It was a day of reflection, introspection and education for tolerance at the first United Nations conference on confronting anti-Semitism, part of a series of seminars on “Unlearning Intolerance” organized by the Department of Public Information (DPI) at UN Headquarters. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in his opening statement: “The fight against anti-Semitism must be our fight, and Jews everywhere must feel that the United Nations is their home too.”
 |
| UN photo |
Explaining that future seminars would deal with other specific groups against whom intolerance was directed in many parts of the world, including Muslims and migrants, Mr. Annan said that throughout history anti-Semitism had been a unique manifestation of hatred, intolerance and persecution. Its rise was a threat to people everywhere, he added. In fighting it, the world was fighting for the future of all humanity. Fellow Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, noted in his keynote speech that anti-Semitism was the oldest collective bigotry in recorded history and said many in the room knew what the consequences of that had meant. “We were there. We saw our parents, we saw our friends die because of anti-Semitism.”
The day-long programme was moderated by UN Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information Shashi Tharoor and Raymond Sommereyns, Director of the Outreach Division, DPI. In the ensuing discussion, academics, educators, civil society leaders and members of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Hindu groups spoke against anti-Semitism and intolerance in general.
The first discussion focused on “Perspectives of Anti-Semitism Today”, with panelists Jacob Levy, founder of Gallup, Israel and co-Chairman of Trendum; James H. Charlesworth, George L. Collard Professor of New Testament, Languages and Literature, Princeton Theological Seminary; Melvyn Weiss, Israel Policy Forum, and founding partner, Milberg Weiss; Anne Bayefsky, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, and Adjunct Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School; and Mark Weitzman, Director, Task Force Against Hate, Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Mr. Levy, whose expertise lay with examining hate on the Internet, said that there was a borderless world on the Internet, where group hatred was becoming a world problem. He noted that the United Nations needed to adopt an anti-hatred index. Mr. Charlesworth said that the evolution of humankind had been marked by a lack of moral advances and a distinct propensity for demonizing those who were different. What was needed was a celebration of difference. He said that the origins of anti-Semitism were complex and not well understood, while they could sometimes be traced to the perception that Jews held themselves separately from other communities and claimed that they alone were God’s chosen people. A more sensitive translation of biblical texts was needed, he added.
Bringing the discussion closer to the United Nations, Ms. Bayefsky said that the relationship between Jews and the United Nations was at an all-time low. The Secretary-General’s criticism of Israel’s construction of a security barrier on the West Bank and its targeting of Hamas leaders had made no mention of Israeli victims of terrorism. The Seminar could be a turning point if the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution and the Secretary-General appointed a special rapporteur on anti-Semitism. Echoing her views, Mr. Weitzman said that to speak of anti-Semitism at the United Nations gave rise to the hope that the Organization might condemn and even outlaw it.
Mr. Weiss recalled the attacks against the Israeli Embassy and cultural centre in Buenos Aires, Argentina, saying that it had resulted in casualties that were comparable to those of the Oklahoma City bombing in the United States. The international community must join in proclaiming that no international developments or political actions in the Middle East could justify attacks against Jews.
A second panel discussion, entitled “Education for Tolerance and Understanding”, featured Abraham Foxman, National Director, Anti-Defamation League; Edgar Bronfman, President, World Jewish Congress; Swami Adiswarananda, Minister and Spiritual Leader of New York’s Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center; Sister Ruth Lautt, O.P., Sisters of Saint Dominic of Amityville; and Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, President, American Sufi Muslim Association.
Mr. Foxman said it was appropriate to appreciate the present leadership of the UN Secretariat and Mr. Annan’s clear denunciation of anti-Semitism, which had broken a taboo. Words certainly mattered, although it was said they did not mean much. The crematoria at Auschwitz had begun not with bricks and mortar but with words. How long would it take for the General Assembly to follow the Secretary-General’s lead and for the United Nations to stop demonizing and delegitimizing the Jewish people?
Among the clergy represented on the panel, Sister Ruth, said she was deeply concerned about the worldwide rise in anti-Semitism, particularly how that was taking new and insidious forms, specifically the “demonization” of Israel. Tragically, for most of 2,000 years of shared salvation history, Christians had not been a blessing to Jews, which had led to Jewish isolation and discrimination.
