U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–053PDF 2010

COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM:

PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL 

ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 14, 2010

Serial No. 111–87

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri, Chairman 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

JERRY HALDEMAN, Subcommittee Staff Director 

PAUL BERKOWITZ, Republican Professional Staff Member 

MARIANA MAGUIRE, Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Hannah Rosenthal, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 8

Rabbi Abraham Cooper, Associate Dean, Simon Wiesenthal Center .................. 23

Mr. Kenneth Jacobson, Deputy National Director, Anti-Defamation League .... 28

Rabbi Andrew Baker, Director of International Jewish Affairs, American Jewish Committee ...................................................................................................... 60

Ms. Elisa Massimino, President and Chief Executive Officer, Human Rights 

First ....................................................................................................................... 69

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Missouri, and Chairman, Subcommittee on International Organizations, 

Human Rights and Oversight: Prepared statement .......................................... 3

Ms. Hannah Rosenthal: Prepared statement ........................................................ 11

Rabbi Abraham Cooper: Prepared statement ........................................................ 26

Mr. Kenneth Jacobson: Prepared statement ......................................................... 30

Rabbi Andrew Baker: Prepared statement ............................................................ 63

Ms. Elisa Massimino: Prepared statement ............................................................ 71

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 100

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 101

(1)

COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM: PROTECTING 

HUMAN RIGHTS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

HUMAN RIGHTS AND OVERSIGHT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Russ 

Carnahan, (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to call to order this Subcommittee on 

International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight, and the 

hearing today on combating anti-Semitism and protecting human 

rights, and we will start with some opening statements from the 

members, and we will get onto our two panels. 

But we do have some special guests with us today. I want to recognize Brian Grim from the Pew Research for being here and 

thank you, and also we have some special students with us. We 

have, my understanding, 34 fifth graders, they are here from the 

Jewish Primary Day School of our nation’s capitol, and why don’t 

you all stand for us. Welcome, and I understand you are studying 

government and also this week studying the Holocaust. So welcome, and we are happy to have you here. Let us give them a hand. 

[Applause.] 

This past Sunday, April 11, nearly 1,000 St. Louisans, my home 

city, attended the Shalom Kneseth Israel Synagogue to commensurate Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust for Memories Day. The event was 

hosted by the St. Louis Holocaust Museum and Learning Center. 

After World War II, about 300 Holocaust survivors came to St. 

Louis. Today fewer than 150 survivors remain. Each year this commemoration takes on more urgency as fewer survivors are able to 

recount the terrible tragedies that they witnessed. While Holocaust 

survivors are still among us, we must strengthen efforts to speak 

out and combat Holocaust denial. 

Today, we have with us Ms. Hannah Rosenthal, special envoy to 

monitor and combat anti-Semitism. I understand that her father is 

also a Holocaust survivor. We are honored to have her here today 

to talk about the Obama administration’s efforts to combat Holocaust denial and other forms of hateful, derogatory anti-Semitism. 

Anti-Semitism is not just rhetoric. It is a violation of human 

rights. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 

signed in 1948 under the Harry Truman administration, says,

2

‘‘Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscious and religion, and this right includes freedom to change his religion or 

belief and free him, either alone or in community with others, 

and in public or private to manifest his religion or belief in 

teaching, practice, worship, and observance.’’

The incidents of anti-Semitism are on the rise. According to 

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation 

League, 2009 was, ‘‘. . .probably the worst year of global anti-Semitism since the Second World War.’’ There has been no country, no 

city, no continent that has not witnessed anti-Semitism, and we do 

not talk even about thousands and thousands of Web sites, millions 

upon millions of hits to reinforce anti-Semitism. 

According to the Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary 

Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University, violent acts 

against Jews worldwide more than doubled last year. In 2009, 

there were 1,129 anti-Semitic incidents. This figure is up from 559 

incidents the previous year. It is the highest since the study began 

more than 20 years ago. 

I would like to submit for the record a new report on rising antiSemitism just released for the hearing today from the Pew Forum 

on Religion and Politics. Author Brian Grim, who I mentioned in 

the beginning, notes that although the global Jewish population 

takes up approximately .2 percent of the world’s population, governmental or societal harassment of Jews was reported in 55 countries, 28 percent during the 2-year period under examination. 

Today, we will hear about efforts to combat anti-Semitism. I am 

interested in learning about the Obama administration’s effort to 

reduce anti-Semitism and the stigma and misconceptions about 

other faith through their interfaith dialogue. I would like to know 

how other measures our panelists are going to recommend to be 

more effective to enforce measures that combat anti-Semitism. 

I would also like to hear more about the enforcement of laws to 

address Holocaust area restitution issues. For example, the Government of Spain has refused to return a painting expropriated by 

the Nazis to the owners, heirs, even though Spain is a signatory 

to the Terezin Declaration affirming its commitment to return 

looted art. Likewise, Lithuania has yet to enact a law to return 

communal property while Poland has yet to enact a law returning 

private property to Jewish owners. 

We are also interested to hearing about efforts through international organizations to combat anti-Semitism and what can be 

done through the U.N., the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe and other international organizations. 

Last May, the United States decided to join the U.N. Human 

Rights Council, reform it from within and use its voice and vote to 

focus attention on the worst abusers of human rights and away 

from an excessive focus on Israel. I am also particularly interested 

to learn about the status of anti-Semitism on Facebook, Twitter 

and YouTube. These media can be tools for liberation and freedom 

of expression, as we have seen in Iran and Venezuela, but they can 

also be used as tools to spread hateful and inciteful speech and 

dangerous ideas. 

I want to now introduce our first witness. Well, actually I am not 

going to do that right now. I am going to turn to our ranking memVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Jun 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\041410\56053 HFA PsN: SHIRL
3

ber, Mr. Rohrabacher, recognize him for 5 minutes for his opening 

remarks as well. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]


56053f-1.eps
4

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will get it 

down right. He is our new chairman. And Mr. Chairman, let me 

congratulate you as a new chairman on deciding that this would 

be one of the first hearings that you would call for an organize. 

This is a vitally important issue for us, not only to understand 

where anti-Semitism stands in the world today, but to get to understand some of the root causes for anti-Semitism which has 

plagued this planet for thousands of years. 

I am also very grateful to Mr. Chris Smith, who is to my left, 

and let me just note that he has been a champion on this issue and 

a role model for myself in terms of compassion and responsibility 

on these kind of issues, and I appreciate your leadership too, Mr. 

Smith. 

Let us take a note about anti-Semitism, and just start this off 

by suggesting that I do not believe that the root cause for the expansion of anti-Semitism is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This notion is something that I think provides too many people an easy 

out in terms of understanding what anti-Semitism is all about, and 

it is not because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that you have such 

anti-Western attitudes among some, if not many, Muslims. The fact 

is that there has been an anti-Western element to the Islamic societies over the centuries, and we have seen this, and there have 

been people, and today manifests itself quite often in the form of 


56053f-2.eps
5

anti-Semitism, but it goes much deeper than just a hatred of the 

Jews. 

Let us note that we have a situation here in the United States 

where we have anti-semites who now have sort of again focused on 

the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a means to promote their antiSemitism, yet anti-Semitism existed among certain elements in the 

United States long before there was ever an effort by people to 

have a rebuilding of the nation of Israel. 

So we need to understand some of these fundamentals if we are 

going to get at it. Remember we had an anti-Semitic terrorist 

movement in the United States that was very strong for about 100 

years, if not 150 years, but about 100 years. It was called the Ku 

Klux Klan, and they marched around and with their crosses and 

talked about Christianity, and yes, not just repressing black people, 

but also anti-Semitism was a major part of their ideology. 

So, today as we look at this issue, and I am looking forward to 

hearing the testimony, let us note some of the root causes for antiSemitism and try to go beyond simply blaming the PalestinianIsraeli conflict, but we do know that with that in mind there is an 

unholy alliance today among anti-semites throughout the world 

and Muslim extremists who they themselves hate, not just Jews, 

but hate the Western way of civilization, that this unholy alliance 

threatens bloodshed and threatens violence not just aimed at Jews 

but aimed at all Western Civilization and all those who would uphold those standards of human rights that we hold dear. 

So, Mr. Chairman, today it behooves us to get a better understanding of this issue and make sure that the American people 

have a deeper appreciation of the depth of the challenge that we 

face in trying to guard against this evil force in the world. Thank 

you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher, and for your leadership on this committee. The issues that you have championed, 

and this is a good example of one that has brought bipartisan support, and I am also especially pleased, as you mentioned, to be 

joined by our colleague on the full committee Chris Smith of New 

Jersey who is one of the great champions of human rights in this 

Congress and I want to recognize him for 5 minutes as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for extending 

the courtesy to join you on the committee. Thank you for convening 

this. It is one of the first hearing and it shows your priority, which 

is an extremely important one, combating anti-Semitism, and I 

thank you for that, and I want to thank Mr. Rohrabacher, the 

ranking member, for his kind remarks but also for his years, decades of championing human rights all over the world, including 

those rights against Jews all over the world. I want to thank him 

for that. 

Let me just say you made a very good point in your opening 

about the idea of differences of opinion with the Palestinians. 

Natan Sharansky has over and over again pointed out that disagreeing with policies that may be promulgated or pushed by the 

Knesset or by whoever the existing prime minister might be is just 

the latest cover on the part of anti-semites to attack, to demonize, 

to de-legitimize Israel, and especially Jews, it comes from the far 

right, it comes from the far left, it comes from the skinheads. There 

6

is a large collection, regrettably, of bigots who hate Jews simply because they are Jews, and now they use the pretext of disagreeing 

with the Israeli state as a means of promoting their hatred. 

In the first decade of the twenty-first century more than any 

other time since the dark days of World War II Jewish communities worldwide have faced violent attacks against synagogues, 

Jewish cultural sites, cemeteries and individuals. It is an ugly reality that we know from experience it won’t go away by ignoring 

it, a sobering reminder that our societies are filled with a collection 

of bigots who hate Jews. These bigots must be fought and they 

must be defeated. 

I look out at the audience and I see Mark Levin, who when he 

was in his early career working with the NCSJ, now executive director, I had given a speech, Mr. Chairman, on the floor, the Hamilton Fish had called us together for a special order in 1981, and 

Mark was sitting in the gallery, and after I finished the very 

unremarkable speech came down and said you ought to go to Moscow, Leningrad with the NCSJ, which I did in January 1982, and 

certainly that was my true eye opener about what state-sponsored 

anti-Semitism hate looks like, and that, of course, was the Soviet 

style. 

Unfortunately, we have seen over the years that it has gotten 

privatized in some cases. I chaired a hearing back in 1985, it was 

the first hearing ever as far as we know on this rising tide of antiSemitism, and I remember several of our witnesses, some of whom 

are testifying today—just shows they are long stayers in this battle—talked about the privatizing of it, where the countries in question look to stance while those who harbor these ill thoughts and 

this pernicious form of hate would be somewhat have a free hand 

to do whatever they wanted against Jews, and that certainly is a 

serious problem although we see many states do, like Iran, practice 

this in a very systematic way. 

You know, I believe one of the most important things we can do 

in fighting anti-Semitism is to keep reliable records on anti-Semitic 

hate crimes. Surely a surgeon can’t remove a cancer or prescribe 

a course of treatment without documenting the nature, scope, and 

extent of the disease, and anti-Semitism is a vicious disease. 

This is why in 2004, Mr. Chairman, as prime House sponsor of 

the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, I offered an amendment to 

the already passed Senate bill which just called for a 1-year look 

at anti-Semitic hate, and that amendment created the State Department office to monitor and combat anti-Semitism, and the position of special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, 

the position occupied by our distinguished witness who we will 

present in just a moment. 

It is also why since 2002 I and other members of the Helsinki 

Commission have taken the lead within the Parliamentary Assembly for the OSCE, and then with the OSCE itself in trying to get 

the 56 participating states to focus, I know some who are here, 

Andy Baker, who is now our special representative in the OSCE, 

fighting to try to make other countries, and our own, aware of what 

our obligations are as governments to fight this. We worked within 

the OSCPA and of course the OSCE to make that all happen. 

7

I also believe that another key to combating anti-Semitism is attention to policing and prosecution issues. Police and prosecutors 

must be trained on how to recognize and respond to anti-Semitic 

hate crimes. That is why within the Interparliamentary Coalition 

Combating Anti-Semitism, which I serve in the steering committee, 

I continue, along with the other members of that committee, to 

push for policing issues. If you get the police right, and when something occurs in any of our countries, it even happened in my own 

state, Mr. Chairman, where in one of our municipalities swastikas 

were painted on gravestones and they just chalked it off as just, 

you know, this some hooliganism. 

