U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

24–753PDF 2017

ANTI-SEMITISM ACROSS BORDERS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MARCH 22, 2017

Serial No. 115–10

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

KAREN BASS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Paul Goldenberg, national director, Secure Community Network ............... 7

Ms. Stacy Burdett, vice president, Government Relations, Advocacy, and Community Engagement, Anti-Defamation League ................................................. 15

Rabbi Andrew Baker, personal representative on combating anti-Semitism, 

Office of the Chairperson-in-Office, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe ..................................................................................................... 26

Mr. Mark Weitzman, director of government affairs, Simon Wiesenthal Center .......................................................................................................................... 35

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. Paul Goldenberg: Prepared statement ............................................................ 11

Ms. Stacy Burdett: Prepared statement ................................................................ 18

Rabbi Andrew Baker: Prepared statement ............................................................ 30

Mr. Mark Weitzman: Prepared statement ............................................................ 39

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 70

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 71

Ms. Stacy Burdett: 

List of cities with no reports of hate crimes ...................................................... 72

ADL and HRF Scorecard on Hate Crime Response in the OSCE Region ....... 74

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Wisenthal Center’s Overview of Digital Terrorism and Hate .......................... 76

State Department definition and examples of anti-Semitism .......................... 78

Statement of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America ......... 79

Statement of B’nai B’rith International ............................................................. 80

(1)

ANTI-SEMITISM ACROSS BORDERS 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 2017

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order. And good 

morning and welcome, everyone. And I thank you for being here for 

this very, very timely and, I think, very important hearing. 

The Jewish people have survived and thrived from the times of 

biblical antiquity to the present day—quite a feat when you consider all of the civilizations that have come and gone: The Hittites, 

the Assyrians, the Egyptians, Persians, Greece, and Rome. The 

presence of Jews has enriched the cultures of many civilizations 

and countries, from the Americas, to Ethiopia, to China. 

But just as the Jewish people have endured, so too, has antiSemite hatred. This hatred has ranged from prejudiced slurs whispered in private to the murder of more than 6 million Jews in the 

Holocaust. 

Seventy-two years after the Holocaust ended, anti-Semites continue to target the Jewish people for discrimination, destruction of 

property, and even death. This hearing will explore global threats 

to Jewish communities, the underlying ideologies, and what actions 

the United States and other countries and international organizations should take. 

Our witnesses, including Paul Goldenberg, the national director 

of the Secure Community Network, addresses ‘‘the current state of 

affairs in Europe, specifically the increased levels of hate-motivated 

incidents impacting Jewish communities.’’ Mr. Goldenberg also 

asks whether perpetrators on both sides of the Atlantic may be 

feeding each other. 

He emphasizes that it is vital that the Congress and the U.S. 

Government identify, analyze, and respond to the cross-Atlantic 

links between anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic remarks. I convened 

this hearing so that we can ensure that we are scrutinizing the 

cross-Atlantic connections and the solutions. 

Our second witness, Rabbi Andy Baker, a friend for decades and 

personal representative of the OSCE co-chair-in-office on combating 

anti-Semitism and director of international Jewish affairs for the 

2

American Jewish Committee, testifies in his written remarks that, 

after the terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, and Copenhagen,‘‘no 

longer were governments able to ignore the situation. They have 

responded.’’

He cautioned, though, that ‘‘problems still remain. Governments 

have taken different approaches, and some only in stop-gap measures.’’ Rabbi Baker has warned that we need to be clear-eyed in 

confronting and combating anti-Semitism, which manifests itself on 

both the right and the left. 

And I would note parenthetically, as the one who suggested we 

have an OSCE conference back in the year 2000—and, thankfully, 

Ambassador Minikes, who was our OSCE Ambassador at the time, 

made that dream, working with Andy Baker and a few other leaders, a reality during the Bush administration. Andy was the one 

who wordsmithed the language that became, major parts of it, 

what we call the Berlin Declaration, which was an action plan for 

the countries of the OSCE—Canada, the United States, and Europe, Eastern Europe, and Russia—to combat this pervasive violence against Jews called anti-Semitism. 

It was a very important and, I think, remarkable document. It 

is still in force, although its implementation—and that is one of the 

things that Rabbi Baker seeks to do as Special Representative, to 

talk to countries, their governments, to the NGOs in country to try 

to persuade them to be far more proactive than so many of them 

are. 

In his written testimony, our third witness, Mark Weitzman, director of government affairs for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, explored a wide range of ideologies and manifestations of anti-Semitism. He flagged that the ‘‘regeneration of traditional anti-Semitism is all the more dangerous because, unlike the violent extremists of both left and right in radical Islam, it is now found in government circles and halls of power in countries that we define as 

Western democracies.’’

Pointing to a trend in Europe and the United States, Mr. 

Weitzman notes that ‘‘academic spaces are quickly becoming hotbeds of anti-Jewish bias, with students each year reporting greater 

discomfort at publicly identifying as Jewish or as supporters of 

Israel.’’

The great Natan Sharansky has taught us powerfully about the 

‘‘new anti-Semitism’’ which targets the State of Israel. I will never 

forget when Natan Sharansky testified at two hearings that I 

chaired. This is about the 18th or 19th hearing on combating antiSemitism. He talked about demonization, delegitimization, and the 

double standard—the three D’s, as he called it—of modern-day 

anti-Semitism, on top of, of course, the virulent form that we have 

known for millennia of targeting Jews, killing Jews, and destroying 

Jewish cemeteries, and all of the rest of the hate manifestations. 

But Sharansky made an excellent point, and he made it at the 

Berlin Conference—and Rabbi Baker, I am sure, remembers it 

well—when he told all of the foreign ministers and everybody who 

was assembled about the three D’s. He said, disagree with Israel 

on a policy, but as soon as you cross that line and the double standard and say they don’t have a right to exist or they get disproportionate focus at the U.N. Human Rights Council and a number of 

3

other U.N. agencies—when you demonize Israel, as they do so frequently, where is China? Talk about human rights abuse. There is 

the human rights abuser of the world, not Israel, and yet Israel 

gets all the attention. And then, of course, this idea of a double 

standard, which is rampant. 

It is a virus, anti-Semitism, that, again, causes the U.N. Human 

Rights Council to make Israel the only country permanently on its 

debate agenda—the only country. 

In this context, I applaud our new Permanent Representative to 

the U.N., Ambassador Nikki Haley—and I have met with Nikki 

Haley on this very issue—for announcing on Monday that the U.S. 

will no longer participate in this frenzy of Israel-bashing known as 

‘‘Agenda Item 7.’’ Instead, she said, the United States will only participate ‘‘to vote against the outrageous, one-sided, anti-Israel resolutions that so diminish what the Human Rights Council should 

be.’’

The Human Rights Council is also the body that directed the 

High Commissioner for Human Rights to compile a blacklist of 

companies working with Israelis beyond the 1949 armistice line, including Jerusalem’s Old City, the location of Judaism’s holiest site. 

This measure is self-evidently born out of the anti-Israeli boycott, 

divestment, and sanctions, or BDS, movement that is disturbingly 

present in many European countries and on college campuses 

across the United States. 

I have met with the High Commissioner for Human Rights and 

raised this issue myself last fall and said how disappointed, how 

angry so many of us are that he would misuse his position as High 

Commissioner to carry on in this way. And, of course, the Human 

Rights Council is doing it on steroids. 

Let me also say, before I introduce our witness, I want to also 

welcome Stacy Burdett from the ADL, again, another longtime 

friend and a great leader in combating anti-Semitism. She has also 

brought a particular focus to Latin America, a much welcomed 

focus. 

But for all of your wonderful work, thank you, as well for your 

leadership. 

Finally, I would also like to associate myself with Mr. 

Weitzman’s statement when he put it, ‘‘Fighting anti-Semitism always has been a bipartisan commitment, and in today’s fractured 

political world it is more necessary than ever that the U.S. maintain its diplomatic and moral leadership in this issue.’’

And I really thank you for that admonishment, which is so important. This has to stay bipartisan, because we as Americans have 

to combat anti-Semitism anytime and anywhere it manifests its 

ugly face. For as long as I have been a Member of Congress, there 

has been broad bipartisan support for combating anti-Semitism. 

Just for the record, in 1982, on my first trip, David Harris, now 

with the AJC, and a number of other important leaders, Mark 

Levin from the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, invited me to 

go to Moscow and Leningrad for 10 days to meet with refuseniks. 

And what an eye-opening experience it was to see when there is 

a state sponsor of anti-Semitism—that is, the Soviet Union—and 

the systematic persecution of Jews in psychiatric prisons and, of 

course, by making anyone who applied for an exit visa poor by deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:52 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\032217\24753 SHIRL
4

nying them a job, not giving an exit visa and then making them 

poor by denying them any means to provide for their families. And 

then, of course, prison was commonplace. 

I visited Perm Camp 35 in the Ural Mountains a few years later, 

as a matter of fact, along with Frank Wolf. We went and 

videotaped every prisoner we met with. It was at the beginnings 

of glasnost and perestroika. And when we showed that to Natan 

Sharansky, who had just been released, he said, these were all of 

my friends, and they are still there. And, of course, we kept fighting until they got out. 

This hearing will be the first in a series that our subcommittee 

will conduct. Our next hearing, we hope to have the Special Envoy, 

when he or she is named—and it may be somebody sitting at this 

very witness table—to be the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat 

Anti-Semitism. 

For the record, back in 2004, I am the one who offered the 

amendment to create it. It is a statutory position, and I, along with 

the other co-chairs of the Anti-Semitism Caucus, have done a joint 

letter asking that the administration name that person now. And 

earlier this week, in a meeting with Vice President Pence, not only 

did I raise this issue but gave him a letter asking that that person 

be named now, because there is so much to do with by that individual and for that office. 

I would like to yield now to the ranking member, Ms. Bass, for 

any opening comments she would have. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As I listen to your 

comments, one more time I will tell you that I think you need to 

do a book talking about your three-decade experience in fighting for 

human rights. And I think your opening statement was another example of that. 

I want to welcome the witness and the members of the audience. 

Thank you for being here. 

We are here this morning to hear from our expert witness about 

what is growing anti-Semitism across borders. What is most important to me is not to hear only the perspective of the witnesses on 

the reasons for increased incidents of anti-Semitism in the world 

but to learn where this trend is most prevalent overseas and who 

is behind the rise in anti-Semitism. 

Equally important is to learn how these trends must be dealt 

with, assertively or otherwise. I believe that these trends must be 

dealt with assertively and that the United States must take a leadership role in such efforts. We can’t look the other way, either overseas or domestically, regarding anti-Semitism. We must stand up 

against all forms of bias. We can’t pick and choose when it is convenient to stand against bias and when it is not. We must call it 

out wherever we see it. 

The role of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism came into being by way of the Global Anti-Semitism Review 

Act of 2004 that the chairman spoke about—because he authored 

it. I also believe that it is critical to have a special envoy at the 

State Department responsible for addressing anti-Semitism globally. I oppose reported attempts by the administration to cut funding for the Special Envoy. I think it is a position with the goal of 

5

monitoring and combating anti-Semitism worldwide, and the reestablishment of this position is a priority. 

I also want to say that, while today’s hearing is to address what 

is going on around the world, we do need to acknowledge what is 

going on in our own country. We need to acknowledge the fact that 

there have been threats at Jewish community centers around the 

country, there has been desecration of Jewish cemeteries. 

The community that I represent in Los Angeles, a large part of 

it is the Jewish community, and there have been numerous threats 

to the Jewish community centers in my district. In fact, I am meeting with a group of constituents from one of those centers in the 

next couple of weeks when we are on our break. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bass. And I appreciate your very 

kind comments. And I reciprocate and thank you for your leadership for all these years too, both in the State legislature and now 

here in Washington. 

And you are right; the immediate genesis for this hearing was 

what is happening in the United States. We are the Foreign Affairs 

Committee, but the linkages, obviously, between the two are inescapable. So thank you for underscoring that so well. 

Mr. Suozzi. 

Mr. SUOZZI. I want to thank you also, Mr. Chairman. This is the 

first time I heard you speak at length on this, as a freshman, and 

I am very impressed by all the things that you have done throughout your career and the things that you had to say today. And I 

am looking forward to working in a bipartisan fashion to combat 

this evil in the world. 

This is very important in my district, and people in my district 

are very concerned about this issue. We have had many threats at 

our Jewish community centers, and we read the reports of what is 

going on throughout the world. 

So I want to thank you for your leadership, and I want to thank 

the ranking member for her leadership as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Suozzi. 

Mr. Schneider. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you. 

