The United States House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee is holding a hearing entitled 'Responding to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel Bias in the UN, Palestinian Authority, and NGO Community' today (Thursday).
The hearing is being held by the Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations and features as witnesses Natan Sharansky, Chairman of the 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 of UN Watch, Dr. Sharon Nazarian, Director of the Anti-Defamation League National Board of Directors, and Yair Rosenberg, Staff Writer for The Atlantic.
Mr. Sharansky, who addressed the meeting via ZOOM, told the committee members that he thanked the Biden Administration for the national plan to combat antisemitism, but criticized one paragraph from the plan which he said "caused confusion."
He noted that the paragraph in question uses both the widely accepted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and the 'Nexus Document,' which seeks to protect criticism of Israel, even disproportionate criticism, from accusations of antisemitism.
"The IHRA definition is the only one which really connects the old antisemitism attacking Jews and the new antisemitism attacking the State of Israel," Sharansky said.
"In the Soviet Union, it was clear to everyone: the moment the Soviet Union starts a new round of attacks on Israel, everybody knew that the Jews have a problem. Even the Jews who had no idea what the word 'Zionist' means, they [knew that they] should be concerned about their place of work, about their career, they should be concerned that they would be demanded to immediately condemn Zionism, condemn the Jewish religion, to condemn any connection with Jewish nationalism," he explained.
Sharansky showed how the anti-Israel propaganda which was propagated at the Durban Conference Against Racism in 2001 was virtually identical to the antisemitism he encountered while living in the Soviet Union, and explained how he formulated his '3 Ds' standard of demonization, double standards, and delegitimization against Israel cross the line into antisemitism.
"You cannot really deal with the phenomenon [of rising antisemitism] by recognizing only part of it. We really have to have one definition in order to deal with this. That's why the IHRA definition is so important," Sharansky said.
Professor Eugene Kontorovich agreed with Sharansky that the IHRA definition is necessary for the fight against antisemitism while the Nexus Document is problematic.
"Not surprisingly, the IHRA definition is opposed by those who wish to engage in precisely the kind of anti-Israel double standards that it warns of. In an effort to confound or counteract the legitimacy and clarity of the IHRA working definition, a few other groups have offered definitions of antisemitism that greatly minimize the role of Israel-focused antisemitism. One such effort is the Nexus Document, a project hosted by Bard University. The Nexus definition differs from IHRA primarily in its treatment of Israel-focused conduct. Nexus does not regard as presumptively antisemitic either the questioning the basic legitimacy of Israel’s existence or the application of double standards to Israel. According to Nexus, such views may have legitimate grounds," he said.
"Unlike IHRA’s adoption by a wide range of countries (including many states that are often sharply critical of Israel), not one single country has adopted the Nexus Declaration. The IHRA definition was developed by an international group of scholars not known for their views on Israel or their politics one way or another. The Nexus Advisory Board, by contrast, is overwhelmingly left-wing and includes people, like the head of J-Street, who can only be described as professionals in the field of Israel bashing. Members of Nexus’s advisory board have described Israel as “fascist,” denounced it as an “apartheid state,” and justified those who say it should have never existed.
Prof. Kontorovich criticized the administration for providing new legitimacy to the Nexus Document. "While IHRA has become the global benchmark, the narrow Nexus definition has languished in total obscurity—that is, until the White House suddenly announced its “welcome and appreciation” of the Nexus Document last month, while still “embracing” IHRA. Nexus leaped from the 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 White House’s National Strategy harms efforts to respond to antisemitism by referring to two different, and fundamentally contradictory, definitions. The remainder of this testimony explains why IHRA is correct in identifying Israel as a major focus of antisemitism and addresses the claims made by Nexus."
"The notion underpinning IHRA’s focus on “double standards”—that treating one national group radically differently from another can create a rebuttable presumption of discrimination—is commonplace in anti-discrimination law. It is also uncontroversial that discrimination need not be 100% congruent with the targeted class. Proxies for race, sexual orientation, and so forth can be discriminatory. Moreover, no one disputes that the political treatment of a country could potentially be a proxy for bigotry against a people or faith. 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.” Whether that was true is a question that depends on context, as with Israelfocused antisemitism, as IHRA stresses. Israel is by far the largest Jewish community in the world and home to the plurality—and soon the majority—of the world’s Jews. Because the vast majority of American Jews identify closely with Israel, “Zionism” is a convenient though imperfect proxy for Jewishness in general.18 Yet some, including members of this House, who vigorously denounced President Trump’s immigration policy as a “Muslim ban” now argue that singling out Israel for harsh treatment should not be considered antisemitic. This is a double standard within a double standard.
"The central claim of Nexus and other IHRA critics is that even vicious attacks on Israel should not be considered antisemitic because they are not about Jews per se, but about the Jewish State’s government policies. It would be lazy to dismiss this possibility out of hand. Let us examine it first in the perspective of history and then in light of some of the “reasons” suggested by Nexus.