So when we take on the French and say you have got to realize 

that that is a sign of hate, it also is equally hateful when it happens within our own borders. 

We must, and I will conclude on this and would ask that my full 

statement be made part of the record, must never give into fatigue 

or indifference. You know, we cannot get compassion and fatigue. 

We cannot say we have been there, we have done that, why don’t 

other people get it. Anti-Semitism remains what it has always 

been—a unique evil, a distinct form of intolerance, the oldest form 

of religious bigotry and a malignant disease of the heart that has 

often led to murder. It continues to threaten our Jewish brothers 

and sisters throughout the world, so we must redouble our efforts 

in the fight against this scourge of anti-Semitism. 

Thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey, 

and without objection his full statement will be placed in the 

record. 

I just got a text. We think we may have votes in 20 minutes to 

half an hour so we are hoping we can get through our first panel, 

and do votes, and then return for our second panel. 

I want to introduce the administration’s witness for today, Ms. 

Hannah Rosenthal. She is the special envoy to monitor and combat 

anti—Semitism for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and 

Labor of the State Department. Her father was a rabbi and Holocaust survivor. She has also studied to become a rabbi. 

From 2005 to 2008, Ms. Rosenthal was executive director of the 

Chicago Foundation for Women, and prior to that she was executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for 5 years. 

Ms. Rosenthal served as midwest regional director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton administration, and has helped lead the Wisconsin Clinton-Gore Campaign in 1992 and 1996. 

Ms. Rosenthal attended graduate school for rabbinical studies at 

Hebrew Union College in Jerusalem and L.A. and holds a bachelor’s degree in religion from the University of Wisconsin. 

Ms. Rosenthal, welcome. I understand this is your first appearance before a committee since your new position, so especially we 

want to welcome you today. Please proceed and we want to recognize you for 5 minutes, and then we will get to questions. 

8

STATEMENT OF MS. HANNAH ROSENTHAL, SPECIAL ENVOY TO 

MONITOR AND COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you so much. Chairman Carnahan, 

Ranking Member Rohrabacher, and members of the subcommittee, 

again this is my first appearance before you and I thank you for 

the invitation to testify, and I would ask that my full written statement be submitted for the record. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. The role of the special envoy and my office was 

created by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 and came 

out of this committee with your leadership, Congressman Smith. I 

recognize the great leadership role this committee has played and 

that your attention is key to this important human rights issue. 

Regrettably, the need for that attention has not diminished. 

I am pleased to be here today also with Kenny Jacobson of the 

Anti-Defamation League, Rabbi Andy Baker of the American Jewish Committee, Elisa Massimino of the Human Rights First, and 

Rabbi Abe Cooper from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Their work 

is absolutely critical, and I thank them for their contributions, and 

I look forward to working with them even more closely as we move 

forward. 

Last Sunday was International Holocaust Remembrance Day 

where millions across the world honored the memories of the victims of the largest genocide in history. As mentioned, I am the 

child of a Holocaust survivor, the only survivor of his family. I have 

no grandparents, I have no aunts and uncles, no cousins. So fighting anti-Semitism is something very personal to me. 

When I was old enough to somewhat understand what my father 

endured as the only member of this family to survive, I asked him 

how could he go on during the Holocaust, and he responded, ‘‘I survived to have you, Hannah,’’ and those words he took the mantle 

off his shoulders and put it squarely on mine, and I have dedicated 

my life to eradicating anti-Semitism and intolerance with a sense 

of urgency and passion that only my father could give me. 

On January 27th, I walked, voluntarily, through the gates of 

Auschwitz under the infamous ‘‘Arbeit Macht Frei’’ sign as a member of the official U.S. delegation to mark the sixty-fifth anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. In his remarks, President 

Obama eloquently reminded us that we are here as survivors not 

only to bear witness but to bear a burden. 

Anti-Semitism occurs on every continent. This year the Department of State’s International Religious Freedom Report and Country Reports on Human Rights Practices revealed an increasing 

trend in incidents of anti-Semitism cited in 74 countries, and the 

2009 Pew Global Attitudes Project Survey showed very high levels 

of unfavorable views of Jews and Muslims globally. All of this together is a very troubling trend. 

The outrageous statements by Iranian President Ahmadinejad 

that the Holocaust never occurred and that Israel and all Jews 

should be wiped off the world map are more than anti-Israel rhetoric. It is not land that would be drive into the sea, but Jewish people. The United States strongly calls for this destruction of Israel, 

9

and finds reprehensible this explicit incitement to commit the most 

extreme violence. 

In recent months, Europe has also seen some disturbing acts of 

anti-Semitism. In Poland, thieves stole the ‘‘Arbeit Macht Frei’’ 

sign at the entrance to Auschwitz. The sign was found a few days 

later cut into three pieces. The alleged ring leader, a Swedish neoNazi, was extradited to Poland a few days ago to stand trial. In 

Greece, two arson attacks damaged the historic Etz-Hayyim Synagogue, the last Jewish monument on Crete. Greek officials condemned the attacks with unprecedented open letter to the people 

of Greece. 

Anti-Israel statements are increasingly the vehicle for anti-Semitism, often couched in demonstrations, cartoons and speech against 

the State of Israel. The legitimate role of public expression criticizing government policy can quickly cross over into hateful racial 

slurs and denunciations of the Jewish people themselves. This is 

unacceptable. We believe criticism of Israel crosses the line into 

anti-Semitism when, for example, it applies a double standard or 

compares the policy of Israel to that of the Nazis, or holds all Jews 

responsible collectively for actions of the State of Israel, or denies 

that Israel has a right to exist. 

Natan Sharansky identified the three Ds that cross the line. It 

is anti-Semitic when Israel is demonized, held to a different standard or delegitimized. 

Now let me describe briefly how my office and the Obama administration are fighting anti-Semitism. As my title indicates, we vigilantly monitor anti-Semitic acts and discourse. At the State Department, I work with all regional bureaus, the bureau multilateral 

efforts, as well as our diplomatic missions abroad. I am forging 

partnerships with key offices across the U.S. Government, including the National Security Council. I am also building on partnerships we have with scholars and nongovernmental organizations 

who help us document abuses and provide insights and ideas. 

But combating anti-Semitism calls for more than monitoring. Bilaterally we encourage government to confront anti-Semitism within their own societies and reach out to their own Jewish communities. We also encourage partnership in international institutions. 

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has been 

a global pioneer in this regard and we play a leading role in their 

efforts against anti-Semitism. We strongly support the work of 

Rabbi Andrew Baker, the OSCE special representative on combating anti-Semitism. 

This year Kazakhstan as OSCE chair will host a conference on 

tolerance and nondiscrimination at the end of June which I will attend. 

At the United Nations anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment 

often overlap. United Nations’ bodies have long shown a bias toward condemning Israel at a rate much higher than any other 

country. We continue to press for Israel to be treated fairly at the 

United Nations and other international organizations. We are 

pressing the U.N. Human Rights Council to live up to its mandate 

which encompasses treating Israel by the same standards applied 

to other countries and combating anti-Semitism. 

10

In addition to diplomacy, we advance civil discourse. We promote 

public discussion on new forms of anti-Semitism, how to recognize 

it, how to combat it. We don’t just confront intolerance, we are actively promoting tolerance. We are educating opinion leaders and 

policymakers how increasing levels of anti-Semitism are insidiously 

entering mainstream media and public settings. 

Interfaith engagement reenforces religious tolerance. It is easy to 

criticize and even demonize people you have never met. Building 

relationships among different ethnic and religious communities are 

central to tearing down walls of hostility. We are actively engaging 

faith leaders to reenforce the importance of pluralism and protection of all religious minorities. Next week I will travel to Lithuania, 

Ukraine and Tunisia to advance these efforts. 

This administration, the Department of State, and my office will 

continue to employ the full range of tools to fight anti-Semitism 

from reporting to international diplomacy, from training law enforcement to education, from multicultural relationship to public 

engagement. In so doing we must work hard to promote three 

things: Acceptance, respect and tolerance. 

The Jewish story is a unique one and anti-Semitism has unique 

aspects, especially as we observe these days of Holocaust remembrance, but hate is hate, and intolerance is intolerance. Jews cannot eradicate anti-Semitism alone. We condemn intolerance against 

any and all religious or ethnic groups, and strive to eradicate it. 

Together we must combat anti-Semitism and promote tolerance so 

that in the twenty-first century this age-old scourge finally will be 

relegated to the past. 

I look forward to working with you all, and Mr. Chairman, I am 

happy to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosenthal follows:]

11


56053a-1.eps
12


56053a-2.eps
13


56053a-3.eps
14


56053a-4.eps
15

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you again for your great overview and 

presentation here to the committee. I want to start, I guess, with 

questions about this past Sunday and Holocaust Remembrance 

Day, and as we see the democratic trends of Holocaust survivors 

passing away and fewer and fewer of them around to tell of their 

experience. I guess can you talk about the status of Holocaust denial laws in the world, and how they are addressing this issue, and 

any countries in particular that you think serve as models for best 

practices in terms of how to address that? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. There are several good stories I can tell you. Before I walked through the gate to Auschwitz we met with 29 ministers of education from around the world, and the focus of that 

meeting was the status of their Holocaust education, and while uneven, all 29 states spoke about the importance of their education 

and how they are addressing it in their countries, and I considered 

that very good news. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Can you cite any other best practices of countries 

that have taken positive action to combat anti-Semitism and have 

any of those steps that you think could be replicated to other countries as a model? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I have a few examples for you. The incidents of 

anti-Semitism in the U.K. has gone up hugely and it is a cause of 

great concern, and two members of Parliament decided that this 

was to be a national priority there, and they did an investigation, 

which resulted in the creation of a body called the Interparliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, and they are working 

with parliamentarians throughout the country to not only address 

but to strategize how do we eliminate anti-Semitism with our 

youth, with our older people and with everyone in between. They 

are kind of taking the show on the road and they are using that 

as a model in training many European countries on how to put together that kind of investigation and how to create an interparliamentary coalition as a result. They, by the way, will be having a meeting in November in Canada, which I am hoping you all 

will attend. 

France saw a tripling of incidents in 2009, and their response 

was to do what you all did, and that was to create a special envoy 

position, and that special envoy did come to meet with me to see 

how I plan to address the issue and mobilize agencies within the 

government and outside of government in a coordinated manner 

employ diplomacy, civil discourse, education, interfaith and 

intergroup relationship building. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. And on that I guess just to follow up on that 

topic, during the President’s speech in Cairo in June 2009, he emphasized the importance of interfaith dialogue and interfaith actions. To what extent do you think that these kind of projects can 

help reduce the stigma and stereotypes around Judaism, Islam, 

Christianity, and to what extent do you believe they can be a useful tool, and I guess could you elaborate more on how the administration is using that? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Well, I agree that it is a very, very important 

tool. It is a critical tool. Everywhere I go, whether it is in a community in this country or abroad, I, of course, meet with government 

officials and I meet with the Jewish community to find out what 

16

their concerns are and how they are weathering the reports that 

we hear, but I make a point of also meeting with organizations that 

are working interfaith and interethnic advocacy. 

Jews cannot fight anti-Semitism alone. Muslims cannot fight hatred against Muslims alone, and it goes on for all vulnerable populations, and we have to recognize the common threads of hatred 

and how we have to work together to fight it. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. One more question, then I am going to yield to 

our ranking member, but I mentioned technology in my opening remarks, and the new technologies, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, in 

terms of getting information out. It has been such a positive tool 

on the one hand, but the implications of the negative use of those 

technologies as well, if you could comment on really how you see 

this technology being used, how we can use it in a positive way, 

and is your office involved in that new media? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Well, I will tell you that just a few days ago 

they put me on Facebook, but I will tell you I have no idea how 

to use it yet. The department is using Facebook, Twitter, and Web 

sites that are constantly being added information and trying to figure out ways to be more user friendly. 

There is no question that the new technology and new communication tools represent both opportunities and huge challenges. 

We in this country treasure our First Amendment. However, when 

there is hate speech online and there is hate speech in the public 

discourse, it is not good enough just to protect freedom of expression. We have to call it out, and that is what we are focusing on: 

How do we use these new technologies to make sure accurate information is being put forth, and in addition we are calling out the 

bad speech, and condemning it strongly. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I want to yield now to the ranking 

member, Mr. Rohrabacher. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

would like to ask our witness, do you think our President has been 

forceful enough in calling out this hate speech and anti-Semitism? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I absolutely do. I find his words very inspirational. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Can you give me quotes that he has said 

about when he was apologizing to the Mullahs in Iran about how 

the United States have had a bad—have done bad things to Iran 

that might have caused ill will, do you have something that he also 

added in condemning their anti-Semitism of the current Iranian 

mullah regime? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. In our bilateral relationships and our multilateral relationships, this is a high priority. We consider Holocaust denial, Holocaust glorification, which unfortunately is out there, absolutely unacceptable, and the administration is deeply committed to 

doing so. I have——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am just going to have to tell you, and I 

again I am trying not to be partisan here, but obviously I am a Republican and I am a little sensitive when a President of the United 

States begins in an apologetic tone to a regime like the mullah regime in Iran. 

