Category: B'nai B'rith

Who Knew? Ending Hatred As a Means to Forging Peace

3/31/2016

U.N. Disengagement Observer Force moving freely through Golan Heights, despite the world body's repeated condemnation of Israel's possession of the territory.

You wouldn't know it from the Human Rights Council -- which ritualistically adopted multiple anti-Israel resolutions last week, yet only lone ones on such scenes of unsurpassed carnage and deprivation as Syria, Iran and North Korea -- but the most elemental human right of Israelis, the right to life, has been denied and threatened in a particularly relentless and vicious way for about half a year now. The council was not even embarrassed to condemn Israel for its possession of, and human rights record on, the strategically vital and essentially tranquil Golan Heights at a time when religious minorities and the U.N.'s own personnel enjoy refuge there from the bloodletting by regime forces and terrorist groups alike across the border in Syria.

In a true manifestation of insult added to injury, and of abdicated political and ethical leadership, apathy in Geneva to Palestinian terrorism comes as little surprise, though, since the United Nations as a whole is all but explicit in its indifference to violence against Israelis -- unless and until Israel responds forcefully, at which point Israel itself is subjected to especially wild opprobrium.

A running compendium by the world body, "UN Response to Acts of Terrorism," lists its reactions to acts of violence against civilians globally -- from France to Lebanon to Mali to Afghanistan to Egypt to Turkey to Belgium and beyond -- and yet manages not to note even a single one of the stabbings, shootings or car rammings that have afflicted innocent Israelis on a near-daily basis over the last six months.

A rocket fired by Hamas in Gaza lands on a highway in Israel.

Forget solidarity marches by world leaders, the superimposing of the Israeli flag on social-media profile photos or declarations of "Je suis Jerusalem"; after all, even a fresh target of Islamist terror like Belgium continues to be among those denying Israel any understanding or decency in its voting at the Human Rights Council. Instead, the UN secretary-general recently rationalized Palestinian acts of terror as "human nature" -- and went as far as to respond to the subsequent objections of Israeli leaders by publishing an op-ed castigating them for "lashing out at every well-intentioned critic," among them "Israel's closest friends." When a few weeks ago I accompanied a group of diplomats on a visit to Israel -- one that was illuminating in its revelation of the country as a democratic, pluralistic haven amid upheaval, so humane as to be unassumingly treating wounded arrivals from hostile Syria -- UN officials stationed there did not let reality disrupt their relaying of a well-practiced narrative in which only Palestinians are associated with grievance and only Israelis are saddled with obligations.

For these bureaucrats, Palestinian suffering was worthy of detailing and magnification, while Israeli suffering was minimized or ignored completely. Indeed, with the UN never considering all those Israelis maimed or traumatized in terrorist attacks, the ongoing wave of Palestinian violence, we were told, does not rise to the level of a "political crisis." Meeting the same day with a non-religious Jewish girl and an Orthodox man who had been wounded in horrifying attacks -- by sheer randomness, in different areas that we ourselves had visited in Jerusalem that day, including the vicinity of the UN compound itself -- I found myself growing emotional in decrying the failure of UN data and officialdom to see any "crisis" in an untold number of Israelis whose scars, physical and otherwise, will permanently testify to their neighbors' conviction that their lives are somehow deserving of being brought to a cruel and arbitrary end.

Putting aside cruelty, today's multiplying Palestinian assailants, whose precursors had inaugurated in earnest the era of modern political terrorism, particularly the use of plane hijackings and suicide bombings, have again honed their brutal craft. Following phases dominated by cross-frontier rocket fire, hostage-taking and other tactics, ordinary Palestinians, endlessly incited to violent hatred not only by Hamas but also by the purportedly moderate Fatah, can now harm and terrorize Israelis with little training or resources, and little possibility for a decisive Israeli response. After all, will Israel deny all Palestinians access to steak knives or to automobiles that can then be exploited as weaponry? And whom can Israel effectively confront when any Palestinian youth rifling through a kitchen drawer is a potential perpetrator of warfare? Not least, by anonymously taking cleavers to Israelis one at a time -- without the dramatic footage and gore of ISIS decapitation videos -- Palestinians can broadly victimize Israelis, day after day for months on end, without the world's so much as taking notice, let alone discerning a crisis.

And so it has been. Indeed, with their Arab and other allies comprising an automatic majority at the world body, the Palestinians also continue to determine messaging there, wielding the ability to defame and isolate Israel as a means to pressure the Jewish state without at long last accepting peace with it.

And yet, of course, for Palestinians at large the end-result is the same: a widening cult of "martyrdom" but negligible actual progress toward substantive political goals. Consequently, grassroots Palestinian anger and frustration further increase, and the most fanatic Palestinian factions retain popular appeal relative to that of the nominal pragmatists occupying positions of power in Ramallah.

"The UN will remain fundamentally corrupt, and most certainly a failure at peacemaking, until it is finally able to treat the deliberate murder of Jews as it does that of others among its constituents."

Which is why, if UN officials do actually care about peace in the region or at least about the stated aspirations of mainstream Palestinians, they must finally stop coddling the Palestinians, denying them all sense of responsibility or agency, and insist that they end the crude, ubiquitous incitement against Israel that inevitably results in the deaths of Palestinians.

The UN itself, for that matter, must stop serving as a global purveyor of such incitement.

A senior UN official, explaining in a New York Times essay this month why he was walking away from a long career at the organization, wrote: "If you lock a team of evil geniuses in a laboratory, they could not design a bureaucracy so maddeningly complex, requiring so much effort but in the end incapable of delivering the intended result. The system is a black hole into which disappear countless tax dollars and human aspirations, never to be seen again." At the UN, he acknowledged, "too many decisions are driven by political expediency instead of by the values of the United Nations or the facts on the ground." He concluded: "We need a United Nations led by people for whom 'doing the right thing' is normal and expected."

