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

92–729 PDF 2015

COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE OSCE REGION: 

TAKING STOCK OF THE SITUATION TODAY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND 

COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 2, 2011 

Printed for the use of the 

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe 

[CSCE 112–1–13] 

( 

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

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

HOUSE SENATE 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Chairman 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida 

LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER, 

New York 

MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, 

Co-Chairman 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

EXECUTIVE BRANCH COMMISSIONERS 

MICHAEL H. POSNER, Department of State 

MICHAEL C. CAMUN ̃ EZ, Department of Commerce 

ALEXANDER VERSHBOW, Department of Defense 

(II) 
COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE OSCE 

REGION: TAKING STOCK OF THE 

SITUATION TODAY 

DECEMBER 2, 2011 

COMMISSIONERS 

Page 

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

Hon. Steve Cohen, Commissioner, Commission on Security 

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

MEMBERS 

Hon. Eliot Engel (D–16), a Member of Congress from the 

State of New Jersey ................................................................. 33 

Hon. Trent Franks (R–8), a Member of Congress from the 

State of Arizona ....................................................................... 34 

Hon. Frank Wolf (R–10), a Member of Congress from the 

State of Virginia ...................................................................... 38 

WITNESSES 

Hannah Rosenthal, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat 

Anti-Semitism, U.S. Department of State ............................. 5 

Rabbi Andrew Baker, Personal Representative of the OSCE 

Chair-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism ....................... 7 

Shimon Samuels, Director for International Relations, Simon 

Wiesenthal Center ................................................................... 20 

Mark Levin, Executive Director, National Conference on Soviet Jewery ............................................................................... 23 

Eric Fusfield, International Director of Legislative Affairs, 

B’nai B’rith International ....................................................... 27 

Stacy Burdett, Director of Government and National Affairs, 

Anti-Defamation League ......................................................... 30 

(III) 
Page

IV 

APPENDICES 

Prepared statement of Hon. Christopher H. Smith ................. 50 

Prepared statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin .................... 51 

Prepared statement of Hannah Rosenthal ................................ 52 

Prepared statement of Rabbi Andrew Baker ............................ 57 

Prepared statement of Shimon Samuels ................................... 61 

Prepared statement of Mark Levin ........................................... 81 

Prepared statement of Eric Fusfield ......................................... 85 

Prepared statement of Stacy Burdett ........................................ 88 

Materials for the Record ............................................................. 128 
(1) 

COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE OSCE 

REGION: TAKING STOCK OF THE 

SITUATION TODAY 

December 2, 2011 

COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE

WASHINGTON, DC 

The hearing was held at 10 a.m. in room 2203, Rayburn 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; and Hon. 

Steve Cohen, Commissioner, Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. 

Members present: Hon. Eliot Engel (D–16), a Member of Congress 

from the State of New Jersey; Hon. Trent Franks (R–8), a Member 

of Congress from the State of Arizona; and Hon. Frank Wolf 

(R–10), a Member of Congress from the State of Virginia. 

Witnesses present: Hannah Rosenthal, Special Envoy to Monitor 

and Combat Anti-Semitism, U.S. Department of State; Rabbi Andrew Baker, Personal Representative of the OSCE Chair-in-Office 

on Combating Anti-Semitism; Stacy Burdett, Director of Government and National Affairs, Anti-Defamation League; Mark Levin, 

Executive Director, National Conference on Soviet Jewery; Shimon 

Samuels, Director for International Relations, Simon Wiesenthal 

Center; and Eric Fusfield, International Director of Legislative Affairs, B’nai B’rith International. 

HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, CHAIRMAN, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing of the Helsinki Commission will come to 

order. And I want to welcome and thank, express thanks to our 

witnesses and everyone for joining us at this very important hearing. Almost a decade ago, in May of 2002, I chaired a Helsinki 

Commission hearing focused on the horrifying spike in antiSemitism making itself through much of the OSCE region. 

Many of our witnesses today testified at that hearing, which put 

the issue of combating anti-Semitism on the top of the OSCE’s 

agenda, resulting in OSCE commitments on fighting anti-Semitism 

and a series of high-level annual conferences on combating antiSemitism, and even led to the creation of a global network of parliamentarians united against anti-Semitism, the inter- 
2 

parliamentary coalition, the ICCA, of which I am on the steering 

committee. 

A lot of good has come out of this. It’s worth recalling some of 

the things we’ve done, and it has been done as a team. Since the 

2002 hearing, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has annually 

passed declarations addressing anti-Semitism and calling for concrete measures by all participating states in the OSCE. 

At the high-level conference in Berlin in 2004, leaders from 

throughout the OSCE region met to focus specifically on combating 

anti-Semitism, leading participating states to commit, at the Sofia 

ministerial later that year, to collect and report hate crimes data. 

In that same year, a tolerance unit with a focus on anti-Semitism 

was established within the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, or ODIHR, and the OSCE appointed a 

special representative on combating anti-Semitism. 

I’m very pleased, and I think it’s a great honor, that we have 

here today Rabbi Andrew Baker, a critical force in the development 

of the Berlin conference—and, matter of fact, one of those who 

wordsmithed much of that actual document, especially when we hit 

some snags. He was there writing out language that was incorporated into the final product. I’m very happy that you are here, 

and just laud you for the great work you have done for so long. 

The OSCE is now equipped with a toolbox to combat antiSemitism, ranging from more than a dozen publications focused on 

addressing anti-Semitic hate crimes, Holocaust remembrance, and 

now has a new training against hate crimes for law enforcement 

programs to assist participating states in their efforts. 

The Anti-Defamation League and other NGOs that fight so hard 

to ensure that human rights and the dignity of Jews worldwide will 

always and everywhere be fully respected—they have also been an 

absolute critical part of this work. While the OSCE has the potential to contribute mightily to this fight, it is only truly effective 

when it works with these vital human rights defenders. 

Efforts in the U.S. Congress and other parliaments have complemented this work over the years. The Inter-Parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, which held its most recent 

major conference in Ottawa last fall, has been a crucial forum for 

parliamentarians to work across national boundaries to address 

common problems of anti-Semitism. 

In our own Congress, other members and I have worked hard to 

fight this terrible hate through this Commission, as well as 

through the Congressional Anti-Semitism Task Force and other 

committees of Congress where this has been taken up. It was a 

2004 amendment of mine that created the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and the Special Envoy 

on anti-Semitism. 

And, of course, we’re very pleased to have the current special 

envoy, Hannah Rosenthal, with us today. Ms. Rosenthal is doing 

an exemplary job, a fine job in that position. I got to know her a 

little better at Ottawa, and I appreciated her comments there and 

her comments worldwide as she travels and as she speaks out boldly. And her presence is a reminder of our government’s true commitment to fight against anti-Semitic hate. 
3 

Yet our work is far from done. Despite the efforts of many good 

people, mostly in courageous NGOs, but also in our Government 

and a few other governments, despite the conferences, commitments, laws, training, monitoring, the measure of our success is 

what happens on the ground. By most accounts, the despicable evil 

of anti-Semitism has decreased in some parts of the OSCE region 

in recent years, but remains at higher levels than in 2000. This is 

simply unacceptable, and it’s why we are here today. 

I’d like to also just note that one of our witnesses later on today 

will be Mark Levin. And I would just note for the record that during my first term in Congress, in 1982, Mark was encouraging 

many of us—as was the National Conference on Soviet Jewry and 

others—to speak out on behalf of refuseniks, so I responded to a 

letter that Ham Fish had sent around—the former member from 

New York—engaged in what we call a special order at the end of 

the legislative day. And Mark was in the gallery, came down. We 

had lunch in follow up to that, and he invited me to join him in 

a special trip to Moscow in January of 1982. 

We spent 10 days in Moscow and Leningrad, met with refuseniks 

around the clock, and for me, it was the primer—it was the eyeopener as to what anti-Semitic hate in its most virulent form looks 

like. We met with great people, like Yuli Kosharovsky, Dr. Lerner, 

who was one of the leading refuseniks of that time, and heard their 

stories. And really, when you’re there in total immersion for, like 

I said, the better part of 10 days in Moscow and Leningrad, you 

come away a changed person. 

And so I want to forever thank Mark Levin for inviting me, for 

his leadership—because he’s still with it today, all these years, and 

has never stopped in his fight. As have all of you—you are the long 

stayers, people who have been absolutely committed and have just 

never given in. I’d like to now recognize my good friend and colleague, Mr. Cohen, for any opening comments he might have. 

HON. STEVE COHEN, COMMISSIONER, COMMISSION ON 

SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

scheduling this important hearing and for your important work 

over the years on many issues concerning human rights, but also 

anti-Semitism in general, and for having this distinguished panel 

that has done so much and has so much knowledge. And they bring 

to us testimony that I’m eager to hear. 

The OSCE really sprang from the rubble of the Second World 

War, and the Second World War had as its base anti-Semitism and 

the Holocaust actions of the German government—not that that 

was the entire reason for the Second World War. I mean, Germany 

wanted to—u ̈ ber alles—but at the same time, they had this way of 

bringing their people together by hating Jews. And the Holocaust 

ensued, and concentration camps and deaths, horrific behavior. 

It’s so appropriate that we look at what’s going on with this issue 

today in the world. And it’s not just in the Middle East, where it 

is a significant issue. But it’s also in Europe, and it’s frightening 

to think that in Europe, where just 60-some odd years ago—65, 66 

years ago—they were firsthand witnesses of the horrors of anti- 
4 

Semitism, of religious prejudice, of discrimination, of all types of 

awful human behavior. 

That was just on this Earth 66 years ago, and yet it’s being replicated with anti-Semitic actions in Europe. I think as we look at 

anti-Semitism, we look at civilization, because until we can get 

along with each other and accept our differences—whether they be 

religious or racial, sexual, gender identity or whatever—we’re not 

going to do what we should be doing on the Earth that God created 

and gave us, which is to help each other get through the time and 

enjoy the time that we’re here. 

And if we concentrate on the minimal differences that we have 

rather than the commonality that we share, which is 99.7, 99.8 

percent the same, according to all the studies we’ve had over the 

years—Human Genome Project—we should look at those. Until we 

do, we’re not going to have achieved our purposes on Earth. So it’s 

important that we look at this issue, that we study it, we keep an 

ever-mindful eye on it and try to do what we can to ward it off. 

I’ve done it in my career, with the Holocaust Commission—one 

of the first in the United States, in Tennessee that we started in 

1984. And I saw to it that it didn’t just teach about the Holocaust, 

which it does, but also teaches about man’s inhumanity to man in 

all areas. It goes into the areas where we’ve had—the Cambodians, 

and other areas where we’ve seen horrific conduct. 

And we need more of that in our schools, more education about 

tolerance and understanding. And we need more hate-crime enforcement, which we were fortunate to pass in the Congress a couple of terms ago, where we’ve seen hate crimes perpetuated against 

people in this nation as well as around the world. But this nation 

is not immune to the horrors that we see. 

And all you have to do is go to your local newspaper, and sometimes look at the comments that are made on the newspapers’ 

websites, particularly if a Jewish congressman is involved, and 

you’ll see anti-Semitism, with anonymity protecting the bigots that 

use that as a way to attack people that have different political 

thoughts than they. So, Mr. Chairman Smith, I thank you for having the hearing and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Cohen, thank you very much. I’d like to now introduce our two very distinguished witnesses, beginning with Hannah Rosenthal, who was sworn in as special envoy to monitor and 

combat anti-Semitism on November 23rd of 2009. 

Sparked by the work and experience of her father, a rabbi and 

Holocaust survivor, and her own experience studying to become a 

rabbi, Hannah Rosenthal has led a life marked by activism and a 

passion for social justice, having served as executive director of the 

Chicago Foundation for Women and Jewish Council for Public Affairs. And without objection, yours and all of our distinguished witnesses’ full resumes will be made a part of the record—they are 

very extensive and very distinguished. 

Next, we’ll hear from Rabbi Andrew Baker, who is director of 

International Jewish Affairs for the American Jewish Committee. 

Since 2009, he has served as the personal representative of the 

OSCE Chair-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism. 
5 

A leading expert on anti-Semitism in Europe and Holocaust restitution issues, he travels extensively to address issues impacting 

Jewish communities worldwide, including anti-Semitic violence and 

Holocaust restitution issues, promoting tolerance in the emerging 

democracies of Central and Eastern Europe, and, of course, in the 

Middle East, which has gotten even worse, obviously, most recently 

in Egypt. So I’d like to yield to Special Envoy Rosenthal for such 

time as she may consume. 

HANNAH ROSENTHAL, SPECIAL ENVOY TO MONITOR AND 

COMBAT ANTI-SEMITISM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Thank you very much. Chairman Smith, Mr. 

Cohen, thank you for the invitation to testify before you today. 

Since its founding in 1976, the U.S. Helsinki Commission has 

dedicated itself to addressing human rights issues, including antiSemitism. And for the past three decades, Chairman Smith has 

provided unparalleled leadership in his efforts to combat antiSemitism and promote human rights. 

As the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism, I’m 

honored to be able to present my findings on anti-Semitism in Europe, and I would kindly ask that my full written statement be 

submitted for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objections, so ordered. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. More than six decades after the murder of 6 

million Jews in Europe, the countries of that region have made 

some important strides. Their leaders have denounced new and old 

forms of anti-Semitism, and they have forcefully stated, in unison, 

never again. But sadly, we’ve also seen many setbacks within these 

very same countries. 

Over the past two years, my staff and I have diligently reported 

on anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe, following and tracking developments in old and new cases. We’ve observed six distinct 

trends. Though in my written testimony today—all six are there— 

I want to draw your attention to three trends in particular. The 

first is the persistence of traditional anti-Semitism. Through my 

travels, I run into people who think anti-Semitism ended when 

Adolf Hitler killed himself. Regrettably, it didn’t. 

Anti-Semitism is not history; it is news. And it is alive and well. 

According to reports by the Governments of Norway, Germany, 

Italy, and the United Kingdom, there is a disturbing increase in 

anti-Semitism. Since June, we have seen desecrations to Holocaust 

memorials, synagogues, Jewish cemeteries in Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Lithuania, and Poland. 

We have heard modernized versions of the blood libel, where 

Jews are accused of kidnapping children to steal their organs; conspiracy theories, like the supposed Jewish control over the banking 

system or the media. They continue to gain traction with some 

groups. And perhaps the most disturbing is the physical violence 

that remains a problem. Just last week in Belgium, a 13-year-old 

girl was beaten by a group of girls, shouting ‘‘Shut up, you dirty 

Jew, and return to your country.’’ 

The second trend I want to mention is Holocaust denial. This 

form of anti-Semitism is unfortunately espoused by religious and 

political leaders, and is a standard on hateful websites and other 
6 

media outlets. For example, British denier David Irving continues 

to get public airings of his anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. 

Petras Stankeras, a Lithuanian historian and former government 

official, teaches that the Holocaust never happened. Bishop 

Williamson of the Secret Society of Pius X regularly preaches Holocaust denial and anti-Semitic canards. As the number of survivors, 

direct witnesses, and camp liberators drops, there is a heightened 

sense of urgency in recording their stories and building monuments 

and museums for future generations. 

Ironically, while some deny the Holocaust ever happened, others 

glorify that it did, and this accounts for a third trend, which we 

call Holocaust glorification. The public display of Nazi ideology and 

the presence of neo-Nazi groups is of special concern in Europe. 

This year, we have seen numerous cases. In Austria, a politician 

resigned after his ‘‘blood and honor’’ tattoo, the motto of Hitler 

Youth, was seen in public. 

At a soccer match in the Netherlands, soccer fans chanted 

‘‘Hamas, Hamas, all Jews be gassed.’’ A British politician was expelled from his party for shouting ‘‘sieg heil’’ and giving the rightarm salute at a concert. And on Middle East satellite television 

watched by tens of millions in Europe, Sheikh Qaradawi, founder 

and president of the Dublin-based European Council for Fatwa and 

Research, called for a new Holocaust to finish the job. 

At the State Department, we monitor these trends and activities 

in 198 countries and territories. We report on them in two major 

annual reports—the International Religious Freedom Report and 

the Annual Report on Human Rights. As part of this process, I am 

developing a pretty major and aggressive training initiative for the 

State Department employees, so that they can better monitor what 

is happening in their countries and be sensitized to the various 

forms of anti-Semitism. 

Of course, it’s not enough to study and monitor these deeply 

troubling trends. It is critical that we act to reverse them. And to 

do that, we can’t just preach to the choir, so to speak. We have to 

join in partnership with non-Jews in condemning it. To change the 

culture of hate to one of tolerance, we have to continue building 

bridges among different ethnic and religious groups. We have to 

continue working with opinion leaders in government, civil society, 

and the media. 

And the State Department is doing that in a number of ways. We 

sponsor teacher training on the Holocaust. We provide training to 

foreign law-enforcement officials that cover hate crimes and crimes 

toward vulnerable groups. And we use old and new technologies to 

communicate with the public about human rights and tolerance 

and democracy. But we also have to think outside the box, and I 

want to note two specific examples. 

First, to combat Holocaust denial, I accompanied eight leading 

imams, two of which had been Holocaust deniers, to Dachau and 

Auschwitz camps. When we arrived at Dachau, the imams, who 

clearly knew very little or nothing about the Holocaust, were so 

overwhelmed by what they saw in Dachau, they immediately went 

down to the ground in prayer. And that was in front of the sculpture commemorating the 6 million Jews who had been 

exterminated. 
7 

All the passers-by stopped in their tracks—the docents and the 

tourists—and they were recognizing that this was a historic moment. Following the emotional visit to Auschwitz, all eight imams 

produced a statement strongly condemning Holocaust denial and 

all other forms of anti-Semitism, and they’re now urging their colleagues and schools to join in the statement. They’re also planning 

trips for their youth to bear witness and to bear the burden of the 

reality of the Holocaust. 

A second example took place at the February OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Along with my colleague, Farah Pandith, the special representative to Muslim communities, we launched a virtual 

campaign called 2011 Hours Against Hate. Using Facebook, we 

asked young people around the world to pledge an hour or more of 

their time to help or serve someone who didn’t look like them, pray 

like them, or live like them. 

At the time, our goal was to get 2,011 hours pledged. To date, 

we have over 16,000 who have actually gone online and pledged 

time. And we have had dozens of countries already inviting us to 

come to their country and incorporate 2011 Hours Against Hate in 

their efforts. Last week, I met with the Olympic committee that’s 

trying to figure out a way to incorporate the campaign in next 

year’s summer games. 

So while I fight anti-Semitism, I’m also keenly aware that hate 

is hate. Nothing justifies it—not economic instability and not international events. When history records this chapter, I hope it will 

reflect on our efforts to build a peaceful, fair, and just world, where 

people defend universal human rights and dignity. 

The Jewish tradition tells us you are not required to complete 

the task, but neither are you free to desist from it. Together, we 

must confront and combat the many forms of hatred in our world, 

and in this vein, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with 

you. And I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Special Envoy Rosenthal, for 

your passion and the comprehensiveness of your effort. It is extraordinary. I’d like to now yield to Rabbi Baker—whatever time 

you would like to consume. 

RABBI ANDREW BAKER, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 

OSCE CHAIR-IN-OFFICE ON COMBATING ANTI-SEMITISM 

Rabbi BAKER. Chairman Smith, thank you—thank you very 

much. Thank you, Representative Cohen, for being here. I too have 

a fuller testimony in written form, but will try to provide an abbreviated version here now. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, your full statement, and anything 

you would like to add to the statement for the record, will be made 

a part of the record. 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you. Enormous appreciation has to be expressed to you personally, Representative Smith, and to, really, 

this Commission, which has spearheaded efforts to understand and 

to combat anti-Semitism in Europe. A decade ago, at the immediate 

aftermath of the ill-fated U.N. conference in Durban, we sought effective means to alert the public to the resurgence of anti-Semitism 

in Europe, which included a dramatic increase in attacks on Jewish 

targets, frequently triggered by events in the Middle East. 
8 

We also witnessed the beginnings of what would become a new 

problem of anti-Semitism in public discourse, and we turned to you. 

We turned to this Commission. It was the Helsinki Commission 

that pushed and prodded a reluctant diplomatic bureaucracy here 

in Washington to press the OSCE to take up this problem. Much 

to the surprise of some of those skeptics, a first OSCE conference 

on anti-Semitism took place in Vienna in 2003—as you indicated, 

a seminal follow-up conference and declaration in Berlin in 2004. 

We saw, as well, commitments by governments to monitor and 

collect data on anti-Semitic and other hate crimes, to promote Holocaust education and effective legislation. That was followed by the 

establishment of a department on tolerance and nondiscrimination 

at ODIHR, at further conferences and expert meetings, including 

the conference in March where you were present in Prague, focusing on anti-Semitism in public discourse. 

These efforts, as you indicated, also included the appointment of 

a Special Envoy of this Personal Representative of the Chair-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, a position which I am honored 

to hold. 

My message today to you is a simple one: The problem remains, 

and we still need your help. The Prague—and I’d like to sort of go 

through thematically on several of these issues, first being antiSemitism in public discourse—that Prague conference itself was a 

recognition that this is one of the most difficult current challenges 

we face. Opinion surveys in many European states reveal antiJewish sentiments are still held by significant numbers of the population. These percentages may fluctuate over time; they are certainly not uniform from country to country. But the overall picture 

remains a distressing one, and it has direct and immediate consequences for local Jewish communities. 

While governments still fall short in monitoring and reporting 

physical incidents of anti-Semitism, fewer still have any systematic 

process of monitoring and recording, let alone responding to, incidents on the Internet or in the media. Governments can and should 

do much more, and in the interim, practical steps can be taken to 

help civil society groups develop the capacity to do their own monitoring. 

Participants in Prague stress the importance of political and 

community leaders responding loudly and swiftly as a way of fostering a taboo culture when it comes to anti-Semitism. In the area 

of Holocaust education, this has long been identified as an important contribution to combating anti-Semitism, and it is among the 

commitments that participating states made at that OSCE conference in Berlin in 2004. 

We should bear in mind that even where the subject is included 

in secondary school curricula, that still may mean only a day or 

less over the course of the entire school year. And there are also 

special challenges when teaching the subject. Some students from 

immigrant Arab and Muslim communities have voiced resentment 

or sought to bring the Middle East conflict into the discussion, 

which draws attention away from the subject itself and really subverts its intention. Some governments have recognized this problem and sought, in some cases, creative ways to deal with it. 
9 

In the area of Muslim-Jewish relations, which we must recognize 

is critical to the evolution of these problems in the last decade, 

when the EUMC conducted its survey on anti-Semitism in European Union countries in 2004, it revealed that a new and growing 

source of anti-Semitic incidents could be traced to Arab and Muslim communities. This remains a matter of concern and is still reflected in that available data that disaggregates these things. In 

some cities or in some neighborhoods in Europe, visibly identifiable 

Jews—that is to say, those in Orthodox garb or wearing Jewish 

symbols—may well be fearful of physical or verbal attack when 

they are on the streets in certain neighborhoods. Obviously, enhanced security measures and more rapid and serious responses to 

complaints provide some relief to these problems. 