17

You are saying that you are confident that he has offset that 

with other public statements that condemned anti-Semitism in 

Iran? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I think the President has been very firm, as has 

the Secretary of State in—by the way, in my position, which has 

been elevated and integrated into the workings of the entire State 

Department, in elevating my visibility and my access to all parts 

of the department is an indication of an increased commitment and 

a strong support. 

The President speaks so inspirationally, and when he condemns 

hatred against one group, it is condemning hatred against all 

groups, and he has been very strong in his support of the Jewish 

community and in calling out anti-Semitism. 

In his comments on Holocaust remembrance and when we were 

in Auschwitz in January, I only quoted a little bit of what he said 

when I quoted him here, but very movingly he talked about our responsibility to recognize what happened is unique to Jews, and how 

we take those lessons and translate them into a better world where 

hatred against anyone is eradicated. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I am sorry I am not being too more 

general here because, frankly, broad statements with flowery words 

do not move me. What moves me is specific statements, when you 

say ‘‘calling out’’ you are not talking about making a general statement against anti-Semitism or condemning the Holocaust, we are 

talking about specific statements toward a regime that is a monstrous regime that we should have helped their people overthrow 

their own government a long time ago, and the mullahs—and what 

we have is a President going over there and apologizing for what 

we have done in the past. I would hope that that did not give people the impression that United States—people of the United States 

in some way are ignoring the anti-Semitism elements as well as 

the anti-Western elements that are going on in Iran today. 

The Islamic culture is expanding into Europe and there are repercussions of this, and we see the moves by the banning of head 

scarves and minarets and things like that that have been popping 

up in various countries, Switzerland, et cetera. 

Now does this type of let us say response to the expansion of the 

Islamic culture, is that leading to anti-Semitism in these countries? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. There is never an excuse, I don’t care what it 

is, for anti-Semitism. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Of course. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. And anybody who uses some kind of excuse, 

whether political, religious or whatnot, is to be condemned. When 

I used the word ‘‘call out’’ before, that is what I meant, strongly 

condemned. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So they can actually ban the head scarves 

and do these things without having to worry that this is going to 

have an anti-Semitism response? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Well, we believe strongly in this country of the 

freedom of expression, the freedom of religion, people should be 

able to practice their religion, including wearing head scares or 

caput for Jews, and we totally oppose laws that would make that 

criminalized. Freedom of expression, people should be able to freely 

18

represent themselves, whether it is their religion, and the list goes 

on. 

So, no, and we speak out against that when France proposed 

that. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, as you can tell I am a little bit concerned about what I considered to be lack of a tough position with 

what is obviously an overtly anti-Semitism regime in Iran, the 

President, I don’t believe, has been tough enough, but let us go on. 

He has been pretty tough on Israel on the other hand. I mean, 

Israelis refurbished some apartment buildings, and all of a sudden 

they have become the enemies of peace, and do you think that the 

President’s tough stand on that has helped alleviate or contributed 

to the anti-Semitism in the Middle East? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. The anti-Semitism in the Middle East is there 

for any different root causes and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Sure. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL [continuing]. One of them isn’t what the President says. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay, so the President of the United States’ 

tough rhetoric with Israel but not so tough rhetoric with the Iranian mullahs doesn’t send a message? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I obviously see it very differently, Congressman. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. I see that my time is up and let me 

just thank the witness for putting up with my very pointed questions. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank the gentleman, and now recognize our colleague from the committee, Mr. Ellison, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witness. Welcome to this committee. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. ELLISON. I would just like to read a quick statement if I 

may. 

Chairman Carnahan, thank you for holding this important hearing today on combating anti-Semitism. This past Sunday we observed Yom Ha’atzmaut in which we remember all those who died 

and suffered because of the Holocaust. We also mourn our collective failure to prevent such a horrific tragedy. It is a painful lesson 

of dangers of inaction, and we remind ourselves that we must 

never be complacent in the face of genocide, xenophobia, intolerance and hatred. 

As we remember those who were killed in the Holocaust, we 

must also commit ourselves to combat the same discrimination that 

continues today. Incidents of anti-Semitism dramatically increased 

in 2009, and I am committed to speaking out against all acts of 

anti-Semitism regardless of where they originate. This is why it is 

also important that we are holding this important hearing today. 

I just want to note that in 1983, when I was 19 years old, I went 

to Poland as a student exchange participant, and we went to 

Auschwitz, they call it ‘‘Oswiecim,’’ and you know, I just think that 

is something that every person of any age could do because it does 

dramatically demonstrate what depths humanity can sink to, and 

it just reminds me that we all have to be vigilant. 

19

I have also been to Yad Vasshem. I have also been to the Holocaust Museum even in Amsterdam and Norway, and I can tell you 

that every time I go to a place like that it renews my commitment 

to try to speak up when people are threatened based on who they 

are, what they believe, what they look like, and even what their 

gender is. You know, sadly there are occasions in the world we live 

in right now where people because of their gender are being persecuted, abused, raped, but whether it is religious persecution as 

in the Holocaust or whether it is ethnic cleansing persecution or 

whether it is other types of abuse, it is something that I hope this 

Congress always stands against. 

So I yield—well, I don’t really have any questions. I had the 

privilege of meeting with the special envoy and she answered all 

my questions, but I just want to let you know how proud I am of 

the work you do. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. ELLISON. And I encourage you to just keep it up. Please call 

on us. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank the gentleman. I now recognize 

our colleague, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Rosenthal, thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. And for the information you have provided. Let me 

just ask a couple of questions. 

First, on two previous occasions I actually had Natan Sharansky 

testify at hearings on anti-Semitism. One of those hearings he 

brought with him a number of clips from Arab television that included a soap opera where blood libel was treated as if it were a 

reality rather than a horrific lie, and also some news clips, and 

made the point that many people in the Middle East and many 

people who are part of diaspora who live in Europe, France and 

elsewhere feed on that kind of anti-Semitic hate in all aspects of 

their life. They watch it on television, they see it in their news programming, and when you are young and impressionable especially 

that will lead you to think, oh, it must be true. 

Rabbi Baker in his testimony points out that in an example in 

Sweden of a newspaper called ‘‘Aftonbladet’’—I may be mispronouncing it—published a report from Gaza claiming that Israeli 

soldiers were harvesting organs from Palestinians that they had 

killed. This updated version of the medieval blood libel charge was 

openly denounced by political leaders in the United States and in 

some European capitals. However the Swedish foreign ministry 

maintained in that in its press freedom laws do not permit its own 

public officials to criticize the article, and they even reprimanded 

their own ambassador who made some comments contrary to it. 

You know, these are some of the problems obviously face, and 

Andy Baker faces it as he travels throughout Europe. I wonder if 

you could tell us what your plans are in terms of active monitoring. 

When Sharansky presented his testimony everyone if us, Democrat and Republican alike, sat there, our mouths practically 

dropped, and we said, we never knew. You know, none of us have 

ever seen that before. And I am wondering if you have other than 

20

the data calls that go out to our embassies for information, if you 

have any plans to look at print, especially the broadcast media, especially the entertainment media, because, again, this influence 

that this has is pernicious. If I could, active aggressive monitoring 

would be the point there, particularly of the broadcast. 

Secondly, on staffing, I remember when John Shaddock sat right 

where you sit and I chaired the Human Rights Committee, and 

Frank Wolk had a bill called the International Religious Freedom 

Act. The administration, the Clinton administration was completely 

against it, completely. The bill died a death of 1,000 deaths as it 

made its way through the House and the Senate. I held all the 

hearings on it. And when it was finally passed, obviously it took 

awhile for it to get up and running, but John Shaddock sat there 

and said it would set up a hierarchy of human rights when it came 

to religious freedom, all of it was unfortunate. Thankfully not a 

true response, and then the administration became advocates for it. 

When the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act came up, Colin Powell, Secretary of State, wrote a several page letter saying it was 

unneeded, we already had that covered by IRFA, and again we ran 

into one of those things where don’t worry about it, we have got 

it covered. 

We responded very aggressively, passed the bill. It was a Senate 

bill, but as I said at the beginning it was going to be a 1-year review. I offered the amendment to say I am going and you in an office is in charge of it. I am very concerned about the trend of—

again of maybe double hatting, maybe not your position, but the 

staff. And if you could speak to—we need, I believe, dedicated staff 

that is integrated and working with IRFA and other State Department personnel who are talented and have part of their portfolio, 

or all of their portfolio working these issues, but I would hate to 

see the specialness of your office diluted, and that is what I would 

believe it to be if you didn’t have dedicated staff, so if you could 

speak briefly to the staffing issue. 

And finally, before my time runs out, I have a lot of other questions, but the Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, I think everybody in that front row was there and spoke 

at it, I spoke at it in London. Jonathan Mann, a member of the 

Parliament, had done an outstanding job. I am one of the founding 

members, and I hope all of us go on November 7th to the 9th to 

Canada to be a part of it. 

But let me ask one final question on the Internet. We hear 

among our OSCE friends over and over again that the free speech, 

and I am a passionate defender of First Amendment free speech, 

but when it comes to hate speech and incitement, we know obscenity is not protected speech, I am a sponsor of the Global Online 

Freedom Act which protects nonviolent political speech, nonviolent 

religious speech. I want nothing to do—that is not free speech in 

my opinion, especially when it inures so horrifically against Jews 

because it just does terrible things. I mean, I have seen some of 

it at the side issues at the parliamentary assembly meetings, and 

you can’t watch that without saying, how can that be protected 

speech. So the internet, if you could speak to that as well. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Well, your first question kind of links to the 

third question, and that is, how aggressively and actively am I 

21

monitoring the messages and the media, and it is bone-chilling. I 

do have much more recent clips, which I would be happy to share 

with you if you really want to have a bad afternoon. Tapes of people looking at the camera, and this is on Al-Jazeera, so it is 

watched by millions of people, where clerics are calling for a new 

Holocaust, where they show actual footage of the Holocaust and 

say, isn’t this wonderful what humiliation we are watching, next 

time we hope we can be part of it. I mean bone-chilling. There 

aren’t words strong enough to condemn that, but representing free 

speech and not calling that what it is—hateful, disgusting and 

using every diplomatic tool we have to condemn it—would be the 

wrong thing and we are using all the tools. 

The Internet, then you know because John Mann, who is the 

member of Parliament in U.K., really believes that bad Web sites 

need to be shut down, and he and I have a good little tussle when 

we are talking because I say, the answer to bad or hateful speech 

is more good speech, and that we need to respond to it, not try to 

shut it down because it cannot be shut down. They would just come 

over here, open up a Web site, and do their technology, which I 

don’t understand. 

It is very serious. It can be used to incite to violence which is 

absolutely the only exception we in the United States Government 

use. First Amendment rights and freedom of expression is paramount except when it comes to incitement to violence, and there 

are examples where there is incitement to violence and we raise it 

with the television stations and we raise it with the ambassadors, 

and with the NGOs on the ground that are trying to deal with it. 

Mr. SMITH. The staffing? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. The staffing. Nothing I have needed has not 

been responded to. I work with a great team at the Department of 

State. I mentioned that I have been brought into the building up 

on the 7th floor. I have a front office of the Bureau of Democracy, 

Human Rights and Labor. I work directly with Assistant Secretary 

Mike Posner, and very closely with the International Religious 

Freedom staff. I can’t begin to tell you how helpful it is. 

It is not being diluted. It is being elevated, and I am integrated 

into every directors’ meeting, every senior staff meeting, I am there 

asking the questions that need to be asked, and I think you would 

be proud of how well the department is supporting me and how 

much access and help I get. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Just 2 seconds? 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Without objection I yield. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate your yielding. 

And ambassador-at-large for religious freedom, will that person 

be named soon? 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. There has been a person identified and the person is being vetted currently. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. That is good news. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I am glad you asked. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to thank you for being here. Congratulate 

you on your new position, for the work that you do. We look forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Jun 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\041410\56053 HFA PsN: SHIRL
22

ward to working with you on many of these challenges, especially 

the time spent today. Thank you. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you so much. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I think what we will do with votes being called, 

we have four votes, and I think what I would like to do just to pick 

up some time is have the second panel come up. We will do a quick 

introduction of the four on the panel, and then we will break, do 

our votes, and come back, and we can jump right into questions. 

