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

99–941 PDF 2016

ANTICIPATING AND PREVENTING 

DEADLY ATTACKS ON 

EUROPEAN JEWISH COMMUNITIES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND 

COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 19, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

[CSCE 114–2–3] 

( 

Available via http://www.csce.gov 
COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

HOUSE SENATE 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Chairman 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, 

New York 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, 

Co-Chairman 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

Vacant, Department of State 

Vacant, Department of Commerce 

Vacant, Department of Defense 

[II] 
ANTICIPATING AND PREVENTING 

DEADLY ATTACKS ON 

EUROPEAN JEWISH COMMUNITIES 

COMMISSIONERS 

Page 

Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe .............................................. 1 

Hon. Roger Wicker, Co-Chairman, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe ..................................................... 3 

Hon. Steve Cohen, Commissioner, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe ..................................................... 4 

Hon. Alan Grayson, Commissioner, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe ..................................................... 11 

Hon. Randy Hultgren, Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe .............................................. 21 

MEMBER 

Hon. David Schweikert, Representative from the State of 

Arizona ..................................................................................... 10 

WITNESSES 

Rabbi Andrew Baker, Personal Representative of the OSCE 

Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, and Director of International Jewish Affairs, American Jewish 

Committee ................................................................................ 5 

Jonathan Biermann, Executive Director, Crisis Cell for the 

Belgian Jewish Community (via videoconference from 

Brussels, Belgium) ................................................................... 8 

John J. Farmer, Jr., Director, Faith-Based Communities Security Program, Rutgers University ...................................... 12 

Paul Goldenberg, National Director, Secure Community Network .......................................................................................... 17 

[III] 
Page

IV 

APPENDICES 

Prepared statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith ................. 38 

Prepared statement of Hon. Roger Wicker ............................... 40 

Prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin .................... 41 

Prepared statement of Rabbi Andrew Baker ............................ 42 

Prepared statement of Jonathan Biermann ............................. 46 

Prepared statement of John J. Farmer, Jr. .............................. 48 

Prepared statement of Paul Goldenberg ................................... 52 
(1) 

ANTICIPATING AND PREVENTING 

DEADLY ATTACKS ON 

EUROPEAN JEWISH COMMUNITIES 

April 19, 2016 

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

WASHINGTON, DC 

The hearing was held at 1 p.m. in room 210, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC, Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, presiding. 

Commissioners present: Hon. Christopher H. Smith, Chairman, 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Hon. Roger 

Wicker, Co-Chairman, Commission on Security and Cooperation in 

Europe; Hon. Steve Cohen, Commissioner, Commission on Security 

and Cooperation in Europe; Hon. Alan Grayson, Commissioner, 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; and Hon. 

Randy Hultgren, Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

Member present: Hon. David Schweikert, Representative from the 

State of Arizona. 

Witnesses present: Rabbi Andrew Baker, Personal Representative 

of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, and 

Director of International Jewish Affairs, American Jewish Committee; Jonathan Biermann, Executive Director, Crisis Cell for the 

Belgian Jewish Community (via videoconference from Brussels, 

Belgium); John J. Farmer, Jr., Director, Faith-Based Communities 

Security Program, Rutgers University; and Paul Goldenberg, National Director, Secure Community Network. 

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. SMITH. The Commission will come to order. And good afternoon to everyone. Thank you for being here this afternoon. 

I’d especially like to thank our witnesses: Rabbi Andy Baker, 

Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism and the director of international Jewish affairs for the American Jewish Committee; Jonathan Biermann, 

who will join us shortly, executive director of the Crisis Cell for the 

Belgian Jewish community, who will testify by way of video link. 

And then we will also hear from Attorney General John Farmer, 

who currently serves as director of the Faith-Based Communities 

Security Program at Rutgers, and much more; and Paul Golden-
2 

berg, director of the Secure Community Network. So four outstanding experts to provide insights and counsel to the Commission. 

Today we will discuss how to anticipate and prevent deadly attacks on European Jewish communities. The recent terrorist attacks in Brussels were reminders that Europeans of all religions 

and ethnicities are at risk from ISIS. But there can be no European 

security without Jewish security. As we have seen so many times 

in so many places, violence against Jewish communities often foreshadows violence against other religious, ethnic, and national communities. 

ISIS especially hates the Jewish people, and has instructed its 

followers to prioritize killing Jewish men and women. The group’s 

cronies targeted the Jewish Museum of Belgium in May of 2014, 

the Paris kosher supermarket in January of 2015, and the Great 

Synagogue in Copenhagen in February of 2015, and murdered people in all of those vicious attacks. Some thwarted plots have revealed plans to target even more Jewish community places and kill 

even more Jewish people. Other Islamist terrorist groups share its 

hatred and its intent. 

However, terrorists and terrorism only account for some of the 

annual increases in violent anti-Semitic attacks in Europe. And 

over the past few years, surveys and crime data show that antiSemitic attitudes and violence in Europe are most rife in Muslim 

communities. Anti-Semitic attitudes and non-terroristic antiSemitic violence have also risen across the religious, political and 

ideological spectrum. 

There are many different aspects of combating anti-Semitic violence. For example, European Jewish and Muslim civil society 

groups are collaborating with each other to counter violent extremism and hatred that impacts their respective communities. Today’s hearing will zero in on the role of law enforcement agencies 

and especially on their relationship with Jewish community groups. 

These partnerships are essential, according to Jewish communities 

and experts on both sides of the Atlantic. That is why I authored 

House Resolution 354 as a blueprint for action and why the House 

passed it unanimously last November. 

Our witnesses will testify today about what European law enforcement agencies, their governments, and Jewish community 

groups need to do to ensure these partnerships are formalized and 

are effective. They will discuss the ideal roles for the OSCE, the 

United States, and other civil society groups in supporting these 

initiatives. The witnesses will also share what can be learned from 

the experiences of law enforcement agencies and Jewish communities to counter terrorism and strengthen public safety more 

broadly. Their insights will help guide the efforts of the U.S. Government, the Congress, and my fellow Helsinki commissioners, especially Commission Co-Chairman Roger Wicker and Ranking 

Member Senator Ben Cardin, who has been the Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly since last March. 

I’d like to now yield to our distinguished chairman, Roger 

Wicker. 
3 

HON. ROGER WICKER, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling 

this very important and timely hearing. 

The Holocaust ended nearly 71 years ago. In his important book 

‘‘1944,’’ author Jay Winik once again recently reminded readers of 

the horror of the Holocaust, and I think made a great contribution 

to the historical perspective on the issue of anti-Semitism and all 

of its extremely, extremely horrific ramifications. It’s appalling that 

today people are still being attacked and murdered because they’re 

Jewish. 

Anti-Semitism is part of the Islamic State’s brutal ideology. It’s 

an official part of their thought. The terrorist organization’s followers have already shown their willingness and ability to target 

and kill members of European Jewish communities. They join other 

jihadi groups, like al-Qaida, who kill innocent people because of 

their religion, ethnicity or race. 

But terrorists are not the only violent threats to European Jewish communities. Others also contributing to anti-Semitic violence 

include neo-Nazis, nationalist political forces that exploit historical 

anti-Semitism, ideologues who invoke the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to justify anti-Semitic action, and other disaffected individuals. 

I must also point out that the Russian Federation continues to 

fund extremists and anti-Semitic parties, like the National Front 

in France. At the same time, some of my Russian friends and some 

of our Russian colleagues in the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly 

come to official meetings and time and again falsely accuse some 

of their Baltic neighbors and our NATO allies of being part of fascist or anti-Semite regime. And so I’d only point out that not every 

accusation of anti-Semitism and fascism is well-founded. We must 

be careful in listening actually to the facts in regard to these 

charges. 

I’ve been honored to collaborate on these issues with my longtime 

colleague and friend Senator Ben Cardin, ranking member of this 

Commission and special representative on anti-Semitism, racism 

and intolerance for the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly. We led 

Resolution 290, entitled ‘‘Commemorating the 75th Anniversary of 

Kristallnacht, or the Night of the Broken Glass,’’ which the Senate 

passed unanimously. The resolution reaffirms America’s steadfast 

commitment to remembering the Holocaust and eliminating the 

evil of anti-Semitism. 

As chairman of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee 

on Political Affairs and Security, I will do my part to help ensure 

that combating anti-Semitism is integrated into OSCE initiatives 

against terrorism, as well as against violent extremism. I will also 

continue to monitor Russia’s outrageous exploitation of the issue of 

anti-Semitism. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening this important hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Wicker, thank you very much. 

Commissioner Cohen. 
4 

HON. STEVE COHEN, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just appreciate your having 

the hearing. I’m always in favor of the hearings that the chairman 

chooses to have testimony on, and this is an important one. And 

to serve—to be here with Roger Wicker, one of the really good guys 

in the Congress. 

But I appreciate—I’ve read your bios. You all have all done a 

great deal in your professional lives. I thank you for committing 

your experience and your knowledge to this issue, and I look forward to hearing your recommendations and some reportage of 

things maybe I didn’t know that have occurred. I know that it’s— 

ISIS can target Jewish people, but there’s the neo-Nazis and all 

that. And Jews have always been a prime target, maybe for the 

longest time ever of any group that’s been a target of terrorism and 

hate and prejudice. 

And so I want to lend my voice when I can to this effort. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Commissioner Cohen. 

I’d like to introduce to the Commission people who need no introduction, who have done so much for so long on combating antiSemitism, beginning first with Rabbi Baker, Andy Baker, who has 

been one of the most important figures in combating anti-Semitism 

and addressing Holocaust-era issues over the past few decades. He 

was first appointed as Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism in 2009, and every subsequent chair-in-office has reappointed him. He has been the director of international Jewish affairs for the American Jewish Committee since 2001 and with the organization since 1979. He has 

served in senior leadership roles in many initiatives, and has been 

publicly commended many times, including by heads of state in 

countries like Germany, for his efforts. 

I would note parenthetically that when the OSCE put together 

the all-important meetings on combating anti-Semitism, probably 

one of the most important ones of all was the Berlin Conference. 

And one of the co-authors of the Berlin Declaration, especially 

when we ran into some snags and some member states that were 

recalcitrant about what should be included, Andy Baker was the 

wordsmith who found the right wording that advanced that allimportant declaration. And so all of us deeply appreciate his leadership there as well. 

We also will be hearing from Jonathan Biermann, who is the executive director of the Crisis Cell of the Belgian Jewish community 

and was in charge of the Cell at the time of the attack on the Jewish Museum in 2014. A lawyer by profession, he has been a member of the City Council in a municipality in Brussels since 2012 

and is currently an alderman on the Council. Mr. Biermann is a 

former political adviser to the president of the Belgian Senate, the 

minister of development cooperation, and the minister of foreign affairs. He brings the perspective of a Brussels native and resident 

born into a family very involved in the Jewish community. 

We’ll then hear from Attorney General John Farmer, who is currently the director of the Faith-Based Communities Security Program, part of the Institute for Emergency Preparedness and Home-
5 

land Security at Rutgers University, our state university. The program spearheaded a major conference last July on ‘‘Developing 

Community-Based Strategies to Prevent Targeted Violence and 

Mass Casualty Attacks’’ in collaboration with the FBI, Department 

of Justice and others. He was the attorney general of New Jersey 

from 1999 to 2002, and one of the most effective attorney generals 

the state has ever had, and senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission. 

Attorney General Farmer was later the dean of the Rutgers Law 

School. So thank you, Dean, Attorney General, and all the other 

very important titles you have borne and done so with such dignity. 

Then we’ll hear from Paul Goldenberg, who is the national director of the Secure Community Network, a national homeland security initiative of the American Jewish community. And he’s also the 

CEO of Cardinal Point Strategies. A New Jersey native, for decades he was part of the law enforcement community, starting as a 

cop—including years of undercover work—and eventually as the 

first chief of the Office of Bias Crimes and Community Relations 

for the State of New Jersey. Paul Goldenberg has relevant experience with the OSCE as the former program manager and special 

advisor for the OSCE/ODIHR Law Enforcement Officer Training 

Program for Combating Hate Crimes. He is currently co-chair of 

the Department of Homeland Security’s Foreign Fighter Task 

Force, vice chair of the DHS Faith Based Advisory Security Council, and special advisor and member of the Secretary of Homeland 

Security’s Combating Violent Extremism Working Group. 

Finally, I am pleased to recognize the presence here today of 

Paul Miller, a member of the Board of Overseers of Rutgers University. Throughout his law career, he was involved in public safety 

and security initiatives, including for the Jewish community, and 

continues that important work now through the Miller Family 

International Initiative at the Rutgers School of Law. 

So I’d like to now yield the floor to Rabbi Baker for his opening 

comments. 

RABBI ANDREW BAKER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

OSCE CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE ON COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM, AND DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL JEWISH AFFAIRS, 

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE 

Rabbi BAKER. Congressman Smith, thank you. Senator Wicker, 

Congressman Cohen, it’s a pleasure to be here, even if the topic 

itself hardly brings pleasure. 

I have to say at the outset your involvement and your role, and 

going back really now years and years, have really been critical to 

identifying this issue, and in particular to really elevating it to the 

level of concern that it demands on the part of European political 

leadership. 

In my written testimony, which I am not going to read here, I’ve 

tried to lay out somewhat over the last 15 years sort of the history 

of essentially what has been first a problem in recognizing that 

anti-Semitism had really returned in different ways to the European continent—first, the problem being faced of the return of antiSemitism to Europe; then, really being able to acknowledge the seriousness and then the source of this problem; and ultimately, how 
6 

to address it—how to deal with it, it is still very much something 

with which we must wrestle and, in dealing with European governments, still to convince them of the seriousness of this and of the 

steps that should be taken to address it. 

The fact is that, early on, as we saw a spike—a real surge in 

anti-Semitic incidents, there were those who were dismissing it as 

not really being anti-Semitic, or being related to the politics of the 

Middle East, and therefore somehow explained away for that. It 

took a while before people realized this had become a new normal: 

physical attacks, verbal harassment. Day-to-day life of many Jews 

in Europe had changed. No longer did they feel the normal comfort 

and security that had been part of their life. 

Further, we came to see that there were lethal attacks on Jewish 

targets and, even here, a reluctance at first to acknowledge what 

they were. We can go back to 2006 with the torture and murder 

of Ilan Halimi, a Jew in Paris, that initially even the government 

refused to consider to be anti-Semitic. We can jump to 2012, when 

young students and a father were murdered at the Jewish school 

in Toulouse. And the perpetrator, who turned out to be a radical 

Islamist extremist, was at first thought to be a right-wing neo-Nazi 

figure, which immediately generated broad popular opprobrium for 

this. And yet, when the true source of his character emerged, the 

response was more ambivalent—a difficulty in France, but also in 

other countries to recognize that this had become now a new 

source, a new threat, certainly to the Jews of Europe, but ultimately, as we came to see, to Europe more generally. 

We then had and still have to confront a reality that you have 

growing minority populations in Europe, themselves victims of 

prejudice and discrimination, but who happen to harbor not just 

negative views regarding politics in the Middle East and Israel, but 

more negative views when it comes to Jews. It’s an environment 

that in many cases European governments have not figured out 

how to deal with, how to confront. But as I said, it has eroded the 

day-to-day sense of comfort and security for many European Jews. 

Now, we have on top of this, as we’ve come to see, the lethal 

threats from radical Islamist terrorists. We saw this in Paris at the 

attack on the kosher market year before last, this one just past. We 

saw it following that in Copenhagen. We saw it at the Jewish Museum in Brussels. And again, time after time, governments have 

been slow to recognize the special threat—not sole threat, but the 

special threat—that Jews face from this new source of violence and 

terror. 

Only as short as three years ago, when I in my OSCE role visited 

various European capitals, there was a certain element of denial. 

In The Hague, talking to Dutch officials, asking about support for 

protection of Jewish communities, I was told, well, we can’t do this 

for Jews without doing this for Christians and doing this for Muslims, and in the end we don’t have the resources. 

I know Jonathan will speak more about Brussels, but I met with 

Belgian officials also that same year. They said, yes, we recognize 

the threat level to Jewish institutions is high; in fact, it’s as high 

as the threat level to the U.S. embassies in Brussels or the Israeli 

embassy. But, they said frankly, they don’t have the resources to 

give to provide protection. 
7 

In Denmark, reflecting a concern that the Jewish community, 

when they had asked for police to be positioned in front of the synagogue and the school when they were in use, and the government 

said to them, sorry, but in Denmark—as they then told to me—we 

have a relaxed approach to security. We’re not going to position 

guards in front of these buildings because it would make our citizens uncomfortable. And so it ultimately took the tragedy of the 

death—the murder of Dan Uzan, an unarmed Jewish volunteer security guard, to finally galvanize some response. 

Governments have responded by stepping up the physical security. There are police in front of these buildings today. But each 

government is doing it differently than another. We really need to 

look now and say: What works? What’s most efficient? What could 

be carried on beyond the immediate crisis moment? Because clearly 

the resources that are needed are not going to be there indefinitely. 

Mobilizing the military, as has taken place in France and in Belgium, is not something that can be sustained indefinitely. So this 

is something that now must be addressed. 

And we have today a huge influx of refugees and migrants from 

the Middle East. Doors have been opened. It is admirable. And 

Chancellor Merkel and others who’ve done this should be praised 

for their openness to accepting refugees who have truly suffered, 

and suffered grievously. 

But we know and they know that many of these people that are 

coming in bring with them attitudes—there was an environment in 

which they lived where anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel sentiments were commonplace. Western values, for that matter, are 

often lacking. So there’s an enormous challenge that these governments face if they’re going to absorb these new refugees. And we 

know there’s also a concern for what this might contribute to the 

problems we see of radical terrorists and an inability of European 

governments to really get their handle on this and figure out how 

to control it. 

I met only last week—last Thursday—in Vienna with the Austrian minister of justice, Wolfgang Brandstetter. He shared with 

me the reality that in Austria there are now 38 terrorists—38 returning ISIS fighters who are in Austrian prisons. Two of those imprisoned came in with refugees that surged into Austria, and those 

two have ties, he said, with the bombers of the recent attacks in 

Brussels. So this is simply an anecdotal aside that demonstrates 

the very real practical problem European governments face. 

Jews are not the only target. Clearly, European leaders need to 

figure out how to deal with all of this, how to mobilize the public 

to be part of the process. And I know that my friends John and 

Paul will speak more to what role the public can play and what can 

be learned from the American experience in this regard. 

And finally, Jewish community leaders, which have stepped forward, which are training their own communities to have professionals knowledgeable about how to address security, need to be 

working cooperatively and on an equal level with law enforcement 

and intelligence agencies in their respective governments so there 

can be truly two-way communication and involvement. As has been 

pointed out, the reality is that the problem exists, if only in different forms, throughout the European continent. And an environ-
8 

ment with a lot of economic uncertainty, with problems of refugees 

and migration—an environment that has clearly bolstered rightwing nationalist populist parties—that also adds to the uncertainty 

that Jews—although not Jews alone—that Jews in Europe face 

when they look and think about their future. 

