Lea Speyer
Algemeiner
June 26, 2016

A successful appeal against New York University’s (NYU) Graduate Student Union’s (GSOC) motion in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has great implications in the fight against the global anti-Israel movement, students who led the appeal campaign told The Algemeiner on Friday.

Ilana Ben-Ezra and Samuel Zerin — members of GSOC for Open Dialogue on Israel and Palestine — said they applaud United Auto Workers International’s (UAW) decision against empowering the April GSOC BDS motion, which they claimed violated the UAW’s constitutional bylaws. UAW is the parent union of the Graduate Student Union.

According to UAW, GSOC’s BDS resolution “is contrary to the position of the International Union.” Citing as precedents two recent rulings by the UAW’s International Executive Board and Public Review Board nullifying similar BDS motions at the University of California, UAW declared GSOC’s resolution void of “force or effect.” As a result, UAW-affiliated unions at over 15 universities are prohibited from supporting BDS.

Zerin said that what was most interesting about UAW’s decision is that “the International UAW actually did not nullify the resolution. Rather, it declared that the resolution was already null and void because GSOC never had the authority to pass it in the first place.”

Both Ben-Ezra and Zerin told The Algemeiner they were not surprised by GSOC’s decision to support the global anti-Israel movement. According to Ben-Ezra, what really disappointed her was that “my fellow graduate students had failed to engage in meaningful dialogue about the Middle East, and that our union was straying from its primary purpose of fighting for graduate student workers rights.”

For Zerin — who said he “felt betrayed by my classmates” — GSOC’s decision came at an ironic time in his life. “I was overwhelmed by the fact that I was in Jerusalem, of all places, for my PhD research, when all of this was happening. It felt so ironic to be coordinating the counter-BDS campaign from Israel. It was painful and yet so perfect and fulfilling, and especially so ‘right’ when I finally cast my ballot online against BDS from my apartment in Jerusalem.”

“I guess you can say my body was in the East, but my heart was in the West — with my classmates in New York,” he said.

When news of the BDS motion broke, Ben-Ezra said she and fellow like-minded students who oppose BDS “were prepared in advance and took appropriate action against the motion.” According to Zerin, within days, “putting aside our political arguments and focusing on union policy,” GSOC for Open Dialogue on Israel and Palestine submitted its appeal.

“I read our union’s constitution, our ethical practices codes, the bylaws for both our local and our unit, as well as our union contract with NYU. As I did so, the number of violations just kept piling up and piling up. It was unbelievable to me – yet also totally predictable – that the BDS referendum violated our union policies in so many ways,” he told The Algemeiner.

Zerin believes the UAW decision is making a “strong moral statement.”

“GSOC’s BDS resolution is null and void not because its wording or demands violate a clause of our union’s constitution, but because the union opposes BDS itself. That’s really powerful. This isn’t just about NYU. It’s about every UAW-affiliated union, and it’s about BDS itself,” he said.

While UAW’s decision is a major setback for the BDS movement, Ben-Ezra said she applauds UAW International “for taking a strong stand against BDS but I unfortunately do not believe that it will prevent the movement from finding other avenues for expressing itself. I believe that UAW’s public stance and ruling that BDS is discriminatory sends a strong message to bystanders about what BDS implies, but BDS supporters will remain undeterred.”

According to prominent legal expert Kenneth Marcus — president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law who is currently battling pro-BDS academic institutions in court — GSOC’s resolution is “another example of BDS advocates disregarding the rules.”

“In this case, they are breaking the rules of an organization that will not be messed with: the UAW union. The UAW had already ruled against BDS and it was foolish of a UAW-affiliated student union to think that this didn’t apply to them,” he told The Algemeiner.

Based on its prior rulings, UAW made its position on BDS “crystal clear,” Marcus said, adding that its opposition to BDS was “interestingly for a distinctive reason, because it would harm American corporations that do business with Israel and that also employ UAW and other union members, such as Boeing, Caterpillar and General Electric. The UAW understand that BDS is bad for American workers because it is bad for American companies.”