More and more countries are developing educational programs to 

promote tolerance, to combat racism and xenophobia; and of course, 

they should be commended for doing so. But I have found in conversations with European Jewish leaders that there are also some 

words of warning: such general programs do not necessarily address the problem of anti-Semitism when it is stemming from individuals who themselves may also be victims of racism or discrimination. 

There is a special problem with the demonization of the state of 

Israel. It has become almost commonplace to find mainstream 

media coverage of the Middle East conflict, and particularly in 

Western Europe, demonizing Israel. It is manifest in news, in cartoons, and in commentary. Some observers have described this as 

a new form of anti-Semitism, but it also contributes to prejudice 

against Jews who are seen as Israel’s friends, supporters, or surrogates. We also see that the term Zionist is increasingly being used 

in a pejorative way, and frequently substitutes for Jew in written 

or oral discourses. 

In 2005, the EUMC adopted a working definition of antiSemitism. It provided an overall framework, but it went, as well, 

to provide specific examples of how anti-Semitism can manifest 

itself with regard to the state of Israel. It was endorsed by parliamentary conferences in London and Ottawa. The State Department special envoy sitting next to me here has adopted it for her 

own work and analysis. 

And I share it and recommend its use when I travel in my OSCE 

capacity. But it still meets with some opposition, including from 

the EUMC’s successor organization, and thus it bears repeating 

whenever possible. 

Security: Despite their small numbers, European Jewish communities have shouldered an outsized burden in providing security for 

their members and their institutions. From the 1970s, some have 

been and remain targets of international terrorism. The corrosive 

impact of this increased anti-Semitic rhetoric in more recent years 

has meant that synagogues, religious schools, community centers 

and cemeteries face physical attacks ranging from graffiti to arson. 

So community leaders, in turn, must decide how much of their 

limited resources can be diverted from educational and religious 

needs to provide for their own protection. At its essence, it restricts 

the Jewish community’s ability to exercise the full freedom of religious practice, a bedrock principle of the OSCE. 
10 

Let me raise something that may at first seem a very particular 

issue, and that is the efforts to ban religious slaughter—essentially, kosher meat. A growing number of countries have adopted 

these laws, which require the stunning of animals before they are 

slaughtered, thus effectively banning kosher slaughter, ritual 

slaughter. Jewish communities have adapted by importing kosher 

meat. 

But discussion of this topic, at least during OSCE visits I had 

this year in the Netherlands and in Switzerland—in the Netherlands, where a law is being debated, and in Switzerland, where 

such a law was imposed a century ago—reveal a more troubling situation. The Dutch legislation is spearheaded primarily by animal 

rights advocates. It’s received support from nationalist MPs who 

may believe, although I think they’re mistaken in this case, that 

this law would also prohibit halal meat to all Muslims in the country. 

Meanwhile, Dutch Jewish leaders are cautious in marshaling the 

arguments in opposition. They’re reluctant to assert the basic principles of religious freedom, which they believe, frankly, would not 

have popular appeal. 

In Switzerland, even government officials acknowledge that their 

law, coming as it did in the wake of the Dreyfus trial in the 1890s, 

was anti-Semitic by intent. They say, or they have told me, it’s 

even likely that Swiss courts would respond positively to an appeal 

to overturn it. But successive Jewish community leaders have elected not to do so. 

They long ago accommodated themselves to the ban with imported meat from nearby France, and they have told me that they 

believe challenging it could generate an anti-Semitic backlash. Better, then, to keep a low profile. Now, this is understandable, but 

surely it is a very outdated prescription for averting or combating 

anti-Semitism. 

Let me turn now to the role of the OSCE and this Commission. 

As you’ve indicated in your opening remarks, there has been significant progress in focusing the OSCE to address the problem of 

anti-Semitism and in educating people to its unique manifestations 

and its stubborn persistence. Monitors have generally recorded a 

decline in anti-Semitic incidents since early 2009, but we are still 

far, far higher than the baselines of previous years. 

We also know that turmoil in the Middle East could again trigger 

a new wave of incidents, and it is still far from clear what repercussions there might be if Europe’s economic crisis still worsens. 

The U.S. and the Helsinki Commission have been the primary driving force to keep the OSCE focused on this problem of antiSemitism, a necessary and constant reminder that it is still with 

us, and that it can always again turn deadly. 

When Secretary of State Clinton and the U.S. delegation take 

their seats at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Vilnius next week, 

I very much hope that they will include this message in their remarks. In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me pay respects to—I know 

he was a good friend of yours and ours—Ambassador Steve 

Minikes, who died earlier this fall. 

It was, in significant measure, due to his personal efforts that 

there was that first conference, and the important follow-up con-
11 

ference and declaration in Berlin and then later in Cordoba. You 

know, I still vividly recall, one evening early on in this process, sitting with him at his residence in Vienna. And he pulled out of a 

pile of items a small postcard with a handwritten message in pencil. 

It was sent to him 60 years ago by his grandmother, with a very 

benign message to her grandson, simply saying everything was OK; 

she was fine. But as he pointed out, the postmark belied that message. It was sent from Theresienstadt. And shortly thereafter, his 

grandmother was deported to Auschwitz and to her death. 

We could understand why this was so personal to him. But I 

think in sharing that, it was also a lesson—it was also a message 

never to forget where anti-Semitism in Europe once led, and to be 

vigilant now and in the future. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Rabbi Baker, thank you very much for your leadership. Your very, very eloquent statement gives us much to act on. 

The reason for this hearing isn’t just to receive information. It’s to 

give us the guidance on this Commission, and by extension, the 

Congress—both House and Senate—a blueprint for where we 

should go from here. And both of you have done that very, very 

well today. 

Ms. Rosenthal, in your trends that you articulated, you talked 

about Holocaust relativism. And Shimon Samuels, Dr. Samuels, 

makes a very similar and very strong point in his testimony, and 

talks about, in Eastern Europe, Baltics, and the Ukraine, seemingly innocent conflation of the Holocaust with Stalinist atrocities—all of this, you know, this sense that the Holocaust was not 

an absolute unique, horrific historic event that stands out in time 

forever. 

Could you perhaps speak a little bit further about that? Because 

it seems to me—it becomes a very useful way of downgrading the 

atrocities that occurred during that period, during the Holocaust. 

Not to trivialize any other terrible set of atrocities, but it was 

unique. It was an effort to wipe Jews off the face—certainly, of Europe, if not the face of the earth. Had Nazism prevailed worldwide, 

certainly, that was a final solution contemplated. So if you could 

speak to that, if you would, and perhaps Rabbi Baker. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Yes, Holocaust relativism, obfuscation, and 

whatever other word we want to use—we see it in a lot of places. 

Some of it has to do with trying to cloak it into honoring people 

who fought communism and the Soviets, without any historical 

context on what else was going on under the Nazi regime. It’s very, 

very problematic. 

I just came back last week from Estonia, where we were encouraging the government to move ahead in prosecuting a Nazi war 

criminal that remains unprosecuted. And I had the opportunity to 

talk to many people while I was there. And I asked about the rally 

that occurs annually of the Waffen-SS. 

The young people in Estonia that I met pulled me aside after the 

leader of the Jewish community—this sounds very much like what 

you were talking about, Rabbi Baker—was saying, everything’s 

fine. We’re even invited to the rally. Don’t worry about it. The 

young people pulled me aside and said they’re very concerned. 

They’re very concerned when they see anyone who honors anything 
12 

Nazi, and that increasingly, young people are attending this rally. 

So this is something I needed to follow up with, with the foreign 

minister’s office and the prime minister’s office. 

There are parades of Waffen-SS that are cheered on in other 

parts of Europe, and it’s very problematic. Also, we see increases 

in not just the number of people in a neo-Nazi group, but a proliferation of neo-Nazi groups and websites and hateful platforms 

that are being used. 

In no way do I want to indicate that I think that those platforms 

should be censored, I want to be clear, but it isn’t good enough to 

protect free speech if we’re not condemning the bad speech. And so 

we need to call on people in civil society, in the media, in government, religious leaders, to immediately and strongly condemn when 

those events or that rhetoric occurs. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Rabbi BAKER. If I could supplement that with a couple of comments. It has become a given that Holocaust education is useful, 

not only in combating anti-Semitism, but promoting climate of tolerance and appreciation for difference. And I wouldn’t deny that. 

But I think the way it is sometimes employed should be cause for 

some caution and concern and a special focus. In more and more 

cases, Holocaust education is being infused with a human rights 

focus. 

Again, nothing wrong with that: There are obviously general lessons of man’s inhumanity to man that come from looking at the 

Holocaust. But sometimes, those general lessons can almost lead to 

what we would recognize as a kind of perversion of its essential 

historical message. 

There was one film produced a couple of years ago showing, kind 

of, a day in the life at the Mauthausen concentration camp. It 

showed a man with his son walking through the camp and the exhibits, and then writing some comments in a guest book before he 

left. And after he left, the camera focused in on these remarks, and 

his message was, well, now Israel should understand what its 

treatment of the Palestinians is all about. So perhaps he had a 

human rights lesson that he derived from that visit. But if that lesson was one that should teach us to be concerned about the presence of anti-Semitism today, I think it was lost. 

Secondly, there has become, certainly with positive motives, an 

interest in elevating and understanding of the sufferings under 

communism, of what that meant in Central and Eastern Europe. 

And by the way, Jews in these communities themselves suffered 

disproportionately under communism. 

But in some places, it has become a kind of competition. And 

even at times, equivalency is being drawn between what took place 

under communism and what happened during the Holocaust. The 

term genocide is frequently used, and even misused, in this regard. 

By the way, I noticed in one of the draft documents for the ministerial declaration on tolerance—where, in the past, these declarations have spoken of the importance of Holocaust education, we 

now find it’s added Holocaust education and education of other 

genocides. Again, not to diminish that importance, but the way 

they have become linked together in this, I don’t think, is a helpful 

step. 
13 

Mr. SMITH. Well, as you know, Rabbi Baker, that was from the 

very start part of the problem we faced within the OSCE. Some of 

the delegations, especially the Dutch, immediately wanted to—after 

the Vienna, and certainly after the Berlin conference—wanted to 

just merge everything. And when you merge everything, you lose 

that specific focus that is absolutely critical. 

So let me just ask you, with regards to the Lithuanian chair-inoffice, and now that the baton’s being passed to the Irish, do you 

sense, how poorly did they do, honestly? The issue of justice fatigue, is it perhaps showing itself here? Everything that’s being 

done in the OSCE, we first did in the Parliamentary Assembly, and 

then we try to mirror it and to offload it, and have them take the 

baton. 

We had a coalition of the willing that Gert Weisskirchen and I 

put together right here in the building; that was, like, pulling teeth 

to get other heads of delegation to join us. We only had a half a 

dozen other delegations that joined us, and the others kind of said, 

yeah, we’re not against you. But they certainly weren’t robustly for 

us in combating anti-Semitism. That kind of changed, I think, and 

changed for the better over time. 

But it seems to me that the status quo—given what’s happening 

in Egypt, which is a potential huge game-changer, all to the negative, with the elections that are occurring. The ultra-ultra party 

has about 15 percent of the votes, and the ultra party—the Muslim 

Brotherhood, which I am very frightened will take things in a very, 

very poor direction—not that the SCAF has done a good job, nor 

Mubarak, but it’s all a matter of relative—things could get much 

worse. 

I’m not sure the Parliamentary Assembly or the OSCE really realizes that we’re on the cusp of an even worsened situation, because we know that anti-Semitism often tracks what happens in 

the Middle East anyway. Egypt is a partner, as part of the Mediterranean countries, and they are on the brink of going the way of 

Iran. And I hope that’s not true. 

Many of us, with the foreign aid bill that will be coming up 

shortly—I know Senator Leahy has spoken eloquently about this— 

we want to condition U.S. aid based on the treaty with Israel, 

based on how well the Coptic Church is treated, which has become 

a very real canary in the coal mine because they have seen an accelerated attack on churches and individuals of that faith. 

So I think the status quo is not enough, just continuing as we 

are. Again, how well do you see the Irish doing? Are they showing 

the right kind of commitment? How well did the Lithuanian chairin-office do? But I think we’re on the brink of a significantly worsened situation vis-a`-vis anti-Semitism, which means we’ve got to 

ratchet up our combating of this terrible hate. 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, look, over the years—and I go back a long 

time, in my American Jewish Committee role, with Lithuania, a 

discussion of its history and the restitution issues and the like— 

but I have to say, during this year, under their chairmanship, they 

have been fully supportive—— 

Mr. SMITH. Good. 

Rabbi BAKER. ——beginning with my efforts to secure their support for that conference that took place in Prague on anti-Semitism 
14 

in public discourse. I think in some circles that was viewed as 

somewhat controversial. And some of the governments you mentioned, in the past, might have had troubles with it, but the Lithuanians were certainly supportive of it. 

To fast-forward, even, to these days—as you know, beginning on 

Sunday in Vilnius will be a civil society meeting, organized by 

ODIHR, drawing NGOs from Mediterranean partner states. I was 

personally troubled when I first saw the initial drafts of this conference. Again, it was prepared in Warsaw by ODIHR, focused on 

electoral reform, good governance, and so on. But absent in that 

draft was any reference to the tolerance agenda, which, as you’ve 

indicated, is obviously a critical one—and if anything, it must be 

seen as even more critical as we look at the current election results 

in Egypt. I have to say, in pushing to see that it would be included, 

the Lithuanians were supportive of this. And now, it will at least 

be a part of that conference, although a side event, so not fully integrated into it. 

But it seems to me that the OSCE provides a real opportunity 

because of the partnership relationship with these countries, because of the special tradition of the OSCE and NGOs and governments sitting together at the same table, to try and take some of 

that and bring it to bear on the changes going on there. 

I have to say that some of the same governments or representatives that posed problems to us early on in this process no longer 

do, although others may be less helpful. Again, I think the U.S.’s 

role here is critical. And sometimes, perhaps, even U.S. representatives, whether in Vienna or here in Washington, are not so mindful 

of this history and maybe fall a bit short, not out of, I think, any 

ill motive, but just not realizing how critical that is, that if you’re 

going to accomplish something, you have to have a few governments that are really championing it. Lithuania alone, as a chairman, is not able to shoulder the full burden. 

So I think, again, when the U.S. delegation or when the Department of State hear from you, that certainly helps focus the attention, and it can perhaps move this forward. As you identified in a 

critical point, one of the things—and I’ve raised it when I could— 

the reality that much of the anti-Semitic material that you find 

today, at least in Muslim and Arab communities in Europe, is imported from the Middle East, from some of these partner states. So 

it is a problem there that finds its way into Europe. 

Finally—and I think it bears importance for what develops in 

these emerging democratic societies, in Egypt and Tunisia and elsewhere—most of them have a history of Jewish life in these countries, even though those communities today may be small or almost 

nonexistent. And yet, how they deal with that piece of their Jewish 

history can be very revealing as to how open they will be as a tolerant society and treatment of minorities that are there today. We 

saw that, in a way, in Eastern Europe 20 years ago. How these 

countries dealt with their Jewish past told us something about 

where they were going. 

And I think that’s an important opportunity. In fact, it was not 

easy, but I managed to encourage and find, then, a place for representatives of Egyptian Jews who have lived in Europe since their 

departure in the ’50s and ’60s to participate in this civil society 
15 

conference in Vilnius. At least new Egyptian NGOs, civil society 

leaders should have an understanding, a direct feeling that Jews 

were also, at one time, part of their society. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I would only add—first, on the question of Lithuania’s leadership, I had put, when I first came into this job two 

years ago, Lithuania as a priority country because of press and 

Jewish community remarks and all. And what has happened in 

these two years, in large part due to Rabbi Baker and our fabulous 

ambassador, Anne Derse, in Lithuania, we’ve seen amazing things 

happen in Lithuania, including Holocaust education teacher training. We have seen the compensation bill passed. We have seen rededication of important monuments and recognition of the Ponary 

killing fields. 

And just last week, Lithuania—the foreign minister and the 

prime minister held a conference on totalitarianism and antiSemitism, and it was all about anti-Semitism, so that comparing 

and not trying to get into dueling victimhoods, they are very sensitive to it, and I think that is reflected in how they lead whatever 

endeavor they’re doing. 

How can OSCE improve? What can we hope will be better? Well, 

I’m kind of stunned to realize how, in 2004, everyone committed to 

doing intensive reporting—you know, investigations and reporting, 

and how few do. Of the 56 countries, 20 claim they collect data, 

and only four sent it in. Whatever the barrier to that is, we should 

use our leadership and effort to make sure that that’s happening, 

because to quote you, Mr. Chairman, you can’t fix it if you can’t 

name it. And that becomes, I think, fundamental to something that 

OSCE can do. 

I have great hopes about Ireland. I, last year at this time, was 

in Ireland for a conference, and this was the first conference I’d 

ever heard of like this that was totally focused on Holocaust denial. 

And so I think that there’s great promise. But we have to admit 

that, where participating countries have made an agreement, some 

of those have not been fulfilled. 

As to Egypt and what’s happening in the so-called Arab Spring, 

I just want to tell a completely different story, and I was able to 

communicate this to the government of Egypt—Jews have lived in 

Egypt for thousands of years. And from all records, this was the 

first year that they feared they could not go to synagogue for Rosh 

Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the two high holy days, to pray. Our 

embassy was very helpful in facilitating it. 

But what’s been happening there for religious minorities has people very afraid. You have definitely called out what we all fear 

could be the bad outcome of a transition. I don’t expect the transition to be smooth, but I have to remain optimistic that ultimately, 

the people who took to the streets because they wanted basic freedoms, that they will prevail. But when I hear that thousands of 

years of tradition were stopped this year because of fear, it was 

foreboding. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I just encourage you, if you would, to encourage 

the secretary of state to designate Egypt as a ‘‘country of particular 

concern’’ for all that you just mentioned, for the accelerated attacks 

on all minority religious, including the Coptic Church? I have 

chaired two hearings on the Coptic Church, and especially this new 
16 

and horrific abuse whereby—and I don’t want to deviate too much, 

but they’re literally abducting Coptic Christian girls who are teenagers and then forcing them to become Muslim, and then, at age 

18, putting them into a marriage that is a coerced marriage. 

We had the former ODIHR—Michele Clark, ODIHR number-two 

on human trafficking, testified at our hearing just a few months 

ago—who said, it’s not a matter of allegations; it’s a matter of reality and we need to recognize it. And it seems to me that CPC status, which the international religious commission has recommended anyway that Egypt be so designated, carries with it the 

potential of at least 18 separate actions that can be taken by the 

U.S. Government, including denial of certain types of aid—and 

military aid is something that needs to be considered. And I know 

the Senate and House are looking at that even as we talk on the 

continuing resolution or omnibus that will finally emerge before we 

close down for this year. 

CPC status can be done anytime. It seems to me that the relevant issues on the ground have so shifted that, if not now, when? 

This would be the time. So please take that back, and especially 

in light of what you just said about the fear factor that is palatable 

for people who want to go to synagogue. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I’ll be glad to—[inaudible]. 

Mr. SMITH. [Inaudible.] Thank you. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. We have votes coming up pretty soon, 

so I’m going to be real brief. But, you know, the problem is great 

and it continues, and that’s sad. But at the same time, there’s some 

good things happening. When I was in Berlin this summer—and it 

might not have been that new, but it was new to me, because I 

hadn’t been to Berlin for about 15 years—I was very impressed 

with the Holocaust Memorial and the work that was underneath 

the ground there, underneath the memorial; the Jewish Museum; 

and the designation of where Jewish homes were in the neighborhood near the new synagogue. And I think there are a lot of Jewish 

people emigrating to Germany, as I understand it. So there is some 

positive things happening. 

I wondered what other positive signs there are in Europe or 

other places of education, understanding and renewal of Jewish 

communities in Europe. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. I think that we’re seeing it happen in many 

places. Warsaw is in the process of building an incredible Jewish 

museum. Lithuania has a tolerance center that is not just about 

the Holocaust and the elimination of most of the Jews of Lithuania, 

but the rich history that was there. 

We’re funding a program called Centropa that actually teaches 

teachers how to have students learn about how Jews lived and the 

contributions that were made by the Jewish communities when 

they were there, or focused on how they lived with the hope that 

people will want to reinvigor that memory and, hopefully, a future 

for Jewish communities rather than just focusing on how Jews 

died. 

And then we see very interesting things happening where nonJews are getting fed up with some of the things that are happening. And so, in Malmo, Sweden, which was identified—you 

know, like, half the Jews were leaving because of harassment, and 
17 

they didn’t want their children to experience this—where there’s a 

very new organization of the last few months—it’s called Young 

Muslims Against Anti-Semitism—where they’re going into the 

schools and saying, we need to be working together; hate is hate 

and we want to stand up for the Jewish students who are feeling 

harassed rather than having the families feel they have to leave. 

So there’s some good news stories that are happening. And I appreciate all of the baby steps that are occurring. 

Mr. COHEN. And on the other hand—and maybe Rabbi Baker 

could take this one—who are the bad guys? Who are the worst ones 

in the stands and in Europe that might make overtly or even lightened anti-Semitic remarks? 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, first to comment just a little bit on your first 

question or view. Look, Germany, in many ways, is—perhaps it’s 

ironic, but has become the example that shines and that we cheer 

with other countries about because of how it confronted its own 

past. You saw this reflected in Berlin in the memorials that you 

have there. And obviously, it has been an open door to Jews from 

parts of the former Soviet Union, making it the largest-growing 

Jewish community in the world. It also, obviously, came to terms 

with much of the material claims for losses during the Holocaust. 

The reality is that in all of these much smaller communities in 

Eastern and Central Europe, many people two decades ago 

thought, with the fall of Communism, those communities would 

disappear. People would leave. They’d build new lives in America, 

in Israel or whatever. The fact is that they’ve all remained. The 

numbers may be small, but there are wonderful stories of revival 

and even renaissance, I think, in almost all of these countries. 

But the reality is, it’s not as though if there are arrows going up, 

there are not also arrows going down. In every place, there are 

other forces that have come forward. In some of these countries, it 

has been a kind of romance, a rehabilitation of the era of that fascist past. We’ve seen elements of it in Slovakia, in Romania, in 

Hungary. You have, in a number of these countries, still or developing significant right-wing nationalist parties. You see this in 

Hungary with the Jobbik party. We see it in Bulgaria with a party 

there. They draw on antagonisms toward minorities—frequently 

Roma, but often folding in anti-Semitic elements, a romance, again, 

with some of the fascist figures of that Holocaust past. They may 

exist and literally coincide with a revival, let’s say, of Jewish life 

and culture. 