And as we know and as we’ve heard, today in a way this is something new from all of the decades since the end of the war. Today, 

European Jews themselves truly do wonder about their future. 

Therefore, it’s all the more incumbent on us and on the role particularly that the Helsinki Commission has always played in elevating knowledge and understanding of these concerns and issues, 

and pushing for very practical steps such as physical security, 

which you’ve taken up in your resolution, to push for governments 

truly to address them. 

Thank you for this opportunity to share my thoughts with you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Rabbi Baker. I would like to 

recognize—and again, thank you for your extraordinary leadership 

for decades. 

Ira Forman is among us. Thank you for gracing us with your 

presence, the special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism. 

He’s been in that position since 2013. He is a former political director and legislative liaison for the American Israel Public Affairs 

Committee, or AIPAC. And thank you, again, Ira, for being here. 

I’d like to now yield to Mr. Biermann, who comes across, or 

comes to us, from Brussels. 

JONATHAN BIERMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS CELL 

FOR THE BELGIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY (via videoconference 

from Brussels, Belgium) 

Mr. BIERMANN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for giving 

me the opportunity to testify, and thanks to the American embassy 

for the logistic support. 

Born and raised in a typical Jewish family in Brussels, I’ve always been used to security measures. Being a child, I wasn’t surprised to see the police and security at the door of the Jewish day 

school, just as my almost two-year-old waves every day to the soldiers serving at the very same gate. And it is somehow a relief to 

the members of my community to know that the threat targeting 

Jews is taken seriously. 

Since World War II, Belgium has known multiple episodes of terrorist waves perpetrated in the name of different causes, like the 

Communist Combatant Cells in the 1970s. Other acts have targeted more specifically the Jewish community, like in the 1980s, 

when the Great Synagogue of Brussels was attacked by a man with 

a machine gun, when a school bus was targeted in Antwerp with 

grenades, and when the president of the Jewish Organizations Coordination Committee, Dr. Wybran, was murdered. 

In parallel, anti-Semitism has increased, and it worries the Brussels Jewish community, counting a little less than 20,000 members. 

The reports of the Brussels-based NGO Antisemitisme.be show that 

the level of hatred has not been so high since 1945, with a rise of 

70 percent in 2014 compared to 2013, and with a new phenomenon 

against Jews, which is discrimination. Violence has reached an un-
9 

precedented level of horror, as four people were killed in the terrorist attack of the Brussels Jewish Museum in May 2014. 

Jewish life in Europe is part of its diversity. As we also know 

from the Fundamental Rights Agency survey, an increasing number of Jews feel less and less comfortable attending Jewish events 

and institutions. As a result, despite the strong statements and actions taken by the Belgian Government, including public funding 

for the physical protection of Jewish buildings and institutions, 

many community members feel uncertain about their safety and 

even their future in Belgium. 

ISIS strategy and operational processes are unprecedented, as 

the broader community is generally targeted and then is the Jewish community as well. In a way, the Jewish citizens are confronted 

to double risk in a time when security agencies and resources are 

over-solicited. 

Since January 2015, the army has deployed to protect the public 

institutions at risk, including Jewish institutions, in the limits of 

existing capacities, which will probably not be permanent. Is it 

enough, especially from a Jewish community perspective? I would 

not be able to answer the question. As you know, that in a community of two Jews you would find at least three different opinions. 

But the worst situation would be if the government—the law enforcement and security agencies—had no opinion at all. 

And this is why the implementation of House Resolution 354 

would make a significant difference. No need to reinvent the wheel, 

especially as this is not a time for testing, but for implementing improved methods. The knowledge and expertise exists. The Institute 

for Emergency Preparedness in the Homeland Security, the FaithBased Communities Security Program at Rutgers University, John 

Farmer, Paul Goldenberg, and their international partners have 

built an impressive network with a unique capacity to share best 

practices in the implementation of the ‘‘see something, say something’’ strategy. 

Such a project would result on reaffirming and redefining the 

fundamentals of what we call in Belgium ‘‘le vivre-ensemble,’’ living together. Obviously, this concept was not ambitious enough and 

has failed. We should have been able to create a model in which 

everyone feels he’s part not only of his faith-based or cultural community, but also of a broader community, which implies rights, duties and responsibilities. 

‘‘See something, say something’’ aims to empower community 

leadership to take their part in establishing a common project 

based on respect and mutual understanding. It is not an incitement 

to denounce members of the community, but to go beyond your own 

community, building fraternity. 

In such a context, relations established with local authorities and 

police are based on trust and confidence. On a practical level, communication channels, types of intelligence collected by each actor 

must be clearly defined. The protocols existing in the U.S., the U.K. 

and France should be a reference for local police and national law 

enforcement agencies, empowering local communities. 

The situation of local communities and their relationship with 

the authorities should be regularly assessed. Confidence and col-
10 

laboration should guide community leadership, law enforcement 

agencies, and political leaders in the decisionmaking process. 

The Belgian government has decided to invest resources into security policies. It should include developing a new intelligence 

strategy in which communities should play a valuable role with respect for fundamental rights, civil liberties and privacy. 

As a conclusion, I would underline the necessity of establishing 

the terms of reference that European governments should use. 

International organizations and agencies are a key player in that 

matter. I personally believe that the OSCE could develop a platform to exchange good practices, and confront the approaches and 

strategies in fighting an external threat with domestic impacts and 

supports. 

I would, finally, formulate the following recommendations. First, 

implement ‘‘if you see something, say something’’ with Jewish communities as pilots. Second, empower Jewish communities by establishing a memorandum of understanding defining the collaboration 

between law enforcement agencies and Jewish communities. And 

third, never banalize anti-Semitism. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Mr. Biermann, for your testimony, and for your recommendations, for your leadership. I think 

the MoU is an outstanding issue, and during questions I would certainly ask you how well that is proceeding. 

We are joined by Mr. Schweikert and Mr. Grayson, and they’re 

free, if they’d like, to say a word. We do have votes—four fiveminute votes—three five-minute, one 15-minute. We’ll probably 

take about a 20-minute recess, and I apologize to our distinguished 

witnesses for that. 

David? 

HON. DAVID SCHWEIKERT, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Forgive me, but this is—just because we’re all 

going to be running out the door on you to go vote—and how many 

minutes do we have right now on the votes? 

Mr. SMITH. Thirteen, plenty of time. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thirteen. 

If I wanted to grab a publication that did sort of real-time data 

collection of saying here’s the number of incidents in Europe over 

the last year, and so I wanted to actually know more than discussion or anecdotal, but the curiosity of threats both to the Jewish 

community but maybe other minority communities, and see if it’s 

a common front, it’s—because, for many of us, we’re trying to understand is this a cultural change that—is the mix changing 

attitudinally or demographically? Is that overvalued, undervalued? 

Where do I go to actually be able to keep track of here’s reality? 

Because that reality should be building our policy. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. From the standpoint of the Jewish communities—that’s almost unfortunate, but it’s a reality—the law enforcement communities of Europe are very much like the law enforcement communities were here in the United States 25 years 

ago. When we first started to engage in what was called bias 

crimes or hate crimes, if a state did not keep good records and the 
11 

police did not have good indicators as to what a hate crime was, 

or an attack against an institution based on race, color, et cetera, 

the records were not going to be well-kept. So the NGOs stepped 

in here in the United States and did a remarkable job, and actually 

built the criteria or the framework that’s now become almost a part 

of all 50 states, including the U.S. Government, on how to identify 

a hate crime and how to capture the data as it relates to the hate 

crime. So we’re in the same place in Europe as we were decades 

ago. 

There are a couple of Jewish organizations, as well as some 

international human rights organizations, that keep what I think 

are extraordinary records. Because unfortunately, in some countries, people don’t go the police. They’ll go to their own NGOs within their own communities. So those organizations, or examples 

thereof, are the CST, which is the Community Security Trust of the 

United Kingdom. It’s a Jewish security organization that works 

hand in hand with the Met Police and Scotland Yard. You have 

what’s called the SPCJ in France, which is a similar organization. 

And you have organizations like Jonathan’s and others. So there is 

an infrastructure for this. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. But is there a—sort of an abstract where we 

could keep in our office and say, look, here’s the best data we have? 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Andy, do you want—— 

Rabbi BAKER. Yes. Where you can go is—this is really after that 

conference in Berlin and the Berlin Declaration tasking governments within the OSCE to monitor and collect data on hate crimes. 

So that is—— 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Well, I remember the discussion about it. I 

just—— 

Rabbi BAKER. No, but it’s now collected by ODIHR. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. OK. 

Rabbi BAKER. And, of course, it’s based on what governments report, although they supplement it with, as Paul indicated, where 

you do have community monitors. And it’s—now they even have a 

kind of interactive map on their website, so you can literally click 

on country by country and you can see what data they’ve received. 

So that—and we’re talking about hate crimes generally. 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. All right. I’m going to go now, look for it on the 

floor because we’ll have wi-fi. Thank you, gentlemen. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Grayson, the gentleman from Florida. 

HON. ALAN GRAYSON, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. GRAYSON. Briefly, is it better to think of fighting anti-Semitic 

attacks as a police function or a military function? Rabbi? 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, the military has been brought in only in 

these extreme situations where they needed protection and the police themselves didn’t have the resources. That certainly is not a 

long-term solution, and it’s an imperfect short-term solution. I 

would say the issue ultimately is police need to be engaged, but 

even there the issue of security goes beyond just police. It goes to 

the larger environment and how can you make for a situation 
12 

where you’re literally not putting up a barrier to someone about— 

to a terrorist or other about to storm, but really to change the atmosphere more generally and to get people aware—again, as people 

have said, whether it’s modeled after the ‘‘see something, say something’’ program that is being proposed here or something similar, 

where people are engaged so you don’t get to that point. 

The reality is, most of the synagogues/schools throughout Europe, Jewish schools, require some protection. It’s clearly a role of 

police. But a police that needs to be really on the ground and engaged with the Jewish community, not the idea that we have to 

bring in the military to provide that security. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Farmer? 

Mr. FARMER. Yes, I would just echo Rabbi Baker’s comments and 

point out that the structure in terms of the relationship between 

the police and the military differs from country to country. And so 

that kind of structure, that kind of approach simply can’t do the 

job of anticipating and preventing these attacks. By the time you 

call the military in, it’s too late; the attacks have already happened. So what our work in Europe has demonstrated to us—and 

I think it’s applicable across the ocean, too—is that you have to engage the community at every level in order to deal with the threat 

as it’s evolved. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Goldenberg? 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Yes, I can only echo what my fine gentlemen 

have stated here. Exactly as John indicated, once the military is 

there, it’s too late. It has to be a police function. And that’s really 

been—the greatest, I think, concern is building capacity between 

the European policing agencies and the Jewish—the Jewish groups 

and the security apparatus within those groups that protect them. 

So that’s an issue. 

Mr. SMITH. And, Paul, I know you can elaborate on it momentarily, when we’re done with the votes, but Paul actually headed 

up an effort of training the trainers—of having police who will listen to other police on best practices. And he did that throughout 

Europe for years, and it made a significant difference. 

And I thank you, Mr. Grayson. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, witnesses. 

[Whereupon, at 1:39 p.m., the Commission stood in recess until 

2:18 p.m.] 

Mr. SMITH. [Sounds gavel.] The hearing will resume. And again, 

I want to apologize profusely to our distinguished witnesses for 

that long delay. We did have four votes, but they took longer than 

they should have. 

I’d like to now recognize Attorney General Farmer for such time 

as he may consume. 

JOHN J. FARMER, JR., DIRECTOR, FAITH-BASED 

COMMUNITIES SECURITY PROGRAM, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY 

Mr. FARMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to 

testify on the subject of ‘‘Anticipating and Preventing Attacks on 

the European Jewish Communities in Europe.’’ Today’s hearing 

comes at a critical juncture in the struggle against transnational 
13 

terrorism, in the history of the Jewish communities in Europe, and 

in the progress of civilization in securing the safety of vulnerable 

communities worldwide. 

You were kind enough to give a sense of what my background 

is, so I won’t belabor that. But of most relevance to today’s hearing, 

I was the chief law enforcement officer in New Jersey on 9/11, a 

day when our state, as you know, Mr. Chairman, lost some 700 of 

its citizens. I can never forget that day, or the sense of failure and 

disbelief I felt that such an attack could have succeeded. Understanding exactly what went wrong and how public safety can be 

protected during a terrorist attack or other crisis has been a focus 

of my work in the years since. 

As senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, I had the opportunity 

to study the crisis as it was experienced in real time by everyone 

from the President to the evacuating civilians in New York’s Twin 

Towers. I subsequently wrote a book, ‘‘The Ground Truth,’’ that 

compared the response of the government on 9/11 to the response 

to Hurricane Katrina, and found disturbing parallels between the 

way the government reacted to a complete surprise attack and the 

way it reacted to a storm that had been anticipated for years and 

for which detailed plans were in place. 

The responses to both events, I found, failed to take account of 

the fact that, as stated in The 9/11 Commission Report, ‘‘the ‘first’ 

first responders on 9/11, as in most catastrophes, were privatesector civilians. . . Private-sector civilians are likely to be the first 

responders in any future catastrophes.’’ Among trained emergency 

personnel like police, fire and EMTs, moreover, both crises demonstrated that ‘‘critical early decisions will have to be made by responders who are not the top officials. . . Planning for a crisis 

should accept that reality and empower and train people on the 

ground to make critical decisions.’’ 

The truth of those observations has been borne out in subsequent 

attacks ranging from the London subway bombing to the murders 

at the Jewish Museum in Brussels to the murders at the kosher 

grocery store in Paris to the most recent attacks at the Paris cafes, 

stadium, and concert hall, and at the Brussels airport. As the 

threat has become more diffuse and the attacks less predictable, I 

believe the following conclusion has become inescapable: Anticipating and preventing attacks on European Jewish communities— 

or, for that matter, on any vulnerable communities—will be impossible without a dramatically greater engagement of law enforcement with the affected communities and people, and of the affected 

communities and people with each other. 

For the past nearly two years, I’ve had the privilege of leading, 

along with Rutgers Professor of Criminal Justice John Cohen, an 

initiative at Rutgers University designed to identify the best ways 

to protect vulnerable communities in light of the evolving threat. 

Funded generously by Rutgers alumnus Paul Miller, former general counsel of Pfizer, and his family, Rutgers began what we have 

called the Faith-Based Communities Security Program two years 

ago by taking a close look at the evolving threat, and by taking an 

equally close look at the security situations of several European 

Jewish communities. I’m going to talk about that work now. 
14 

The reasons for our initial focus on the European Jewish communities are twofold. First, because the European Jewish communities 

are the original diaspora communities, and have survived in parts 

of Europe despite attempts to eliminate them for over 2,000 years, 

we believe that these communities have much to teach other vulnerable communities about security and resilience. These lessons 

are particularly important, in our view, because the demographics 

of our world have been transformed within our lifetimes. According 

to estimates that predate the recent Syrian refugee crisis, over 20 

percent of the world’s population now live in a nation other than 

where they were born. That amounts to well over a billion people 

trying to adapt to foreign cultures. The world of the future is therefore a diaspora world, a world of vulnerable communities. 

Second, we thought it would be instructive to look at European 

Jewish communities now because, as Jonathan Biermann, Paul 

Goldenberg and Rabbi Baker have outlined, they have been under 

renewed stress in Europe as a consequence of Islamist 

radicalization and, to a lesser but persistent extent, age-old European anti-Semitism. The occurrence of anti-Semitic incidents has 

spiked dramatically, culminating in the murders at the Jewish Museum in Brussels shortly before we began our study. The threat 

evolved and became more deadly even as we undertook our work. 

Indeed, the urgency of our work has escalated with each new attack. 

A team from Rutgers was on the ground in Paris during the 

Paris attacks in 2015 and in the aftermath of December’s attack, 

in the aftermath of Copenhagen’s attack, in the weeks preceding 

the Brussels attacks last month, and also in sensitive locations 

such as Malmo, Stockholm, Amsterdam, London, Prague, Vienna 

and Budapest. In those locations and others, we have met and consulted with Jewish community security leaders and representatives 

of law enforcement, the governments, and civil society. 

At the same time, we have worked with U.S. communities and 

law enforcement partners to develop what FBI officials have called 

an off-ramp from radicalization: an adaptable, multidisciplinary 

intervention strategy to attempt to identify precursor conduct and 

enable communities to protect themselves and each other. The development of such strategies is impossible without a high level of 

public, community and civil society engagement with law enforcement. 

We did a readout of preliminary findings at a conference last 

year in Washington co-sponsored by the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and Rutgers, and 

hosted by the FBI at its headquarters. We also had the opportunity 

to describe our work at The Hague to an audience of European police chiefs last September. As a consequence of that meeting, we 

had planned to conduct a follow-up summit at Europol headquarters this summer. 

But, Mr. Chairman, the time for conference-level discussions, we 

believe, is over. The recent attacks in Paris and Brussels have 

made more urgent the need to take action now to protect vulnerable communities. The situation on the ground has become dire. As 

you have heard, the challenge to the Jewish communities has become nothing less than existential. Many stalwart leaders have be-
15 

come ambivalent about remaining in Europe at all. The communities have become caught in a double-helix of hate, in which terrorist attacks energize the forces of xenophobia and nationalism, 

which have tended historically to turn eventually on the Jewish 

communities. The only thing the Islamist terrorists have in common with such forces is that both hate the Jews. In short, this is 

a time of particular peril for the Jewish future in Europe, and it 

is incumbent upon us to do what we can to assure that future. 

Why? Well, in addition to the fact that assisting these communities is simply the right thing to do, in my view the future of our 

world of vulnerable communities is at stake. If the oldest diaspora 

community in the world cannot survive in a place where it has 

lived for longer than 2,000 years, in a place where it outlasted the 

Nazis, the future of other vulnerable communities can only be described as bleak. The wholesale slaughter of Christians and nonconforming Muslims in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere begins to look 

less like isolated atrocities and more like a harrowing vision of our 

children’s future. 

So, after consulting with our European partners in Brussels, Copenhagen, London, The Hague and elsewhere, we have decided to 

take action now in the following ways that are a direct outgrowth 

of our work. 

First, with the encouragement of law enforcement and the affected communities, we will be traveling back to Brussels and Copenhagen in the coming weeks to explore concrete ways in which 

we might assist the Jewish and other vulnerable communities and 

law enforcement in working together to enhance public safety. At 

a meeting of the OSCE last spring in Vienna, many joined the representative of France in calling for some variation of ‘‘if you see 

something, say something’’ training and public engagement as an 

essential step in improving public safety. The need for a similar 

kind of civil defense approach has grown with each attack since 

then. We are working on refining that approach to meet the needs 

of individual communities, but our assistance extends beyond that 

program. 