Welcome to all of you for being here. Thank you for being a part 

of this hearing. I want to start with Mr. Kenneth Jacobson. He will 

be our first witness for this panel. He is the deputy national director for the Anti-Defamation League. He is also the former director 

of the International Affairs at ADL. 

Mr. Jacobson holds a master’s degree in American history from 

Columbia University, earned his bachelor’s degree in history, and 

Hebrew literature at the Yeshiva University. Welcome. 

Next, Rabbi Andrew Baker. He is the director of International 

Jewish Affairs for the American Jewish Committee. In January 

2009, he was appointed the personal representative of the OSCE 

chair in office on combating anti-Semitism, and was reappointed in 

2010. Rabbi Baker served as AJC’s director for European Affairs 

from 1992 to 2000, and as Washington area director from 1980 to 

1992. He is the past president of the Interfaith Conference of 

Washington and a former commissioner on the District of Columbia 

Human Rights Commission. 

Rabbi Baker received a B.A. from Wesleyan University and a 

master’s degree in rabbinic ordination from Hebrew Union College, 

Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City. 

Next, Ms. Elisa Massimino, did I get that correct? Sorry about 

butchering your name. She will be our third witness today. She is 

CEO and executive director of Human Rights First. She is the 

former director of the organization’s Washington Office. She serves 

as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center 

where she teaches human rights advocacy and has taught international human rights law at the University of Virginia and refugee law at George Washington School of Law. She is also a member of the bar of the United States Supreme Court. 

She holds a law degree from the University of Michigan, a master of arts in philosophy from Johns Hopkins University. 

Last but not least, Rabbi Abraham Cooper. He is the associate 

dean of Simon Wiesenthal Center. For three decades, Rabbi Cooper 

has overseen the Wiesenthal Center’s international social action 

agenda ranging from worldwide anti-Semitism and extremist 

groups, Nazi crimes, to interfaith relations, and the struggle to 

thwart the anti-Israel divestment campaign, to worldwide promotion of tolerance and education. He is recognized as an authority 

on issues related to digital hate and the Internet. 

Rabbi Cooper has his B.A. and M.S. from Yeshiva University and 

a Ph.D. from the Jewish University of America. 

Officially welcome all of you. We look forward to hearing your 

testimony, and we will have some questions when we return from 

these set of votes. Thanks very much. We will be in recess. Assume 

this will take about a half an hour to 45 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

23

Mr. CARNAHAN. I want to reconvene the subcommittee. I appreciate your patience, and we will jump right back into this. We have 

also been joined by our colleague Ron Klein from the full committee. I want to welcome him, and also I understand Rabbi Cooper 

has a time issue, and if it is all right with everybody else we are 

going to ask him to go first. Also, just by the nature of time, we 

had allotted 5 minutes originally. If you could do it a little shorter, 

keep it short and crisp, we can get right to questions. 

So Rabbi Cooper. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER, ASSOCIATE DEAN, 

SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER 

Rabbi COOPER. Since you already have my comments, I will try 

to cut to the chase, and I will take toward the end of my remarks 

a few minutes to show you some of the Web sites that you had referred to in your opening remarks, and hopefully we will still be 

around to have a bigger dialogue on the issue of what to do with 

the Internet companies, et cetera. 

As the chairman and others have pointed out, share this afternoon the shocking statistics of 100 percent rise in violent acts 

against Jews the world over, and I will not repeat here the horrifying statistics brought down from the Roth Institute’s report, but 

much more than synagogue, schools and cemeteries are under attack. Memory and the very legitimacy of Jewish identity are also 

under assault. 

A French Holocaust survivor, Jewels Isaac, labeled the century’s 

long Christian theological anti-Semitism ‘‘the teachings of contempt’’ which created an environment that helped make the Shoah 

possible. Thankfully in 2010, the Catholic Church is an ally, not an 

enemy in the struggle against history’s oldest hatred, but a generation after Auschwitz the teachings of contempt are alive and well. 

Using statecraft, the Internet, academic freedom, age-old canards 

have been powerfully repackaged to disrespect our dead, demonize 

the living, and de-legitimize the Jewish peoples’ narratives. Why 

not desecrate a synagogue in Caracas or hurtle rocks at a Passover 

Seder at a Rabbi’s home in Budapest, attack Jews on the streets 

of Berlin on a Sabbath morning if you are taught and believe that 

the Protocols of Zion is a legitimate book about Jews and Judaism 

and that synagogues are actually the epicenter for Jewish conspiracies to control the world? 

What if, as the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Web page posts, 

there really is a plot of the Israeli military to harvest organs of 

Palestinians, Ukrainians and even Haitians? After all, as has been 

stated before here, the Government of Sweden in the name of defending freedom refused to condemn a mainstream article 

headlining such canards. 

If Jews lie about a 3,500-year-old relationship with the Holy 

Land, if Solomon’s Temple was never built in Jerusalem as senior 

Palestinians insist today, if, as a recent article in Kuwait’s Al-Tard 

insists, Adolph Eichmann, the chief organizer of the Holocaust, was 

actually a friend of the Jews whose ‘‘kindness’’ was repaid by kidnapping and executing him, if there was no Final Solution, as the 

genocide threatening Ahmadinejad insists, and that the real Nazis 

are the people of Israel, as too many diplomats, Imam’s Ministers, 

24

professors and campus activists chant in unison, or what if, as 

some leaders in the Baltics say, there is nothing unique about the 

Nazi Holocaust, that it should be remembered simultaneously with 

victims of communism, why then in democratic Lithuania why not 

prosecute former Jewish partisans while refusing to try a single 

Nazi collaborator? 

These trends are now just a few short years ago were marginal 

rantings are not a permanent feature of the subculture of hate on 

the Internet. The Internet incubates the big lie conspiracies, repackages the oldest hate, and promotes center stage the denial of 

the Shoah. 

Let me just take a few seconds to show you a few of the visuals 

from our annual report just released with the help of your colleague, Congresswoman Maloney, a few weeks ago. Our latest report accounts for about 11,500 problematic Web sites, social networking, blogs, et cetera, on the day of the Oklahoma City bombing 

15 years ago there was exactly one hate Web site on the Internet, 

and I have just for the purposes of this meeting pulled only a few 

of the hundreds of postings. 

This one from Russia, this one from the Palestine Information 

Center, this says, ‘‘Enough, exterminate the rats.’’ If you look up 

at the screens, you can follow it. Here you have what looks like an 

online version of the New York Times or the Washington Post, and 

said it is called ‘‘Filthy Jewish terrorists’’ and if you look carefully 

at the headlines actually in the lower right-hand corner there is a 

signature picture of the Oberai Hotel in Mumbai ablazed last year 

which, of course, was attacked by Islamist terrorists from Pakistan, 

and all of the ills of the world, and all of the breaking news is simply repackaged to reflect it being done by Jews. 

David Duke, this is a Facebook page called ‘‘Zionist Terminator’’ 

that has some 2,400 fans. A few blocks from here last year you had 

James Von Brunn, an 89-year-old racist come shooting into the 

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Now this is a man 

who was a bigot a long time before the Internet came along, but 

he kept his hatred alive and it was validated and promoted because 

he continued to be active on the Internet, and other racists who 

survive him continue to hold this up as a great example. And even 

when someone, in the case of the shooter at the Pentagon, who had 

no known connection to the hatred of Jews or White Supremacy, 

immediately after his attack, that act was then cut and pasted by 

the extremists online to make it appear as if he in fact was an antisemite or was motivated by the hatred of minorities. 

These are now various Web sites around the world that mock or 

deny the Shoah. This is a Facebook page called ‘‘Six Million for the 

Truth about the Holocaust.’’

For the record, Simon Wiesenthal Center has a very good working relationship with Facebook, especially in the area of interdicting terrorist, pro-terrorist sites, but as we see there are when 

we come to issues involving denial of the Holocaust and demonization of all religions, we think that they come down, if you will, too 

hard on the side of freedom of expression and not enough on the 

side of community standards. 

What I am going through right now without stopping is just to 

give you some of the examples of Holocaust denial. The book called 

25

‘‘The War for Genocide: The Protocols of Zion,’’ all over the Internet. Here you have it in Egypt. 

YouTube, as a social networking site, being promoted. This is a 

Nazi game which I won’t bore you with the horrible details but basically to win the game you shoot down mocked Jews who are en 

route to the gas chambers. But on the Internet today you also have 

hate games of bombing the survivors of the Haitian earthquake. 

You have a suicide bomber game where you win if you collect the 

body parts. This too is all part of the Internet. 

Here you have the conspiracy mindset of Plan Andinia of Chile 

and Argentina saying of an alleged plot for Israel to take over that 

part of the world, and this is the updated version, of course, of the 

blood libel, the harvesting of organs, all over the world with a big 

boost not only for the Government of Sweden, but especially, of 

course, the Iranians, and the recent elections in Hungary which 

gave the extremists party, an anti-Semitism party close to 17 percent, now the third largest party in the country, and here you have 

the validation of murdering Israeli civilians by prominent Imam. 

And I will just close here with—I won’t repeat what it says at 

the top, but these are sites that are currently up and running on 

Facebook. If you look, the first one is an attack on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism. So for all of the important 

statements that were made before that we are here first and foremost to talk about anti-Semitism and also connecting anti-Semitism to the world view of those who support terrorism, that is all 

reflect in the reality on the Internet today. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Rabbi Cooper follows:]

26


56053e-1.eps
27


56053e-2.eps
28

Mr. CARNAHAN. Rabbi, thank you for that really graphic and 

broad overview of some of the things that are out there. 

Next I want to go to Mr. Jacobson. 

STATEMENT OF MR. KENNETH JACOBSON, DEPUTY NATIONAL 

DIRECTOR, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 

Mr. JACOBSON. Thank you for holding this hearing. I think it is 

very important that you are doing so. We have already submitted 

a lengthy document for your reading. I was going to make some extended remarks but because of time I think I will just limit myself 

to a few comments. 

Let me first say that people ask us at the ADL, is it happening 

all over again? We get that basic question, and our answer is no. 

Let us understand what the Holocaust was, a unique situation. But 

having said that I think what most disturbs us is the peeling away 

step by step of all the constraints against anti-Semitism that grew 

out of Auschwitz. In other words, when the world saw Auschwitz 

they didn’t suddenly not become anti-Semitic, but they became embarrassed, ashamed about manifesting anti-Semitism, and while 

that is not everything that we want, we surely want peoples’ attitudes to change, that had a tremendous impact for decades, limiting the manifestations of anti-Semitism. 

And I would say today because of a combination of factors—time 

passing, witnesses dying away, and the fact of this constant barrage against the State of Israel has opened up a legitimization of 

anti-Semitism, and a peeling away of those constraints that allowed us to live in a world where for 50 years or so anti-Semitism 

existed, but it existed in certain limited fashion which now I think 

are being peeled away, and that is what keeps me up at night, 

which is the idea as we move along if we continue to allow these 

constraints to be removed we may see a much more explosive period of anti-Semitism in the future. 

Secondly, there are two ironic and depressing manifestations of 

hatred toward Jews which have reemerged which we have to deal 

with. One is the great irony, this is the Human Rights Committee, 

is that a lot of human rights law came out of the terrible experience of the Holocaust: Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 

the U.N., the Nurenberg laws were manifestations of the world 

waking up to what happened at Auschwitz. We have the situation 

today, particularly at the Geneva Human Rights Council, but in 

other ways, where human rights laws are now being turned against 

the Jewish people through the State of Israel, and it is something 

that we should be outraged about, and we should call attention to, 

and make it clear that it is the Jewish people who not only suffered 

the greatest degradation of human rights, but that indeed so many 

Jews and Jewish organizations as represented here have been in 

the forefront fighting for human rights around the world, and this 

degradation of this principle is one that is not only dangerous to 

the Jewish people but dangerous to the world at large. 

And connected to that is the ironic and very depressing element 

of how the Holocaust itself is being turned against the Jewish people. The great tragedy of the Jewish people is now being used in 

so many instances against Jews. During the war in Gaza so many 

29

of the protestors against Israel and against Jews had signs accusing Israel and the Jewish people of being the Nazis of today. 

Whatever your views are of Israeli policy, the notion of comparing Israel today to what happened to the Jewish people 65 

years ago is outrageous and really is important to counter and to 

make clear what all this is about, and these are things that we 

have to see. 

Now, people ask us very often what is the difference with all 

these problems, the Ahmadinejad problem, the nuclear issue, the 

global anti-Semitism, what is different today? And I think what is 

really truly has been different in so many ways in terms of the 

Jewish condition has been our great country. 