So it becomes important to try to bolster those voices that are 

combating this that will provide that kind of security or long-term 

comfort that can allow the revival of Jewish life to continue. And 

so it then means we really need to turn, in many cases, to the 

mainstream leaders and to the bystanders—people who are inclined, perhaps, to sit back and observe; they need to be more forceful, more outspoken. In some cases, the examples may be only symbolic, whether it’s programs in parts of Western Europe, say, that 

bring Jews and Muslims together. But they can be amplified. They 

send an important message. And I think those are stories that— 

one shouldn’t overlook the realities of the problems in bringing 

them forward, much as in Sweden—for example, there’s a program 

in the Netherlands that brings peers, Jewish and Muslim young 
18 

adults, to teach about the Holocaust and to talk about the Middle 

East conflict in Dutch schools. It’s a great program; I don’t how 

many people directly are impacted by it. It sends a certain symbolic 

message. But it’s still fighting against larger trends, nationalist 

parties and general difficulties. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you. And I yield back the remainder of my 

time. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Cohen, thank you very much. You know, we do 

have a few votes—and I apologize to our second panel, but we’ll 

come back as quickly as we can. 

But I do have a couple of questions. If we do have to run, please 

continue answering. Chief of Staff Mark Milosch—we will go into 

a very brief recess. 

But Stacy Burdett, in her testimony from ADL—she is very 

strong and focusing on a whole lot of issues, but including the— 

and you mentioned it too, Rabbi Baker, in your statement—the rising incidents of anti-Semitic hate on college campuses. And I’m 

thinking early next year of having a hearing at Rutgers—that 

would be my preferred venue for a hearing. And she points out the 

situation that occurred at Rutgers where one of the staff members 

called a student a Zionist pig on Facebook, and goes on and on 

about that terrible incident. 

Could you, perhaps, speak to this very alarming trend? It reminds me of what we just last week in Cairo where chants went 

up about death to the Jews. But we also saw something very similar happening on our own college campuses that was awful to behold. If we don’t see, I think, our leadership at our universities and 

colleges drawing a bright line against such hate, it will get worse. 

Students should not live in fear, especially in the United States of 

America, but anywhere in the world—Europe, anywhere—with regards to openly and very proudly manifesting the very real fact 

that they’re Jewish. So if you could speak to the university issue. 

And also, Special Envoy Rosenthal, the training issue—does it 

look like monies will be available for additional training of law enforcement assets within the OSCE, something that we’ve all talked 

about, worked on over the years? If you could speak to that issue, 

where you see that going, and—I’m actually out of time, but the 

record will be open as you answer that. And then we’ll have a brief 

recess and invite our second panel. 

Ms. ROSENTHAL. Well, I sit at the foreign policy table. So the 

only country I am not mandated by you to monitor is the United 

States. But I live in the United States, and I have grown children 

who were products of the universities here in the United States. 

And so certainly I am aware of minority populations on campus 

and very specifically Jews feeling harassed by political correctness—I hate using that word, but that’s how it’s reported. So I 

don’t have a lot to share, because I don’t—my office does not monitor that. 

As for OSCE, we have—in 2011, we funded ODIHR at $91,000, 

and the NGO strengthening initiative at 65,000 [dollars], and 

125,000 [dollars] to ODHIR’s tolerance efforts, 50,000 [dollars] for 

support for my colleague Andy Baker. And I’ve heard nothing that 

that isn’t going to move forward, but you would know that better 

than I. 
19 

Mr. MILOSCH. Thank you very much. Rabbi Baker? 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, to the last point, I think we see that so much 

of the efforts in ODIHR to deal with these issues rely on extra 

budgetary contributions. So that becomes and remains a critical 

concern as for many countries there is an effort to control costs and 

to reduce support. 

The reality is, even if we have secured a greater environment for 

supporting these projects—the work, also, of me and my two colleagues as personal representatives—at the end of the day, if there 

isn’t financial support to make things happen, that becomes a problem. So I hope that this Commission and others, in your meetings 

with other governments and colleagues in other countries, can reinforce the importance of having this available. 

I’m pleased to hear that you’ll consider a separate hearing to look 

at the problem of anti-Semitism on college campuses. I have colleagues who focus on that more directly and with greater expertise 

than do I. 

I think we are fortunate, in this country, that in the larger environment and atmosphere particularly where that anti-Israel discourse becomes something much worse is not present in the way 

it is in many European countries. 

But perhaps if there is an exception, it’s in the heightened and 

somewhat rarefied environment of college campuses. Therefore, I 

think it does invite a special focus. I know it’s not the purpose of 

the meeting—of this hearing today, but certainly worth addressing 

in the future. Thank you. 

Mr. MILOSCH. Thank you, Rabbi Baker. As you know, the congressman has fought and will continue fighting for extra budgetary 

contributions to this most important work. 

We will now go into recess. I think the members will return in 

about 30 minutes. Thanks. 

[Break.] 

Mr. SMITH. The Commission will resume its seating. We’re joined 

by Commissioner Joseph Pitts of Pennsylvania, who is the chairman of the Health and Human Service—or the Energy and Commerce—— 

Mr. PITTS. Health Subcommittee. 

Mr. SMITH. ——Health Subcommittee. And we’re also joined by 

Trent Franks from Arizona, who is the chairman of—or cochairman of the American [sic] Israel Allies Caucus here in the 

House and also the chairman of the Religious Freedom Caucus. So 

very much focused and concerned about these issues. And if either 

of my two colleagues would like to say a word before we introduce 

our second panel? 

OK. Now, let me introduce panel number two. We’ll begin with 

Dr. Shimon Samuels, who’s the director for international liaison of 

the Simon Wiesenthal Center based in Paris and also serves as 

honorary president of the Europe-Israel Forum. He has long been 

a force in the fight against anti-Semitism, having also served as 

the European director of the Anti-Defamation League based in 

Paris, and the Israel director of the American Jewish Committee. 

We’ll then hear from Mark Levin, who is the executive director 

of the NCSJ; advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine and 
20 

the Baltic States and Eurasia. 2008, Mr. Levin received the Soviet 

Jewry Freedom Award from the Russian Jewish Community Foundation, and the Order of Merit medal from the Ukraine president 

Victor Yushchenko. 

Mr. Levin has served three times as the public member of the 

U.S. delegation to meetings of the OSCE and served as a public adviser for the U.S. delegation to the 2004 Berlin Conference on AntiSemitism. And as he knows, as I mentioned earlier, I joined him 

on my first trip to Moscow back in 1982, which frankly began my 

push in this entire effort—so thank you, Mark. 

Then we’ll hear from Eric Fusfield who has served as deputy director of the B’nai B’rith Center for Human Rights and Public Policy since 2007, and director of legislative affairs for B’nai B’rith 

International since 2003. He has been a leading advocate for B’nai 

B’rith in the OSCE’s adoption of efforts to combat global antiSemitism; he’s been there every step of the way as language was 

crafted, as action plans were hatched, and brings a great degree of 

wealth and knowledge and wisdom to this effort. 

And then Stacy Burdett is the Anti-Defamation League’s Washington director, and heads the Government and National Affairs 

Office. Ms. Burdett reaches out to Congress, the administration 

and foreign diplomats to mobilize leadership and support on global 

anti-Semitism, securing fair treatment for Israel, and broader 

human rights issues like international religious freedom and the 

fight against anti-immigrant bigotry. She has been a leading force 

in efforts to advance the global fight against anti-Semitism in the 

OSCE and at the United Nations. 

Dr. Samuels, if you could begin. 

Dr. SAMUELS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I open—— 

Mr. SMITH. If you could just suspend—we’re joined by Robert 

Aderholt. Robert, did you want to just say a word or two? OK. OK, 

thank you. 

DR. SHIMON SAMUELS, DIRECTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL 

RELATIONS, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER 

Dr. SAMUELS. Mr. Chairman, I opened the European office of the 

Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris in 1988 to focus on three challenges. Firstly, in Western Europe, the second religion demographic, it was already Islam. An interfaith outreach was necessary, as was monitoring of incipient extremism. 

Second, tremors in Eastern Europe since the fall of the Berlin 

Wall signaled a new nationalism variant of past phantoms. There 

was no need to get to seven on the Richter scale to understand that 

monitoring was required. Thirdly, flea markets across Europe sold 

under-the counter floppy disks—Amiga and Commodore 64 for 

those of us who remember—disks of neo-Nazi games. Hate would 

advance exponentially with that technology and had to be monitored. 

By the millennium, the year 2000, the first focus on Islamism 

was now characterized by the Durban Process, which in turn inspired a jihadist anti-Semitism and anti-Semitism terrorism nexus 

with Middle East satellite television and website inculcation and 

recruitment across Europe. The second focus was marked by the 

European Union enlargement. In April 2004, a Warsaw-welcomed 
21 

fiesta focused on the challenges facing the East European countries 

entering Europe. 

I was invited to speak on anti-Semitism in the West and 

scapegoating in the East. Scapegoating is a result of painful withdrawal from the central of Soviet economy to the market or capitalist economy. That very same month, the OSCE Berlin Declaration on Anti-Semitism was annunciated and set a new threshold of 

standards for the region. I addressed the state parties, noting that 

you are the same nations we meet at Geneva at the U.N. Human 

Rights Commission, now called the council. 

Yet, here at the OSCE, the language is different, perhaps due to 

the absence of the tyrannies and the NGOs whose vested agenda 

is to perpetuate the Middle East conflict. I view the OSCE therefore as the answer to the stultification of the U.N. system—even 

today, exemplified only last week by the appointment of Syria to 

a human rights role at UNESCO. 

What forms of anti-Semitism did the Berlin Declaration not foresee? First, that which at the OSCE high-level meeting in Astana 

in 2010 I called supersessionism. Just as the early church viewed 

itself as ‘‘Israel non in carne sed in spiritum,’’—Israel, not in the 

flesh but in the spirit—so today we witness an identity theft of the 

Jewish narrative among several OSCE parties. 

In Eastern Europe, you have referred to the Baltics and the 

Ukraine; a seemingly innocent conflation is made between the Holocaust the atrocities of Stalin. Its political instrument, the Prague 

Declaration, seeks through the European Parliament to replace the 

27th of January, the day of Auschwitz liberation—as a ‘‘Holocaust 

Commemoration Day’’—with a ‘‘Double Genocide Day’’ on the 23rd 

of August, which marks the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact that resulted 

in the Soviet occupation of the countries concerned. 

In Western Europe, the ongoing Durban Process has redefined 

Holocaust as Naqba, the 1948 catastrophe of Israel’s birth. AntiSemitism, to quote from Hadi Alham [ph], professor at Teheran 

University: Anti-Semitism until 1945 focused on the Jew, but from 

1948 and the victory of Zionism, it targets the other Semite—the 

Arab. Thus, by Orwellian double-speak, if Anti-Semitism is 

Arabiphobia, then Zionism is Anti-Semitism. 

Add to that the mix of terms like apartheid or BDS, boycott divestment sanctions—misappropriated from South African 

victimology—to castigate the state of Israel. The Norwegian foreign 

minister uses Holocaust images to depict the Palestinian predicament. But if Gaza is Auschwitz, then Auschwitz is but a lie. 

The anti-Semitic backlash in Europe to this historical gangrene, 

or what I would like to call the gangrening of history, is to be exacerbated further via the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO. In 

that context, supersessionism aims to cut the Jewish link to the 

Holy Land. 

The Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb have been rebaptized as mosques. In the background material that I sent you, there 

is a volume called the Buraq Wall, which I purchased at the Frankfurt Book Fair this year. This book, Buraq, renames the Wailing 

or the Western Wall, the holiest site in Judaism, as a Jewish heresy of aggression against a Muslim heritage site. Last week, a film 
22 

clip found on YouTube, ‘‘Travel Palestine,’’ funded by the U.N. Development Program, expunges all Jewish roots in the Holy Land. 

I believe that Jews also have a trinity—the people, the book, the 

land. Eliminate one leg of that triangle, you delete them all. Also 

not perceived by the Berlin Declaration was an even more dangerous demonstration—that the enemy of the good is indifference. 

Here we encounter a new phase in anti-Semitism. Ahmadinejad 

stated the Holocaust is a lie, and was answered by a wave of international condemnation. A little later he continued, wipe Israel off 

the map. This passed with muted indignation. 

His repeated ‘‘Jews are vermin, bacilli, a tumor’’ are met with fatigue. By a numbing effect, he tests the limits of Western timidity. 

Voila`, the anti-Semitism of indifference. This week, 5,000 Tahrir 

Square demonstrators in Cairo, screeching ‘‘death to the Jews,’’ created no expressions of global outrage. The bar has thus been raised 

on anti-Semitism. 

After eight assaults on the Rabbi of Malmo ̈, Sweden, a community of 700 Jews and 70,000 Muslims, the Wiesenthal Center during a visit in January, 2011, imposed a travel advisory on the city. 

Our campaign resulted in the Swedish Government finally subsidizing community security. Faced with mass total indifference, 

the Rabbi was further subject to 15 assaults since our visit. Indeed, 

now the Muslim community has joined us in criticizing Malmo ̈’s inattentiveness to hate crimes—the anti-Semitism indifference. 

Next month, January the 20th, we will mark the 70th anniversary of the Wannsee Protocol, which was a meeting of 15 Nazi bureaucrats in Berlin to coordinate the extermination of 11 million 

Jews as the final solution of the Jewish question. In the material 

that I sent is the list of the 11 million Jews—and I stress 11 million. Six million were murdered; 11 million were the intent. I’ve always respected the power of water; 30 miles of British Channel 

saved my family and the 330,000 Jews of England on that list. 

Today 30 miles of channel are as defensible as 3,000 miles of Atlantic waters—zero. We are all tripwires crisscrossing the OSCE 

region. Recently discovered documentation of Nazi German strategic designs on Persia’s oil wealth includes a Wansee-style memorandum signed Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust. 

Therein, he consigns up to 100,000 Iranian Jews to extermination. 

The current president of Iran persists in his intentions to finish the 

job. 

The late Simon Wiesenthal often said: What starts with the Jews 

never ends with them. And on the Venezuelan coast, Iran is building a Shahab-3 missile base with a range of 2,000 miles, facing 

these United States. Twice, in two World Wars, you have invoked 

the Monroe Doctrine to address the balance of the old world. Mr. 

Chairman, through this Commission—which I consider an earlywarning system—we call on the United States Government to 

maintain that balance in the OSCE region. 

For if anti-Semitism is indeed to be a benchmark, then this session must be replayed at a purpose-built, high-level OSCE meeting, 

perhaps to be called Berlin II, stocktaking and counteracting antiSemitism in the OSCE region. It is you, Mr. Chairman, and I quote 

you—you said: The status quo is not enough. Thank you. 
23 

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Samuels, thank you very much for your very eloquent testimony. Anti-Semitism of indifference tests the limits of 

Western timidity—you’ve really nailed a snapshot of exactly where 

we are today. And the Berlin II idea is something we really need 

to very seriously consider. And I thank you for that recommendation and all the other points you’ve made. 

Now, Mr. Levin. 

MARK LEVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

CONFERENCE ON SOVIET JEWERY 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I also would ask that my 

full statement be put into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. LEVIN. And what I’d like to do is just try to make a few brief 

points and summarize my testimony. But before I do that, Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to return the compliment that you gave me 

earlier. I think your leadership has been instrumental in making 

not just the issue of anti-Semitism but many of the other human 

rights challenges that the world faces much more public, much 

more on the United States Government agenda. And you should 

take great pride in your 30-plus years in being on Capitol Hill and 

accomplishing as much as you have. 

You should also know that this is the 40th anniversary of NCSJ, 

and we’re going to Israel next week. And we will be hosting a reception in honor of many of the former refuseniks and activists 

that you and I met on our first trip in 1982. So I will, with your 

permission, give your personal regards to Yuli Kosharovsky and 

Yuli Edelstein. 

This is a very good time to reflect on the progress made on this 

issue. Seven years have passed, as many of my colleagues have 

noted, since the conference on anti-Semitism in Berlin. And as far 

as the Jewish communities of the former Soviet Union, I think it’s 

the good news versus the bad news. And these are the four points 

I’d like to make before I get to the specific countries. 

We’re dealing more with the increase in popular street antiSemitism today than we are state-sponsored anti-Semitism. So if 

there’s any good news, it’s that there’s virtually no state-sponsored 

anti-Semitism in the region today. But we’ve seen a corresponding 

rise in, as I said, in popular anti-Semitism. Interestingly, if you 

look at the former Soviet Union as a whole, anti-Semitism seems 

to be a much larger problem in the Slavic countries than it does 

in the Central Asian and Caucasus areas. 

Next, you know, many of us talk about the new anti-Semitism. 

I think that’s one reason we saw the action taken by the Helsinki 

Commission and the OSCE as a whole. And we commonly refer to 

the demonization, delegitimatization and double standard of Israel 

as the new forms of anti-Semitism. Unfortunately—or fortunately, 

in the former Soviet Union, we’re dealing with tried and true traditional forms of anti-Semitism. We see, what I like to call, an unholy alliance of the far right and far left coming together in many 

of these countries. 

And fourth, we have seen an unprecedented rise in xenophobia, 

extremism and ultra-nationalism. Interestingly, in the last couple 

of years the neo-Nazi skinheads and others who engage in these 
24 

hideous acts have focused their attention more on other ethnic and 

religious minorities than the Jews—but as we all know, that can 

change very quickly. And for many years the primary target for 

these ultra-nationalist and xenophobic groups were their Jewish 

citizens. 

I’d like to give a brief overview of current anti-Semitism across 

the former Soviet states. As I said, official state anti-Semitism is 

virtually non-existent. We are focusing on popular anti-Semitism. 

The first country I’d like to focus on is Russia. Anti-Semitism in 

Russia today is most often political and street-level, and increasingly features a rising number of attacks by, as I said, young 

skinheads and nationalists. Incidents most often involve vandalism 

against and firebomb attacks on synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish community centers, but have also included outright physical assaults on Jews and attempted bombings of Jewish buildings. 

Most alarming is the fact that human—Russian human rights 

monitoring groups have reported a steady rise over the last 10 

years in the number of overall attacks, as I said, by skinheads and 

extremists on minorities, migrant workers, and foreigners across 

Russia. Leading Russian human rights groups estimate that Russian far-right extremists now number in the tens of thousands, and 

warn that nationalist movements are gaining strength across Russia. 

It was just a year ago this week that a Russian nationalist riot 

took place in central Moscow, next to the Kremlin. And it’s important, I think, to remember this because some in the government 

refer to these as soccer fans, not as neo-Nazis and skinheads. We’re 

concerned by the strong potential for violence, including antiSemitic violence, inherent in this movement. And we have been 

urging the Russian government to strengthen its enforcement of 

existing commitments, including to the OSCE charter, and to take 

stronger legal action against incitement of racial hatred and overt 

calls for violence. 

The Russian government recently publicly denounced nationalist 

ideology and expressed support for legal action against anti-Semitic 

acts. But follow through has been uneven. Some anti-Semitic attacks in recent years have in fact been successfully prosecuted as 

hate crimes, but many others continue to be dismissed as mere 

hooliganism or random violence. 

Next in Ukraine—Ukraine is home to another vibrant Jewish 

community. It’s the second-largest in the former Soviet Union. Although popular anti-Semitism has persisted in recent years, the 

Ukrainian government has demonstrated a strong commitment to 

combating this trend, and it has in fact achieved some successes. 

Anti-Semitic vandalism and other incidents occur regularly, and 

have included physical assaults on Ukrainian Jews and at least 

two known fatalities. There’ve been firebomb attacks and vandalism on synagogues and other monuments. We continue to urge 

the Ukrainian government to deal with these forthrightly. 

Now, one positive step that has occurred—and I’ve sat before you 

before and talked about a group known as MAUP. MAUP was the 

largest private university in Ukraine for a number of years, but it 

was also the largest purveyor of anti-Semitic material and took a 

lead in promoting anti-Semitism throughout the country. The good 
25 

news is that it’s virtually non-existent in the anti-Semitism business today, and that is because of the strong action taken by the 

Ukrainian government, followed on by the recommendations of this 

Commission, the U.S. government as a whole and many NGOs. 

In Moldova, we’re dealing with a large community. Again, 

there’ve been isolated incidents, but the government has been responsive. The government officially condemns anti-Semitism and 

has taken steps to combat it, including supporting Holocaust education in local schools and partnering with Jewish groups from 

Moldova and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union. 

Next is Belarus. It’s a country, I know, Mr. Chairman, that you 

and the members of this Commission know very well. The community in Belarus today numbers approximately 70,000. As in neighboring Ukraine and Russia, Belarusian Jews today have access to 

a wide range of religious, educational and community resources. 

And Belarus is also the home of the only official Soviet-era Holocaust memorial in the former USSR, which was dedicated in 1946. 

However, there are incidents of popular anti-Semitism, such as 

vandalism of synagogues and community buildings and cemeteries, 

and monument desecrations have occurred. 

Openly anti-Semitic publications have also appeared in recent 

years in local newspapers and in books published by local publishing houses affiliated with the Minsk Orthodox Church. 

Belarusian authorities have also shown themselves unresponsive to 

official complaints against anti-Semitic hate literature, and have 

inconsistently investigated or prosecuted perpetrators of antiSemitic actions. 

President Lukashenka himself has made on-the-record antiSemitic comments in the recent past, and members of his administration have published openly anti-Semitic books and articles. However, and interestingly, relations between the Belarusian Jewish 

community and the government are generally stable, despite evidence of periodic official involvement in popular anti-Semitism and 

official support for policies insensitive toward Jews and other minorities. 

Lastly, I’d like to talk about the Baltic states just for a second. 

Despite much good that’s taken place in the Baltic countries, and 

despite the small size of the Jewish communities, we have seen 

anti-Semitic episodes there as well, especially in Latvia and Estonia. And you’ve already heard a little bit about Lithuania. Local 

nationalists and veterans of World War II-era Nazi-sponsored auxiliary units continue to generate anti-Semitic hate speech, and 

stage annual marches with anti-Semitic and Nazi displays. 

A bit of good news is that the prime minister of Latvia stated 

last month that any member of his government attending these annual marches of the Waffen-SS veterans would be fired—which, 

while commendable, also highlights the persistence of these difficult World War II-era divisions in the Baltic society. 

Perhaps most disturbing has been the shameful prosecution in 

recent years by Lithuanian authorities of several elderly Jewish 

Holocaust survivors for their wartime anti-Nazi resistance activities as somehow anti-Lithuanian. Although it appears that the 

prosecutors are no longer actively pursuing a case against these in-
26 

dividuals, the instigation of their prosecution certainly sent a troubling signal. 

NCSJ and other leading organizations have maintained a steady, 

productive dialogue with Baltic officials on these issues of concerns. 

We will continue to press them. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to finish with a series of recommendations, and it’ll just take a second. And I think it’s important to note 

many of these, particularly in light of what happened seven years 

ago at the Berlin conference. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Levin, if you could just suspend for one brief second. We have three minutes to be on the floor, but there’s only one 

vote after that immediate, so within 10 minutes, we’ll all be back. 

