Human rights and antisemitism: Beyond the partisan divide
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s declaration referring to powerful organizations that claim human rights agendas as frequent promoters of antisemitism is an important acknowledgment of an unfortunate reality. There is ample evidence that the bias targeting Israel goes far beyond straight- forward criticism of policies, including responses to terrorism.
I have devoted the past 20 years to researching and documenting the activities of these and other nongovernmental organizations ( NGOs), particularly on Israel. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International were among the leaders of the 2001 NGO Forum of the infamous UN Durban Conference, ostensibly on racism, in which antisemitism was very visible, and where the participants declared their objective as the “complete isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.” In the years that have followed, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have worked intensely to implement this goal of turning Israel into a rogue state.
Singling out Israel in this way, referring to Jewish state as inherently racist, and denying Jews the right to self- determination are among the examples listed in the consensus definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance ( IHRA). These NGOs frequently act in ways that, by this definition, are indeed antisemitic. Their hypocritical campaigns to condemn, isolate and punish Israel using false allegations and invented “reports” are then echoed by journalists and diplomats, based on the reputations they have acquired. From false accusations of “massacres” in Jenin in 2002 to the infamous UN Goldstone report on the 2009 Gaza conflict and the repeat performance in 2014, to the latest UN Human Rights Council travesty of publishing a discriminatory blacklist, with many other examples, this powerful NGO network led the way.
The activities of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and more recently, Oxfam on Israel, including in social media, are filled with examples of modern blood libels, false allegations of “stolen land,” deliberate killing of innocent civilians ( including children) and whitewashing of terrorism. For anyone going beyond the labels and self- declared guardians of morality, the case for labeling these organizations as systematically antisemitic is clear.
AT THE SAME time, there are legitimate concerns regarding the perception that the US declaration, coming at this time, is partisan and politicized, and thus detracts from the potential impact. The issues stemming from the hostile takeover of the human rights movement by obsessive anti- Israel ideologues started long before the current administration, and should not be simply dismissed in the context of American political polarization.
Addressing this point, antisemitism analyst Ben Cohen warned, “In practical terms, then, to announce such a policy during the twilight of the Trump administration is perhaps condemning it to an undeserved fate. Undeserved, because the basic idea underlying the policy is a sound one – that trafficking in antisemitic canards should not be permitted to hide behind noble labels such as freedom of speech, and nor should doing so leave offenders free from the material consequences of their actions. That is a courageous position to take.”
Liberals for whom human rights are sacred principles need to stop turning a blind eye to the systematic distortions and abuses led by Human Rights Watch and the others. The evidence is in plain view for all who care to look. To cite one of many examples, in 2006 Ken Roth derisively referred to the Israeli responses to a brutal Hezbollah terrorist attack as “an eye for an eye” and “the morality of some more primitive moment,” are, in the words of the head of the ADL at the time, Abraham Foxman, “a classic antisemitic stereotype.” Legitimate criticism of Israeli actions must not be confused with or used to justify demonization and hatred.
Precisely because the basic idea “is a sound one” and the evidence is overwhelming, it is important that this initiative be joined by Democratic Party officials in the United States, and by Europeans. The demand for serious measures, such as pressing these organizations to adopt and implement the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, are not bounded by party affiliation. Human rights, antisemitism and the need to take a strong stand against attempts to confuse them are too important to be rejected on the basis of narrow political partisanship.