Serial abuse of Israel was not the subject of the former UN official's piece, and -- no surprise, since it is likely the most entrenched and politically untouchable of UN dogmas -- it was nowhere mentioned in it.

However, indifference to and complicity in the deep injustice that is bigotry against Israel are central to the departure of the UN from its intended purposes and from its real potential.

The UN will remain fundamentally corrupt, and most certainly a failure at peacemaking, until it is finally able to treat the deliberate murder of Jews as it does that of others among its constituents.

David J. Michaels is Director of United Nations and Intercommunal Affairs at B'nai B'rith International, where he began working in 2004 as Special Assistant to the Executive Vice President. A Wexner Fellow/Davidson Scholar, and past winner of the Young Professional Award of the Jewish Communal Service Association of North America, he holds degrees from Yale and Yeshiva University.To view some of his additional content, Click Here.

Comments

Letter To USA Today On Palestinian Narrative vs. Presenting Facts

10/19/2015

Comments

Daniel Mariaschin

Biased media coverage of the murderous attacks against Jews in Israel continues.

B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin sent the following letter to USA Today, including to the Standards Editor:

Regarding Israel, Most South American countries are biased too

10/19/2015

Comments

Eduardo Kohn

The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) has a real, biased treatment of issues relating to Israel. The light it shines on the Jewish state is particularly lopsided in comparison with talk and action on actual pressing international human rights tragedies such as those in Syria, Yemen, Iran and Sudan.

The permanent agenda of the HRC includes a specific item targeting Israel—Agenda Item 7—titled: “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.”

Israel is the only country on earth that has been singled out and it is the only country to appear on the HRC's permanent agenda. A number of other countries notorious for their human rights abuses are included as part of the general debate, if they are mentioned at all.

The HRC doesn’t even meet its own standards for judging human rights issues. Saudi Arabia, for example, now heads a key HRC panel that selects top officials who shape international human rights standards and report on violations. Additionally the U.N. committee that credentials NGOs and human rights groups includes serial human rights abuser Iran.

The HRC also has among its elected members human rights abusers like Qatar and Venezuela, but the singling out is exclusive for Israel.

At the end of September the HRC devoted a whole session to Item 7—meaning a meeting was called with the sole purpose of blasting Israel.

The Syrian delegate said that his country “is concerned” about the situation in “Palestine and other occupied territories.” But no country at the HRC stood up to ask Syria if the world should be seriously concerned about the millions of refugees and thousands of killings that have resulted from four years of civil war. In Syria, there isn’t a shred of respect for human rights to be found in any corner of the country. But the HRC is such a sham that it opens the floor for human rights violators, rather than doing something to stop them.

In this context of hypocrisy, several South American countries had the floor during the aforementioned Israel bashing session.

Perpetual demonizers of Israel like Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba, and democracies like Chile, Brazil and Uruguay, also blasted Israel.

Overall the session was, as usual, shameful. There were long hours full of rhetoric mixed with vitriol and incitement against Israel, singled out by the infamous Item 7.

What has happened two weeks later when Palestinian terrorists have already killed seven Israeli civilians and wounded about 30, by stabbing and shooting men, women and children?

Has the HRC called for an urgent meeting? Of course not.

Which country has publicly condemned the wave of terror created by incitement coming from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority? Among South American countries, only one: Uruguay.

The Uruguayan government not only condemned the wave of terror against Israeli civilians, but also condemned “those who praise as heroic, murder and killing”

Among HRC and the United Nations itself, Uruguay has been a courageous voice in the desert.

In the particular situation that Israel is living today, under the terrorist attacks, general silence has been the pattern

Democracies should be unified in fighting for freedom and respect for human rights. Unfortunately this is not the rule in most South American countries when it comes to Israel.

It is a slap to history and a tradition of friendship between South America and Israel, which started in 1948, and has been sadly reversing in the last decade.

Eviatar Manor, Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva

Elías Jaua Milano, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela

Juan Carlos Alurralde, Vice-Ministerfor for Foreign Affairs of Bolivia

Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations Office at Geneva

H.E. Celso Amorim, Minister of State External Relations of Brazil

Luis Almagro, Former Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uruguay

The OSCE and the Ongoing Fight Against Anti-Semitism

10/15/2015

Comments

Eric Fusfield

A recent international conference in Warsaw, Poland provided an opportunity to take inventory of the struggle against anti-Semitism. While the U.S. and European governments have made progress in addressing the problem, evidence of anti-Semitism’s persistence is in ready supply.

2014 saw a breakthrough at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a multilateral organization charged with, among other priorities, combating anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. For the first time in more than a decade of tackling modern incarnations of Judeophobia, the 57 governments that make up the OSCE codified core principles of the fight against anti-Semitism in a high-level ministerial declaration. “We reject and condemn manifestations of anti-Semitism, intolerance, and discrimination against Jews,” the document intoned.

2014, meanwhile, was also a year that saw a spike in anti-Semitic incidents across Europe and the former Soviet Union. A wave of anti-Israel demonstrations has swept the OSCE region in 2014 and 2015; these gatherings typically have featured blatantly anti-Semitic themes and often have turned violent. Attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions have increased in frequency and intensity, as the landscape from Belgium to Bulgaria, Germany to Greece, Holland to Hungary, and Ireland to Italy has witnessed violence against Jewish targets. This spread of hatred has been accompanied by a corrosion of the public discourse with respect to Jews and Israel and has left European Jewry fearful for their safety and security.