And I will echo and associate myself with the words complimenting the chairman for all of his work and commitment to this 

issue. 

In my district, this is an issue that is affecting many of the institutions. Anti-Semitism is affecting institutions in Chicago, throughout the country. It is something of grave concern. As a Jewish 

Member of Congress, this is an issue that is also very personal. 

And while I don’t have prepared remarks, I would like to share 

a very brief story. I got a letter from my cousin when I first came 

to Congress 4 years ago reminding me that his grandfather, my 

great-uncle, my grandmother’s brother, used to keep a chocolate 

bar in his drawer. And he did it as a reminder of what this country 

offered. 

My grandmother’s family came from Kiev. They fled the pogroms 

in 1912. And that chocolate bar was a reminder of the opportunity 

of this great country but also a reminder to him of where they 

6

came from and that they needed to be prepared to move at any moment, because, as Jews, they were always under threat. 

And at that time, when I received the letter from my cousin Jordan, I thought, yes, but we are in a different place now. Four years 

later, we are seeing a rise of anti-Semitism around the globe and 

in this country. 

Jordan wrote me a letter recently, talking about his family on 

the other side, because the family we share has grown. They came 

here in 1912. There are over 100 in the next generation, in my generation and our children’s generation. But on Jordan’s other side, 

that family was in Gorno. They were not able to come into this 

country. They were denied access. And they were completely wiped 

out in the Holocaust. 

They understand, my family understands the impact of anti-Semitism and what it can do. And we need to be prepared to address 

it. 

In January 2015, I went to France with Jewish Federations of 

North America to talk to the community there shortly after the 

Charlie Hebdo and Hypercacher attacks. France, as you will touch 

on in your testimony, has taken direct steps to address anti-Semitism in its country, and we have seen good progress. We need to 

continue to do that in this country. We need to work with our allies 

around the world and stand up wherever we can. 

So this is a very important hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for taking the lead in calling this hearing. 

I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony, but, more importantly, thank you for the work you and your institutions do in 

standing up to anti-Semitism here and around the world. 

We need to make sure that ‘‘Never again’’ is not just a motto but 

is a reality and that we address anti-Semitism, because it doesn’t 

just affect Jews, it affects everybody. 

Thank you very much. And I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Schneider, thank you very much for your very 

strong comments. 

I would like to now introduce our distinguished witnesses, beginning first with Mr. Paul Goldenberg, who is the national director 

of the Secure Community Network. He is also chairman and president of Cardinal Point Strategies and a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Advisory Council. He is the 

former vice chair of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s 

Faith-Based Council and is senior adviser to the Department’s 

newly established Countering Violent Extremism initiative. 

Mr. Goldenberg is a senior adviser to the Faith-Based Community Security Program at Rutgers University and, in that capacity, 

has worked closely on the ground with European Jewish communities and European Jewish security groups and, I would note parenthetically, years back, was the chief promoter and architect of an 

initiative to train the trainers, which had a very, very laudable impact on law enforcement and recognizing anti-Semitism for what it 

was and not being just disregarded as hooliganism or some other 

crime, looking at that motive. And he was very, very instrumental 

in that. 

I would like to then introduce our second witness, Rabbi Andy 

Baker, who is director of international Jewish affairs for the AmerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:52 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\032217\24753 SHIRL
7

ican Jewish Community and the personal representative of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s chair-in-office 

on combating anti-Semitism. He is responsible for maintaining and 

developing AJC’s network of relationships with Jewish communities throughout the diaspora and addressing the accompanying 

international issues and concerns. 

He has been a prominent leader in addressing Holocaust-era 

issues in Europe and in international efforts to combat anti-Semitism. Rabbi Baker has served as the president of the Washington 

Board of Rabbis, president of the Interfaith Conference of Washington, and commissioner on the District of Columbia’s Human 

Rights Commission. 

We will then hear from Mark Weitzman, who is director of government affairs and the director of the Task Force Against Hate 

and Terrorism for the Wiesenthal Center. He is also the chief representative of the Center to the United Nations in New York. 

Mr. Weitzman is a member of the official U.S. delegation to the 

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, where he chairs 

the Committee on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial. He also cochairs the Working Group on International Affairs of the Global 

Forum on Anti-Semitism. Mr. Weitzman has authored many publications and books and is the winner of the 2007 National Jewish 

Book Award for best anthology for anti-Semitism. 

We will then hear from Ms. Stacy Burdett, who is the Anti-Defamation League’s vice president for government relations, advocacy, 

and community engagement. She heads the Government and National Affairs Office, which represents ADL to the Federal Government, foreign Embassies, and policy community on a full range of 

ADL issues. 

As lead lobbyist on international issues, Ms. Burdett is the face 

of ADL to Congress, the administration, and foreign diplomats. 

And, as I said a moment ago, I have known Stacy for so many 

years and so deeply appreciate her great leadership in this great 

and important fight. 

I would like to now yield to Mr. Goldenberg for his opening. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL GOLDENBERG, NATIONAL 

DIRECTOR, SECURE COMMUNITY NETWORK 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Thank you. And it is an honor and privilege 

for me to be here today. I apologize for being a bit tardy. I think 

I rang off too many bells at the security checkpoint outside, which 

is not the first time. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to testify 

today regarding the current state of affairs in Europe, specifically 

the increased levels of hate-motivated incidents impacting Jewish 

communities. There has also been a wave, as we all know in this 

room, of similar events here in the United States, where perpetrators on both sides of the Atlantic unfortunately may be feeding into 

each other. 

I am both proud and honored to be here with such a distinguished group of colleagues today. And I applaud you and your 

subcommittee for the steadfast commitment and unwavering support. 

8

In 2004, as you know, Congressman Smith appointed me to work 

overseas through the good efforts of the OSCE, so I speak to you 

today through a different set of optics. I am a former law enforcement veteran, and, as they say in the business, I see things quite 

differently. We worked across 10 European nations, working handin-hand with Andy Baker, Mark, and our colleagues at the AntiDefamation League for nearly 7 years. 

Over the past 2 years, I have had the privilege of working closely 

with the Faith-Based Security Program at Rutgers University, 

where we are now working abroad in places like Molenbeek, Brussels, and Copenhagen. And as part of this new initiative under the 

leadership of former Attorney General John Farmer, we have made 

countless trips in recent months abroad traveling to multiple European cities. So we speak with some passion on this subject. 

Through these trips, I have been able to gain a firsthand understanding of the current climate, hearing the concerns of Jewish 

communities under threat and assessing what we can all do collaboratively to assist them. 

Just 2 weeks ago, I sat with the Chief Rabbi of Belgium in the 

Great Synagogue in Brussels, an institution that survived several 

wars, still stood strong after the Holocaust—a beautiful, celebrated 

structure that once again is surrounded by armed paratroop soldiers with long assault rifles. However, they serve not as an occupying or threatening force but as protectors of a community. 

And similar scenes, we all know, are in Belgium, France, Denmark, and other Western nations—armed military troops once 

again surrounding Jewish institutions just decades after the Holocaust. 

Consider the United Kingdom. There were a record number of 

anti-Semitic offenses in 2016. The Community Security Trust recorded 1,309 anti-Semitic incidents nationwide during that year, a 

36-percent increase from the 960 recorded by the CST in 2015. 

Previously, record-high occurrences have been triggered by antiSemitic reactions to sudden, specific geopolitical events, leading to 

temporary spikes in occurrences. In contrast—and I can say almost 

the same for here in the United States—there was no single, sudden event in 2016. 

In 2014, for instance, there were 1,182 incidents recorded up 

until that year. This previous highest total coincided with a conflict 

between Israel and Hamas, which saw a global, again, rise in antiSemitism and incidents of a similar nature. In contrast, as I stated, 

there was no single, sudden trigger event in 2016. And these high 

numbers of incidents both here and abroad, I have used the term, 

are unprecedented. 

In Germany, according to the Coordination Forum for Countering 

Anti-Semitism, the CFCA, anti-Semitism has increased in parallel, 

as they note, ‘‘to the general rise of far-right crime since the beginning of the migrant crisis.’’ The number of criminal investigations 

opened following attacks on Jews, Jewish property, and hate 

speech against Jews amounted to 2,083 cases during 2015, an increase of 201 percent from the previous year. 

And as I heard Mr. Schneider, Congressman Schneider, a glimmer of hope still exists in France. Following years of significant incidents and attacks, the same CFCA report notes a significant deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:52 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\032217\24753 SHIRL
9

cline of anti-Semitic incidents in 2016, after 2015 was characterized by a rise of anti-Semitic incidents. 

Experts that I have spoken to, and many of us have collaborated 

with, attribute the decline to a strong and swift response by the 

government in launching a campaign against anti-Semitism in the 

country. First and foremost, that means engaging with the nation’s 

law enforcement forces and agencies. 

As a result, Jewish communities abroad are not only rethinking 

their approach to security, they are already changing their daily 

routines, adopting new ways of doing things, and deciding when 

and where to go—from synagogue to grocery store—based not on 

their desires, but on their fears and insecurity. 

I had the privilege to testify last April before the Commission on 

Security and Cooperation in Europe on anticipating and preventing 

deadly attacks on European Jewish communities. The concerns expressed then and the premonitions made regarding the migration 

of hatred, particularly anti-Semitism, has unfortunately manifested 

itself in the form of bomb threats, hate crimes, and cemetery desecrations, as we have seen as of late right here in the United States. 

Evermore connected, these extremist groups in the United States 

are borrowing, adapting, and enhancing the tactics and strategies 

adapted and adopted in Europe. 

Just a few more statistics, unfortunately. According to a recently 

distributed report by the New York City Police Department, they 

found that hate crimes against Jewish people more than doubled 

in the city since the start of the new year as compared to the same 

time period in 2016. The report documents 56 hate crimes from 

January 1 to February 12, with 28 incidents targeting Jews. In the 

same 6-week period the previous year, the total number of hate 

crimes recorded in New York City was only 31, with 13 targeting 

Jews. 

A recent ADL report on anti-Semitic acts that targeted journalists between August 2015 and July 2016 uncovered an astonishing 

2.6 million tweets containing language frequently used in anti-Semitic speech—again, an unprecedented number. 

As part of our own independent research, with regard to statistics, just over the last 75 days in the United States of America, 

from January 1 to March 13, 307—and that number is fluid, it is 

changing—307 anti-Jewish incidents across 40 States in 75 days. 

Since the beginning of the year, we have exceeded 170 bomb 

threats phoned in or emailed to 117 Jewish institutions, centers, 

schools, ADL offices, and other establishments, leading to massive 

disruptions and evacuations of thousands of people, to include children and infants. 

Indeed, one of the most enduring images of 2017 for the Jewish 

community may be the scenes of children being rushed into the 

freezing winter temperatures to evacuate JCCs right in our own 

backyards, and those of empty cribs abandoned in parking lots, as 

dedicated staff members, infants, and toddlers rolled these mechanisms out of their facilities to safe locations. 

This phenomenon can be summed up briefly by sharing one incident in Whitefish that we need to note for the record. Whitefish, 

Montana—a small, pristine, beautiful town with warm and welcoming people. The location hosts, in addition to a small commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:52 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\032217\24753 SHIRL
10

nity, one of the most well-known members of the white supremacist 

movement in the country. 

As Jews throughout the United States were readying their homes 

for Hanukkah celebration, the Jewish community of Whitefish was 

courageously dealing with intimidation, threats of violence, and 

harassment from outside agitators. Marches, armed marches, were 

threatened against Jews. Fake news stories alleging conspiracies 

by the Jewish community of Whitefish against their longtime 

neighbors were alleged. And here is the most egregious: The pictures of children of the rabbi and Jewish leaders were posted on 

neo-Nazi Web sites calling for the followers to troll and harass the 

children. Attacks that specifically target children are abhorrent 

and unthinkable and would have the capability to paralyze any 

American town anywhere in the United States. 

In closing, beyond death and destruction, we know that these 

hate groups and terrorists, whether neo-Nazi, white supremacists, 

or Islamic extremists, they seek to create a sense of fear and vulnerability. If they are successful, this can be more impactful than 

any attack on us, the Jewish people, the American people, forcing 

us to not only query the safety and security of the societies we live 

in, but causing us to question our own ability to protect our neighborhoods and families and, with this, potentially causing us to 

change our behavior, retracting from our daily lives, our way of living, compromising our beliefs, whether that means altering how we 

dress or, even more disconcerting, after the recent bomb threats, 

hearing that some who have come to relish and rely on the remarkable services offered by these Jewish community centers—they will 

be reassessing their members, grounded on fear. 

The American Jewish community very much remains open for 

business. We are back in our houses, we are back in our centers, 

we have been back in our schools, we are back in our institutions. 