“The graduate students at the UAW-affiliated student union should have understood that their union’s ruling applies to them, too,” Marcus stated. “It’s about time that the grown-ups step in. The UAW should be commended for their wise and just and decision.”

Original Article

Michelle Yabes
Brandeis Blog
June 21, 2016

The Judicial Board of the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU) recently declared in a board decision, called a “Reference,” that BDS and “similar motions” are “unconstitutional.” The Reference was created in response to an earlier petition filed in March by a “student upset over the third BDS motion proposed at the university” in 18 months.

Gil Troy, a history professor and anti-BDS advocate at McGill University, was enthusiastic, telling Algemeiner, “[t]his decision is huge! It means that Jewish concerns are respected with all others, and that antisemitism is also recognized as bigotry, as well as something that triggers macro-aggressions.” Professor Troy was among 150 academics at the University who recently signed a letter condemning BDS.

Although an initial General Assembly voted in favor of the BDS motion, SSMU’s Membership ultimately voted down the motion by a margin of 57-43%. The reference declared the “BDS Motion, and similar motions, incompatible with SSMU’s by-laws, internal regulations, and legal structure more generally.”

The document also notes that “[d]uring the period that led to the GA vote and the general Referendum there was a sharp increase in harassment…around campus.” The Judicial Board went on to state that those who campaigned against the BDS motion were subjected to a “barrage of hostilities”.

According to an article by the Montreal Gazette, many students reported that they had been “targeted for their opposition” to the BDS motion, and that social media was “chock-full of anti-Semitic remarks” following the initial General Assembly vote. One such post from the anonymous social networking site Yik Yak read, “[l]ittle Zionist jewboys not happy that McGill students don’t support their genocide.” In another report, one student was “followed home and verbally harassed” after speaking once the result of vote was announced.

In the Reference, the Judicial Board explained the framework of SSMU’s Constitution to illustrate how BDS conflicts with the university’s legal structure. The preamble succinctly describes the Society’s three broad goals, which BDS would violate: Service, Representation, and Leadership. These goals reiterate the Society’s mission to serve all student groups equally, act in their best interest, and act without discrimination.

Next, the Judicial Board explained how BDS would violate the “Equity Policy, which recognizes SSMU’s long-standing commitment to leadership on issues of equity and social justice.” The Judicial Board also added, “SSMU dedicates itself to creating an ‘anti-oppressive’ atmosphere where all of its membership feels included.”

The Judicial Board noted that BDS contradicts the below listed SSMU regulations and policies, as it would call on the SSMU to discriminate on the basis of national origin, and thus violate the Constitution:

2.1. The SSMU has a responsibility, as a leader, representative, and service provider to a diverse membership, to conduct itself by the highest standards of respect, fairness, integrity, safety, and equitable treatment for all persons.

2.2. The SSMU strives to create a community that exceeds social standards of equitable treatment and create a safer space for all of our members where discourse and diverse ideas can flourish within a respectful atmosphere.

2.4. The SSMU understands that groups that have been historically and culturally disadvantaged are subject to systematic marginalization and oppression, based on but not limited to: gender identity, gender expression, age, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, sexuality, sexual orientation, ability, language, size, or social class.

2.5. The SSMU condemns harassment or discrimination based on, but not limited to: gender identity, gender expression, age, race, ethnic or national origin, religion, sexuality, sexual orientation, ability, health, language, size, or social class.

They explain that the adoption of BDS and similar motions, as a movement whose primary platform is to “oppose Israel,” would force the SSMU to both align itself with this goal and take a “take an authoritative, direct, and unambiguous stance against Israel.” In short, associating with the BDS movement would call on the SSMU to oppose Israel as well.

This is problematic as the Judicial Board described that, [“b]y adopting positions against individual nations SSMU takes an indirect position against students from those nations.”

They also noted how “McGill is an international University…As such, it attracts students from almost every country.” The Judicial Board went on to assert that by “picking a side in such conflicts SSMU does not promote interactions between the various factions of students, but rather champions one’s cause over another.”