So I apologize, again, for this interruption. When we schedule 

these, we have no idea what the schedule might be on that particular day. So I thank you for your forbearance, and we stand in 

brief, very brief, recess. 

[Break.] 

Mr. SMITH. The Commission will resume its hearing. Mr. Levin? 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to offer the following recommendations. It sounds obvious, but the first one would be to continue to strongly condemn hate. Incidents of anti-Semitism, political and religious leaders that polarize society and media outlets 

which propagate intolerance must be strongly condemned, to send 

a clear message that incitement to and acts of ethnic, religious, and 

racial hatred will not be tolerated. 

Secondly, enact adequate hate-crime legislation to create an environment in which Jews and other minorities can live without fear. 

The successor states of the former Soviet Union must enact hatecrime and hate-speech legislation and enforce existing laws for all 

citizens, including elected officials. 

Three, train local law enforcement. To properly combat antiSemitism and extremism, government must empower local police 

forces. Police must be able to delineate between ordinary 

hooliganism and a crime motivated by bias or hate. A well-trained 

police force will better follow through on hate-crime enforcement 

and investigations, leading to an increase in prosecutions, data collections, and dealing more sensitively with victims. 

Fourth, monitor and catalogue incidents. Cataloging and reporting anti-Semitic, xenophobic and bias-motivated activities enables 

prompt condemnation of such acts, increasing the chances that perpetrators will be apprehended swiftly. 

Fifth, implement region-wide programs of interethnic understanding and Holocaust education. This is the most effective way 

to combat the roots of popular or street anti-Semitism. Teaching 

children the values of tolerance and basic human rights from a 

very young age begins to stop the perpetuation of ignorance and 

negative stereotypes of Jews and other minorities. 

And finally, reform the message of religious and media outlets 

throughout the region. Beyond the classroom and the government, 

the two other major sources of information in the former Soviet 

Union are the media and places of worship. Governments and nongovernmental organizations need to work with leaders of these reli-
27 

gious institutions and the editors and reporters of media outlets to 

ensure that they will spread a message of tolerance. 

At NCSJ, we will keep engaging governments throughout this region strongly and persistently on these and other problematic areas 

in the human rights field. We will continue to make our position 

known in the United States and the former Soviet Union, and in 

international fora. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity. 

And again, I want to thank you and the Commission for everything 

that you’ve done to address this problem. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Levin, thank you so very much for your insights, 

particularly the country-specific insights, your recommendations at 

the end, and for your 30-plus years of extraordinary leadership. We 

are joined by Commissioner McIntyre, joined by Mr. Engel, who in 

addition to serving as a senior member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and a former chairman of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee—now ranking member—also co-chairs the Caucus for 

Combating Anti-Semitism here in the House. 

And we’re also joined by Chairman Frank Wolf, who is the chairman of the approps Justice Subcommittee. Mr. Wolf, thank you for 

being here. And for the record, Mr. Wolf is the prime sponsor of 

the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which has, I believe, revolutionized, within the State Department, and has made 

a priority where one did not exist, of religious freedom issues within State and in our government. Thank you, Mr. Wolf. 

Mr. Wolf, would you like to say anything? Or Eliot or Mike? 

Mr. ENGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m good. 

Mr. SMITH. OK. We’ll now go to Eric Fusfield, and thank you for 

your patience and for your leadership as well. 

ERIC FUSFIELD, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, B’NAI 

B’RITH INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. FUSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask that my 

written testimony be entered into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. FUSFIELD. And I will use my time just to summarize. First, 

I would like to thank you for the privilege and honor of addressing 

the Commission on behalf of B’nai B’rith International and its 

more than 200,000 members and supporters in over 50 countries, 

including many states in the OSCE region. 

B’nai B’rith would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, CoChairman Cardin, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Franks, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Engle 

and the other Commissioners, not just for convening this hearing, 

but for your strong leadership in addressing the serious problem of 

anti-Semitism. The role of the U.S. Helsinki Commission and the 

State Department has been absolutely indispensable in generating 

forward momentum within the OSCE on combating anti-Semitism, 

and we’re very grateful for that. 

It’s been 11 years since the outbreak of the second intifada in the 

Middle East, and subsequently, the start of a new wave of antiSemitism throughout the OSCE region and around the world. This 

spread of hatred has resulted not only in widespread attacks 

against Jewish communities, but in a proliferation of anti-Semitic 

propaganda, much of which is directed against the State of Israel. 
28 

Tragically, the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish 

state has become a daily occurrence, as Israel’s enemies repeatedly 

accuse it of being a Nazi-like occupier and an apartheid state that 

disenfranchises the Palestinians. Falsehoods about Israel are repeated so often that they become widely accepted in the popular 

culture, and sometimes impact government policy. 

The effort by Israel’s relentless critics to denigrate the Jewish 

state is not only evidence that anti-Semitism is alive and well 66 

years after the Holocaust. This new variation of the world’s oldest 

social illness actually poses a security threat to the Jewish state by 

intensifying its international isolation. 

Now, over the past decade, the OSCE, with the United States in 

the lead, has taken up the urgent struggle against rising antiSemitism. While much has been done to fight anti-Semitism in that 

time, much work remains. The need for practical and effective 

strategies to combat and defeat this pathology is still crucial. To 

this end, the OSCE’s Ministerial Council should formalize the 

scheduling of conferences on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance at regular intervals. 

Over the next few years, we’ll have opportunities to mark the 

tenth anniversaries of landmark OSCE conferences in Vienna, Berlin and Cordoba. By scheduling review conferences at the appropriate junctures, we can take advantage of these anniversaries by 

challenging OSCE member states to follow through on their commitments. We should widely promote, within the OSCE, the EU 

Monitoring Center’s comprehensive working definition of antiSemitism. 

This document, whose principles have also been adopted by the 

U.S. State Department and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, is 

tremendously useful in identifying current manifestations of antiSemitism to those who might not otherwise recognize them. It 

should be disseminated as widely as possible among public officials, 

educators, and journalists, among others. 

We must enhance support for ODIHR’s tolerance and nondiscrimination unit, which has now become a fixed and integral 

part of the OSCE’s work. We must enable the TND unit to sustain 

and expand its critical activities, which currently include educational programs on anti-Semitism in 14 countries. At least two 

more countries may soon be added to that list. TND would like to 

adapt those materials to an online format to make them more readily accessible, but this will require increased support from member 

states. 

Security for Jewish communities must be enhanced. In some 

cases, additional money has been allocated to make this possible. 

But even where funding is not available, much can be done through 

the exchange of best practices facilitated by the OSCE. The U.S. 

has a critical role to play in ensuring that the OSCE maintains its 

focus on anti-Semitism as a distinct phenomenon, even as some of 

the remedies used to address anti-Semitism may have broader application. 

I hope that Secretary of State Clinton will attend the OSCE Ministerial Council in Vilnius next week as expected, and that when 

she does, she will specifically reference the problem of antiSemitism and the importance of the work of the three personal rep-
29 

resentatives in ODIHR’s tolerance and nondiscrimination unit. Her 

doing so will assist in keeping attention focused on anti-Semitism 

at the highest levels. 

Last summer, I had the opportunity to travel to Oslo with representatives of the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon 

Wiesenthal Center. In a meeting with leading Norwegian journalists, I confronted the editor of the daily paper Dagbladet with an 

editorial cartoon, which I have here, which I’ve entered into the 

record—an editorial cartoon that he had published, depicting 

former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as a concentration 

camp guard. 

His response was that the cartoon had provoked a healthy public 

debate. Three months later, he ran a second piece by the same cartoonist, this one depicting Gaza as an Israeli-run concentration 

camp. When asked in an interview why he had used the flawed and 

inherently anti-Semitic Nazi analogy twice, the cartoonist replied, 

because I think it fits. 

Mr. Chairman, I think of my eight-month-old son Emmanuel— 

and this is my final exhibit—I’m a new father, so please bear with 

me—and I imagine that he will graduate from college around the 

time that we mark the 100th anniversary of the Holocaust. 

With very few Holocaust survivors likely to be alive then, and 

with the lessons of history further faded, how much more difficult 

will it be for his generation to prevent such misuses of the Holocaust analogy, and to promote an understanding that these distortions heighten the isolation of the Jewish state and undermine the 

security of the Jewish people? 

The implacability of the Norwegian cartoonist and his editor is 

an unsettling reminder of the problem we continue to face, and an 

illustration of why Elie Wiesel has described anti-Semitism as the 

world’s most durable ideology. As we gauge the OSCE’s progress in 

the struggle against anti-Semitism, we can draw reassurance from 

the positive accomplishments of the past eight years, even as we 

commit ourselves to sustaining and intensifying our focus. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your unstinting commitment to this 

issue. B’nai B’rith pledges its ongoing cooperation as we all confront the challenge of combating anti-Semitism together. The history of European Jewry in the past century is a tragic one. Let us 

be mindful of that history. Let us speak out. Let us use our influence, and let us act now. History demands nothing less from us. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Fusfield, thank you very much. And I would just 

say that 20 years from now, that eight-year-old soon will be very 

proud of the leadership that his dad demonstrated throughout 

these very difficult years. So thank you so very much for that testimony and for your statement. 

Mr. FUSFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Engle, did you want to say something now or— 

Mr. ENGLE. I’ll wait. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, you will. OK, fine. Ms. Burdett? 
30 

STACY BURDETT, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT AND NATIONAL 

AFFAIRS, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE 

Ms. BURDETT. Thank you very much. Just, I’ll quickly echo the 

thanks of the rest of the panel for your commitment and your partnership. And we hear a lot in the OSCE these days about fatigue— 

fatigue on the anti-Semitism issue on the part of the governments. 

And Mr. Chairman, when I look at the other members of the panel 

who are here, I know we meet that fatigue with tirelessness. 

And so your work really is an inspiration to us in the NGO community, and we’re eager and ready to work with you on the next 

phase of this work. I want to ask that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. No objection, so ordered. 

Ms. BURDETT. Thank you—and use my few minutes to take advantage of my position as the wrap-up guy, and do a little bit of 

stocktaking on some of the observations today that I hope can 

jumpstart a question-and-answer session. 

Now, nine years ago, almost to this day—it was December 10th, 

Human Rights Day—we sat in a room in this building, all of us, 

and we were worried about three specific issues: a resurgent antiSemitism, the broad denial by governments and their failure to act, 

and the lack of basic definitions and strategies and tools to even 

wrap our heads around the problem and to begin to think about 

how to respond. 

Now, on the first count, we’ve heard the threat persists. Middle 

East developments continue to fuel new forms of anti-Semitism. 

Some of the witnesses have talked about the Arab Spring. The 

Anti-Defamation League has released a new report on the Muslim 

Brotherhood and its political party, the Freedom and Justice Party, 

which is espousing virulent anti-Israel and anti-Semitic messages. 

So the trends continue along that path. 

On the second count, the governments still do not show the political will to fulfill the commitments that they’ve made. Each year, 

the Anti-Defamation League, in partnership with Human Rights 

First—we analyze the annual hate crime report of the OSCE, and 

we use that data to issue what the ODIHR is not in a position to 

do, but a real scorecard. 

And seven years after ministers stood in Berlin and pledged to 

do the most basic job of collecting data on anti-Semitic incidents, 

only three of the 56 governments bothered to give that information 

to ODIHR for this year’s report. So there’s a lot of work to be 

done—again, still big gaps in compliance. 

But what is different today is we do have a strategy. We do have 

a very serious arsenal of tools in place for any government that 

would make the choice to use them. So while states have stayed 

lagging and behind in their own compliance, the OSCE really is a 

focal point for progress, for fighting anti-Semitism and hate crime. 

So the ministerial decisions we’ve all talked about, the personal 

representative on anti-Semitism, the tolerance unit and its dedicated program and staff adviser on anti-Semitism have really 

carved out a focus in the OSCE, and a menu of tools and strategies. 

Now, we’ve been so immersed in the incremental development of 

these tools, I wanted to just sketch where we’ve come, and how far 

we’ve come. So the ODIHR fulfills its mandate, I think, in an ex-
31 

pansive way. They start with a tasking that essentially is very passive in nature; they’re supposed to serve as a collection point for 

anti-Semitic incidents and assist states in complying with their 

commitments. And they use that mandate and those reports to expose real failings and to respond to those with tools for any states 

that want to improve. 

So ODIHR reports have looked at key questions that we’ve asked 

in these rooms: How much hate crime is there? What are governments doing about it? What education approaches can deal with 

new forms of anti-Semitism? How do you commemorate the Holocaust? And how, in countries across this region, should governments and teachers be remembering the Holocaust in a way that 

deals with the fact that, as the special envoy said, anti-Semitism 

didn’t die with Hitler? 

Now ODIHR has responded to their findings with some cuttingedge tools, and they focus on key target groups that have been 

talked about in our own collective recommendations and in ministerial decisions. So now teachers can have off-the-shelf teaching tools 

in 13 different languages that look at anti-Semitism in the context 

of the experience of students in different countries. There’s another 

educators’ guide that really walks teachers through: why teach 

about anti-Semitism, how to do it. That guide is being translated 

today into Turkish, and it exists in other languages. And there are 

guides for teachers and officials on preparing appropriate and 

meaningful Holocaust events. 

Now, governments also have a tool kit. There is a how-to guide 

on drafting hate crime laws and policies. There are trainings they 

can take advantage of for law enforcement officials and officials 

across the criminal justice system. Now we know that communities 

and NGOs fill these gaps that are left behind by the failed policies 

of governments, and they can receive training and support as well. 

And even in the far reaches of the region, there are downloadable 

tool kits for hate crime response and on anti-Semitism. 

And just like the U.S. was a major proponent of these programs 

and for progress on the anti-Semitism issue, we should be proud 

that American models and expertise have played a big role in their 

development. The Anti-Defamation League’s been very gratified to 

be involved in helping develop the hate crime law guidelines and 

some of the trainings that are in the ODIHR’s hate crime tool kit. 

And you have an appendix at the back of the testimony; it’s a document we’ve looked over many times. But if you look at it and think 

about where we were in 2002, the progress is really remarkable in 

terms of what are the resources. 

Now, the major challenge is, obviously, how to build more political will so governments will avail themselves of these tools. You 

know, back in 2002, we also called for the U.S. to do better in its 

own reporting, and we welcome all of your support and, Chairman 

Smith, your work to enact the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness 

Act. 

If you look at a chart that is on page seven of my testimony, I 

did a little snapshot of what’s been happening since 2002 in the 

area of U.S. reporting. And if you look, the coverage of antiSemitism in the State Department Country Reports on Human 

Rights has just about doubled. So in 2002, there were 30 countries 
32 

that included a chapter on anti-Semitism in their report; today that 

number is 62. And there is a similar doubling if you look just at 

OSCE-participating states. And the content of the reports that the 

State Department issues also do address what’s the relationship 

between anti-Semitism and the public discourse, and also our primary trend that we’re concerned about: how anti-Israel hatred impacts Jewish security and Jewish rights. 

And I’m confident that U.S. reporting can continue to improve, 

especially since the special envoy talked today about how she’s instituted expanded training in the Foreign Service Institute. And 

ADL’s been proud to partner with her in delivering some of those 

trainings. And it’s incredibly important—as you know from your 

work on trafficking and international religious freedom, it’s very 

important to give American diplomats practical tools so they can 

recognize indicators and understand the nature of anti-Semitism, 

especially now that they’re required to report on it. So your support 

for a strong special envoy can really help ensure that these—the 

specialized focus that we’ve fought for inside of our own government, and the dedicated effort within other governments to mobilize their foreign policy tools, can continue. 

You know, even here in the U.S., the Jewish community enjoys 

such broad acceptance, but hate, violence and harassment is also 

a disturbing part of American Jewish life as well. The ADL’s audit 

of anti-Semitic incidents has shown, the last few years, a continuous level of incidents. This year there was a slight increase; we 

found 1,232 incidents. And the FBI hate crime data—I’ve also provided as an appendix to my written statement—shows consistently 

that about two-thirds of hate violence that targets an individual 

based on their religion targets Jews. So this is proportionally very, 

very disturbing. 

And our own ADL survey of attitudes in the United States 

showed that about 15 percent of Americans, so that’s about 35 million people, have anti-Semitic views. So we’re very concerned at 

home about the bullying and harassment of our children. And you 

talked, Mr. Chairman, a little bit about how on American campuses 

anti-Israel activity has sporadically been spilling over into antiSemitism, and it has made campus life uncomfortable for some 

Jewish students. 

So we welcome important new guidance from the Department of 

Education Office of Civil Rights. And that guidance made clear that 

anti-Semitic harassment can be prohibited by federal law. I’ve attached a list of resources and links and recommendations on fighting bullying and hate crime. With that, I hope the Commission can 

consider, as a follow-on to this hearing—I’m very pleased to hear 

you say you’re interested in convening another event, perhaps at 

Rutgers or somewhere else, on the issue of campus harassment and 

would be delighted to work with you on crafting that. 

I submitted a full list of recommendations, things that participating states can do, echoing a lot of what my colleagues have said, 

and recommendations for the U.S. And I wanted to just point out 

that some of what can be done is—some of the recommendations 

are easier to tackle than others. And I wanted to just note, of all 

the OSCE-participating states—they have all designated a national 

point of contact on hate crime. 
33 

And ironically, the United States is the only country that has as 

our national point of contact someone in our OSCE mission. I think 

we should work together and think about shifting that designation 

to one of our hate crime experts, so we’re putting forward our best 

expertise. This was an initiative that was driven a lot by American 

leadership, and we should put our best foot forward in that department. 

And the other thing I would add as a recommendation that may 

be easier than some of the others is, we have talked about ODIHR 

tools on law enforcement training and assistance, and I think we 

should take an initiative to look at the other areas of American 

training initiatives in law and justice areas. And let’s look at antiSemitism as a potential component of programs that are already 

ongoing. 

And then another—there’s a meeting coming up of the Mediterranean partners. You know, we’ve all talked about—really, the 

incubator of some of the worst elements of anti-Semitism is coming 

from the Arab media, the Arab and Muslim world today. And the 

OSCE Mediterranean partners meeting comes around every December, and we know that this is a forum that could be better used 

to address anti-Semitism among civil society groups where it’s 

needed, among governments where it’s needed. So that’s another 

recommendation I think we could follow up on, if not for this year, 

but look at it as a goal for next year. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Burdett, thank you very much for that testimony, for the recommendations and for offering to work with us— 

which I know you would anyway, [chuckles] even if you didn’t say 

today—on the upcoming hearing, probably at Rutgers or at some 

college venue. I would just note that George—Professor George 

Zilbergeld, professor of political science at Montclair State University, is here. And he has been very strongly promoting this issue 

of what is happening on our college campuses, and has met with 

me and my staff several times. And I want to thank him for those 

interventions. 

I know Mr. Engel wanted to make a statement, I believe. 

HON. ELIOT ENGEL (D–16), A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll be very brief. I have 

a hearing in Energy and Commerce Committee, so thank you for 

kind of jumping me ahead. First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for the testimony. I know all of them personally—or know 

of their work, certainly, and the work you all do, each of you collectively, and your organization is truly very, very important. 

I have often said in the 21st century—we’re now one-tenth 

through the 21st century—who would have believed even 20 or 24 

years ago when I came to the Congress that we would actually be 

sitting in 2011—soon to be 2012—and talk about the very existence 

of the State of Israel, about whether or not the State of Israel can 

survive and then thrive. That was something that we thought we 

had put to bed a long time ago, certainly with the Holocaust not 

being very long ago and people already denying it, and the State 

of Israel, born out of the ashes of the Holocaust. 
34 

I think that—and, by the way, when I say that I don’t mean it 

was only born of the Holocaust—the Jewish ties to the Middle East 

and the Holy Land has been for thousands and thousands of years. 

But I think it’s important that we not sweep it under the rug and 

we talk about it, and my colleague, Mr. Smith, the gentleman from 

New Jersey, has been in the forefront. He and I have talked many, 

many times throughout the years about this, and I want to publicly, Chris, say thank you for the job that you do, and Mr. 

Frankson, I have the honor of co-chairing the Israel Allies Caucus. 

And, you know, people who try to say they’re not anti-Semitic; 

they’re only anti-Zionist—we know what that is, and we know it’s 

a phony and a fraud. If you deny the existence of the Jewish state, 

if you say the most vile things about Israel and about Jews, you’re 

not anti-Zionist, you’re also anti-Semitic. It’s very, very clear—from 

the hate cartoons to the editorials to the nonsense on campuses 

and everything that is happening, and frankly, it’s shameful that 

barely a generation after the Holocaust that we kind of see these 

exhibits of extreme anti-Semitism anywhere in the world, but certainly on a continent of Europe, where six million Jews perished— 

it’s just absolutely unbelievable. And I point to the United Nations 

as being very culpable, quite frankly. Some like to sugarcoat it, but 

I don’t. Durban was an absolute disgrace, and each time—Durban 

II, Durban III—compounds the absolute disgrace. 

So I want to thank all of you for doing the wonderful job that 

you do. It’s important to keep talking about it, it’s important to 

keep saying it. If people don’t like it, it’s too bad. It has to be said, 

and it has to be said by Jews and non-Jews alike—all people of 

goodwill—and that’s why it’s so important. That’s why I talk about 

my colleagues here, who certainly have been in the forefront, and 

I just want to thank you, and I thank you very much. 

When I saw this was on the agenda today, I wanted very much 

to make it because I think it’s important that we highlight it and 

not sweep it under the table, and I think it’s also important that 

we say thank you to these people who are on the front lines day 

in and day out. I’ve traveled with some of you—Mr. Levin—and 

certainly met with some of you, and I want to just thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Engel, thank you very much for your leadership 

and friendship and partnership on this very critical issue. Thank 

you so much. 

I’ll save my questions for last. I’d like to go to Mr. Frank, Chairman Franks. 

HON. TRENT FRANKS (R–8), A CONGRESSMAN FROM THE 

STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, that’s very kind. 

You know, I’m not a member of this Committee on a regular 

basis, but I admire so much the work of Chairman Smith and Congressman Wolf, and certainly Mr. Engel and I are good friends and 

have such great commonality on some of the issues that are before 

us here. And I just—from my heart—commend each one of you for 

being here. 

You remind me that there is still much to hope for with all of 

the challenges we face in the world, and I couldn’t help but be especially struck by two particular thoughts that were brought up by 
35 

your testimony, Dr. Samuels. Your point that it is critically important for people to respond to these anti-Semitic, virulent remarks 

by people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is so, so very important because we win or lose this battle in the long run, if we let our hearts 

grow cold to the evil that is perpetrated through some of these remarks, and it’s very, very important that we stand up and are willing to repudiate it in the strongest possible terms. 

And I think I mentioned a quote that kind of puts it in perspective for me, but: The vice is an evil with so frightening a mien that 

to be hated needs only to be seen. But seen too often with its familiar face, first we endure, and then we pity, and then we embrace. 