We are training; we are working with our police agencies. The U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security and the FBI have done a remarkable job working with the community each and every day. So 

we are very much open for business, remain open. 

I look forward to any questions that you may have, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldenberg follows:]

11


24753a-1.eps
12


24753a-2.eps
13


24753a-3.eps
14


24753a-4.eps
15

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goldenberg, thank you very much for that very, 

very powerful testimony and those insights. 

Before going to our next witness, at the request of our distinguished ranking member, we will go to Stacy Burdett. She has invited her, and, unfortunately, the gentlelady has a schedule conflict 

that she has to be at. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, same thing. She probably will come back. 

But I would just note for the record that the chairman emeritus 

is the chairman of the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. She is a co-chair of the Bipartisan Taskforce for Combating Anti-Semitism, and recently appointed to the Council on the 

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council by Speaker Ryan. She will be 

back shortly, but she wanted to convey to you that she appreciates 

your being here and your testimony. 

I would also like to just recognize Ira Forman, who was the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism from 2013 to 

2016. 

Thank you so very much, Mr. Special Envoy, for being here, for 

your work, which was greatly appreciated by all of us. And know 

that you will be invited—we want you to come and give your insights perhaps at the next hearing, when we have the administration here, as well, with the new Special Envoy. 

I would like to now ask Ms. Burdett if you would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. STACY BURDETT, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ADVOCACY, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 

Ms. BURDETT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you, Madam Ranking Member, for inviting me here, and thank you 

for your leadership in convening this hearing. 

And thank you, Mr. Suozzi. We are all freshmen here. We are 

all learning new lessons. We are all taking on new commitments. 

And you don’t have to chair a committee to make an impact on this 

issue. So you are honoring me with your time today. 

I would like to request that my full statement and attachments 

be made part of the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. BURDETT. Thank you. 

And I would like to just take some time to highlight a couple of 

key lessons that I think can complement what my friends and colleagues are saying. 

We have learned a lot from the moment that we are in, and we 

have to take those lessons very quickly and turn them into lessons 

that animate our actions. 

Anti-Semitism is a global problem. You have heard from my colleague and friend Paul Goldenberg, no country is immune, not even 

a remarkable country like ours. And the fight for policies and institutions is one that we have to fight every day. The chairman knows 

from his work in the OSCE, vital democratic protections and freedoms, they are not self-executing. 

And we are in that fight right now, and our success is extremely 

consequential, not just for Jewish communities but for America, for 

its moral leadership, for societies around the world. 

16

And, Madam Ranking Member, for every community in the 

United States that feels a little more unwelcome or unsafe today, 

the fights against anti-Semitism and hate are inextricably connected. When we have fought anti-Semitism in America and 

around the world, everyone and their children sleep a little bit 

easier at night. So thank you for that important message. 

I have appended to my testimony a map of this country that illustrates what probably is imprinted in Paul’s mind every night 

when he goes to sleep, a map of where these threats are. 

We know that conspiracy theories are taking center stage in everyone’s political debate—ours, countries all over the world. And 

they can broadcast that hate. David Duke and the alt-right can go 

right into the palm of your hand and scare you right where you 

live; or engage in trolling and doxing, like what Paul described in 

Whitefish, Montana, where you post people’s information publicly. 

And you don’t even have to say anything, you don’t have to threaten anything. You can just say, ‘‘Tell them how you feel. Tell these 

Jewish people how you feel. Don’t do anything illegal.’’ That is extremely personal, close to the bone. 

And we have learned that these threats start online, but, boy, 

they move offline into the real world, where they are very dangerous. 

ADL is increasing our investment in this area. We have just last 

week announced the opening of a new Center on Technology and 

Society that will be based in Silicon Valley. We have already been 

engaging with industry leaders in Europe, in the United States, all 

over the world, and using multilateral fora, international organizations that are the purview of this subcommittee, like UNESCO, 

like the U.N.’s Alliance of Civilization, like the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Those are fora where lawmakers 

and policymakers like you are networking with each other to adopt 

best practices, codes of conduct. We are networking in international 

fora with NGOs. And both sides of this table, we have our international fora, where we can band together to fight this cyber harassment. 

My colleague also referenced a big data study that ADL released 

during the election campaign. And those 10 billion impressions of 

anti-Semitic tweets—I think we all were paying attention—they 

targeted about a dozen journalists, Jewish journalists, in ways that 

we know made those reporters stand up and say, I am going to give 

it a moment of thought before I cover a candidate or an individual 

in an honest way; it might not be worth it to me to be so harassed. 

So that gives us pause. 

So the government has a primary responsibility to make people 

feel safe, to model good behavior, and to spotlight the problem. I 

have included 10 recommendations. I hope they are all easy. I want 

to just highlight a couple, because I think you are going to get a 

lot of good recommendations today. 

America’s human rights and democracy programs that former 

Special Envoy Ira Forman has expanded, enhanced, mobilized, energized, put them, as the chairman said, on steroids—those programs, they are part of our foreign affairs machinery, and they 

can’t be effective on the cheap. Every single one of you is going to 

cast a vote about our foreign affairs budget, and I would like you 

17

to keep in mind that our ability to fight anti-Semitism around the 

world depends on having the resources to engage the world successfully. 

I just want to highlight one other area, and this is in my recommendations as well. One of the most remarkable things we do 

as a country, when we report human rights violations in every 

country in the world, when we spotlight those problems, we are not 

only setting a moral marker, setting a tone that we hope other 

countries will follow, we do something vital, we lead by example. 

We have always done that. Our moral leadership deeply matters in 

this world and in this fight. 

And when a monster goes to a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis to 

turn over 100-and-some heavy tombstones, that is a powerful attack on the presence of that community. Whether it is in Missouri 

or in Pennsylvania or in central Europe, you are saying: Your perpetuity, your children, your presence is offensive to people; be 

afraid. 

And we want to make sure that not only are governments around 

the world reporting these incidents—please take a look at my second appendix. It is a scorecard of 57 countries, where, with the 

help of Rabbi Baker and Chairman Smith, we now have data in 57 

OSCE countries. 

But I want you to remember, please, one number: 3,441. Three 

thousand four hundred forty one. That is the number of American 

police departments that don’t report any hate crime. When a monster comes to that cemetery, nobody tells the FBI. We don’t know 

what is happening there. 

Paul is correct, law enforcement does a remarkable job. We are 

a model for the world. But we have to fight for our standing as a 

country that leads by example. 

And so, in California, all over the world, in Elizabeth, New Jersey, in Patterson, New Jersey, in Newark, there are just too many 

people there, too much diversity to believe that there were zero 

hate crimes in 2015. 

So, for freshmen, for Mr. Suozzi, you can leave this chamber, and 

law enforcement in your State and in your district, they care very 

much what you think about the importance of making sure that we 

lead by example and that we bother to tell the FBI when people 

in our communities are targeted by hate. 

I can’t thank you all enough for your attention and for your leadership. 

And I would like to make an additional request. Perhaps it might 

be helpful if I would enter into the record a list of cities in the 

United States with over 100,000 residents who either report zero 

hate crimes or don’t bother to give an answer at all. That is a good 

followup item for every Member of this body. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Burdett follows:]

18


24753d-1.eps
19


24753d-2.eps
20


24753d-3.eps
21


24753d-4.eps
22


24753d-5.eps
23


24753d-6.eps
24


24753d-7.eps
25


24753d-8.eps
26

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Burdett. 

Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

I would like to now yield to Rabbi Baker. 

And, without objection, your last request will be made a part of 

the record. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE ON COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM, OFFICE OF 

THE CHAIRPERSON-IN-OFFICE, ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION IN EUROPE 

Rabbi BAKER. Chairman Smith, thank you for this opportunity to 

testify, but thank you and your colleagues for the leadership you 

have shown, really, over a very long period of time. I think we all 

know and you cited earlier, the U.S. effort in the case of the OSCE, 

but in other areas, to get countries to focus on this problem, to 

really step up and address it was critical, starting with that first 

OSCE conference and all the various other things that have followed. 

It should also be noted that before the U.S. Government really 

got engaged, it was you and other Members of Congress that 

pushed an administration, often not because of opposition to the 

subject but worried about complications, difficulty within the 

OSCE, the consensus process, and other things. 

So, without the advocacy here, I think much of what we have 

been able to do would not have succeeded. And it is a lesson that 

we need to keep in front of us even as we go forward. 

I would like for the record that you accept my written testimony. 

And here I will simply try to highlight what I have tried to present 

more as a kind of progress report and, again, with a particular 

focus on the problem in Europe. 

Security, as you have already heard, has been a paramount 

issue. And the fact is, for many years, we had a real difficulty in 

getting governments to recognize the challenges, the very need for 

security that Jewish communities were witnessing. 

It had much to do, I think, with the advocacy of many of the organizations represented here and so on to get governments to pay 

attention. But, at the same time, and tragically, it was only after 

some of these terrorist attacks, deaths in Brussels, in Paris, in Copenhagen, that governments at least began to recognize the problem. 

But doing something was another issue altogether. And we have 

seen success, but we know it is only partial. 

Congressman Schneider referenced France earlier. It is true that, 

because of what we saw there, the government stepped forward. It 

literally mobilized the military. And so every school, every synagogue, every community building was protected. And incidents 

went down last year, and in significant numbers. Even, it appears, 

the number of Jews leaving France, a real problem itself, has decreased. 

But the Jewish community knows, and we have now seen, this 

was not a permanent step, that security is no longer there, the government can’t afford to do this, and, in fact, terrorist threats are 

present throughout the country. So what will happen? How to keep 

that attention, how to keep that mobilization is still not certain. 

27

In Sweden, which has the largest Jewish community in Scandinavia, we have seen them begin to mobilize, recognize the security needs are real. We have pushed governments to come forward 

with funding. In effect, the mere practice of your religious freedom 

is challenged if people are fearful of going out in public, being physically identified as Jews. In some cases, simply attending a Jewish 

event has caused people to second-guess and think about what they 

are doing. 

So, in Stockholm and Malmo, there are new efforts. Paul and I 

recall particularly visiting Malmo and, at the time, seeing the embattled nature of that Jewish community. There is now security 

support. We didn’t have that before. There are more funds going 

to support community institutions. But more is still needed. And 

the communities in both places will still tell us, yes, we have some 

help, but the governments, which have begun to mobilize, need to 

do more. 

In a place like the UK, we have probably the best example of 

good cooperation between a Jewish community and government authorities. The UK’s Jewish Community Security Trust has been 

monitoring incidents, and has, in fact, been directly training police. 

And there is, not only in this relationship, something that has provided a real security net for the Jewish community, they are now 

being asked to help assist in providing security for other religious 

communities in the UK. It is a model, and it is one we have cited 

before and deserves recognizing still again. 

It is also work, as we know, the problem not only with cyber hate 

but of conveying information through the Internet and through social media and finding some very good ways of using that to alert 

a Jewish community when there are problems or when there are 

steps that are being taken. 

And, finally, the OSCE’s ODIHR has been implementing, developing a multi-year program known as Words Into Action specifically to focus on problems of anti-Semitism, with security being one 

of them. With significant funds coming from the German Government, the first measure they will take is producing a guideline, a 

security toolkit, if you will, on what governments, what NGOs, 

what different authorities should be doing when it comes to Jewish 

community security. This should be presented later this spring, 

first in Europe, but we certainly hope they will come here and we 

will have an opportunity to share what their recommendations are 

here in the United States. 

Turning to a second issue, we have made efforts to convey the 

importance of having a clear and comprehensive definition of antiSemitism. This goes back, as you know, over a decade. It may have 

been when the first studies were done in the European Union in 

2003 and 2004; even the monitors conducting those surveys didn’t 

have a full appreciation of anti-Semitism and what it was. Yes, 

maybe they understood hatred, prejudice, and discrimination toward Jews, but anti-Semitism presenting itself through conspiracy 

theories about Jews, anti-Semitism through the vehicle of Holocaust denial, and, as you cited in referencing Natan Sharansky, understanding how Israel can itself be a target or a form of anti-Semitism, as when it is declared of racist endeavor, when its very existVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:52 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\032217\24753 SHIRL
28

ence is challenged, or when analogies are drawn to the Nazi treatment of Jews. This is not criticism, it is anti-Semitism. 

And we have had success in getting governments, in getting organizations to recognize the value of a comprehensive definition, 

starting with that EUMC working definition a decade ago, and now 

looking to individual countries to employ it. Our own Government 

and the office of the Special Envoy has used a version of that definition. With great success last year—and considerable kudos to my 

colleague Mark Weitzman—the IHRA, the International Holocaust 

Remembrance Alliance, essentially took that definition and managed to secure its adoption for use by IHRA and its 31 member 

countries. 