They continued, “if SSMU were to adopt the BDS Motion, it would adopt an anti-Israel platform. Israeli students would be placed at a disadvantage. SSMU, despite being their representative, would be openly hostile towards their country. This places them at a structural disadvantage vis-à-vis others and denies them access to the ‘safer spaces’ that SSMU holds so dear. This breaches the fundamental Constitutional values which permeate SSMU, as well as the Equity Policy.”

The Reference then concluded by stating, “all motions which compel SSMU to actively campaign against specific countries are unconstitutional. Doing so would place one group (nationals of that country) at a structural disadvantage vis-à-vis the majority and is thus discrimination.”

To read the full document, please click HERE.

Lea Speyer
Algemeiner
June 21, 2016

The administration at the University of California, Davis (UC Davis) has capitulated to violent and disruptive anti-Israel student groups — as seen through its weak response to recent anti-Israel campus activities — out of fear of their reprisal, members of the pro-Israel community at UC Davis said this week.

Zachary Nelson, president of the student group Aggies for Israel; Al Sokolow, co-chair of Davis Faculty for Israel (DFI); and Edward Rabin, professor of law and member of DFI, told The Algemeiner that the administration’s fears against the potential backlash posed from such groups as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the Muslim Student Association (MSA) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) — who are notorious for violent anti-Israel activity across college campuses — has left the university unable to defend the rights of all its students.

Their claims come amid a growing controversy at UC Davis, after a March talk by George Deek — an Arab Christian Israeli diplomat — was disrupted by pro-Palestinian protesters. As reported by The Algemeiner, after unfurling a large banner that read “1948=1492” across the room, the protesters chanted, among other anti-Israel slogans, “Long live the intifada.” Before exiting the room, they yelled “Allahu Akbar!”

Deek and the pro-Israel students present at his lecture were escorted out of the room by security guards to the safety of the nearby UC Davis Hillel. According to a witness who spoke with The Algemeiner at the time, some dozen uniformed police were inside the room and patrolling the immediate area, but did nothing to stop the demonstration.

In response to a letter by students and faculty expressing their upset over the Deek incident, then-provost and now current acting UC Davis chancellor, Ralph Hexter, called the demonstration “regrettable,” but defended the protesters’ actions as an expression of free speech protected under First Amendment rights. This same right, Hexter maintained, “also now prohibits the university from punishing them for their exercise of that right.”

Similarly, a memorandum published in May by the UC Davis Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility said that while it “unequivocally condemned” the Deek protest as an “assault on academic freedom,” it is “not clear…whether the disruptors can or should be punished by the administration.”

According to Aggies for Israel’s Nelson, “The administration’s weak response was due to a few factors, most prominent their fear of backlash from the protesters and being seen as ‘taking the wrong side.’” Despite clear guidelines and policies — such as the Regent’s UC Principles of Intolerance, which the administration informed Nelson were merely “aspirational statements” — the school is “reluctant to sanction student groups, namely SJP, MSU and JVP, who violate these ‘aspirational statements’ and even acknowledge their many incidents of disruption of Jewish and pro-Israel events,” he said.

Campus attitudes towards Israel and the Jewish community is “slowly deteriorating,” Nelson said, and the administration needs to “correct the behavior of these groups, otherwise it is seen as acceptable and encouraged.”

DFI’s Sokolow echoed this disappointment with UC Davis officials, and took issue with Hexter’s response to the protest, which, he said, “seems to emphasize the rights of demonstrators, while ignoring the rights of the speaker and audience.”

“Freedom of speech has been trampled on and ignored. The Deek disruption is just one instance of what seems to be a violation of university policies by anti-Israel groups regarding protecting speakers invited to campus by legitimate organizations,” he told The Algemeiner.

Rabin believes that the administration’s unwillingness to stand up for the rights of the pro-Israel community is because “the UC Davis administration, like most university administrations, wishes to avoid student demonstrations against the administration. This is its highest priority. Questions of free speech and academic freedom are also important to it, but of lower priority.”