And there is a great danger in allowing the free peoples of the 

world—the people that love Israel, people that love the humanity— 

growing kind of cold and indifferent. When you have an 

Ahmadinejad saying things that are just beyond comprehension, 

saying, well, Israel should be wiped off the map or Jews are 

vermin, after a while we get used to what a maniac he is, and we 

forget that we need to respond and repudiate this each time. So I 

want you to know I’m grateful for that point. I think that it may 

be singularly the most important one because that keeps this issue 

alive in the family of man to where we’re responding to it as a collective group. 

And, Ms. Burdett, I thought your point was also very compelling, 

and that is the need for governments to have the resolve and the 

courage to stand up in these circumstances, when these situations 

occur across the world. 

So, my question is simply this—and I feel bad about throwing it 

out because it’s always the most unfair one. You are pulled in 

many directions as a group—and I will assure you those of us on 

this panel are as well—and if you could say what the most important public policy to-do item would be for this Congress to combat 

anti-Semitism and to combat the diminishment of people of any 

faith or group, but in this particular context the anti-Semitic forces 

in the world. 

Let me just remind you, just as an aside, Israel and the Jewish 

people have been attacked for thousands of years. Most of their 

persecutors are gone. There is much to hope for in the future, but 

if we could do one thing in this Congress—could I just make a 

round with the panel and ask you to tell me one thing—not to diminish any other thing—but just the one most important priority 

that you’d put before us. 

Dr. Samuels, I’ll start with you, and we’ll leave the lady to close. 

[Chuckles.] 

Dr. SAMUELS. Thank you. 

That’s probably the most difficult question I’ve heard in my career. I’m not an American, so I can’t tell what the U.S. Congress 

to do. I did recommend that the U.S.—this Commission, which 

plays such an important role—continue to afflict its counterparts in 

Europe. 

So sessions such as this would not be held in the Parisien Se ́nat 

or Assemble ́e Nationale. It has been held, due to you, in the Palace 

of Westminster. 

I think that, just on the parliamentary level, we have taken what 

you have done to the Parlatino, Latin American Parliament, which 
36 

has its headquarters in Panama. We have a resolution regarding 

anti-Semitism, which is being discussed today—as we speak—in 

Panama at the Parlatino. That is basically the result of your initiative through us. And I would like to suggest that, maybe using us 

as vectors, we could work in different parliaments where we are 

around the world, and bring to bear the thoughts of this Commission, and perhaps hold another parliamentary assembly of the 

OSCE region in order to replicate what happened in the past, and 

to see how we take it forward. Thank you. 

Mr. LEVIN. Congressman, let me also reiterate, it’s not the easiest question, but the one constant reminder—not just in combatting anti-Semitism, but in promoting human rights in the United 

States over the last thirty-plus years—has been the United States 

Congress. Without the support of all of you and your colleagues 

and the people who served in the past, we wouldn’t have human 

rights being a fundamental part of U.S. foreign policy. We wouldn’t 

have the focus on anti-Semitism that we have today. So for a very 

difficult question, I think my answer is to continue on, to not give 

up. 

You know, Congressman Smith and I, when we would—and Congressman Wolf, when we would confront the Soviets, the Soviets 

were convinced that the United States, whether our elected officials 

or Americans in general, would get bored. We would forget. We 

would move on to something else. And what I would try to tell the 

Soviet officials is that our community, as a whole, Americans as a 

whole, we’re like water on a rock. Change may not take place 

quickly, but change will occur. And by speaking out, by taking legislative initiatives, we will defeat this problem. I don’t know how 

long it will take, but as long as there are people of conscience working together and challenging those who engage in hate of others, 

they don’t stand a chance. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FUSFIELD. There are specific recommendations where the 

United States can lead the OSCE in very practical ways, some of 

which I mentioned in my remarks. For example, the work of the 

ODIHR’s tolerance and nondiscrimination unit—they’re providing 

educational materials in anti-Semitism in 14 different countries. 

They want to expand that number; they want to take this program 

and move it online. The U.S. needs to generate support and provide 

support, generate support among other member states for ODIHR 

to continue this work and to expand this work. 

Also, there needs to be more security for Jewish communities 

abroad. And this is something—sometimes it costs money. The 

OSCE has allocated money in certain cases for upgrading security. 

But in other ways, it could just require an exchange of best practices which the OSCE can facilitate. And again, this is something 

that the U.S. can lead the way on. These are specific recommendations, but the broader picture is that U.S. leadership remains indispensable. U.S. leadership has always been indispensable to the 

OSCE’s efforts in combating anti-Semitism. 

We scored some early successes in this effort. The Berlin Declaration in 2004 was a landmark declaration and can’t really be improved upon very much as a document. But, the challenge since 

then has been in making those words come to life, making govern-
37 

ments follow through in their commitments. And the U.S. could 

continue to be instrumental in encouraging other member states to 

do that, and also not just following through on commitments, but 

maintaining the focus on anti-Semitism as a distinct phenomenon—not just grouping it together with other forms of hatred 

and losing the distinct focus on it. There are remedies for antiSemitism that can be applied to other forms of intolerance too, but 

anti-Semitism is a unique phenomenon, and we can’t lose sight of 

that. And that’s why I hope, when Secretary Clinton goes to 

Vilnius next week, she makes specific reference to anti-Semitism so 

we retain that sense of its distinctness. 

Finally, I would just say, speaking out whenever possible—Americans are faced with a challenge that’s almost unique, because our 

speech laws are more liberal than almost any other democratic 

country in the world has. And it’s our first amendment. We love 

it. We cherish it. We wouldn’t have it any other way. But it does 

pose certain challenges for us in reining in hatred. 

And the way that we’ve done it in this country, sometimes to 

great effect, is to publicly stigmatize hate speech and make it clear 

from those people in positions of leadership, certainly elected officials but other people in positions of influence, that this is unacceptable. It needs to be identified. It needs to be decried and deplored for what it is. And in many other countries in the OSCE region, leaders, public officials have not done as good a job in this 

as U.S. officials have so many times. And I think U.S. officials can 

persuade their colleagues and other governments to do the same. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. I hope that little boy grows up and follows in his dad’s footsteps. 

Mr. FUSFIELD. That’s very kind of you, thank you. 

Ms. BURDETT. I’ll add just one recommendation. You know, the 

best calling card the United States has in dealing with these problems is our example. It’s been this way all along in the OSCE with 

respect to anti-Semitism. And, when you look at the incidents that 

some of my colleagues have talked about—of a list of incidents that 

I and others have provided, you’ll see, last week, a 13-year-old girl 

in Belgium was beaten and called a dirty Jew. We know in Paris, 

a lot of the examples of incidents are young, young kids beaten 

senseless and being told, you’ll pay for what your brothers did in 

Palestine. 

And I think we should start with the most vulnerable victims, 

the children. And, we hear the word bullying. We see it on TV. We 

see shows about it. Bullying targets Jewish children today in our 

communities. And it’s painful. And the stories are painful. 

And I want to just tell one story. There is a young man—this 

isn’t a Jewish young man, but I think it’s a very powerful example 

of how we know hate violence works. And he was beaten up because he was a Mexican-American, beaten senseless. He had about 

40 surgeries just to get back to normal. 

And he came and he sat at this table in the Judiciary Committee 

room, and told the Judiciary Committee that the system worked for 

him. The law worked in his home state of Texas. The police responded perfectly. The community poured out support for their 

family. Everything worked. He was a champ. And he came here triumphantly to talk about how the law worked for him. And about 
38 

a year later, he went on a cruise with his family and he jumped 

off the second deck of the ship. 

And so I think about that boy, David Richardson [sp], and it reminds me, the only way to keep hate violence and anti-Semitism 

from scarring people is really to prevent it. It’s really the single 

best thing we can do. And we have the Tyler Clementi Act pending 

in the House that addresses bullying. And it will help those Jewish 

kids and all kids who were bullied, because the best tack against 

anti-Semitism, as we’ve seen in the hate crime work in the OSCE, 

is sometimes putting in a system that will help all minority kids. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s very kind of 

you to let me go. You know, sometimes, those of us that love Israel 

and the Jewish people want to find some expression in this congressional environment to come up with policy that would really 

help. And that’s why I asked the hard question. But thank you all 

very much. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Franks, thank you very much for your 

leadership. 

I’d like to now yield to Frank Wolf. Frank Wolf, as you know, is 

co-chair of the Lantos Human Rights Commission, but also the 

Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Committee, and 

before that, State and Foreign Aid—Foreign Ops Committee. 

Just a little quick story: In the mid-1980s, Mr. Wolf and I went 

to a human rights conference in Zeeland, Holland. The procuratorgeneral of all of the Soviet Union was there, bombastically and 

very arrogantly saying how they had nothing to hide, and any place 

that could—we asked the question—any place we wanted to go, Mr. 

Wolf, Chairman Wolf and I would be permitted to do. We said, 

Perm Camp 35; we want to meet Natan Sharansky. And he said 

yes. 

Two years later and one delay after another, Sharansky was out 

of that camp. There were still many other political prisoners and 

Jewish refuseniks still there. We got into that camp. We met with 

Lieutenant-Colonel Assen [ph], the KGB camp director who was a 

brute of a man, and his fellow torturers, but we videotaped every 

one of the prisoners. And eventually, because of glasnost and 

perestroika, that camp closed and all those people were released. 

But it was a privilege to join Congressman Wolf at that meeting. 

When Sharansky saw the videotape, he broke down and said, they 

were all my friends. And they were still left behind, of course. And 

he went on, obviously, and continues to do great things. 

But I’d like to yield to Chairman Wolf. 

HON. FRANK WOLF (R–10), A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Chris. I want to thank you and thank the 

panel. I’ll just make a comment. One, I want to thank particularly 

Chris for being a leader on these issues from the very beginning, 

during the beginning of the Reagan years, and probably has done 

more on human rights and religious freedom and anti-Semitism 

than, frankly, any other member of the Congress. 

I’m concerned that I see the trend going, probably in the wrong 

direction. And I may be an exception here. But we see the Arab 

Spring going south in Egypt. I was in Egypt in July, and I pre-
39 

dicted what was taking place and what took place. We saw just the 

other day, you have the Muslim Brotherhood taking over now with 

a Salafist. The Sinai is wide open. Bad things are happening. There 

were anti-Semitic cartoons in the Egyptian press under Mubarak. 

I predict you’re going to see things that you never thought you 

would see coming out of that. 

I think there’s less interest here in Washington and in the Congress and, frankly, in this administration, than I have ever seen 

since I have been here since 1980. President Reagan said, the 

words in the Constitution were a covenant with the entire world, 

and Reagan advocated and pushed Secretary Shultz when he would 

go to Moscow, would meet with dissidents, or if they were imprisoned, would meet with their families. Our embassy was an island 

of freedom. 

That doesn’t happen anymore. I see less interest up here, on the 

Hill, in both political parties. The religious freedom commission bill 

that Chris mentioned, we passed it here in the House months ago, 

months ago. I think it was a 400-to-something vote. A couple of 

senators have it blocked. They want to reduce the funding of it. 

And they will be successful in reducing the funding. And it’s 

blocked. One or two senators have blocked it. And frankly, the faith 

community are saying very, very little about it. 

I also have a bill passed to create a special envoy to advocate, 

modeled after the special envoy for anti-Semitism, to model it after 

that, for religion minorities in the Middle East—the Coptic Christians. It passed the House overwhelmingly. Two senators have it 

blocked. I mean, the Coptic Christians in Egypt now are going to 

face—unbelievable. You’re going to find that the numbers who 

want to come to the United States are soaring. And we have two 

senators who have it blocked. 

Thirdly, there are not the giants in this institution and this—in 

town that used to have—Chris is a giant. Henry Hyde was a giant. 

Tom Lantos was a giant. Scoop Jackson was a giant. Tell me, who 

was the Scoop Jackson in the United States Senate today? You 

don’t have to say it for the record, but you just tell me what you’re 

thinking of—name the two or three that really—this administration has been a failure. Cairo is a failure; they’ve done nothing 

with regard to what’s taking place with regard to the Muslim 

Brotherhood over in Egypt. 

So my request to you is—and when you listen to the Republican 

debates, this issue never comes up. I don’t blame the candidates; 

I blame the media. They don’t think it’s that important. It never 

comes up. Now, is it the economy? Is it—that we’re going through 

high—I don’t know. We’ve gone through high unemployment and 

10 percent unemployment in the Reagan administration, and there 

was still a driving interest with regard to Secretary Shultz and 

President Reagan. 

So I would urge you, and those who care deeply in all the faith 

communities—anti-Semitism is particularly bad. I’ve been to 

Auschwitz. I’ve seen with Dachau, we speak out and make this an 

issue. Congressmen and senators ought to be forced to make decisions on these issues. There should be votes on these issues. People 

should go to their town meetings and ask him about it. 
40 

But we got the religious freedom commission bill that’s tied up 

in the Senate for three or four months—with what’s taking place 

in the world today, and we can’t move it, then I think there’s a 

problem right here in River City. 

I think memory is diminishing and anti-Semitism on the college 

campuses—I watched the rally a while back where Amedi [ph]— 

what’s this guy?—Alan Moody [sp] stands up in front of the White 

House, and says, I am Hamas. Do you hear that, White House? 

And the crowd cheers. I am Hezbollah, he says, and the crowd 

cheers. I have the tape. I saw the tape. And nobody says anything. 

And so I think I would urge you to make this an issue in the political process. All the candidates ought to be asked, what is your 

position on anti-Semitism? What do you think’s taking place with 

the Coptic Christians in the Middle East? What do you think about 

the Gaza being—emptied out? What do you think about these 

things, and what is your plan? What will you do? 

And also, to put pressure on this administration—and I appreciate Chris Smith having this hearing. I want to urge you to go out 

and make this an issue, a political issue the same way that it was 

during the ’80s with—remember Scoop Jackson, Jackson-Vanik? I 

mean, where would’ve the issue—what would’ve happened without 

Jackson-Vanik? Now, this Congress will give MFN to anybody for 

anything for trade or for business. I mean, that—man does not live 

by bread alone. And so that’s what I would urge you, and that’s 

what I wanted to comment on. Just take this issue out and make 

this an issue in every political race, every House race, every Senate 

race. Everyone ought to be asked what their position is on antiSemitism, on the persecution of people of faith, on human rights. 

Bashir, the head of Sudan, is an indicted war criminal. Hu 

Jintao invited him to a red carpet treatment, a red carpet welcome 

in Beijing. And nobody said a word about it. 

Thanks for what you’re doing. I particularly want to thank Chris 

Smith for what he does. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Wolf, thank you for your outstanding 

statement and leadership for 30 years. [Chuckles.] Really do appreciate it. Would anyone want to respond to anything Chairman Wolf 

has said? 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Wolf, I think many of us at this table agree with 

much of what you had to say. But I want to answer one question. 

When you say, where are the giants, we’re looking at two of the 

giants. I know you weren’t looking for an unsolicited compliment, 

but you and Congressman Smith and other members of the Commission, whether it’s Senator Cardin and others, are leading the 

way. 

I also would like to say that I agree with you that it’s incumbent 

upon all of us to try to do more to reinvigorate our government, be 

it in the executive or the legislative, to the concern of global human 

rights. And at least you have my commitment that my organization 

and our members will do everything we can to try to remind people 

of the importance of looking out for our fellow men and women 

around the world. 

Mr. FUSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would echo what was just said. 

And I would add that we all represent nonpartisan NGOs. And I 
41 

think it’s fair to say, we all agree that human rights is a bipartisan 

issue if ever there was one. 

And I’ll speak now for my organization: We believe that human 

rights should remain in the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. We feel 

that regardless of which party is in power, either in the executive 

branch or in Congress, the emphasis should remain the same. 

And, we do feel that leadership is being demonstrated in Congress today, particularly in this venue. The Helsinki Commission, 

the role it’s played in identifying the problem of anti-Semitism, has 

been indispensable, and we’re grateful for it. 

We all need to continue doing whatever we can on all fronts to 

spotlight these issues and to generate forward momentum. 

Mr. WOLF. [Off mic] —Well, I’ll just ask you a question, and you 

don’t have to answer. Is there a [inaudible] in this administration? 

Was there a [inaudible] in the Bush administration? Now, if I were 

asked to answer that, I would say no to both. We should have a 

[inaudible] in every administration. I say this administration has 

no [inaudible]. I say, for the last four years, the Bush administration—[off mic]—they had no [inaudible]. And every administration—[off mic]—[inaudible], and that’s what I’m trying to say is diminishing because of that concern. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Dr. Samuels? 

Dr. SAMUELS. I’d just like to answer you, Congressman, as a European, which today is a questionable description, selfdescription—we fear very greatly a weak America. A strong America is needed to ensure that Europe remains on the rails not only 

economically—politically. And I thank you very much for everything you’ve just said. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Wolf. I’ll just conclude because 

you’ve been very patient. We’ll have some questions I’ll submit for 

the record. But very, very briefly: You know, Mr. Levin, you talked 

about privatizing, but you pointed out, in Russia, in your comments 

on specific countries, that more alarming is the fact that Russian 

human rights monitor groups have reported a steady rise over the 

last 10 years on the overall attacks by skinheads. You talked about 

the concern about violence but you also made the point that it’s not 

state-sponsored. 

But I think, as Dr. Samuels pointed out, indifference—perhaps 

it’s a distinction without a difference. When a government is indifferent—as far back as February of 1996, when I chaired a hearing 

called ‘‘Worldwide Persecution of Jews,’’ wearing my hat as human 

rights subcommittee chair, Paul Goble made a very important 

point. And he said, third and most important, anti-Semitism has 

been privatized, like much else in the region. 

That is to say, in contrast to Soviet times, when the government 

was in the position to decide how much anti-Semitism would be 

manifest and how much would be sponsored, now the governments 

are too weak to be in a position to do something about it. What has 

changed over those years is the ‘‘too weak.’’ The Russian government, and Putin et al, are all very strong. They could do much 

more. So would you be admonishing them to really take up this 

cause far more robustly than they have? 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, we try to do that on a regular basis. 

For a long time, the Russian Government diminished the role of 
42 

the ultranationalist skinheads and neo-Nazis that have proliferated 

throughout Russia. And I think that the recent events over the last 

year and a half—at least some in the government have begun to 

change their mind, and have recognized that they have a serious 

problem on their hands. 

Now, what they’re doing about it is a whole ’nother issue, and 

that’s why we continue to press them, specifically, on the recommendations that we made. But at the very least, they have spoken out on certain specific incidents. And now we’re saying that’s 

a good first step. And in one or two cases, they actually, as I noted 

in my testimony—they did charge people with hate crimes, and 

those individuals were convicted and sentenced. 

But there’s a lot more that has to be done. And as I also noted, 

when I say fortunately, I don’t mean to diminish what’s happening 

to other groups—but the attention of these groups have been focused on ethnic groups primarily from the Caucasus and Central 

Asia as those responsible for all the problems in Russia today. 

The attention has been diverted away from the Jewish minority, 

but we all know that it won’t take much for a neo-Nazi or skinhead 

to turn his attention back toward the Jewish community. And the 

Jewish community in Russia has also been in the forefront of trying to get its government to recognize that, as a community, they 

have specific concerns, but there are also larger issues that need 

to be addressed. 

So you have our commitment that we’re going to continue to 

press them. 

Mr. SMITH. Would anyone else like to respond to—— 

Ms. BURDETT. I would just say that in all 56 of the participating 

states, the president, prime minister, and leadership have an opportunity to make the most significant and immediate difference in 

this problem. And there may be 56 different agendas and different 

suggestions for what they could do, but no leader is too weak to not 

be able to move their country a little bit further forward in what 

they’re doing. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, Dr. Samuels—and Trent Franks did respond to this, and it jumped off the page to me as well—when you 

pointed out that Ahmadinejad stated the Holocaust is a lie, he was 

answered with a wave of international condemnation. And then you 

worked down to the point where he has repeated, Jews are vermin, 

a tumor—they’re met with fatigue. 

And then you talked about Western timidity—tests the limits of 

Western timidity. Anti-Semitism is indifference. You also point out, 

last week, how 5,000 demonstrators in Cairo, screaming ‘‘death to 

the Jews,’’ created no global outrage. Would that also apply to us 

in Congress, and to the White House and to other Western capitals? 

Because I’ve been shocked by the—I mean, there needs to be a 

daily condemnation of this further erosion that’s happening in 

Egypt, a huge, strategically important country. When the peace 

treaty was signed, it was a game-changer. And now we’re in a situation of equally ominous events occurring as we meet here in this 

hearing. 

Dr. SAMUELS. In the aftermath of Cast Lead, the Gaza engagement, I was invited to anchor a BBC World Service phone-in pro-
43 

gram called ‘‘The [sic] World Have Your Say.’’ I asked if this was 

going to be a repeat of the anti-Israeli programs of the past, and 

I was ensured that no, this was going to look at the repercussions 

for Jewish communities in terms of anti-Semitic incidents. 

What it turned out to be was a one-hour program, and after 40 

minutes of fielded-in phone calls that showed only an interest in 

how opinion of Israel had deteriorated, I said that I have been 

taken in, abused, used, and I’m leaving this program. Now, what 

was the point of raising this? 

Media has created, among public opinion, a prejudice, an antiSemitic prejudice that is new and goes beyond their own government’s policy. In fact, it is endorsing government’s policy. And here 

is a tremendous danger. Recently, the European Jewish press had 

a conference at which I presented a press charter for integrity on 

anti-Semitism, which was five points. I don’t have it in front of me, 

but I’d be happy to send it. 

This charter, I think, can be reworked. It can be retooled according to the prevailing psycholinguistics and psycho-environment of 

each jurisdiction. However, I think it is most important to focus 

upon the media. And I know about First Amendment and I know 

that there are trans-Atlantic differences on this, but when we held 

a conference on the Internet as a vector for hate in Berlin, Louis 

Freeh, who was then the head of the FBI, came over and said, help 

us to help you. 

Not everything in the United States is protected. We all know 

the Wendell Jones famous statement. Therefore, I think that it’s 

very important that Congress helps on the question of media, helps 

to point out to media—gently, certainly not by censorship. The dangers of what is happening in Europe, I think, is a paradigm that 

should be greatly avoided in this country. And by the same means, 

this country has a role to play. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Anyone else like to respond? Next week, I’m going to 

be chairing a hearing on—with an empty chair in this room—on 

Liu Xiaobo, the Nobel Peace Prize winner for last year. I’m one of 

those who nominated him, led a congressional effort. He’s a great 

human rights activist in the People’s Republic of China. 

And I raise that because it would appear that dictatorships and 

despots all over the world—and that includes in many of these 

Muslim countries, where, unfortunately, the radical side has 

gained the upper hand to the exclusion of the moderates—we don’t 

raise the issue. I mean, this is just me now answering my own 

question, in a way. 