Second, with a view to their application to all vulnerable communities, we are writing and plan to publish online this summer the 

Rutgers Guide to Protecting Vulnerable Communities. This work 

will provide a distillation of best practices that we have identified 

in the course of our work. These practices are adaptable to other 

vulnerable communities and to various law enforcement structures 

around the world. They will represent our assessment of the most 

effective ways in which governments and communities can work together to provide safety for vulnerable populations. They range 

from relatively obvious and easily adaptable ways—the creation of 

crisis management teams within communities, as we saw in Copenhagen; regular exercising in crisis management, as we saw in 

Great Britain; facilities audits to ensure that potential soft targets 

are hardened, as we saw in Amsterdam—to more challenging but 

essential steps, such as regular communication with law enforcement, training of individuals to identify potential threats, and outreach to other vulnerable communities and elements of civil society 

in order to develop effective approaches to intervention. The guide 
16 

will be available to all, and we plan to offer on-the-ground assistance to those who request it, within our means of course. 

Third, we plan to focus our efforts on filling a need that has been 

highlighted in the United States and in every country we have visited, and echoed by communities, government officials and members of the private sector alike: improved information sharing of 

open-source and social media information. After having consulted 

with current and former law enforcement officials, as well as having heard the concerns of the faith community, NGOs and privatesector entities, I believe that a lasting contribution of our project 

to public safety may well lie in its facilitating the more efficient 

sharing of critical open-source information with faith-based communities, NGOs, human rights organizations and the private sector. 

This effort would not be meant to replace, but rather to complement government information-sharing efforts, which, while admirable, have a necessarily different and primarily law enforcement focus. Such an effort will be fundamental to promoting the 

enhanced level of public engagement that I believe is required in 

order to protect public safety. 

Mr. Chairman, our work in Europe and the recent attacks in 

Paris and Brussels has underscored the ground truth of every attack and natural catastrophe since 9/11: it is more essential now 

than ever that the public be engaged at every level in its own protection. As FBI Director Comey and other law enforcement leaders 

have recognized for over a year now, the threat to public safety is 

evolving. Law enforcement can no longer act alone—if it ever truly 

could—in combating it. A better-informed, -trained and -engaged 

community is a safer community. 

I will close with this illustration. Over the past year, I’ve taken 

the Thalys train between Paris and Brussels numerous times— 

probably a dozen times. I’ve been fortunate that no one on any of 

my trips emerged from the restroom in my car with an AK–47 and 

opened fire. When that did occur on the train last year, the passengers on board that day were fortunate that two trained American military personnel happened to be sitting near the restroom 

and knew how to subdue the attacker. The people at the Jewish 

Museum in Brussels, however, or sitting in the Paris cafes, or attending the concert or the soccer match, or waiting at the Brussels 

airport, weren’t so lucky. We can no longer rely on dumb luck to 

thwart future attacks. Put simply, we need to empower vulnerable 

people and vulnerable communities to protect themselves and others. The Jewish communities in Europe are the best place to start. 

We are committed to providing the education, information and 

training that will enable the Jewish and other vulnerable communities of other cultures and beliefs, wherever they are threatened 

and whenever they ask, not just to survive but to flourish. The 

stakes for the Jewish and other vulnerable communities today cannot be higher. If done right, however, the rewards from these efforts will be reflected in a safer and more peaceful future for us all. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for your 

very incisive testimony filled with very important recommendations. And I do thank you for your leadership. 
17 

And now we’re joined by Commissioner Hultgren. Randy, thank 

you for being here. 

And I’d like to now go to Paul Goldenberg. 

PAUL GOLDENBERG, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, SECURE 

COMMUNITY NETWORK 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Again, my name is Paul 

Goldenberg. And although I do currently serve as an adviser to the 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, particularly with regard to 

their Foreign Fighter Task Force, the CVE and other initiatives, 

it’s really been a privilege for me to participate in the program of 

which we’re going to talk to you a little bit more about today. 

I’ve been working very closely with the Faith-Based Communities Security Program at Rutgers University for—it’s nearly two 

years. And as a part of this new initiative, and working under the 

leadership of former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer, 

we have made, as you have heard from John and Rabbi Baker, 

countless trips in recent months overseas, traveling to multiple European cities. And it’s through these trips that we’ve been able to 

gain a firsthand understanding of the current climate, hearing the 

concerns of communities who really are under threat, and assessing what can do to best assist them. 

And I think it’s really a very unique group of individuals because 

we all have a very distinctive set of lens. Coming from the law enforcement community and not necessarily from the human rights 

communities or the faith-based communities directly, our message 

is one that I think is quite unique. 

What we have seen, heard and learned has confirmed our initial 

hypothesis that while the levels of cooperation and partnerships between the Jewish and other minority religious communities with 

their respective policing services—in many parts of Europe—is as 

diverse as the communities themselves, more work needs to be accomplished to move closer to a medium and a standard of safety 

and security within these communities. While this presents distinct 

challenges, there is, unequivocally, hope, for much of what we have 

learned, innovated, tested and improved upon here in the United 

States, as well as other progressive nations, can be imparted to and 

replicated by our European partners. 

I do want to say and go on record that the United States Department of Homeland Security has done an exemplary job working 

here in this country with the Jewish communities and other faithbased communities, building resources, building programs. There 

are many unsung heroes across the 50 states that are doing remarkable work, working with these communities each and every 

day. 

Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, because it was nearly 10 years ago that I heard your 

speech in Berlin, which compelled me to approach you and ask you 

how do I become more engaged and involved. And from that conversation and from the tremendous, thought-provocative recommendations that you provided, I was able to spend nearly four 

years working across Europe with these disparate communities. 

And I think some good works came from that, and I want to thank 
18 

you personally for allowing me and giving me that opportunity to 

do so. 

So in Europe now, we have heard many times that there are 

alarming levels of anti-Semitism impacting Jewish communities, 

but more broadly acts of targeted violence, extremism and terrorism impacting many vulnerable communities as well as the 

broader public. As I stated, I’m both proud to be here with such 

a distinguished group of colleagues, and I really do applaud the entire Commission. 

So what I stated before is I speak to you today not as an academic, but really as a practitioner—as a former law enforcement 

executive who has personally seen the impact of hate crimes, acts 

of targeted violence, extremism and terrorism. 

Jewish communities in Europe have been long targeted. But 

much more than simply the target of hate; they represent now 

something else. They have often acted as the proverbial canaries in 

a coal mine, forecasting much larger problems and issues, foreshadowing broader concerns for the other communities around 

them. In this, recent events—from the attacks in Paris against the 

Jewish targets to the targeting of Jewish people in Brussels—are 

not a new phenomenon to the Jewish communities across Europe. 

Rather, the most recent attacks merely represent the continuation 

of targeted violence that has changed the way as a community they 

function, from the way religious institutions and schools now approach gatherings to what community members may wear in public—in 2016, which is unimaginable. 

In the span of just two decades, we’ve moved from swastikas and 

vandalism, the desecrations of graveyards and simple assaults, as 

well, to longstanding institutionalized anti-Semitism, which now 

includes brutal violence, commando-style shooting attacks, and 

even suicide bombings on the streets of Europe by battlefieldtrained, -tried, and -tested cells and organizations. 

From the 2006 torture and killing of Ilan Halimi, to the schoolyard slaughter of Jewish children in Toulouse, France in 2012, to 

the attack against the Brussels Jewish Museum, largely viewed as 

the first ISIS-related attack in Europe, and nearly two years before 

many European countries even recognized ISIS-trained operatives 

and the fact that they were immersed in the continent, the list goes 

on and on and on. 

Unfortunately, some communities have imported the Middle 

Eastern conflict into their host countries, and in some cases into 

their living rooms, with attending acts of violence and unbridled 

anti-Semitism toward local Jewish communities which had otherwise lived peacefully, except during the Holocaust years. While 

these events are not without precedent, the pace, frequency and 

scale should be setting off alarms not just here in Europe, but in 

the United States as well. And even here in the U.S., according to 

the FBI’s 2014 hate crime report and statistics, Jewish communities have suffered an extraordinary amount of hate crimes and 

incidents against their institutions and people. 

In the past few years, we have watched as a storm has brewed: 

growing anti-Semitism, xenophobia, attacks against religious institutions by those inspired by jihad, and now ultranationalists. It is 

growing unlike anything we have seen since the 1930s. 
19 

This vortex has spawned not just a threat to select vulnerable 

communities and populations in Europe, but poses an overreaching 

threat to the human security and safety, and security of free and 

open societies where citizens enjoy the right to worship and gather 

freely without intimidation, fear and harm. When citizens of free 

countries, including our own, no longer feel safe in their houses of 

worship, this is a direct threat to a nation’s democracy and freedom. 

But as many have watched the storm brew, unfortunately, there 

are still too many doing very little, if anything, to prepare. For 

some, it now appears that we have little more at our disposal than 

in some cases an umbrella during that next hurricane. 

What is at risk fROM this threat? What is the new reality? In 

a sense, it is the very fabric and spirit of these democratic societies 

and the collaborative, cooperative and trusting relationships between authorities and the communities that are sworn to protect 

them. That is the core. 

The passage, Mr. Chairman, of House Resolution 354, ‘‘Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives Regarding the Safety 

and Security of Jewish Institutions in Europe,’’ is a watershed moment that has reinvigorated and will provide much-needed support 

to enable much-needed collaboration amongst and between European partners. It is the formalization of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, and years of tireless work leading up to it, which has provided us with the impetus and roadmap to truly operationalize 

these public-private capacity building and community engagement 

efforts across the EU, and transnational for that matter. 

As an epidemic that now plagues Europe requires a 

transnational approach and commitment to working across borders 

and jurisdictions to effectively combat this threat, our effort intends to develop operational recommendations. And I probably 

have said that too many times, but operational recommendations— 

for partnership-building, exchanging good practices, providing critical security awareness training, based on strategies that have 

been developed over time in Europe, in Israel, in the United States 

and elsewhere, that can be effective in confronting the identified 

challenges. 

One of the most critical outcomes of the effort would be a formalized recognition and relationship between those responsible for 

communal security and the policing agencies that vow to protect 

them. 

Despite religious, ethnic and cultural differences, we have succeeded in rallying around the common shared values of protecting 

our houses of worship and safeguarding our most precious natural 

resources, our children, both from becoming victims of violence and 

being lured, inspired and radicalized to become perpetrators of that 

same violence. 

While law enforcement and police services taking on the roles of 

agents of social change are literally the visible extension of their 

governments and do represent the interests in protecting their people, they are an integral part of this process and, quite frankly, 

more a part of the solution. 

As we’ve experienced here at home with our own diffuse and 

evolving terrorism threat, law enforcement cannot take the burden 
20 

alone. I just do want to mention some tangibles that we think we 

should be discussing over the months ahead and hopefully consider 

operationalizing. 

Educating and empowering communities to become more active 

participants and stakeholders in their own safety and security will 

pay immeasurable dividends in contributing to the safety and security of whole neighborhoods. We have seen that work here in the 

United States. 

Treating the public as a key partner in counterterrorism will promote greater engagement and reduce public apathy and believe 

counterterrorism is a responsibility—where they will believe that 

counterterrorism is a holistic responsibility. 

You’ve heard from John and Rabbi Baker—increasing information-sharing efforts between law enforcement and community leaders, building communities of trust, and, more important, engaging 

citizens and communities through trainings and exercises which 

will teach people to know what to look for, how to behave, and how 

to respond to emergencies. 

In closing, I’d like you to consider the following. In January 2015, 

the Grand Synagogue of Paris shuttered for Shabbat services on a 

Friday night following the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo 

and Hyper Cacher, marking the first time since World War II that 

the synagogue was closed on the Sabbath. Following the attacks, 

10,000 police and soldiers were deployed across France to guard 

Jewish institutions against follow-on attacks, an effort that in 

many places continues today. 

In December 2015, New Year’s Eve fireworks and festivities in 

Brussels were canceled following a terror-alert warning of an imminent attack against the city a month after the November terrorist 

attacks in Paris which killed over 130 people. 

These are not the kinds of firsts we wish to celebrate, nor should 

we tolerate. We cannot be plagued and paralyzed by the violent 

will of hate and extremism. Time is not on our side. We’re past the 

time for more summits, conferences and meetings. The pace and 

tempo of attacks requires swift yet informed conviction and actions. 

We’ve experienced hard lessons. We must learn from them. We’ve 

developed excellent best practices collaboratively with our European partners, and we must share them. Gandhi once said the true 

measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable. 

I’d like to personally thank you, Mr. Chairman, your staff, Nathaniel, for your continued leadership with the Commission in ensuring that the United States of America will forever fight for the 

protection and preservation of human rights, safety and security of 

all global citizens. 

Thank you very much, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goldenberg, thank you so much for your testimony, for your very solid recommendations. And past is prologue. 

I believe that we need to be doubling down on what was done in 

the past and then some with those best practices. Operationalize 

surely is the key word. So thank you for that. 

I’d like to yield to Commissioner Hultgren. 
21 

HON. RANDY HULTGREN, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Thank you so much, all of you, for being here; grateful for your 

work. And I’m very concerned of what we see happening. And so 

I really do feel like this is so important. And it does feel like history repeats itself if we are not ever vigilant, if we are not ever 

aware of the capability of humans to do really horrible things to 

each other if we’re not looking out and shining light on what’s happening. So I want to thank you all for being part of this. 

I want to address my first question to Rabbi Baker. I wonder 

what suggestions you might have of how should the OSCE and the 

OSCE Parliamentary Assembly support efforts to strengthen the 

formal partnerships and communications between European law 

enforcement agencies and Jewish community groups? 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you for your support, and thank you for 

that question. 

First, to take the Parliamentary Assembly—in a way the OSCE 

Parliamentary Assembly has been at the vanguard of pushing that 

organization, which moves somewhat cumbersomely as a consensus 

body, to really take some action, take some steps. Really the first 

resolutions dealing with anti-Semitism in the OSCE came at that 

Parliamentary Assembly. 

So I think it could be a vehicle, whether through resolution, 

through discussion with delegations, to push—which I think now 

there’s a more open door—push governments to recognize they’ve 

had a problem with policing. They’ve had a problem with intelligence. The attitude has largely been leave it to us. And people 

day to day, there really isn’t a role for them. 

I think now we know and we’ve experienced in the U.S. that’s 

precisely what can’t be the approach. So perhaps it can be through 

the drafting of resolution. Perhaps it can be through discussions 

within the Parliamentary Assembly. But hopefully that would be a 

way at least to alert and raise awareness. 

Now, within the OSCE itself, under the current German chairmanship, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, who was here in February, 

he said they want to make combating anti-Semitism one of their 

priorities. They are supporting, with a substantial financial contribution, efforts within ODIHR to develop a multiyear plan to 

combat anti-Semitism in different targeted ways. But security of 

the Jewish community is one of them. 

So I think what really is important is to push for an examination 

of best practices to deal with this. You heard from Paul and from 

John, and particularly from Jonathan in Brussels, the goal of getting governments to work even formally with Jewish communities. 

And memoranda of understanding is clearly one approach. 

I think our experience in some of this has come during visits 

we’ve taken, is to see that it’s often a one-way street when it comes 

to communication. Jewish communities share with police and authorities what they’ve seen, what makes them nervous, but they 

don’t really hear back from governments. 

We’ve seen now more governments stepping up on physical security, but they’re doing it in very different ways. So in some places, 

in Belgium and France, the military has rolled out. In Denmark 
22 

and Sweden, there are heavily armed police that are patrolling in 

front of buildings. In the Netherlands, they’ve erected these mobile 

police trailers in front of every synagogue and Jewish community 

building. But I have to say the police have to stay inside. They can 

be alert to something and then they can call for reinforcements, but 

they’re not allowed to leave. 

In every case, the communities, at least today, are saying they 

appreciate the attention. But I don’t think anyone has really said 

what works best, what makes the most sense. And it seems to me 

the OSCE is precisely positioned to be able to take stock of that. 

Also I think if you push to say this is a priority issue, so do something this year—we have a chairmanship that has the resources 

and I think the ability to do something. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you, Rabbi. That’s very helpful. 

I’m going to address my next question across the ocean over to 

Mr. Biermann, if I may. You’ve testified that strengthening security for the Belgian Jewish community must include the Belgian 

Government formally recognizing and partnering with Jewish community groups on security and public awareness and action campaigns. 

I wonder if there’s examples that you can cite in other European 

countries that are especially good models in considering for these 

kinds of initiatives, and maybe some that are struggling a little bit 

more than others. 

Mr. BIERMANN. Yes, thank you. I believe that in the U.K., as 

mentioned earlier, and in France, governments have established a 

memorandum of understanding about exchange of information. 

This is probably the first step of building a relationship of trust 

and confidence between the authorities, law enforcement community, and the Jewish community. 

And again, Jewish community should be considered as pilots, because those relationships of trust and confidence established with 

the Jewish community should expand and be established with 

other vulnerable communities also. And I do believe and I do hope 

that by implementing the see-something-say-something policy with 

the Muslim community will be also an opportunity to build a 

broader community where each faith-based or cultural-based community would share together the—will establish together the priority of the defense of common values, democracy and human 

rights. 

To come back to the question of the memorandum of understanding and the example of U.K. and France, I do believe that it 

is of great importance to establish what kind of information is relevant to collect, who is the proper body to collect that information, 

and what are the efficient channels to pass this information to 

make sure that it will be treated by intelligence and law enforcement agencies and that the necessary treatment will be provided 

and information will be shared later on an operational basis with 

the communities themselves. 

If communities have to share the responsibility of protecting 

themselves with the governments and with the authorities, then we 

have to empower them and give them the means; for instance, by 

sharing relevant information in the field with those communities. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Thank you. 
23 

I’m going to ask one last question, and this one we probably 

could spend the whole afternoon talking about. So I don’t necessarily expect a complete answer, but maybe if one of you could 

speak briefly of what is being done or what can be done, especially 

for school-age children, younger children, to change this, what I see 

as kind of a—certainly a culture of hate and a fostering of this, especially in certain communities. 

Is there anything that we can do, again, to push education, early 

learning, in some of the communities that we’ve seen this grow, to 

put some pressure there? I just don’t know if any of you have any 

thoughts or if we could maybe follow up after this of what we can 

be doing as members of Congress, especially for young people at an 

early age, to not learn to hate or not learn anti-Semitic views. 

Mr. FARMER. If I can jump in on this—of course, we have come 

across a couple of what I would consider best practices to try to address the cultural issue you’re talking about. In the one visit we 

made, a synagogue in Amsterdam, in particular they have a day 

where they invite in to their school other schools, public schools, 

and school children of all faiths. And they basically spend a day 

learning about the history of Judaism and learning about, you 

know, sort of lowering those barriers that are erected when you 

live in isolation from one another. And that seems to have yielded 

some dividends. 

In France they have a similar Holocaust education initiative, 

which they believe has yielded some great results. I think exposing 

young people to the opposite of hate is really important, because 

actually the solution to all these problems is really—and we hope 

for it anyway—is with the young people. And so the better educated they are about each other’s backgrounds, the less mystified 

they are by people who are different from them and the less likely 

they are to become haters as they get older. 

I don’t know if anyone else wants to—— 

Rabbi BAKER. I think you’ve identified what the real challenge is. 

