B'nai B'rith International
  • About Us
    • 175th Anniversary >
      • Timeline
    • Annual Report >
      • 2018 Annual Report
      • 2017 Annual Report >
        • Message from the President and EVP/CEO
        • Who We Are
        • Human Rights & Public Policy
        • Supporting Israel
        • Senior Housing and Advocacy
        • Disaster Relief & Community Projects
        • Young Leadership
        • Holocaust Remembrance: The Important of Continuity
        • Celebrating Diversity & Culture
        • Connecting Social Tradtional Personal
        • Executive Board of Directors
        • Financial
        • Privacy
        • Contact
      • 990 Forms
    • Presidents Book
    • Around the World >
      • Australia & New Zealand
      • Canada
      • Cuba
      • Europe
      • Israel
      • Latin America >
        • Argentina
        • Brazil
        • Chile, Bolivia and Peru >
          • Anti-Semitism Forum in Santiago 2019
        • Northern Latin America and the Caribbean
        • Organization of American States (OAS)
        • Uruguay and Paraguay
      • South Africa
      • United States >
        • Allegheny/Ohio Valley
        • Chesapeake Bay
        • Colorado
        • Evergreen
        • Golden Pacific
        • Great Lakes >
          • B'nai B'rith Great Lakes Scholarship Program
        • Greater Florida
        • Kentucky
        • Liberty
        • MetroNorth
        • Midwest
        • New England
        • North Central
        • Southern California >
          • Knesset B'nai B'rith
        • Omaha, Nebraska
        • Southern Communities >
          • Atlanta, Georgia
        • St. Louis, Missouri
        • Texarkoma
        • Tri-State
    • Departments & Careers
    • Events >
      • 2019 Leadership Forum
      • 2019 Distinguished Achievement Award
      • 2019 Portugal Meeting
      • 2019 National Healthcare Award Dinner
      • Jewish Holiday Calendar
      • 2017 B'nai B'rith Leadership Forum
      • Continuing Education
    • Insurance Programs
    • Leadership
    • Programs >
      • BBRAVO
      • For Communities >
        • Project H.O.P.E.
      • For Culture and Education >
        • Unto Every Person 2019
        • Center For Jewish Identity
        • Enlighten America
        • Museum and Archives >
          • B'nai B'rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum® Collection
          • Holocaust Art Resource List
          • Palestine Mandate Coins
        • Smarter Kids - Safer Kids
      • For Kids >
        • B'nai B'rith Cares for Kids
        • Diverse Minds
    • Senior Staff
    • B'nai B'rith Connect >
      • B'nai B'rith Connect Fall 2019 Newsletter
      • YLN Fall - Winter 2019 Newsletter
      • YLN Summer 2018 Newsletter
      • YLN in Japan 2018
      • AEPi Partnership
    • Privacy Policy
  • Global Advocacy
    • Take Action!
    • Anti-Semitism
    • Intercommunal Affairs
    • Tolerance and Diversity
    • Europe
    • Latin America
    • Canada
    • Israel and The Middle East
    • United Nations
    • United States
  • Israel
    • World Center – Jerusalem
    • Israel and the Middle East
    • Israel Emergency Fund
    • Fighting BDS
    • History in Israel
    • Center Stage
    • Jewish Rescuers Citation
  • Seniors
    • B'nai B'rith Senior Housing Network Timeline >
      • Wilkes-Barre
      • Harrisburg, Pa.
      • St. Louis, Mo.
      • Reading, Pa.
      • Silver Spring, Md.
      • Allentown, Pa.
      • Peoria, Ill.
      • Houston, Texas
      • Claymont, Del.
      • Pasedena, Texas
      • Boston, Mass.
      • Hot Springs, Ark.
      • Queens, N.Y.
      • Scranton, Pa.
      • Fort Worth, Texas
      • Deerfield Beach, Fla.
      • Sheboygan, Wis.
      • Schenectady, N.Y.
      • South Orange, N.J.
      • Bronx, N.Y.
      • Tuscon, Ariz. - B'nai B'rith Covenant House
      • Marlton, N.J.
      • Los Angeles, Calif.
      • New Haven, Conn.
      • Chesilhurst, N.J.
      • Tucson, Ariz. - Gerd & Inge Strauss B'nai B'rith Manor on Pantano
      • Dothan, Ala.
      • Sudbury, Mass.
    • CSS Staff Bios
    • B'nai B'rith Resident Leadership Retreat
    • CSS Puerto Rico Meeting 2019
    • Housing Locations
    • Seniority Report Newsletter
  • Humanitarian Aid
    • Community Support
    • Cuba Relief >
      • Cuba Missions
      • Get Involved
      • Cuba Blog
      • Where We Work
      • Cuba History
    • Disaster Relief >
      • Africa
      • Asia
      • Haiti
      • Latin America
      • United States >
        • SBP-New York Thanks B'nai B'rith Disaster Relief
  • News & Views
    • B'nai B'rith Magazine >
      • 2019 Fall B'nai B'rith Magazine
      • Magazine Archives
      • Past Magazine Articles
    • Expert Analysis
    • BB(and)I Blog
    • In the News
    • Newsletters >
      • Center Stage
    • Press Releases
    • Social Media
    • Podcasts
    • Zero.Dot.Two Initiative
  • Ways to Give
    • Give to B'nai B'rith
    • Join Now >
      • Join Us
      • Membership Categories
      • 2019 Membership Renewal
      • 2020 Membership Renewal
      • Membership Store
      • Members Service Center
      • Children of the Covenant
      • Ladder of Leadership
    • Planned Giving & Endowments >
      • Bequests
      • Charitable Gift Annuities
      • Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT)
      • Donor Testimonials
    • Giving >
      • Donate Stock
      • Foundations & Corporate Giving
      • Tribute Cards
      • Shop AmazonSmile
      • Purchase B'nai B'rith Apparel
    • Disaster Relief
    • Tree Of Life
    • Contact Form

Examining Iran Nuclear Deal’s Convoluted 'Snapback' U.N. Sanctions

7/30/2015

Comments

 
PictureOren Drori
One of the prime selling points for supporters of the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—plus Germany) nuclear deal with Iran is that the sanctions on Iran which are being lifted can simply and easily be reinstated (or “snapback” into place) should Iran be found to be cheating. This is not likely to be the case. The “snapback” system that is created in the deal is convoluted and puts hurdles in the way.

Picture
The U.N. Security Council has steadily increased the pressure on Iran since 2006 with escalating sanctions targeting individuals, companies, nuclear technology and weapons transfers. In addition to these U.N. sanctions, the European Union introduced further sanctions targeting the Iranian oil industry and the U.S. tightened existing Iran sanctions and introduced new and tougher sanctions. This sanctions regime put major constraints on the Iranian economy that forced the Iranian government to enter into negotiations on its nuclear program. 

The deal that was struck between Iran and the world powers promises to lift these sanctions in return for Iran’s curtailment of its nuclear enrichment for a period of time. The sanctions are to be lifted once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) certifies that Iran has satisfactorily addressed the IAEA’s concerns about Iran’s past illicit nuclear weapon activity and that the current program is civilian in nature. 
Should Iran cheat (and, given the Iranian regime’s history, it is a safe bet that Iran will try to cheat), there is a provision in the deal that could re-impose U.N. sanctions, but it is cumbersome. The deal creates a Joint Commission made up of one representative from each government plus an EU representative to ensure compliance by all sides. If there is intelligence that Iran is enriching uranium at higher levels than allowed, or working toward constructing nuclear weapons, a country can bring a complaint to the Joint Commission. The commission would have 15 days to discuss and resolve the issue, subject to extension by consensus. If the commission does not resolve the issue, it can be brought up to the level of the foreign ministers for consideration for 15 days, or longer if extended by consensus. 
Picture
If the situation is still not resolved, the complaint can be brought before an Advisory Board, made up of members appointed by the two parties to the complaint (for instance, the U.S. and Iran if the U.S. has evidence of Iranian malfeasance) and a third independent member. The Advisory Board will issue a non-binding opinion in 15 days, which would then go back to the Joint Commission for five days. The entire process is not streamlined and opens itself up to opportunities for continuing delays.
If, after all of the prolonged bureaucratic procedure, the complaining party does not feel that the issue is resolved, the country can turn to the U.N. Security Council and introduce concerns about Iran’s “significant non-performance” with the deal. At that point, the Security Council will put forward a resolution to continue the lifting of sanctions, which must be adopted within 30 days, or the sanctions will be re-imposed. This is the “snapback” part of the sanctions deal. It means that if Iran is found to be cheating, the sanctions can be re-introduced in a way that does not require an affirmative vote (which could be complicated by council dynamics and the ever-present threat of a veto by one or more of the permanent five members of the council). 
Picture
Picture
It is not a complete “snapback,” however, since it will not be imposed retroactively. Existing contracts and trade would be allowed to continue, so Iran could comply with the deal for years (or not get caught not complying for years) and still reap the rewards of technology and billions of dollars in trade before the sanctions would go back into effect if Iran is caught cheating.

Aside from unnecessary bureaucracy, the more serious problem is that the language in the nuclear deal and in the subsequent U.N. Security Council resolution state that it must be a “significant” compliance issue. This is vague—what exactly constitutes "significant non-compliance?" The fear is that the tendency of the world powers will be to minimize or ignore non-compliance issues as not “significant” enough to rise to the level that would require “snapback” sanctions. Why? Because once the U.N. sanctions are re-introduced, the U.N. Security Council resolution “noted” Iran’s stated position that Iran would stop living up to its commitments in the nuclear deal in full. Essentially, the Security Council resolution allowed the “snapback” sanctions to be held hostage by the deal. 

A lot of advocacy and diplomacy went into carefully creating the structure of the U.N.’s Iran sanctions system, and within a few short months that will be reversed, and, despite the “snapback” provisions, difficult to fully re-create if necessitated by Iranian non-compliance. If, after 10 years, the sanctions have not been reintroduced, then the sanctions resolutions expire and cannot be “snapped back.” The Iranian nuclear issue would also then disappear from the Security Council agenda.