We don’t raise human rights issues consistently, in a transparent 

fashion, so that the offending parties know, almost in an absolute 

predictable fashion, the United States of America will be on your 

case every time. No diminution of—or no gaps when it comes to 

this. When Hu Jintao came to the United States, he got a redcarpet treatment, and nary a word was said about human rights, 

including in the press conference with Hu Jintao and President 

Obama—a lost opportunity beyond words. 

Hannah Rosenthal is doing a great job. The individualdesignated, very committed individuals who are not the president, 

not the top echelon—in the sense that we’re not either; I haven’t 

made this the priority that I believe it should be. And I hope we 
44 

can get some game-changing going on here, or else we are in for 

a much worsened situation. 

If you could all respond very briefly to—Dr. Samuels, you made 

a very, very telling point, and it goes to that very point about consistency. You know, we should be saying the same thing in every 

venue, with intensity and with an understanding of the facts on 

the ground as it relates to anti-Semitism and every other human 

rights issue, but we don’t. 

And you point out that at the meeting of states parties you’re the 

same people we meet at Geneva in the U.N. Human Rights Commission; now the council. Yet here in the OSCE, the language is 

different. Why the two different messages, and what can we do to 

change that? We should make sure that we’re not doing that as 

well. 

You know, when we’re at the OSCE, everyone is really strong 

about affirming the three Ds that Natan Sharansky so eloquently 

talked about when he talked about, you know, disagree with Israel 

on a policy, but don’t matriculate into anti-Semitism. Could you respond to that? I thought that was a very profound statement, Dr. 

Samuels, about the same diplomats, same country, same heads of 

state, different message. 

Dr. SAMUELS. Mr. Chairman, very, very briefly: I fear that OSCE 

may be going in the same direction as other international institutions. We are seeing this today in UNESCO. We are seeing it in 

other U.N. agencies, and unfortunately, unless you—this Commission—takes a stand, that may happen, even due to the Mediterranean partners and through them, in the OSCE. And I think we 

should be on our guard. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. Stacy? 

Ms. BURDETT. I think one of the main differences—again, the 

OSCE had a tradition of being flexible and taking on new human 

rights challenges. But I think when we first started this process, 

we were certainly told, sometimes on this side of the pond, that you 

cannot explicitly speak about anti-Semitism in the OSCE. And we 

did—we pressed for it—and the sky didn’t fall. Governments didn’t 

walk away from the institution. 

And I think there are a lot of countries who said it couldn’t be 

done, and they themselves are talking about it, and talking about 

it in pretty forthright ways. And so I think it’s a model. And we’ve 

had conversations, looking at other IGOs, where they may be trying to hold a hearing and then it gets cancelled, or it’s not popular 

for some reason. 

I think it’s a slow building. And we do have to really cling to and 

sustain that focus in the OSCE. If we look away for a minute, it 

can erode. But I think it’s a model of just showing, yeah, we can 

talk about it. Now, you know, I mentioned one of these teaching 

tools is being translated into Turkish. That might have been something, in 2002, someone would have said would be a pipe dream. 

Mr. FUSFIELD. You know, one of the features of the OSCE known 

to all of us is that it’s a consensus-driven organization, and this is 

in some ways a virtue, and in some ways the bane of the organization, because it can be so difficult to generate momentum and to 

mark accomplishments. But this is always the context in which 

we’ve been dealing in the OSCE. 
45 

And again, I made this point several times, but it reinforces the 

importance of U.S. leadership within this environment. There has 

to be an engine. There has to be something driving forward 

progress. We have, as I said in my remarks earlier—we have the 

Berlin Declaration from 2004, and it’s a document that’s hard to 

improve on. The Berlin Declaration was actually a statement of the 

chair-in-office. 

It has never been incorporated into a ministerial declaration, 

which would be the highest—other than a summit statement, that 

would be the highest statement coming out of the OSCE. But were 

we to go that route, we would face a situation where some governments would want to dumb down what we already have, chip away 

at it. And that’s the last thing we would want to see happen. 

So we have to be protective of what we’ve already achieved—at 

the same time, fight very hard to go beyond that, not just accept 

this kind of stasis and status quo, and move the ball forward. And, 

you know, we’ve always encountered resistance up till now, and 

we’ll continue to. But we just have to keep pushing. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I briefly want to remind you of three 

instances over the history of the Helsinki Commission, and why— 

the importance of the Helsinki Commission, your message to your 

colleagues, has to be expanded, but also to the executive branch. 

Because there has always been tension between Congress and the 

executive branch, and it didn’t matter if it was a Republican or a 

Democratic administration. 

In 1977, Arthur Goldberg was the leader of the U.S. delegation 

of the first review conference, when it was the CSCE. And he had 

to fight, and if it wasn’t for Dante Fascell and Robert Dole and 

Spencer Oliver insisting that names be named, the American delegation wasn’t going to lead that effort. But through Goldberg and 

Fascell and others, names were named. In 1980, Max Kampelman 

was the leader of the U.S. delegation, and the same thing—going 

through from 1980 to 1981, there was a reluctance to name names. 

But it happened, and it happened because of what started at this 

Commission and spread to members of Congress. In 1991, the word 

anti-Semitism never appeared in any OSCE or CSCE document. So 

it took 16 years. And why did the word anti-Semitism finally appear in the document? Well, I’d like to think, partly because my 

chairman at the time, Shoshana Cardin, was a public member to 

the U.S. delegation. 

But it was the U.S. delegation, and there was turmoil within the 

U.S. delegation even to push for that. And look how far we’ve come 

from 1991 to today. It doesn’t mean that the challenges aren’t still 

there. But what is required is the commitment, the ongoing commitment, of the United States Congress to ensure that when our 

government is represented at international conferences, that the 

right message is put forward. 

And that can only happen when there is a bipartisan message 

coming from Congress. And I think my colleague Eric mentioned it 

already, but it needs to be reinforced: Human rights are a bipartisan effort. And the success that we’ve enjoyed, as well as trying 

to meet ongoing challenges, will only continue if the bipartisanship 

on this issue continues. 
46 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Dr. Samuels. 

Dr. SAMUELS. Question to you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if 

anyone in Congress has recognized the fact that in the new government of Greece, which emerged out of what some thought was a 

Greek spring—as a hope for the economy of Greece—the minister 

for development and the minister for transport are representatives 

of not a neo-fascist, but a neo-Nazi party called LAOS, which has, 

through its leader, Plevris, has made pronouncements that are horrific—not only in denying the Holocaust, but speaking of the Jews 

in medieval ways. 

I wouldn’t be surprised if no one in this Congress had noticed 

that. But certainly, in Europe, in the European Parliament, nobody 

is prepared to pronounce on that. And that is even more worrying. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for that admonishment. We need to speak 

out. One final question—I have many, but we’ll submit them for 

the record—Dr. Samuels, you mentioned Berlin II. Eric, you talked 

about implementation, and I think you rightly suggested that we 

be careful about what is reopened, because there will be an attempt 

to water down and weaken. But the implementation process, idea 

of a Berlin II, I think, as a minimal effort—is that something that 

all of you would agree with? 

Should we as a Commission make that recommendation to the 

administration and to other delegations—use our parliamentary assembly as a conduit to recommend that there be a full-scale effort 

to—because it seems to me that if there’s not something we’re 

shooting for, we lose our focus. 

But when there’s a conference and there’s accountability—at 

least, hopefully, some—it does add a measure of foreign ministers 

saying, what are we doing on anti-Semitism? And then that echoing throughout the chain of command to really be doing something. 

And that happens in our own State Department. 

Next week, I’m reintroducing the Global Online Freedom Act, a 

much-changed and much-improved bill. But in this room, in 2006, 

when I had a hearing with Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, and Cisco, 

and had a draft that we circulated and shared with the State Department that included an office to combat global online freedom 

issues, they came and announced—not the—an equivalent of an office, which took the wind out of the sails of the bill right away. But 

it was fine. 

In other words, having to give an account led to some real movement where there had been none before. So I think a Berlin II, or 

a Vienna II, or a Cordoba—but certainly, Berlin would be—that 

was, I thought, the watershed meeting. Would all of you agree with 

that? And could you make, in addition to your many excellent recommendations proffered here, give us something that would show 

real solidarity for that initiative? Eric? 

Mr. FUSFIELD. Well, I’ll start by expressing my immediate support for the idea. I think it’s an excellent idea. I would love for the 

Commission to take this issue up. We had, at one point, in the 

OSCE, a kind of unwritten understanding that there would be 

high-level conferences at regular intervals. And at some point, the 

intervals became less regular, and the conferences became less 

high-level. 
47 

But this is the perfect opportunity. I identified—the three conferences that took place in ’03, ’04, ’05, and there could be a second 

installment of each of the three—but Berlin being the most important of the three. And if ever there were an occasion for a review 

conference, an opportunity to really hold member states accountable for their commitments—and we have the blueprint—it’s the 

Berlin Declaration. 

But as with all of these OSCE gatherings, it won’t happen unless 

there is a driving force behind the idea, a host who’s willing to 

come forth and organize the thing. And in the case of a Berlin II 

conference, it might be the German government, but Berlin does 

not necessarily have to be the venue for Berlin II, but that remains 

to be decided. But it definitely needs support, and the idea should 

be circulated as broadly as possible. So thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Stacy? 

Ms. BURDETT. I think it would be important for us to work together in moving forward a proposal, like we did before Vienna, because a high-level conference can signal momentum, as it has in 

Berlin. And if we do the legwork properly, it could. And if there’s 

not enough buy-in at the ministers’ level, or by a country—a group 

of countries—it can also signal flagging support. So I think it’s important to do some planning and legwork in thinking about it together. I’d be glad to do that with you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. LEVIN. The issue hasn’t gone away. And we heard that only 

three countries submitted any documentation in the last go-around. 

Now is the time to reconvene. And I don’t think the place is less 

important than the purpose. And if there’s a way to send that message beginning next week, then it should be done. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Dr. SAMUELS. Berlin in Dublin may not reflect Irish neutrality in 

World War II, but I think it would be a wonderful place to hold 

it. And I think it should be held as soon as possible, and not wait 

for the 10th anniversary of Berlin. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Anything else any of our distinguished 

witnesses would like to add? If not, thank you for your leadership, 

your moral courage, and for your patience as we went through all 

those votes on the floor today. The hearing’s adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 
50 

PREPARED STATEMENTS

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

Welcome and thanks to our witnesses, and to everyone, for joining us this morning. 

Almost a decade ago, in May 2002, I chaired a Helsinki Commission hearing focused on the horrifying spike in anti-Semitism making itself throughout much of the 

OSCE region. Many of our witnesses today testified at that hearing, which put the 

issue of combating anti-Semitism on the top of the OSCE’s agenda, resulting in 

OSCE commitments on fighting anti-Semitism—and a series of high-level annual 

conferences on combating anti-Semitism—and even led to the creation of a global 

network of parliamentarians united against anti-Semitism, the Interparliamentary 

Coalition Combating Anti-Semitism, of which I am on the steering committee. 

A lot of good has come out of this—it’s worth recalling some of the things we’ve 

done. Since that 2002 hearing, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has annually 

passed declarations addressing anti-Semitism and calling for concrete measures by 

all participating States and the OSCE. At the seminal High-Level Conference in 

Berlin in 2004, leaders from throughout the OSCE region met to focus specifically 

on combating anti-Semitism, leading the participating States to commit, at the Sofia 

Ministerial later that year, to collect and report hate crimes data. 

In that same year a Tolerance Unit with a focus on anti-Semitism was established 

within the OSCE’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights or ODIHR 

and the OSCE appointed a Personal Representative on Combating Anti-Semitism. 

I am very pleased that Rabbi Andrew Baker, a critical force in the development of 

the Berlin conference and creation of this position, now fills this position and is able 

to join us today. Rabbi Baker, I was also very happy to have participated, at your 

invitation, in the OSCE meeting on anti-Semitism in public discourse, which you organized last March. 

The OSCE is now equipped with a toolbox to combat anti-Semitism, ranging from 

more than a dozen publications focused on addressing anti-Semitic hate crimes, Holocaust remembrance, and now has a new Training Against Hate Crimes for Law 

Enforcement program to assist participating States in their efforts. The Anti-Defamation League and other NGOs that fight to ensure that the human rights and dignity of Jews will always and everywhere be fully respected—they have been integral 

to this work. While the OSCE has the potential to contribute mightily to this fight, 

it is only truly effective when it works with these vital human rights defenders. 

Efforts in the U.S. Congress and other parliaments have complemented this work 

over the years. The Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism, 

which held its most recent major international conference in Ottawa last fall, has 

been a crucial forum for parliamentarians to work across national boundaries to address the common problem of anti-Semitism. 

In our own Congress, other members and I have worked to fight anti-Semitism 

through this Commission as well as the Congressional Anti-Semitism Taskforce, 

which I co-chair. It was a 2004 amendment of mine that created the State Department’s Office to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism and the Special Envoy on AntiSemitism—of course we are very pleased to have the current Special Envoy, Hannah 

Rosenthal, with us here today. Ms. Rosenthal is doing an excellent job—I got to 

know her last year in Ottawa—and of course her presence is a reminder of our government’s commitment to the fight against anti-Semitism. 

Yet our work is far from done. Despite the efforts of many good people, mostly 

in courageous NGOs but also in our government and a few other governments—despite the conferences, commitments, laws, training, monitoring—the measure of our 

success is what happens on the ground. By most accounts, the despicable evil of 

anti-Semitism has decreased in most parts of the OSCE region in recent years—but 

it still remains at higher levels than in 2000. This is simply unacceptable, and it’s 

why we’re here today. 

I’d like to close with a word on the Combating Anti-Semitism Act of 2010, legislation I introduced last fall, and which was taken as a model by the Ottawa conference of the ICCA. The purpose of that bill was to strengthen the State Department’s—and Ms. Rosenthal’s—efforts to combat global anti-Semitism. Today it is 

with the goal of introducing a new version of this bill, that I seek everyone’s advice 

on two questions: what is the nature of the anti-Semitic danger today; and how do 

you think our government can more effectively lead the fight against this scourge? 
51 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for convening this hearing on an issue of longstanding importance to me personally and to this Commission. 

Just over 20 years ago, I had the opportunity to attend the 1989 Copenhagen Conference on the Human Dimension as part of a Helsinki Commission Congressional 

delegation. 

Until that meeting, every effort to refer explicitly to the problem of anti-Semitism 

in an international document had been blocked by the Soviet Union. In Copenhagen, 

with the U.S. Delegation under the able leadership of Ambassador Max 

Kampelman, that finally changed. I feel privileged to have witnessed that historic 

meeting that produced an international agreement that broke new ground in 

so many areas and included an explicit condemnation of anti-Semitism. 

But as Ambassador Kampelman observed at a subsequent Helsinki Commission 

hearing, ‘‘having accomplished the words in Copenhagen [we now have to see] how 

those words are being implemented.’’ 

That is exactly what today’s hearing should do. 

With this in mind, I want to flag an issue that has been of particular concern to 

me and one that I hope our witnesses may be able to address: the continuing 

strength of extremist parties and movements. In a number of European parliamentary systems, these extremist parties (which often combine anti-Semitism 

with other forms of bigotry) can find themselves, by default, kingmakers. 

To be clear, the threat from these groups is not just because of the rhetoric they 

espouse, but because extremist views have a tendency to bleed over into the mainstream. In Hungary, for example, more than 16 percent of the voters in the last 

elections cast their votes for a noxious extremist party, Jobbik—either as an intentional sign of support for its anti-Semitic platform or without regard for it. Following the elections, Peter Feldmajer, president of the Hungarian Jewish community, warned ‘‘Today is a very dark time for modern Hungary . . . It is a very dangerous direction not just for Hungarian Jews, but for Hungarian democracy.’’ 

In the context of Jobbik’s electoral success, I take particular note of the facts that 

1) President Pal Schmitt quoted from convicted war criminal Albert Wass in his 

August 2010 inaugural address. 

2) The Budapest City Council cut by one third the funds it provided for the annual Holocaust memorial event ‘‘March for Life’’ after Jobbik objected to the 

event. 

3) The new constitution adopted in April disavows Hungarian responsibility for 

war-time atrocities committed after March 19, 1944 (the date of the German occupation), without regard for Hungarian complicity in the deportation of half a 

million Hungarian Jews, and 

4) Some Hungarian officials have asserted that the 1920 Treaty of Trianon was 

worse than the Holocaust, thereby trivializing the genocide, war crimes, and 

crimes against humanity of World War II. 

The ascension of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) to power purportedly following 

an agreement to pass anti-Muslim laws that ultimately led to Dutch efforts to ban 

the ritual slaughter of animals, impacting kosher practices, is yet another example 

of how extremist parties have hurt not only Jewish communities but also worked 

to undermine basic OSCE human rights and democratic principles. There are also 

many other examples of this phenomenon in the region. 

I commend the OSCE participating States for using the OSCE as a tool in the 

effort to combat anti-Semitism. There is much that the OSCE has to contribute in 

this regard. But the offices and institutions of the OSCE need to push on an open 

door. It is one thing to provide training for a country that genuinely seeks expertise 

and reform, but where a country lacks the political will to address these issues at 

the national level, then we have a different sort of challenge in front of us. 

Finally, I feel I would be remiss here if I did not make a few observations in connection with the High Level Conference on Tolerance the OSCE convened last year 

in Astana, under the Kazakhstani Chairmanship. We often speak of the critical role 

of civil society and I think the partnership with NGOs in this particular field has 

been exemplary. 

Thank you. 
52 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HANNAH ROSENTHAL

Chairman Smith, Co-chairman Cardin, Commissioners—thank you for the invitation to testify before you today. Since its founding in 1976, the U.S. Helsinki Commission has dedicated itself to addressing human rights issues, including anti-Semitism. And for the past three decades, Chairman Smith has provided unparalleled 

leadership in his efforts to combat anti-Semitism and promote human rights. As the 

Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat anti-Semitism, I am honored to present my 

findings on anti-Semitism in Europe. 

The Obama Administration is unwavering in its commitment to combat hate and 

promote tolerance in our world. The President began his Administration speaking 

out against intolerance as a global ill. In his historic speech in Cairo, he signaled 

a new path that embraces a vision of a world based on mutual interests and mutual 

respect; a world that honors the dignity of all human beings. He then went to Buchenwald concentration camp to remind the world of the horrors of the Holocaust 

and the ultimate lesson that the Holocaust represents the possible. 

President Obama and Secretary Clinton have honored me with this appointment, 

and have elevated my office and fully integrated it into the State Department. 

We are attempting—through traditional diplomacy, public diplomacy and grassroots programs all over the world—to confront and combat hatred in all its ugly 

forms, whether it is directed against people on account of their religion, ethnicity, 

race, sexual orientation or differences of political opinion or due to their country of 

origin. Anti-Semitism is one such form of hatred rooted in historical forces that go 

far beyond any current policy debate. If we want to change this trend, we need to 

stand together in our efforts to promote tolerance, acceptance and compassion. 

As a child of a Holocaust survivor, anti-Semitism is something very personal to 

me. My father was arrested—on Kristallnacht, the unofficial pogrom that many 

think started the Holocaust—and sent with many of his congregants to prison and 

then to Buchenwald. He was the lucky one—every other person in his family perished at Auschwitz. I have dedicated my life to eradicating anti-Semitism and intolerance with a sense of urgency and passion that only my father could give me. 

Since the murder of six million Jews in Europe, we have made some great strides 

as the countries of Europe have come together to denounce new and old forms of 

anti-Semitism and forcefully state in unison, ‘‘Never Again.’’ But we have also seen 

many setbacks within these very same countries that issued these statements and 

bore witness to the Holocaust seventy years ago. Over the past two years, my staff 

and I have diligently reported on anti-Semitic incidents throughout Europe, following and tracking developments in new and old cases. We have classified these 

incidents into six trends, which provide a comprehensive framework from which we 

can analyze anti-Semitism in Europe. 

First of all, anti-Semitism is not History, it is News. I run into people who think 

anti-Semitism ended when Hitler killed himself. More than six decades after the 

end of the Second World War, anti-Semitism is still alive and well, and evolving into 

new, contemporary forms of religious hatred, racism, and political, social and cultural bigotry. According to reports done by the governments of Norway, Germany, 

Italy, and the United Kingdom there is a disturbing increase in anti-Semitism. 

This stems from the fact that traditional forms of anti-Semitism are passed from 

one generation to the next, and sometimes updated to reflect current events. We are 

all familiar with hostile acts such as the defacing of property and the desecration 

of cemeteries with anti-Semitic graffiti. Since June, we have seen desecrations to 

Holocaust memorials, synagogues, and Jewish cemeteries in Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Lithuania, and Poland. The Holocaust memorial in Thessaloniki, Greece, 

was vandalized with a swastika and a statement denying the Holocaust on the day 

the City was to honor the 30 Holocaust survivors still living Thessaloniki. Swastikas 

and slogans such as ‘‘Hitler was right’’ were spray painted on the Holocaust memorial for the Ponary massacres in Lithuania; ‘‘they were flammable,’’ defaced the 

monument to the victims of the Jedwabne Pogrom in Poland during World War II. 

Although both governments immediately condemned the attack, the harm was already done. There are still some accusations of blood libel, which are morphing from 

the centuries-old accusations by the Catholic Church that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood for rituals, to accusations that Jews kidnap children to steal 

their organs. 

Conspiracy theories continue to have traction with some groups, such as supposed 

Jewish control of the U.S. media and the world banking system, or that Jews were 

involved in executing the September 11 attacks. In July 2010, Vladimir 

Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party of Russia held a roundtable in the Duma 

‘‘On the Question of Recognizing the Genocide of the Russian People’’ which produced a declaration blaming the ‘‘international Zionist financial mafia for genocide 
53 

against the Russian people.’’ The old Czarist forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of 

Zion, can be found in parts of the OSCE region. In October 2011, the Simon 

Wiesenthal Center in Europe identified approximately 20 anti-Semitic texts on display at the prestigious 2011 Frankfurt Book Fair. The ‘‘old fashioned’’ anti-Semitism 

is alive and well. 

Physical violence is also a problem. Just last week in Belgium a 13-year old girl 

was beaten by a group of girls shouting: ‘‘Shut up, you dirty Jew, and return to your 

country.’’ Instances like this are not isolated to Belgium. We praise the Belgium government for addressing this specific instance and, more so, for being proactive. As 

we speak, there is a conference going on in Brussels addressing ways to fight antiSemitism. 

A second trend is Holocaust denial. It is being espoused by religious and political 

leaders, and is a standard on hateful websites and other media outlets. In August 

2010, British Holocaust denier David Irving went on Iranian TV and declared that 

he thinks that Jews ‘‘have overplayed their hand. They’ve over-used the Holocaust 

and this in turn, has tarnished the Zionist cause.’’ Catholic Bishop Richard 

Williamson is another well known Holocaust denier and anti-Semite. Last year he 

was convicted of Holocaust denial in Germany, having claimed that Jews were not 

murdered in gas chambers and that only 300,000 European Jews were killed in all. 

Just recently, this Holocaust-denying bishop reportedly blamed the Jews for deicide. 