And on the one hand, one of the dilemmas is the Jewish community in Europe is a rather small community. And France is the 

largest, half a million. But again, it’s maybe 1 percent, less than 

1 percent of the population. 

I think in America we’re so sort of used to the fact that people 

interact directly, and the best thing to shatter stereotypes is to 

know someone. So on the one hand, you have that barrier. There 

simply aren’t the opportunities to, on a day-to-day level, just meet 

with, come to know people. 

But conversely, the fact that today so much can be done with 

Internet connections, with social media and so on—and we know 

all the problems that come through that of spreading hate—it’s 

also a vehicle to introduce people. There are some wonderful programs, educationally focused programs, one based in Vienna, I 

think the chairman knows, called Centropa; Ed Serotta, an American who’s lived in Europe for 30 years, is responsible for it. It’s 

been linking school kids in Europe, in Israel, in different parts of 

the United States. And they share kind of common stories. They do 

sort of common research remotely in their own communities, but 

then they can interconnect. 
24 

I think some of these programs—admittedly there are so few of 

them—but they may hold some hope to do exactly what you’re saying. And what obviously we need to do—the solution is not barbed 

wire and military deployment in front of schools. 

Mr. HULTGREN. Well, again, I want to thank you all for being 

here. These are really big subjects, very important. For me the key 

is let us know suggestions you have, ideas, things that we can do 

to help to turn the tide back to, again, a positive direction. I’m very 

concerned, but also appreciate the work you are doing and bringing 

some hope that we can definitely make a difference on this very, 

very important issue. 

So thank you. I’ll yield back to the chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Commissioner Hultgren. 

Let me just ask a few questions. And again, I thank you for not 

only your time, but your expertise, which helps us to do a better 

job as the Commission. 

Let me ask you, Rabbi Baker, you talked about how—I believe 

it was the Dutch who suggested they don’t have the resources. And 

there are other nations, of course, that act as if they’re cash poor. 

It is a matter of priorities. We’re talking about mature democracies 

with very mature economies that seem to have far in excess what 

would be needed. But it all starts with the political will to do so. 

And I would ask you to address that. As you pointed out—and 

we’ve been pushing this for years from our side—ODIHR’s director, 

Michael Link, testified before our Commission in February. He 

pointed out, when it comes to providing official documentation as 

to what a country is doing, that only 10 of the 57 participating 

States have submitted official information on anti-Semitic hate 

crimes for the latest reporting period. And he pointed out that civilsociety information covered some 29 countries. 

Thankfully, you have been a prod to those 10, I’m sure, through 

your visits and your advocacy. And you also provide information on 

others that are not part of this systemized reporting. It was 

Sharansky who here, right here in this building, told us—we had 

him twice, Natan Sharansky, as our witness—that if you don’t 

chronicle something, you can’t fight it. You have to have the parameters of how many, where, what and who in order to effectively 

combat it. 

He was also the one—and I would ask you to speak to this as 

well, Rabbi—you pointed out that there’s a problem with the definition, obviously with the working definition and its implementation 

and the integration of that. And there’s a section that you note describing how anti-Semitism manifests itself with regards to Israel. 

And not to belabor the point, but it was Sharansky who told two 

hearings that I chaired, and then he told the entire Berlin conference that Paul and I, all of us were at back in 2004, that there 

is a way of deciphering when it’s not just disagreements with the 

Knesset and with the Israeli policies. He called it the three Ds— 

demonization, delegitimization and double standard. As soon as one 

or all three of those manifest, you can be pretty darn sure you’re 

talking about an underlying anti-Semitic motive behind the criticism of Israel. 

And as you point out, there was a section of that in that report 

you referenced. But this idea of chronicling—and maybe you might 
25 

want to speak to, again, since Israel is in the news so often, I’ve 

actually chaired hearings about how the Human Rights Council absolutely disproportionately focuses on Israel and gives a pass to 

China, North Korea, Sudan, Iran and many other countries that 

have committed heinous human-rights abuses, and large magnitude of those abuses at that. Israel is always in the cross-hairs, 

which suggests to me that the Human Rights Council itself violates 

the three Ds as articulated by Sharansky. But if you could speak 

to that. 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, first, to the point you make, absolutely correct that we used to confront—in some ways we still do—the reality that incidents aren’t recorded, aren’t reported, and therefore 

it’s as though they didn’t happen. And I have a very vivid memory 

of discussing the problem of anti-Semitism here in Washington in 

2002 with Javier Solana, then the sort of foreign-policy czar of the 

EU, who said to me—when I described the problem, he said, well, 

I don’t see it. 

And it was not a criticism of me. It was essentially to say, OK, 

help me see it. But at that point nobody was recording these incidents of hate crimes; in many cases not recording hate crimes in 

general, let alone explaining or disaggregating them so they would 

describe the anti-Semitic crimes. So in a way he was correct. 

I think we’ve come a distance, although, as you point out, there’s 

commitments that are made by governments to the OSCE and then 

there are commitments that are fulfilled by governments. And unfortunately, not many are reporting data on hate crimes. And those 

that do, it’s only a small number that really indicate anti-Semitic 

hate crimes. But it has been pushed a bit. 

And as you pointed out, there are more and more communal organizations working with professional standards now that are also 

collecting data. So we’re getting better at it, although I would reference that EU fundamental rights agency survey that indicated 

how so many incidents were unrecorded. And that is surely the 

case still. 

My reference to meeting with governments and being told they 

don’t have the resources or the interest to step up with security, 

I’m not sure it was really an issue of money; maybe in some places. 

In some cases, I think it was probably a mask for saying we don’t 

see it as serious a problem back then as I did or Jewish community 

leaders did. Or they had other issues in front of them and they 

wanted to push it off. 

The good thing about the terrible things that have happened is 

today most governments recognize they have to do something. So 

they have stepped forward. What I would say, though, today is, as 

I illustrated, they’re all doing it in different ways. And it really is, 

I think, useful and timely to try and say what really works. What’s 

going to be helpful and efficient and cost-efficient going forward? 

Because this isn’t a problem that’s going to end in a matter of 

months. 

And then, finally, to the issue of the working definition, which, 

in my testimony, written testimony, I did speak to at length. Look, 

we recognize, as Natan Sharansky demonstrated before you, that 

we’ve seen a form of anti-Semitism that relates to the State of 

Israel. It was referenced even in that Berlin declaration, although 
26 

implicitly, when it spoke of anti-Semitism taking on new forms and 

manifestations. When Israel is demonized, as you said, when it’s 

declared a racist state, when analogies are drawn to the Nazis, it’s 

not criticism. 

And the value of that EUMC working definition, which was developed in 2004 and distributed by the EUMC in 2005, at a time 

when there were 17 members of the EU, and the monitoring center, which did its own survey the previous year, had to admit that 

over half of its national monitors had no definition of anti-Semitism. And of those that did, no two were the same. 

So the working definition really provided a service for governments, for monitors and for civil societies. And mind you, it’s a 

comprehensive definition, and it took on and described aspects of 

anti-Semitism which maybe today we more fully recognize. But if 

you think back 10, 15 years ago, it wasn’t the case. In other words, 

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism. When you spread 

these conspiracy theories about Jews, that’s a form of antiSemitism. In a way, you can have anti-Semitism still without having Jews. 

But the reality is that it has a corrosive effect on day-to-day Jewish life, and particularly when you look at the issue with regard 

to Israel. You think about this. People who have negative views of 

Israel take them out on Jewish community members. Jews and 

Israel are conflated. It’s as though they’re responsible, the Jews of 

Stockholm or of Paris or of Copenhagen, for what the Israeli Government is doing. Or you have attacks that emerge from what are 

maybe pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab, anti-Israel demonstrations. But 

they’re not just against Israel. At some point they turn on Jews. 

And we saw that two summers ago during the Gaza conflict in 

Paris and in other European cities. 

So the working definition describes this, but it’s also a useful tool 

for law enforcement, for judges and prosecutors witnessing these 

events, to say, wait a minute; I need to think twice. I can’t just say, 

oh, this is Middle East politics. No, there’s something more. And 

the value of that definition and of trying to get it more and more 

in play, in use, goes to precisely things that also will make a difference in the day-to-day lives and security of Jewish communities. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Let me ask Mr. Biermann, with regards to the MoU, potential 

MoU with the Belgian Government, is that coming along? Is it likely to happen? Are you at liberty to explain what some of its contents might be? Is the U.S. Government being at all—you know, 

our embassy and our ambassador being helpful to that effort? 

Mr. BIERMANN. I think the coming visit, the planned visit of John 

Farmer and Paul Goldenberg will be a great opportunity to share 

a good practice. And I think they would be the actors of introducing 

the idea to the authorities that an inspiration of what is working 

in the U.K. and France could be implemented here and adapted to 

the Belgian institutions, which are, as you know, very complicated. 

But I do believe that the House Resolution 354 and the expertise, 

the network established by Rutgers University, will be instrumental in convincing that such an MoU would be an opportunity 

to empower the Jewish communities, and maybe later other communities, to be part of building a new strategy involving the dif-
27 

ferent communities, in establishing greater security in Brussels 

and in Belgium. 

I have the feeling that there’s a very strong political will of the 

Belgian Government to put all the resources needed to fight terrorism, enhance public security and public safety, specifically for 

the Jewish community. But as I mentioned earlier, we should not 

reinvent the wheel. Good solutions exist and are implemented in 

neighboring countries. And we need to be inspired and to be able 

to implement it here as well and to adapt it to our local reality. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask, Mr. Farmer—first of all, Attorney 

General Farmer, thank you for your work as well—I should have 

emphasized it—with the 9/11 Commission. I actually chaired two 

of those follow-up hearings; was the Republican co-sponsor, not the 

prime sponsor but the co-sponsor, of the actual commission. And 

there were concerns that it was going to be politicized. And certainly Tom Kean did a magnificent job, in my opinion, along with 

his counterpart on the Democrat side of the aisle, to say this is 

above board; we want this to work for the betterment of Americans, 

regardless of political persuasion. And they did that. 

So thank you for your critical role in that report, because it was 

the blueprint for everything we have done since. You know, all the 

stovepiping is largely gone, although never completely gone. So 

thank you for that leadership. 

And I’m wondering, with these best practices and your initiatives, which I think are extraordinary—you know, the opensourcing, the guide to best practices—are there next steps you 

think we ought to be taking in the U.S. Government? It seems to 

me, you know, it is excellent that the OSCE raises these issues. 

And the Personal Representative, Rabbi Baker, does an unbelievably effective job, but he’s only one voice; and it seems to me all 

of our ambassadors, Homeland Security, in its daily interface with 

law enforcement, needs to make this a priority. 

I find that human rights issues in general, including combating 

anti-Semitism, all of that often takes a backseat to the tyranny of 

the urgent, whatever that might be, economic issues or whatever 

it might be. And I believe—and I believe you do as well—that this 

hate that is festering and growing worse by the day not only manifests against Jews but all other—as you pointed out in your comments—if the oldest diaspora community in the world cannot survive in the place where it has lived for longer than 2,000 years, in 

a place where it survived the Nazis, the future of other vulnerable 

communities can only be described as bleak. And as you point out, 

the wholesale slaughter of Christians and non-conforming Muslims 

in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere begins to look less like isolated 

atrocities and more like a harrowing vision of our children’s future. 

I do believe that anti-Semitism, especially with radical Islam, is 

at the core of all the other problems. And we’ve had hearings here, 

as Rabbi Baker knows, where we called on all the other faiths to 

step up and do more. So maybe if you could, all of you, make recommendations now or in the future on how we get a whole-ofgovernment approach. Right now I do believe, with all due respect 

to the administration and the previous administrations and Congress, we do it in an isolated way. We’re in there but we’re not 
28 

doing enough—never enough money, never enough commitment, 

political will. 

If we really want to eradicate anti-Semitism to the greatest extent possible, it will take a Herculean whole-of-government approach. Homeland Security needs to be—it’s part of their agenda. 

Every ambassador needs to make it a part of his or her agenda, 

especially in countries where it is festering but elsewhere as well. 

As Rabbi Baker said, there is anti-Semitism about Jews, particularly in Holocaust denial. 

So you might want to—and when you—for example, your visits 

to Brussels and Copenhagen, upcoming, it seems to me that if the 

FBI director were at least involved in some way—the more the better, as well as his top people—that would make a difference. You 

know law enforcement like few people—and Paul as well. How do 

we get that whole-of-government approach as well? 

Mr. FARMER. Well, I think the—and thank you for the kind 

words about the 9/11 Commission, and Governor Kean did a spectacular job next to Chairman Hamilton in driving us toward a truly 

nonpartisan product—but I think the eradication of hate, and antiSemitism in particular, is part of a larger project—the first part of 

a larger project, which is the engagement of—and it’s transformed 

the project for law enforcement and for—frankly, for the citizenry. 

It’s engagement of the public at the street level, you know, both in 

Europe and the United States. 

The average citizen has been told: Just live your normal life. Let 

us worry about the terrorist threat. Let us take care of it in law 

enforcement. And if that was true, if that approach worked 15 

years ago, it certainly doesn’t work anymore. And there’s been a 

recognition by FBI Director Comey for at least the last year that 

law enforcement by itself can’t fight this because the threat is so 

atomized, it’s so diffused, there’s no way to predict where the next 

attack is coming, absent a level of community engagement that 

simply hasn’t existed before. 

That reality is true on both sides of the ocean. But I think we 

have to be careful, though, in terms of dealing with other countries. 

You know, they all have unique situations too and there is no one 

size fits all. So ‘‘see something, say something’’ might look one way 

in one community and another way in a different community depending on demographics and depending on the structure of their 

privacy laws and other, you know, complicating factors. 

But what’s needed is a commitment to the principle of community engagement, and a real commitment. MoUs are great, and 

we’ve all worked with some that are terrific and work and we’ve 

all worked with others that are just empty documents. What’s really needed is cultivation of the kind of cooperative attitude toward 

community engagement that hasn’t existed before. When you have 

that, you’ll find the resources, because there are resources that can 

address these issues. 

Mr. SMITH. Are there examples of an off-ramp for radicalization, 

as you suggested? 

Mr. FARMER. Well, we’ve been in the process of developing them 

both here and in Europe, communities like Dearborn, Michigan. 

And Paul can speak to this as he’s worked with these folks over 

the years. In Cook County in Illinois, we’ve been part of an ongoing 
29 

process. And again, these off-ramps involve the expertise that’s on 

the ground in these vulnerable communities, which will differ from 

place to place. 

So in one place it might be school officials who are integrally involved in the identification and diversion of potential 

radicalization. In other places it might be faith-based. In other 

places it might be—but the principles underlying them are uniform, and that is the principle that law enforcement just simply 

can’t do this by itself, that there are—especially in some communities in the United States and in Europe, there’s a level of distrust 

among certain vulnerable communities and law enforcement. So 

there’s a bridge that needs to be built between them. 

And frankly, one of the reasons that I thought Rutgers was a 

good idea getting involved in this is we’re a secular state institution. We have no orientation here other than the safety of our citizens. So I think that we could bring a credibility to these discussions and lower the levels of mistrust that might already exist. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. The off-ramps, I’m very engaged at DHS now 

nationally. I spent a lot of time in Dearborn. The chief and the 

mayor have both become friends. And Dearborn has done a tremendous amount of good works in this area. When we refer to off-ramp, 

though, the problem is there has to be a collaborative agreement 

between the law enforcement community, mental health community, the educators, et cetera, because the police community is 

trained to become engaged and involved when people are conspiring and/or are involved in criminal activity. So where’s the line? 

So right now the off-ramps are a gray area. Law enforcement is 

trained to do its job, which is to engage if someone is planning a 

terrorist attack. And yet at the same time, if it’s an effort that 

could be collaborative in nature where you engage the mental 

health community, juvenile justice, et cetera—look, the common denominator between most of these young people—or people that 

could be in their 30s—they’re inspired by the Internet now. That’s 

the bottom line. The parents of a lot of these young people are as 

concerned as we are. They just don’t have a protocol or a process 

on when and how to report. So, well, you heard John say time and 

time again, it really does need to be a collaborative effort. So the 

off-ramping, as you refer to, is one part of the process. 

The concern and the issue is, is what’s happening now. What’s 

happening is that we’ve got well-trained, well-inspired people with 

resources now who are not only attacking institutions within their 

countries but they’re attacking Jewish institutions. They’re attacking the Jewish people. So when I say it’s a matter of record that 

that’s what we are dealing with—so it’s not just a matter of the offramp is one piece, because maybe we can grab some of them beforehand, but the real challenge is the exchange of intelligence and 

the training of members of the community to be good partners. 

And that’s what we’re hearing from people like Jonathan and 

others across eight, nine countries that we visited in the years— 

Andy Baker and I have been visiting these countries for 10 years 

and we hear the same thing: We want to be partners. There’s a 

quid pro quo that’s so simple. A good partner gives you information 

that says, I have a suspicious person standing in front of my institution; therefore, maybe if I engage with the police early enough 
30 

they’ll respond and save lives. So the police get the information 

they need and the community becomes empowered to be a partner 

in this process versus living in total fear. 

When I closed before, I’ll tell you, it was a stark—when they cancelled New Year’s Eve—and whole school systems are now shutting 

down in Los Angeles due to these threats—they’ve won, Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, they have won. And that’s why the building of capacity with the public is now more important than ever. Resilience 

is going to be as important as response, because if we shut down, 

we’re really in bigger trouble than we think. 

Mr. SMITH. Training the trainers, could you just, for the sake of 

the Commission, where you think that might go in the future, a little bit about the past, the importance of—— 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Yes, sir. And the past was very effective. The 

reason it was effective was the team that we built had Kosovoans 

training next to Serbs, training next to Croats, training next to the 

French gendarmerie, training next to people from MI5—I mean 

MI6. 

And you met them, sir. I mean, you had an opportunity to meet 

the team. It was 12 colonels, lieutenant colonels, majors; male, female. It was an exemplary team of people who all had a single purpose, to work with police partners to provide best practices and 

training on how other countries are effectively working with their 

communities, particularly with regard to keeping the houses of 

worship open—i.e. synagogues, mosques and churches. So is this effective? Extremely effective. Police are part of that change. 

So what we’re talking about at Rutgers University is we’re talking about building out capacity where—because there’s such a tremendous amount of expertise here, not only nationally but internationally, that could be brought to the table, we would need the 

support for this effort to build a training institute that could be either on the ground, or we could train here in the metropolitan 

area. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask a final question and then yield—two 

questions. 

One, is there a need for additional legislation that would, again, 

encourage a whole-of-government approach on our part? Again, 

when I talk to ambassadors—and I travel frequently—when I bring 

up human rights, it’s usually not the priority. When I bring up 

anti-Semitism, it is definitely not the priority. And that goes for a 

lot of places in Europe. You know, there’s a standard, yes, we care 

about it. And then, well, what are you doing? And then there’s a 

blank stare. 

So is there something we could be doing to motivate? Of course 

it starts from the top down. And it seems to me that personnel is 

policy. If the right people are—secretary, undersecretary, right on 

down—you’re more apt to get a more focused response and not a 

hermetically sealed response from, oh, go talk to Human Rights or 

go talk to the special envoy or someone. 