Yes, sanctions resolutions could then be reintroduced by the world powers if Iran tries to breakout to a nuclear bomb, but it is a long and difficult process to summon up the international will to do so and avoid a Security Council veto, and by then it would be too little, too late. So, Iran can either wait a few years to cheat after trade is already flowing, or wait 10 years for the credible threat of sanctions to disappear almost entirely.


Oren Drori is the Program Officer for United Nations Affairs at B’nai B’rith International where he supports advocacy and programming efforts that advance B’nai B’rith’s goals at the U.N., which include: defending Israel, combating anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and promoting global human rights and humanitarian concerns. He received a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota in 2004 and an M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago in 2006. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.
Comments

An Argentina That Hurts (English & Español)

6/1/2015

Comments

 

English Version:

Versión Español:

PictureAdriana Camisar
The return to my home country -Argentina- after living in the United States for 10 years was marked by the joy of being reunited with my family and loved ones and back in the land that I had missed so much, but also by a profound disappointment.

Shortly after arriving to the country, in early 2013, the government made public an agreement that it apparently had been negotiating in secret for the last two years with the Iranian regime. Through this agreement, to which I referred at length in previous articles, a bi-national commission was supposed to be created to "re-investigate" the terrible 1994 terrorist attack against the building of AMIA (Argentine-Israelite Mutual Association).

The prosecutor of the case, Alberto Nisman, who had accused several Iranian officials of having planned and executed the attack, had not been consulted or even informed of these negotiations.

Although the government justified its decision on the need to make progress in a case that they perceived as "paralyzed," the idea of forming an "investigative commission" with none other than the accused of being responsible for the bombing sounded absurd and, therefore, many of us believed that there was something “murky” about this pact.

Already in 2011, the late journalist Pepe Eliachev had published a piece in which he stated that a meeting between the Argentine foreign minister and his Iranian counterpart had taken place in Syria. At this meeting -and according to Eliachev's informant- the Argentine minister allegedly stated that Argentina was no longer interested in investigating the AMIA attack and was willing to reach an agreement with the Iranians in exchange for increased trade between the two countries.

Many representatives of the Jewish community got mobilized to try to prevent the pact from being ratified by Congress, but our attempts to persuade key legislators from the ruling party not to endorse it were unsuccessful.

Two years later, Prosecutor Alberto Nisman surprised the whole country by accusing the president, her foreign minister and other members and allies of the government of having negotiated the agreement with Iran in order to achieve impunity for the accused, in exchange for a trade agreement that included oil.

A few days after making this very serious allegation, the prosecutor appeared mysteriously dead in his apartment. The government immediately suggested that it was a suicide. The strong feeling of disbelief among the population though, made them change course and admit the possibility of a murder, but not before making every effort to tarnish the memory of the prosecutor and his reputation, making use of the considerable media-outlets that respond to the government to this end.

Picture
Through my work at B'nai B'rith International, I had the opportunity to meet with Prosecutor Nisman on several occasions to learn about the progress of his investigation. He struck me as a brilliant man, extremely passionate about his investigation and, above all, very brave. This is why the current attempts to tarnish his memory causes me deep unease and a sense of hopelessness about the democratic future of my country.

Even though there were brave prosecutors willing to keep Nisman's complaint alive, the judges assigned to the case decided to deny the possibility of a serious investigation and closed the case, with phony legal arguments.

Such a serious complaint clearly deserved the opening of an investigation. But this is no longer a possibility in today’s Argentina.

The fate of the AMIA case itself is also now a big question. Without Nisman and with a government that is clearly trying to get closer to Iran, the chances of getting justice in the case are more distant than ever.

As if all of the above was not enough, the government recently embraced an absurd conspiracy theory, according to which Nisman would have acted in collusion with the so called "vulture" funds (speculative funds that have been litigating for years against the Argentine State) to prevent a rapprochement between Argentina and Iran. The most representative organizations of the local Jewish community, AMIA and DAIA (the umbrella group that represents the Jews of Argentina) were also accused of being a part of this Machiavellian plot, as well as individual personalities of the community.

The government based its allegations on an article that was published in a pro-government newspaper by a former director of the DAIA, who is now a government official. When reading this article one has the impression of reading a chapter of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It is a piece of classic anti-Semitism that should have no place in a modern democratic society. However, in today's Argentina, an article of this nature is strongly endorsed by the government.

But the government’s offensive did not stop there. The foreign minister decided to renounce his membership of AMIA and did it by publishing a letter, in which he states that he's embarrassed about the fact that DAIA and AMIA oppose the pact with Iran because of "foreign interests." Naturally, the Jewish community felt seriously injured and defenseless.

As an Argentine citizen and a member of the Jewish community, I think the government has crossed a dangerous line. Are they really anti-Semitic? I do not know, but the fact that the president and her supporters did not hesitate to endorse these anti-Semitic arguments to boost their image is quite disturbing.
Argentina is today going through the greatest institutional crisis since the return to democracy in 1983. The recent attack against the Jewish community only adds to the existing confrontations that the government has with other sectors of society.

Because the government has the majority in both houses of Congress, pretty much all the initiatives of the Executive are automatically approved, without the necessary debate that must exist in a true democracy. And now, the government is trying to take control of the Supreme Court - the ultimate guarantor of the separation of powers - by expanding the number of justices in this body and by attacking those members who act with complete independence.

Given that there will be presidential elections in just a few months, it is my sincere hope that the next government, regardless of its political orientation, is able to start the process of restoring our institutions and the rule of law, with the support of the many people who fervently want the country to return to the democratic path that has been so severely damaged in recent years.
Picture
El regreso a mi país de origen-Argentina- después de vivir 10 años en los Estados Unidos estuvo marcado por la alegría de el re-encuentro con los seres queridos y con la tierra que tanto extrañaba, pero también por una profunda desilusión.

Al poco tiempo de llegar al país, a principios del 2013, el gobierno hizo público un acuerdo que aparentemente había estado negociando en secreto durante los últimos dos años con el régimen iraní. Mediante este acuerdo –al que me referí extensamente en artículos anteriores- se buscaba formar una Comisión binacional que “re-investigara” el terrible atentado terrorista cometido contra la sede de la AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) en el año 1994.

Nada se había consultado de esto al entonces Fiscal del caso AMIA Alberto Nisman, quien luego de una exhaustiva investigación, había acusado a funcionarios iraníes de haber planeado y ejecutado el atentado.

A pesar de que el gobierno justificaba su decisión en la necesidad de avanzar con una causa que estaba según ellos “paralizada”, la noción de formar una “comisión investigadora” nada menos que con los imputados en la causa sonaba absurda, y lógicamente muchos pensamos que había algo “turbio” detrás de este pacto.
Picture

Ya en el año 2011, el fallecido periodista Pepe Eliachev había publicado un articulo en el que denunciaba una supuesta reunión entre el Canciller argentino y su par Iraní en la ciudad de Siria. Según el informante de Eliashev, en esta reunión el ministro argentino habría afirmado que la Argentina no estaba más interesada en la investigación del atentado a la AMIA y que estaba dispuesta a llegar a un acuerdo con los Iraníes a cambio de un incremento del comercio entre ambos países. 

Muchos representantes de la comunidad judía nos movilizamos para tratar de impedir que el pacto sea ratificado por el Congreso, pero nuestros intentos de convencer a legisladores claves del oficialismo fueron en vano. 

Dos años después, el Fiscal Nisman sorprendió al país entero, denunciando a la Presidenta, a su Canciller y a otros miembros y allegados del gobierno, de haber firmado el acuerdo con Irán con el objeto de lograr la impunidad de los Iraníes acusados, a cambio de un acuerdo comercial que incluía el intercambio de granos por petróleo.

Pocos días después de hacer esta gravísima denuncia, el Fiscal apareció misteriosamente muerto en su departamento. Las voces del oficialismo se levantaron inmediatamente para sugerir que fue un suicidio. Pero ante el descreimiento de gran parte de la población, admitieron la posibilidad de un asesinato, no sin antes hacer todo lo posible por ensuciar la memoria del fiscal y su reputación, utilizando para ello los cuantiosos medios de comunicación en manos del gobierno.

En virtud de mi trabajo en B’nai B’rith Internacional, tuve la oportunidad de conocer al Fiscal Nisman y de reunirme con el en varias oportunidades para conocer el progreso de su investigación. Me impresiono como un hombre sobresaliente, apasionado con su investigación y sobretodo muy valiente. Es por eso que el manoseo que hoy se esta haciendo de su memoria me provoca un profundo malestar y una sensación de desesperanza respecto del futuro democrático de mi país.

A pesar de que hubo fiscales valientes dispuestos a impulsar la denuncia de Nisman, los jueces asignados al caso decidieron denegar toda posibilidad de investigación y cerraron la causa, con argumentos jurídicos muy poco creíbles.

Una denuncia de semejante gravedad institucional merecía sin duda la apertura de una investigación. Pero esto ya no es una posibilidad en la Argentina de hoy.

La suerte de la causa AMIA también es hoy un gran interrogante. Sin Nisman y con un gobierno claramente alineado con Irán, las posibilidades de llegar a la justicia son cada vez mas lejanas.
Picture
Como si todo lo relatado fuera poco, el gobierno recientemente se hizo eco de una absurda teoría conspirativa, según la cual Nisman habría actuado en connivencia con los llamados fondos “buitre” (fondos especulativos que litigan desde hace años contra el Estado Argentino) para impedir el acercamiento entre la Argentina e Irán. En esta maquiavélica trama se incluyo además a las organizaciones mas representativas de la comunidad judía, AMIA y DAIA, así como a personalidades individuales de la comunidad.