Swami Adiswarananda said that even though the world was changing to become a global village, intolerance still separated and divided it. Intolerance had many faces—social, political, psychological and religious—and had prompted peace-loving human beings to act like brutes and promoted riots, cold wars and anti-Semitism. He said that tolerance was a message of the great prophets of all traditions, while intolerance was like a tumour. No world was free of all problems and there was no world where diversity could be abolished.
Imam Feisal, who said that he had been born of Egyptian Arab parents, noted that his religion had taught him the fundamental defining principle to believe in one God, just like the Jews were taught. He believed in the rights of Jews to a homeland and to live in security and in respect in Israel and around the world, while also believing in the right of all Arabs, Palestinians and non-Palestinians to live in their ancestral lands and to a life of dignity and economic well-being. Practicing religion without addressing the fundamental human diseases was insufficient, he said, the most important among them being egoism, greed, envy and selfishness. Anti-Semitism was one manifestation of a pernicious human disease—racism.
Mr. Bronfman said the Seminar was taking place less than ten years after a meeting in Stockholm, where world leaders had stood up to denounce anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. The Secretary-General should appoint a special representative for that task and issue an annual report. While criticism of Israeli policies was permissible, he said, demonization of the entire Jewish people was reprehensible.
The third panel discussion, on “Confronting Anti-Semitism”, was moderated by Mr. Sommereyns and featured Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice-Chairman, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Stephen P. Cohen, President, Institute for Middle East Peace and Development; Felice Gaer, Director, Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, American Jewish Committee; Ephraim Isaac, Director, Institute of Semitic Studies, Princeton; and Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, Executive Vice-President, New York Board of Rabbis.
Mr. Hoenlein said that the stirring remarks of Mr. Annan and Mr. Wiesel on the United Nations engaging more in the fight against anti-Semitism had set an appropriate agenda. He called for a clear determination matched by public, concerted actions at all levels of society to counter all manifestations of anti-Semitism. He said that there could be no excuses, no compromise and no appeasement of those who sought to suppress the Jewish people or their national aspirations.
Mr. Cohen said that anti-Zionists could be distinguished from those who saw the world through the lens of anti-Semitism. However, both groups shared two major ideas: First, both put an enormous emphasis on the fear and perception of Jews as having a disproportionate amount of power and wealth, including a self-serving control of the American media; the second was the twisting of the concept of the Holocaust. Rather than evoking the memory of the Holocaust as a horrific and paradigmatic example of evil, he said, anti-Semites and anti-Zionists used it to claim that Jews used the Holocaust as an excuse for disregarding the suffering of everyone else during the Second World War and since.
Ms. Gaer said that anti-Semitism was a human rights violation and must be addressed in the context of the United Nations. Non-governmental organizations had pressed hard to ensure that the Organization would differ from its predecessor, the League of Nations. For that reason, non-discrimination had been affirmed and the word went forth that human rights were universal. Even though those words took hold and transformed the global moral climate, implementing them fairly and universally had had a chequered history, she said.
Mr. Isaac said that he himself had experienced discrimination as an African, an Arab and a Jew, and even, mistakenly, as a Muslim. His first experience of discrimination, he said, had come during the fascist occupation of Ethiopia when the Italian invaders had transferred Jews into camps. Jews and Arabs were brothers, and must fight against anti-Semitism together because their fates had been tied together for centuries.
Rabbi Potasnik said that some in the audience used to protest, chain themselves to the fence, and get arrested outside the United Nations. He was thankful for the opportunity to say inside what used to be said only on the outside. The United Nations, born after the Holocaust, he remarked, had a responsibility to make noise for those for whom very little noise had been made.
In closing, Mr. Tharoor said that in fighting racism and other forms of discrimination, anti-Semitism was the right place to start, as that was a blot on the record of humanity. Rising anti-Semitism was a threat to all, and fighting it was everyone’s responsibility. The United Nations had not always lived up to its ideals in facing up squarely to anti-Semitism, but it should also be understood that political action was required of Member States. The Organization was not in any way trying to shirk its responsibilities, but participants should realize that the process was a slow one, he said. The Seminar was only a first step, but a new chapter, nevertheless. Many suggestions had been made during the conference and the United Nations had an obligation to move the discussion to the next level. |
Print