Pro-Israel students and faculty, Rabin said, will not resort to using the violent tactics most frequently used by SJP and MSU. “They will not occupy university buildings, especially administration buildings, to further their viewpoint. From the administration’s’ viewpoint, it is therefore more important to placate anti-Israel students than pro-Israel students.”

Sokolow told The Algemeiner that DFI — alongside Aggies for Israel, the AMCHA Initiative, the Academic Exchange Network and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law — is “putting together a strong argument, both legal and policy-aimed, to present to university officials for adoption and implementation that would prohibit the disruption of speakers that should apply across the board to all speakers.”

“I think the protesters of the Deek event were very clever, because they confined their disruption to only three-to-four minutes. They were relying on the argument that campus administration would say it wasn’t a very long, serious disruption, compared to those that took place at UC Irvine and Sacramento State, which basically shut down the entire event,” Sokolow said. “Our argument is that any disruption that stops a speaker, regardless of time, is a violation of the speaker’s and audience’s right.”

“This is about more than just having a policy, but implementing the policy, too,” Sokolow said. “The critical point is, what can an administration do to protect the rights of its students? They need to discipline those students who were involved and make efforts to stop future disruptions.”

A spokesperson from UC Davis denied any claims of bowing to pressure from anti-Israel groups, telling The Algemeiner on Tuesday:

At UC Davis we do acknowledge that there are many diverse experiences and viewpoints in our community and we do strive for a civil and respectful discussion of those views. However, the right to free expression is a cornerstone value of the University of California, protected by the US and California constitutions and university policy.

Aggies for Israel invited the public to this meeting through campus and community notices, so it was open to the community. The interruption began soon after the beginning of the meeting, lasted for a few minutes and then the group dispersed without incident. In advance of the event, the Aggies for Israel organizers recognized that there would most likely be protests and that they would be difficult to prevent. They worked closely with the UC Davis Police Department and UC Davis Administration to allow the protest to continue in order to prevent a confrontation. The Aggies for Israel organizers were confident that the protesters, having had the chance to express themselves, would leave the event, which in fact they did. The speaker was able to deliver his talk without further interruption. Some students who participated in the initial protest stayed for the meeting and asked questions during a question-and-answer portion of the lecture, which they were of course free to do.

Security was present at the meeting. The safety of our campus community is always our highest concern, and at no time did it appear that any physical altercations occurred. Based on the totality of circumstances, we think that this was the best way to handle the event. The Aggies for Israel President went on record saying he was satisfied with how the Administration supported Aggies for Israel.

UC Davis administrators have regular discussions with all of our student groups, including our Jewish students, to make sure our community is one where freedom of expression is upheld in an environment of respect and caring. The UC Principles Against Intolerance require us to respond promptly when discrimination and other forms of intolerance occur, and we did that by supporting the Aggies for Israel organizers throughout the event, and in response to letters from the community after the event.

Original Article

Lea Speyer
Algemeiner
June 20, 2016

The popularity of a recent controversial auction in Germany, which sold relics belonging to high-level Nazi officials, highlights a growing obsession on the part of the far-Right to revive its connection with the perpetrators of the Holocaust, a leading antisemitism expert told The Algemeiner on Monday.

Kenneth Marcus — president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and author of The Definition of Anti-Semitism — was speaking in response to reports by German media that a mysterious Argentinian bidder spent approximately 600,000 euros ($679,000) on Friday to purchase Nazi memorabilia at a Munich auction titled: “Hitler and the Nazi grandees — a look into the abyss of evil.”

According to a report Monday in Germany’s The Local citing Bild daily, the buyer — dressed in dark clothing and a baseball hat — spent 275,000 euros ($311,000) alone on a uniform jacket belonging to Adolf Hitler. Silk underwear belonging to Gestapo founder and Nazi Air Force Commander-in-Chief Hermann Goering fetched 3,000 euros ($3,395). He also purchased the brass container that contained hydrogen cyanide, which Goering used to commit suicide hours before his scheduled execution in 1946 in Nuremberg.