With that in mind, the OSCE chair last year, German Foreign 

Minister, now President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, said he wanted 

to secure the adoption by the OSCE for use in the OSCE of this 

definition. It was a considerable hurdle to get 57 countries to agree 

by consensus. Coming down to the wire in Hamburg, as you know, 

we ultimately got 56 of those 57 countries to agree. Only one, the 

Russian Federation, stood in the way for reasons I can go into later 

if you are interested. They were more excuses; they weren’t legitimate reasons. 

We very much hope it will be possible, changing dynamics perhaps, that during this calendar year, we could get the Russians to 

come onboard and, with the assistance of the now Austrian OSCE 

chair-in-office, try to push for that adoption in December 2017. 

In the meantime, the UK Government has formally adopted this 

definition. We have managed to get Justice Ministers in Germany 

and Austria to say they will use it in training judges and prosecutors. We have even a formal statement by all of the EU countries 

within the OSCE endorsing this. So we hope more steps can be 

taken to put it into use. 

I will turn to a third area. It is one that has been with us, but, 

in fact, it is flaring up yet again, and that is the question of balancing principles of religious freedom with maybe more secular 

forces in society. And I speak now about the elemental practices for 

Jews and for Muslims—they go back really to biblical times—of ritual circumcision and of ritual slaughter. They really are elemental 

to practicing religion today, but they have been under attack. Animal rights activists and children’s rights advocates, maybe with 

genuine, legitimate motives, but they would seek to ban this practice of slaughter and limit the ability to circumcise our youth, our 

infants. 

In this process, Jews now have to defend something they have 

been doing literally for centuries. It may not be in its initial intent 

an anti-Semitic campaign, but it surely is often in its result. By the 

way, it also links Jews and Muslims together. And so, where there 

have been some success, it has really depended on an alliance as 

both communities confronting this problem together. 

Finally—and with this, I will close—we have to recognize there 

is still great unease at a very uncertain political climate when we 

look across the European continent. We see the success of rightwing, nationalist, xenophobic parties and movements, in some 

cases winning at the ballot box, finding their way into parliaments, 

29

even threatening, as we have seen in a couple of countries, to ascend to serious positions, such as the office of President. 

In many cases, these are parties and movements that are 

virulently anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Roma, but anti-Semitism has also been a significant part of them. And Jews do not feel 

comfortable even if it appears that the first target is someone else. 

In fact, as we have learned here in America, as has already been 

stated, I think our ability to combat anti-Semitism, to feel safe and 

secure, is part of the larger fight to combat racism, discrimination, 

and xenophobia across the board. 

Having said that, Europe has some special challenges today. 

There are significant numbers of Arabs and Muslims, many more 

coming in as part of refugees and migrants from north Africa and 

from the Middle East. Many of them have attitudes, come with, 

frankly, sentiments and views that are anti-Israel and anti-Jewish, 

and also in many cases anti-Western. 

The societies that have received these people, also that have had 

some difficulty in assimilating and integrating those who have 

come before them. They need to recognize this and try and step up 

and do more. The fact is Jewish communities have often confronted 

this significant increase in incidents of harassment or attack coming largely from parts of these communities. Not all governments 

are willing to confront this with a clear-eyed approach. And if they 

don’t, they are not going to really be successful in figuring out 

strategies to deal with it in the short-term when it comes to security, but long-term when it comes to educational efforts and the 

like. 

So here, too, we need to keep focus on what is in front of us, I 

think, to recognize we have had success, we have attention. We 

need to keep the support and the moral focus here in America to 

really assist us in this continuing combat, this continuing battle 

that we are waging across the ocean in Europe. 

So thank you again for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Rabbi Baker follows:]

30


24753b-1.eps
31


24753b-2.eps
32


24753b-3.eps
33


24753b-4.eps
34


24753b-5.eps
35

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Rabbi Baker, for that very extensive set 

of recommendations and the overview that you have provided us. 

And, without objection, your full statement—and this goes for all 

of our distinguished witnesses—and any attachments you would 

like to make a part of the record, so ordered. 

Mr. Weitzman? 

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK WEITZMAN, DIRECTOR OF 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER 

Mr. WEITZMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith. I would 

like to begin by expressing my thanks and appreciation to you for 

your leadership in Congress and internationally, as well as for your 

personal activism on this issue, which we know has extended beyond just the legislative field but really to going out and intervening in cases directly. And your leadership is much appreciated. 

I also want to thank the ranking member and the members of 

the subcommittee. And as a fellow New Yorker, my appreciation to 

Mr. Suozzi for his remarks and his presence on this issue as well. 

Anti-Semitism today is no longer limited to verbal expressions of 

hate. It is fueled by the stream of propaganda that radical 

Islamists put out online and the financial/political contributions to 

this campaign that come from some Muslim states and organizations. An increasing number of terrorists have translated words 

into action and assaulted and murdered Jews throughout Europe 

and targeted Jewish institutions in Europe and the U.S. They have 

been joined in recent years and recent months by members of the 

radical right, extremists coming from all aspects of society and 

fringes of society, who have targeted Jews as their primary target. 

Continuing almost 20 years of efforts, next week the Simon 

Wiesenthal Center will be releasing its Digital Terrorism and Hate 

Electronic Report of extremism and anti-Semitism on the Internet, 

which includes grading the social media companies. We see that 

there is a frequent correlation between the amounts of propaganda 

and extremism and hate that come out online and the surge in 

radicalization and terrorism that often follow. 

However, I would like to focus my remarks here on something 

that is somewhat different, and it is an aspect of political anti-Semitism, especially Holocaust distortion, that we can now see in growing circles of Western democracy and Western democratic countries. 

To focus on one country in particular as a prime example of this, 

I would like to turn my attention to what is happening in Poland 

currently, where we have high-ranking officials, such as the Minister of Defense, who has in the past accepted the possibility that 

the classic text of anti-Semitism, the ‘‘Protocols of the Elders of 

Zion,’’ are perhaps, in fact, true. And he claimed that ‘‘experience 

shows that there are such groups in Jewish circles.’’ Two other 

ministers have declined to condemn the Protocols. 

A prominent extremist Catholic radio station that has been condemned by the Vatican for anti-Semitism and by the State Department as one of Europe’s most blatantly anti-Semitic media venues 

continues to find favor in government circles, having received 

grants totaling millions of dollars over the past year, and even had 

a postage stamp recently issued in its honor. 

36

Some of the quotes from people, the head of the radio station and 

commentators on the station, include: ‘‘The U.S. media and entertainment industry are dependent on the Jewish lobby. It is similar 

to the Stalinist terror, which was organized and implemented by 

Jewish communism.’’ That speaker recently toured and spoke in 

New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts in an effort to raise 

money and continue spreading the message of hate, not just locally 

but internationally. 

The director of the Polish Institute in Berlin was recently fired 

for allegedly giving too much attention to Jewish subjects. 

And, finally and perhaps most importantly, an amendment to a 

law that is being proposed in the Polish Parliament claims that 

whoever publicly claims, contrary to historical facts, the Polish nation or Polish state’s responsibility or partial responsibility for Nazi 

crimes can be criminalized with a potential 3-year sentence. That 

means, in effect, that anybody who refers in a conversation, in 

writing, in research to murder of Jews during the Holocaust period 

by Poles has potentially committed a criminal act and can be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison. 

I went to the files, the archives of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 

Museum and just picked out three witness testimonies, survivor 

testimonies of survivors. And these are in my written remarks. And 

these survivors all testified to their experience where they found 

that the local population had been more deadly than the Nazis. 

And for all sorts of reasons, and this is found in many cases 

throughout occupied Europe, through the Baltics, through other 

countries in Eastern and central Europe, this is not an uncommon 

experience. But those survivors, in the twilight of their years now 

can be found liable and sentenced for just recalling what happened 

to them and giving their impressions of that. And this is now potentially entering into law into Poland. 

It will also have a greatly chilling effect on future research as 

well as freedom of speech in that country, where young scholars 

may be inhibited from even studying the Holocaust, people may be 

inhibited from publishing their research and their findings, and it 

is an attempt to essentially legislate history for political purposes. 

The prime focus of that has been Princeton professor, Jan Gross, 

whose remarks in an interview he gave to the German newspaper 

last year have been potentially seen as falling in violation of one 

of these types of laws. Charges were investigated and considered 

being brought. The first prosecutor in the case declined to bring 

charges. The superior reopened the investigation in what appears 

to be, again, a politically motivated effort. 

Poland is not the only case. It was, perhaps, the most acute, but 

it is not, by far, the only case. The Ukraine has passed a similar 

law about anyone shaming the reputation of the fighters to Ukrainian independence, who include the partisan units that are responsible for murdering 100,000 Poles and tens of thousands of Jews. 

In Russia, a law that forbids publication of what they described 

as falsehoods about the Soviet Union’s role during World War II, 

has been used to convict the journalist who wrote, ‘‘The Communists Germans jointly invaded Poland sparking up World War 

II. That is, communism and Nazism closely collaborated.’’

37

As we know it is an historical fact that in September 1939, Poland was invaded on both sides by both those countries. Yet, to 

state that in Putin’s Russia, now appears to be against the law. 

In Croatia, the Jewish community has felt compelled to boycott 

official Holocaust commemorations over the past 2 years. A former 

Minister of Culture in Croatia embraced the Ustase, the Croatian 

collaborators, defended their actions in articles that he published, 

and was photographed in his younger days wearing the Ustase hat, 

and screened a film in the Jasenovac concentration camp that 

minimized the number of victims casting doubt on the authenticity 

of historical accounts of what happened in that camp. 

Recently, plaques have been put in front of the camp with Ustase 

slogans, leading to the boycott for the second year by the Jewish 

community. 

In Hungary, a proposed Holocaust museum was to be directed by 

a woman who has written articles with anti-Semitic themes in 

them. And the content was highly questionable. Statues were proposed to figures who collaborated with the Nazis, including one 

such figure, an historian, who, as a minister in the Hungarian Government and is a member of Parliament introduced the Hungarian 

version of the Nuremberg laws, stripping Jews of their right to protections of citizenship and opened the way to the eventual deportation and murder of almost 450,000 Jews. 

Writers who had collaborated with the Nazis and written antiSemitic works, were inserted into the school curriculum. A number 

of other issues went on to the point, again, where the Jewish community felt compelled to boycott the official commemorations of 

Hungarian Holocaust remembrance. 

Fortunately, there has been some successful pushback on this. 

The IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, has 

intervened both in Hungary and in the Polish issue. I participated 

as part of a four-member IHRA delegation that went to Poland to 

discuss this with the Polish Government in December. We are still 

waiting to hear positive results in Poland. 

But in Hungary, through the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, through the direct intervention of Chairman 

Smith, who wrote a pivotal letter to Prime Minister Orban about 

the statues, through the efforts of Special Envoy Forman in the 

State Department, the Hungarian Government, the Prime Minister 

of Hungary, announced that they would not erect any more statues. 

They would hold off on the statues. They have held off on continuing work on the museum, saying that they would only put the 

final exhibits in—the museum was built and currently exists as a 

shell, but they would only put the exhibits in with the approval of 

the local Jewish community, as well as international experts. And, 

in many ways, that shows the power of the international body and 

the United States that work on these issues to intervene positively 

on it. 

But this is some of the background to the American Jewish community’s consternation to the White House statement regarding the 

January 27 on the Holocaust that omitted mention of Jews. Even 

a mistake seen in the context of this background can be used by 

people with bad intentions. 

38

And as one crude example, last week, the Seattle synagogue was 

vandalized with the slogan, ‘‘The Holocaust is fake history’’ put on 

it. 

So I would like to conclude by reiterating a number of the sentiments that we have heard before and the recommendations, particularly in regard to the special envoy. And I would even like to 

suggest my institution has offered a suggestion that that position 

be upgraded to Ambassador level, to raise it in status and show, 

once again, America’s political and moral leadership on this issue, 

which is needed more now than ever before. 

I commend the bipartisan efforts on this. As you heard, we are 

firmly committed to seeing the fight against anti-Semitism as a bipartisan fight, and I am happy that Members of Congress in both 

Houses have joined in that very strongly. 

I would also like to mention the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, 

which is now sitting in Congress, which is an act that attempts to 

ask the Department of Education to use the working definition of 

anti-Semitism as a tool to be able to gauge whether anti-Semitism 

has in fact, happened on college campuses, and it gives us internationally accepted tools to the hands—it puts it in the hands of 

those people dealing with the issue on U.S. college campuses. 

