by Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn

February 19, 2009

LONDON — When 120 parliamentarians from almost 40 countries from all over the world gather to find ways to work together to fight the scourge of anti-Semitism, one has a very strange feeling.

On the one hand, while there have been major conferences sponsored by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe over the past years, this was the first time ever a group of legislators and expert staff gathered to consider ways to address the problem of global anti-Semitism in both its old and new manifestations.

At the international conference on combating anti-Semitism this week, it was truly remarkable to see gathered parliamentarians, the vast preponderance of whom were not Jewish. In addition, most of them do not even represent major Jewish constituencies. On the other hand, it is truly pathetic that 64 years after the end of the Holocaust, fine, well-intentioned, and committed people must still convene to discuss and address the worldwide problem of combating anti-Semitism.

Delegates included parliamentary veterans as well as freshman representatives in their particular legislatures. (One of the conference organizers was U.S. Rep. Chris Smith from New Jersey’s Fourth Congressional District, a longtime fighter on behalf of human rights for all.)

While much of the conference was closed to the press to provide a maximum amount of exchange and consideration by this wide array of parliamentarians, the scope of their considerations as reflected in their agenda and concluding declaration indicates the seriousness and complexity of their deliberations. They came intending to make a joint effort, following up on earlier meetings, to recommend a general definition and universal approach for consideration and action, by all governments, seeking to respond to the persistence of anti-Semitism as well as the recent spike in anti-Semitic activity throughout the world during and since the Gaza War.

The range of issues discussed was wide reaching. Some of the matters considered were structural. For example, federal democracies have different lines of authority than do national governments, with respect to how to treat and define an anti-Semitic act, the nature of how to prosecute such acts, and the levels of legislative and legal authorities involved.

Furthermore, there was consideration of how to improve the training for police, prosecutors, and judges so that they better understand the character and manifestation of bias crimes and anti-Semitic acts. There was also much discussion of whether it is possible to restrict and/or control the use of the Internet to spread anti-Semitic ravings without imposing an unacceptable constraint on free speech.

The shape of the debate took on a dimension that was different from the past. The assembled parliamentarians understood that while all the old canards remained to be addressed, there was a dramatic, new issue which now presented itself — although not for the first time. The fight against anti-Semitism is now being waged in the context of the fight against anti-Zionism. It was wrapped up in and underlying much of the attack against the State of Israel being fomented not only by Israel’s Arab and Muslim enemies but also by opponents of Israel on the political right as well as on the radical left.

One of the other convening parliamentarians, Irwin Cotler, expressed it most eloquently. Cotler, a worldwide respected expert and litigator on behalf of human rights and a member of the Canadian parliament, emphatically argued that any effort to disconnect anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism was totally false. As he and many others articulated, it is possible to disagree with the policies of the Israeli government; indeed, many Jews in Israel and the Diaspora do so. However, an anti-Semite is one who hates Jews wherever they might be, while an anti-Zionist hates Jews who live in the State of Israel. Regardless of how one paints it, these are both anti-Semites who hate Jews and want to eliminate them.

In Smith’s remarks, delivered at the closing public plenary, he expressed much of the sentiment of the conference:

“If our fight is to succeed, we need government officials at all levels to denounce, without hesitation or delay, anti-Semitic acts wherever and whenever they occur, no exceptions. The purveyors of hate never take a holiday or grow weary, nor should we. Holocaust remembrance and tolerance education must dramatically expand, and we need to ensure that our respective laws punish those who hate and incite violence against Jews.”

After several days of deep and serious commitment to uprooting anti-Semitism, one must now await to see what progress will be made before the world parliamentarians convene next year in Canada.

Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union (e-mail gkahn@kean.edu).

Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com

--TOP--