The rise of anti-Jewish hatred also has resulted in a proliferation of anti-Semitic propaganda, much of which is directed against the State of Israel. Tragically, the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state has become a daily occurrence, as Israel’s enemies repeatedly accuse it of being a Nazi-like occupier and an apartheid state that disenfranchises the Palestinians. Falsehoods about Israel are repeated so often that they become widely accepted in the popular culture and sometimes impact government policy. The effort by Israel’s relentless critics to denigrate the Jewish state is not only evidence that anti-Semitism is alive and well 70 years after the Holocaust—this new variation of the world’s oldest social illness actually poses a security threat to the Jewish state by intensifying its international isolation.

Against this backdrop, an OSCE human dimension implementation meeting that B’nai B’rith attended in Warsaw this month underscored that while much has been done to fight anti-Semitism in the past decade or more, much work remains. The need for practical and effective strategies to combat and defeat this pathology is still crucial.

B’nai B’rith’s recommendations to the Warsaw gathering included a call for OSCE member-states to affirm commitments made at the landmark 2004 Berlin Conference on Anti-Semitism— and reiterated in last year’s ministerial declaration—and assess the implementation of those commitments. B’nai B’rith also urged:

Member-states must fulfill their reporting requirements with respect to hate crimes data. Far too few of the 57 governments have done so until now.
Governments should widely promote, within the OSCE, the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency’s comprehensive working definition of anti-Semitism and the U.S. State Department’s Fact Sheet on anti-Semitism. It is crucial that governments and other institutions understand how to identify anti-Semitism in order to properly combat it.
The OSCE must enhance funding for the tolerance and non-discrimination unit of its Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. The TND unit has now become a fixed and integral part of the OSCE’s work in combating hatred. We must enable them to sustain and expand their critical activities, which include educational programs on anti-Semitism in more than a dozen countries.
Finally, we must strongly reinforce the crucial principle declared at the 2004 Berlin Conference—that no political position, cause, or grievance can ever justify anti-Semitism—and make clear that the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state is often none other than a pretext for the hatred of Jews themselves.

Letter to CNN about deeply biased coverage in Attacks on jews in Israel

10/15/2015

Comments

Daniel S. Mariaschin

B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin wrote to CNN’s vice president of News Standards and Practices to point out deeply flawed and biased reporting in its recent coverage of the Palestinian attacks on Jews in Israel.

Read the letter here:

The report “New security measures considered amid continuing violence in Israel” goes through highly preposterous contortions to avoid using the word “terrorists” to describe the Palestinian perpetrators in the wave of murderous attacks on Jews.

The use of the nebulous “violence” to characterize the shootings, car attacks and knifings of Jews in recent days maliciously mischaracterizes the situation by omitting who is perpetrating these deadly attacks—Palestinians. And omitting who the victims are—Israelis.

The report states: “And neither side appears willing to back down.”

How are Israelis supposed to back down when the Palestinian government is openly and successfully inciting these unprovoked attacks across Israel? Where is the examination of this incitement?

This attempt at equalism is extremely offensive. The reporters’ transparent effort to protect the Palestinian terrorists is suspect throughout, including in this summary: “…one person died and eight were injured when a man drove into a bus stop, ran over three people, then get out of his car and began stabbing people.”

In just calling him a “man” the report blindly adheres to the Palestinian narrative. The “man” was a Palestinian, and the people he attacked were Jews. Why is that not in the story?

CNN’s incomplete and irresponsible reporting ignores the facts on the ground.

Why & How B’nai B’rith Advocates at the U.N. General Assembly

10/9/2015

Comments

Oren Drori

As another year’s U.N. General Assembly’s General Debate session has recently wrapped up, B’nai B’rith has concluded our annual round of meetings with presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers at the sidelines of the UNGA session.

This week of meetings gives B’nai B’rith leadership access to world leaders and an opportunity to engage in advocacy on core issues of importance to B’nai B’rith, most critically: the safety and security of Israel and the Jewish people throughout the world, and our concerns about the Iranian nuclear deal and Iran’s continued support for terrorism.

In addition to meetings that B’nai B’rith requests on our own, B’nai B’rith also has the privilege of coordinating a number of Jewish organizations seeking joint UNGA meetings. B’nai B’rith is able to do so because of a number of factors.

First, B’nai B’rith has a long-standing position as the only Jewish organization with a full-time office dedicated solely to U.N. affairs, which allows us the opportunities to engage year-round with the diplomats in New York who arrange the meetings and the schedules for the visiting dignitaries.

Second, B’nai B’rith is headquartered in Washington, D.C., an important diplomatic post for all countries, whose diplomats are usually close to the presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers in their capitals. Third, B’nai B’rith has a wide reach, as an organization with members and supporters around the world who can follow up on requests in their home countries.

The importance of these meetings cannot be understated. It is an indispensible component of B’nai B’rith’s U.N. work each year. These meetings offer B’nai B’rith leaders a chance, in some cases the only chance for that year, to engage directly with the leadership of many countries, and in a rather short period of time.

These meetings may not always produce tangible effects because we are a non-governmental organization (NGO), not a state. So, we cannot sign trade agreements or defense deals. Our role is to hold these governments to account, to advocate for the issues of top concern to the members of our organization and to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of states large and small.

Often, those issues include the threat posed to Israel, the Middle East and the world-at-large by Iran; terrorism; unilateral Palestinian actions that damage prospects for peace; and the ever-present and growing danger of anti-Semitism. Sometimes the discussion topics are more locally-focused, such as Holocaust-era restitution negotiations in countries that have not adequately addressed this issue.