Just two other brief mentions: We have also appealed to the Attorney General for the creation of a task force to deal with the 

issue of anti-Semitism—the wave of anti-Semitic threats that the 

American Jewish community is currently facing. And that ties into 

the other recommendation that I would add, which is the creation 

of a special portfolio, or the addition of a portfolio that draws together on the domestic front the issue of anti-Semitism as a special 

envoy to the State Department for foreign affairs. There is no similar focal point in the United States for the issue of anti-Semitism, 

and we believe that it is time to create that point and, thus, coordinating address—to address the issue of anti-Semitism. 

And, finally, I would like to suggest that the Internet service providers as well also adopt both the definition of anti-Semitism, and 

a working definition of Holocaust denial and distortion as a tool to 

use in measuring their presence of anti-Semitism and their actions 

that they can take against it online. 

Finally, just to conclude and repeat what I said before, when governments try to legislate history for political purposes, when the 

Holocaust is taken out of context, is whitewashed, when Holocaust 

distortion opens the doors for traditional anti-Semitic themes to reenter the governing halls of society, then that is a problem and a 

challenge and a threat, not only to Jews, but to American democratic values all over. 

So I thank the subcommittee for the community to make this 

statement and for the leadership and activism that you have shown 

in the past, and I hope to continue cooperating and working together in the future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weitzman follows:]

39


24753c-1.eps
40


24753c-2.eps
41


24753c-3.eps
42


24753c-4.eps
43


24753c-5.eps
44


24753c-6.eps
45


24753c-7.eps
46


24753c-8.eps
47


24753c-9.eps
48


24753c-10.eps
49

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Weitzman, thank you for your extraordinarily effective leadership and your recommendations and your analysis of 

the state of affairs as of today and looking forward. 

Let me just ask you if that report that will be released in about 

a week, is that something we might be able to include in our 

record? Because we will leave the record open if you——

Mr. WEITZMAN. We usually—it usually comes out in electronic 

form. I could see if we have a version that we could include. We 

will try to do that. 

Mr. SMITH. If you would, that could be helpful, I think, for the 

record, and for all of us to read and digest. 

Mr. WEITZMAN. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. The Ambassador-at-Large, that is something that we 

are looking at, legislative text right now, so we will get back to you 

on how we are proceeding on that. 

In November 2015, I authored H. Res. 354, and it passed 418-

0 on the House floor. Many of you helped us with the text, with 

the analysis of what ought to be in there, and I deeply appreciate 

the insights you provided. And we did call, in the operative part 

of the resolution, urging the United States Government to work 

closely with the European governments and their law enforcement 

agencies to ‘‘formally recognize, partner, train, and share information with Jewish community security groups to strengthen preparedness, prevention, mitigation and response related to anti-Semitic attacks and to support related research initiatives.’’ There are 

many operative clauses, but that was the first. 

And I am wondering if, in your view, that happened. Do you believe it is going to happen, you know, hopefully in an expanded 

way, or, at least, consistent with this request of the administration, 

because it is an ongoing request? And Rabbi Baker, if you might—

others, if you would like as well—maybe share with us what you 

think are best practices. We need to share every best practice we 

have, but what can we learn from the UK, from France, and others, 

particularly the United Kingdom, which I agree with you have 

done much—they have so many challenges, particularly in London. 

You and I were there at the House of Commons when we both 

spoke to a large group, of lawmakers from around the world, and 

it was very clear that the United Kingdom was really trying to step 

up to the plate on these horrific crimes. Are there things we might 

learn from them? 

But, again, this was passed in 2015, so there were—and Ira 

Forman probably could provide us some information on this as 

well—how well that was implemented, because it was bipartisan, 

418-0, and your thoughts going forward with the new administration to make sure that there are no gaps? 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, we could——

Mr. SMITH. Paul, if you want to start, then we will go right down 

the line. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. So I think I will address the police aspect of 

it, which is——

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG [continuing]. Where I am very engaged and involved abroad right now. 

50

We are working on the ground in Belgium with the Belgian police. We are actually working on the ground in Molenbeek. You 

have an area called Soblan, which is a very heavily Jewish area, 

and, of course, you have Molenbeek, which is an area that the majority of the population is Muslim. And we are working on the 

ground there with the police building—it is called BCOT, building 

communities of trust between these communities, this is through 

the Rutgers project, in particular, a colleague of yours, Chairman 

Smith, Congressman Smith, which is John Farmer, former Attorney General of New Jersey. 

So it is engaging the communities, the security groups, and the 

police. It has been a bit of a challenge, but I will tell you, I think 

there has been tremendous progress over the past 24 months. It is 

really about compelling the national police agencies, or the local police agencies, to share information with the Jewish communities, 

really demystifying the process. That is extremely integral to better 

communications between the two. 

The Jewish communities need information. They need information that will allow them to be safer, and the law enforcement 

agencies also need to work much more collaboratively with those 

Jewish security agencies not only for the sharing of information, 

but joint training, joint exercises, et cetera, because it is really a 

quid pro quo: Information comes up, and information comes down. 

So it is really creating a clear pathway of communication between 

the national and local police agencies and the Jewish communities 

that are sworn to protect them. 

We have a much more mature relationship here. The American 

Jewish community, through the works of SCN, Security Community Network, ADL, and other organizations, it has been a very 

mature relationship. These relationships have been for decades, I 

know. And there are some really remarkable best practices here 

that, for years, have been shared with our colleagues abroad. 

At the end of the day, these communities have to rely on their 

local police, and that is where it starts, and that is where, unfortunately, it——

Mr. SMITH. Could I ask you, as to Stacy Burdett’s point about 

local police here and in Europe? Is it getting down to that level so 

that the local law enforcement—I mean, we put that into our resolution as well, ensure law enforcement personnel are effectively 

trained to monitor, prevent, and respond to anti-Semitic violence, 

and partner with Jewish communities. And that second part, partner with Jewish communities, is so extremely important so that 

there is that dialogue, so if there is something that is happening, 

or there is a threat, there is a response that is informed by law enforcement. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Is that here in the United States or abroad? 

Mr. SMITH. Here and abroad. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. If I will tell you, here in the United States, absolutely. The relationships between State, local, and Federal law 

enforcement are absolutely extraordinary. And I know—I am not 

going to speak for the Anti-Defamation League, but our two organizations are in constant contact every day with our State, local, and 

Federal law enforcement agencies. They not only have been sharing 

information as best they can with regard to active investigations, 

51

but I will tell you during this situation where we see nearly 170 

bomb threats against Jewish centers, that the U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security deployed nearly 120 professionals. Every State 

in the country has what is called a protective security advisor. 

These are very high-level experienced individuals that were literally deployed to work and engage with the Jewish community 

centers not just for partnership purposes, but to provide real, viable expertise to them. So that is how far it went. 

And we met with the FBI just recently, 2 weeks ago, with Director Comey. And, undoubtedly, every Jewish leader that walked out 

of there had an extremely high level of confidence in the Bureau, 

what they are doing, and how engaged they are. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could just walk right down. 

Rabbi BAKER. So let me outline where I think we have succeeded 

and where your legislation clearly resonates, and where there are 

still challenges, at least in Europe. 

One of the significant challenges has been to, essentially, get 

those European Jewish communities themselves to engage, to develop the kind of professionalism to know how to handle security 

issues, and that varies greatly community by community. As we 

mentioned, the UK and France are very good models. Other countries are coming to this late. But there are efforts, really, to get all 

of them up to a certain level. 

At that point, the concern is also the kind of relationships that 

can develop with local and national authorities; police, intelligence 

gathering agencies, and the like. 

That also varies greatly from place to place. That is one of the 

sad realities, and we have tried to leverage good practices in one 

country to encourage, to push other countries to follow suit. 

As you may recall, in my OSCE role, I made an official visit to 

Copenhagen, which happen to have been 5 months before that terrorist attack that left one security volunteer dead. Authorities in 

Denmark said to me, we have a ‘‘relaxed approach’’ to security. A 

‘‘relaxed approach.’’ And by that, they meant, they were concerned, 

that their citizens would feel uncomfortable if they saw armed police in front of buildings. And so for that reason, they weren’t providing police in front of the synagogue or the school with, ultimately, the tragic results that took place. 

There was a mindset that had to be addressed, and ultimately 

changed. And in dealing with this issue of security, if the governments don’t recognize the genuine threat, it is hard to feel you are 

going to succeed. 

Those terrible incidents maybe have helped galvanized that attention. But it still has challenges in finding its way into the different communities and municipalities. 

We mentioned the challenges in Malmo, Sweden. When I was 

there this past September, and I asked the person responsible in 

the municipality for security, about there really not being any giveand-take communication with the local Jewish community, he said 

to me—and he is a veteran himself of police—I don’t get responses 

from Stockholm, from the national government, when they know 

we have threats in this community. 

So part of the problem isn’t just the communication between 

Jewish community professionals and government, it is even within 

52

governments themselves that leave groups, leave people vulnerable. So this has been part of these issues, clearly, where you can, 

and some of these best practice models, point to good cooperation, 

sharing of information, not only of threats, but of collecting data 

and the like. Because, often, Jewish communities with professional 

monitoring agencies will find that community members, who have 

experienced incidents, will report to them even if they are reluctant 

to report to police. They know they are going to be taken seriously. 

And a good relationship means that same information can then 

find its way to government authorities. 

So those are some of the examples where, again, we have had 

progress, but still challenges remain. 

Mr. SMITH. Go ahead, Stacy. 

Ms. BURDETT. I just want to suggest three ideas on this topic: 

You asked about local law enforcement. We are in a period of transition. We haven’t heard an affirmation of the Department of Justice’s commitment to train law enforcement on data collection, reporting, hate crime investigations, prosecutorial skills that they 

need. That is something that is very high on our wish list as we 

look at these bomb threats and the rise in hate crimes in the country. 

So every day is a good day to reaffirm. If you want to see the 

best hate crime training manual that I have seen, the FBI has one, 

and we should use it. It is very good. It includes scenarios that all 

kinds of NGOs have worked on. 

And speaking of training manuals, I know, Mr. Chairman, it can 

be important when a Member of Congress inquires into a government program. You know quite well the international law enforcement academies that our FBI runs on every continent, and the 

ILEA has a hate crime curriculum that they are using. It is a 

training that has been delivered. It is a propriety document, and 

it might be something that you might want to request from the 

State Department INL, to take a look at that curriculum and how 

it is being used and how is that existing training on hate crime, 

how we can make sure that it is also helping law enforcement officers get the skills to address anti-Semitism. So that is just our own 

training that we are already doing. 

And we also have an existing interagency initiative that has 

been, for a while, coordinated out of the White House that brings 

together law enforcement agencies to make sure there is a coordinated and vigorous effort to investigate hate crimes and reach out 

to communities. So those are three very concrete things that I 

think would be useful if it were requested by Members of Congress. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WEITZMAN. I just would like to add two very brief points. 

One is that my colleagues are continuing their training sessions on 

digital terrorism and hate with law enforcement on a basic local 

level. We just had a session in Chicago about 2 weeks ago. But I 

also point out one area of concern, which Rabbi Baker can certainly 

address as well very deeply, that we hear periodically through 

some of the European countries that they no longer want to bear 

the costs of paying for security, and they would like to pass that 

on to the local Jewish community. I find that very troubling, and 

I think it is something that we need to reemphasize the point that 

53

security is something that needs to be provided to all citizens without their having to pay extra for the right to live and exist in those 

countries. 

Mr. SMITH. Just a few final questions, then I will yield to my 

good friend from New York. 

In one of my previous hearings that I have had, as I indicated 

quite a few, about 18 or 19 on combating anti-Semitism, and every 

time we learn things that just jump off the page as—didn’t know 

it was that bad here or there, or that this particular practice was 

emerging as a more common and prevalent practice. 

One of them, in February 2013, I chaired a hearing on ‘‘AntiSemitism, A Growing Threat To All Faiths,’’ and we tried to bring 

in how Catholics, Muslims, and others need to speak out more 

robustly against anti-Semitism. But we did have one individual, 

Willy Silberstein, from the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism, testify, and I had a number of press people who came afterwards and said, Sweden? It is that bad in Sweden? And he said—

and you mentioned it, Rabbi Baker, in your comments orally about 

Sweden, briefly, but he said, Let me start by telling you about 

Shneur Kesselman. He is a rabbi born in the United States. He is 

working in the Swedish city of Malmo, which is rather infamous for 

its anti-Semitism in recent years. What differs him from other 

Jews of Malmo is that people can see that he is Jewish. He wears 

traditional clothes. 