El gobierno se basa en un articulo que fue publicado en un diario oficialista por un ex director de la DAIA que es hoy funcionario del gobierno. Al leer este articulo uno tiene la sensación de estar leyendo un capítulo de los Protocolos de los Sabios de Zion. Se trata de una pieza de antisemitismo clásico que no debiera tener lugar en una sociedad democrática moderna. Sin embargo, en la Argentina de hoy, un articulo de esta naturaleza es convalidado con fuerza por el gobierno.

Pero la ofensiva del gobierno no quedo allí. El Canciller argentino decidió renunciar a su membresía en la AMIA y lo hizo publicando una carta en la que dice que le avergüenza que la DAIA y la AMIA se opongan al pacto con Irán en virtud de intereses “extranjeros.” Naturalmente la comunidad judía se sintió seriamente injuriada e indefensa.

Como ciudadana argentina y como miembro de la comunidad judía creo que el gobierno cruzo una línea peligrosa. Son ellos realmente antisemitas? La verdad es que no lo se, pero el hecho de que la Presidenta y sus seguidores hayan hecho uso de estos argumentos antisemitas para tratar de mejorar la imagen del gobierno es realmente preocupante.

La Argentina se encuentra hoy atravesando la mayor crisis institucional desde el retorno a la democracia en 1983. La reciente embestida contra de la comunidad judía se suma a la ya existente confrontación que el gobierno mantiene con otros sectores de la sociedad.

En virtud de la mayoría que tiene hoy el gobierno en ambas cámaras del Parlamento, todas las iniciativas del Ejecutivo se aprueban a libro cerrado, sin el necesario debate que debe existir en una democracia verdadera. Y ahora el gobierno también quiere tomar el control de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, último garante de la división de poderes, ampliando el numero de sus miembros y atacando a aquellos que actúan en forma independiente. 

Dado que quedan pocos meses para las elecciones presidenciales, es mi sincero deseo que el próximo gobierno, sea del signo político que sea, pueda comenzar a restaurar la institucionalidad y el estado de derecho en la Argentina, con el apoyo de la gran cantidad de gente que desea fervorosamente que el país retome el camino democrático que fue tan seriamente dañado en los últimos años.

Related Articles:

July 17, 2013: Argentina’s Shameful Pact with Iran
Jan. 19, 2015: B’nai B'rith Shocked By Nisman's Death
Feb. 13, 2015: Argentina, Between Consternation and Despair
April 8, 2015: Argentines Still Very Far From The Truth

Adriana Camisar, is an attorney by training who holds a graduate degree in international law and diplomacy from The Fletcher School (Tufts University). She has been B'nai B'rith International Assistant Director for Latin American Affairs since late 2008, and Special Advisor on Latin American Affairs since 2013, when she relocated to Argentina, her native country. Prior to joining B'nai B'rith International, she worked as a research assistant to visiting Professor Luis Moreno Ocampo (former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court), at Harvard University; interned at the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; worked at a children's rights organization in San Diego, CA; and worked briefly as a research assistant to the Secretary for Legal Affairs at the Organization of American States (OAS). To view some of her additional content, Click Here.
Comments

Vatican Recognition Of “State of Palestine”: Unhelpful But Not Ground-Breaking

5/18/2015

Comments

 
Picture
PictureDavid Michaels
On Wednesday, news reports from Rome heralded word that the Vatican was recognizing “Palestine” as a state. Coming from the world’s highest profile religious entity – focal point of 1.2 billion Catholics and the sovereign domain of a particularly popular pope – those monitoring the intersection of major-faith relations and international politics might have seen in the step a dramatic jolt to the Middle East status quo. 

But the Vatican “recognition,” ill-advised prize though it is for the Palestinian leadership, is not exactly the path-breaking development some assume – and it is not likely to impact the actual circumstances of Palestinians and Israelis.

What press outlets have characterized as a treaty extending Vatican recognition to a Palestinian state – a state that doesn't yet exist and would of necessity have to result from Israeli-Palestinian negotiations that Palestinians have spurned – was not so much an establishing of diplomatic ties between two countries but an agreement to protect “the life and activity of the Catholic Church in Palestine.” The wide-ranging institutional interests of Catholic communities, and assurance of their religious freedom, are, after all, primary concerns of a global church, not least in a region where the Christian minority is increasingly beleaguered.

To be sure, the so-called Comprehensive Agreement, negotiations over which were initiated with the Palestine Liberation Organization – precursor to the Palestinian Authority, and longtime claimant to recognition as the “sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” – will officially be signed by the president of the self-styled “State of Palestine,” Mahmoud Abbas, who also conveniently heads the PLO and the PA. And the addition of effective Holy See recognition of his “State,” beyond the similar nods he has collected across Latin America, Europe and beyond, will embolden Abbas in his explicit strategy of circumventing engagement with Israel and allow him to attempt to present a political achievement to his constituency. 

Notably, the Palestinian nationalist movement has consistently sought to portray itself as the champion and rightful home of indigenous Muslims and Christians alike – and to portray a disfigured Israel as a usurper “apartheid” state bent on “Judaizing” Jerusalem.

But, for starters, the Vatican, little noticed by most, had already been referring to the “State of Palestine” even when Pope Francis visited the Palestinian territories, and neighboring countries, in 2014. The Holy See, itself an observer state at the United Nations, welcomed the UN General Assembly’s vote in 2012 to upgrade the status of “Palestine” – already privileged among the world’s nationalist groups with a PLO observer seat at the UN – to that of an observer “State of Palestine.” 

Indeed, it was Pope John Paul II, beloved among Jews and others, who, beginning in 1982, helped legitimate the leadership of the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and to make more mainstream the Palestinian national cause. Maintaining a post existing since 1948, the Vatican has had an “apostolic delegate to Jerusalem and Palestine,” based in Jerusalem, and an apostolic nuncio (or ambassador) to Israel, seated in Tel Aviv; it also receives a Palestinian ambassador (thus far called “representative”) in Rome. 

Picture
The Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem – the Catholic archdiocese of the Holy Land, populated largely by Arab believers – has for nearly three decades been led by Arab patriarchs often outspoken in alignment with Palestinian political positions. Finally, Pope Francis himself – notwithstanding his warm friendship with Jews, particularly in his native Argentina – made waves during his 2014 visit by posing unexpectedly at an imposing section of Israel’s much-maligned security barrier. He also reserved comments addressed to “those who suffer most” from the conflict for the Palestinian portion of his pilgrimage, and forcefully affirmed support for Palestinian statehood alongside Israel.

The new agreement between the church and the Palestinians, which came on the eve of Abbas’s arrival in Rome for the canonization of two nuns who lived in Ottoman-era Palestine, does not, then, quite signal the novel event some assumed. It certainly will not hasten progress on the ground. 

By joining in delivering unearned, unrequited returns to Abbas, the Vatican risks helping to remove incentives for Abbas, whose mainly symbolic victories have not bought him acclaim from his people, to pursue essential compromise rather than confrontation with Israel. Premature, unilateral foreign recognitions of “Palestine,” breaking with prior international insistence upon direct negotiation of peace, also suggest a disconnect from reality. 

The circumstances of Israelis and Palestinians, and the non-existence of a Palestinian state, remain largely unchanged owing to the strength of Palestinian fanatics like Hamas, the Islamist terror group that seized control of the Gaza Strip from the PA. Vatican disregard for this disturbing fact is unfortunate at a time when the Holy See has taken an uncharacteristically, but entirely understandable, hard line on ISIS fanatics endangering Christians elsewhere in the region.     

This said, Israel – which is accustomed to a sense that Palestinian positions are deemed infallible internationally, and which has worked to conclude its own complex agreement with the Vatican on tax issues related to church properties in the country – is not likely to react heatedly to the Holy See’s approach to the Palestinians.

If anything, it is particularly lamentable, though not cause for surprise, that the content of the Vatican agreement with the Palestinians reportedly includes the eastern part of Jerusalem in the territory to which it relates – when no part of Israel's capital has come to be Palestinian-governed under existing agreements. 

Moreover, the deepening of Vatican ties with the “State of Palestine” coincides with the fiftieth anniversary of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council document that helped to positively transform the relationship between Catholics, as well as other Christians, and Jews. 

The marking of that breakthrough, though, will continue – a breakthrough that, while arguably imperfect and incomplete, enabled a once-unimagined engagement between the church and not only the Jewish people but also their reborn state.

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

Congress Steps Up Its Involvement In The Iran Nuclear Deal

4/23/2015

Comments

 
PictureEric Fusfield
In a notable display of bipartisanship, all 19 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted on April 14 to approve a modified version of S. 615, the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015.

The original bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) but opposed by the Obama administration, brought together senators from both parties who were skeptical of the ongoing negotiations between the U.S., its negotiating partners, and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program.  The bipartisan alliance demanded a greater role for Congress as international deliberations drew nearer to a June 30 deadline for a final deal.

The White House later accepted a revised bill reflecting a compromise worked out between Corker and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.).  At risk of a Congressional override, the administration agreed to legislation that it says contains substantive changes, a notion that Corker disputes.  It seems that what has emerged from the haggling between the White House and the Senate is a mechanism that, once adopted by both houses, will give Congress a role whose parameters are still somewhat murky.

Picture
What does the measure allow Congress to do?
 
S. 615, which is expected to be signed into law in May, grants Congress a vote on whatever deal emerges from the final negotiations between the P5 + 1 negotiating partners (the U.S., France, Great Britain, Germany, China, and Russia) and Iran, set to conclude June 30.   The president cannot waive any sanctions within 30 days of submitting the agreement to Congress, or for another 12 days beyond that if Congress passes a resolution disapproving of the agreement.
 
What does the measure allow the president to do?
 
The president can veto any Congressional resolution disapproving of the deal, in which case he can lift sanctions within 52 days of his submitting the agreement to Congress—unless Congress passes the resolution with a veto-proof majority, meaning two thirds of both houses.
 