Regardless of whether the meeting is friendly or business-like or even tense, though, each meeting has value, for B’nai B’rith and for our partners on the other side of the table. Our interlocutors do not necessarily always agree with our positions, but both sides benefit from the exchange of views.

Each September, appropriately, usually at the dawn of a new year on the Jewish calendar, B’nai B’rith reaches out to the world to engage in respectful and meaningful dialogue on pressing issues that confront the nations. And, once September passes, B’nai B’rith’s efforts to engage diplomatically continues throughout the year in New York, Washington and many other locations throughout the world.

A look At Nebi Salah & Israel's response to growing Palestinian violence

10/8/2015

Comments

Alan Schneider

For anyone who has served in the Israeli army or who has children in active service, the viral video from an August 28 altercation between a lone Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier and a swarm of Palestinian women and children pummeling, clawing and biting him in an eventually successful effort to free 12-year-old Muhammad Tamimi—who he intended to arrest for throwing stones at troops—was emotionally wrenching.

Having just arrived that morning back to a sweltering Israel after a holiday in pleasantly cool Norway and pastoral Scotland, the images of this soldier left on his own for long minutes by his comrades as he tries to shake off the assailants—aided by some foreign instigators—while he is filmed from every possible angle by multiple still and video cameramen—left me with a sinking feeling.

This leads one to ask what can be done to better protect soldiers caught in this situation, and what best practices can be employed to counter such Palestinian-initiated, staged clashes, while unfriendly cameras are whirring and snapping away in a game of gotcha employed by much of the media covering the territories.

Indeed the staged—and therefore predictable—nature of the incident was recognized even by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, two British newspapers that are quick to tar and feather Israel at every turn, usually without looking back, that were forced to change their initial critical headlines and even to remove the report entirely from their web site when it became clear that the soldiers' assailants are known provocateurs, particularly his teenage sister Ahed and their radical parents.

Some Israeli commentators such as Nachum Barnea in Yedioth/YNet used the incident to bemoan again the debilitating impact the "occupation" is having on the State of Israel and its young soldiers; others see an entirely different message in the images—that the fearlessness with which Palestinian women and children accost an Israeli soldier armed with an assault rifle proves that they know full well that even when being hit, wrestled to the ground and nearly disarmed, he will not use his weapon, debunking claims of widespread brutality.

A look at longer YouTube posts of the incident tells a more nuanced story, still undoubtedly partial and skewered: Nebi Salah, where the encounter took place, has been a focus of violent Palestinian demonstrations for a number of years. Fridays are their favorite days for instigators to drum up a few women and children, perhaps with the promise of monetary remuneration, to march down the short access road out of the village toward a spring over which the village and a nearby Jewish settlement, Halamish, have been feuding for years.

The video shows a handful of Palestinian young men using the children and women as cover as they target IDF troops in the distance using potentially injurious high-velocity slings. The troops respond with tear gas as the Palestinians use their slings also to throw the canisters back at the troops.

Eventually, the troops advance uphill on the group when the 12-year old is caught by the soldier. These are scenes that have repeated themselves almost every Friday (I was witness to one about three years ago), which have raised renewed calls to train and deploy for just these kinds of situations.

That incident at Nebi Salah seems to have been a teaser for what has snowballed in recent weeks into a significant spurt of Palestinian stone and Molotov cocktail throwing in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, resulting already in one death of innocent Israeli motorist Alexander Levlovitz in Jerusalem, injury to a woman whose car overturned in Samaria and damage to cars, buses, train carriages and homes.

A flashpoint of the disturbances is the Temple Mount where both the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Hamas have been agitating for violence in an apparent attempt to disrupt Rosh Hashanah and traditional Jewish mass pilgrimage to the Western Wall during the Jewish High Holidays and to revive attention to the Palestinian issue that has been overshadowed by events in Syria and the European refugee crisis.

Just weeks ago, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas called for violence by praising 'martyrs' spilling blood in Jerusalem to prevent Jews from entering the Temple Mount, saying, "the Al-Aqsa is ours...and they (Jews) have no right to defile it with their filthy feet." Israeli officials have reportedly blamed Turkey for hosting senior Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri who is responsible for remotely organizing terrorist attacks and funding the organization's incitement of Palestinian youth to attack Israelis.

Granted the Temple Mount, Judaism’s holiest site, has been the focus of much more Jewish interest in recent years, stoking general Muslim hysteria going back nearly a century about imaginary Jewish plots to undermine the mosques there. But this is a poor excuse.

In recent comments, Minister of Internal Security Gilad Erdan has accused Islamic rioters of barricading themselves in the Al Aqsa Mosque and turning Temple Mount into a "terror warehouse," stockpiled with makeshift bombs and rocks to use on police and Jewish worshipers in the Western Wall plaza below. He vowed to meticulously maintain the status quo under which all those who wish to visit Temple Mount will be allowed to do so.

In a rare emergency Friday meeting a few weeks ago, the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee authorized the call-up of 10,000 reserve Border Policemen in order to quell the violence. Other measures that are being considered are imposing a 100,000 NIS bond on the parents of all minors convicted of stone throwing that will be returned only if the child commits no further offenses for a year, reintroduction of the less-lethal Ruger small caliber gun for use by security forces and tighter restrictions on entry onto the mount by Palestinian agitators and lawbreakers. Recent restrictions, that permitted only men over 40 to enter, seem to have worked the trick and the crowd dispersed without incident after noon prayers.

True to form, Arab countries, even those Israel maintains close diplomatic relations with—Egypt and Jordan—and those who, it was thought, might be silent allies in the future against their common enemy Iran—were quick to join the choir condemning only Israel.