For some years now, he has been systematically harassed. People 

spit on him, throw cans after him, threaten him, and call him 

things like a bloody Jew. He points out in his testimony that there 

is a large group of Muslims there. He does make the point that a 

large portion of the Muslim immigrants in Sweden are not anti-Semitic, but also that there are some that are. And that seems to be 

the game changer in that particular nation. 

And I am wondering, if they can’t get it right in Sweden, which 

is known for its nonviolence and very tolerant attitudes, it is not 

a good sign, in my opinion. So I wonder if you might speak to that, 

Rabbi, what you found most recently in Sweden. Has it gotten any 

better? 

I remember at the Berlin Conference, the chief rabbi of Berlin 

and I had dinner together, and he said it is not what it looks like 

here. He said, If I travel with traditional garb, and I get onto a 

tram or a bus, I take—or feel and will—it is not just something he 

senses. He will have comments made. And he said, this is in Berlin 

in 2004. And he said, you know, so many Jewish individuals go out 

of their way to de-emphasize their Jewish character and—by not 

wearing traditional garb, as this particular man in Sweden did. So 

that was a take-away from me with the chief rabbi in Berlin. 

Let me also say, Rabbi, if you could maybe speak to this, as you 

might know, as you all know—you know it for certain, because you 

helped us write it, and gave insight—the International Religious 

Freedom Act bill, the Frank Wolf bill that I am the prime author 

of, it took years to get enacted, it was signed in late December, has 

a number of strong, mutually enforcing provisions to it. And I think 

it will make a difference. It requires far more robust training than 

our State Department officers, DCMs and departing Ambassadors 

are getting as of now. They have not gotten it. 

54

The dream of 1998, when the IRFA bill was passed, Frank Wolf’s 

bill, was that, okay. They have left that out. It is about time that 

combating anti-Semitism and all of the other religious freedom 

issues were really included in that training, and it turned out to 

be far less than what any of us thought the implementation phase 

would include. We now have good, strong language that makes it 

much stronger. And, again, Ira worked on that, as you pointed out 

in your number six recommendation. So we have to make sure to 

monitor that and that it is being done well. 

But we also put in a provision, Rabbi, and you referenced this 

in your oral remarks, about the persecution of lawyers, politicians, 

or other human rights advocates seeking to defend rights of members of religious groups or highlight religious freedom violations, 

prohibitions on ritual animal slaughter or male infant circumcision, 

to include that in the annual IRFA reports. So that will be in this 

report. It is required by this legislation. It was signed into law in 

the middle of December. So we are going to make sure that that 

is in there. 

Because, you know, as Sharansky said in Berlin, you can’t fight 

something if you don’t chronicle it. So we have to get the 

chronicalling going in this aspect as well. So you might want to 

speak to Sweden and to this provision. 

Rabbi BAKER. Sure. With regard to Sweden—and I did, actually, 

also see Willy Silberstein when I was there this past September, 

and as I noted before, I was in Malmo. 

Actually, for the first time, they did apprehend and prosecute a 

perpetrator of an attack on this rabbi in Malmo. I guess that is 

good news. And I think we have been able—they have been able 

to find him in an apartment closer to the synagogue, so at least he 

is not this sort of visible target that he had become. 

The fact is that the challenge goes much beyond just this single 

rabbi. 

Malmo has really been the entry point for refugees and migrants 

coming into Sweden. And as I mentioned earlier, many of them 

come with attitudes from their host countries, anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-Western in various ways. In 2013, there were 800 foreigners that the city had to deal with. 

In 2015, they had 13,000. So the challenges are really dramatic, 

and they are not necessarily up to it. I think we recognize that. 

One bit of, I want to say, positive news—and this also concerns 

Malmo—are efforts to secure a rabbi that will come to the city with 

a specific focus of working on interreligious and, in particular, Jewish-Muslim activities. And in this case, the Swedish Government 

would fund this project. At the time I was there, they were trying 

to identify someone. I don’t know whether it has yet been implemented, but I think that was a good effort to say, let’s see what 

we can do. Because we know, as I have said earlier, much of this 

difficulty goes with attitudes in the Muslim community. And this 

would be a program focused, really, explicitly on that. 

I am very happy to know that in the International Religious 

Freedom Report this issue will be identified. We have been pushing, also, within the OSCE and hope and expect that there will be 

a conference later this year, probably in July, that will focus on religious freedom and ritual practice to try to bring together those 

55

forces that are making efforts to push back on these restrictions 

and, again, to say, this is an essential element of freedom of religion and religious practice. 

I think, as we have seen before—when we have a U.S. report on 

interreligious freedom, on human rights, on anti-Semitism, it gets 

attention. Our respective organizations may do something similar. 

We will put out our reports, but in reality, governments truly pay 

attention if the U.S. Government is citing this. 

So thank you so much for being able to see that this happens. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Suozzi. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, let me say, again, that I want to 

thank you for your leadership on these issues. And I want you to 

know this is a very important issue to me, combating anti-Semitism, and human rights in general. And I will always try and serve 

as a partner to you in any efforts you have in this regard. 

I want to thank the witnesses for their fantastic work that they 

have done with their careers and throughout their lives on these 

issues. And I want to welcome them here today. To make you feel 

welcome, I want to say bruchim habaim, and welcome you here to 

Washington today and thank you for the work that you are doing. 

Again, I am a former mayor and county executive and very comfortable with the issues you are talking about regarding law enforcement, having overseen very large police departments as Nassau County executive, and a smaller police department as Glen 

Cove mayor and know how important local law enforcement, both 

here in America and abroad, and the training that they receive on 

these issues is so essential. So, anything the chairman wants to try 

and promote in that respect, I will be happy to support him in 

those efforts. 

It is important we say on the record that Jews have been persecuted for centuries, as all of you know, but it is important that 

I say it as well. And that, you know, this is a persecuted minority. 

There are over 2 billion Christians in the world. There are 11⁄2 billion Muslims in the world. There are 900 million Hindus in the 

world. There are 376 million Buddhists in the world. There are 23 

million Sikhs in the world, and there are only 14 to 15 million 

Jews. And when you think about the number of 6 million people 

annihilated during the Holocaust, what an incredible statistic that 

is. And the persecution that the Jews have suffered for centuries 

is something we have to start worrying about again today. 

We need to look at what is happening in the world right now. 

There are other minority groups that are being discriminated 

against, and there is something that is happening related to the 

Internet, something that is happening related to our political dialogue and the way that people treat each other generally in high 

public places, in the way that they talk to each other with a lack 

of civility, where it has become almost acceptable to demean people 

and to treat people with less than their human dignity. 

And I wanted to ask each of you to just tell me what you think 

is happening in the world today that we are seeing these rises happen? What are the factors that are contributing to this uptick in 

hate crimes, certainly, for Jews, certainly, but throughout our societies throughout the world today. What is happening? Is it the 

Internet? Is it people that were underground before, it is easier for 

56

them to express themselves utilizing social media? Is it because of 

leadership in the world? Is it because people feel threatened because of their economic circumstances? What is it that is happening in the world today that we see this uptick in anti-Semitism 

and other discrimination? 

Mr. Goldenberg? 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Well, one of the things—and my distinguished 

colleagues could probably really elaborate more so on what I am 

going to say, but I am not looking to simplify it, but I had the 

honor of working closely with you when you were county executive, 

I am very aware of the good works you did out in the county on 

bias crimes and hate crimes——

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG [continuing]. Working with the police department. 

And as someone that, actually, was responsible for the prosecution and investigation of these crimes in the State of New Jersey 

for the Attorney General’s office, I am speaking, again, through a 

different set of optics. Back in the day when we were investigating 

these types of crimes, and we had leaflets, calling for death to the 

Jews or Jews to the ovens, which are extremely heinous in itself, 

those words were leafletted on maybe 100 cars. And those that 

were distributing the leaflets would get tired and go back to their 

basements and go back to their disheveled printers. And I am not 

making light of this, by no means. 

Today, Congressman, with a single click of a finger, you can 

reach tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, some of 

which are now much more emboldened. They feed off of each other. 

You know, but the old cliche, some say, well, the Internet, First 

Amendment, sticks and stones will break your bones, but there are 

statistics to show that dozens and dozens and dozens of individuals 

who have been involved, or engaged, or have perpetrated murders 

tied to extremist views, have done so because they were inspired 

through the Internet. Stormfront, one of the most vial, vial Internet 

sites out there, Breivik in Norway, who killed dozens of children; 

Miller, who shot three wonderful human beings out in Kansas City; 

and our latest individual that just was found guilty for shooting 

nine wonderful souls down, taking out nine wonderful souls in 

Charleston, South Carolina. The common denominator between 

them is they visited the same site. They visited the same site. 

So it is the old cliche, it is the best of times and the worst of 

times, because we have this wonderful tool. But, again, my colleagues can elaborate much more. 

Mr. SUOZZI. That is the point Tom Friedman makes in his most 

recent book, ‘‘Thank You for Being Late,’’ is that, you know, the 

Internet makes this opportunity for makers to do great things and 

for breakers, the people that want to try to take us down. 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, you ask a real challenging question, because 

there is an uptick. And the why is really one, I think, we all wrestle with. 

It reminded me of something that goes back now, I think, almost 

25 years. AJC, at the time, was doing attitude surveys in different 

European countries. We would ask how people felt about Jews as 

neighbors and so on, but about other minority groups too, to really 

57

try to get a more comprehensive picture not only of anti-Semitism, 

but of other prejudices. We were presenting one of these surveys 

done in Germany at a press conference in Berlin. There was a pretty significant degree of anti-Jewish feeling, but also anti othergroup sentiments, I want to say, maybe, ranging from maybe 20 

percent up to, maybe, 80 percent in terms of the degree of negativity depending on the group. 

And someone asked about such surveys at the time in the United 

States, and there have been. And what was interesting was the 

range of negative attitudes. The range itself was much lower. 

Maybe beginning at 5 or 6 percent, and going up, in the worst case, 

to 20-plus percent depending on the group. 

One of the Germans in this press conference said, as a way of 

explaining the more negative responses there, maybe people here 

are just more willing to speak their mind, to tell you what they 

really feel and that, perhaps, those surveys done in America, people were inhibited; they didn’t want to say what they really felt. 

And it seemed like an answer, although at the time my colleague 

said, well, you know, maybe that is true. But the first step, at the 

very least, is to make saying those things taboo. Even if you think 

it, you shouldn’t feel free to say it. 

And, so, it has always struck me, this is a basic lesson. It goes 

whether it is the old way of communicating in broad sides, or just 

in public speeches, or in the new means we have today, but it 

comes back to the same thing: We need to, as a first step, at least, 

make sure these kinds of racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic expressions, aren’t acceptable. And we all have a role in doing that. 

Mr. SUOZZI. That is an excellent point, Rabbi. Thank you. 

Mr. WEITZMAN. I agree with what both my distinguished colleagues have said before, and I would say that just to make it very 

graphic, when I—one of the first articles I wrote about extremism 

on the Internet was for a conference at Oxford, I think, in the year 

2000. And I entitled it, ‘‘The Internet is More Powerful Than a 

Sword.’’ And that was, actually, the message at that point that was 

taken from the writings of the neo-Nazi online. They, themselves, 

saw it as more powerful. Actually, if we begin, and want a good understanding of this, Stormfront, which Paul mentioned, is basically 

credited with being the original neo-Nazi site online from 1995. Actually, the reality is already in the mid-1980s, in the old dial-up 

BBS systems, we found a neo-Nazi site from West Virginia, for example, was one of the first online. And it became the prototype. It 

had a library of neo-Nazi writings, it had a list of race traders, 

things of that effect on it, point systems where people were already 

targeted, ranging from leaders of civil rights organizations, Federal 

judges, Jewish leaders, et cetera, and it was already established by 

the turn of the millennia. 

So this that has been prevalent ever since the technology began. 

And it teaches us, it is not the technology; it is the human beings 

involved with it. So what my colleague said I agree wholeheartedly, 

I think that the sense of responsibility is something that is lacking. 

And I would also add that I think one of the things that we 

allow—and you made the point of political language becoming debased and very highly charged. And Chairman Smith has referred 

to Natan Sharansky’s remarks a couple of times already. I think 

58

what he was pointing out and talking about was how the criticism 

to Israel became hostility to Israel. Israel became identified and accepted as identification in certain elite circles, media circles, and so 

on, identified with Nazi acts, with an apartheid state, with genocide, with concentration camps, and this was then extended to the 

totality of the Jewish people. 