Secondly, the impact on young people—you know, obviously war 

and hatred has a disproportionate impact on the most vulnerable, 

and that always includes children. How are the European Jewish 

children responding to this onslaught of hate towards them and to 

their parents and their faith? 
31 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. I’m going to leave that second part to Andy because I think he’s best suited. He’s been working very closely with 

the communities. And we have Jonathan here. But I’d like to respond to the first part, and I’ll tell you why. 

Look, when we think in terms of institutionalized anti-Semitism, 

it’s much more complex than this. If people in the United States 

of America or Canada or any of the free countries of the West do 

not feel safe in their houses of worship, democracy is in trouble. 

And it’s not only a police problem. It’s a problem for those that are 

involved in running the nation, the administration of the nation. If 

people are not safe any longer in their houses of worship, it’s really 

a critical issue. 

So if right now it’s synagogues or Jewish community centers that 

are under attack, tomorrow churches—we’re seeing it now—or 

mosques or temples, and if people no longer feel safe and their children don’t feel safe, we have a real concern. So what I’m saying is 

it’s anti-Semitism—and I’m not taking away from the fact that it’s 

anti-Semitism—but it’s also taking away from the fact that people 

can no longer worship, who, where and when. And that is a threat 

to all members of a society or any Westernized free democratic 

country. 

Mr. FARMER. If I can just jump in on that, a good example of 

what Paul just was referring to—the church shooting last year in 

South Carolina is a classic case of an incident that might have 

been preventable had best practices been widely disseminated in 

terms of securing houses of worship across denominations. 

So in terms of your question about a change in the law, I’m not 

sure a change in the law necessarily but encouraging a reallocation 

of resources so that rather than buying—you know, instead of buying homeland security equipment and quasi-military equipment at 

great expense, some of those funds be redirected to efforts to engage the communities at that level that we’ve been talking about. 

That’s the kind of prodding that I think Congress is expert at doing 

and could really yield results in terms of reallocating resources toward community engagement. 

Rabbi BAKER. I was struck in one of the gatherings that Rutgers 

has organized, a hearing from one of the New York City police officials talking about their goal in dealing with hate crimes in New 

York City, is that the people should feel safe in their identity on 

the streets of New York. It’s not just to feel safe but to be able to 

be openly expressive of who you are and feel safe. 

That’s what we’ve lost in so many European capitals already. I 

mean, if you go out in the street and you don’t have anything that 

identifies you as being Jewish, or perhaps—I don’t want to limit it 

to Jews—you don’t look openly strange, a Muslim or another sort 

of immigrant, you’re probably fine. But if something marks you as 

different, I think people have come to recognize you’re in danger— 

maybe not physical danger of being murdered, but certainly in danger of being verbally harassed and maybe something more. And 

we’ve almost conceded that. So somehow we have to get past that. 

We have to say, no, no, that isn’t acceptable. 

I think one of the real values that I’ve observed over the years, 

certainly with Paul and with John, is the way in which people— 

practitioners here, people who come from a law enforcement back-
32 

ground, are able to have a direct conversation with the European 

counterparts in the way that the human rights organizations 

maybe simply cannot connect. So even if the human rights organizations themselves are committed to and have as their priority getting these issues addressed, getting people who have kind of gone 

through the experience from the law enforcement, justice side of 

things here to share their experiences over there can be valuable 

and helpful. 

I’m not sure that the issue in Congress is more legislation, at 

least legislation that’s going to change things on the ground in Europe, but as you said, there are so many CODELs that travel, foreign delegations with whom you meet. The degree to which they 

hear from American leaders, from American members of Congress 

that this matters, we know it elevates the attention over there. 

And we’ve seen it going back 15 years, I think, at every important 

juncture in a way you have made the difference. So I would urge 

that to really continue and to be kept up. 

I have to say I wrestle with the very same question, Congressman Smith, you raised when it comes to children, when it comes 

to kids. On the one hand, we can say kids are resilient. Yes, they’re 

going to school, they’re going past military barriers. Jonathan will 

tell you there’s so many anecdotes of the kids waving to soldiers, 

little accounts of how well the soldiers in Paris have never had so 

many cookies and everything else that the kids’ families are bringing, but we know that even getting used to it is hardly the solution. 

It can only be temporary. And we really do need to figure out how 

the environment can change. 

Yes, there’s a larger picture. The threat of terrorism is with us. 

The inability of European governments to really get a handle on it 

and deal with it is evident. How do you combat this radicalization? 

There’s the added dilemma of a kind of political correctness that 

plays out in Europe where we want to do something but we can’t 

sort of single out communities, and yet we know that the sources 

of the problems are not spread equally—yet one more barrier to 

cross. But hopefully the more that there is a back and forth and 

the more that there can be work on a practical, pragmatic level, 

that can maybe take what’s gone on here, admittedly translated in 

ways that make sense in Europe that’s mindful of the different 

laws and traditions, hopefully that will achieve something in the 

long term too. 

Mr. SMITH. Just thinking out loud—maybe we need to also engage the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and NATO itself to be integrating this concern more in their agenda, even though they’re a 

security—this is a security issue. 

I do have one final question, and that would be about monitoring 

or at least analyzing the news media. You know, I remember when 

Mubarak would come here—all the time, I and others would always raise the issue of the Coptic Christians, which weren’t doing 

all that well under his regime, although better than Morsi by a 

long shot before he was deposed—and secondly, anti-Semitism 

state-run media, which would be filled with Nazi pictures and the 

like, Ariel Sharon and—it’s just not good. 

My question is, our own media and the media in Europe has an 

ability by how they shade things, the readers who write in, particu-
33 

larly online, that can really—we have some of that going on in own 

district right now vis-a`-vis a community known as Lakewood. And 

I read some of these readers’ responses and I shudder. I mean, 

there ought to be an ability to not allow that kind of expression. 

And I am a free speech man, believe me, to my core, but not antiSemitism hate speech, or hate speech of any kind. 

So monitoring the newspapers, is that being done adequately? Is 

that a best practice we need to be promoting? I mean, again, not 

taking away from press freedom, but there are lines that can be 

crossed. 

Mr. FARMER. Yes, there is work being done, and in fact some interesting—I can get it to you—showing a correlation between the 

use of certain words in the media and certain types of coverage, 

and the spike in anti-Semitism incidents, I believe both in the U.S. 

and in Europe. So that kind of monitoring is taking place. 

Rabbi BAKER. You know, I just want to point out first, very 

anecdotally, I have four adult children. None of them read newspapers. I get two newspapers delivered to me every day. I’m such 

a fossil when it comes to this. I think we know people get their 

news, their information from social media, or maybe they read 

newspapers online. But I think it’s the social media that is really 

the vehicle. 

In one survey that was done in France that did try and gauge, 

with some depth, attitudes in the Muslim community, those that 

harbored the most extreme views correlated—they didn’t correlate 

with education. It didn’t correlate with economic situation. It correlated with who was getting their information from social media, 

because it was a kind of reinforcing of all the hate and all the negative stereotypes that came through there. 

How we monitor it and how we can deal with it, let alone how 

we control it—and of course the Europeans would like to come here 

to you and tell you what you should do to control it, which is 

change that little problem called the First Amendment. I mean, obviously this is an enormous challenge and this is a divide in some 

ways between Europe and here. But we do need to, I think, recognize this is a new source—this is the new source today of where 

the anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred are being spread, and 

it’s almost impossible to keep up with the monitoring that’s necessary and to ask these social media companies, who have the ability voluntarily to police and to remove things, to really step up to 

that. 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. You know, I want to go back—— 

Mr. BIERMANN. Mr. Chairman, if I may—— 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Oh, I’m sorry. Go ahead, Jonathan. 

Mr. BIERMANN. Thank you. 

Just to answer the previous and the current question maybe together, in Belgium for the last two or three years, young Jews 

leave public schools. Those schools become Jews-free. How can we 

hope that there will be mutual understanding, cultural exchanges 

among Belgian younger generation without an opportunity for 

them to even meet and sit together in the same class? I believe 

that the Jewish day schools cannot become a refuge for young Jews 

because that would be rebuilding the walls of the ghetto. I believe 
34 

that dedication is key to establish a melting pot society in which 

everyone feels safe and secure with its own culture, faith and roots. 

And I also do believe that the media have a huge responsibility 

in the last decade in not being able to build a positive environment 

to mutual understanding, and also because the media have used a 

terminology which has banalized anti-Semitism, mixed concepts on 

the Middle Eastern conflict. And also the media have probably not 

reacted strongly enough to anti-Semitism in the newspapers or in 

the comments of the readers on the social media. 

In that respect, I do believe that the media should better take 

a bigger responsibility in the way they are contributing to educate 

the population, and specifically the younger generation. I do believe 

also that less and less of the younger generation read the newspaper, but they are commentating on the articles on the Web, and 

I believe that the atmosphere and the banalization of anti-Semitism led us to the situation we know today, to the fact that young 

Jews escape from public schools and join Jewish day schools, probably not for positive reasons. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Yes? 

Mr. GOLDENBERG. Yes, I do want to make one comment and just 

go back to one thing that you said. 

One of the things that someone said was they talked about the 

economics of anti-Semitism and the fact that many are not even 

considering the economics of anti-Semitism. Well, the food for 

thought for many in Europe and here even in the United States is, 

right now, on any given day, probably tens of millions of euros are 

being spent to have troops and police standing in front of what 

technically should be the most precious institutions in any country, 

and that’s a synagogue, a mosque or a school even. 

So the economics of anti-Semitism are going to have a toll and 

I don’t think anyone has taken a close look at that, not only what 

it takes to protect a vulnerable community because they’re under 

attack, unfortunately, but it’s the economics of people who have 

lived for hundreds of years and now are determining whether to 

leave or not, and leave behind professions and resources. So there 

is definitely economics that will come to play here, and that’s something to be considered for any free country, the cost if we let this 

go to where it’s become today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Just to conclude—and then if there’s anything you’d like to add 

that we have not touched, the floor would be yours. But, you know, 

to Rabbi Baker’s thought and comments regarding social media, I 

was in Bethlehem a number of years ago and I spoke at a Catholic 

university that has three-fourths of its students are Muslim—and 

very disciplined, good conversation. So we had a forum, and they 

asked me questions and I asked them questions. And when we got 

to 9/11, Mr. Attorney General, they claimed, to a person—and these 

were some of the best and the brightest students at that university—that it was all the Jews’ fault, obviously, and that no Jewish 

person died. 

Now, I had some 58 people in my district die in the Twin Towers. 

I know many of the widows. I hired one of the widows on my staff. 

Several of those widows who lived in Middletown and elsewhere, 
35 

New Jersey, were Jewish. And I said, I know these people personally. They are Jewish. Where did you get this big lie that the Jews 

caused it and no Jews died in the Twin Towers? I said, you’re looking at someone who will bear witness to the fact that many Jews 

died in the Twin Towers as well as in the Pentagon. And they said, 

the Internet, and social media to a lesser extent but it was the 

Internet that was the source of virtually all of their—and it was 

to a person. So a radicalized youth who are very sympathetic to the 

arguments of Hamas are made even more so by those big lies. 

You know, I walked away so troubled. And I said to the headmaster, I said, you know, you’ve just got to tell the truth. And he 

said, it was good that you did. But it shouldn’t take a congressman 

from New Jersey in a forum to be doing that. It is amazing how 

the disinformation campaign has worked, and so effectively. 

Mr. FARMER. Those reports were circulating the day of 9/11 itself, 

along with, by the way, the reports of thousands of Muslims dancing on the rooftops in Jersey City, which were about as true. 

[Chuckles.] 

Mr. SMITH. Well put. 

Thank you, Rabbi Baker. 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. 

Biermann, for your contribution and for—it must be a little later 

there than it is here. Thank you. 

We will forward any thoughts you have. This Commission stands 

ready, in a bipartisan way, to do everything humanly possible to 

promote this extremely important human rights cause. And I thank 

you so much. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:38 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(37) 

A P P E N D I C E S 
38 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

Good afternoon to everyone joining us today and especially to our witnesses, Rabbi 

Andy Baker, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, and Director of International Jewish Affairs for the American 

Jewish Committee; Jonathan Biermann, Executive Director of the crisis cell for the 

Belgian Jewish community, who will testify by video link from Brussels; John Farmer, Director of the Faith-Based Communities Security Program at Rutgers University; and Paul Goldenberg, Director of the Secure Community Network. 

Today we will discuss how to anticipate and prevent deadly attacks on European 

Jewish communities. The recent terrorist attacks in Brussels were reminders that 

Europeans of all religions and ethnicities are at risk from ISIS. But there can be 

no European security without Jewish security. As we have seen so many times in 

so many places, violence against Jewish communities often foreshadows violence 

against other religious, ethnic, and national communities. 

ISIS especially hates the Jewish people and has instructed its followers to 

prioritize killing them. The group’s cronies targeted the Jewish Museum of Belgium 

in May 2014, the Paris kosher supermarket in January 2015, and the Great Synagogue in Copenhagen in February 2015, and murdered people in all of them. Some 

thwarted plots have revealed plans to target even more Jewish community places 

and kill even more Jewish people. Other Islamist terrorist groups share its hatred 

and intent. 

However, terrorist and terrorism only account for some of the annual increases 

in violent anti-Semitic attacks in Europe over the past few years. Survey and crime 

data show that anti-Semitic attitudes and violence in Europe are most rife in Muslim communities. Anti-Semitic attitudes, and non-terroristic anti-Semitic violence, 

have also risen across the religious, political, and ideological spectrum. 

There are many different aspects of combating anti-Semitic violence. For example, 

European Jewish and Muslim civil society groups are collaborating with each other 

to counter violent extremism and hatred that impacts their respective communities. 

Today’s hearing though will zero in on the role of law enforcement agencies and especially on their relationships with Jewish community groups. These partnerships 

are essential, according to Jewish communities and experts on both sides of the Atlantic. That is why I authored House Resolution 354 as a blueprint for action and 

why the House passed it unanimously last November. 

Our witnesses will testify about what European law enforcement agencies, their 

governments, and Jewish community groups need to do to ensure these partnerships 

are formalized and effective. They will discuss the ideal roles for the OSCE, the 

United States, and other civil society groups, in supporting these initiatives. The 

witnesses will also share what can be learned from the experiences of law enforcement agencies and Jewish communities to counter terrorism, and strengthen public 

safety more broadly. Their insights will help guide the efforts of the U.S. Government, the Congress, and my fellow Helsinki Commissioners, especially Commission 

Co-Chairman Senator Roger Wicker, and Ranking Member Senator Ben Cardin, 

who has been the Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism and Intolerance 

for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly since last March. 

Today’s witnesses are world-class experts and practitioners on the subject. 

Rabbi Baker has been one of the most important figures in combating antiSemitism and addressing Holocaust-era issues over the past few decades. He was 

first appointed as Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism in 2009 and every subsequent Chairman-in-Office has reappointed him. He has been the Director of International Jewish Affairs for the 

American Jewish Committee since 2001 and with the organization since 1979. He 

has served in senior leadership roles in many initiatives and been publicly commended many times over, including by heads of state in countries like Germany, 

for his efforts. Rabbi Baker and I have worked together closely to combat antiSemitism for many years. 

I am pleased that we are able to hear a voice from Brussels, where ISIS followers 

murdered 32 people and injured more than 300 others only a month ago. Jonathan 

Biermann is Executive Director of the crisis cell of the Belgian Jewish community 

and was in charge of the cell at the time of the attack on the Jewish Museum in 

2014. A lawyer by profession, he has been a member of the City Council of Uccle, 
39 

a municipality in Brussels, since 2012 and is currently an Alderman on the Council. 

Mr. Biermann is a former Political Adviser to the President of the Belgian Senate, 

the Minister of Development Cooperation, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He 

brings the perspective of a Brussels native and resident born into a family very involved in the Jewish community. 

John Farmer is the Director of the Faith-Based Communities Security Program, 

part of the Institute for Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security, at Rutgers University, the State University of my home State of New Jersey. The Program 

spearheaded a major conference last July on ‘‘Developing Community-Based Strategies to Prevent Targeted Violence and Mass Casualty Attacks’’ in collaboration with 

the FBI, Department of Justice, and others. He was the Attorney General of New 

Jersey from 1999 to 2002 and Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission. Attorney 

General Farmer was later the Dean of the Rutgers Law School. 

Paul Goldenberg is the National Director of the Secure Community Network, a 

national homeland security initiative of the American Jewish community, and is 

also the CEO of Cardinal Point Strategies. A New Jersey native, for decades he was 

part of the law enforcement community, starting as a cop—including years of undercover work—and eventually as the first Chief of the Office of Bias Crimes and Community Relations for the State of New Jersey. Goldenberg has relevant experience 

with the OSCE, as the former Program Manager and Special Advisor for the OSCE/ 

ODIHR Law Enforcement Officer Training Program for Combating Hate Crimes. He 

is currently Co-Chair of the Department of Homeland Security’s Fighter Task Force, 

Vice Chair of the DHS Faith-Based Advisory Council, and a Special Advisor and 

Member of the Secretary of Homeland Security’s Combating Violent Extremism 

Working Group. 

Finally, I am pleased to recognize the presence here today of Paul Miller, a Member of the Board of Overseers of Rutgers University. Throughout his law career, he 

was involved in public safety and security initiatives—including for the Jewish community—and continues that important work now through the Miller Family International Initiative at the Rutgers School of Law. 

To you, and to our witnesses, a warm welcome. I will now turn to my fellow Commissioners and other Members for any remarks they wish to make. We will then 

shift to opening statements from witnesses, starting with Rabbi Baker, and then 

moving to questions from Commissioners and other Members. 
40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, CO-CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

I would like to thank Chairman Smith for holding this timely hearing and for his 

leadership in combating anti-Semitism. 

Nearly 71 years after the end of the Holocaust, it is appalling that people are still 

being attacked and murdered because they are Jewish. Anti-Semitism is part of the 

Islamic State’s brutal ideology. The terrorist organization’s followers have already 

shown their willingness and ability to target and kill members of European Jewish 

communities. They join other jihadi groups like al Qaeda, who kill innocent people 

because of their religion, ethnicity, or race. 

Terrorists are not the only violent threats to European Jewish communities. Others also contributing to anti-Semitic violence include individuals in disaffected and 

marginalized communities, Neo-Nazis, nationalist political forces that exploit historical anti-Semitism, and ideologues who invoke the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to justify anti-Semitic actions. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to use this opportunity to mention another serious 

problem: Russia’s manipulation and misrepresentation of issues related to anti-Semitism. Time and again, representatives of the Russian Federation have attended the 

OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna or the annual OSCE human dimension meeting 

in Warsaw. These individuals have portrayed those who oppose Moscow as fascists. 

Russia may make a great deal of noise about fascism and anti-Semitism, but it 

continues to fund extremist, anti-Semitic parties like the National Front in France. 

It is therefore all the more important, Mr. Chairman, that hearings such as this are 

held. 