In total, the mystery buyer — who refused to give his name to the Bild, but said he was “from Argentina” and bought the items “for a museum” — purchased more than 50 Nazi relics. Other attendees included “young couples, elderly men and muscular guys with shaved heads and tribal tattoos.”

What is even more intriguing about the mysterious buyer — and what Marcus said is “unlikely coincidental” — is that he identified himself at auction using the number “888,” which has ties to the neo-Nazi code “88.” According to the report, “88” marks the letter “H” in the alphabet and stands for the Nazi “Heil Hitler” salute.

“We are seeing an increasing fascination towards the Nazis in Europe at the same time that antisemitism is flaring up. Nazi memorabilia is increasingly fetishized and prized within the fetid corners of the world in which far-Right bigotry is reviving,” Marcus said. The auction itself, he contended, “is symptomatic of the broader resurgence of antisemitism and neo-Nazi ideology in Europe.”

“This is not just ‘neo’ Nazism. It is Nazism, pure and simple. In a sense, Nazism never entirely disappeared,” he told The Algemeiner. “Within much of the Western world, it simply went underground after World War II. Increasingly, however, it is resurfacing today as memories of the Second World War recede.”

In light of the increase in popularity of far-Right parties and candidates in Europe, and the seemingly open acceptance of Nazi bigotry — as exemplified in the republication of Hitler’s Mein Kampf — Marcus warned, “We should expect to see more acceptance of Nazism in the future if we do not guard against it. Given the rise of alt-Right ideology in recent years, we need to be just as vigilant against the old antisemitism on the far Right.”

The auction was heavily protested by the Central Council of Jews in Germany, who called on the auction house to cancel the sale. President Josef Schuster said the idea of “making business, without any limits, with items of Hitler, Goering and Eva Braun” was “scandalous and disgusting.”

The Nazi relics were formerly owned by late US army medical expert John K. Lattimer, who monitored the health of Nazis on trial in Nuremberg.

Original Article

The Tower
June 3, 2016

Thirty one countries voted to adopt a new working definition of anti-Semitism last week, a move hailed by human rights activists as an important milestone in countering hatred.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance—an intergovernmental group comprised of 31 nations—adopted a definition based on the 2005 European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) Working Definition, which describes anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” that can also target the state of Israel.

The definition clearly notes that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.” But accusations of dual loyalty and the use of double standards against the Jewish state, as well as tenets of anti-Zionism like the denial of Jewish rights to self-determination, are also considered manifestations of anti-Semitism.

“By adopting this working definition, the IHRA is setting an example of responsible conduct for other international fora and hopes to inspire them also to take action on a legally binding working definition,” said chairman Mihnea Constantinescu of Romania, noting shared concerns about the rising number of anti-Semitic incidents within member states.

“We now have a respected international organization that understands the intersection of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism,” Ben Cohen, senior editor of The Tower, told The Algemeiner. Cohen, the author of Some of My Best Friends: A Journey Through Twenty-First Century Antisemitism, added that “many organizations that could benefit from using this definition, not least the UN itself.”

Kenneth Marcus, the founder and president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, similarly emphasized the significance of the IHRA’s “excellent” definition.

“It is important that it so closely mirrors both the US State Department definition and also the EUMC’s definition,” Marcus told The Algemeiner. “In this field, uniformity is key, because it facilitates international cooperation and comparison of data across countries.”

“Such adoptions are influential, even when they are symbolic, because they change the way we talk and think about hate and bias — how people think about the relationship between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism,” he added. “This is a multi-state process that can eventually lead to policy, enforcement and action, but it will take some time.”

Original Article

Edwin Black
Jerusalem Post
June 2, 2016

June 1-2 is the 75th Anniversary of the 1941 Farhud pogrom, the pro-Nazi Arab attempt to exterminate the Jews of Baghdad. Hundreds were murdered, raped, and many Jewish homes and business looted and burned during a two-day orgy of hate and violence orchestrated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini. This heinous rampage was the Farhud. In Arabic, it means “violent dispossession.” This forgotten Holocaust-era pogrom was the first step toward the extinguishing the 26 centuries of Jewish life in Iraq. It led to the eventual mass expulsion of some 850,000 Jews from Arab lands into Israel, penniless and stateless.