If we remember in the 1930s America, when Woodrow Wilson 

went to Paris after World War I and came up with the concept of 

the League of Nations, and came back and the U.S. Senate rejected 

American participation, we retreated into isolationism, what 

turned out to be a disastrous development for the world at large 

and for the Jewish people. 

The United States, thank God, entered World War II soon 

enough to save the world from Hitler. We did not enter the war 

soon enough, for a whole variety of reasons to save the Jewish people, and we know about that, and so much of what we have done 

and what our own Government and people have done over the 

years is to say ‘‘never again’’ and to use the leadership of the 

United States to ensure it. And I think that continues to be the 

message. The work that we did with the OSCE, all these committee 

hearings, the legislation, all the public statements over the years, 

the work with Soviet Jewry, and Ethiopian Jewry, and all of these 

issues were because of the tremendous leadership of the United 

States of America. 

And so you are holding this hearing today, in my view, as part 

of that historical process and the most I think we can say is we 

need to encourage to move it forward in a very, very positive direction. That means in terms of bilateral relations with every country 

this must be a priority. That means in terms of enforcing legislation and building up Special Envoy Hannah Rosenthal’s work and 

the work that we do, all of that is terribly important. 

My basic message is that the problems are becoming more severe, and the role that all of us play in the months and years 

ahead will become even more important. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobson follows:]

30


56053b-1.eps
31


56053b-2.eps
32


56053b-3.eps
33


56053b-4.eps
34


56053b-5.eps
35


56053b-6.eps
36


56053b-7.eps
37


56053b-8.eps
38


56053b-9.eps
39


56053b-10.eps
40


56053b-11.eps
41


56053b-12.eps
42


56053b-13.eps
43


56053b-14.eps
44


56053b-15.eps
45


56053b-16.eps
46


56053b-17.eps
47


56053b-18.eps
48


56053b-19.eps
49


56053b-20.eps
50


56053b-21.eps
51


56053b-22.eps
52


56053b-23.eps
53


56053b-24.eps
54


56053b-25.eps
55


56053b-26.eps
56


56053b-27.eps
57


56053b-28.eps
58


56053b-29.eps
59


56053b-30.eps
60

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Appreciate your being 

here and your remarks. 

Next I want to go to Rabbi Andrew Baker. We will recognize you 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL JEWISH AFFAIRS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again you 

have my full testimony for the record, and I am going to try to 

summarize what I had prepared in an abbreviated form. 

I think for all of us if we look back on this decade it is evident 

that we were overly optimistic in thinking so many issues, domestic 

and international, would be resolved, so perhaps we, while can be 

troubled, should not be surprised that anti-Semitism is one of those 

issues. 

We can recall the U.N. Conference in Durban in 2001, which was 

really intended to fight racism but became a venue for a new antiSemitism, an attack on Jewish targets. The breakdown of the Middle East peace process shortly thereafter triggered unprecedented 

attacks on Jewish targets in much of Western Europe. Many Eastern European countries eager to gain membership in NATO were 

focused for a time on addressing unfinished issues related to the 

Holocaust, Holocaust history, dealing with anti-Semitism, property 

restitution. But most of those efforts were incomplete and still remain with some distance to go. 

We have seen the persistence of ultra nationalist parties in Europe, the old ones in France and Austria, for example, and new 

ones which have been formed in Bulgaria, only last week in the 

elections in Hungary. Many of these parties have a more broad 

anti-Roma xenophobic agenda, but they all link together with antiSemitism as a theme running as well. 

We know of this, it has already been addressed by several speakers that anti-Israel animus that really has become a new form of 

anti-Semitism when it crosses over literally to the kind of 

eliminationist talk of Israel, holding it up to standards no other 

country is expected, et cetera. 

What I wanted to do here was to reflect at least in some areas 

based on my work at AJC, but also as the personal representative 

of the OSCE chair. I would say to begin with that the essential element of the problem in many countries is the increasingly normative presence of anti-Semitism in public discourse, in press, 

media, on the Internet, and at public gatherings. It is pernicious 

in its own right, but it also represents or can represent serious security questions for Jews and Jewish institutions. 

Many European countries have various laws that restrict hate 

speech. Usually the difficulty is not necessarily in the legislation 

itself, but it is in the difficulty of actually enforcing and operating 

with these laws. I have enumerated in my written testimony specific examples, but in many cases what you have are laws that are 

only infrequently enforced. You often have months, even years 

passing, before a charge that has been brought reaches some conclusion. 

61

In countries such as our own which have very absolute free 

speech protections, we have devised other ways to confront this 

hate speech. We are accustomed to seeing political figures, civic 

leaders speaking out quickly and forcefully. That, in any case, is 

what we would ask. But in many of these countries we will find 

political leaders saying, ‘‘It is in the hands of the prosecutor, we 

can’t speak.’’ In some case it is really a way to let them off the 

hook, and they are looking for a way to be let off the hook. In other 

cases you will find, I think, in different countries political leaders 

calculating that being too strongly opposed to anti-Semitism may 

even cost them votes, so leaving that somewhat ambiguous literally 

plays to their political motives. 

One of the concerns that has been identified by ODIHR in its 

most recent hate crime report is the need for monitoring, for recognizing these events when they take place. Governments have been 

urged to do it. Many are lax or incomplete in their collecting data 

or in collecting data that is sufficiently detailed to identify perpetrators and victims. As I mentioned, since much of anti-Semitism 

comes in the form of public discourse, sometimes that is the first 

area that is really not very well monitored and recorded. 

Governments have made certain commitments within the OSCE 

process. They are not all living up to it. We need to push them to 

do it. We can also encourage and support Jewish communities in 

collecting their own information in a standardized way that can 

then become again a vehicle for reporting. What has happened too 

frequently is that events are not reported. If they are not reported, 

political leaders say we don’t have a problem. We know differently. 

Finally, in a general overview, the importance of defining antiSemitism cannot be underestimated. The European Monitoring 

Center, which is an EU agency, 6 years ago conducted its first survey, its first analysis of anti-Semitism in the EU then of 17 countries. Over half the monitors of those countries had no definition 

at all. Of those that did no two were the same, and as a result 

pushing them and working with them they developed a ‘‘working 

definition’’ of anti-Semitism. It is an official definition now of the 

EU Fundamental Rights Agency. 

The full definition is appended to my report, but it is important 

to note that it gives a clear overview of what anti-Semitism is and 

it has a very specific area focusing on where that anti-Israel animus itself becomes a form of anti-Semitism. There are other definitions that may be similar but I think it is very important for us 

to focus here because essentially here, at least now for 27 countries 

in the EU this is their definition, and I think we want them to live 

up to it. It has been undertaken for use by ODIHR and its police 

training, so here we have it being disseminated to 56 countries. 

In conclusion, I can recall, and I know that Congressman Smith 

was with us in Berlin at the time of the OSCE conference in 2004, 

and in the issuing of the Berlin Declaration that at the time 55 

countries ascribed to. Among that declaration’s statements, I want 

to point out that these countries said, and I quote, ‘‘International 

developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.’’ A terrific 

declaration. 

62

Sadly, I think we see it is still the problem, not necessarily that 

it justifies it in the eyes of political leaders, but it often triggers 

it, and it is often used as an excuse for it. So here I think we need 

to keep our focus and focus on those governments to live up to the 

declaration that they ascribed to 6 years ago. 

The OSCE does remain an important international venue to get 

at this issue when you think and put it in contrast to what happened in Durban at that U.N. conference. We have had very serious discussions within the OSCE, and in commitments that governments have made. It only has happened because here in Congress 

there has been the impetus, pushing at times an administration 

that may be reluctant because of that OSCE consensus-based decisionmaking process, but it has succeeded. 

The current chair-in-office, Kazakhstan, has indicated it will hold 

a high-level conference at the end of June. I think it is very important that the U.S. is represented at a high level. All of us at the 

table here are trying to encourage the administration to do so. We 

hope you can play an equally strong role in pushing for this. 

I would add one other element within the OSCE. Every year 

there is a Mediterranean seminar linking those six Mediterranean 

partners with the OSCE, and I believe it is an opportunity with 

enough time given to it and with energizing our own representation 

in Vienna that at that gathering it should be possible to address 

these issues, the issue of anti-Semitism and other tolerance-related 

issues with those partners. As we know, as we have seen, some of 

those partner countries—Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria—have become a 

source of anti-Semitism exported to immigrant communities in Europe proper. So with effective planning I think we can make that 

an important venue as well. 

In closing, I think one always has to say, and I thank the members here, that your ability to raise this issue when you receive 

leaders of foreign governments who come to Washington or when 

you travel abroad is perhaps the most significant effort that the 

U.S. Government plays. As long as political leaders in these countries know that here on Capitol Hill, that here in Washington this 

issue matters, then it gets their attention and they will at least 

begin to address it. I think without this help we truly would be 

lost. 

So again let me thank you. We at AJC, whatever efforts and resources we have at OSCE in my role are ready to assist you or offer 

any information or material that would be helpful. Thank you, Mr. 

Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Rabbi Baker follows:]

63


56053c-1.eps
64


56053c-2.eps
65


56053c-3.eps
66


56053c-4.eps
67


56053c-5.eps
68


56053c-6.eps
69

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Rabbi Baker, and last we want to 

turn to Ms. Massimino. 

STATEMENT OF MS. ELISA MASSIMINO, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 

Ms. MASSIMINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

your leadership and attention to these issues. I want to say a special thank you to Congressman Smith with whom we have worked 

so closely on this issue and many other human rights issues over 

many years. 

Combating anti-Semitism has been a priority for Human Rights 

First for a long time. In 2002, we started monitoring the rise in violent acts motivated by anti-Semitism and to press for stronger government action to combat them, and since that time we have issued 

a number of reports on the subject, which I have with me and can 

share with you. 

Our focus and the focus of my statement and our testimony has 

been on anti-Semitic hate crime in Europe and North America, specifically on the 56 countries of the OSCE. We have long maintained 

that anti-Semitic violence, along with other hate crime, must be 

viewed and responded to as a serious violation of human rights. 

Likewise, we believe it is important that these violations be challenged, not just by victims groups or those who represent communities of targeted individuals, but by all who seek to advance universal rights and freedoms. 

I would like to make three quick points today, and ask that the 

rest of my written testimony be included in the record. 

First, anti-Semitism is a unique and potent form of racism and 

religious intolerance, and the extent of violence motivated by antiJewish animus throughout much of the OSCE region remains 

alarming. Second, with few exceptions, government responses to 

this rising tide of violence has been woefully inadequate; and finally, other forms of violent hate crime motivated by race, religion, 

national origin, sexual orientation, and other similar factors have 

also been on the rise in many countries, and governments and nongovernmental actors should be developing comprehensive strategies 

to combat it. 

In Europe and North America, anti-Semitism violence remains at 

high levels following a significant increase beginning in the year 

2000. Indeed, violence in some countries is several times higher 

than it was at the end of the 1990s. Anti-Semitism, like other 

forms of racism, is an obstacle to participation in public life fully 

and free of fear. Violent incidents have involved individuals who 

are identified as Jewish by their religious dress or appearance 

when traveling on public transport or walking in the street, and in 

many instances Jews have been targeted while going to and from 

their places of worship or schools. 

The translation of sentiment against Israel or the policies of its 

government into anti-Jewish antipathy has since 2000 generated 

new patterns of anti-Semitism violence that has fluctuated in relation to events in the Middle East. This new anti-Semitism combines the ancient route in forms of anti-Semitism with new political 

elements, and appear to be related to periodic surges in the tax. 

70

But the Middle East is only a part of today’s anti-Semitism. Contemporary anti-Semitism is multifaceted and deeply rooted. It cannot be viewed solely as a transitory side effect of the conflict in the 

Middle East. Anti-Semitic incitement and violence predate the Middle East conflict and continue to be based in large part on century’s 

old hatred and prejudice. 

The branding of Jews as scapegoats for both ancient and modern 

ills remains a powerful underlying factor in the anti-Semitism hatred and violence that continues to manifest itself today. Less than 

a year ago we received a grim reminder of the potency of this hatred just blocks from where we now sit when a self-avowed white 

supremist and anti-semite gunned down a security guard at the entrance to our Holocaust Museum. 

Human Rights First advocated a comprehensive program of action, our 10-point plan which is included at the end of my written 

testimony for governments to combat anti-Semitism and other hate 

crimes. We have seen some limited progress over the last several 

years. For example, in public recognition of the problem, in monitoring and reporting, in enactment of hate crime laws, and in law 

enforcement. But high levels of anti-Semitism violence persist and 

the political will to address them is still lacking in many countries. 