The U.N. Security Council played into this attitude the week before last, passing a unanimous statement that failed even to mention Palestinian violence and referred to the Temple Mount only by its Arabic name. Israel’s United Nations Ambassor Ron Prosor reacted aptly to the Security Council statement saying that “When the Palestinians set the Temple Mount ablaze, Mahmoud Abbas fuels the fire, and the Security Council fans the flames, it is a recipe for a regional explosion.”

The coming days will tell whether the measures instituted by the Israeli government will quell the unrest that put a general damper on the Jewish High Holiday spirit and caused untold pain to the family of Alexander Levlovitz, and other injured Israelis. Short of a miracle, the only choice left to Prime Minister Netanyahu is to meticulously uphold the status quo that allows Muslims to pray and non-Muslims to visit what is potentially the most explosive site in the world, bar none.

Just in recent days, a drive by shooting killed two young parents in front of their four children. In another attack, two Jewish men were murdered by Palestinian terrorists and a teenager was seriously wounded. With Palestinian terror attacks on the rise, Israel’s military needs to ensure it has appropriate responses in place.

Jerusalem Post Op-Ed: What about Iran’s human rights record?

9/30/2015

Comments

The following piece was originally printed in the Jerusalem Post and can be read in its entirety below:

Daniel S. Mariaschin

Seemingly lost in the debate over the Iran nuclear deal is any focus at all on that country’s horrendous human rights record. In choosing to negotiate only on the nuclear program, the P5+1 (the United States plus China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and Germany) lost an opportunity to exert leverage on Tehran’s serial human rights abuses, as well as its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah.

It was only in 2011 that the UN Human Rights Council approved the appointment of a special rapporteur on Iran, Ahmed Shaheed, a respected diplomat from the Maldives. From the Iranian regime’s takeover in 1979, it has been a serial abuser of human rights: of political opponents, women, the LGBT community, journalists, adherents of the Baha’i religion and others. It has done so with impunity, unmoved by international exposure of its brazen abridgment of basic freedoms.

This month in Geneva, the Human Rights Council will open one of its thrice-yearly six-week sessions. With the signing of the nuclear deal and the UN Security Council’s endorsement of the agreement, the rehabilitation of Iran in international forums has begun. A number of European states have already embarked on a headlong rush to do business there. Notwithstanding remaining sanctions (for five years) on the acquisition of advanced conventional weapons, it is believed Tehran already is anticipating an armaments buying spree. And Iran will surely bolster its backing (and direction) of Hezbollah and other terrorist proxies.

The forthcoming session at the Human Rights Council should give us a good indication of whether or not Iran will get a pass on its human rights record. Already, some diplomats are reported to have urged “giving Iran some space” on the issue, now that it has agreed to the nuclear deal. That would be bad news for Shaheed, whose 2014 report on human rights in Iran runs 81 pages.

His report, which includes a detailed annex of individual cases, makes for a powerful charge sheet. He notes that there were 753 individuals executed in Iran in 2014, the highest number in 12 years. They included 25 women, and there were 53 public executions. This, while the Tehran regime was negotiating the nuclear deal with the P5+1 powers.

Absurdity is the rule: Shaheed cites the case of a death sentence pronounced on Mohamed Ali Yehari, an expert in alternative medical theories, for “corruption on earth.”

He was originally sentenced to five years for “committing blasphemy.”

Under the category "reprisals against individuals for contact with human rights organizations and U.N. human rights mechanisms," 15 persons were prosecuted or “faced intimidation.”

The report covers countless examples of arbitrary detention of journalists, lawyers and student activists. Four leaders of the failed 2009 Green Revolution remain under house arrest. Shaheed cites the cases of 30 journalists who were detained on charges of “national security crimes” and “propaganda against the system” and “spreading falsehoods.” Five privately-owned religious TV stations were closed down for “working illegally for satellite TV stations in the United States and Great Britain.”

Last November, 24 Kurdish prisoners went on hunger strikes to protest inadequate medical treatment; they had been arrested on “national security” charges for commemorating International Mother Tongue Language Day. From the outset, followers of the Baha’i faith have been a special focus of social stigmatization. The report notes that 135 Baha’i remain jailed for their religious beliefs. Last year, a Baha’i cemetery was desecrated; to date, no perpetrators have been apprehended. Burials of Baha’is have been delayed or proscribed.

Christians have often been a target in Iran. On Christmas Day last year, nine persons were arrested for celebrating the holiday in the town of Rudehen.

In response to complaints of discrimination against the gay community, the Shaheed report notes that “the government responded by stating its total rejection of homosexual behaviors.”

Violence against women and juvenile offenders is a staple of the human rights abuse catalog: Shaheed cites nearly hundreds of acid attacks on women, many of them for wearing “improper clothing.” No arrests in these cases were reported.

Even with this shameless and pervasive record of rights abuse, one would have thought that Tehran would have released the four Americans it is holding (Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian; Saeed Abedini, a Christian pastor from Idaho; Amir Hekmati, a dual citizen and Marine Corps veteran; and Robert Levinson, a US government contractor). The temerity of the Iranian rulers seemingly knows no bounds. Not to have made their release a condition for agreeing to the nuclear deal is one of the major criticisms of its opponents.

Addressing Iranian human rights abuses must be made a visible priority by the P5+1 and others in the community of democracies. Placing Ahmed Shaheed’s reports in the circular file and not acting more forcefully to isolate Iran on these issues will only embolden a regime already brimming with hubris over the nuclear deal.

"Giving Iran some space" is surely the wrong approach.