To mark the 75th anniversary of the Farhud, I will race across the time zones to lead ceremonies of commemoration with Jewish groups and senior Israeli diplomats in four cities spanning the continents. It was the next logical step after the inauguration of International Farhud Day, which was proclaimed in an official live global event at United Nations Headquarters on June 1, 2015.

To launch the multi-nation series, the first ceremony began the morning of May 31 in the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington D.C. A program of sorrow—and a cry for recognition—unfolded in the presence of Congressional representatives and Deputy Ambassador to the United States Reuven Azar, who served in Arab capitals, as well as various American-Jewish and Iraqi-Jewish groups. Witness accounts reliving the 1941 massacre will be read by Maurice Shohet, president of the World Organization of Jews from Iraq. Special statements were delivered by Jewish leaders, such as Alyza Lewin, president of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, and Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt of Congregation B’nai Tzedek in suburban Washington, D.C. Haim Ovadia, the Iraqi-Jewish rabbi of Magen David Sephardic Congregation, reminiscently chanted Iraqi songs. American Music Academy director and cantorial soloist Rachel Black will sing El Malei Rachamim. A Congressional letter expressed solidarity with the victims and the surviving generations in Israel.

Then candle lit by Afraim Katzir, Sephardic Heritage Center, was for each of the 27 centuries of Iraq Jewish existence abruptly terminated by the mass expulsion of Jews shortly after Israel was created. Hence, the candle was abruptly snuffed out. Then the wail of 8 and half plaintiff shofar blasts symbolized the 850,000 Jews forcibly evicted from Arab lands, mainly into Israel. The event culminated with a declaration of the pivotal role of Israel eloquently offered by Ken Marcus of the Louis Brandeis Institute, the lighting of a sole candle representing remnant Israel by Josh Block of The Israel Project, and it concluded with a singing Jerusalem of Gold by Rachel Black, cantorial soloist and director of the Americana Music Academy.

Several of the group then took the next Acela to New York City, where the ceremony was repeated that same afternoon with some variation at the famous Sephardic congregation, Edmond J. Safra Synagogue. Attending that second event will be Deputy Chief of Israel’s UN Mission David Roet, who is of Iraqi parentage, plus Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, students from Rambam High School, and others. Leading the solemn gathering will be Justice for Jews from Arab Countries president Rabbi Elie Abadie and illustrious Safra Cantor Shemuel Levy.

After the conclusion of the New York City event, without pausing, we raced to the airport to fly to London to repeat the ceremony with variations on the theme of candle lighting, shofar blowing, and witness accounts at the prominent London Sephardic congregation Lauderdale Road Synagogue, under the leadership of Rabbi Joseph Dweck. Officiating will be Israel’s Ambassador to Great Britain, Mark Regev, and several other London notables.

To complete the effort, the group will fly to Jerusalem, meeting others from London to Los Angeles, where the ceremony will be repeated one final time in the Knesset on June 6 with the robust participation of Members of Knesset and Iraqi-Israeli organizations such as The Babylon Jewish Heritage Center.

Clearly, many groups in three countries, supported by many others from around the world, have come together to speak with a single voice to cry out in fugue for justice for the victims of the Farhud and its eventual consequence—the expulsion of 850,000 Jews from Arab countries, mainly into Israel. But when all the chants have been heard, the shofar blasts blown and the speeches presented, what does it all mean? Troubling and painful questions arise for the Jewish community and, indeed, for the international community.