In our first report on this problem in 2002, we identified a serious data deficit on anti-Semitism offenses with most governments 

failing even to monitor and report on, let alone prosecute these 

crimes. Almost 10 years later most European governments still fall 

short of their commitments to monitor anti-Semitism offenses, 

which we think is an essential building block for a comprehensive 

response to the problem. 

While the threats facing the Jewish community today are deeply 

rooted and uniquely potent, they are also part of a rising tide of 

hate-motivated violence across Europe. We have reported an increase since 2005 in hate-motivated violence in many parts of Europe and North America perpetrated against members of a range 

of communities because of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, immigrant status or other similar factors. The shared nature 

of the problem of hate-motivated violence underscores for us the 

need for governments to adopt comprehensive approaches to the 

full range of this violence. Likewise, in the nongovernmental 

sphere the shared nature of the problem calls for a coordinated response. 

The promise of work toward a shared solutions is perhaps best 

illustrated by the cross community cooperation that has emerged in 

recent years among civil society groups here in the United States 

and abroad. Here at home the Leadership Conference on Civil and 

Human Rights, of which Human Rights First is a member, is a 

good example of this unified effort. Working together with other 

leadership conference members, including the Anti-Defamation 

League, has enormously strengthened our capacity to raise awareness in the U.S. and internationally of the threat posed by anti-Semitic and other hate crimes, and to work with governments and regional and multilateral institutions for change. But, unfortunately, 

this type of cooperation is rare in the communities that are often 

working in isolation from each other. 

71

I have a number of recommendations in my written statement 

that are addressed at the United States Government, the Congress, 

the Executive Branch, multilateral institutions, and I would echo 

the recommendations of my colleagues on this panel with respect 

to the need for leadership by the United States in pressing the 

state of the OSCE, in particular, but all nations to live up to the 

commitments that they have already made to work against antiSemitism and anti-Semitic hate violence and all forms of hate 

crimes. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Massimino follows:]


56053d-1.eps
72


56053d-2.eps
73


56053d-3.eps
74


56053d-4.eps
75


56053d-5.eps
76


56053d-6.eps
77


56053d-7.eps
78


56053d-8.eps
79


56053d-9.eps
80


56053d-10.eps
81


56053d-11.eps
82


56053d-12.eps
83


56053d-13.eps
84

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, and we will want to jump right into 

some questions here, and I think I again want to start with Rabbi 

Cooper because I know you are close on time. Do you have a few 

minutes to take some questions before you leave? 

Rabbi COOPER. Yes, please. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Looking back at the issue of the thousands of 

hate sites on the Internet, to what extent can the U.S. Government 

or other governments combat these kind of sites while balancing 

the freedom of speech issues? What are some of the strategies that 

you think can be effective in addressing the issue? 

Rabbi COOPER. Well, I think we have a few things we can all 

agree upon. We don’t want to assign on to rules or protocols written at the U.N. that would make Beijing or Havana happy. We 

want to make sure we protect our liberties, and also just from a 

practical technological point of view it is impossible to keep any 

idea off of the Internet. Just like we can’t legislate hatred out of 

the real world, we won’t be able to write protocols to remove it. 

Having said that, the notion that the answer to ‘‘hate speech on 

line is more speech’’ doesn’t wash. It is a different kind of technology. We can spend millions of dollars and some of us have here 

on brilliant Web sites but you have to bring the people to look at 

it, and those who are both the targets of attacks and the young 

people who are targeted to believe the hatred are not necessarily 

going to come to your site. 

So on a practical basis how do we approach this? With democracies, we play it very simple. Whatever their rules of engagement 

are about where to limit speech, hate speech, we will cooperate 

with them, but that usually drives many of those Web sites to U.S. 

servers. That is really the bottom line, it has pretty much shredded 

in some ways the German anti-hate laws that they have had because you just go ahead and go offshore, if you will, to the United 

States. 

Our approach here, first and foremost, is to urge the Internet 

providers to live up to their own rules. You know, Mr. Chairman, 

each of us pushes that little gray button when we get a new software that says, ‘‘I agree,’’ I don’t know if you have ever read what 

you agree with. I haven’t either, but we have really researchers 

who have. We sign a contract when we push that button, and what 

we are saying, if the Internet is now a giant virtual mall, we want 

to make sure that the companies who provide that access don’t give 

frontage property to the bigots and racists, and if they cross the 

line they should be thrown out. 

Facebook has been brought up a lot here. They are in a unique 

position. They are now at 400 million separate users and climbing 

worldwide. They have, I think, the right business plan and the 

rules in place, and kind of overwhelmed simply by just—it is hard 

to even wrap your mind around the kind of stuff that is being presented. 

I think that this committee does have a role. I believe if Congress 

will call in and convene another hearing, bring in the Internet community, bring back some of the—have a focus on the issue of 

human rights and the Internet, I believe, knowing quite a few of 

the players up in Silicon Valley, if they are given the opportunity 

to apply some of their collective genius to this problem and a little 

85

bit of a bully pulpit from this august body, we will get a lot further 

than by waiting for some magical answer to come down from a 

U.N. agency in Geneva. 

So, I think there is a lot to be done, and I think that having a 

constructive consortium of government, private industry, Internet 

users, and human rights NGOs could bring us to a better place. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Rabbi, it is a great idea, great food for thought, 

and I am going to yield to the ranking member who has got limited 

time as well. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much, and because we have 

been through this today when the Egyptian Ambassador arrives in 

my office in 10 minutes I will make sure I bring it up. All right. 

A couple of idea and suggestions. First of all, in terms of the 

Internet of which we are talking about here, I think we do have 

to be very careful not to permit totalitarian governments to take 

advantage of systematic that we have set up in order to prevent 

this type of hatred from being used to suppress democratic movements, et cetera, and to cover their own misdeeds. 

Perhaps there could be a labeling that would be agreed upon by 

all of the Internet providers that would be passed on by and judged 

by certain people to say that this—the following has been judged 

to be untruthful and based on hatred or something like that, some 

kind of big thumbs down, and then that might be an official approval or stamp of disapproval that might have an impact. That is 

number one, and it would be a way to counter them saying, well, 

that, of course, was discounted by blah-blah, you know, by whatever commission on truth and against hatred or whatever you want 

to call it. That is one idea. 

And to counter—look, what we are talking about here is an increase in anti-Semitism throughout the world, and there are ways 

to counter it by doing what I just suggested, or there are ways to 

be proactive in basically undermining basic concepts of anti-Semitism. One of the things that I have worked on and spent a lot of 

time working in my office with Representative Paul Brown who has 

a bill, H.R. 1175, in which I am basically the co-author of it, although I am the co-sponsor I am actually the co-author of it, I 

worked with Congressman Brown on this. And what it is is a resolution that suggests that the Ten Commandments should be recognized as a unifying force for Western Civilization, and if we have 

a positive approach toward making sure that we emphasize that—

when you talk to the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country, and 

of Western Civilization, that it really is the Judeo-Christian heritage and point that out, and this resolution, for example, I think 

would be very proactive in promoting the idea that—I think what 

it does is declare the first weekend of May to be a Ten Commandments weekend, that we all recognize this, and it might even be 

a way to reach all Muslims who I believe believe in the Ten Commandments as well. So that would be the type of positive approach 

where you are building up a recognition of something positive rather than just pointing out the negative. And anyone that can help 

promote that bill, for example, that would be a very positive thing 

to do, and it should be a bipartisan effort because there is only one 

Democrat on the bill right now but it should be a bipartisan effort. 

86

So I would hope that you might lobby some people in Congress and 

that would be a positive thing as well. 

So, Mr. Chairman, those are my responses to this today, and 

again what we have seen here and was verified by the last witness 

is that we have had this increase in Holocaust as we know, and 

we need to recognize that, and we need to counter it both in a positive way, but also in a way that we can actually condemn it, officially condemn it without actually restricting freedom of speech, 

and that the moral condemnation means a lot, and that is what 

this committee hearing is all about today, So I will when I got to 

the—yes, sir? 

Rabbi BAKER. I didn’t mean to interrupt you, Congressman, but 

since you said you were going to see the Egyptian Ambassador——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 

Rabbi BAKER [continuing]. I wonder if I could share a thought. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Please do and I will share that with him. 

Rabbi BAKER. I was in Cairo a month ago. This was part of efforts going back, oh, 5 years, to press the Egyptian Government on 

the preservation of Jewish heritage in Egypt. For example, there 

are a dozen synagogues in Cairo, but probably only a few dozen 

Jews are left. To their credit, the Egyptians ultimately follow 

through. A month ago we had a re-dedication, the Egyptians have 

essentially restored, reconstructed the original yeshiva of Moses 

Maimonides, the most famous Jewish scholar who lived in Cairo in 

the Twelfth Century, and the adjacent synagogue which was built 

in the Nineteenth Century, a beautiful restoration. 

The fact is, however, no Egyptian official participated in the rededication event. In fact, press was physically turned away from 

the event. What is the reason? There is such a conflation between 

Jews and Israel that doing anything positive, even as political leaders saw there was value in maintaining or restoring this heritage, 

doing anything positive in this area of its Jewish history so unnerved them in terms of incurring criticism from their own population, or the political elites in their population, they did not want 

anybody to know. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I will make sure that I, number one, praise 

them for allowing this to happen, but number two, mention that 

they really missed an opportunity to show—to reach out and show 

some leadership. 

One last note here and then I really do have to go, and I am 

sorry, I think it is really important for us to understand one point, 

and to make it clear to the people who are listening today that we 

are not saying that Israel is above criticism, and far too often what 

has happened is people are suggesting that any criticism of Israel 

is anti-Semitism and it is not. Israel, just like the United States, 

it is not anti-Americanism to criticize and to point out our failings, 

and America has failings too. 

So, we should make sure that we also discipline ourselves so that 

we know that some criticism, there are mistakes that have been 

made and people didn’t live up to certain standards both in our 

country and every country, and that that type of criticism we 

should not—those people who are labeling that anti-Semitism are 

doing a disservice to those of us who are trying to get at some of 

the hard core stuff that Rabbi Cooper was showing us. 

87

Rabbi COOPER. May I make just one quick——

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Jacobson. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I think your point is so vital. When we meet leaders, as others here today, they always raise the question, ‘‘Are you 

saying any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitis?’’ I am always happy 

when they ask it because I know they are saying to themselves, 

‘‘The Jews are trying to stifle the legitimate criticism of Israel by 

claiming anti-Semitism.’’ We make it clear, and I think that point 

that you made is terribly important for the credibility of all that 

we do. Of course not. 

Israel is a country like other countries. It has good policies and 

bad. We may disagree with the criticisms, but that doesn’t make 

it anti-Semitism. What it really is when it is egregious or sometimes even less obvious or certain campaigns such as boycott campaigns, divestment campaigns which are only done against democratic Israel, this leads to legitimate questions as to the motivation 

behind it. 

But I couldn’t agree with you more that we have to make clear 

that we are not talking about normal criticism whether one agrees 

with that or not. 

Rabbi COOPER. Mr. Chairman, if you would just give me——

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, Rabbi Cooper. 

Rabbi COOPER. The good news is I actually do have to leave, so 

it will just be 30 seconds. 

There is one other part to the equation of anti-Semitism which 

technically could be brought up under OSCE because the U.S. is 

a member, but we shouldn’t be under any misunderstanding that 

the issues are not just in Cairo or in Budapest. I have received letters from our fellow California constituents at UC Berkeley in the 

last 2 days who are facing physical intimidation for standing up for 

their rights to be heard on campus. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. UCI as well. 

Rabbi COOPER. UC Irvine, the UC system, so they are all saying 

that charity begins at home, it will be for another day and another 

time but we have an overflow of these problems created elsewhere 

that are playing out to the detriment of our kids, and of our educational systems right here in the U.S. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Rabbi, again thank you, and safe 

travels. 

I want to get one quick question in and then go to Mr. Smith, 

and I want to direct this to Rabbi Baker. As I mentioned in my earlier remarks many countries have made commitments at international conferences over the last decade, most recently last summer in Prague to resolve claims of families whose art was looted 

during the Holocaust. What steps can we take to countries who are 

in possession of such works that repudiate these commitments such 

as Spain as they have done with the claim by Claude Cassirer? 

Rabbi BAKER. Yes. You know, I know Claude Cassirer very well. 

I have been taking up his issue whenever I have had the opportunity with Spanish officials. It is a terrible and very cynical example of the problem we face. Here you have a situation where there 

was no dispute this was a painting that hung in his grandmother’s 

living room in Berlin, it was part of looted Nazi art. He was raised 

by his grandmother. He remembers that painting. When it ultiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:37 Jun 02, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\IOHRO\041410\56053 HFA PsN: SHIRL
88

mately was discovered to exist, it was, as it is now, a part of the 

Thyssen Museum in Madrid. 