And Holocaust denial still plays a role in our diplomatic engagements with countries 

that are trying to come to terms with their moral responsibility to prosecute Nazi 

war criminals and denounce the past crimes of their citizens. As the generation of 

Holocaust survivors and death camp liberators reaches their eighties and nineties, 

the window is closing on those able to provide eyewitness accounts and thus we 

have a heightened sense of urgency to promote Holocaust education, create museums and memorials, and carry the memory and lessons of the Holocaust forward. 

That is why I sponsored a program at the State Department honoring Father Patrick Desbois, who has made it his life’s work to find, identify and honor almost 1000 

previously unknown mass graves of Jews and Roma murdered in Ukraine, Belarus 

and Poland. 

A third, disturbing trend is Holocaust glorification, which can be seen in parades 

honoring soldiers who fought in the Waffen SS, which glorify Nazism under the 

guise of fighting the Soviets and obscures their roles in the Holocaust. Following a 

March 2011 commemoration in Latvia, a notorious neo-Nazi made blatantly antiSemitic statements, including incitements to violence against Jews, on a television 

talk show. In Austria, Carinthian Freedom Party Councilor Gerry Leitmann resigned in May after his ‘‘Blood and Honour’’ tattoo, the motto of the Hitler Youth, 

was seen in public. And in the Netherlands in March, soccer fans in The Hague 

chanted, ‘‘Hamas, Hamas, all Jews be gassed,’’ during a soccer match. No less, in 

August, London Regional Secretary Chris Hurst was expelled from the far-right 

British National Party for shouting ‘‘sieg heil’’ and giving the right-arm salute at 

a far-right rally in Hungary. Satellite TV is also a concern, as it is an accessible 

means for the propagation of anti-Semitic views. Some Middle Eastern satellite 

channels integrate anti-Semitic rhetoric into programming that reaches into Europe. 

Such broadcasts can have a negative impact on European citizens and residents who 

are already predisposed to anti-Semitic beliefs. Truly bone-chilling. 

A fourth concern is Holocaust relativism—where some governments, museums, 

academic research and the like are conflating the Holocaust with other terrible 

events that entailed great human suffering, like the Dirty War or the Soviet regime. 

No one, least of all myself, wants to weigh atrocities against each other, but to 

group these horrific chapters of history together is not only historically inaccurate, 

but also misses opportunities to learn important lessons from each of these historic 

events, even as we reflect on universal truths about the need to defend human 

rights and combat hatred in all of its forms. 

Other examples of trivializing the Holocaust and the Nazis, are examples of overuse and misuse of comparisons, for example spiteful politicians have compared their 

opponents to Hitler: In August, London Mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone said 

that next year’s mayoral race, ‘‘[is] a simple choice between good and evil—I don’t 

think it’s been so clear since the great struggle between Churchill and Hitler.’’ And 

in September at a meeting of the EU’s finance ministers, Austrian Finance Minister 

Maria Fekter compared criticism of the banking industry to the Nazis’ persecution 

of Jews, a remark she later apologized for. History must be precise—it must instruct, it must warn, and it must inspire us to learn the particular and universal 

values as we prepare to mend this fractured world. 

The fifth trend is the blurring of the lines between opposition to the policies of 

the State of Israel and anti-Semitism. What I hear from our diplomatic missions, 

and from non-governmental organizations alike, is that this happens easily and 
54 

often. I want to be clear—legitimate criticism of policies of the State of Israel is not 

anti-Semitism. We do record huge increases in anti-Semitic acts whenever there are 

hostilities in the Middle East. This form of anti-Semitism is more difficult for many 

to identify. But if all Jews are held responsible for the decisions of the sovereign 

State of Israel, this is not objecting to a policy—this is hatred of the collective Jew 

or anti-Semitism. It is anti-Semitism when a right-wing group distributes posters 

depicting a doll with peyote, a yarmulke, wrapped in an Israeli flag, and with an 

arrow through its head-as we saw in Switzerland in June of this year. It is antiSemitism when posters say, ‘‘Committed every war crime in the book yet the world 

remains silent, death to Israel,’’ and ‘‘Israel, your days are numbered,’’ and ‘‘For 

world peace Israel must be destroyed,’’—as we saw during London’s Al Quds rally 

in August of this year. When individual Jews are effectively banned or their conferences boycotted, or are held responsible for Israeli policy—this is not objecting 

to a policy—this is aimed at the collective Jew and is anti-Semitism. 

Natan Sharansky identified three cases that he believes cross the line: It is antiSemitic when Israel is demonized, held to different standards or delegitimized. 

In June, the German Left Party issued a resolution which specifically excludes the 

3-Ds from the definition of anti-Semitism. While condemning traditional forms and 

manifestations, this resolution ignores the E.U.’s working definition of anti-Semitism, which includes hatred of Israel. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the University College Union recently passed a resolution claiming that the E.U.’s definition 

of anti-Semitism is used to prevent criticism of Israel. But demonization, 

delegitimization, and holding Israel to different standards is not mere criticism, it 

is, in my view, clearly anti-Semitism. 

The sixth trend is the growing nationalistic movements which target ‘‘the other’’— 

be they immigrants, or religious and ethnic minorities—in the name of protecting 

the identity and ‘‘purity’’ of nations. 

Extremist far-right parties have popular support throughout Europe. Far right 

groups have now entered parliaments in Austria, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Italy, 

the Netherlands, and Switzerland. These extremist parties run and gain popular 

support through anti-immigration and racist platforms. In Germany, experts are 

concerned about the influence of these far-right ideologies on youth. In Hungary, the 

country’s third largest party, Jobbik, mirrors the ideology of the Arrow Cross Party, 

which came to power at the end of World War II and collaborated with the Nazi 

regime in the Holocaust. And in Sweden, the extremist neo-Nazi ‘‘Swedes Party,’’ 

organized a camp this summer called ‘‘Nordic Vision’’ to attempt to spread its racist 

views. Although the neo-Nazi ‘‘Swedes Party’’ is not a member of parliament, their 

existence and assent is disturbing. 

When this fear or hatred of the ‘‘other’’ occurs or when people try to find a scapegoat for the instability around them, it is never good for the Jews, or for that matter, other traditionally discriminated against minorities. The history of Europe, with 

pogroms, Nazism, and ethnic cleansing, provides sufficient evidence. And when public figures talk about protecting a country’s purity, we’ve seen that movie before. 

We appreciate, and indeed praise, the good work of the OSCE in focusing on 

issues of tolerance generally, and anti-Semitism specifically. The OSCE has repeatedly provided an excellent forum for discussing issues of religious tolerance including in June 2010 in Kazakhstan, in February 2011 in Vienna where Farrah Pandith 

and I made a presentation, and in March 2011 where the OSCE specifically focused 

on anti-Semitism in the public discourse. 

The State Department monitors these trends and activities and reports on them 

in all 198 countries and territories—in two major annual reports: The International 

Religious Freedom Report and the Human Rights Report. I am now involved in developing a major training initiative for State Department employees so they can better monitor what is happening in their countries, and be sensitized to the various 

forms of anti-Semitism. This will make our annual reports more comprehensive, and 

allow us to do an even better job of monitoring and confronting anti-Semitism in 

all its forms. These reports tell us that many countries are pushing hard to advance 

human rights and fight discrimination. It also tells us that there is so much more 

work to do. If we do not chronicle it, if we do not name it, we cannot fight it. 

Of course, it is not enough to study and monitor these deeply troubling trends. 

It is critical that we act to reverse them. 

My approach to combating anti-Semitism is not just to preach to the choir, so to 

speak, but to join in partnership with non-Jews in condemning it—government, civil 

society, international institutions, business leaders, labor unions, and media. 

Last summer, Secretary Clinton launched an initiative to strengthen civil society 

across the globe and she instructed all of us in the State Department and all our 

overseas posts to treat civil society organizations as strategic partners. Partnering 

with opinion leaders from civil society as well as government—and building bridges 
55 

among ethnic and religious groups—is the way to change a culture from fear and 

negative stereotyping to acceptance and understanding, from narrow mindedness to 

an embrace of diversity and pluralism, from hate to tolerance. 

Educating our young is a priority—they are the future; their values and opinions 

form at a very early age. 

No government should produce materials that are intolerant of members of any 

religious, racial, or ethnic group, or teach such intolerance as part of its educational 

curriculum. The Department of State continues to focus on this important issue. We 

sponsor teacher training on the Holocaust through the OSCE—focusing on its 

uniqueness and its universal lessons. 

The United States provides training to foreign law enforcement officials, which 

covers crimes against vulnerable groups, including Jews, because these issues are 

of great concern to the U.S. We use old and new technologies to communicate with 

the public about human rights, tolerance and democracy. We strongly support the 

freedom for all people to express their views, even distasteful ones, both offline and 

online—but we also work to promote tolerance and to eradicate ignorance. We are 

enhancing our cultural and educational exchanges to showcase our civil society organizations, and to learn from the successes of other countries in confronting and combating hate in all of its forms. 

I want to note two examples of efforts I am engaged in to encourage Jews and 

non-Jews to take action against anti-Semitism. 

To combat Holocaust denial, I went with eight leading imams—two of whom had 

been deniers—to Dachau and Auschwitz last summer. My goal was to have them 

issue a statement condemning Holocaust denial. 

When we arrived at Dachau, Germany’s first concentration camp, the imams were 

overcome with the pictures they saw and immediately went to the ground in prayer 

at the sculpture commemorating the six million Jews exterminated. At that moment, I knew I was watching history being made. All of the passers-by, tourists, and 

docents stopped in their tracks to witness the spontaneous prayer of these leading 

imams. And at Auschwitz, it was as overwhelming for them, and, for some, transformational. We were walking amidst ash and bone fragments from the 1.5 million 

Jews exterminated there—solely because of who they were. We were facing the fact 

that unfettered and unanswered hatred can indeed create an Auschwitz. The imams 

produced a statement strongly condemning Holocaust denial and all other forms of 

anti-Semitism. 

They are now urging colleagues and schools to join their statement. Some are 

planning to take their youth on the same trip, bear witness and bear the burden, 

to teach the destructive power of unanswered hatred, and the positive power that 

condemnation can have to stop hatred. 

At the February OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, my colleague Farah Pandith, the 

Special Representative to Muslim Communities, and I launched a virtual campaign 

called 2011 Hours Against Hate, using Facebook. We are asking young people 

around the world to pledge a number of hours to volunteer to help or serve someone 

who may look different, or pray differently or live differently. For example, a young 

Jew might volunteer time to read books at a Muslim pre-school, or a Russian Orthodox at a Jewish clinic, or a Muslim at a Baha’i food pantry. We want to encourage 

them to walk a mile in another person’s shoes. And while our goal was to get 2011 

hours pledged, we have already had over 16,000 hours pledged. 

Farah and I began meeting with hundreds of young people earlier this year—students and young professionals—in Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Spain—countries that in 

their histories celebrated Jews and Muslims co-existing and thriving together. They 

expressed strong interest in the campaign—and we have already surpassed our goal 

of 2011 hours pledged against hate. More recently, Farah and I met with youth and 

interfaith leaders in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Lebanon, discussing reaching out to 

others and increasing tolerance and understanding among different religious groups. 

In Malmo ̈, Sweden a group called Young Muslims Against anti-Semitism is touring 

schools to teach tolerance and combat anti-Semitism. Really, we have just begun. 

So while I fight anti-Semitism, I am also aware that hate is hate. Nothing justifies it—not economic instability and not international events. 

When history records this chapter I hope it will reflect our efforts to build a peaceful, fair, just, free world where people defend universal human rights and dignity. 

This is not a vision to be dismissed as naive idealism—it is a real goal that should 

never be far from our thoughts. 

Since the beginning of humankind, hate has been around, but since then too, good 

people of all faiths and backgrounds have striven to combat it. The Jewish tradition 

tells us that ‘‘you are not required to complete the task, but neither are you free 

to desist from it.’’ 
56 

Together, we must confront and combat the many forms of hatred in our world 

today. Where there is hatred born of ignorance, we must teach and inspire. Where 

there is hatred born of blindness, we must expose people to a larger world of ideas 

and reach out, especially to youth, so they can see beyond their immediate circumstances. Where there is hatred whipped up by irresponsible leaders, we must 

call them out and answer with our full strength—and make their message totally 

unacceptable to all people of conscience. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission for your efforts to do 

just that. Once more, I would like to thank you for the invitation to testify before 

you, and I look forward to our future collaboration. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Hannah Rosenthal was sworn in as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat AntiSemitism on November 23, 2009. Sparked by the work and experience of her father, 

a rabbi and Holocaust survivor, and her own experience studying to become a rabbi, 

Hannah Rosenthal has led a life marked by activism and a passion for social justice. 

Before joining the State Department, Ms. Rosenthal was Executive Director of the 

Chicago Foundation for Women, where she led one of the largest women’s funds in 

the world. Prior to that, she was Executive Director of the Jewish Council for Public 

Affairs for five years, where she worked on domestic and international policy for the 

organized Jewish community in North America. 

Ms. Rosenthal served as Midwest regional director of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services during the Clinton Administration. She was involved 

in community organizing, and the antiwar and civil rights movements in the 1960s. 

Ms. Rosenthal attended graduate school for rabbinical studies at Hebrew Union 

College in Jerusalem and Los Angeles, and holds a bachelor’s degree in religion from 

the University of Wisconsin. Ms. Rosenthal has two grown daughters who are busy 

mending the world with their mom. 
57 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER

Introduction 

At the outset, let me express my appreciation to the Chair of the Commission, 

Representative Chris Smith, and to the Co-Chair of the Commission, Senator Ben 

Cardin. Your long-standing attention to the problem of anti-Semitism has been unswerving and your leadership has been central to marshaling efforts to combat it 

both in the US and abroad. We thank you. 

A decade ago in the immediate aftermath of the ill-fated UN Conference in Durban, we sought effective means to alert the public to the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe, which included a dramatic increase in attacks on Jewish targets, 

frequently triggered by events in the Middle East. We also witnessed the beginnings 

of what would become a new problem of anti-Semitism in public discourse. 

And we turned to you. 

It was this Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe that pushed and 

prodded a reluctant diplomatic bureaucracy here in Washington to press the OSCE 

to take up the problem. And much to the surprise of some those skeptics, a first 

OSCE conference on anti-Semitism took place in Vienna in 2003, which led in turn 

to the seminal high level conference and declaration on anti-Semitism in Berlin in 

2004. It included a commitment by governments to monitor and collect data on antiSemitic and other hate crimes, to promote Holocaust education and effective legislation. It was followed by the establishment of a department on tolerance and nondiscrimination in ODIHR and further conferences and expert meetings including the 

March conference in Prague this year focused on anti-Semitism in public discourse. 

These efforts also included the appointment of a special envoy at the OSCE, a 

Personal Representative of the Chair-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, a position which I now hold. 

My message to you today is a simple one: The problem remains and we still need 

your help. 

Anti-Semitism in Public Discourse 

The Prague Conference on anti-Semitism in public discourse was itself recognition 

of one of the most difficult current challenges we face. Opinion surveys in many European states reveal anti-Jewish sentiments are still held by significant numbers of 

the population. These percentages may fluctuate over time and are certainly not 

uniform from country to country. But the overall picture remains a distressing one, 

and it has direct and immediate consequences for Jewish communities. 

The Jewish population in OSCE participating states ranges from a high of two 

percent (in the United States) to fractions so small they barely register. And yet the 

presence of Jews is not the determining factor in the presence of anti-Semitism. For 

the most part popular attitudes toward Jews are not formed from personal encounters, which are rare, but rather from the images and rhetoric of public discourse— 

in mainstream media, in political debate and on the Internet. Conspiracy theories 

of Jewish world domination and economic prowess are no less evident today than 

they were a century ago. But a new phenomenon has been the identification of the 

State of Israel as a source for anti-Jewish prejudice. Frequently Jews and Israel are 

conflated, and those harboring antagonistic views of Israel ascribe the same attributes to Jews and local Jewish communities. The OSCE recognized this phenomenon in 2004, in its Berlin Declaration, which, ‘‘declare[d] unambiguously that 

international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere 

in the Middle East never justify anti-Semitism.’’ 

While governments still fall short in monitoring and reporting physical incidents 

of anti-Semitism, fewer still have any systematic process of monitoring and recording let alone responding to incidents on the Internet or in the media. Governments 

can and should do much more, and in the interim practical steps can be taken to 

help civil society groups develop the capacity to do their own monitoring. 

Because of constitutional protections, the United States especially recognizes that 

ways must be found to address this growing problem without constraining freedom 

of speech and the press. The laws in European states vary, with some countries having the ability to prosecute and punish hate speech. Such laws may serve to articulate an important societal value, but even this can be undercut when the prosecution is arbitrary or infrequent or when punishment is minimal or long-delayed. Participants in Prague stressed the importance of political and community leaders responding loudly and swiftly as a way of fostering a taboo culture when it comes to 

anti-Semitism. 
58 

Holocaust Education 

Holocaust education has long been identified as an important contribution to combating anti-Semitism, and it is among the commitments that Participating States 

made at the OSCE Berlin Conference in 2004. We should bear in mind that even 

where the subject is included in the secondary school curriculum, that still may 

mean only a day or less over the course of the school year. There are also special 

challenges when teaching the subject. Some students from immigrant Arab and 

Muslim communities have voiced resentment or sought to bring the Middle East 

conflict into the discussion, which draws attention away from the subject itself and 

subverts its intention. Some governments have recognized this problem and sought 

ways to address it. One notable example is a project in the Netherlands that teams 

young Jewish and Arab peer teachers to present the subject in public school classrooms with a particular focus on vocational school students. In Germany the House 

of the Wansee Conference has developed special teaching materials aimed at students of Turkish descent. 

There are increasing calls to apply a ‘‘human rights focus’’ to Holocaust education, 

which in the process of drawing universal lessons may lose sight of the important 

particular one: This is where prejudice against Jews can lead. Recent efforts in some 

Eastern European countries to focus attention on the legacy of Communist oppression and to seek support for education and remembrance efforts have also caused 

confusion. Although a worthy endeavor in its own right, some proponents draw false 

equivalencies to the Holocaust. 

Muslim-Jewish Relations 

When the European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) conducted its survey on antiSemitism in European Union countries in 2004, it learned that a new and growing 

source of anti-Semitic incidents could be traced to Arab and Muslim communities. 

This remains a matter of concern and is still reflected in the available data. In some 

cities or in some neighborhoods visibly identifiable Jews—i.e., those in Orthodox 

garb or wearing Jewish symbols—may be fearful of physical or verbal attack when 

they are on the streets. Enhanced security measures and more rapid and serious 

responses to complaints provide some relief to these problems. Some communities 

have helped foster Muslim-Jewish dialogues and cooperative projects. Although the 

actual numbers of individuals who participate in such activities may be small, they 

are symbolically important, and positive media coverage can help amplify their 

reach. 

More and more countries are developing educational programs to promote tolerance and combat racism and xenophobia. By and large such efforts are commendable and reflect the goals established by the OSCE and ODIHR. But in conversations with European Jewish leaders there are also some warnings. Such general programs do not necessarily address the problems of anti-Semitism stemming from individuals who themselves may also be the victims of racism. 

Demonization of Israel 

It has become almost commonplace to find mainstream media coverage of the 

Middle East conflict particularly in Western Europe demonizing the State of Israel. 

It is manifest in news, in cartoons and in commentary. Some observers have described this as a new form of anti-Semitism, but it also contributes to prejudice 

against Jews who are seen as Israel’s friends, supporters or surrogates. We also see 

that the term ‘‘Zionist’’ is increasingly used in a pejorative way and frequently substitutes for ‘‘Jew’’ in written or oral discourse. This may at first appear to be accidental or just reflecting the growing tendency of conflating Jews and Israel in public 

rhetoric, while demeaning an honorable movement. But there may be more to it. 

French law, for example, has legal provisions for prosecuting certain hate speech directed at particular nationalities or ethnic groups. Thus, a verbal attack on ‘‘Jews’’ 

or a call to boycott ‘‘Israelis’’ could land someone in jail, but not so if the targets 

are ‘‘Zionists’’ which makes finding a solution to such changes in terminology particularly important.In 2005 the EUMC adopted a ‘‘working definition’’ of anti-Semitism, which offered examples of how anti-Semitism can manifest itself with regard 

to the State of Israel. It was endorsed by Parliamentary Conferences in London and 

Ottawa. The State Department Special Envoy has adopted it for her work and analysis. I share it and recommend its use when I travel in my OSCE capacity. But it 

still meets with some opposition including from the EUMC successor agency, and 

thus bears repeating wherever possible. 

Security 

Despite their small numbers, European Jewish communities have shouldered an 

outsized burden in providing security for their members and their institutions. From 
59 

the 1970s some have been—and remain—the targets of international terrorism. The 

corrosive impact of increased anti-Semitic rhetoric in more recent years has meant 

that synagogues, religious schools, community centers and cemeteries face physical 

attacks ranging from graffiti to arson. Community leaders in turn must decide how 

much of their limited resources can be diverted from educational and religious needs 

to provide for their own protection. At its essence it restricts the Jewish community’s ability to exercise the full freedom of religious practice, a bedrock principle 

of the OSCE. 

Governments approach this problem differently. Some have accepted the responsibility to assist, while others have not. During my country visit to Sweden in 2010 

this problem was identified as a priority issue by the Jewish Community of Stockholm which was spending a quarter of its overall budget on security. In recent 

months the Swedish government has come forward with financial grants to assist 

the Jewish community to meet these security needs. It should be commended for 

this action, and I hope it will serve as a model for other states to follow. 

The Banning of Ritual Slaughter 

A growing number of countries have adopted laws which require the stunning of 

animals before they are slaughtered, thus effectively banning ritual (kosher) slaughter. 

Jewish communities have adapted by importing kosher meat. But discussions of 

this topic during OSCE visits this year to the Netherlands (where a law is pending) 

and in Switzerland (where a ban was imposed over a century ago) reveal a more 

troubling situation. The Dutch legislation is spearheaded by animal rights advocates 

and has received support from nationalist MPs who may believe—mistakenly as it 

turns out—that this law would also prohibit halal meat. Meanwhile, Dutch Jewish 

leaders are cautious in marshaling arguments in opposition. They are reluctant to 

assert the basic principles of religious freedom, which they believe would not have 

popular appeal. Instead they look to expert testimony that maintains there is no 

conclusive scientific evidence proving one method is more humane than the other. 

In Switzerland even government officials acknowledge that their law banning kosher slaughter, coming as it did in the wake of the Dreyfus trial in the 1890s, was 

anti-Semitic by intent. They say it is likely that an appeal to Swiss courts to overturn the law as a violation of religious freedom would succeed. But successive Jewish community leaders have decided not to do so. They long ago accommodated 

themselves to the ban with imported meat from France and believe that challenging 

it could generate an anti-Semitic backlash. Better then, to keep a low profile. This 

is understandable, but surely an outdated prescription for averting anti-Semitism. 