"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 same. Then after two thousand years, the Jewish people reconstituted their nation—and immediately found it the subject of unparalleled international defamation and libel—accompanied by ongoing efforts at physical elimination. 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. The segue from earlier modes of antisemitism to “anti-Zionism” is a remarkable coincidence.
"It is an illusion that antisemitism amounts to such only when it presents as pure unreasoned Jew-hatred or as stereotypes and “tropes.” Antisemitism has never been merely a hate-filled emotional state, it has always been a “pseudo-explanatory political theory.” The most effective antisemites have always sought to justify their bigotry by claiming they simply object to the bad things Jews do to the world. The Jews were hated for producing Jesus and for not accepting him. They were hated as representatives of global capitalism and of international communism. Even Hitler cited policy reasons for his opposition to Jewry: they have “the two million dead of the [First] World War on their conscience,” and “they undermine the economies of countries leading to poverty.
"The accusations leveled against Israel often resemble those made by antisemites throughout history. Instead of the Jews being accused of killing Gentile children, Israel is accused of deliberately killing Palestinian children; instead of Jews being accused of causing plague among Gentiles, Israel is accused of causing disease among Palestinians. And the accusation of “apartheid” is a modern blood libel—an absurd “Big Lie,” but inciteful in ways that cannot be rectified by mere refutation. Just as the classic blood libel resonated with the theological preoccupations of earlier ages, today’s claims resonate with the ethnic justice concerns of our times. That in our times several members of Congress can level such libels against the Jewish State without facing sanctions from their party demonstrates how dangerous “polite” antisemitism is," Kontorovich said.
Yona Schiffmiller focused on how human rights NGOs such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have been hijacked to have an obsessive focus on Israel that crosses the line into antisemitism.
"These NGOs deny the legitimacy of Israel, regardless of borders; negate Jewish connections to the land; and promote campaigns to reverse Jewish self-determination. A common theme is that Israel is uniquely evil – equated at times to Nazi Germany, inherently racist, and irredeemable. Through their exploitation of human rights discourse, these NGOs are often shielded from criticism of their antisemitism, and governments, particularly in Europe, continue to fund them," he said.
"Furthermore, prominent NGOs such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International repeatedly reject calls to join meaningful campaigns to combat antisemitism, despite the global rise in attacks on Jews. This behavior makes Jews the exception to universal human rights. At the same time, these NGOs are very active in campaigns to undermine or replace the consensus International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of antisemitism and other tools that identify and seek to combat all forms of modern Jew-hatred – including antisemitism from anti-Israel activists claiming progressive agendas. The NGOs intensively lobby governments, UN bodies, and professional organizations to reject the IHRA Working Definition, in service of their antiIsrael bias," Schiffmiller said.
Itamar Marcus focused on the rampant antisemitism promulgated by the Palestinian Authority and the anti-Jewish propaganda PA institutions subject its citizens to all the time.
"PA Antisemitism is not a collection of disconnected hate-speech; it is a systematically disseminated ideology that is by now deeply ingrained in the Palestinian national and political identity. It serves as a primary source of loathing towards Jews and Israelis and is a significant motivator for Palestinian terror," Marcus said.
"The PA’s Political Antisemitism asserts the following: 1. Jews are inherently evil, endangering not only Palestinians but all of humanity. 2. Accordingly, Jews themselves are responsible for the Antisemitism and hatred they have faced throughout history. 3. The PA turns this demonization of Jews into its political ideology: the Western countries were anxious to get rid of the Jews and solve their "Jewish problem,” so they initiated the establishment of a Jewish state. The Jews would never have come to Palestine on their own because the Jews have no history in the land. Israel is defined as an illegitimate result of "settler-colonialism" with no right to exist.
He noted how the PA promulgates the notorious antisemitic forgery 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.' "Although it was exposed as a forgery, the PA still presents it as an authentic Jewish plan to subjugate humanity. Official PA TV chose to broadcast this hateful interview already 3 times in 2023."
"Similarly, Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Movement produced an educational documentary, disseminated on Fatah's Facebook page, filled with hate speech such as: • Jews see others as their animals; • Jews allied with Nazis to accumulate wealth; • Jews “led the project to enslave humanity.”
He noted that "the PA’s religious antisemitism also comes from the leadership. The most important PA religious figure is Mahmoud Al-Habbash, appointed by Abbas as his advisor on Islam and Chief Justice of the Islamic Courts. He also gives almost all the Friday sermons on official PA TV. Last year, he demanded Palestinians not abandon the Temple Mount to Jews, who he described as: “Herds of humanoids, people or creatures that Allah created in the form of humans… Those whom Allah has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs.” [Official PA TV, Sept. 30, 2022]
"Significantly, this interpretation of the Quran by the PA that today’s Jews are descendants of apes and pigs is not a necessary interpretation of the Quran, but it is the interpretation the PA has chosen to disseminate," Marcus said.