I have collaborated on these issues with my long-time friend Senator Ben Cardin, 

Ranking Member on this Commission, and the Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance for the OSCE’s Parliamentary Assembly. We led Resolution 290, ‘‘Commemorating the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht, or the Night 

of the Broken Glass,’’ which the Senate passed unanimously. The resolution reaffirms America’s steadfast commitment to remembering the Holocaust and eliminating the evil of anti-Semitism. 

As Chairman of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Committee on Political Affairs and Security, I will do my part to help ensure that combating anti-Semitism 

is integrated into OSCE initiatives against terrorism and violent extremism. I will 

also continue to monitor Russia’s outrageous exploitation of the scourge of anti-Semitism. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for convening this hearing. I look forward to 

hearing from our witnesses. 
41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

Recent events indicate the clear need for strategies to ensure the global security 

of Jewish communities. 

Last year, after being appointed the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly’s Special Representative on Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Intolerance, I visited with members of 

Jewish communities and others in Paris and Copenhagen, to hear directly from 

those most egregiously affected by the 2015 attacks. They not only expressed continuing security concerns, but a certainty that more attacks would occur. Despite 

government efforts to secure Jewish sites in the wake of the attacks, they questioned how long such security could realistically remain in place given the need to 

also secure larger society. Moreover, they questioned their future in a country where 

Jews and others could not live together without fear of violence. 

For some time, I have advocated for efforts that would address the root causes 

of anti-Semitism and stem the tide of violence. More resources have now been marshaled in this fight, from increased State Department funds to new initiatives at 

the OSCE spearheaded by the German Chairmanship. Human rights leaders from 

across Europe and the United States are now working together to address hate. I 

recently hosted young Muslim and Jewish leaders who were encouraging their communities to join forces. The OSCE has trained law enforcement officials across the 

region to recognize and prosecute anti-Semitic and other hate crimes across the region so that perpetrators know they will be punished. 

In addition to my position within the OSCE PA, the OSCE, EU, and many governments including our own have appointed officials to address anti-Semitism in our 

societies. I have long worked with the Department of State’s Special Envoy on Combatting Anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, who unfortunately could not be here today. I 

am pleased that we are joined by the OSCE Chair-in-Office Personal Representative 

Rabbi Baker. 

Despite these best efforts, more must be done. 

We are currently witnessing a growth in extremist political rhetoric across the 

OSCE region, fueling an environment where expressions of hate are becoming increasingly more acceptable, and violence more frequent. For this reason I have advocated closer cooperation between the United States’ government and European 

counter-parts ?to combat anti-Semitism and other biases. Our countries have had 

a long history of cooperation in the military and economic spheres. It’s now time 

to apply our common efforts to strengthen our societies. Our repeated failures to 

protect the most vulnerable are increasingly challenging the very tenets of our democracies, and leading to their erosion. 

Alongside hard power, governments must equally provide long-term investments 

in soft power, such that we no longer need to fear our neighbors—and there’s something worth saving behind the walls we erect. 

Finally, efforts to promote the security of Jewish communities, or to combat antiSemitism more broadly, depend on robust protections for democracy, the rule of law, 

and human rights: democracy and minority rights will stand or fall together. 

In this regard, I am troubled by reports that Princeton-based Holocaust historian 

Jan Gross was recently summoned and interrogated by Polish prosecutors. Apparently Polish law enforcement is concerned that Gross’s remarks on war-time events 

in Poland may have ‘‘insulted the Polish nation.’’ If we are to combat anti-Semitism, 

we must be able to discuss it without fear of prosecution. 

I look forward to hearing the recommendations from our witnesses today on strategies to address the immediate safety concerns of Jewish communities. I also await 

your thoughts on what more we can be doing to shift societal attitudes so that there 

is no longer a need for enhanced security measures, and Jews can live as all others 

in our societies. 
42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, AJC DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL

JEWISH AFFAIRS, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OSCE CHAIRPERSON

At the outset, let me express my appreciation to this Helsinki Commission and 

to its Chairman, Representative Chris Smith, for the pioneering work you have done 

in identifying and addressing the problem of antiSemitism in Europe. You have 

taken the lead in pressing the United States Government and European States and 

in mobilizing the OSCE to confront this ageold scourge which has now presented 

itself in this century in yet new forms and manifestations. 

Sadly, one of the problems we have faced and we continue to face is that governments are slow to recognize the very problem itself, let alone to marshal the necessary resolve and expertise to confront it. 

Fifteen years ago at a meeting with American Jewish representatives in New 

York the French Foreign Minister argued strenuously that the vandalism and violent attacks on Jewish targets that were just then beginning to occur in France 

could not be considered antiSemitic. They were, he said, merely the random misdeeds of unemployed and disaffected youth from the suburbs that paid no special 

attention to their frequent neighborhood targets. He then allowed that, perhaps they 

could be understood as reflecting the anger of the youthful perpetrators who were 

witnesses to the daily suffering of the Palestinians by their Israeli occupiers, as 

broadcast on French television. But in this case, he said, they should be considered 

political actions rather than antiSemitic incidents. 

But it eventually became clear that Jews were singled out for attack. And this 

antiSemitism plain and simple could not be excused as some justifiable expression 

of antiIsrael views. Today no less a personage than the current Prime Minister of 

France says clearly and repeatedly that antiZionism and hatred of Israel are synonymous with antiSemitism. 

The comments of that French Foreign Minister were not an isolated example. 

Governments and even Jewish communities themselves in France and elsewhere 

were slow to recognize that early increase in antiSemitic incidents. Most governments lacked the mechanisms to identify and record hate crimes, and fewer still to 

label those that were antiSemitic in nature. Jewish organizations were only just beginning to develop their own tools to record incidents. And as we have come to 

learn, many of those incidents then and still now go unrecorded. So when the European foreign policy chief Javier Solana said to me in 2002, when we discussed the 

problem of antiSemitism, ‘‘I don’t see it,’’ he was correct. Most incidents were unreported, and most recorded incidents were not even identified as being antiSemitic. 

Although the problem of identifying the perpetrators of these antiSemitic attacks 

may be less ignorance than political correctness, at the time it was often asserted 

that many of them had particularly strong feelings about the Israeli-Palestinian 

conflict precisely because they or their families came from the region. In doing so, 

they were not trying to identify and address the problem, but instead to explain and 

excuse it. After the breakdown of an active peace process and with the Second 

Intifada there was increasing animosity toward the State of Israel shared by a growing number of political leaders and the general public, and fueled by what many 

considered a distorted and biased media. Perhaps the targets such as synagogues 

and Jewish schools were not appropriate, but the anger toward Israel that drove 

these youthful attackers was somehow considered understandable. For some, merely 

identifying a political motivation somehow separated it from the ‘‘genuine’’ antiSemitism that would be used to define attacks on the very same victims carried out 

by rightwing extremists. 

Eventually, some balance was restored to this discussion. The very act of throwing 

a Molotov cocktail at a Jewish school bus defines it as antiSemitism, regardless of 

the particular motives of the bomb thrower. 

These early struggles on recognition and identification were reflected in the debates and deliberations of international organizations. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly took the lead, and it was followed by the OSCE itself and the European 

Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC). 

In 2004, the EUMC conducted its own survey on antiSemitism in the European 

Union. In interviews with Jewish leaders and representatives it found a high degree 

of anxiety and uncertainty. It also acknowledged the limited monitoring of 

antiSemitic incidents and hate crimes more generally, and it revealed that most of 

the EUMC’s own country-by-country monitors lacked even a working definition of 

antiSemitism. 

The Berlin Declaration adopted by the OSCE in April 2004 declared, ‘‘ 

. . .unambiguously that international developments or political issues, including 

those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify antiSemitism.’’ It also 
43 

expressed the commitment of all the participating States to collect and maintain 

data on antiSemitic hate crimes. 

While many speakers in Berlin did not mince words, the official declaration could 

only hint at the problem, noting that antiSemitism had, ‘‘assumed new forms and 

manifestations.’’ Everyone was aware that the ‘‘new antiSemitism’’ was a term used 

to describe the special animus being directed at Israel, whereby the Jewish State 

was demonized and its very legitimacy called into question. 

Scholars and practitioners increasingly focused on this, arguing that any understanding of present-day antiSemitism must take it into account. Only some months 

later, this was reflected in the Working Definition of antiSemitism adopted by the 

EUMC and intended to fill the need made evident from its own first survey. The 

Working Definition was comprehensive, and it was especially notable for including 

a section describing how antiSemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of 

Israel. This included calling Israel a racist endeavor, applying double standards, 

using classic antiSemitic images to describe it, and equating its actions to those of 

the Nazis. It also cited an increasingly common phenomenon where Jewish communities themselves were held responsible for the actions of the Israeli State. 

Since it was first issued in 2005, a growing number of governments, international 

organizations, and civil society groups have employed the Working Definition in 

their monitoring and education work, and others such as the InterParliamentary 

Coalition to Combat AntiSemitism have called for its adoption. Unfortunately, these 

efforts were stalled a few years ago when the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights 

(FRA), the successor to the EUMC, removed the definition from its website. 

At the same time, we can now cite the words of international leaders including 

Prime Minister Valls, President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron and Pope Francis 

that describe antiZionism as a form of antiSemitism. The Swiss Foreign Minister, 

Didier Burkhalter, during his OSCE Chairmanship in 2014 called the Working Definition a useful document for governments and civil society in understanding this 

phenomenon, and the current German Chairmanship has voiced a commitment to 

press for the greater use of it. 

Some people while acknowledging this new form of antiSemitism might still question its impact, dismissing it as just a matter of words. But that would be a mistake. 

We have seen how those words have consequences, where antiIsrael demonstrations 

have turned antiSemitic and then violent. They have had a corrosive effect on Jewish community security and have certainly caused many Jews to refrain from any 

public display of support for Israel or even their own Jewish identity. 

Of course it is second nature for Jews to worry. But there has been a change, and 

more and more European Jews themselves wonder about their future in Europe. We 

know this not just anecdotally but empirically, as a result of FRA’s comprehensive 

survey of Jewish experiences and perceptions in eight EU States carried out in 

2012. Nearly half of those surveyed worry about being a victim of an antiSemitic 

attack. Four in ten frequently or always avoid wearing anything in public that 

would identify them as being Jewish. And thirty percent have considered emigration 

because of the problem. We also learn from this survey that upwards of three quarters of antiSemitic incidents goes unreported. Even as more governments undertake 

to record antiSemitic hate crimes, very few of them seek to identify the perpetrators. 

Of those that do, they are usually defined in political terms—namely, those ascribed 

to rightwing populists or leftwing extremists. But in the FRA survey those who witnessed or experienced antiSemitism were offered a greater number of choices to 

identify the sources, and over fifty percent said they were people who hold, ‘‘Muslim 

extremist views.’’ 

This reality—that many of the antiSemitic incidents that Jews are experiencing 

today especially in Western and Northern Europe are coming from parts of the Arab 

and Muslim communities—still remains a very difficult thing for some governments 

to acknowledge. Some may fear that by doing so one is labeling an entire religious 

or ethnic group, although that must not be the case. There may be a concern that 

this will add to the prejudice and discrimination that many Muslims in Europe already experience and provide further ammunition to rightwing extremist parties. 

And in the case of France, home to the largest Jewish community in Europe, there 

are legal restrictions on even identifying people by religion or ethnicity. 

But all of this leads to the same result. How can Jewish communities have faith 

that their governments will address a problem that cannot even be named? 

And some attempts to speak about this while maintaining political correctness actually exacerbate the situation. It may be described as an issue for and between 

Jews and Muslims—‘‘intercommunal tension’’ as one French Interior Ministry official termed it—as though this is somehow a problem for two minorities who bear 

equal blame. Some political leaders move immediately to the assumed prescriptions. 

We need to foster Jewish-Muslim dialogue, they say. There is no question that dia-
44 

logue between Jews and Muslims (and between other religious and ethnic groups) 

is enormously valuable. But we should be clear. It was not the lack of dialogue that 

created the problem, and dialogue alone will certainly not solve it. 

Although survey data is limited, we can see from what is available in some countries that European Muslims often have a higher level of anti-Jewish prejudice than 

the majority of the society. This should not come as a surprise. As German Chancellor Merkel pointed out earlier this year, they or their families come from countries where attitudes toward Jews are quite negative. 

Acknowledging this is not to ascribe blame. It is the necessary first step to develop effective educational and public awareness programs to address the problem. 

That FRA survey of 2012 already reflected a high degree of anxiety and uncertainty about day to day comfort and security, but government authorities were slow 

in recognizing it or responding to it. Meeting with Dutch officials in The Hague, I 

was told that increasing security in front of synagogues could not be done unless 

similar steps were taken for churches and mosques. In Brussels, Belgian officials 

conceded that the threat levels to Jewish communal buildings were quite high, but 

said they did not have the money to protect them. When the subject came up in 

Copenhagen, I was told by Danish officials that they rejected a request by the Jewish community to position police in front of the synagogue and school because they 

had, as they put it, ‘‘a relaxed approach to security.’’ They were more concerned that 

the general public would feel uncomfortable if they saw armed guards in front of 

buildings. 

Tragically, it took the terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen in early 2015 to 

awaken authorities to the fact that Jews and Jewish institutions were among the 

first targets of radical Islamist extremists. Fortunately, most governments have 

stepped up their defense of Jewish institutions. Heavily armed police now patrol in 

front of synagogues and schools in Sweden and Denmark. In France and Belgium 

the military has been mobilized to guard these same buildings. In the Netherlands 

mobile police trailers have been erected in front of each synagogue and communal 

building, although (inexplicably) the police are only there to monitor and cannot 

leave the trailers. Jewish communities are grateful for these measures, which were 

long overdue. But now it is time to evaluate and compare them, to determine which 

are most effective and efficient. And what are the long term implications? Can this 

level of security be sustained indefinitely? What is the impact on Jewish children 

and their parents when the daily trip to school is a walk through military barricades? 

The fear of radical Islamist extremists in Europe—and in America—has become 

palpable after the November attacks in Paris and last month’s bombings in Brussels. The task of identifying returning foreign fighters and those who are self 

radicalized or inspired by ISIS has been an enormous challenge to intelligence and 

law enforcement agencies throughout the West. It is further complicated with the 

realization that among the hundreds of thousands of genuine refugees fleeing 

wartorn Iraq and Syria, there are likely additional terrorists and ISIS propagandists. And even for the vast majority who harbor no terrorist inclinations, there 

are obvious questions about how to address the deficit in values such as secularity, 

pluralism and gender equality that are an essential part of our Western societies. 

Surely then, it should be no surprise that the steady diet of anti-Israel and 

antiSemitic propaganda which marked those Middle Eastern societies will not be 

easily corrected. Overwhelmed as many countries are with the physical tasks of providing for them, will they have the necessary resources and skills to genuinely absorb and assimilate these immigrants as well? Previous experience with smaller 

numbers over many more years makes it hard to be optimistic, but what then is 

the alternative? 

In the meantime, rightwing, populist movements are emboldened by the crisis. 

Longstanding parties such as the National Front in France and the Freedom Party 

in Austria see their numbers growing. New parties such as Alternative for Germany 

are filling the vacuum. Some of these extremist parties—notably Jobbik in Hungary 

and Golden Dawn in Greece—have made antiSemitism a main feature of their ideology. But even those which primarily feed on anti-migrant and anti-Muslim prejudices are cause for alarm. Bigotry cannot be compartmentalized, and the supporters 

of these parties are rather generous with their hatreds. 

That 2004 OSCE Berlin Declaration stated that antiSemitism poses a threat to 

democracy, to the values of civilization and to security in the OSCE region and beyond. That was both a warning and a more expansive reason (if one was necessary) 

that Jew hatred is wrong and must be confronted. Today there is ample evidence 

that this is true and that all are linked together. Yes, the struggle to combat antiSemitism is about ensuring that we have an environment that is safe and secure 

and nurturing of Jewish communal life and the lives of individual Jews. But it can-
45 

not be separated from—and in fact it is really the measure of—how successful we 

will be in preserving the democratic and pluralist values which all of us holds dear. 

Rabbi Andrew Baker is Director of International Jewish Affairs for the American 

Jewish Committee. In this position 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 figure in addressing Holocaust-era issues in Europe and in international efforts to combat anti-Semitism. 

In January 2009 he was appointed the Personal Representative of the OSCE 

Chairperson-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism and has been reappointed in 

each successive year. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, an 

intergovernmental body of 57 nations headquartered in Vienna, has become a central arena for addressing the problems of a resurgent anti-Semitism. 

He has played an active role in confronting the legacy of the Holocaust. He is a 

Vice President of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, the 

Jewish umbrella organization that has worked on restitution issues for over half a 

century. In 2003 he was awarded the Officer’s Cross of the Order of Merit (First 

Class) by the President of Germany for his work in German-Jewish relations. He 

was a member of Government Commissions in both the Czech Republic and Slovakia that were established to address the claims of Holocaust Victims. 

He was a founding member of the National Historical Commission of Lithuania 

and involved in restitution negotiations there. He currently serves as co-chairman 

of the Lithuanian Good Will Foundation, established in 2012 to administer communal compensation payments. In 2006 the President of Lithuania presented him 

with the Officer’s Cross of Merit for his work, and in 2012 he was awarded the Lithuanian Diplomacy Star. For similar work he was awarded the Order of the Three 

Stars by the President of Latvia in 2007. He helped the Romanian Government establish a national commission to examine its Holocaust history and served as one 

of its founding members. For this work he was awarded the National Order of Merit 

(Commander) by the President of Romania in 2009. 

Rabbi Baker directed AJC efforts in the development and construction of the 

Belzec Memorial and Museum, a joint project of AJC and the Polish Government 

on the site of the former Nazi death camp in Southeastern Poland. In May 2006 

he was appointed by the Prime Minister of Poland to a six-year term on the International Auschwitz Council, the official governmental body that oversees the work 

of the Auschwitz State Museum. 

A long-time resident of Washington, DC, Rabbi Baker has served as President of 

the Washington Board of Rabbis, President of the Interfaith Conference of Washington and Commissioner on the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission. 

He has also served as a congregational rabbi in Chicago and a chaplain at San 

Quentin Prison in California. 

A native of Worcester, Massachusetts, Rabbi Baker received a B.A. from Wesleyan 

University and a Masters’ Degree and Rabbinic Ordination from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York City. He is the father of four children. 
46 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JONATHAN BIERMANN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CRISIS CELL

FOR THE BELGIAN JEWISH COMMUNITY

The presence of Jews in Belgium can be traced from the 1st century A.C. and is 

confirmed during the 13th century. The religious institutions were organized under 

French authority and Napoleon created the Consistory organizing the cult before the 

establishment of the Kingdom of Belgium. 

With two main locations, the Antwerp community is for its majority composed by 

orthodox movements (comparable to the communities established in New York or in 

Israel) while Brussels is more secular with vivid institutions and approximately 

20,000 individuals in a city of 1.1 million. 