What else must the administration do?
 
The president is required to submit a final deal to Congress by July 9, or the review period is extended to 60 days.  The administration also must certify to Congress every 90 days that Iran is complying with its obligations under the agreement.
 
How did the Corker-Cardin compromise change the legislation?
 
The revised bill shortens the review period for the final agreement from 60 days to 30.  It also mitigates terms that would make the lifting of sanctions dependent on Iran ending its support of terrorism, although the regime’s terrorist activities and its ballistic missile program are among a range of issues outside the scope of the agreement on which the president would be required to report to Congress.  
 
Could the legislation undergo further change?
 
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) withdrew plans to include an amendment that would make a final agreement with Iran dependent on the regime’s recognition of Israel, something the administration fears would scuttle the negotiations.  Rubio still has the option of introducing such an amendment on the Senate floor.  Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) might offer a floor amendment that would categorize the Iran deal as a treaty requiring a two-thirds Senate vote for ratification.  President Obama has indicated he would like no more changes to the bill.
 
What is the likely impact of S. 615?
 
The bill will give Congress greater involvement in the negotiations than it might otherwise have had.  It also gives the administration greater ability to assure its negotiating partners, as well as the Iranians, that it has the legal and political support it needs in Washington to implement a final deal.  Will the legislation torpedo an agreement with Iran?  Only if Congress can muster a two-thirds majority in both houses to override a presidential veto.  Without the bill, a skeptical Congress would not have had a vote on the final deal, although it still could have passed a law—subject to presidential veto—blocking the agreement’s implementation. 

Eric Fusfield, Esq. has been the B’nai B’rith International director of legislative affairs since 2003 and the deputy director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy since 2007. He has worked in Jewish advocacy since 1998. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.
Comments

The Death of Nisman And The Fate Of His Complaint: Argentines Are Still Very Far From Getting To The Truth (English & Español)

4/8/2015

Comments

 

English Version:

PictureAdriana Camisar
On Feb. 18, about half a million people marched in silence throughout Argentina demanding to know the truth about the "mysterious" death of AMIA (Argentine-Israelite Mutual Association building) case Prosecutor Alberto Nisman.

But nearly three months have passed since he was found dead in his apartment, and we still know nothing about what really happened to him. While most of the public believes he was murdered because of the serious complaint he had made against the Argentine government, the prosecutor of the case has not ruled out any hypothesis and, given the many interests involved, it is very hard to believe that the truth will come out, at least in the near future.

Picture
As for the complaint itself that Nisman had submitted to court prior to his death, its fate is uncertain. Nisman had accused President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman, and other people close to the government of having negotiated an agreement with Iran (known as "Memorandum of Understanding") with the goal of helping those accused of being responsible for the AMIA bombing escape justice. 

As I explained in my previous article on this blog, the Argentine government has always maintained that the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Iran in January of 2013, was the only way to advance a case that was, in their opinion, "paralyzed." This pact created a "Truth Commission," whose members were supposed to be elected by the signatory countries, and that was charged with "investigating" the attack.

Those of us who had been following the investigation closely though, never understood the reasons of this agreement and suspected there was something "murky" behind its signing. The fact that this government, after years of openly accusing Iran, chose to suddenly believe in the “good will” of the regime to investigate the attack was at least "suspicious," especially if one considers that at the time of signing the memorandum, several of the Iranian officials accused by the argentine justice of having planned the attack were still holding powerful positions in Iran.

After Nisman's mysterious death, Federal Prosecutor Gerardo Pollicita decided to go on with his complaint. But the judge assigned to the case, Daniel Rafecas, dismissed the complaint in a very expedited (and inexplicable) way. In his ruling, Rafecas said among other things, that the crime of concealment could have never materialized because the memorandum never came into force. But the truth is that the government did everything possible to have the pact come into force. It did not become operational because Iran never ratified it, and also because it was eventually declared unconstitutional by an Argentine Federal Court. If it were indeed demonstrated that by signing this agreement the government actually intended to help the Iranians evade justice, then it would be completely irrelevant whether the memorandum ever came into force.

This is what prosecutor Pollicita alleged when he appealed Rafecas' decision. He further stated that given the seriousness of the complaint it would be essential to open an investigation. Not doing so would be to give up the search for truth. This conclusion was also confirmed by Federal Court Prosecutor German Moldes, who decided to elevate Pollicita’s appeal to a Federal Court.

But the Federal Court that was assigned to decide the appeal quickly dismissed it (by two votes in favor and one against). The main argument used by the two judges who voted in favor was that there was insufficient evidence to support the complaint.
Picture
Moldes subsequently appealed this decision before the Court of Cassation. This is the last resort that the Argentine criminal system admits before resorting to the Supreme Court. Moldes' alleged on his appeal that a criminal complaint only needs to prove the "plausibility" of what is alleged and that therefore, not opening an investigation in this case would be mistaken.

Aside from the complicated developments in the two judicial cases, it is important to note that the government and its supporters have engaged in a smear campaign against the deceased prosecutor that is quite disturbing. They revealed details of his personal life and accused him, among other things, of being a “homosexual,” a “womanizer” and a “slacker.” They said that he lived beyond his means and inappropriately spent money that belonged to the Fiscal Unit he was running. But the truth is that this person is no longer with us and is therefore unable to defend himself. And ultimately, none of the things that are being said about him have anything to do with the credibility of his complaint.

A few weeks ago, the Brazilian magazine "Veja" published a report in which statements by former officials of the government of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez—who are now living in the United States—were revealed. According to these officials, the Iranian regime and the Argentine government have had a close relationship since 2007—a relationship that was brokered by Chavez. In their statements, these officials argued that Iran sent large sums of money to Argentina on several occasions, not only with the goal of having Argentina turn a blind eye on the AMIA case but also to obtain the transfer of nuclear know-how from Argentina. 

These very serious statements are somewhat compatible with Nisman's allegations and make his accusations even more plausible. Therefore, I agree with those who believe that, given the seriousness of the allegations made, not to open a thorough investigation would be to give up the pursuit of truth, apart for being a serious setback for the institutional quality of Argentina.

Versión Español:

Picture
El pasado 18 de febrero, cerca de medio millón de personas marcharon en silencio en toda la Argentina para pedir el esclarecimiento de la “misteriosa” muerte del Fiscal del caso AMIA Alberto Nisman.

Pero lo cierto es que, a casi tres meses de su muerte, todavía nada sabemos acerca de lo que realmente le paso al Fiscal. Aun cuando la mayoría de la ciudadanía cree que fue asesinado en virtud de la grave denuncia que había hecho contra el gobierno argentino pocos días antes, todavía la justicia no descarto ninguna hipótesis y - en virtud de los grandes intereses en juego - es muy difícil creer que se llegara a la verdad, al menos en un futuro cercano.

En cuanto a la denuncia propiamente dicha hecha por el Fiscal antes de morir, esta tiene una suerte incierta. Nisman había acusado a la Presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a su Canciller Héctor Timerman, y a otros funcionarios y allegados al gobierno de haber negociado un acuerdo con Irán (conocido como “Memorándum de Entendimiento”) para encubrir  a los responsables de la voladura de la mutual judía AMIA - el peor atentado terrorista sufrido por un país Latinoamericano.

Como explique en mi articulo anterior en este blog, el gobierno argentino siempre sostuvo que el Memorándum de Entendimiento firmado con Irán en Enero de 2013, era la única forma de avanzar con una causa que estaba, en su opinión, “paralizada.” Mediante este pacto se establecía la creación de una “Comisión de la Verdad” cuyos miembros serian elegidos por los países firmantes para investigar el atentado. 
Picture
Sin embargo, quienes veníamos siguiendo la investigación, nunca entendimos la razón de este acuerdo y sospechamos que había algo “turbio” detrás de su firma. Que el gobierno, después de años de acusar abiertamente a Irán, decida creer en la buena voluntad del régimen para investigar el atentado resultaba por los menos “sospechoso”, especialmente si se tiene en cuenta que al momento de la firma del memorándum, algunos de los acusados por la justicia argentina de haber participado en su planeamiento, se encontraban aun en posiciones de poder en Irán.

Luego de la misteriosa muerte de Nisman, el fiscal federal Gerardo Pollicita decidió darle curso a su denuncia. Pero el juez asignado al caso (Daniel Rafecas) la desestimo con una celeridad inexplicable. En su fallo, Rafecas dijo entre otras cosas, que el delito de encubrimiento nunca podría haberse configurado porque el Memorándum nunca llego a entrar en vigor. Pero lo cierto es que el gobierno hizo todo lo posible porque el pacto entrara en vigor. Si no llego a ser operativo es porque Irán nunca lo ratifico (seguramente porque las notificaciones rojas de Interpol en contra de los acusados nunca fueron levantadas) y porque eventualmente, el Memorándum fue declarado inconstitucional por una Cámara Federal en Argentina. Si se llegara a probar que mediante la firma de este acuerdo, el gobierno tuvo efectivamente la intención de ayudar a los Iraníes a evadir la justicia, el hecho de que el Memorándum haya entrado no en vigor seria irrelevante.

Esto es lo que alego el Fiscal Pollicita al apelar la decisión de Rafecas. Pollicita sostuvo además que ante una denuncia de semejante gravedad es imprescindible abrir una investigación, pues no hacerlo implicaría renunciar a la búsqueda de la verdad. Esta conclusión fue ratificada por el Fiscal de Cámara German Moldes, quien decidió elevar la causa a la Cámara.

Pero la Cámara Federal que fue asignada para decidir la apelación decidió desestimarla (por dos votos a favor y uno en contra). El argumento principal utilizado por los dos jueces que votaron a favor fue que no hay pruebas suficientes para sostener la denuncia. 