Why did it take so many decades and the works of an Ashkenazi author (writing first in my 2005 book, Banking on Baghdad, and then later in my 2010 book, The Farhud—Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust), for the tragic plight of such a multitude spread across so many countries to be recognized. At a time when the tearful details of every Holocaust-era city, village and concentration camp continue to be illuminated, the Farhud and the subsequent creation of 850,000 Jewish refugees struggle for oxygen and moments of light. Explanation: The victims were Sephardic.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has accomplished so much in the field of Holocaust memory, ignored the Farhud for years. The very topic conflicted with the USHMM’s mission statement, which defined the Holocaust as the attempt by the Nazis and their allies to destroy European Jewry. That injected a geographic map test into the memory process that virtually redlined the torment of Jewish victims residing just to the south and just to the east. Sephardic victims had a right to be recognized and only now they are finding a molecule of recognition. But inertia has been overcome only after vigorous challenges by many in the Jewish community to evoke recognition by scholars, historians, and our communal leadership that Hitler’s war against the Jews was a global one, not one confined to the European continent.

A second inescapable reality arises. After the creation of the State of Israel, two types of refugees were created by the international community. The first were Jews from Arab countries, who were barely accommodated by existing international law governing refugee status and were forgotten beneath a shroud almost as quickly as they were moved out of their tents into permanent housing and absorbed into Israel. The second was a sort of uber-refugee, Palestinian Arabs, who were granted a generation-to-generation refugee status as a birthright, creating a mushrooming class today of some 5 million so-called “refugees.” Whereas Israel moved its Jewish brethren out of camps as quickly as the tiny state could muster resources, the Palestinians have maintained an almost eternal status of enhanced victimhood wherein hundreds of thousands still dwell in so-called refugee camps in cities completely controlled by the Palestinian Authority. The questions looms: Why is there a refugee camp in Ramallah and many other locations in Palestinian controlled territory. As the son of Polish refugees now living in Washington, D.C., I am not considered—nor do I consider myself—a refugee. But a Palestinian neighbor who may have been born and raised down the street from me, is given a special victim status and entitlement that theoretically lives on in perpetuity enforced by the world body. Not even the millions of Syrian, Iraqi or other Middle Eastern refugees now flooding Europe’s beaches and barricades enjoy the same status as a Palestinian born in the United States, yet is somehow still classed as a refugee.

Original Article
Every hour of the day we hear claims for Palestinian property. Yet, at no hour of any day is anyone reminded that some $300 million in Iraqi-Jewish assets were summarily seized through bigoted Nazi-style confiscatory legislation. The Iraqi totals can be multiplied by 10 or more to surmise the value of Jewish property seized across the Arab and Muslim world during the expulsions.

While the commemorative program formats were privately conceived, a number of organizations aided in the program development in various cities. Heading the list was StandWithUs internationally. In the United States, StandWithUs was joined by the Israeli Embassy, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries, the World Organization of Jews from Iraq, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, various synagogues, and many others. In London, lead assistance was rendered by HARIF and the Embassy of Israel, in association with StandWithUs-UK, the Association of Jewish Refugees, the Board of Deputies, B’nai B’rith, Ohel David Iraqi Synagogue, S&P Sephardi Community, Sephardi Voices, Spiro Ark and WeBelieveinIsrael. In Israel, StandWithUs-Israel was joined in the effort by the Babylonian Jewish Heritage Center, the Federation of Jews from Arab Countries, and the Knesset Caucus for the Preservation of the Culture of Jews from Islamic Countries.

The word “justice” aptly appears in the name of many of the organizations participating in this 75th anniversary commemoration. But there can be no justice without recognition, without knowledge, without basic understanding. Therefore, the candles, shofars and enunciations of the memorials in Washington, D.C., New York City, London and Jerusalem are just a small step along the long-obstructed road to recognition and understanding. Eventually, if the road is persistently traveled, it can lead to some measure of justice and compensation. But the final destination — a quantum of justice — will not emerge until all can be certain that the brutal experience suffered by Jews in Arab countries will occur NEVER AGAIN.

Lea Speyer
Algemeiner
June 2, 2016

Human rights activists told The Algemeiner on Wednesday why they consider last week’s adoption by 31 countries of a new working definition of antisemitism to be a major step towards combating the reemerging phenomenon.