The effects of the Holocaust were turned around, were inverted, 

where the victims became the perpetrators. So we have a system, 

or a culture, where, in certain ways, very highly emotionally 

charged language was used to create not just disagreement, but 

hate, and stereotypes were built into it. The opposition that Rabbi 

Baker mentioned to some of the traditional acts of Jewish religious 

practice, some of which were aimed, by the way—and I heard it 

firsthand from the parliamentarians in Norway, for example, that 

these acts were aimed originally at the Muslim community there 

and Jews were collateral damage that went along with it. 

But they reverted back to traditional stereotypes of Jews as 

blood-sucking, vampiric figures, and these were in mainstream 

newspapers. So we saw that entering the mainstream of society. 

And I think, in essence, what we are talking about is that antiSemitism used to be marginalized, used to be thought of as extreme. What we have seen in recent years, is through political antiSemitism, and now through Holocaust distortion and other means, 

it has entered the mainstream of society with the effects that we 

see today where Jews throughout the world, including the Western 

world, feel imperiled in ways that are really, frankly, unparalleled 

in recent memory. 

So I think the leadership question is major; I think the sense of 

responsibility in terms of political speech, in general, anti-Semitism 

in particular, is very important, but I think the leadership shown 

the actions of this subcommittee and yourself pave a way and a 

model that we hope more people will emulate. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you. 

Ms. BURDETT. So the question you ask is so perplexing, because 

every public attitude survey that we see about our own country, 

you can look in Germany at a similar trend, the American people, 

the German people, people in communities are growing more tolerant of each other. More people in America today have favorable 

views of Jewish people than they have before, and that is true of 

other groups as well. But the hatred has such a microphone right 

now. It is hard to hear that tolerance. 

And I think, you know, my colleagues have touched on a point, 

the Internet is anonymous. Think about what it took to bring down 

the Klan. It is not that the people in klavern believed our arguments that their values were not as good as ours. It is because they 

had to take off their hoods and show their faces, stand behind that 

hatred. 

And, you know, our CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, keeps reminding 

us that the people who used to burn crosses on front lawns are now 

burning up Twitter. And so my colleagues are right, it is just another platform for the same thing. 

There is anger. There is a vacuum of leadership, and we are all, 

all of us, on both sides of this table, we are in a battle for an 

evidence- and a decency-based marketplace of ideas. And it goes 

59

from the global level to a very personal level. If you shoot hoops 

in the congressional gym with someone from the other party, you 

are less likely to believe it the next time one of your colleagues 

tells you that that guy’s group is out to get you or your agenda. 

I say ‘‘guy,’’ because we are in the gym in this scenario. 

Mr. SUOZZI. There are women in the gym, too. 

Ms. BURDETT. Oh, okay. 

Mr. SUOZZI. I worked out with some Republican women today. 

Ms. BURDETT. Good for you. All politics is local, as you know 

from being a county executive. 

So your statements today, our visible partnership, communities 

see that. And when we can sit here as nobodies at a table and 

bring our expertise and give you a list of our ideas, and know that 

this chairman is quite likely to take all of the ideas and turn them 

into action and then some, that is a very powerful example for people to see. 

Mr. SUOZZI. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BURDETT. We are on the way. 

Mr. SUOZZI. That image you gave of the idea of taking the hoods 

off Klan members is a very good image. Which is, you know, transparency and exposing things, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and 

that goes with all things in government, but certainly on this issue, 

exposing the people that are behind these actions and talking 

about it publicly is so important, and that is why it is so important 

that the chairman held this hearing today, and that all of you 

came. Thank you, again. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Mark, I think you stirred this a little bit. One 

of the things we did find in working across the 10 countries—Andy 

and I traveled probably even more than that, as well as Stacy and 

I—synagogues and Jewish centers in Europe have become lightning 

rods for what happens geopolitically, and that should not be the 

case. These synagogues, these precious—they are more than infrastructure, in some cases, 100 years old, and in some cases it could 

be 10 years old. 

These are the fabric of the nations where they sit. They are part 

of their fabric. And I think that that is something that we cannot 

allow, this continuum, evening amongst the police ranks, to believe 

in some of these countries that if they are attacking a synagogue, 

it is got to do, or associated with what is happening geopolitically 

2,000, 3,000 miles away, because that is not the case. What is happening geopolitically 2,000, 3,000 miles away, is happening 2,000, 

3,000 miles away. 

But there are those that will use that as an excuse. We have to 

keep reminding people, including the security services, the national 

security services, these are your houses; these are your institutions; 

these are your synagogues; these are your schools; and your Jewish 

centers, and they need the same protection. They belong to you. 

And that is something that our collective groups are working on 

right now. More than a reminder, but that is about training. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I would just add before yielding to Mr. 

Sherman, that that was the exact point that Natan Sharansky was 

making with his three Ds: Demonization of Israel, delegitimization, 

and double standard. And nowhere is that more rampant than at 

60

the United Nations, particularly the Human Rights Council, which 

is why, as I said in my opening, our new Ambassador to the U.N. 

has really drawn a line, has a zero-tolerance attitude toward that 

pernicious hypocrisy, which is rampant. 

I have gone to the Human Rights Council myself several times, 

and before that, when it was called the Human Rights Commission, 

and was appalled to see countries whom I have great respect for 

Western democracies, who all of us have great respect for. They 

have matured, to use the word that was used earlier, democratic 

traditions, just joining in the parade and bashing Israel unjustly. 

Then that reverberates back to the attack on the synagogue, because it riles people up, and now, as was pointed out, with a click 

of a button, people get this misinformation, this hate, and then 

they act on it. 

So, thank you for all of those comments. 

Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting me participate in this hearing, although as a member of the full committee, 

I am not a member of this subcommittee. And I want to commend 

you for being the author of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act 

of 2004 that established the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat 

Anti-Semitism——

Mr. SMITH. If the gentleman would yield? I was the House sponsor, Mr. Voinovich was the Senate sponsor. But when his bill came 

over, which called for a 1-year review, I offered the amendment to 

make it a permanent office, and then also, to establish the special 

envoy that Ira so thankfully led for several years. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Just so it is clear. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And I also have a personal connection to that office, since my wife was the first Deputy Special Envoy. And I take 

family pride in her work on the report on global anti-Semitism 

issued by the State Department in March of 2008. 

And my first question for our panel is: We did write that report. 

It is almost 10 years ago. I am not saying we can write one every 

year, but should we be writing one every decade? Do we need another report on contemporary global anti-Semitism? 

Yes, Ms. Burdett. 

Ms. BURDETT. It is always a good idea to highlight issues and do 

special reports. If you look at the annual country reports on human 

rights and international religious freedom, you will see that Ira 

Forman and the team that is still working every day in the State 

Department do not get much sleep before those reports are due. 

And what you have done to require these good public servants 

to ask every single Embassy in the world to report on anti-Semitism, when you pull that together, it is a terrific snapshot. Your 

legislation was game-changing, and we have eyes on the problem 

in places we never did. 

Every 10 years it would be very, very wise to do a similar kind 

of report. And I know Mrs. Sherman’s expertise was absolutely essential to that successful report, and you are wise to be very proud 

of her. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

61

One thing that that report does is it defines anti-Semitism, basing its definition, in large part, on the European Monitoring Centre 

for Racism and Xenophobia’s working definition of anti-Semitism. 

And defining anti-Semitism is important, but especially in dealing 

with what I would have to describe as far left wing, or misguided 

left-wing anti-Semitism. On the extreme right you see references to 

Nazis. It is pretty obvious that it is anti-Semitic. 

But you also see attacks on the Jewish people where the attacker 

defends it, says, oh, I am not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist. And 

there needs to be a definition that distinguishes between legitimate 

criticism of a Government of Israel, something most members of 

this panel have engaged in from time to time; and a holding Israel 

up to a standard that no other country is held to, or claiming that 

of all the countries in the world, that this is the one country that 

should be abolished. 

What I wonder, though, is that the U.S. Department of Education doesn’t have a definition of anti-Semitism, has not yet adopted the State Department definition. Does it undermine us in talking to other countries about anti-Semitism in their country that we 

are defining anti-Semitism by a standard that we don’t apply here 

domestically? 

Rabbi? 

Rabbi BAKER. I think it is a quite pertinent question, and I 

would turn it around and say our ability to be a strong advocate 

in pressing foreign governments, as we are, to employ the working 

definition, whether it is in police training, whether it is in training 

judges and prosecutors, whether it is in monitoring anti-Semitism, 

would certainly be enhanced if we can cite our own example in the 

United States of putting it to use. 

We all would hold the view, I know my organization does, when 

this issue first came up in the last Congress—that this working 

definition is a very useful educational tool. If it is a useful educational tool for the justice ministry of Austria, I would say it is 

a useful educational tool for the Department of Education here, 

which is concerned about monitoring and addressing problems of 

anti-Semitism on college campuses. 

And if I could also speak to your first question. A U.S. global report about anti-Semitism, even if it has the same information—

and, by the way, it is increasingly having much more, I think. We 

know what is gathered. But even if it has the same information as 

our own Jewish organizations might report, has an impact that is 

unparalleled in getting governments’ attention. So having that report really allows us and everyone else to go in and to push these 

governments, who are now taking notice. And, finally, it has also 

educated, let’s be candid, our own American diplomats. As Embassies have a responsibility to monitor what is going on, they are becoming more sensitive to what this is about. And, again, in these 

places, that definition is a very helpful tool. 

Mr. SHERMAN. It has been my experience in Congress that one 

of the best ways to affect what people do is to ask them the right 

question. And by asking all of our Embassies on a continuing basis 

to ask their host governments what are they doing about the antiSemitism, you drive policy in the right direction. 

Mr. Weitzman? 

62

Mr. WEITZMAN. I just would like to add as well, as you know, the 

31-member nations of the International Holocaust Remembrance 

Alliance officially adopted a variation of the working definition of 

anti-Semitism. And in the negotiations and conversations with the 

countries leading up to that, its adoption, and my colleague, Dr. 

Robert Williams, from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum was 

instrumental in assisting in this process as well, we found very 

often the question raised of what is the United States’ position on 

this? We were able to refer to the State Department Web site and 

the documents on the Web site, but that, obviously, only dealt with 

external and multilateral relationships. It didn’t deal with the domestic case at all. 

So having this definition through the Anti-Semitism Awareness 

Act that is now being held up in Congress, we think would be very 

powerful and very strong and send a message not only to domestic 

constituents in the United States in terms of the people on campus, 

even clarifying it for the administrators. It is a tool for the administrators and the people dealing with this issue on campus, as well 

as for the protection of students, but it also sends a message externally as well to other countries that we are basically putting into 

practice what we are preaching, that our moral voice and political 

leadership is strong on this issue, and we feel it applies as well to 

the United States. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And I think it undercuts our foreign policy across 

the board when people can point to an example where we have a 

standard to hold other countries to, and we refuse to impose that 

standard on ourselves. 

The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, I strongly support it. But, 

frankly, it shouldn’t take that. The Department of Education has 

a responsibility to enforce title 6. I have worked with that Department over the last 10 years, and we got a clear statement that title 

6 applies to anti-Semitism, although the statute says national origin and race, that that clearly, applies to the Jewish people as well, 

and to bigotry against Muslims as well. 

If the Department of Education has determined that it has a responsibility to deal with anti-Semitism on campuses, it has a responsibility to have a definition of anti-Semitism. And one would 

wonder why they wouldn’t adopt the same definition that has been 

adopted by so many organizations with a tweak here, with a tweak 

there, and, especially, why they wouldn’t adopt the same definition 

of anti-Semitism that the State Department uses for our foreign 

policy. 

I want to shift to Hungary. I would like to know more about 

this—and I am may mispronounce it—Vitezi Rend. It is my understanding that there are two rival organizations using the same 

name. Is there any doubt that this organization is an anti-Semitic 

organization? 

I will ask this to Rabbi Baker, and then see if everyone else has 

a comment. 

Rabbi BAKER. You know, this is an organization reconstituted 

from a prewar organization that was, certainly, anti-Semitic, Fascist, part of the supporters, followers of Admiral Horthy, and——

Mr. SHERMAN. And a pro-Nazi probe organization during World 

War II. 

63

Rabbi BAKER. Exactly that. Exactly that. 

So I don’t know that it has much influence today in Hungary, but 

the reality is this is its origin, and it was around this sentiment, 

these ideological views, clearly, anti-Semitic, that it was re-formed. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I mean, if somebody formed an organization called 

the Nazi Party of California, they may not publish a manifesto that 

is anti-Semitic, they don’t need to. They name themselves the Nazi 

Party of California, and they have associated themselves with the 

Nazi Party of Germany and the role it played in world history. 