El Fiscal Moldes apelo subsecuentemente esta decisión ante la Cámara de Casación. Este es el ultimo recurso que admite la legislación penal argentina antes de recurrir a la Corte Suprema. Moldes argumento en su apelación que una denuncia solo debe probar la “verosimilitud” de lo que se alega, por lo que negar la apertura de una investigación criminal en este caso seria completamente erróneo.

Al margen de las peripecias judiciales de ambas causas, es importante notar que el gobierno y sus seguidores se han embarcado en una campaña de desprestigio en contra del fallecido fiscal que realmente resulta repugnante. Se encargaron de revelar detalles de su vida personal y lo acusaron, entre otras cosas, de “homosexual,” ‘mujeriego” y “vago.” Dijeron que vivía mas allá de sus medios y que malgastaba el dinero que pertenecía a la Unidad Fiscal que manejaba. Pero lo cierto es que esta persona ya no esta entre nosotros para defenderse y que todo lo que se alega nada tiene que ver con la verosimilitud de su denuncia.

Hace unas semanas, la revista Brasileña “Veja” publico un informe en el que se revelan declaraciones de ex funcionarios arrepentidos del gobierno del fallecido Presidente Venezolano Hugo Chávez, que se encuentran hoy bajo custodia en los Estados Unidos. Según estos funcionarios, el régimen Iraní y el gobierno argentino tuvieron una estrecha relación desde el año 2007,  relación que fue impulsada por el ex-Presidente Chávez. En sus declaraciones, estos funcionarios alegaron, entre otras cosas, que Irán envió cuantiosas sumas de dinero a la Argentina en varias oportunidades, a cambio de que Argentina acepte no solo hacer la vista gorda en el tema de la AMIA sino también transferir conocimiento nuclear a Irán.

Estas graves declaraciones son en cierta medida compatibles con la denuncia de Nisman y hacen aun mas verosímiles sus dichos. Por lo tanto, me sumo a los que piensan que –dada la gravedad de los hechos alegados – no investigar implicaría renunciar a la búsqueda de la verdad, además de constituir un serio retroceso para la calidad institucional de la Argentina.

Adriana Camisar, is an attorney by training who holds a graduate degree in international law and diplomacy from The Fletcher School (Tufts University). She has been B'nai B'rith International Assistant Director for Latin American Affairs since late 2008, and Special Advisor on Latin American Affairs since 2013, when she relocated to Argentina, her native country. Prior to joining B'nai B'rith International, she worked as a research assistant to visiting Professor Luis Moreno Ocampo (former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court), at Harvard University; interned at the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; worked at a children's rights organization in San Diego, CA; and worked briefly as a research assistant to the Secretary for Legal Affairs at the Organization of American States (OAS). To view some of her additional content, Click Here.
Comments

Consistent Action From World Bodies Is Key To Stifling Terrorism

3/19/2015

Comments

 
PictureDavid J. Michaels
I write this upon return from Geneva, where B’nai B’rith has engaged in urgent advocacy to international representatives at the United Nations Human Rights Council. 

In just four days, our leadership delegation met with the ambassadors and other senior diplomats of some 40 countries on nearly every continent. This count is in addition to the many officials who participated in B’nai B’rith’s diplomatic reception at the Palais des Nations, the world body’s European hub. 

At that event, the chief of staff of the Office of the Director-General of the U.N. in Geneva took the occasion to publicly “salute” B’nai B’rith for being a “leader… in this capital of human rights,” a role for which, he believes, “the council is better.” The American ambassador to the council, who also addressed the assemblage, told B’nai B’rith, “the United States stands with you.”

This message, truly important, might nonetheless somewhat accentuate anxieties concerning the body, coming in advance of the termination of American membership on the council at the end of this year. The U.S., having now served two terms as a council member, is ineligible to vie for the immediate renewal of its membership; while it will be able to continue speaking and engaging actively at the council, Washington will not enjoy the right to cast a vote within it. 

This said, even with full U.S. participation in the work of the council, the body’s performance, at least with regard to treatment of the Middle East’s only democracy, has hardly shifted. The U.S. has often cast a lone vote against wildly unjust council resolutions on Israel.

Of the U.N.’s 193 member states, it is only the small, beleaguered Jewish democracy, Israel, that remains subjected to scrutiny under a dedicated, permanent agenda item standing apart from the one under which all other countries are considered. 

At the council, both routine motions and “emergency” special sessions inordinately focus on assailing Israel alone. And a so-called special rapporteur is devoted to “investigating” and publicizing only alleged Israeli misdeeds against Palestinians – not any of the incessant violence perpetrated by Palestinians and others against Israelis, Jewish and otherwise.

True, the council has recently afforded some limited attention to other, acute human rights crises, such as the endless bloodletting in Syria and domestic repression in Iran. And Israel, which newly engaged with the council after its singular marginalization was eased with long-overdue inclusion in the Western regional working group, has encountered somewhat improved circumstances with the departure of a U.N. human rights commissioner and, especially, a special rapporteur distinguished by antipathy to the Jewish state. 

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
But Israel remains the target of an unparalleled parade of ritualistic condemnatory resolutions and reports – rubber-stamped by a body on which bloc voting and hypocritical politics abound – which are to overtake the council agenda on March 23. 

Moreover, it was only after the resignation of the probe’s partisan chair, upon revelation of his past paid consultancy for the Palestine Liberation Organization, that the anticipated report of the council’s “commission of inquiry” on last year’s Gaza hostilities has been deferred. 

The circumstances prompting the deferral of this latest inquest’s conclusions – conclusions that were somehow to be deemed credible despite the fact that the very resolution launching the probe had excoriated Israel in advance, with no mention of Hamas at all – were not acknowledged in the commission’s postponement notice.

Some discerning observers’ focus on Lake Geneva may now shift, appropriately, to the international negotiations with Iran – intended to reach at least a tentative outcome by the end of this month – over Tehran’s illicit nuclear program, which has roiled Arabs and Israelis alike in an already unstable region. 

However, perhaps feeling unencumbered following Israel’s parliamentary elections, Palestinian Authority officials seem geared to escalate an explicit strategy of “internationalizing” their conflict with Israel, an approach that has not brought progress toward peace between the parties but has exacerbated and exported divisions while distracting from the region’s foremost challenges. 

Beyond Palestinians’ unilateral pursuit of upgraded status in intergovernmental bodies, and agitation against Israel within them, this approach could soon culminate in steps to practically hinder Israeli counterterrorism efforts by threatening the prosecution of civilian leaders and military personnel at the International Criminal Court for any difficult operational decisions. 

Palestinians, who have obtained premature recognition as the “State of Palestine” by the U.N. General Assembly but not the essential endorsement of the Security Council, expect to be considered a “state” party of the court beginning in April.

Tragically, if judicial authorities in The Hague do acquiesce to Palestinian politicization of the ICC, the result will be not merely a deterioration of Palestinian-Israeli relations both on the ground and in multilateral institutions. Rather, an important strategic victory would also be handed to the proliferating array of fanatic Islamist non-state actors. 

Those forces are, on the whole, still shielded from the accountability demanded of (some) governments within a global system that has failed to effectively tackle the chief contemporary threat to international stability, security and human rights. 

What the world most needs at this stage in its history is collaborative, consistent action to undercut terrorism – not measures that permit it to fester unchallenged.

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

AMIA: Those Seeking Justice Find Disappointment (English & Español)

3/13/2015

Comments

 

Versión Español:

PictureEduardo Kohn
El domingo 1 de Marzo, la Presidenta de Argentina Cristina Fernández, en su discurso de apertura de las sesiones legislativas 2015, cuestionó que Israel no se preocupa por el atentado terrorista que destruyó su Embajada en Buenos Aires en 1992 y reprochó la omisión del Poder Judicial al respecto.

El Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Argentina Dr. Ricardo Lorenzetti, en un discurso 24 horas después, respondió a la Presidenta informando que en 1999 hubo una sentencia por el atentado a la Embajada de Israel en la que “se encontró culpable a Hezbollah.” 

Lorenzetti agregó: “Nosotros no podemos como tribunal tratar lo que ya es cosa juzgada … La sentencia de 1999 fue muy anterior a la conformación de la corte actual. Esa sentencia determinó la materialidad y la imputabilidad del hecho. Esa sentencia está publicada y consentida por las partes”

El 3 de Marzo, el gobierno de Israel a través de su Embajada en Argentina, contestó a la Presidenta Cristina Fernández:

“Como queda referenciado en los acuerdos internacionales sobre la materia, la responsabilidad acerca del cuidado de toda delegación diplomática se encuentra en manos del país receptor de la misma. Es competencia y responsabilidad del Estado argentino investigar el atentado perpetrado contra la Embajada de Israel en Buenos Aires … El 17 de Marzo de 1992 el terrorismo impactó contra la Argentina … Ambos, el pueblo argentino e israelí comparten un mismo dolor, porque ambos fueron víctimas de un terrible flagelo … Señalamos nuestra preocupación por el bienestar de las comunidades judías, en especial a raíz de las innumerables manifestaciones antisemitas que suceden en el mundo.

“Por consiguiente, Israel seguirá expresando la importancia de continuar con la investigación acerca del atentado ocurrido contra la sede de la AMIA.” 

También el 3 de Marzo, el Primer Ministro de Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, pronunció un discurso en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, ante el cual fustigó el acuerdo sobre un programa nuclear entre potencias occidentales e Irán.

Y dentro de su alocución, no olvidó los atentados terroristas en Argentina, haciendo una acusación contundente: “El régimen Iraní es una grave amenaza para el mundo … Irán voló un centro comunitario judío y nuestra embajada en Buenos Aires.”


El 17 de Marzo se cumplirán 23 años de la barbarie contra la Embajada de Israel que estaba en Arroyo y Suipacha, en el corazón de la capital argentina. Veintenueve muertos, algunos que no pudieron ser reconocidos, y más de 200 heridos fue el saldo de esta masacre. Dos años después, volaba la AMIA.