When pressed, the Spanish Government, as you said, they were 

part of the signatories to the Terezin Declaration, they were also 

here in Washington in 1998 when there was a set of principles that 

were adopted on looted art. At first they said, well, this is a private 

museum; therefore the government doesn’t have a role to play. 

When the Cassirer family finding no alternative to trying to 

reach some negotiation tried to go to court in this country suddenly 

this was no longer a private museum, it was a government museum and they were appealing to the foreign sovereignty law to 

prevent this suit from going forward. 

Now the Spanish Government or the cultural ministry is saying, 

well, Claude Cassirer’s grandmother was paid compensation by 

Germany. In fact, Germany did make payments, indemnification 

payments for losses under the Nazis. Usually they were a small 

percentage of what was the real value, but even Germany today 

would say if the painting is there and can be returned, which a 

German institution would do, then whatever payment was made in 

the past would simply be repaid, but the actual object that was 

looted would be returned. 

So, it is a very cynical argument that has come from Spain. I last 

addressed it to the Foreign Minister in June last year, and also to 

the deputy minister of culture, but I have to say I am pleased you 

have raised it because I think only will there, I think, be a positive 

resolution—again it will continue through the U.S. courts, it is still 

a possibility that it will be allowed. The lower court said they 

should be allowed to bring suit. A panel in the Appeals Court 

upheld that. Now the full Appeals Court is hearing it. But I think 

Spanish officials need to hear that it is outrageous and to hear that 

from you and other Members of Congress. 

I do believe there are elements in the Spanish Government, it is 

not monolithic, that would like to see this resolved, but I think the 

word needs to get beyond the foreign ministry into the cultural 

ministry and elsewhere, but I am pleased you raised this issue because it is a terrible and sad case. Mr. Cassirer is, I believe, 89 

years old now, and one really just fears that he is not going to see 

this resolved in his lifetime. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I appreciate your work on that, and I think it is 

an important issue that needs to continue to be raised. 

I now want to recognize Mr. Smith for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. Thank you for convening this very important hearing, and, frankly, this panel is 

made up of extraordinary men and women who are not just experts 

but highly effective activists who have made the difference in mitigating anti-Semitism. It would be much worse than it is today had 

it not been for your work over these many years and even decades. 

I also want to thank you for your clarity, your wisdom, your passion, your leadership, another wake up call to Congress that we 

need to redouble our efforts, and today your patience. 

Special Envoy Rosenthal earlier spoke of how her work is being 

integrated into the State Department work, and while 

mainstreaming I think can be a good thing, there is a flip-side to 

that coin, and we have seen it at the OSCE, Rabbi Baker, perhaps 

89

you more than anyone else, where it gets subsumed into everything 

else and loses that—or becomes blunt and loses that sharp edge 

that it must have. 

I am wondering if you could speak to the issue of the office not 

having dedicated staff. Do you think we should push to try to reverse that? Frankly, I think we should. Rather than having other 

people within the Department of State as, you know, people that 

are go-to, but the special envoy can only do so much as one person. 

I do think she needs other people working for her and with her. 

I would ask you if you could touch on how well the office is monitoring broadcasts I mentioned earlier, even Rabbi Baker and Mr. 

Jacobson and others. When we were in London there were some 

broadcasts that some watched on satellite television that were 

filled with anti-Semitism hate. It is routine, but are we capturing 

it at the office or do we just wait occasionally for someone to bring 

it forward? I think that is important, and do we have the capability 

at the office? Maybe there needs to be additional appropriation to 

make sure that they can capture that data so we know what we 

are really dealing with. 

Let me ask you also to speak, if you would, on south of the border anti-Semitism. Several years ago I met with Edwardo Elstain, 

and Argentine Jew who lost—he was kidnapped, he was tortured, 

and lost his business. He has been trying for 38 years to reclaim 

it. I have raised the issue again and again with our own Government. I have raised it with the Argentine Government. Still he has 

not been able to receive his confiscated property. 

But last August I, along with Jonathan Mann, and we have spoken about him today, with our interparliamentary group, put together a trip to go to Venezuela to meet with the Jewish community there and then hopefully to meet with Chavez’s people, maybe 

Chavez himself, to raise the issue of anti-Semitism and especially 

in light of Ahmadinejad’s ever-closening ties there. I would say for 

the record that I was profoundly disappointed when our own committee would not authorize my travel even though I had asked several members on the Democrat side to travel with me. We were declined. Jonathan Mann ended up not going, and I wanted to go on 

my own dime, frankly, but I knew I couldn’t get State Department 

buy-in to get me the meetings that both he and I and our small 

delegation of staff wanted to have with the Chavez government. So 

that was an opportunity lost, but hopefully we can put together a 

trip in the future. 

I asked Congressman Klein and Engel, they could not make it. 

You might recall Chairman Engel had a back problem so he really 

could not make it for reasons of heat. But it was a missed opportunity because that problem there is festering and we all know 

Chavez is spreading his ill will all over Central and South America, 

and with it comes anti-Semitism. So I am wondering if you might 

speak to that concern that you might have with regards to countries south of the border. 

Finally, two last things very briefly on the Internet. I don’t believe that our First Amendment rights are in any way put in jeopardy and First Amendment free speech rights are injured in any 

way, shape or form when efforts are taken to take down these antiSemitism Web sites that are reaching young and impressionable 

90

minds, and those of the neo-Nazi genre and others who then take 

Holocaust denial as if it were a fact when it is an absolute like. 

And I am wondering your thoughts on that. 

I know Rabbi Cooper’s. He and I have had that conversation, but 

again I don’t think the First Amendment is in any way violated 

when we move, and even as a government not to mention what 

could be done by Facebook and others unilaterally by themselves. 

And on the academics issue, Kirk Weisgetten at one of our meetings who held the position that Rabbi Baker now holds, brought together a group of academics from Germany and it was very insightful, Mr. Chairman, to hear how the institutionalization of antisemiticade is alive and well and thriving in many of our universities and colleges throughout Germany, United States, and the 

world. 

I don’t think we have spent enough time on that issue; that 

somehow it passes for academic freedom to hold views regarding 

Jews that are antithetical to anything that we hold dear, and that 

is tolerance and respect, and it seems to pass it that somehow it 

is okay. And those academics form Germany brought that out, and 

I thought in a very profound way at one of our meetings, so the 

academic situation, if you could touch on that. Thank you. 

Rabbi BAKER. Can I respond first? I will try to be quick and 

touch on a couple of those things. 

By the way, with regard to the special envoy, I do not think that 

this office needs to be in a position to play a first-hand role in collecting and monitoring data and information. Many of our organizations have been doing that. Our information is available. There 

are others in Europe, in Israel that can as well. I think the real 

question is what kind of political force can this envoy, can this office make. I think that Hannah Rosenthal is new to this position, 

but she brings a lot of—clearly—commitment and enthusiasm and 

personal dedication. I hope that she will find a State Department 

that is open. 

To me the danger is for this to be—pardon the term—‘‘ghettoized.’’ We have an office over here that deals with this issue bit it 

is left separately. Will this be taken up at a high level at bilateral 

meetings by the Secretary or her deputies? I think that is the question, and the degree to which the special envoy can push inside for 

that will be a measure of her success. 

I think if we recall that the bill that created that office also 

called for this first report, an international report on anti-Semitism. There was something very powerful in a U.S. Government report that indicated country by country the status of the situation, 

and I am sure Ken Jacobson recalls or had the experience, I know 

I did, of being in different countries. This report was read very 

carefully, at least that section in that country. Usually the U.S. 

Ambassador was called in. They were concerned about it. 

We have not done that. I don’t know whether this office will 

think about doing it, and maybe that would require more staff, but 

I think it is something to be considered rather than having it within a larger, as you say as we saw in the OSCE, subsumed in a 

human rights report or international religious freedom report, 

something that holds it out specifically. 

91

My only other comment will be on Latin America, on Venezuela. 

I think we all know Venezuela is a very, very serious problem. At 

our annual meeting here in Washington in 2 weeks we will have 

25 Jewish leaders from Latin America, and we will have Jewish 

community leaders from Venezuela. Their stories are wrenching. I 

mean, because here you have—it is not simply a question of popular attitudes, but you have a political leader that is essentially 

making anti-Semitism a piece of his agenda and he is a very aggressive figure. 

The degree to which you directly or with your colleagues in other 

countries can try and put some pressure, the United States may 

not have much leverage on Venezuela, but at least to address this 

would surely be welcomed. Thank you. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Jacobson? 

Mr. JACOBSON. I was going to make a similar comment about the 

envoy’s office. It seems to me that the single biggest step taken was 

exactly this kind of coverage in the State Department’s human 

rights report on the subject of anti-Semitism. I think both symbolically and very practically that appearance at that initial stage was 

remarkable, and to me that would be the major step forward, and 

that again as Andy suggested could involve staff. I don’t know exactly. It clearly takes a lot of hands-on work, but it can be done 

and I think knowing that that can be done has already an impact 

on anti-Semitism around the world, so I would echo Andy’s comments about that. 

You raised a lot of subjects—let me just take a second about the 

academic world. There is no doubt that the fear that some of us 

have that American universities will go the way of Europe. I remember we had a meeting with the Israeli Ambassador to Great 

Britain a few months back and he said it is an ironic situation that 

Israel’s situation is a situation of Jews operating very well in West 

European countries at the top level. In other words, if you look at 

Gordon Brown, you look at Sarkozy, you look at Angela Merkel, 

you look at Berlusconi, you look at all of them are not only friends 

of Israel but people have spoken out on the subject of anti-Semitism. 

When you go below that to the bureaucracies, to the intellectuals, 

to the nongovernmental organizations, to the universities, you find 

not only is Israel’s image presented in a very negative way, but 

this has a real impact on attitudes toward Jews on the street as 

well. 

So this is a great thing we have to worry about. I don’t think 

America is anywhere close to that even though we have examples 

of that. But I agree with you, we need to start addressing that 

problem in a more serious way before it ever gets to the point, and 

I think it is the job of Congress, I think it is the job of the administration, I think it is a job of nongovernmental institutions, so I 

couldn’t agree with you more. 

Venezuela Andy spoke to. We also have issued a number of reports. The key for our working with Jewish communities, whether 

it is in Venezuela or Iran or Argentina or whatever, historically has 

always been to be in consultation with those communities because, 

as much as we care deeply, they have to live with the consequences 

of what we do here. We want to make sure we are on the same 

92

wavelength. Sometimes the communities feel so endangered that 

they can’t really express their true feelings, and we have to take 

that into consideration. That has happened in the Soviet Union as 

we remember all those years, so we have to weigh and balance 

that. But I agree with you, that is one of the great concerns. 

The last point on the Internet; we take very seriously First 

Amendment issues, so I want to just state that for the record for 

us at ADL. We are the American representative of an international 

group called INACH, the International Network Against Cyber 

Hate, and most of the coordinating groups are European and they 

say to us, you Americans are crazy. You know, you have this First 

Amendment, and we kick them off our sites by our hate speech 

lawyers, and then the go to American sites. What are we going to 

do about you? 

We say, well, we value the First Amendment, but we also agree, 

and I also agreed with Hannah Rosenthal’s comment that you fight 

bad speech with good speech. That is a basic ADL concept for the 

world at large. For the Internet, it is a very different proposition, 

so we know you have to do more. 

We have been working with Google, with Microsoft, with many 

of them to, first of all, get their attention to ensure this is a serious 

issue for them, and you cannot simply avoid it by talking about the 

First Amendment, which we all support. You have to work out serious programs, whether it is labeling, whether it is rules of the 

road, enforcing rules of the road, and I think we have gotten their 

attention. We have had meeting with them in the west coast, and 

at least they know that it is an issue for them. 

So I don’t have simple answers because the First Amendment 

issues are profound issues for us. We tried a hate filter out once 

for parents, at least to protect the Web they have for pornography. 

It did not take off the first time, but that may be another way to 

go, which is in the First Amendment, protecting children who are 

the main ones exposed to this hate. 

So I appreciate you raising all these comments, and I think for 

many of us these are priorities as well. 

Ms. MASSIMINO. I just had one quick thought on the capacity 

question that you raised, Congressman Smith——

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. MASSIMINO [continuing]. Because I do think it is an important one. There is no question in my mind that Hannah Rosenthal 

brings enormous energy to this position, and that she has the competence of senior leaders of the State Department, which is a good 

thing. 