So we don’t have to wait for today’s Vitezi Rend to publish an 

anti-Semitic manifesto. They have named themselves after or claim 

to be a continuation of an organization that was a pro-Nazi organization in Hungary in the 1930s and 1940s. 

Rabbi BAKER. I think they knew what they were doing when they 

chose their name. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yeah. 

Now, I am going to get down in the weeds on this. I am told that 

members of this organization add a ‘‘V’’ as an additional middle initial to show their support for the organization. Are you aware of 

that practice? 

Rabbi BAKER. I am not. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Okay. 

Rabbi BAKER. But maybe the others——

Mr. SHERMAN. Gotcha. 

I want to thank you for your work, thank the chairman for holding these hearings, and yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Just a few followup questions. And thank you for your time and, 

again, for elaborating so well on your responses to the questions. 

Ms. Burdett, you made a very important, I think, observation 

about Latin America, which you might want to elaborate on. You 

point out that in Latin America, over the last few years, there has 

been a region-wide increase of anti-Semitic expressions and attacks 

directed at Jewish individuals and institutions, primarily via the 

Internet and social media. 

You point out that Venezuela continues to be a country where 

state-endorsed anti-Semitism is systematic and affects government 

policies every day for life for Jews. 

In Argentina, where the Jewish community has been the target 

of the infamous anti-Jewish terrorist attacks—and I did visit that 

community center myself and was just struck by the ongoing broken-heartedness by those who run that center and the fact that the 

Iranian perpetrator of those crimes—the alleged, but I think the 

evidence is very clear—continues to be not held to account. 

And then you point out the smaller countries, like Costa Rica 

and Uruguay, where anti-Semitism was practically negligible are 

now facing new challenges. And you give an example in Uruguay 

where a Jewish businessman was stabbed to death by a man who 

said that he killed a Jew following Allah’s order. 

You point out that your Cyber Safety Action Guide has now been 

translated into Spanish for dissemination there. 

But if you could speak to some of this and maybe on Iran’s influence. 

64

Not to get into, relitigate at this hearing the Iranian nuclear 

deal, which I think was egregiously flawed—and you don’t have to 

comment on any of that, but I think it is a matter of when and not 

if that Iran gets nuclear weapons pursuant to those huge gaps in 

that agreement. 

But, that said, they are getting a boatload of money. They have 

already gotten billions of dollars; they will get more. And that 

helps Hezbollah, that helps a whole lot of people. But we know that 

Iran is the worst, largest state sponsor of terrorism, and they certainly are anti-Semitic to the core. 

And their influence in Latin America—I was in Bolivia a few 

years ago trying to get a Jewish businessman out of prison, Jacob 

Ostreicher, and had three hearings on his case alone, went down 

there. Our Embassy wasn’t doing squat at first; they did get further involved. I went to the Palmasola Prison where he was. But 

the anti-Semitic view of Evo Morales and the others is palpable. 

And I add to that, their affection for Iran is equally disturbing. 

So Iran’s influence in Latin America—Venezuela, we know they 

are close. And Argentina, again, has this ongoing, festering sore. So 

if you could speak to it. 

Ms. BURDETT. Well, I want to first say that the fact that this 

body has refused to let go of the questions around this investigation—I know there is a resolution circulating in the House, and I 

know your colleague from Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, who was here 

earlier, has been very active and engaged in this issue and looking 

at the Iranian connection. 

Our organizations, too, thought that the JCPOA with Iran wasn’t 

strong enough, wasn’t ironclad enough. 

And I think a number of the incidents that we are dealing with 

in the community are a result of this infectious influence. And we 

know that Iran practically has anti-Semitism and the export of 

anti-Semitism as a policy. And so, when the Supreme Leader calls 

Israel a cancerous tumor or when their Ministry of Culture endorses a Holocaust cartoon contest, that crosses every border. 

And we support your efforts to shed more light on that investigation and to infuse that investigation with our assistance to expose 

that connection. So I think, from a governmental side, you are 

doing your part, and, as advocates, we are spotlighting the permeation across borders of the hate that makes those incidents possible. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could, to Rabbi Baker, in your written testimony—and I appreciate your leadership on this—you point out 

that the chair-in-office, Steinmeier, had tried to get the definition 

of anti-Semitism adopted. Only one country, Russia, blocked it. 

And just for the record, I have it here, without objection, I will 

put into the record that definition—it is very short—but also the 

State Department’s elaboration on it, which I think gives it additional understanding. 

Will a new attempt be made within the OSCE to get that definition adopted across all countries, including Russia? And if you 

could elaborate on that, I would appreciate it. 

Rabbi BAKER. I really hope so. 

There is no question that the kind of leadership that the German 

Foreign Minister showed was unique. And the current chair, I beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:52 Apr 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Z:\WORK\_AGH\032217\24753 SHIRL
65

lieve, is open, if we are able to show that there could be a consensus, to bring it up at the ministerial this December in Vienna. 

I think the support from Members here, Chairman Smith and 

those who are part of the Commission on Security and Cooperation 

in Europe, will also be important for this. 

We need to find ways to bring Russia around on this issue. As 

I have noted in the past and in conversations with you, when I met 

with them, they explained to me they had two problems with that 

adoption of the definition. One concerned the views, they said, of 

their own Jewish experts, who they claimed opposed it, which really was not true. Another was the fact that it referenced the IHRA 

definition, and they said they were not members of IHRA. I asked 

them, ‘‘So are those the only two problems?’’ And they replied, 

‘‘Well, for now.’’

So we know that it is not so much addressing them as legitimate 

reasons, but finding the ability to be able to say there are, not just 

for now but permanently, no objections. Maybe we can tweak the 

actual language to provide something that would be suitable. But 

if we can—and we will try—to secure Russian support for this or 

at least non-opposition, then I very much hope we can come back 

and perhaps succeed in December. 

Mr. SMITH. One final question for me, and then I will yield to my 

colleague if he has any additional ones. 

Obviously, Security Council Resolution 2334 was a disaster, in 

my opinion. It also had embedded in it language that I think is 

very injurious or could give amplification to the BDS movement. 

And, perhaps, Mr. Weitzman, you might want to speak to that. 

I have met with Prince Zeid, the High Commissioner for Human 

Rights. And I am beyond troubled, angered, as I believe and hope—

I know you are—that compiling lists of companies that the U.N. 

High Commissioner has taken it upon himself to do is a very, very 

dangerous precedent, somehow suggesting the illegitimacy of Israel 

and East Jerusalem being one and the same. 

Any final determination between the Palestinians and Israelis, 

as we all have said a thousand times, needs to be negotiated between the two entities. To have this, increasingly, imposition of an 

outcome dictated by the United Nations and its bureaucracy is 

troubling, but when there is also an economic threat posed by BDS, 

that raises it even further. And that will have more impact, in my 

opinion, in Europe than it will here, although it will impact us here 

as well, as those companies are listed that do business in areas 

that are in contention with United Nations. 

And maybe if you could just elaborate too on that there are rightwing and there are left-wing strong manifestations of anti-Semitism. We see it. I guess what came out, Rabbi Baker, to me, in 

those very early meetings in Vienna and then Berlin and then followup meetings was hatred from the left and the right. I remember 

when we were pushing Holocaust remembrance in France, it was 

the teachers union and the leftists who were most adamantly opposed to any kind of teaching of students of the Holocaust. So the 

left and the right has shame on its face, in my opinion, the extreme 

left and the extreme right. 

But BDS is also something that the left is pushing. Maybe you 

might want to speak to that as well. 

66

Mr. WEITZMAN. Thank you. 

In regards to the United Nations, I think one of the things that 

we have seen is really the vigorous pushback by Ambassador Haley 

in leading the U.S. delegation to make it very clear that we will 

not tolerate crossing a certain line of what is really acceptable political discourse and what is not. 

And we were very encouraged by the reaction of the SecretaryGeneral in not only rejecting the flawed report that came out that 

linked Israel to apartheid practices but actually taking it down 

from the U.N. Web site, which already actually caused at least one 

diplomat to resign in protest over it. But it was really unprecedented, and we are very cheered that the Secretary-General took 

a strong step on that. And we hope that that is showing a little 

bit of a shift back to a more rational and decent approach by the 

U.N. 

I think, in terms of BDS, one of the things that we have seen 

is that, again, a number of States in the United States, as well as 

a number of cities, have passed laws against BDS recently, over 

the past year or so, which are something that I think will strengthen the backbone, even though it wasn’t necessarily, I think, a lot 

of cases that this was not necessarily a practical step as much as 

an expression of political will and an expression of common belief 

that BDS is not only against Israel and not only anti-Semitic but 

is fundamentally un-American. It challenges freedom of speech, 

freedom of opinion, and, as such, I think most Americans would reject it instinctively. 

What happens in Europe, again, I think the United States can 

play a very strong role in positioning itself as a leader against BDS 

and in making sure that, given the prominence of the U.S. industries, that BDS fails, as it has failed in so many other places. 

I will say, in terms of right-wing and left-wing extremism, one 

of the points that I would like to just make briefly is that there 

has been a sea change in right-wing extremism in the United 

States over the past generation or so. 

People had referred to the Klan, and if you look back at Klan history and documents, they originally came about, and even through 

the 1960s and the civil rights period, they claimed fealty to a vision, a flawed and totally historically inaccurate, but idealized vision, of the United States as an antebellum Southern vision of a 

place where slavery and religious persecution were embedded in 

the Constitution and, thus, were American ideals. 

The generation that we have starting in the later part of the 

20th century is a generation of extremists who see themselves at 

war with the United States. They consider the U.S. Government Zionist-occupied government territory. And that is one of the reasons 

why they are so ready to go into violent acts, because, to them, a 

state of war already exists with the Jews who control the U.S. Government and people down to postal workers who have been murdered because they wore a government uniform. 

That has then translated it into the rhetoric that we see sometimes on the extremes of the alt-right and so on, who consider 

themselves at war with established political institutions and political norms in the U.S. And I think that is one of the things that 

67

we have to recognize, the shift between the traditional extremism 

and the new status that we have now. 

And, of course, again, the left-wing extremism is very often filtered through traditional—going back to Communist opposition to 

Israel, to opposition to Jews as a distinct religion, both of which are 

fundamentally opposed by communism, and even the erasure of 

Jews from history, as the infamous plaque at Babi Yar under Communists basically talked about the victims of fascism in a generic 

sense, at Auschwitz as well, taking away and erasing the specificity 

of the Jewish experience in that period. 

Rabbi BAKER. Just to be very brief, I think one of the phenomena 

of anti-Semitism is that it can link haters from all across the spectrum who literally have nothing else in common. It almost defies 

any rational understanding. 

We have come to see and expect it as part of a right-wing, 

xenophobic ideology. It has traditionally been there in Europe, and 

in almost all of these nationalist parties anti-Semitism is a piece 

of it. 

At the same time—and, again, I reference having been relatively 

recently in Sweden—you have now a growth, it was pointed out to 

us, of these—in many cases, they are minority groups, hip-hop and 

rap artists engaged in concerts to combat racism that use overtly 

anti-Semitic language in their lyrics. So how do you square this? 

The fact is it is a phenomenon we are seeing not only, as Mark 

has indicated, from the historical notions of what communism or 

socialist movements may have done, but even in what would almost be a kind of ‘‘post-movement’’ Europe today, where, still, figures on the left—they may be literary figures, musical figures, or 

others—have folded in this—again, it may start as anti-Zionism, 

but it often comes full-blown as an anti-Semitism with all of those 

negative stereotypes of Jews. It is there. 

Mr. SMITH. That concludes the hearing. 

I want to thank you again for your extraordinary leadership, 

each of you, and for giving us the benefit as a subcommittee and, 

by extension, the Congress—because we will share this widely with 

the leadership, especially your testimonies today. And as the record 

is obviously produced, we will get that out to key policymakers as 

well. Because, again, you have provided a treasure trove of insight 

and expectation as well as the experience. And past is prologue; we 

need to learn from the past and also face these new challenges as 

they emerge. 

So thank you so very, very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(69)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

70

f


24753n.eps
71

f


24753m.eps
72

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. STACY BURDETT, VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ADVOCACY, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE


24753e-1.eps
73

f


24753e-2.eps
74

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. STACY BURDETT, VICE PRESIDENT, 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, ADVOCACY, AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE


24753h-1.eps
75

f


24753h-2.eps
76

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


24753f-1.eps
77

f


24753f-2.eps
78

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

f


24753g.eps
79

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

f


24753i.eps
80

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


24753j-1.eps
81


24753j-2.eps
82


24753j-3.eps
83


24753j-4.eps
84


24753j-5.eps
85


24753j-6.eps
86

Æ


24753j-7.eps