U.N. Anti-Israel Propaganda Apparatus And Role of Latin America

9/24/2015

Comments

English Version:

Adriana Camisar

A lot has been said about the unfair treatment that the State of Israel receives at the United Nations. But very few people know in depth the causes of this phenomenon and the magnitude of the problem.

While there are numerous agencies within the United Nations that display a clear anti-Israel bias, it is very important to understand the role played by the U.N. General Assembly in financing and maintaining a powerful anti-Israel propaganda apparatus.

As Ambassador Richard Schifter—with whom B’nai B’rith International has been working for quite some time now—explains, every year, the General Assembly adopts about 70 resolutions by roll-call vote. About 25 percent of these are resolutions directed against Israel. Most General Assembly resolutions are mere "recommendations" with no binding effect and, therefore, do not have major practical consequences. But there are three anti-Israel resolutions that do have operational consequences and are, therefore, extremely important.

These resolutions are the ones that renew, year after year, the funding authorization and the mandate for the following entities:

The Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (DPR)
The Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP)
The Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinians and Other Arabs in the Occupied Territories (SCIIHRP)

The Palestinians are the only people in the world that have their own division within the Department of Political Affairs of the U.N. Secretariat (In general, divisions deal with specific political topics on a worldwide basis or have responsibility for a geographic region. For example, there is an Americas Division, a Europe Division, and even a Middle East and West Asia Division.

The Division for Palestinian Rights serves as the secretariat of CEIRPP. Even though its staff serves inside the U.N. Secretariat, which is headed by the U.N. Secretary-General, its activities are “de facto” led by the operatives who direct the work of CEIRPP.

CEIRPP consists of the ambassadors of 26 U.N. member States. Latin America is represented by Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The committee organizes four annual conferences. The last two Latin American conferences were held in Caracas (in 2013) and Quito (in 2014).

The organizers of these conferences always invite local opinion leaders, government officials, NGOs and—of course—the media. They usually also invite at least one speaker that is both Jewish and highly critical of Israel, in order to give greater "legitimacy" to these meetings. In each of these meetings, Israel is demonized and characterized as racist. The Palestinians are described as victims and absolved from any responsibility in the conflict. The ties between the Jewish people and their ancestral land are totally ignored, and Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is denied.

The Special Committee (SCIIHRP) holds annual hearings in the Middle East, in which testimonies against Israel are heard, and then publishes a report denouncing Israel for these alleged human rights violations.

All this anti-Israel propaganda is done in the name of the United Nations, is funded by the United Nations and disseminated through the United Nations public information system.

Now let's examine the role that Latin America plays in maintaining this harmful propaganda apparatus.

At the 2014 session of the General Assembly, the votes of the Latin American countries divided as follows:

Voting in favor of the three resolutions: Brazil, Chile, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Bolivia voted for SCIIHRP and was absent when DPR and CEIRPP were put to a vote, but its representatives said that, if present, they would have voted in favor of both, as in previous years.
Voting in favor of two (CEIRPP and DPR) and abstaining on one (SCIIHRP): Argentina, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay.
Abstaining on the three resolutions: Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay and Peru.
Abstaining on two (CEIRPP and DPR) and voting against one (SCIIHRP): Panama.

With regard to the first group, the following countries: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Venezuela, automatically vote in favor of most anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations. This is due to their governments’ geopolitical orientation and their strong "anti-Americanism.” We cannot have any hope for anything different unless there is a change of regime in these states. With respect to Cuba, the rapprochement with the United States gives us a small glimmer of hope, but it is not realistic to expect palpable changes in the near future.

Brazil and Chile also vote consistently against Israel, though their reasons are slightly different. Perhaps the most important reason for Brazil is that its foreign ministry hopes to win a permanent seat for Brazil at the U.N. Security Council (in the unlikely event that the council is enlarged to admit new members). For this, they need the support of countries that oppose the United States and Israel at the United Nations. As for Chile, it has an important population of Palestinian descent, which has become quite active politically in recent years and seems to have much influence in this area.

With regard to the Dominican Republic, its voting pattern changed when it joined PetroCaribe (the oil alliance led by Venezuela), so it can be assumed that its votes were heavily influenced by the Venezuelan government. Therefore, now that Venezuela’s aid is fading, perhaps there is an opportunity for change.

With respect to the countries of the second group, we cannot expect any change in Argentina, at least with the current government. But perhaps there is a chance in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico and Uruguay, all countries that maintain a cordial relationship both with the United States and Israel, regardless of their political orientation. Mexico's case is particularly interesting because its foreign ministry also aims to obtain a U.N. Security Council seat, if or when the council gets enlarged (Even when Mexico's chances of beating Brazil as the favorite Latin American candidate, are extremely remote).

As for the countries that abstained in all three of these important resolutions and, therefore, belong to the third group, perhaps there is a chance to get some of them to vote against at least one of these very harmful resolutions.

The anti-Israel propaganda apparatus that works at the United Nations is very powerful and will not be easy task to try to dismantle it. However, it is not impossible. While there are countries that consistently vote against Israel for ideological reasons (either because they want to oppose the United States or because they hold anti-Israel views), in many cases this animosity does not exist or is less intense and, therefore, there is an opportunity for change.

Often, U.N. ambassadors do not receive precise instructions from their governments on how to vote on these resolutions and, therefore, they yield to pressure from their colleagues at the United Nations. In these cases, it is extremely important to alert their governments about the importance of these resolutions.

An effort both from Israel and the United States to reach out to some of these countries is essential to achieve positive change. But beyond that, the action of the local Jewish communities—and the alliances they can build with other sectors of society—could certainly help persuade these countries to vote in a more balanced and fair way.