En estas dos últimas décadas, se han producido muchos atentados terroristas: en los Estados Unidos, Francia, Inglaterra, España, Medio Oriente, Africa. La lista es espeluznante.

Dentro de esa densa cantidad de abominables agresiones: ¿Cuáles son las que se destacan por no haberse podido apresar a los culpables o al menos algunos de ellos? ¿Cuáles se destacan por saberse quienes fueron los perpetradores, pero los perpetradores son hoy hombres con cargos públicos en una dictadura que tiene asiento en la ONU? ¿Cuáles son los atentados dónde “no se sabe” quien fue el apoyo local?

Solamente, y mal que pueda pesar, molestar, irritar, y provocar discursos desorbitados, los que tuvieron lugar en Argentina.

Este año llegamos a una nueva fecha de recordación del atentado del 17 de Marzo, con más elementos negativos, desmoralizadores, demostrativos que si buscamos justicia, miremos para otros lados.

El 27 de Enero de 2014, (Irónicamente, en Día Internacional de Recordación del Holocausto) el Ministro de RREE de Argentina Héctor Timerman y su par iraní acuerdan firmar un “Memorando de Entendimiento,” que se informó Irán ni siquiera lo leyó mientras Argentina lo votaba muy apurado. Fracasó antes de nacer y finalmente fue declarado inconstitucional, pero abrió severas heridas.

Casi un año después, conscientes (la sociedad Argentina, el mundo entero) de que ese “memorando” era una lápida sobre cualquier intento de encontrar alguna lucecita al final del camino, se produce, otro 18, esta vez de Enero y de 2015, la muerte del Fiscal Alberto Nisman, quien en un tema sin jurisprudencia ni doctrina donde respaldarse, se entregó a la faena con el denuedo que merecía uno de los atentados  más infames de la historia de nuestra América Latina.

En una esclarecedora columna en el diario Argentino La Nación, el Ex Presidente de Uruguay Dr. Julio Sanguinetti ha escrito hace pocos días: “Naturalmente, ahora queda el crimen y todo lo que nos ha traído: la revelación de unos servicios secretos oscuros, que penetran las entretelas del Gobierno; la duda horrorosa de que haya gente dispuesta a matar a un fiscal para que no pueda cumplir su función; la evidencia clara de personeros del Gobierno codo con codo con agentes de un gobierno iraní que sigue proclamando la desaparición del Estado judío; la sospecha de que en Montevideo algo ha ocurrido en ese oscuro conspirar internacional; el temor de que todo quede como está y que el expediente acumule miles de fojas que terminan aplastando la verdad ... una verdad que, cualquiera que sea, siempre quedará como un enigma.”

Ese es el contexto en que recordamos el atentado del 17 de Marzo de 1992, bárbaro antecedente del segundo atentado dos años después contra AMIA.

Contexto de impunidad, de aplastamiento de cualquier verdad, aún sea a costa de que haya más víctimas (como Nisman), de creer que se pueden hacer acuerdos con Estados que patrocinan, proclaman, financian y apoyan el terrorismo en todo el mundo.

Los resultados están a la vista. Y el futuro nos muestra una ventana, pequeña aún, de esperanza, de que los pueblos no tienen tolerancia infinita para sufrir vejaciones ilimitadas.

Adapted English Version:

On Sunday March 1, the president of Argentina, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, in her opening speech of the 2015 legislative session, questioned whether Israel was worried about the terrorist attack that destroyed its Buenos Aires embassy in 1992 and criticized the failure of the judiciary for its alleged lack of concern.

The president of the Supreme Court of Argentina, Ricardo Lorenzetti, in a speech 24 hours later, responded to President Fernández stating that there was a ruling in 1999 on the Israeli embassy attack that “found Hezbollah guilty.” Lorenzetti added: "We cannot as a court deal with a matter that is already judged … The 1999 ruling was long before the formation of the current court. That judgment determined the materiality and accountability of the facts. That ruling is published and consented to by the parties involved.”

On March 3, the Israeli government replied to President Fernández through its embassy in Argentina:

"As is referenced in international agreements on the subject, the responsibility for care of all diplomatic delegations is in the hands of the recipient's own country. It is the duty and responsibility of the Argentine State to investigate the attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires … The March 17, 1992, terror attack struck against Argentina … Both the Argentine and Israeli people share the same pain, because both were victims of a terrible scourge … We note our concern for the welfare of the Jewish communities, especially because of the many anti-Semitic manifestations happening in the world.

"Therefore, Israel will continue to express the importance of continuing the investigation on the attack occurred against AMIA.”

Also on March 3, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech in the United States Congress, in which he criticized the agreement on a nuclear program between Western powers and Iran.

In his speech, Netanyahu did not forget the terrorist attacks in Argentina, making a forceful indictment: "Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also to the peace of the entire world … [Iran] blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires."

March 17 will mark the 23rd anniversary of the barbaric attack against the Israeli embassy, in the heart of Argentina's capital. Twenty-nine dead—some whose bodies were beyond recognition—and more than 200 wounded was the casualty count of the massacre. Two years later, they blew up AMIA.

Were any of the culprits apprehended in these attacks? No. Despite overwhelming evidence pointing to Iran, no one has been brought to justice.

Only in Argentina.

We have now arrived at another anniversary of the March 17 attack, this year with more negative, demoralizing elements, and the demonstration that if we seek justice, we should look elsewhere.

On Jan. 27, 2014, (which ironically was International Holocaust Remembrance Day), Argentina Minister of Foreign Affairs Héctor Timerman and his Iranian counterpart agreed to sign a "Memorandum of Understanding," which some have reported that the Iranian side did not even read, while Argentina rapidly ratified in Congress. The “memorandum” failed before it was born and was eventually declared unconstitutional, but it opened severe wounds.

More than a year later, the Argentine society and the whole world are well aware that this "memorandum" was a tombstone on any attempt to find some little light at the end of the road. And now, more than a year later, we now have another date to remember in this saga: Jan. 18, 2015. That day marks the death of Argentine Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman who was investigating the AMIA case when he was killed. Despite lacking jurisprudence and governmental support for his work, Nisman devoted himself to this great endeavor with the single-mindedness that one of the most infamous terror attacks in the history of Latin America deserved.

In a illuminating recent column in the Argentine daily The Nation, former President of Uruguay Julio Sanguinetti wrote on the subject: “Of course, now we are left with the crime and everything it has brought: the revelation of dark secret services, which penetrate the cockles of government; the horrid doubt that there are people willing to kill a prosecutor so he cannot fulfill his job; clear evidence of government ombudsmen elbow to elbow with agents of an Iranian government that continues to proclaim the demise of the Jewish state; the suspicion that something has happened in Montevideo in that dark international conspiracy; the fear that everything is as it is and that the record accumulate miles of pages that end up crushing the truth ... a truth that, whatever it is, will always remain an enigma.”

That is the context in which we remember the attack on March 17, 1992, the barbaric antecedent to that AMIA attack two years later.

We remember it in the context of impunity, the crushing of any truth even at the cost of more victims (as with Nisman), to believe that you can make agreements with state sponsors who advertise, finance and support terrorism worldwide.

The results are obvious. And the future shows us a window, small still, of hope that the people don’t have an infinite tolerance to suffer endless indignities.


Eduardo Kohn, Ph.D has been the B’nai B’rith executive vice president in Uruguay since 1981 and the B’nai B’rith International director of Latin American affairs since 1984. Before joining B'nai B'rith, he worked for the Israeli embassy in Uruguay, the Israel-Uruguay Chamber of Commerce and Hebrew College in Montevideo. He is a published author of “Zionism, 100 years of Theodor Herzl,” and writes op-eds for publications throughout Latin America. He graduated from the State University of Uruguay with a doctorate in diplomacy and international affairs. To view some of his additional content,Click Here.
Comments

Argentina: Between Consternation and Despair (English & Español)

2/13/2015

Comments

 

English Version:

PictureAdriana Camisar
Argentina is experiencing today a political (and institutional) crisis of enormous proportions. The "mysterious" death of Federal Prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who had been investigating for more than 10 years the worst terrorist attack ever committed in a Latin American country (the bombing of the building of the Jewish Communal Organization (AMIA) in 1994) left people in dismay.

Four days prior to his death, the prosecutor had accused President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, his Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman and other people close to the government, of signing a pact with Teheran with the goal of obtaining complete impunity for the Iranians accused of plotting and executing the AMIA attack.  

The pact the prosecutor was referring to - known as "Memorandum of Understanding" - was made public in January of 2013. Through this agreement, both governments pledged to create a "truth commission" to jointly investigate the AMIA bombing. Although the government justified the signing of this agreement on the need to advance a case that was - in their words - "paralyzed," all those who were fairly familiar with the case, interpreted the agreement as a clear shift in government policy, and an attempt to improve relations with the regime in Tehran at the expense of the victims of this terrible crime.

In his complaint, the prosecutor corroborated this hypothesis but went even further. He did not just say that the government sought to get closer to Teheran by signing this pact. According to him, the plan was not only to delay or dilute the investigation but also to find other people to blame in order to get complete impunity for the Iranians, in exchange for a commercial arrangement that included an exchange of grains for oil.  

The extensive 300-page complaint was accompanied by thousands of wiretaps in which agents apparently linked to the government negotiated with Iranian brokers a cover-up plan.  

The complaint submitted by Nisman was probably the most serious accusation ever made against a sitting government and generated great commotion throughout the country. But his death, just a day before his planned presentation in Congress to expand on his allegations, let the public in a state of shock. 

Picture
The reaction of President Cristina Fernández to this tremendously serious incident was not only inappropriate but also deeply irresponsible. The president waited almost a full day from the moment the news of Nisman's death was made public to post a letter on her "Facebook" account, in which she implied that the prosecutor had committed suicide. 

