Albanian state
and not be regarded as anti-Albanian.
And to say that Slovakia is a racist state because it chose
to be independent of Czechoslovakia and to have a border
separating themselves from Poland and Hungary, to say that
there's a Slovak state, that must mean that the Slovaks are
racist, is absurd.
As to BDS, it's entirely appropriate to boycott countries
you disagree with, if your disagreement is reasonable. I and
BDS, and you've urged us to boycott and divest from Iran not
because I think all Persians and other Iranians should be wiped
off, you know, shouldn't have a state. But, I'd like them to
stop their nuclear program, et cetera.
I've got friends who won't buy a Toyota because they think
the Japanese shouldn't hunt whales. They are not anti-Japanese
racists. They'd be happy, they're not asking Japan to evacuate
the Japanese islands. They're not calling for the death of all
Japanese. They just want it.
And if the BDF movement was one that said, we don't want to
invest in Israel until Israel does this or that, and stops
hunting whales. Okay. You disagree with Israel, you have a
right to boycott. I've got other friends who won't.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for
commenting. And then so many of you commenting on the UNRWA
textbooks and curriculum.
I want to bring to my colleagues' attention the Peace and
Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act, which would get us an
official State Department report on these UNRWA curriculum
materials.
Mr. Sharansky, it's an honor for you to be with us. And I
wonder if you can comment on how the Soviet Union, back when it
existed, used anti-Zionism as a tool to be antisemitic?
Apparently the----
Mr. Kontorovich. Could I field that question? So, also
being from the Soviet Union, I'm also from Kiev, like Mr.
Schneider's family. And, indeed, the auspicious year of my
birth, 1975, was the year that the United Nations passed the
Zionism is Racism Resolution. A resolution which has been so
discredited that I believe seating amongst United Nations'
resolutions the U.N. subsequently voted to override or reverse
it.
Now, that resolution was passed as a Soviet foreign policy
initiative. They had a vote. They had a permanent majority of
their allies and nonaligned states. And that was a fundamental
product of Soviet ideology after the Yom Kippur War, to get
this idea out there.
Now, interestingly, it doesn't just say that Zionism is
racism. It just came to be known as that. It also says that
Zionism is also lots of other things that are bad, like
colonialism and imperialism and likens it to the apartheid
policies of South Africa.
So, this notion that like now some human rights groups who
said, oh, finally Israel has crossed the line. We've seen
they've done something. They've done something bad. They've
done something too much. Now we're going to call them
apartheid. This is the same Soviet rhetoric from 1975 that was
discredited, reversed, and yet, like a monster in a horror
movie, reconstitutes itself and makes its way through even in
these halls. Thank you.
Mr. Smith. I'm going to thank our extraordinarily
distinguished panel. You've given us much to think about and
work on. The action items are running page after page based on.
And please convey to us, all of us, next steps in addition to
what you've said today, because we want to get it right.
I do want to say we're going to have a number of other
hearings, like I mentioned earlier before. We'll have one on
UNRWA. We'll have investor at large Deborah Lipstadt come and
testify.
And other issues. I mean, we know that the hostility
towards students is in the United States, in my own state of
New Jersey, who happen to be Jewish, and it's all over the
world. So, we may even focus one hearing just on that. But we
will do a whole series.
I find it appalling that the Palestinian Authority
encourages children to kill themselves and to kill other
people. There's nothing heroic, there's nothing noble about
that kind of child abuse. And that's what the PA does. It's
child abuse.
I watched a video years ago, you know, I--well, all of us
in high school, we used to be in pep rallies, we were in
sports. Everybody would rally for the team, for the game that
was going to happen that day or that weekend.
And I watched a pep rally pushing the killing of Jews with
people who would strap on bombs who happened to be children.
They were lifting that up as if that was something to emulate,
to push.
And so, the PA has much to answer for on a whole lot of
issues. But, abusing their own children is about as appalling
as it gets.
So, I do hope we can bring some additional focus to that. I
remember watching that video. And I will never forget it, that
they would do that to their own children. The children that
they claim to care about.
So, thank you. If anyone would like to say any parting
statement. If not, that's fine, too. It's all up to you. Yes?
Mr. Schiffmiller. Just to follow up on your last point, Mr.
Chairman, about the abuse of children. One of the issues that
we've been tracking very closely, and we expect we will learn
more about in the coming, perhaps even hour or days, is a U.N.
mechanism called the Children in Armed Conflict, which is
designed to track abuse of children in armed conflicts around
the world.
And one of the areas that we see serial under-reporting in,
is this very issue of inciting to violence, recruitment, and
use of Palestinian children by terrorist organizations. And
that because a lot of the data that goes into these reporting
mechanisms are generated by NGOs, some of whom are themselves
linked to U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, that leads
to this under-reporting, and that leads to a warped perception
of Israeli security policies that relate to that level of
incitement and recruitment.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
Ms. Wild. I just would like to make a very brief closing
remark. It's often said that if you put five or six or seven
Jews in a room, you'll get that many opinions, differing
opinions. And, obviously, we've seen some of that. I think all
of you had excellent written testimony. And I plan to keep it.
And I plan to keep this binder as sort of a resource to use
going forward.
I get along very, very well with the Chair of this
committee. And I think the world of him. And am grateful for
him convening this hearing. I am going to take issue only with
the last remarks of the Chairman, because I think it is
incredibly important that we not broadly label all members of
any nation or ethnicity with the bad acts of some.
As a recovering lawyer, I will tell you that lawyers are
regularly labeled by the worst among them. But that's a kind of
a light version of this. I think that it's just really
important that we not use the worst examples to connote that
all people who are of that origin.
Mr. Smith. Well, just to be clear----
Ms. Wild. And that's all I--I just wanted to say.
Mr. Smith. Go ahead. I don't say that about the
Palestinians en masse. I say that about the Palestinian
Authority. And--because these are their official policies. And,
you know, again, as we all know from the Taylor Force Act, and
we all know from, as you pointed out, 100 percent of those who
are in prison for terrorist acts are getting paid for it. And
they have a job waiting for them in the PA when they get out.
But, thank you. I appreciate again, your testimony.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Smith. And thank you to my Ranking Member.
[Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]