Español: El Aparato de Propaganda Anti-Israelí que Funciona en la ONU y El Rol de Latinoamérica

Mucho se habla del trato injusto que recibe el Estado de Israel en las Naciones Unidas. Pero muy pocas personas conocen en profundidad las causas de este fenómeno y la magnitud del problema.

Si bien existen numerosos organismos dentro de la ONU que despliegan una clara tendencia anti-Israelí, es muy importante entender el rol que tiene la Asamblea General en el financiamiento y mantenimiento de un poderoso aparato de propaganda anti-Israelí.

Como nos enseña el Embajador Richard Schifter, con quien B’nai B’rith International trabaja hace tiempo, cada año, la Asamblea General adopta unas 70 resoluciones. Aproximadamente el 25% de estas son resoluciones dirigidas en contra de Israel. La mayoría de las resoluciones que emanan de la Asamblea General son meras “recomendaciones” sin efectos vinculantes y, por lo tanto, no generan mayores consecuencias practicas. Pero existen tres resoluciones anti-israelíes que si tienen consecuencias operativas y que son, por lo tanto sumamente importantes.

Se trata de las resoluciones que renuevan, año tras año, la autorización de financiamiento y el mandato de:

La División para los Derechos de los Palestinos (DPR por sus siglas en ingles)
El Comité para el Ejercicio de los Derechos Inalienables del Pueblo Palestino (CEIRPP por sus siglas en ingles)
El Comité Especial encargado de Investigar las Practicas Israelíes que Afectan los Derechos Humanos de los Palestinos y otros Habitantes Árabes en los Territorios Ocupados (SCIIHRP por sus siglas en ingles)

Los Palestinos son el único pueblo del mundo que tiene su propia División dentro del Departamento de Asuntos Políticos de la Secretaría de la ONU. Ya que, en general, las divisiones se refieren a temas específicos de carácter global o tienen responsabilidad por una región geográfica en particular. Así, por ejemplo, hay una División de América, una División de Europa, e incluso una División de Medio Oriente y Asia Occidental.

La División para los Derechos de los Palestinos funciona como secretaría de CEIRPP. Y a pesar de que su personal presta servicio en la Secretaría, encabezada por el Secretario General de la ONU, sus actividades son, de hecho, dirigidas por quienes operan hábilmente dentro de CEIRPP.

CEIRPP está integrado por los embajadores de 26 Estados miembros de la ONU. América Latina está representada por Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela. El Comité organiza cuatro conferencias anuales , cada una en un continente diferente. Las dos ultimas conferencias latinoamericanas se celebraron en Caracas (en 2013) y en Quito (en 2014).

A estas conferencias se invita a líderes de opinión locales, miembros del gobierno, ONGs y, por supuesto, a los medios de comunicación. Por lo general, también se invita a por lo menos un orador judío, pero sumamente critico de Israel, lo que le da un “velo” de mayor legitimidad a la conferencia. En cada una de estas reuniones Israel es demonizado y caracterizado como racista. El pueblo Palestino es victimizado y desligado de toda responsabilidad en el conflicto, a la vez que se cuestionan los nexos del pueblo judío con esa tierra y el derecho de Israel a existir como Estado judío.

SCIIHRP realiza audiencias anuales en Medio Oriente, en las que se escuchan testimonios en contra de Israel, y luego publica un informe denunciando a Israel por supuestas violaciones a los derechos humanos.

Toda esta propaganda anti-Israelí se hace en nombre de la ONU, se financia con fondos de la ONU y se disemina a través del sistema de información pública de la ONU.

Ahora veamos que papel juegan los países latinoamericanos en el mantenimiento de este aparato de propaganda tan perjudicial:

En la sesión de la Asamblea General del año 2014, los votos de los países latinoamericanos se dividieron de la siguiente manera:

Votaron a favor de las tres resoluciones: Brasil, Chile, la Republica Dominicana, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela. (Bolivia voto a favor de SCIIHRP y estuvo ausente cuando se voto por DPR y CEIRPP, pero sus representantes manifestaron que, de estar presentes, hubiesen votado a favor, como en años anteriores)
Votaron a favor de dos (DPR y CEIRPP) y se abstuvieron en una (SCIIHRP): Argentina, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Méjico y Uruguay.
Se abstuvieron en las tres resoluciones: Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay y Perú.
Se abstuvo en dos (DPR y CEIRPP) y voto en contra de una (SCIIHRP): Panamá.

En cuanto al primer grupo, los siguientes países: Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua y Venezuela, en virtud de la orientación geopolítica de sus gobiernos y de su fuerte “anti-americanismo,” votan automáticamente a favor de las resoluciones anti-Israelíes en la ONU. No podemos tener aquí ninguna esperanza de cambio, a menos que haya un cambio de régimen en alguno de estos Estados. Con respecto a Cuba, el acercamiento con Estados Unidos hace que exista una pequeña luz de esperanza pero de seguro no se pueden esperar cambios en un futuro cercano.

Brasil y Chile también votan consistentemente en contra de Israel, aunque sus razones son un poco diferentes. Quizás la razón mas importante para Brasil sea que su Cancillería aspira a ganar un asiento permanente para Brasil en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, (en el remoto caso que este sea reformado para admitir a nuevos miembros). Para ello, necesita el apoyo de países que se oponen a los Estados Unidos y a Israel en la ONU. En cuanto a Chile, este tiene una importante población de origen Palestino que se ha vuelto muy activa políticamente en los últimos años y que parece tener mucha influencia en esta materia.