Allow me to describe the current atmosphere among Belgian Jews: Community 

members are nowadays used to seeing police, guards, military in front of Jewish 

buildings and schools. It has been so for decades and I would say that although it 

is not a normal situation for a well integrated community, it is a relief to know that 

the risks on the Jewish community are assessed and taken seriously, in the limits 

of the governments capacities. 

Yet the situation is worrying as the statistics compiled by the NGO 

Antisemitisme.be (data are also used by Study centers and universities, International institutions (OSCE), Daily contacts with the Interfederal Center for Equal 

Opportunities) show the following: 

The level of hatred has not been so high since 1945 (raise of 70% in 2014 compared to 2016: 

• Anti-Semitic discourse spreads in an unprecedented extent, especially in internet. 

• A new phenomenon of discrimination is targeting the Jewish individuals 

• and violence has reached an unprecedented level of horror as were killed in the 

terrorist attack of the Brussels Jewish Museum (May 24 2014) 

• A major survey among Flemish teenagers has indicated that anti-Semitism is 

seven times more prevalent among Muslim youths than in non-Muslim teenagers (Mark Elchardus and Johan Put, Jong in Brussel. Bevindingen uit de 

JOP-monitor, Acco, Leuven, 2011). 

• In the last two years, the press denounced anti-semitic incidents in public 

schools, including with teachers making anti-semitics problems. As a consequence, for several years, jews are leaving public schools for Jewish schools 

which increases the distance between jews and non-jews in what should remain 

a community where diversity in promoted. 

• Jewish life in Europe is part of its diversity. As we also know from the Fundamental Rights Agency Survey, an increasing number of Jews feel less and less 

comfortable attending Jewish events and institutions. 

In such a situation, and I will express a personal opinion on this matter, the propagation of radical Islam is the symptom of the failure in education specifically within the younger generation of the Muslim community. 

Many causes and effects can be described. But to stay focused on our purpose, it 

also results in mistrust and suspicion in the relationship existing between the community and the police, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. 

Having the opportunity to observe the work and expertise of John Farmer and 

Paul Goldenberg, the Institute for Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security, 

the Faith- Based Communities Security Program at Rutgers University and their 

international partners, I am convinced that sharing best practices in the implementation of the ‘‘See something Say something strategy’’ is of crucial importance. 

Such a strategy should be implemented at the level of each community as at the 

level of the broader community. 

The communication channels established between communities and the authorities, government and law enforcement agencies would participate in the establishment of a more balanced society based on respect and mutual understanding. 

Sharing concern about what is happening in the various communities is a fundamental step which has to be followed by action. Creating the tools to communicate 

amongst communities with the government will be considerably facilitated by the 

‘‘See something Say something strategy.’’ 

The collaboration with law enforcement agencies has to be based on trust and confidence, in respect of international laws and rules protecting individual freedom, 

civil liberties and privacy. 

Communication channels, types of intelligence collected by each actor must be 

clearly defined. The protocols existing in the US, the UK and France should be a 

reference for local police and national law enforcement agencies empowering local 

communities. 
47 

The situation of local communities and the relationship with the authorities 

should be regularly assessed. 

Taking the example of Brussels after the attack on the Jewish Museum, emergency planning and communication with local police have worked properly. Lessons 

have now to be taken in order to structure the coordination. 

Establishing a Memorandum of Understanding would now be an important step 

and should be based on what is already implemented in neighboring countries like 

France. 

At this stage, communal leadership is crucial as operational and symbolic choices 

have to be made. 

Considering the risks assessing the threats and knowing that public resources are 

limited (especially in the days following the terrorist attacks that occurred in Brussels on March 22), what decisions should be taken about the activities planned? 

In this case, security challenges the constitutional principle of freedom of religion. 

Who should take responsibility? 

Confidence and collaboration should guide community leadership, law enforcement agencies and political leaders in the decisionmaking process. 

Fortunately enough, political statements have also been of great determination in 

condemning Antisemitism and violence. The Belgian Government has provided public funding to improve the physical protection of buildings used by the Jewish community. 

As a conclusion, I would underline the necessity of establishing the terms of reference that European governments should use. International organizations and 

agencies are a key player in that matter. 

I personally believe that the OSCE could develop a platform to exchange good 

practices and confront the approaches and strategies in fighting an external threat 

with domestic impact and support. 

I would finally formulate the following recommendations: 

• Implement ‘‘If you see something, Say Something’’ with Jewish Communities as 

pilots 

• Empower Jewish Communities by establishing a MoU defining the collaboration 

between law enforcement agencies and Jewish communities 

• Never banalize Antisemitism 

Annex: List of Antisemitic terrorist attacks in Belgium: 

• In 1980, grenades were launched in Antwerp on a group of Jewish children, one 

is killed. 

• On 20 October 1981 a car bomb outside a synagogue in Antwerp killing three 

and sixty wounded. 

• In 1982, a gunman opened fire at the entrance to the Great Synagogue of Brussels and injured four people. 

• In 1989, Dr. Joseph Wybran, chairman of the Jewish Organizations Coordinating Committee of Belgium is assassinated. 

• Several places of worship in Brussels, Antwerp and Charleroi are attacked in 

2002. 

• In June 2003, a person tries to blow up the synagogue in Charleroi. 

• May 24, 2014, individual broke into the Jewish Museum of Belgium in Brussels 

and killed two tourists, volunteer and an employee. 

All Antisemitic incident is officially recorded by www.Antisemitisme.be 

Jonathan Biermann is a lawyer admitted to the Bar of Brussels. He has been a 

Member of the City Council of the Municipality of Uccle in Brussels since 2006 and 

an Alderman in the same municipality since 2012. 

He was the Political Adviser to the President of the Belgian Senate, the Development Minister, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As Political Adviser, Biermann 

was responsible for politicomilitary issues, combating Anti-Semitism, and the broader fight against intolerance. 

While obtaining his law degree at the Free University of Brussels, Biermann was 

Chairman of a students’ association ‘‘Circle of Free Inquiry’’ and then Adviser to the 

Rector for cultural affairs. Since July 2015, Jonathan has been the President of the 

Alumni of the University. 

Biermann comes from a family that is very involved in the Jewish community and 

was born and raised in Brussels. After being involved in various cultural organizations, he was appointed to establish the crisis plan of the Jewish community. He 

is the executive director of the crisis cell of the Jewish community and was in 

charge of the cell at the time of the attack on the Jewish Museum on May 24th 

2014. 
48 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN J. FARMER, JR., RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR OF

LAW

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Helsinki Commission Members: Thank you for 

this opportunity to testify today on the subject of ‘‘Anticipating and Preventing Attacks on the European Jewish Communities in Europe.’’ Today’s hearing comes at 

a critical juncture in the struggle against transnational terrorism, in the history of 

the Jewish communities in Europe, and in the progress of civilization in securing 

the safety of vulnerable communities worldwide. 

My name is John Farmer. I am currently a University Professor of Law at Rutgers University. Prior to my current position, I served as Rutgers University Counsel, as Dean of Rutgers School of Law-Newark, as a partner in two law firms, as 

Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, as New Jersey’s Attorney General, as Chief 

Counsel to Governor Whitman, and as a federal prosecutor. 

Of most relevance to today’s hearing, I was the chief law enforcement officer in 

New Jersey on 9/11, a day when our state lost some 700 of its citizens. I can never 

forget that day, or the sense of failure and disbelief I felt that such an attack could 

have succeeded. Understanding exactly what went wrong and how public safety can 

be protected during a terrorist attack or other crisis has been a focus of my work 

in the years since. 

As Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission, I had the opportunity to study the 

crisis as it was experienced in real time by everyone from the President to the evacuating civilians in New York’s Twin Towers. I wrote a book, ‘‘The Ground Truth,’’ 

comparing the response on 9/11 to the response to Hurricane Katrina, and found 

disturbing parallels between the way the government reacted to a complete surprise 

attack and the way it reacted to a storm that had been anticipated for years and 

for which detailed plans were in place. 

The responses to both events, I found, failed to take account of the fact that, as 

stated in The 9/11 Commission Report, ‘‘[t]he ‘first’ first responders on 9/11, as in 

most catastrophes, were private-sector civilians. . . [P]rivate-sector civilians are likely to be the first responders in any future catastrophes.’’ (The 9/11 Commission Report, at 317.) Among trained emergency personnel like police, fire, and EMTs, moreover, both crises demonstrated that ‘‘critical early decisions will have to be made 

by responders who are not the top officials. . . Planning for a crisis should accept 

that reality and empower and train people ‘on the ground’ to make critical decisions.’’ (John Farmer, The Ground Truth, at 324.) 

The truth of that observation has been borne out in subsequent attacks ranging 

from the London subway bombing to the murders at the Jewish museum in Brussels 

to the murders at the kosher grocery store in Paris to the most recent attacks at 

the Paris cafes, stadium, and concert hall and at the Brussels airport. As the threat 

has become more diffuse, and the attacks less predictable, I believe the following 

conclusion has become inescapable: Anticipating and preventing attacks on European Jewish communities—or, for that matter, on any vulnerable communities—will 

be impossible without a dramatically greater engagement of law enforcement with 

the affected communities and people, and of the affected communities and people 

with each other. 

For the past nearly two years, I have had the privilege of leading, along with Rutgers Professor of Criminal Justice John Cohen, formerly Counterterrorism Coordinator for the Department of Homeland Security, an initiative at Rutgers University 

designed to identify the best ways to protect vulnerable communities in light of the 

evolving threat. Funded generously by Rutgers alumnus Paul Miller, former general 

counsel of Pfizer, and his family, Rutgers began what we have called the FaithBased Communities Security Program two years ago by taking a close look at the 

evolving threat, and by taking an equally close look at the security situations of several European Jewish communities. To assist us, we have had the privilege of working with subject matter experts like Paul Goldenberg, Rabbi Baker, Sean Griffin, 

recently retired as Counterterrorism Coordinator for Europol, and Richard Benson, 

who helped establish the Community Security Trust in Great Britain. 

The reasons for our initial focus on the European Jewish communities are twofold. First, because the European Jewish communities are the original diaspora communities, and have survived in parts of Europe despite attempts to eliminate them 

for over two thousand years, we believe that these communities have much to teach 

other vulnerable communities about security and resilience. 

These lessons are particularly important, in our view, because the demographics 

of our world have been transformed within our lifetimes; according to estimates that 

predate the recent Syrian refugee crisis, over 20 percent of the world’s people now 

live in a nation other than where they were born. That amounts to well over a bil-
49 

lion people trying to adapt to foreign cultures. The world of the future is therefore 

a diaspora world, a world of vulnerable communities. 

Second, we thought it would be instructive to look at European Jewish communities now because, as Jonathan Biermann, Paul Goldenberg and Rabbi Baker will 

describe in greater detail, they have been under renewed stress in Europe as a consequence of Islamist radicalization and, to a lesser but persistent extent, age-old European anti-Semitism. The occurrence of anti-Semitic incidents had spiked dramatically, culminating in the murders at the Jewish Museum in Brussels shortly before 

we began our study. 

The threat evolved and became more deadly even as we undertook our work. Indeed, the urgency of our work has escalated with each new attack. A team from 

Rutgers was on the ground in Paris during the Paris attacks of 2015 and in the 

aftermath of December’s attack, in the aftermath of Copenhagen’s attack, in the 

weeks preceding the Brussels attacks last month, and also in sensitive locations 

such as Malmo, Stockholm, Amsterdam, London, Prague, Vienna, and Budapest. In 

those locations and others we have met and consulted with Jewish community security leaders and representatives of law enforcement, the governments, and civil society. 

At the same time, we have worked with U.S. communities and law enforcement 

partners to develop what FBI officials have called an ‘‘off-ramp’’ from radicalization: 

an adaptable, multi-disciplinary intervention strategy to attempt to identify precursor conduct and enable communities to protect themselves and each other. The 

development of such strategies is impossible without a high level of public, community, and civil society engagement with law enforcement. 

We did a read-out of preliminary findings at a conference last year in Washington, 

co-sponsored by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Bipartisan Policy Center, and Rutgers, and hosted by the FBI at its headquarters. We also had 

the opportunity to describe our work at the Hague to an audience of European police chiefs. As a consequence of that meeting, we had planned to conduct a followup summit at Europol headquarters this summer. 

But the time for conference-level discussion is over. The recent attacks in Paris 

and Brussels have made more urgent the need to take action now to protect vulnerable communities. The situation on the ground has become dire; the challenge to 

the Jewish communities has become nothing less than existential. Many stalwart 

leaders have become ambivalent about remaining in Europe at all. 

The communities have become caught in a double-helix of hate, in which terrorist 

attacks energize the forces of xenophobia and nationalism, which have tended historically to turn eventually on the Jewish communities. The only thing the Islamist 

terrorists have in common with such forces is that both hate the Jews. In short, 

this is a time of particular peril for the Jewish future in Europe, and it is incumbent 

upon us to do what we can to assure that future. 

Why? 

In addition to the fact that assisting these communities is simply the right thing 

to do, in my view the future of our world of vulnerable communities is at stake. If 

the oldest diaspora community in the world cannot survive in a place where it has 

lived for longer than two thousand years, in a place where it survived the Nazis, 

the future of other vulnerable communities can only be described as bleak. The 

wholesale slaughter of Christians and nonconforming Muslims in Syria and Iraq 

and elsewhere begins to look less like isolated atrocities and more like a harrowing 

vision of our children’s future. 

After consulting with our European partners in Brussels, Copenhagen, London, 

the Hague, and elsewhere, we have decided to take action now in the following ways 

that are a direct outgrowth of our work. 

FIRST, with the encouragement of law enforcement and the affected communities, 

we will be traveling back to Brussels and Copenhagen in the coming weeks to explore concrete ways in which we might assist the Jewish and other vulnerable communities and law enforcement in working together to enhance public safety. At a 

meeting of the OSCE last spring in Vienna, many joined the representative of 

France in calling for some variation of ‘‘if you see something, say something’’ training and public engagement as an essential step in improving public safety. The need 

for a similar kind of civil defense approach has grown with each attack since then. 

We are working on refining that approach to meet the needs of individual communities. But our assistance extends beyond that program. 

SECOND, with a view to their application to all vulnerable communities, we are 

writing and plan to publish online this summer the Rutgers Guide to Protecting 

Vulnerable Communities. This work will provide a distillation of best practices that 

we have identified in the course of our work. These practices are adaptable to other 

vulnerable communities and to various law enforcement structures around the 
50 

world. They will represent our assessment of the most effective ways in which governments and communities can work together to provide safety for vulnerable populations. They range from relatively obvious and easily adaptable steps—the creation 

of crisis management teams within communities; regular exercising in crisis management; facilities audits to ensure that potential soft targets are hardened—to 

more challenging but essential steps, such as regular communication with law enforcement, training of individuals to identify potential threats, and outreach to other 

vulnerable communities and elements of civil society in order to develop effective approaches to intervention. The guide will be available to all, and we plan to offer on 

the ground assistance to those who request it, within our means. 

THIRD, we plan to focus our efforts on filling a need that has been highlighted 

in the United States and in every country we have visited, and echoed by communities, government officials and members of the private sector alike: improved information sharing of open source and social media information. After having consulted 

with current and former law enforcement officials as well as having heard the concerns of the faith community, NGOs, and private sector entities, I believe that a 

lasting contribution of our project to public safety may well lie in facilitating the 

more efficient sharing of critical open source information with faith-based communities, NGOs, human rights organizations, and the private sector. 

This effort would not be meant to replace, but rather to complement, governmental information-sharing efforts which, while admirable, have a necessarily different and primarily law enforcement focus. Such an effort will be fundamental to 

promoting the enhanced level of public engagement that I believe is required in 

order to protect public safety. 

Mr. Chairman, our work in Europe, and the recent attacks in Paris and Brussels, 

has underscored the ground truth of every attack and natural catastrophe since 

9/11: it is more essential now than ever that the public be engaged at every level 

in its own protection. As FBI Director Comey and other law enforcement leaders 

have recognized for over a year now, the threat to public safety is evolving; law enforcement can no longer act alone—if it ever truly could—in combating it. A better 

informed, trained, and engaged community is a safer community. 

We are committed to providing the education, information, and training that will 

enable the Jewish and the vulnerable communities of other cultures and beliefs, 

wherever they are threatened and whenever they ask, not just to survive but to 

flourish. The stakes for the Jewish and other vulnerable communities today cannot 

be higher; if done right, however, the rewards from these efforts will be reflected 

in a safer and more peaceful future for all. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. 

John Farmer became dean of Rutgers School of Law-Newark in July 2009. From 

April 2013 until June 30, 2014 he was on a leave of absence to serve as Senior Vice 

President and University Counsel. He returned to the faculty as University Professor, effective July 1, 2014. Professor Farmer continues to hold an administrative 

post as Special Counsel to the President. 

Professor Farmer received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, 

where he was a member of The Tax Lawyer and received first prize in the 1984 

Lincoln and the Law Essay Contest. He received his B.A. from Georgetown University, with a major in English. He began his career as a law clerk to Associate Justice Alan B. Handler of the New Jersey Supreme Court. He then worked for two 

years as a litigation associate at Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti LLP before joining the Office of the U.S. Attorney in Newark, where he prosecuted crimes 

ranging from kidnapping and arms dealing to bank fraud. In 1993 he received the 

U.S. Attorney General’s Special Achievement Award for Sustained Performance. 

Professor Farmer joined the administration of New Jersey Governor Christine 

Todd Whitman in 1994, serving as assistant counsel, deputy chief counsel, and then 

chief counsel. From 1999–2002 he was New Jersey attorney general. Among his 

noteworthy accomplishments, he argued school funding and criminal justice matters 

before the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals; 

moved forward with reform of the New Jersey State Police, from eliminating racial 

profiling to increasing diversity in recruitment and promotion; created the Office of 

Inspector General to investigate allegations of official impropriety and/or corruption; 

and served as the first chairman of the New Jersey Domestic Preparedness Task 

Force, leading the coordination of the state’s law enforcement and victim/witness response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. 

From 2003–2004 Professor Farmer served as senior counsel and team leader for 

the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly 

known as the 9/11 Commission). In that position he led the investigation of the 

country’s preparedness for and response to the terrorist attacks and was a principal 
51 

author of the Commission’s final report. His book, ‘‘The Ground Truth: The Untold 

Story of America Under Attack on 9/11,’’ a reconsideration of the government’s 

9/11 response in light of its response to Hurricane Katrina, was published by 

Riverhead/Penguin Press. 

Professor Farmer has received the highest peer-reviewed rating from MartindaleHubbell, and has been named a New Jersey Super Lawyer, one of New York Magazine’s Best Lawyers in the New York area, and one of the Best Lawyers in America. 

He was a partner in the white collar crime and internal investigations group at 

K&L Gates and in 2007 became a founding partner of the law firm Arseneault, 

Whipple, Farmer, Fassett and Azzarello, LLP. In addition to his law practice, in 

2008 he served as senior advisor to General James Jones, Special Envoy for Middle 

East Regional Security, on development of the rule of law in the Palestinian Authority territory, and was invited by the U.S. Embassy in Armenia to assist that nation’s 

legislative commission in investigating widespread violence and unrest following its 

elections. 