We are going to be watching very closely her capacity to effectively deliver some concrete results and I think we should judge 

the need for greater capacity on whether or not she is able to 

achieve that through her work. 

You have heard, I think, several people mention this high-level 

review conference in Kazakhstan in June. If there is high-level participation by the United States in that conference, that will be a 

good sign. 

I also think that we should look to sort of the whole of government approach on anti-Semitism. It is not just the State Department. I think there is a lot that the FBI, the Department of Justice 

93

can do in terms of technical assistance, and they are doing some 

of that now, but I think there is a lot more they can do to help investigation and prosecution of hate crime. 

Then, as I mentioned in my testimony, the importance of, you 

know, the degree to which monitoring really, and information 

comes from people who are close to the ground, but greater funding 

for civil society groups who are both doing the monitoring and 

working together across community to advance solutions here I 

think is something else that we should be pushing. Thanks. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I wanted to, I guess, ask a broader 

question for the panel. We heard several references today to 2009 

being one of the worst years in terms of anti-Semitic activity. I 

guess my question is, do digging into the reasons that you believe 

account for that, is this more of a spike in this activity or do we 

see this more as a trend? So part of my question is direction, and 

I guess part of it is what do you see behind it, and we will start 

from——

Mr. JACOBSON. I will go first. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Jacobson. 

Mr. JACOBSON. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is both a 

spike and a trend. The spike factor, I think, in 2009 particularly 

related to the war in Gaza. In the U.K. during the 3 weeks of the 

war in Gaza, there were 220 anti-Semitic incidents, many of a violent kind many of them. In France during that period of time there 

were 113 incidents, and I would make clear that, in my view, it is 

not the cause of the incidents but the occasion for such anti-Semitic 

expressions. 

So I think there is an element of a spike, but going back to my 

comments and my earlier remarks I think that each time we have 

a spike and a spasm, and an occasion, whether it is the war in Lebanon, the war in Gaza, Intifada, the financial crisis in the world, 

which is another example, each time we have one more spike we 

allow that unpeeling that I referred to, the sense that, well, antiSemitism is not beyond the pale, whether it is because a lot of time 

has passed, whether it is because all the attacks on Israel have 

made people more comfortable with it, whether it is the comparing 

of Jews or Israel to Nazis today, all of which create the spike 

turned into a trend I guess is the way I would put it, and in effect, 

I think we do have a trend. 

It is a very, very disturbing one, and as I said earlier my great 

concern is that those inhibitions, which have manifested themselves for 50–60 years around anti-Semitism, are disappearing. But 

to inhibit the expressions of anti-Semitism I feel they have been 

eviscerated to a large extent, and therefore my concern is that we 

will be heading into a period where this trend will increase rather 

than decrease. I think the leadership of the United States in this 

matter has been profound, and therefore I think all of us who have 

worked so closely with you understand that it is only the work that 

we do together that can really begin to inhibit such kind of a trend. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Rabbi Baker. 

Rabbi BAKER. Look, I think we know, at least if you are looking 

at reports on incidents, that the reason the numbers were so high 

in 2009 was the fact that the Gaza war triggered this, but I don’t 

think that is particularly a reason to be sanguine even though the 

94

war is over and those numbers diminished during the latter part 

of 2009. 

If you keep in mind, in 2002, 2003, 2004, when we really saw a 

dramatic increase in France and in some other Western European 

countries, and governments at the time really wanted to deny this 

was anti-Semitism, and label it as somehow generated politically 

because of Middle East events. It took awhile before those forces 

would come together and at least acknowledge that whatever the 

politics were or whatever the events were in the Middle East they 

did not justify attacks on a school bus of Jewish kids in a Paris 

suburb, for example. 

So when you keep in mind that much work was done, I made reference to the Berlin declaration of the OSCE conference as one example of it, governments becoming mindful of this problem. What 

was depressing was when we had these issues triggering a new 

round of attacks in 2009, where were the people, where were the 

lessons that were supposedly learned 5 years ago? I mean, where 

was the strong political voice speaking out and efforts to tamp 

these incidents down? 

I don’t want to say there were no voices, but for the most part 

it did not emerge in the way we had hoped. So in that sense it was, 

I don’t want to say trend or spike, but it was a recognition that we 

still had much more to do. And then when I look in the OSCE area, 

I think Eastern Europe is a different situation. I don’t think events 

in the Middle East really have that much impact or in some cases 

even any impact on anti-Semitism in these countries, but in many 

cases they didn’t really deal with the Holocaust era past. They still 

have the old anti-Semitism in many cases unreconstructed, and 

these democracies are still rather fragile. 

So again if one looks at Hungary and the recent election, here 

we have a Jobbik Party, the party that emerged from nowhere 1.5 

years ago, first in the European Parliament, and now in the Hungarian Parliament, an unembarrassed anti-Roma and anti-Semitic 

platform, essentially a party that grew out of a fascist-like Hungarian guard, a group of people dressing in the uniforms modeled 

after the fascist Arrow Cross, parading by torch light primarily in 

towns with a high Roma population. I mean, it is a terrible picture. 

So I think we see we have a lot of work to do in these areas as 

well. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. Ms. Massimino. 

Ms. MASSIMINO. Yes. I think we view this as a longer term upward trend in violence with some periodic spikes like the one we 

saw in 2009. But it is part of a larger trend of rising violence 

across the board, hate crime, and I think what that underscores for 

me is the need to invest in long-term solutions, really getting at, 

you know, going to communities and education, building the legal 

framework to go after perpetrators, building the structures like we 

have begun to do in the OSCE and in other government entities 

to create obligations to monitor and report so that we can better 

answer the question of whether this is a trend or a spike. 

I think the lesson that we take from this is that we really need 

to invest in longer term solutions across the board to deal with 

hate violence. 

95

Mr. CARNAHAN. Which is a great segue to my last question, and 

that is, you know, we mentioned the provisions in the Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, also certainly there are provisions in 

the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I guess 

we have several of these international covenants, agreements, principles that are out there, but to what extent are these incidents 

that we have talked about today have anti-Semitism being treated 

like international human rights violations in terms of the broader 

context? 

Ms. MASSIMINO. Well, I think that that is part of what Ken was 

talking about, is that as much as the whole framework of international human rights standards and protections grew out of the 

horrors of World War II and the Holocaust, in particular, there has 

been an erosion in thinking about hate violence across the board 

but anti-Semitism hate violence in particular as a human rights 

violation. I think we have to reclaim that in order to kind of reinstitute, as Ken talked about, the shame of participating or 

condoning or remaining silent in the face of these violations. That 

is part of why we as a human rights organization that works on 

many different issues thought it was important to make this a priority in our work, to underscore the fact that this is not just disparate victims groups, the Roma work on—the violations against 

the Roma, the Muslims work on anti-Muslim violence, but to join 

together and identify this trend as a comprehensive one that needs 

comprehensive solutions, and one that really involves violations of 

very fundamental human rights. Governments needs to see it that 

way, and the U.S. has an opportunity to lead the way in that. 

Mr. JACOBSON. Yes, I must say that we at ADL and others, I believe, really expressed appreciation to Human Rights First for 

doing those reports because it was unique in the human rights 

community, or at least in my understanding, in the sense of making anti-Semitism a priority as a human rights issue. It should be 

a priority for the human rights community, and it has not been, 

and I think part of the importance of this hearing is to make that 

very point; that not only is anti-Semitism a threat to Jews, it is 

threat to human rights of the world, and anyone who is serious 

about human rights and doesn’t take up the issue of global antiSemitism today, particularly because of the origins of the human 

rights international body of law, is not really contributing to 

human rights around the world. 

Rabbi BAKER. I would only add that I think the very way in and 

reason we are able to get this issue addressed at the OSCE and 

see the evolution in the attention it has received is precisely the 

recognition that this is a human rights issue. So I think it is a reminder of how when we bring that forward it can have very pragmatic, tangible, and even positive results. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I want to recognize——

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CARNAHAN [continuing]. My colleague, Mr. Smith, for some 

final questions. 

Mr. SMITH. Just one really. And if I could you have mentioned 

the importance like at the OSCE, Rabbi Baker, of anti-Semitism finally being treated like a human rights issue. How would each of 

you rate the work of the Human Rights Council, especially now 

96

that we have a seat at the council, I have met personally with a 

lot of the ambassadors from both the Latin countries and from the 

African countries specifically on this obsession of the Human 

Rights Council to focus on Israel, Israel, Israel. It is not unlike, as 

we all know, the Human Rights Commission that this was supposed to be the reform and the replacement reform, it certainly has 

not panned out that way. How would you rate that, and what 

would be your recommendations to us and the Executive Branch on 

the Human Rights Council? 

Mr. JACOBSON. Well, I would rate a bad ‘‘F’’ of the Human Rights 

Council, but that is not coming to a definite conclusion about the 

policy of this administration concerning participation. I would say 

that they need to take into consideration that their first experience 

with the Human Rights Council and American participation has 

been a very bad one, in my view, and it has been a failure, but I 

am not coming to the conclusion that it automatically has to remain that way. 

I think there needs to be a reassessment of the kind of role that 

America plays and eventually you may have to question the role at 

all, but I think at least the experience of this last year, year and 

a half or however long we have now been participating, should say, 

you know, it has not really worked the way we have done it so far. 

We ought to take a look at other ways because the truth is some 

people would argue that the Human Rights Council has even been 

worse than the Human Rights Commission. 

We could have a discussion about that, but it surely has not been 

an improvement. So I would say a rating for the Human Rights 

Council a sure ‘‘F.’’ The question of the American role, I am not dismissing. There is a good argument to say that we should be there 

and have an impact, and I think you could make that argument, 

but the question is how are we going to go about doing it in a way 

that has been different over this first year, and I think that would 

be an important role for this committee to raise with members of 

the administration, not just to say you made a mistake by doing 

it, but saying what can we do so in a way it will have a real impact. 

Rabbi BAKER. In a sense I am only echoing what Ken has said. 

I think we are all enormously disappointed with the Human Rights 

Council. It is perhaps no better than the commission, and its approach certainly vis-a-vis Israel is outrageous. 

What usefulness, effectiveness we have now that the U.S is engaged I think is still an open question. Engagement by itself in 

many areas doesn’t automatically mean a change in policy on the 

other side. I don’t think we would take issue with the principle 

that to be engaged could result in certain positive things, but I 

think everyone would say the best right now one can see is damage 

control, and there is a lot of damage to be controlled. 

Ms. MASSIMINO. Well, we have a lot of problems with the Human 

Rights Council and one of them is its obsession with Israel, but 

there are many other problems too. Some states actively trying to 

underline the independence of the U.N. experts, the inability of the 

council to respond in real time to serious violations. There are a 

lot of problem with the council. 

97

That said we have been very supportive of the administration’s 

attempts to reengage and to join the council. We don’t think it can 

be improved from the outside, that is for sure. The question I think 

is still open whether it can be improved at all to the degree that 

will justify engagement. But now is a very important movement for 

the United States to be in there. There is going to be 5-year reviews, and a lot of the spoilers on the Human Rights Council are 

allies of the U.S. Government. So if we can have an impact, you 

know, now is the time to do that. 

I think that it is clear to us that better, stronger human rights 

machinery at the U.N. is strongly in the United States’ interest, 

and in the world’s interest. The world needs that. I think we are 

all looking, searching for some evidence of concrete improvement as 

a result of the engagement. I think it is going to be a very slow 

road toward that. 

But, you know, when I talk to my colleague human rights organizations around the world they largely welcome U.S. engagement 

there as a voice to push back on these governments that many of 

my friends are trying to operate in. So I think for that reason alone 

it is useful, but I hope that when we are looking at this 2–3 years 

down the road we have some more actual victories to celebrate. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. I think that hopeful attitude is a good one, and 

I, too, am a strong proponent of engagement. We have not seen all 

the results we would like yet but we are hopeful and determined 

that we can figure out ways where we can. 

I just want to genuinely thank all of you for your time, for your 

expertise, and especially in this long afternoon for your patience. 

We really appreciate it. And I think some of the comments here 

today are going to be very useful to us in going forward with generating some additional ideas. I think the talk about the lost inhibitions that are out there I think also have some interesting coincidence with kind of lost inhibitions with people and what they do 

on the Internet generally, I think certainly we need to look at 

strategies there. 

In terms of the broader approach to looking at human rights, and 

all minority groups, I think there is a certain power in that collective sense of looking out for those that are being really discriminated again. 

So, again, really appreciate what you all have done here today, 

your time. We definitely look forward to working with you in the 

future. Take care. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:09 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(99)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

100


56053n.eps
101


56053m-1.eps
102

Æ


56053m-2.eps