Tough task ahead

Will the new envoy for monitoring anti-Semitism be allowed to tell it like it is?

By
May 23, 2006 08:29
3 minute read.

 
X

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

In view of the rising tide of anti-Semitism around the world, the appointment of the first Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism is welcome news. But the new envoy, Dr. Gregg Rickman, will have his work cut out for him. Rickman is both a scholar and an activist, who played a central role in the battle with Swiss banks to win restitution for Holocaust survivors. That activist spirit will be much needed as he not only confronts anti-Semites abroad but also stands up to the government bureaucrats at home who fought bitterly against the legislation that created his post. That legislation, introduced in 2004 by Congressman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), required the US government to monitor and report on anti-Semitism around the globe. And it mandated the appointment of an envoy to focus on fighting anti-Semitism - the kind of specific, focused attention that this serious problem clearly requires. But the bill ran into strong opposition from State Department officials. They claimed the legislation would show "favoritism" to Jews by "extending exclusive status to one religious or ethnic group." The hollowness of that argument, however, was demonstrated by the fact that the State Department already has a number of offices that extend exclusive status to groups or issues of concern, such as Tibet, human trafficking and women's rights. The State Department's position on the Lantos legislation carried troubling echoes of the past. During the Holocaust era the department did its best to downplay the Jewish identity of Hitler's victims - even though the Nazi regime had clearly singled out Jews for annihilation. Statements by US officials about Nazi atrocities seldom mentioned the Jews. SIXTY YEARS later, in 2004, State Department officials were hard at work stalling the Lantos bill and trying to dilute or bury it. They finally dropped their opposition only after a bipartisan group of more than 100 prominent Americans, mobilized by our David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, publicly denounced the State Department's obstruction. The signatories included former vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp, former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake, former US ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey. Once the State Department backed down the Lantos bill - the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 - was adopted unanimously by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. That was in October 2004. Why it then took more than 18 months to appoint the envoy is unclear. In any event, as the law requires, the State Department last year issued its first-ever report on anti-Semitism. It was a mixed bag, and it illustrates the challenges that Rickman will face. In one respect, the report was a major step forward. It presented the first official American government definition of anti-Semitism, and, significantly, stated that "the demonization of Israel or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue." EQUALLY important, the report specifically included instances of Holocaust denial in various countries as examples of anti-Semitism. There was no pretending that denying the Holocaust is just another interpretation of history. But at the same time the State Department's report exhibited the kind of bias for which Foggy Bottom has earned a reputation over the years - by minimizing the anti-Semitism sponsored by some Arab regimes. For example, the report's section on Saudi Arabia, a major promoter of anti-Semitism, was just 182 words long. By contrast, Iceland was given 387 words, even though the report cited only one instance of anti-Semitic harassment there, and one hostile cartoon. Only 86 words were devoted to the Palestinian Authority, despite the frequency of anti-Semitism in the PA's newspapers and on its television and radio programs. Armenia (194 words), Brazil (149) and Azerbaijan (142), where there is no evidence of governmentsponsored anti-Semitism, were given more space in the report than the Palestinian Authority. Anti-Semitism must be vigorously combated - no matter its source, no matter which political agendas may be affected, and no matter whose toes may be stepped upon in the process. Gregg Rickman has demonstrated that he recognizes this important principle. Whether the State Department will fully embrace it, however, remains to be seen. The writer is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. www.WymanInstitute.org

Related Content

The Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
April 30, 2015
Teva doubles down on Mylan, despite rejection

By GLOBES, NIV ELIS