Mark Weitzman, task force director at the Simon Wiesenthal Center — who proposed the adoption of the definition; Ben Cohen, author of Some of My Best Friends: A Journey Through Twenty-First Century Antisemitism; Kenneth Marcus, president and general counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under the Law; and Manfred Gerstenfeld, founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs’ post-Holocaust and antisemitism program, all said that the adoption of the definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Plenary is a historic action that will now prompt leading countries to confront the growing issue head-on.

According to the IHRA definition:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestation of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Of particular significance is the accompanying text which presents “contemporary examples” of modern antisemitism, and includes reference specifically to Israel. Some examples are:

Manifestation might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.

…

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

An earlier draft of this definition was formulated some 10 years ago and circulated by the European Union Monitoring Center (EUMC), the human rights arm of the EU. While the definition was never officially adopted, it appeared on the EUMC website. Following criticism for this, the EUMC eventually removed the posting.

Weitzman — who chairs the IHRA’s Committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial — told The Algemeiner that he has been working for the last several years to get the IHRA to adopt it.

“We decided a couple of years ago that IHRA was the right venue to bring up the definition for adoption. The idea was proposed to my committee, who recommended it to IHRA’s Plenary and it took two years to get the definition through, which is remarkably fast in IHRA terms,” he said, comparing it to an earlier definition — of Holocaust distortion — which took five years to pass.

Weitzman told The Algemeiner he believed the adoption of the definition would “be more controversial and difficult.” He credits the current chair of IHRA — Romanian diplomat Ambassador Mihnea Constantinescu — with “taking this issue on as one of his country’s own objectives and putting his whole political weight behind it. This made a huge impact and signaled to IHRA that adopting this definition was a clear priority.”

Author Ben Cohen, a senior editor at The Tower magazine and director of partnership programs at The Israel Project, described the IHRA’s move as a “huge achievement.”

“We now have a respected international organization that understands the intersection of antisemitism with anti-Zionism,” he told The Algemeiner, referencing the IHRA’s decision to include antisemitic anti-Zionism among its working examples of antisemitism.

“There are many organizations that could benefit from using this definition, not least the UN itself,” Cohen added.

Marcus told The Algemeiner that the IHRA’s definition “is excellent, and it is important that it so closely mirrors both the US State Department definition and also the EUMC’s definition.” Its major significance, he said, is in the fact that “in this field, uniformity is key, because it facilitates international cooperation and comparison of data across countries.”

Calling the IHRA definition “well-balanced, rather than being overly narrow or broad,” Marcus highlighted two aspects of it. “First, the definition emphasized the importance of viewing any incident in its ‘overall context.’ In that respect, it wisely allows for case-by-case determinations. Second, the IHRA definition, like other similar tools, clarifies that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’ It is by no means the broadest of definitions,” he said.

While the IHRA and State Department definitions of antisemitism are legally non-binding, Marcus said, “Such adoptions are influential, even when they are symbolic, because they change the way we talk and think about hate and bias — how people think about the relationship between anti-Israelism and antisemitism. This is a multi-state process that can eventually lead to policy, enforcement and action, but it will take some time.”

Gerstenfeld told The Algemeiner that while the definition itself is “very good,” he takes issue with a word in one of the examples of antisemtisim provided by the IHRA: “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

“The word ‘democratic’ is misplaced,” he said. “According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the first paragraph, it is clearly implicit that every human being is responsible for his own actions. This is crucial because, for example, you can’t have a person say, ‘I’m a Palestinian and I admire murderers. But I’m only a Palestinian and therefore exempt. The word ‘democratic’ should not have been there. Instead, it should have read ‘of any other nation.’ This is my only criticism.”

The IHRA Plenary in Bucharest officially adopted the working definition of antisemitism on May 30, following a four-day meeting of 200 experts and policymakers from around the world to discuss the Holocaust as a contemporary political issue. Out of the IHRA’s 31 member countries, 24 belong to the EU, and others include the US, UK, Canada and Israel.

Original Article