Con respecto a la Republica Dominicana, su voto cambio cuando se sumo a PetroCaribe (la alianza petrolera liderada por Venezuela), por lo que se puede suponer que su voto estuvo fuertemente influenciado por el gobierno venezolano. Por lo tanto, ahora que la ayuda venezolana se esta desvaneciendo, quizás exista una oportunidad de cambio.

Con respecto a los países del segundo grupo, no se puede esperar ningún cambio en Argentina, por lo menos con el actual gobierno. Pero quizás si haya alguna chance en Costa Rica, El Salvador, Méjico y Uruguay, todos países que mantienen una relación cordial con los Estados Unidos, independientemente de su orientación política. El caso de México es particular porque su Cancillería también aspira a obtener un asiento en el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, en el caso de que este sea reformado (aun cuando la posibilidad de que Méjico desplace a Brasil como candidato Latinoamericano sea extremadamente remota).

En cuanto a los países que se abstienen en estas tres resoluciones importantes y que por lo tanto pertenecen al tercer grupo, dada la orientación de sus gobiernos y de su excelente relación con Israel, creemos que existe la chance de que Paraguay y Honduras acompañen a Panamá y empiecen a votar en contra de por lo menos alguna de estas resoluciones tan nocivas.

El aparato de propaganda anti-Israelí que funciona en la ONU es muy poderoso y lograr desbaratarlo no es tarea fácil. Sin embargo, tampoco es una tarea imposible. Si bien hay países que votan consistentemente en contra de Israel por una cuestión ideológica (ya sea porque quieren oponerse a los Estados Unidos o porque tienen una posición anti-israelí), en muchos casos esa animosidad no existe o es mucho menor y por lo tanto hay una oportunidad de cambio.

Muchas veces los Embajadores en la ONU no reciben instrucciones precisas de sus gobiernos sobre como votar en estas resoluciones y por lo tanto ceden a las presiones de sus pares. En estos casos, es sumamente importante alertar a los respectivos gobiernos sobre la importancia de estas resoluciones.

El acercamiento de los Estados Unidos y del Estado de Israel con estos países es imprescindible. Pero además de esto, la acción de las comunidades judías locales – y las alianzas que estas puedan generar con otros sectores de la sociedad – son un factor muy importante que podría sin duda ayudar a lograr que algunos de estos países comiencen a votar de una forma mas equilibrada y justa.

shared history of persecution, Flight compels us to act For Refugees

9/21/2015

Comments

Sienna Girgenti

"If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?” – Hillel

Over the past year, human rights advocates and policy experts alike have warned of the growing plight of refugees fleeing the humanitarian crisis triggered in the Middle East. And over the past few weeks, headlines finally began to reflect this desperate reality.

Stories on the human toll of the refugee crisis abound. Laith Majid in tears clutching his two children just off the Greek Island of Kos. Drowned three-year-old Aylan Kurdi on the shores of Turkey. A truckload of more than 70 refugees die of heatstroke in Austria.

The number of displaced people in the world today is the highest number since World War II at 60 million people. Currently there are four million Syrian refugees who have escaped war and dire living conditions and an additional seven million Syrian citizens currently displaced within their country’s borders. The European Union’s (EU) border agency has said more than half a million migrants have arrived at the EU's borders this year, a massive influx nearly double the number from 2014, with origins ranging throughout Africa and the Middle East.

Just last week, President Barack Obama pledged a commitment for the United States to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees next year, up from 1,000 this past year. But refugee advocates and some members of Congress say taking in an additional 10,000 refugees does not go far enough toward addressing the crisis at hand. The 10,000 refugees would come almost exclusively from the backlog of Syrians who have already applied for asylum, and not those individuals fleeing now.

Indeed such a commitment is fewer people than what some other countries have pledged to accept or have already accepted. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced that Germany intends to take in up to 800,000 people who have fled war and persecution, and Canada has committed to 11,300, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Still, most European countries have not yet committed to absorb refugees, let alone at such impressive numbers.

A dialogue has also been triggered in the global Jewish community about what our organized reaction should be, particularly in light of our own history as refugees seeking asylum from anti-Semitism. Certainly the treatment of migrants evokes, in many, memories of Europe’s darkest hour.

Hundreds of refugees surrounded by armed police officers and razor-wire fences and imagery of asylum seekers in the Czech Republic led off a train where identification numbers were written on their hands, fueled with rising trends of nationalism appear to present Europe’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

To be sure, the migrant crisis is no genocide. Some refugees are Christians fleeing religion-based persecution, but many others are those simply caught in a terrible crossfire of civil war, starvation, chlorine gassing, and barrel bombing, who seek refuge. But it is our shared history of persecution and flight that compels us to act.

Tackling a crisis of this magnitude is going to require the world coming together to not only open borders to more asylum seekers, but also to increase humanitarian assistance to Syria and its neighbors in crisis and push for a political solution to the war. An emergency meeting of EU justice and home affairs ministers will convene tomorrow to address a comprehensive and united EU response to the migration crisis. This is indeed the moment for the international community to gather and create solutions addressing both the immediate and long-term needs created by these challenges, including addressing housing, feeding and clothing the refugees, instituting a practical security screening process, while also establishing a division of responsibility for quota intake of refugees for the foreseeable future.

At this time of year, our global Jewish community is celebrating the high holidays. Although a joyous occasion, Rosh Hashanah is a time for reflection. In this week between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we should pause to reflect on this global crisis, and commit our resolution to tackling the humanitarian challenges.

As Hillel’s teaching reminds us, the Torah commands we should love the stranger in our midst. During this important window of reflection, for now and the future, we pray for a good year to come not only for ourselves and our families but also for all those fleeing persecution in search of safety and freedom, and resolve to work toward eradicating their suffering.