Three days later, she published a second letter, this time on her official website, in which she stated that the prosecutor was surely killed as part of a plot against her government. Five days afterwards, the president finally decided to talk to all Argentineans - on national TV - to announce a plan to reform the national intelligence agency, implicitly blaming a sector of that agency for what happened, and emphasizing – once again - that it was all part of a plot against her government. 

In none of those three messages the president expressed regret over what happened to Nisman or sent her condolences to his family, which naturally angered a great deal of Argentineans.  

Several other senior government officials also reacted to Nisman's death in a way that was highly inappropriate and outrageous. Instead of acting prudently, pending the outcome of the judicial investigation, they immediately advanced conspiracy theories in support of the president and even tried to tarnish the memory of the prosecutor.  

As a result of all these, it is very difficult to know if we will ever get to know the truth about what happened. The future of the AMIA investigation will now be in the hands of new prosecutors that will be appointed by Attorney General Alejandra Gils Carbó, a person that far from being independent, is known for her strong ties with the government, and who is even believed to have planned to remove the deceased prosecutor from his position before he submitted his complaint.  
Picture
The cover-up case that emerges from Nisman's complaint was assigned to Judge Daniel Rafecas, a Judge of impeccable reputation, after Judge Ariel Lijo (who Nisman had originally submitted the complaint to) excused himself. The prosecutor will be Gerardo Pollicita, who must decide whether to initiate an investigation.  

Finally, the case about Nisman's death was assigned to Judge Fabiana Palmaghini, and the investigation is being conducted by Prosecutor Viviana Fein. 

Regardless of the personal characteristics of the people in charge of these investigations though, this terrible incident exposed the fragility of Argentina’s institutions, which coupled with the fear that now prevails in the country, casts serious doubts about the possibility of getting to the truth, at least in the near future.

The common Argentinean citizen feels today both frightened and hopeless. And Argentina's Jewish community in particular feels - once again - as the victim of a terrible crime, and stripped of any possibility of truth and justice. 

Versión Español:

La Argentina esta atravesando hoy una crisis política e institucional de enormes proporciones. 

La “misteriosa” muerte del fiscal federal Alberto Nisman, quien investigaba desde el año 2004 el peor atentado terrorista sufrido por un país Latinoamericano (la explosión de la sede de la mutual judía (AMIA) en el año 1994) dejó a la ciudadanía sumida en el estupor.

Cuatro días antes de su muerte, el fiscal había acusado formalmente a la Presidenta Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a su Canciller Héctor Timerman y a otras personas allegadas al gobierno, de firmar un pacto para desligar a los iraníes imputados en la causa AMIA de toda responsabilidad por el atentado.
Picture
El pacto al que se refería el fiscal – conocido como “Memorandum de Entendimiento” – fue hecho público en enero de 2013. Por medio de este pacto, ambos gobiernos se comprometían a crear una “comisión de la verdad” para investigar conjuntamente el atentado contra la AMIA. Aunque el gobierno justificó la firma de este pacto en la necesidad de avanzar con una causa que estaba paralizada, todos aquellos que estábamos medianamente familiarizados con la causa interpretamos que el acuerdo implicaba un claro giro en la política del gobierno. Un intento de mejorar las relaciones con el régimen de Teherán a expensas de las víctimas de este terrible crimen.

El fiscal en su denuncia corroboró esta hipótesis pero fue incluso más allá. No solo afirmó que el gobierno buscaba acercarse a Irán mediante la firma de este pacto. Según el fiscal, el plan no era solo demorar o diluir la causa sino incluso encontrar falsos culpables, a cambio de un acuerdo económico que incluía el intercambio de granos por petróleo.

La extensa denuncia de 300 páginas estaba acompañada de miles de escuchas telefónicas en las que agentes vinculados al gobierno aparentemente negociaban con operadores iraníes el plan de encubrimiento.

La denuncia de Nisman fue probablemente la denuncia más grave jamás hecha contra un gobierno que aun esta en el poder y generó una gran conmoción en todo el país. Pero su muerte, un día antes de su planeada presentación en el Congreso para ampliar su denuncia, dejó a la ciudadanía en un estado de shock.

La reacción de la Presidenta Cristina Fernández ante semejante incidente fue no solo inapropiada sino profundamente irresponsable. La presidenta espero casi un día completo desde que se supo la noticia de la muerte del fiscal para publicar una carta en su cuenta de “Facebook,” en la que insinuaba que el fiscal se había suicidado. Tres días después, publicó una segunda carta, esta vez en su página web oficial, asegurando que el fiscal probablemente había sido asesinado como parte de un plan en contra del gobierno. Cinco días más tarde la Presidenta decidió finalmente hablarle a todos los argentinos - por cadena nacional - para anunciar un plan de reforma de la agencia nacional de inteligencia, responsabilizando implícitamente a un sector de esa agencia de lo ocurrido y enfatizando que todo había sido parte de un complot contra su gobierno.

En ninguno de sus tres mensajes la Presidenta expresó pesar por lo ocurrido ni envió sus condolencias a la familia del fiscal, lo que naturalmente escandalizó a gran parte de la sociedad.
Picture
Las reacciones de otros altos funcionarios del gobierno también fueron altamente inapropiadas y escandalosas. En lugar de actuar prudentemente y de esperar el resultado de la investigación judicial, presentaron inmediatamente teorías conspiratorias en apoyo a la Presidenta, e incluso intentaron ensuciar la memoria del fiscal.

Como resultado de todo esto, es muy difícil saber si algún día se llegará a conocer la verdad de todo lo ocurrido. El futuro de la investigación de la causa AMIA estará en manos de nuevos fiscales que serán designados por la Procuradora General de la Nación Alejandra Gils Carbó, una persona que lejos de ser independiente es conocida por sus fuertes lazos con el gobierno, y es además sospechada de haber planeado destituir al fiscal fallecido antes de que este presentara su denuncia.

La causa por encubrimiento que surge de la denuncia del fiscal fue asignada al juez Daniel Rafecas, de impecable reputación, después de que el juez Ariel Lijo (a quien Nisman presentara originalmente la denuncia por estar a cargo de otra causa anterior por encubrimiento) se excusara. El fiscal será Gerardo Pollicita, quien deberá resolver si impulsa una investigación. 

Finalmente, la causa acerca de la muerte del fiscal Nisman fue asignada a la jueza Fabiana Palmaghini y la investigación está siendo conducida por la fiscal Viviana Fein. 

Independientemente de las características personales de las personas a cargo de estas investigaciones, este terrible incidente puso de manifiesto la gran fragilidad institucional del país, lo que sumado al miedo que impera hoy en la sociedad, genera serias dudas sobre la posibilidad de llegar a la verdad, al menos en un futuro cercano.

El ciudadano común se siente hoy atemorizado y desesperanzado. Y la comunidad judía argentina en particular se siente una vez más víctima de un terrible atentado, y despojada de toda posibilidad de verdad y justicia
Picture

Adriana Camisar, is an attorney by training who holds a graduate degree in international law and diplomacy from The Fletcher School (Tufts University). She has been B'nai B'rith International Assistant Director for Latin American Affairs since late 2008, and Special Advisor on Latin American Affairs since 2013, when she relocated to Argentina, her native country. Prior to joining B'nai B'rith International, she worked as a research assistant to visiting Professor Luis Moreno Ocampo (former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court), at Harvard University; interned at the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs; worked at a children's rights organization in San Diego, CA; and worked briefly as a research assistant to the Secretary for Legal Affairs at the Organization of American States (OAS). To view some of her additional content, Click Here.

Comments

State Of The Union: 3 Things We'd Like To See In Foreign Policy

1/15/2015

Comments

 
B’nai B’rith International's Legislative Affairs department looks ahead to Tuesday’s State of the Union address and notes things we may hear, and things we hope will be addressed.

Click on each panel below to read more about our position:
Iran's Nuclear Threat To Israel
Combating Terrorism
Reforming Immigration

Eric Fusfield, Esq. has been the B’nai B’rith International director of legislative affairs since 2003 and the deputy director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy since 2007. He has worked in Jewish advocacy since 1998. To view some of his additional content, Click Here.
Comments
Forward>>

    Analysis From Our Experts

    B'nai B'rith International has widely respected experts in the fields of:

    • Global Advocacy
    • Supporting & Defending Israel
    • Senior Housing & Advocacy
    • Humanitarian Aid