Professor Farmer has been a frequent contributor to the Star-Ledger and the New 

York Times, with essays and opinion columns on legal and political issues, and has 

had articles published in the Rutgers Law Review, Seton Hall Law Review, and 

other journals. His article on the Patriot Act, ‘‘At Freedom’s Edge,’’ was part of a 

Star-Ledger series that was awarded the American Bar Association’s Silver Gavel 

Award for outstanding legal reporting in 2006. Dean Farmer has also lectured extensively on post 9/11 safety and security issues, and spoken on panels at Harvard 

Law School, the University of Southern California, Willamette Law School, and 

Johns Hopkins University’s Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies. 

Professor Farmer is president of the board of trustees of the New Jersey Institute 

for Social Justice and a former member of the New Jersey Governor’s Ethics Advisory Board. 
52 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL GOLDENBERG, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, SECURE

COMMUNITY NETWORK

Good Afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen. My name is Paul Goldenberg. I currently 

serve as a senior advisor to the United States Department of Homeland Security 

as a member of the Secretary’s Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). In 

that capacity, I serve on the Countering Violent Extremism Sub-Committee, CoChair the Foreign Fighter Task Force and am Vice-Chair of the Faith-Based Advisory & Communications Sub-Committee. In addition, for the past decade, I’ve served 

as the National Director of the Secure Community Network (SCN), the official national homeland security initiative of the American Jewish community. Working 

under the auspices of The Jewish Federations of North America and the Conference 

of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, we serve to connect the 151 

Federations, 300 network communities and over fifty organizations that make up 

these entities with vital information, intelligence and resources to best ensure the 

safety and security of the Jewish community, here in the United States. 

In addition to these efforts, I have had the recent privilege of working closely with 

the Faith-Based Communities Security Program at Rutgers University. As a part 

of this new initiative, and working under the leadership of former New Jersey Attorney General John Farmer, I have made countless trips in recent months overseas, 

traveling to multiple European cities. Through these trips, I have been able to gain 

a first-hand understanding of the current climate, hearing the concerns of communities who are under threat, and assessing what can do to best assist them. What 

we have seen, heard and learned has confirmed our initial hypothesis: while the levels of cooperation and partnerships between Jewish and other minority religious 

communities with their respective policing services—in many parts of Europe—is as 

diverse as the communities themselves, more work needs to be accomplished to 

move closer to a medium and standard of safety and security. While this presents 

distinct challenges, there is also hope. For much of what we have learned, innovated, tested and improved upon here in the United States, as well as in other progressive nations, can be imparted to, and replicated by, many of our partners. 

Mr. Chairman: thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the current 

state of affairs in Europe, specifically the alarming levels of anti-Semitism impacting Jewish communities but, more broadly, acts of targeted violence, extremism and 

terrorism impacting both vulnerable communities as well as the broader public. I 

am both proud and honored to be here with such a distinguished group of colleagues, today. I applaud you and the Commission for its steadfast commitment and 

unwavering support towards ensuring that human security dimension remains an 

enduring right of all people, particularly during such challenging times. 

I speak to you today not as an academic, but as a practitioner—as a former law 

enforcement executive who has personally seen the impact of hate crimes, acts of 

targeted violence, extremism and terrorism. I began my career over thirty-five years 

ago walking the beat, a rare American Jewish cop on the streets of Irvington, New 

Jersey. I retired as Chief of the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office of Bias 

Crimes and Community Affairs, the first-of-its-kind office in the nation. 

In 2004, I was appointed by the Chairman as a senior law enforcement advisor 

to the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In that capacity, 

I had the honor of working with law enforcement officials and community leaders 

in nearly 10 European countries, working hand in hand to combat anti-Semitism, 

xenophobia, extremism and domestic terrorism. As a law enforcement professional 

who spent over twenty years working on the issues we are discussing today, what 

I can tell you is that, over seventy years after the fires of National Socialism in Europe were extinguished, sadly, disturbingly and dangerously, the embers of that hatred still glow. In some places, they burn. Fires can move quickly. Engulfing things 

rapidly. Unless we act, we risk allowing the fires of hate to kindle further. To move 

faster. To reach farther. 

Jewish communities in Europe have long been targeted. But much more than simply the target of hate, they represent something else. They have often acted as the 

proverbial canaries in a coal mine, forecasting larger problems and issues. . . foreshadowing broader concerns for other communities. In this, recent events—from the 

attacks in Paris against Jewish targets to the potential targeting of Jewish people 

in Brussels—are not a new phenomenon for Jewish communities, across Europe. 

Rather, the most recent attacks merely represent the continuation of targeted violence that has changed the way in which—as a community—they function, from the 

way religious institutions and schools approach gatherings to what community 

members wear in public. 

Highlighting these issues, the Anti-Semitism Report for 2014 saw a significant increase in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide and found that local governments are 
53 

often not doing enough to eradicate the incidents and violence. The report also notes 

that 2014 showed a marked increase in terrorism as well as unprecedented violent 

attacks against Jewish targets: 

• Some 55% of respondents do not feel safe in their own country and are afraid 

to walk around with Jewish symbols in the street. 

• In the United Kingdom, 45% of respondents reported that they do not feel safe 

in their own country and about 37% of respondents are afraid to walk around 

with Jewish symbols. 

In the span of two decades, we’ve moved from swastikas on buildings, the desecration of graveyards and simple assaults, as well as long-standing institutionalized 

anti-Semitism, to brutal violence, commando-style shooting attacks and even suicide 

bombings on the streets of Europe by battlefield-trained terrorist cells and organizations. 

From the 2006 torture and killing of Ilan Halimi, to the schoolyard slaughter of 

Jewish children in Toulouse, France in 2012 to the attack against the Brussels Jewish Museum, largely viewed as the first ISIS-related attack in Europe, and nearly 

two years before many European countries recognized ISIS-trained operatives were 

immersed across the continent. The list goes on. The escalation of these attacks, 

from seemingly isolated incidents against Jewish communities and military targets, 

has materialized into a recurring phenomenon where no soft targets, including children, are safe. ‘‘Soft targets’’—once thought of as safe havens and sanctuaries—have 

become the chosen targets of hatred and violent extremism. and Jewish affiliated 

locations, organizations and people, the preferred victims. 

Unfortunately, some communities have imported the Middle Eastern conflict into 

their host countries, with attending acts of violence and unbridled anti-Semitism toward local Jewish communities which had otherwise lived peacefully except during 

the Holocaust interregnum. While these events are not without precedent, the pace, 

frequency, and scale should be setting off alarms not just in Europe, but here in 

the U.S. 

According to the annual Terrorism and Political Violence Map released by Aon 

Risk Solutions just last week, ‘‘2015 was the most lethal year for terrorist violence 

in Europe in nearly a decade.’’ Over the past year, France in particular has been 

on the frontlines of this battle, experiencing multiple mass casualty attacks within 

the span of eight months including one of the worst terrorist attacks in French history. 

In the past few years, we have watched as a storm has been brewed. Growing 

anti-Semitism, xenophobia, attacks against religious institutions by those inspired 

by Jihad, and now ultra-nationalism, is growing unlike anything we have seen since 

the 1930s. 

This vortex has spawned not just a threat to select vulnerable communities and 

populations in Europe, but poses an overarching threat to human security and the 

safety and security of free and open societies where citizens enjoy the right to worship and gather freely without intimidation, fear and harm. When citizens of free 

countries, including our own, no longer feel safe in their houses of worship.this is 

a direct threat to a nation’s democracy and freedom. 

But, as so many have watched the storm brew. . . few did little, if anything, to prepare. For some, it now appears that we have little more at our disposal than an 

umbrella. . . for a hurricane. 

What is at risk from this threat? This new reality? 

In a sense, it is the very fabric and spirit of these democratic societies and the 

collaborative, cooperative and trusting relationships between authorities and the 

communities they’re sworn to protect. 

The passage of House Resolution 354, ‘‘Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives Regarding the Safety and Security of Jewish Communities in Europe’’ 

is a watershed moment that has reinvigorated and will provide much needed support to enable much needed collaboration with our European partners. It is the formalization of this resolution, Mr. Chairman, and years of tireless work leading up 

to it, which has provided us with the impetus and roadmap to truly operationalize 

these public-private capacity building and community engagement efforts across the 

EU. 

An epidemic that plagues Europe requires a transnational approach and commitment to working across borders and jurisdictions to effectively combat the threat. 

Our effort proposes a comprehensive approach that would connect the Jewish and 

other communities, law enforcement and other mechanisms of civil society in identifying the specific challenges facing the communities of Europe from the perspective 

of organizational structure, training, awareness efforts, standardized technologies, 

and coalition building. 
54 

The effort will then develop operational recommendations for partnership building, exchanging good practices, providing critical security awareness training, based 

on strategies that have been developed over time in Europe, Israel, the United 

States and elsewhere, and that can be effective in confronting the identified challenges. One of the most critical outcomes of the effort would be a formalized recognition and relationship between those responsible for Jewish communal security and 

the policing agencies that vow to protect them. 

Inherent in this effort will be the sensitization of law enforcement to the issues, 

engaging the men and women of those agencies to work to build trust between the 

police and the communities of Europe. . . their communities. Committing themselves 

to undertake a partnership to address the threats on an ongoing—as opposed to an 

ad-hoc—basis; as attacks on Europe’s diverse, distinct and various religious communities continue, the police will be increasingly called upon to respond to these attacks in more resolute ways. This effort will require the engagement and coalition 

support of regional governing bodies, policing consortiums and non-governmental organizations with deep experience in combatting anti-Semitism, xenophobia, violent 

extremism and terrorism; it will include leadership and security heads of European 

Jewish communities, along with the OSCE, European Union, Europol and Interpol. 

Developing an organic strategy is paramount to the success of this initiative. This 

is particularly critical as those targeting Jewish institutions and other communities 

have often, and seemingly successfully, influenced some within the public and private sector with the belief that Jewish institutions are not part of the fabric of European society; that they are nothing more than an extension of some foreign government whom are represented by its security, intelligence and military activities. 

Nothing could be farther from the truth; these Jewish communities are a part of 

Europe. and they have been for hundreds of years and despite a history replete with 

efforts to expel, exterminate or simply excoriate them. 

Focusing on collaborative partnerships and the protection and preservation of 

shared, common values can—and will—trump suspicions and differences. We will 

work collectively to promote community cohesion. Despite religious, ethnic and cultural differences, we’ve achieved success in rallying around the common shared values of protecting our houses of worship and safeguarding our children; both from 

becoming victims of violence and being lured, inspired and radicalized to become 

perpetrators of that same violence. While law enforcement and policing services, 

taking on roles as agents of social change and a visible extension of their governments’ interests in protecting its people, are integral to this process and solution, 

community participation, engagement and responsibility are paramount to achieve 

success. As we’ve experienced here at home with our own diffuse and evolving terrorism threat, law enforcement cannot tackle this burden alone. 

• As such, educating and empowering communities to become active participants 

and stakeholders in their own safety and security pays measurable dividends 

in contributing to the safety and security of the neighborhoods in which they 

live, work and play. Here in the U.S., the expansion of the ‘‘If you See Something, Say Something’’ campaign has harnessed millions of eyes and ears as 

force-multipliers to detect and report suspicious activities. 

• Treating the public as a key partner in counter-terrorism promotes greater engagement and reduced public apathy and believe counter-terrorism is primarily 

a responsibility of government. 

• Increasing information sharing efforts between law enforcement and community 

leaders and organizations builds ‘‘communities of trust’’ and facilitates greater 

cooperation and collaboration. 

• Engaging citizens and communities through trainings and exercises teaches 

people to know what to look for and know how to respond in an emergency. 

In closing, I’d ask you to consider this: 

In January 2015, The Grand Synagogue of Paris shuttered for Shabbat services 

on Friday night following the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and Hyper 

Cacher, marking the first time since World War II that the synagogue was closed 

on the Sabbath. Following the attacks, 10,000 police and soldiers were deployed 

across France to guard Jewish institutions against follow on attacks, an effort that, 

in many places, continues today. 

In December 2015, New Year’s Eve fireworks and festivities in Brussels were canceled following a terror alert warning of an imminent attack against the city, a 

month after the November terrorist attacks in Paris killed over 130 people. 

These are NOT the ‘‘kind of firsts’’ we wish to celebrate. . . nor will we tolerate; 

we cannot be plagued and paralyzed by the violent will of hate and extremism. 

Through programs and initiatives of trust and collaboration, we’ll continue to pursue these efforts to ensure vigilance is eternal and communities and neighborhoods 
55 

remain safe and secure; we’ll continue building a culture of awareness, not a community of fear. 

Our strength lies in our diversity, acceptance and common collective goal to assemble freely in our respective houses of worship, without fear, intimidation or 

threat of violence. We’ve long recognized that an attack on one of us, is an attack 

on all of us. While the threat of terrorism remains our resolve has grown. However, 

our response will be measured, devoid of the fear and uncertainty that terrorism 

and violent extremist ideologies seek to instill. 

Time is not on our side. We’re past the time for more summits, conferences and 

meetings. The pace and tempo of attacks requires swift, yet informed conviction and 

actions. We’ve experienced hard lessons, we must LEARN from them; we’ve developed best practices; we must SHARE them. 

Mahatma Gandhi once said, ‘‘The true measure of any society can be found in how 

it treats its most vulnerable.’’ I’d like to personally thank the Chairman and his 

staff for their continued leadership with the Commission in ensuring that the 

United States of America will forever fight for the protection and preservation of 

the human rights, safety and security of all global citizens. 

Mr. Goldenberg is Chairman and President of Cardinal Point Strategies and a 

member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). 

In December 2014, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson appointed Mr. Goldenberg as cochair of the National DHS Foreign Fighter Task Force. He currently serves as Vice 

Chair of the US Department of Homeland Security’s Faith-Based Council and as 

senior advisor to the Department’s newly established Countering Violent Extremism 

(CVE) initiative. 

Before founding CPS, he played a key role in setting domestic and international 

policy for the legislation and investigation of hate crimes and countering violent extremism and has been an international thought leader in information sharing, conflict resolution, public safety and counter terrorism policy. He established community policing, hate crimes, and CVE-related programs for transnational agencies, 

many of which were adopted by governments in North America and Europe. His 

public career includes more than two decades as a former senior official of the New 

Jersey State Attorney General’s Office, Director of the nation’s 6th largest county 

social service and juvenile justice system, and as a law enforcement official who 

headed investigation efforts for significant cases of domestic terrorism, political corruption, and organized crime. 

Following a series of highly publicized incidents of domestic terrorism and hate 

crimes, the NJ State Attorney General appointed Mr. Goldenberg as the first state 

Chief of the Office of Bias Crimes and Community Relations. During his tenure, he 

wrote many of the model procedures for domestic terrorism investigations and policy 

framework for building police and community partnerships, many of which became 

models for national and international policy and legislation. 

In 2004, he spearheaded an international law enforcement mission for the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), during which he worked in over 

10 European nations including Ukraine, Hungary, Kosovo and Croatia where he assisted government agencies with addressing conflict and growing transnational extremism. He continues to remain active in the non-profit and think tank communities. 

His current and former leadership positions include: Special Adviser to the Chairman of Crime Stoppers, USA, the County Executives of America, representing 700 

of the nation’s largest county governments; Senior CT Advisor to the American 

Hotel and Lodging Association, representing over 50,000 hoteliers here and abroad; 

Vice Chair of the US Department of Homeland Security’s Faith Based Advisory Security Council; as well as National Director of the Secure Community Network, the 

nation’s first full time faith based threat and information sharing center. He also 

sits on the Board of Directors for several publicly traded and privately held companies. Mr. Goldenberg has received numerous awards including South Florida’s most 

distinguished citation for valor, Officer of the Year. Goldenberg spent 4 years long 

term undercover as an agent assigned to the South Florida Special Investigations 

Strike Force. His experiences have been featured in numerous articles and publications.Mr. Goldenberg is Chairman and President of Cardinal Point Strategies and 

a member of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC). 

In December 2014, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson appointed Mr. Goldenberg as cochair of the National DHS Foreign Fighter Task Force. He currently serves as Vice 

Chair of the US Department of Homeland Security’s Faith-Based Council and as 

senior advisor to the Department’s newly established CVE initiative. 
56 

Before founding CPS, he played a key role in setting domestic and international 

policy for the legislation and investigation of hate crimes and countering violent extremism and has been an international thought leader in information sharing, conflict resolution, public safety and counter terrorism policy. He established community policing, hate crimes, and CVE-related programs for transnational agencies, 

many of which were adopted by governments in North America and Europe. His 

public career includes more than two decades as a former senior official of the New 

Jersey State Attorney General’s Office, Director of the nation’s 6th largest county 

social service and juvenile justice system, and as a law enforcement official who 

headed investigation efforts for significant cases of domestic terrorism, political corruption, and organized crime. 

Following a series of highly publicized incidents of domestic terrorism and hate 

crimes, the NJ State Attorney General appointed Mr. Goldenberg as the first state 

Chief of the Office of Bias Crimes and Community Relations. During his tenure, he 

wrote many of the model procedures for domestic terrorism investigations and policy 

framework for building police and community partnerships, many of which became 

models for national and international policy and legislation. 

In 2004, he spearheaded an international law enforcement mission for the Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), during which he worked in over 

10 European nations including Ukraine, Hungary, Kosovo and Croatia where he assisted government agencies with addressing conflict and growing transnational extremism. He continues to remain active in the non-profit and think tank communities. 

His current and former leadership positions include: Special Adviser to the Chairman of Crime Stoppers, USA, the County Executives of America, representing 700 

of the nation’s largest county governments; Senior CT Advisor to the American 

Hotel and Lodging Association, representing over 50,000 hoteliers here and abroad; 

Vice Chair of the US Department of Homeland Security’s Faith Based Advisory Security Council; as well as National Director of the Secure Community Network, the 

nation’s first full time faith based threat and information sharing center. He also 

sits on the Board of Directors for several publicly traded and privately held companies. Mr. Goldenberg has received numerous awards including South Florida’s most 

distinguished citation for valor, Officer of the Year. Goldenberg spent 4 years long 

term undercover as an agent assigned to the South Florida Special Investigations 

Strike Force. His experiences have been featured in numerous articles and publications. 

Æ 

This is an official publication of the 

Commission on Security and 

Cooperation in Europe. 

★ ★ ★ 

This publication is intended to document 

developments and trends in participating 

States of the Organization for Security 

and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). 

★ ★ ★ 

All Commission publications may be freely 

reproduced, in any form, with appropriate 

credit. The Commission encourages 

the widest possible dissemination 

of its publications. 

★ ★ ★ 

http://www.csce.gov @HelsinkiComm 

The Commission’s Web site provides 

access to the latest press releases 

and reports, as well as hearings and 

briefings. Using the Commission’s electronic 

subscription service, readers are able 

to receive press releases, articles, 

and other materials by topic or countries 

of particular interest. 

Please subscribe today.