UN Session on Anti-Semitism: Words Versus Actions

Forty years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the infamous Zionism equals Racism resolution. Thankfully, as a result of the prodigious efforts of former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, this resolution was revoked by the General Assembly in 1991. Nevertheless, the General Assembly and its subsidiary body the UN Human Rights Council have served as forums for anti-Semites trying to de-legitimize the Jewish state of Israel.

Now, in a rare display of even-handedness, the General Assembly held an informal session on January 22nd to discuss the rise of anti-Semitism world-wide. Israel asked for the convening of this meeting and was joined by 36 other member states including the United States, Canada and every member of the European Union. France and Germany even sent high-level ministers to address the General Assembly on this topic. French philosopher Bernard Henri Levy gave the keynote address in which he deplored “the renewed advance of this radical inhumanity that is antisemitism.” Mr. Levy traced the historical strands of anti-Semitism and described the current forms it is taking -- the demonization of Israel as an illegitimate state, the denial of the Holocaust altogether, and “the modern scourge of competitive victimhood” in which Jews are criticized for emphasizing the Holocaust suffering to the exclusion of the suffering of all other people. The battle to delegitimize Israel as Jewish state, he said, reflected the anti-Semitic theme that Jews are detestable because they are supposed to support an evil illegitimate state – this is the anti-Zionist delirium of the merciless adversaries of the reestablishment of the Jews in their historical fatherland.” Even if the Palestinians had their own state,” Mr. Levy added, “this enigmatic and old hatred would not dissipate one iota.”

---

Mr. Levy brought home the significance of the rising tide of anti-Semitism as a threat to the freedoms of all people:

"A world without Jews indeed would not be a world. A world in which the Jews once again would become scapegoats for all people's fears and frustrations would be a world in which free people could not breathe easy, and where the enslaved would be even more enslaved.”

Harlem Desir, the French minister of state for European affairs, said that "Whenever you attack a Jew for being a Jew, it's all of us, the community of nations, who are under attack for the founding principles of the United Nations." This declaration, following the French jihadists' massacres of 17 people, including 4 Jews in a kosher supermarket, is welcomed, particularly when one recalls France's historical record of anti-Semitism evidenced by the Dreyfus affair and by Vichy France during World War II. Michael Roth, the German state minister for European affairs, decried attacks and epithets against Jews in Europe in recent months, including in Germany:

"Scenes we thought we would never see again have become reality. Anti-Semitism is gaining ground in a loud and aggressive manner… Because of its historical responsibility for the Holocaust, my country fights and will always fight anti-Semitism in whatever form it is expressed."

Germany has come a long way since its darkest Nazi period during which six million Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust. But neo-Nazis are emerging out of the shadows once again. Both ministers discussed the possibility of legislation at the national and European Union levels to tighten restrictions on hate speech, including holding social media and other Internet service providers accountable for what appears on their sites. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power said that "Rising anti-Semitism is rarely the lone or the last manifestation of intolerance. When the human rights of Jews are repressed, the rights of other religious and ethnic groups are often not far behind." Then Saudi Arabia's UN Ambassador Abdallah Al-Moualimi, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, sullied the proceedings with his insulting pronouncements attempting to turn the conference on anti-Semitism against the Jews in Israel. “Occupation itself is an antisemitic act, because it threatens humankind and human rights,” he said “The persecution of the Palestinian people and the denial of their human rights – this is also an example of antisemitism.” Such are the Islamist lies that seek even to misappropriate Jews’ centuries-old suffering from anti-Semitism, including from the jihadists themselves, as a story in which the Palestinians are magically turned into the victims of anti-Semitism. For his part, Israel’s UN Ambassador ignored the tired moral equivalency and Palestinian victimhood narrative. He pointed out that “Antisemitism can even be found in the halls of the United Nations. Disguised as humanitarian concern, a number of delegates have used the General Assembly, this podium, to voice their antisemitic sentiments. Following last summer’s conflict in Gaza, a handful of delegations stood at this very podium and accused Israel of behaving like the Nazis and creating a Holocaust. This is not legitimate criticism of Israel. It doesn’t matter how much you are angered or frustrated by our conflict, there is no excuse for antisemitism – not on the streets, not in the media, not in your governments, and not in this institution.” In other words, exclamations of support for the Jewish people in combatting the troubling rise of anti-Semitism mean little when measured against the day-to-day reality at the United Nations. Israel is regularly singled out for condemnation in a systematic effort to delegitimize the Jewish state. UN Watch calculated that in the last year alone the General Assembly passed “20 condemnatory resolutions, compared to only three on the rest of the world combined, being one each on Iran, Syria and North Korea.” While Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has condemned attacks against Israeli civilians, including the recent Tel Aviv bus stabbings and spoke out against anti-Semitism in a video address to the special General Assembly session, his spokesperson has declined to label Hamas for what it is – a jihadist terrorist organization dedicated to the elimination of the Jewish state and genocide against Jews wherever they can be found. Moreover, when asked to comment specifically on the link between the continuing barrage of incitement to violence against Jews on Palestinian Authority and Hamas social media sites, the Secretary General’s spokesperson declined the opportunity to move from abstract pronouncements to addressing directly real life expressions of anti-Semitism that has led to tragic consequences. The following is an exchange I had with the spokesperson during a press briefing on January 22nd:

“Question: You read out the Secretary‑General’s statement concerning the stabbings of civilians on the Tel Aviv bus yesterday and the usual general call for restraint on both sides. But in light of the General Assembly session this morning on anti-Semitism and the Secretary‑General’s message, why hasn’t he spoken out specifically against the unrelenting series of postings on Palestinian Authority and Hamas Facebook pages of videos encouraging the killing of Jews in synagogues and praising yesterday’s stabbings? One posting twisted around “Je suis Charlie” and said “Je suis couto” or whatever the French word is for “knife”. Why hasn’t… this has been a pattern. So why hasn’t the Secretary‑General spoken out about it? Spokesman: I think you should read the… reread the Secretary‑General’s comments that he made today. I think it’s a fairly clear and unwavering condemnation of anti-Semitism wherever it occurs. And so I think his message is pretty clear. This is not the first time that he’s condemned anti-Semitic acts, targeted attacks, and his position is, I think, could not be clearer. I think if you read his… if you read his speech, it’s pretty clear as to what his position is. And it really applies to any one of those situations. Question: No, I heard his speech this morning on the video and ‑‑ but it was abstract. Here’s a situation of incitements of violence that’s constantly on social media, on Hamas’s and Palestinian Authority’s social media, incitement to hatred, incitement to violence and acts of anti‑Semitism, and it has a bearing on… obviously, on the Israeli‑Palestinian conflict. So why can’t he comment in that specific context? Spokesman: I think the Secretary‑General is not in a position to comment on every post and every tweet that people… that people post or organizations post. What is clear is his stand against anti-Semitism, against anything that would… that makes the already difficult situation in the Middle East even more difficult; and his stand against extremism, his stand against hate speech. I think that’s been pretty clear.”

With all due respect to the Secretary General’s spokesperson and the Secretary General himself, it’s not clear at all. The Secretary General, while well-meaning in his general condemnations of anti-Semitism and of hate speech generally, lost a prime opportunity to put his money where his mouth is.