By: Kenny Liebowitz In the week leading up to the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, the Louis D. Brandeis Center sought to expose and educate undergraduate and law students about the juncture between human rights and the Jewish people, within the United Nations. LDB arranged the unique opportunity for students to meet with United Nations human rights expert Frances Raday. Raday is a prolific and accomplished Israeli academic, currently serving as Chairperson-Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (HRC) Working Group on Discrimination against Women in Law & Practice. She is also a Professor of Law at the Haim Striks Law School at Colman College of Management Academic Studies, where she also acts as President of the Concord Center for Integration of International Law in Israel. In our discussion with her, Raday focused on how the institutional make-up of the Human Rights Council influences its intersections with the state of Israel and the conflict it produces. Raday noted that while the Human Rights Counsel consists of 47 countries – representing each region of the world – 15 of those countries are also members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), an organization that often condemns Israel and pushes for the prosecution of Israeli politicians and military leaders for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This is an elucidating fact when considering that over 40% of the resolutions issued by the Human Rights Council since its establishment in 2006 have been against Israel. Raday asserted that this imbalance in HRC resolutions demonstrates a gross disproportion in attention to and condemnation of Israel, no matter how it is measured. The disparate treatment the HRC devotes to Israel is the product of imbalanced conversations within the body. While HRC members define Israel as “occupying” the West Bank, no mention is giving to Turkey “occupying” Cyprus or China “occupying” Tibet. Israel is not only a consistent talking point on HRC’s agenda but a permanent fixture – as the HRC dedicates an agenda item to Israel at each and every meeting, a “privilege” no other country receives. Raday explained that the HRC’s intolerance of Israel came to a head in 2013 after it set up a committee to investigate Israeli settlements and their effect on Palestinian human rights. Consequently, Israel elected not to partake in the United Nations Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a review of each member country’s human rights record conducted every four years. In light of the fact that the HRC oversees the Universal Periodic Review, Ken Marcus asked Raday her opinion of the process and Israel’s decision to forego it. She responded by saying that although the UPR process is deficient, it has value in keeping the subject of human rights and their protection in conversations within and among states and the United Nations. It is this conversation, one about human rights and the international attention and work devoted to their protection, that LDB sought to engage in with students in this event. Professor Raday not only portrayed the past inadequacies in the Human Rights Council, but the continued struggles Israel is forced to face – like being equated with Hamas, an internationally recognized as a terrorist organization, by the Goldstone Commission or lop-sided investigations by the Schabas Commission on Gaza. This discussion is one LDB seeks to continue and we will have the opportunity to work with, learn from, and ask the assistance of Professor Raday as we do so.
By Dilia Zwart and Kenny Liebowitz The UK Home Secretary Theresa May recently proclaimed, “We must all redouble our efforts to wipe out anti-Semitism.” Her call to action came during a memorial service in London to remember those killed in the terror attacks in France this month, including four people in a kosher supermarket. May urged the UK to increase efforts to combat anti-Semitism so that Jewish citizens would feel safe in the country. Her call to action reaffirms the UK’s commitment to combat anti-Semitism – seen also in a report on anti-Semitism the UK government issued last month. The report detailed the government’s strategy for and progress in stemming the rising tide of anti-Semitism within Britain’s borders. Yet while the report and May’s affirmation are important steps forward in the fight against anti-Semitism, thegovernment should be criticized for not going far enough in defining the contours of anti-Semitism. The report summarizes the UK government’s past and ongoing efforts to address five aspects of anti-Semitic activity: anti-Semitic incidents, anti-Semitic discourse, sources of contemporary anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism on campus, and addressing anti-Semitism. Furthermore, it details the UK government’s efforts to improve the quality and efficiency of hate crime prosecution, combat the use of the Internet to spread hate messages, and address anti-Semitism on school campuses. But to assess and effectively fight anti-Semitism, it is important to define what constitutes actionable offenses; yet the report asserts the government has no intention to formally adopt the working definition it encourages other government and law enforcement agencies to adopt from the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). The EUMC, now named Fundamental Rights Agency, is an organization that provides data on racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism in Europe, developed and disseminated a working definition of anti-Semitism in 2005. The definition included several examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere, as well as examples of ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel. Although EUMC’s successor agency no longer includes the definition on its website, the definition and its examples remain influential throughout the world. (more…)