Canada has just passed a resolution that defines and prioritizes combating anti-Semitism. In an article for the Jerusalem Post, Irwin Cotler, former justice minister and current MP of the Canadian parliament, discussed the importance of such a resolution. Last February, Cotler and Jason Kenney, the minister of multiculturalism, presented the resolution to Canada’s House of Commons. “The resolution had three components,” Cotler said.

Irwin Cotler at the Jabotinsky Center

Irwin Cotler at the Jabotinsky Center (Photo from Wikicommons)

 

The first component was a condemnation of the anti-Semitic incidents occurring more and more frequently around the world. This may sound like a no-brainer, but it brings up the important point that violence against Jews has been on the rise in the past decade and takes a strong stance against it, especially when taken with the second component of the resolution, which was to “make the combating of anti-Semitism a priority both in its domestic policy and in its foreign policy,” according to Cotler. Many anti-Semitic incidents go largely unreported, from attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries in Europe to drawings of swastikas on American college campuses. The attack on Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters in Paris last January sparked international outrage and discussion, but an almost equally deadly assault on a Jewish school in Toulouse in March of 2012 was all but forgotten months later. Forgotten, that is, by everybody but Jewish school systems around the world, many of which, my own former day school included, added security measures in wake of the attack. A strong condemnation is necessary in the face of a world that shrugs off anti-Semitic violence as inevitable.

The third component was to “reaffirm… the 2010 Ottawa Protocol, which is one of the most important parliamentary documents we have in terms of an action plan.” The Ottawa Protocol on Combating Anti-Semitism, which was pursued by and relied on testimony from LDB president Kenneth L. Marcus, gives a clear definition of anti-Semitism, which it took from the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s (EUMC) definition (the EUMC has since been replaced by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, or FRA). This definition clearly includes attacks on the right of the Jewish people to a state in the land of Israel. It condemns the delegitimizing of Israel as a state, the dehumanizing of Israelis or Zionists, and holding Israel to a double-standard to which it does not hold other nations. The protocol rather succinctly sums up this main point by saying: “Criticism of Israel is not antisemitic, and saying so is wrong. But singling Israel out for selective condemnation and opprobrium – let alone denying its right to exist or seeking its destruction – is discriminatory and hateful, and not saying so is dishonest.”

In Cotler’s interview, he mentions four indicators of anti-Semitism that are evident today, all of which are listed in the LDB fact sheet on anti-Semitic discourse. He brings up “genocidal anti-Semitism,” which can be found in the policies of Iran and the charter of Hamas, both of which call for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews. Next he mentions the “demonization of Israel.” This would include the accusation that Israel and all Jews are responsible for all the violence in the Middle East and the world, that Israel is operating an apartheid regime, and that Israel is Nazi state. Third, he says is “the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or the denial of the Jews as a people.” And fourth, the attacks on Israel on moral grounds, or “In other words, to portray Israel as the enemy of all that is good, and the repository of all that is evil.”

Why is it important that Canada has reaffirmed the Ottawa Protocol’s definition of anti-Semitism? It provides a powerful precedent for the United States to follow. Though the U.S. State Department has adopted this definition, there is one major caveat: the State Department has jurisdiction over every country except for the United States itself. That means that an attack or incident that would be recognized as anti-Semitic and treated as such in court in Paris or Milan would not be given the same recognition in Philadelphia or Miami. The United States, a bastion of civilization and freedom of religion, has worse standards for the definition of anti-Semitism than Europe, which is rife with anti-Semitic tension. For that reason, the Louis D. Brandeis Center has been urging government agencies and universities to adopt this more expansive definition in order to fully protect the rights of students and citizens. What has been happening instead on U.S. campuses is anti-Semitism hiding under the guise of political discussion or, even worse, campaigns for human rights. I am referring to what Irwin Cotler calls “the laundering of anti-Semitism through universal public values.” Many entities, especially academic organizations in America, condemn Israel under the cover of supporting human rights, while tellingly ignoring the blatant human rights violations of China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. The Brandeis Center, through educating government organizations and gathering support at universities, is trying to change the climate so the official American definition of anti-Semitism matches that of the EUMC and so that each of these organizations recognizes the importance of putting a stop to it.

Anti-Semitism has remained the last chic mode of racism. A way of removing casual prejudice against the Jewish people is to define anti-Semitism as specifically as possible, and introduce that definition into the public mindset.

The vote on the Trade Promotion Authority bill (“TPA”) is still up in the air. Having already passed through the Senate, the House will vote on the bill in the coming weeks. Hill Republicans and President Obama support the “fast track” legislation, which would help finalize a major Pacific trade accord with the Pacific rim. Democrats are torn between supporting the President’s quest for a historic Pacific Rim trade deal and their allegiance to traditional party backers like labor unions, who oppose the bill. (more…)