    Archives

    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014

    Categories

    All
    2020
    2020 Census
    ADA
    Adriana Camisar
    Affordable Housing
    Afro Semitic
    Aging
    Alan Schneider
    Alberto Nisman
    Alina Bricman
    Alt-right
    American History
    Americans With Disabilities Act
    AMIA
    Anti-Defamation Commission
    Anti Semitism
    Anti-Semitism
    Argentina
    Art & Music
    Asia
    Australia
    Australian Jewish News
    Azerbaijan
    Balfour Declaration
    Bambi Sheleg
    Ban Ki-moon
    Barr Foundation
    BDS
    Benefits
    Benjamin Naegele
    B'nai B'rith
    B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation Commission
    B'nai B'rith Housing
    B'nai B'rith International
    Bolivia
    Boris Johnson
    Brazil
    Breana Clark
    Caregiver Credits
    Caregivers
    Catholic Church
    CEIRPP
    Census
    Center For Senior Services
    Cheryl Kempler
    Cold War
    Comedy
    Commission On The Status Of Women
    Congress
    Cristina Fernández De Kirchner
    CSS
    CSS Housing
    Csw
    Cuba
    Cuban Jewish Relief Project
    Cyprus
    Daniel Mariaschin
    Dava Sobel
    David Michaels
    Dept. Of Housing And Urban Development
    Dilma Rousseff
    Disabilities
    Disabled Americans
    Disaster Relief
    Discrimination
    Dr. Howard Weiner
    Dvir Abramovich
    Ecuador
    Eduardo Kohn
    Eighth Summit Of The Americas
    Elections
    Embassy
    Entebbe
    Eric Fusfield
    Europe
    European Union
    Evan Carmen
    Expert Analysis
    Fatah
    Fiduciary
    Film
    Fox News
    Gaza
    Georgia
    Germany
    Greece
    Guatemala
    Gun Reform
    Gun Violence
    Hamas
    Harvard University
    Health Care
    Helping Communities
    Hezbollah
    Holocaust
    Homecrest House
    Honduras
    HUD
    Human Rights
    Human Rights Public Policy
    IACHR
    Ibrahim Yassin
    ICHRPP
    IDF
    Ilhan Omar
    Immigration
    India
    Inter-American Commission On Human Rights (IACHR)
    Iran
    Iran Deal
    Irina Bokova
    Israel
    Israel Nation-state Law
    Item 7
    Janel Doughten
    Japan
    Jeremy Havardi
    Jerusalem
    Jewish
    Jewish-catholic Relations
    Jewish Communal Leadership
    Jewish Culture
    Jewish Film Festival
    Jewish Heritage
    Jewish History
    Jewish Identity
    Jewish Leadership
    Jewish Movies
    Jewish Museum
    Jewish Refugees
    Jewish Rescuers Citation
    Jews
    JRJ
    Judaica
    Kakehashi Project
    Knesset
    Kristallnacht
    Kyoto
    Latin America
    Laura Hemlock
    Leadership Forum
    Lebanon
    LIHTC
    Lima
    Low-income
    Low Income Seniors
    Low-income Seniors
    Luis Almagro
    Mahmoud Abbas
    Mark Olshan
    Mauricio Macri
    Medicaid
    Medicare
    Memorandum Of Understanding
    Mexico
    Middle East Affairs
    Mohammed El Halabi
    Music
    Nahum Goldmann Fellowship (NGF)
    NGF
    Nicolas Maduro
    NRA
    OAS
    Older Americans Act
    Olympics
    Op Ed
    Op-ed
    Opioid Crisis
    Oren Drori
    OSCE
    Palestinian
    Palestinians
    Panama
    Paraguay
    Pat Wolfson Endowment
    Perlman Camp
    Peru
    Poland
    Pope Francis
    Poverty
    Programming
    Programs
    Project H.O.P.E.
    Public Policy
    Rachel Goldberg
    Rachel Knopp
    Rashida Tlaib
    Rebecca Rose
    Rep. Cheri Bustos
    Rep. Jamie Raskin
    Rhonda Love
    Richard Spencer
    Roberta Jacobson
    Rod Serling
    Romania
    Section 202
    Senior Housing
    Senior Housing Advocacy
    Seniors
    Seniors Issues
    Shimon Peres
    Sienna Girgenti
    Social Security
    South America
    Spain
    Summit Of The Americas
    Sup
    Supporting Defending Israel
    Sweden
    Syria
    Syrian Refugees
    Tareck El Aissami
    Temple Mount
    Terror
    Terrorism
    Theater
    The Twilight Zone
    Times Of Israel
    Tokyo
    Trump
    UN
    U.N.
    Un Affairs
    UNESCO
    UNGA
    UNHRC
    United
    United Nations
    UNRWA
    UN Security Council
    Unto Every Person
    Uruguay
    U.S. Congress
    U.S. House Of Representatives
    Vatican
    Venezuela
    Volunteering
    Voter ID Laws
    Voting
    We Walk To Remember
    White House
    WHO
    William Kentridge
    Winter Olympics
    World Center
    World Heritage Committee
    World Jewish Congress
    World Vision
    Wuppertal
    YLN
    Yom Hashoah
    Young Leadership Network
    Zionism

    RSS Feed

Connect With Us Online

About B'nai B'rith

B'nai B'rith Today
Contact Us
Join our Email List
Programs


Support Our Work

Attend an Event
Become a Member
Donate Now
Purchase B'nai B'rith Apparel
CFC
© 2019 - B'nai B'rith International 

1120 20th Street NW, Suite 300N
Washington, D.C. 20036

Phone: 202-857-6600
Privacy Policy 
​​

Picture
  • About Us
    • 175th Anniversary >
      • Timeline
    • Annual Report >
      • 2018 Annual Report
      • 2017 Annual Report >
        • Message from the President and EVP/CEO
        • Who We Are
        • Human Rights & Public Policy
        • Supporting Israel
        • Senior Housing and Advocacy
        • Disaster Relief & Community Projects
        • Young Leadership
        • Holocaust Remembrance: The Important of Continuity
        • Celebrating Diversity & Culture
        • Connecting Social Tradtional Personal
        • Executive Board of Directors
        • Financial
        • Privacy
        • Contact
      • 990 Forms
    • Presidents Book
    • Around the World >
      • Australia & New Zealand
      • Canada
      • Cuba
      • Europe
      • Israel
      • Latin America >
        • Argentina
        • Brazil
        • Chile, Bolivia and Peru >
          • Anti-Semitism Forum in Santiago 2019
        • Northern Latin America and the Caribbean
        • Organization of American States (OAS)
        • Uruguay and Paraguay
      • South Africa
      • United States >
        • Allegheny/Ohio Valley
        • Chesapeake Bay
        • Colorado
        • Evergreen
        • Golden Pacific
        • Great Lakes >
          • B'nai B'rith Great Lakes Scholarship Program
        • Greater Florida
        • Kentucky
        • Liberty
        • MetroNorth
        • Midwest
        • New England
        • North Central
        • Southern California >
          • Knesset B'nai B'rith
        • Omaha, Nebraska
        • Southern Communities >
          • Atlanta, Georgia
        • St. Louis, Missouri
        • Texarkoma
        • Tri-State
    • Departments & Careers
    • Events >
      • 2019 Leadership Forum
      • 2019 Distinguished Achievement Award
      • 2019 Portugal Meeting
      • 2019 National Healthcare Award Dinner
      • Jewish Holiday Calendar
      • 2017 B'nai B'rith Leadership Forum
      • Continuing Education
    • Insurance Programs
    • Leadership
    • Programs >
      • BBRAVO
      • For Communities >
        • Project H.O.P.E.
      • For Culture and Education >
        • Unto Every Person 2019
        • Center For Jewish Identity
        • Enlighten America
        • Museum and Archives >
          • B'nai B'rith Klutznick National Jewish Museum® Collection
          • Holocaust Art Resource List
          • Palestine Mandate Coins
        • Smarter Kids - Safer Kids
      • For Kids >
        • B'nai B'rith Cares for Kids
        • Diverse Minds
    • Senior Staff
    • B'nai B'rith Connect >
      • B'nai B'rith Connect Fall 2019 Newsletter
      • YLN Fall - Winter 2019 Newsletter
      • YLN Summer 2018 Newsletter
      • YLN in Japan 2018
      • AEPi Partnership
    • Privacy Policy
  • Global Advocacy
    • Take Action!
    • Anti-Semitism
    • Intercommunal Affairs
    • Tolerance and Diversity
    • Europe
    • Latin America
    • Canada
    • Israel and The Middle East
    • United Nations
    • United States
  • Israel
    • World Center – Jerusalem
    • Israel and the Middle East
    • Israel Emergency Fund
    • Fighting BDS
    • History in Israel
    • Center Stage
    • Jewish Rescuers Citation
  • Seniors
    • B'nai B'rith Senior Housing Network Timeline >
      • Wilkes-Barre
      • Harrisburg, Pa.
      • St. Louis, Mo.
      • Reading, Pa.
      • Silver Spring, Md.
      • Allentown, Pa.
      • Peoria, Ill.
      • Houston, Texas
      • Claymont, Del.
      • Pasedena, Texas
      • Boston, Mass.
      • Hot Springs, Ark.
      • Queens, N.Y.
      • Scranton, Pa.
      • Fort Worth, Texas
      • Deerfield Beach, Fla.
      • Sheboygan, Wis.
      • Schenectady, N.Y.
      • South Orange, N.J.
      • Bronx, N.Y.
      • Tuscon, Ariz. - B'nai B'rith Covenant House
      • Marlton, N.J.
      • Los Angeles, Calif.
      • New Haven, Conn.
      • Chesilhurst, N.J.
      • Tucson, Ariz. - Gerd & Inge Strauss B'nai B'rith Manor on Pantano
      • Dothan, Ala.
      • Sudbury, Mass.
    • CSS Staff Bios
    • B'nai B'rith Resident Leadership Retreat
    • CSS Puerto Rico Meeting 2019
    • Housing Locations
    • Seniority Report Newsletter
  • Humanitarian Aid
    • Community Support
    • Cuba Relief >
      • Cuba Missions
      • Get Involved
      • Cuba Blog
      • Where We Work
      • Cuba History
    • Disaster Relief >
      • Africa
      • Asia
      • Haiti
      • Latin America
      • United States >
        • SBP-New York Thanks B'nai B'rith Disaster Relief
  • News & Views
    • B'nai B'rith Magazine >
      • 2019 Fall B'nai B'rith Magazine
      • Magazine Archives
      • Past Magazine Articles
    • Expert Analysis
    • BB(and)I Blog
    • In the News
    • Newsletters >
      • Center Stage
    • Press Releases
    • Social Media
    • Podcasts
    • Zero.Dot.Two Initiative
  • Ways to Give
    • Give to B'nai B'rith
    • Join Now >
      • Join Us
      • Membership Categories
      • 2019 Membership Renewal
      • 2020 Membership Renewal
      • Membership Store
      • Members Service Center
      • Children of the Covenant
      • Ladder of Leadership
    • Planned Giving & Endowments >
      • Bequests
      • Charitable Gift Annuities
      • Charitable Remainder Trust (CRT)
      • Donor Testimonials
    • Giving >
      • Donate Stock
      • Foundations & Corporate Giving
      • Tribute Cards
      • Shop AmazonSmile
      • Purchase B'nai B'rith Apparel
    • Disaster Relief
    • Tree Of Life
    • Contact Form