Role of the OSCE and the Helsinki Commission 

When the OSCE Permanent Council agreed to support a conference on anti-Semitism in June 2003, I am sure that some members imagined that this would be one 

event, one time and then attention could turn elsewhere. We remember how international declarations would frequently condemn a long litany of evils—‘‘racism, xenophobia, prejudice, intolerance, racial discrimination, etc., etc.’’—without ever actually uttering the word ‘‘anti-Semitism.’’ (It led one friend, a long-time senior staff 

member at the Council of Europe and a child survivor of the Holocaust to quip, 

‘‘Anti-Semitism is always left to the ‘et ceteras.’ ’’) 

There has been significant progress in focusing the OSCE to address the problem 

of anti-Semitism and in educating people to its unique manifestations and its stubborn persistence. Monitors have generally recorded a decline in anti-Semitic incidents since early 2009, but we are still far, far higher than the baselines of previous 

years. We also know that turmoil in the Middle East could again trigger a new wave 

of incidents. And it is still far from clear what repercussions there might be if Europe’s economic crisis still worsens. 

The U.S. and the Helsinki Commission have been the primary driving force to 

keep the OSCE focused on the problem of anti-Semitism, a necessary and constant 

reminder that it is still with us and that it can always again turn deadly. 

When Secretary of State Clinton and the U.S. Delegation take their seats at the 

OSCE Ministerial Meeting in Vilnius next week, I very much hope they will include 

this message in their remarks. 

Ambassador Stephan Minikes 

In closing let me also pay respects to Ambassador Steve Minikes who died earlier 

this autumn. He was the U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE during the critical period 

when we witnessed the resurgence in anti-Semitism in 2002. It was in significant 

measure due to his personal efforts that there was that first conference on antiSemitism in 2003 and the following meetings in Berlin and Cordova, along with the 

various other measures that were adopted. Those of you here who worked with him 
60 

knew of his dedication. I still vividly recall one evening at his residence in Vienna 

early on in this process when he showed me a postcard sent to him by his grandmother sixty years ago. It was a brief note written in pencil telling her grandson 

that everything was fine. But the postmark belied the message. It was sent from 

Therezienstadt, and only a short time afterward she was deported to Auschwitz. I 

understood then why this effort was personal and not just one concern among many 

in an ambassador’s portfolio. We have all benefited as a result, and he will be 

missed. 

Rabbi Andrew Baker is Director of International Jewish Affairs for the American 

Jewish Committee. He has been a prominent figure in international efforts to combat 

anti-Semitism. In January 2009 he was first appointed the Personal Representative 

of the OSCE Chair-in-Office on Combating Anti-Semitism, and he was reappointed 

in 2010 and 2011. 

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 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. In 2006 the President of Lithuania presented him with the Officer’s Cross of Merit for his work. 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 the 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. 

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. 
61 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. SHIMON SAMUELS

Mr. Chairman, 

I opened the European office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Paris, in 1988, 

to focus on three challenges: 

1) In Western Europe, the second religion demographically was already Islam— 

inter-faith outreach was necessary—as was the monitoring of incipient extremism. 

2) tremors in Eastern Europe, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, signalled a neonationalism redolent of past phantoms—monitoring was required. 

3) flea markets across Europe sold under the counter floppy disks of neo-Nazi 

games (for Amiga and Commodore 64 proto-computers)—hate would advance exponentially with that technology and had to be monitored. 

By the Millennium, the year 2000: our first focus was now characterized by the 

Durban process, which in turn inspired a Jihadist antisemitism-terrorism nexus, 

with Middle East satellite television and website inculcation and recruitment in Europe. 

The second focus was marked by the EU enlargement. In April 2004, a Warsaw 

welcome party focussed on the challenges facing the East European new members. 

I was invited to speak on antisemitism in the West and scapegoating in the East, 

the latter as a result of painful withdrawal from the central Soviet to the capitalist 

market economy. That same month, the OSCE Berlin Declaration on Antisemitism 

was enunciated, setting a new threshold of standards for the region. 

I addressed the States Parties, noting that ‘‘You are the same nations we meet 

at Geneva in the UN Human Rights Commission (now Council). Yet, here, at the 

OSCE, the language is different, perhaps due to the absence of the tyrannies and 

NGO’s whose vested agenda is to perpetuate the Middle East conflict’’. 

I viewed the OSCE as the answer to the stultification of the UN system, even 

today exemplified only last week by the appointment of Syria to a human rights role 

in UNESCO. 

What forms of antisemitism did the Berlin Declaration not foresee? 

That which, at the 2010 Astana OSCE High-level Meeting, I called 

supercessionism. Just as the early Church first viewed itself as ‘‘Israel non in carne 

sed in spiritum’’ (not in the flesh but in the spirit), so today, we witness an identity 

theft of the Jewish narrative among several OSCE parties. 

In Eastern Europe, the Baltics and Ukraine—a seemingly innocent conflation is 

made between the Holocaust and the atrocities of Stalin. It’s political instrument, 

‘‘The Prague Declaration’’ seeks, through the European Parliament, to replace the 

27 January ‘‘Holocaust Commemoration Day’’ (Auschwitz liberation day) with a 

‘‘Double Genocide Day’’ on 23 August (which marks the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 

that resulted in the 1939–1941 Soviet occupation of the countries concerned). 

In Western Europe, the ongoing ‘‘Durban process’’ has redefined ‘‘Holocaust’’ as 

‘‘Naqba’’ (the 1948 catastrophe of Israel’s birth); antisemitism according to Teheran 

University, ‘‘until 1948 victimized the Jew. Due to the victory of Zionism, since 1948 

it targets the other Semite—the Arab. In Orwellian doublespeak, it concludes that 

‘if antisemitism is Arabophobia then Zionism is antisemitism’ ’’. 

Add into the mix the terms ‘‘apartheid’’ and BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanction), 

which are misappropriated from South African victimology to castigate the State of 

Israel 

The Norwegian Foreign Minister specialises in Holocaust imagery to depict the 

Palestinian predicament. He does not appreciate the dangererous consequences of 

his allusions for, if Gaza is Auschwitz, then Auschwitz is but a lie. 

The antisemitic backlash in Europe to this historical gangrene, or gangreening of 

history, is to be exacerbated further via the World Heritage Committee of UNESCO. 

In that context, supercessionism aims to cut the Jewish link to the Holy Land. 

The Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel’s Tomb have been rebaptised as mosques. 

Now, laid out in the volume ‘‘Buraq Wall’’—which I purchased at the Frankfurt 

Book Fair—Islam contends that Buraq, the winged-steed, carried Muhammad from 

Mecca, via Jerusalem, on a night flight pilgrimage to heaven and back. The mount 

was tethered during the stopover at the Wailing or Western Wall of the Temple 

Mount. Hence, ‘‘The Buraq Wall’’ calls Judaism’s holiest site: ‘‘a Jewish heresy of 

aggression against a Muslim heritage shrine’’. 

Last week, ‘‘Travel Palestine’’ (a film clip found on YouTube), funded by the UN 

Development Programme (UNDP), expunges all Jewish roots in the Holy Land. 

Jews also have a trinity: the People, the Book, the Land. Eliminate one leg of the 

triangle, delete all. 
62 

Not perceived in the Berlin Declaration and even more dangerous, is the demonstration that ‘‘the enemy of the good is indifference’’—there we encounter a new 

phase of antisemitism— 

Ahmadinejad stated: ‘‘the Holocaust is a lie’’, and was answered by a wave of 

international condemnation. 

A little while later, he continued: ‘‘Wipe Israel off the Map’’, this passed with 

muted indignation. 

His repeated: ‘‘Jews are vermin, bacilli, a tumour’’ are met with fatigue. 

By a numbing-effect, he tests the limits of Western timidity. Voila, the ‘‘antisemitism of indifference’’. 

This week, 5,000 Tahrir Square demonstrators in Cairo, screeching ‘‘Death to the 

Jews’’, created no global expression of outrage. 

The bar has been raised on antisemitism. 

After eight assaults on the Rabbi of Malmo, Sweden—a community of 700 Jews 

and 70,000 Muslims—the Wiesenthal Centre during a visit in January 2011, imposed a ‘‘travel advisory’’ on the city. Our campaign resulted in the Swedish government finally subsidizing community security. Faced with the Mayor’s total indifference, the Rabbi was further subject to 15 assaults since our visit. Indeed, the Muslim community has now joined us in criticizing Malmo’s inattentiveness to hatecrimes. 

Next month, January 20, we will mark the 70th anniversary of the Wannsee Protocol, which was drafted at a meeting of fifteen Nazi bureaucrats in Berlin, to coordinate the extermination of 11,000,000 Jews as the final solution of the Jewish 

question. I stress that the Protocol lists 11,000,000. 

Six million were murdered—Eleven million were the intent. 

I have always respected the power of water, 30 miles of British Channel saved 

my family and the 330,000 Jews of England on that list. 

Today, 30 miles of Channel are as defensible as 3,000 miles of Atlantic waters. 

Zero! We are all tripwires criss-crossing the OSCE region. 

Recently discovered documentation of Nazi Germany’s strategic designs on Persia’s oil wealth, includes a Wannsee-style memorandum of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust: Therein he consigns up to 100,000 Iranian Jews to extermination. The current President of Iran persists in his intentions to finish the job. 

Simon Wiesenthal said, ‘‘what starts with the Jews never ends with them’’. On 

the Venezuelan coast, Iran is building a Shahab-3 missile base with a range of 2,000 

miles facing these United States. 

Twice—in two World Wars—you have invoked the Monroe Doctrine to redress the 

balance of the Old World. Indeed, as we speak, under your inspiration, in Panama, 

the 28th General Assembly of the Latin American Parliament (PARLATINO) has 

adopted a Wiesenthal Centre drafted Resolution to Combat Antisemitism in the 

Americas: ‘‘Conspiracy Theories, Holocaust Denial and Delegitimization of the Jewish Sovereignty are Contributing Factors to Antisemitism.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, through this Commission, which I consider an early-warning system, we call on the US government to maintain that balance in the OSCE region. 

For if antisemitism is indeed a benchmark, then this session must be replayed at 

a purpose-built High-Level OSCE meeting under the forthcoming Irish Presidency, 

perhaps to be called, ‘‘Berlin II: Stocktaking and Counteracting Antisemitism in the 

OSCE Region’’. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Dr. Shimon Samuels was born in England. He came to Israel in 1963 and received 

a B.A. in Political Science and History from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, returning to England for his second degree, an M.Sc. (Econ.) in International Relations 

from the London School of Economics. He earned his doctorate in a combined program with the University of Pennsylvania and the Sorbonne, Paris, and then served 

as Deputy Director of the Leonard Davis Institute for International Relations at Hebrew University. Dr. Samuels then was appointed European Director of the Anti-Defamation League based in Paris, and later became Israel Director of the American 

Jewish Committee. He is the Director for International Liaison of the Simon 

Wiesenthal Center, based in Paris, and also serves as Honorary President of the 

Europe-Israel Forum. 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK B. LEVIN

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cardin, and Members of the Commission. 

My name is Mark Levin. I am the Executive Director of NCSJ: Advocates on behalf 

of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia. Since 1971, we have represented nearly 50 national Jewish organizations, including the Anti-Defamation 

League, B’nai B’rith International, Hadassah, and AIPAC, and hundreds of local 

Jewish community councils, committees, and Federations across the country, including a number partnering with the OSCE. 

Mr. Chairman, I welcome today’s hearing on combating anti-Semitism. NCSJ has 

worked closely on this important issue for 40 years with officials and organizations 

in the United States, Europe, and the former Soviet Union, including OSCE. 

This is a good time to reflect on progress made on this issue. Seven years have 

passed since the Second OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin condemned 

all acts motivated by anti-Semitism and required participating states to take specific and practical countermeasures. Since then, we have seen an uneven response 

in the area that we cover: the former Soviet Union. 

I would like to give a brief overview of current anti-Semitism across the former 

Soviet states. Official, state-sponsored anti-Semitism is virtually non-existent, but 

popular anti-Semitism, both non-violent and violent, appears to be on the rise, and 

official response across the region has been inconsistent. Much has been done by national governments, but more work remains. My remarks will focus on Russia, 

Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, and the Baltic states, traditional centers of Jewish life 

in the former USSR. 

I’ll start with Russia, home to the world’s fourth-largest Jewish community. Russians and Russian Jews share a long and complex history that includes both official 

and popular anti-Semitism. Since the last two mass emigrations in the 1970s and 

the 1990s, Jewish emigration from Russia has leveled off, and we have welcomed 

a renaissance of Jewish communities across Russia. The Russian Jewish community’s relationship with the current Russian government under both Putin and 

Medvedev has been generally good and often better than the historical norm. However, we remain concerned both by the rise of popular anti-Semitism in Russia and 

by the inconsistent official response to this movement. 

Anti-Semitism in Russia today is most often political and street-level, and increasingly features a rising number of attacks by young skinheads and nationalists. Incidents most often involve vandalism against and firebomb attacks on synagogues, 

cemeteries, and Jewish community centers, but have also included outright physical 

assaults on Jews and attempted bombings of Jewish buildings. 

More alarming is the fact that Russian human rights monitoring groups have reported a steady rise over the last ten years in the number of overall attacks by 

skinheads and extremists on minorities, migrant workers, and foreigners across 

Russia. Leading Russian human rights groups estimate that Russian far-right extremists now number in the tens of thousands, and warn that nationalist movements are gaining strength across Russia. A Russian nationalist riot took place in 

central Moscow next to the Kremlin itself just one year ago, on December 11, 2010, 

and massive and widespread Russian nationalist rallies on Hitler’s birthday on 

April 20th have become annual events. 

We are concerned by the strong potential for violence, including anti-Semitic violence, inherent in this movement, and urge the Russian government to strengthen 

its enforcement of existing commitments, including to the OSCE Charter, and to 

take stronger legal action against incitement of racial hatred and overt calls for violence. 

The Russian government has publicly denounced nationalist ideology and expressed support for legal action against anti-Semitic acts, but follow-through has 

been uneven. Some anti-Semitic attacks in recent years have in fact been successfully prosecuted as hate crimes, but many others continue to be dismissed as mere 

‘‘hooliganism’’ or random violence. NCSJ will continue to engage the Russian government on this issue, and will continue to press for expanded prosecution of hate 

crimes against Jews and other targeted minorities in Russia, for enactment of more 

effective hate crime and hate speech legislation by Russian authorities, and for expansion of training programs to give Russian law enforcement the know-how to confront violent extremists. 

I next turn to Ukraine, home to another vibrant Jewish community, the second 

largest in the former Soviet Union. Although popular anti-Semitism has persisted 

in recent years, the Ukrainian government has demonstrated a strong commitment 

to combating this trend, and has in fact achieved some successes. 

Anti-Semitic vandalism and other incidents occur regularly, and have included 

physical assaults on Ukrainian Jews and visiting Israelis with at least two known 
82 

fatalities, as well as firebomb attacks on and vandalism of synagogues and monuments, cemetery desecrations, and publication and distribution of anti-Semitic literature and leaflets. Inconsistent official response to many of these attacks showcases the reluctance of some local officials to prosecute racist and anti-Semitic 

crimes in Ukraine. Several prominent public figures, including Ukrainian parliamentarians and independent candidates for President, have also voiced anti-Semitic 

views in public venues in recent years. 

A positive step in Ukraine’s fight against anti-Semitism has been the 

marginalization of the Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, better 

known by its Ukrainian acronym, MAUP. This is Ukraine’s largest private university, with over 50,000 students and many campuses. Until recently, it was also one 

of the leading purveyors of anti-Semitic and xenophobic material in Ukraine, publishing a large volume of virulent anti-Semitic publications, and inviting white supremacist and former KKK leader David Duke to lecture at the university. Starting 

in 2006/2007, the Ukrainian government began to take concerted action against 

MAUP, in part due to the rising concern shown by the international community, including by NCSJ. I am happy to report that both MAUP’s influence and anti-Semitic 

output seem to have been halted in recent years, a clear victory for the Ukrainian 

government and for international human rights organizations. 

Similarly, the Ukrainian government in 2011 has moved to toughen punishments 

for anti-Semitic acts, and has stepped up security for the annual pilgrimage by 

thousands of Hassidic Jews to Jewish sites for the High Holidays. Earlier, during 

President Yushchenko’s administration, Ukraine’s Security Service created a Special 

Operative Unit on Fighting Xenophobia, and the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry created the office of Special Ambassador on Racism, Xenophobia, and Discrimination. 

Likewise, deputies in the Ukrainian parliament introduced bills designed to punish 

hate crimes and displays of racial and religious intolerance, although actual implementation of this legislation has been slow. We welcome these efforts by Ukrainian 

authorities to recognize and confront the problems of extremism and anti-Semitism, 

and continue to work with the current government to build on this foundation and 

make progress on these issues. 

I next turn to Moldova, home to an estimated 30,000 Jews, but once hosting a 

much larger community that has been significantly reduced by the Holocaust and, 

more recently, by high rates of emigration. As in Russia and Ukraine, Moldova’s 

Jewish community has been reborn in the last twenty years, with synagogues, 

schools, and community centers opening across the country. However, popular antiSemitism continues there today, despite the government’s condemnation of racial 

and religious intolerance. 

Jewish cemeteries and buildings have been vandalized, and Moldovan and Romanian nationalists regularly make anti-Semitic statements. Two years ago, in December 2009, a radical Orthodox priest led his congregants to tear down a menorah on 

public display in the capital city of Chisinau during Hanukkah, in a particularly 

egregious example of intolerance. He was later charged with a misdemeanor and 

was fined a small amount. 

The Moldovan government officially condemns anti-Semitism and has taken steps 

to combat it, including supporting Holocaust education in local schools and 

partnering with Jewish groups from Moldova and elsewhere in the former Soviet 

Union. NCSJ will continue working with the Moldovan government to craft a more 

systematic approach to combating anti-Semitism. 

Anti-Semitism is an especially complex issue in Belarus. Once at the center of 

Eastern European Jewry, the Belarusian Jewish community today numbers no more 

than 70,000. As in neighboring Ukraine and Russia, Belarusian Jews today have access to a wide range of religious, educational, and community resources and organizations. Belarus is also home to the only official Soviet-era Holocaust memorial in 

the former USSR, dedicated in 1946. 

Incidents of popular anti-Semitism, such as vandalism of synagogues and community buildings and cemetery and monument desecrations, have occurred. Openly 

anti-Semitic publications have also appeared in recent years, in local newspapers 

and in books published by local publishing houses affiliated with the Minsk Orthodox Diocese. 

Belarusian authorities have often shown themselves unresponsive to official complaints against anti-Semitic hate literature, and have inconsistently investigated or 

prosecuted perpetrators of anti-Semitic actions. 

President Lukashenko himself has made on the record antiSemitic comments in the recent past, and members of his administration have published openly anti-Semitic books and articles. However, relations between the 

Belarus Jewish community and the Belarusian government are generally stable despite evidence of periodic official involvement in popular anti-Semitism and official 
83 

support for policies insensitive toward Jews and other minorities. Since Belarus is 

a signatory to OSCE commitments, NCSJ will continue to engage the government 

in an attempt to promote a more positive official attitude towards religious and ethnic tolerance in that country. I note that instances of productive cooperation with 

local officials have been possible on the ground in Belarus in recent years, and we 

hope to build on these successes. 

Finally, I would like to address the situation with regard to anti-Semitism in the 

Baltic states. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are the most Westernized of the former 

Soviet states, and are to date the only post-Soviet countries accepted into NATO and 

the European Union. Despite this impressive achievement and despite the small 

size of their native Jewish communities—approximately 20,000 members in all three 

states—we have seen anti-Semitic episodes there as well. Especially in Latvia and 

Estonia, local nationalists and veterans of World War II-era Nazi-sponsored auxiliary units continue to generate anti-Semitic hate speech and stage annual marches 

with anti-Semitic and Nazi displays. The Prime Minister of Latvia stated last month 

that any member of his government attending these annual marches of Waffen SS 

veterans would be fired, which, while commendable, also highlights the persistence 

of these difficult World War II-era divisions in Baltic society. 

Perhaps most disturbing has been the shameful prosecution in recent years by 

Lithuanian authorities of several aged Jewish Holocaust survivors for their wartime 

anti-Nazi resistance activities as somehow anti-Lithuanian. Although it appears 

that prosecutors are no longer actively pursuing a case against these individuals, 

the instigation of their prosecution certainly sent a troubling signal. 

NCSJ and other leading Jewish organizations have maintained a steady, productive dialogue with Baltic officials on these issues of concern. We will continue to 

press for their resolution, and for the governments to address issues such as community restitution and Holocaust education. 

Mr. Chairman, the fight against anti-Semitism in the former Soviet Union today 

presents a complex picture, with both bright and dark spots, and requires a careful 

and calibrated approach. Unfortunately, anti-Semitic incidents continue across the 

region, and official response to these hate crimes is too often inconsistent. At the 

same time, all governments in the region officially oppose anti-Semitism, and local 

Jewish communities are in general far better organized, resourced, and internationally connected than at any time in the recent past. 

I would like to offer the following recommendations to all the governments in the 

former Soviet Union, in the spirit of the 2004 OSCE Berlin Declaration. All countries must: 

1) Strongly condemn hate: Incidents of anti-Semitism, political and religious leaders that polarize society, and media outlets which propagate intolerance, must be 

strongly condemned to send a clear message that incitement to and acts of ethnic, 

religious, and racial hatred will not be tolerated; 

2) Enact adequate hate crimes legislation: To create an environment in which 

Jews and other minorities can live without fear, the successor states must enact 

hate crime and hate speech legislation and enforce existing laws for all citizens, including elected officials; 

3) Train local law enforcement: To properly combat anti-Semitism and extremism, 

government must empower local police forces. Police must be able to delineate between ordinary hooliganism and a crime motivated by bias or hate. A well-trained 

police force will better follow through on hate crime enforcement and investigations, 

leading to an increase in prosecutions, data collections, and dealing more sensitively 

with victims; 

4) Monitor and catalogue incidents: Cataloguing and reporting anti-Semitic, 

xenophobic and bias-motivated activities enables prompt condemnation of such acts, 

increasing the chances that perpetrators will be apprehended swiftly. 

5) Implement region-wide programs on interethnic understanding and Holocaust 

education: This is the most effective way to combat the roots of popular or ‘‘street’’ 

anti-Semitism. Teaching children the values of tolerance and basic human rights 

from a very young age begins to stop the perpetuation of ignorance and negative 

stereotypes of Jews and other minorities. 

6) Reform the message of religious and media outlets throughout the region: Beyond the classroom and the government, the two other major sources of information 

in the FSU are the media and places of worship. Governments and non-governmental organizations need to work with leaders of these religious institutions and 

the editors of media outlets to ensure that they will spread a message of tolerance. 

NCSJ will keep engaging governments throughout this region strongly and persistently on these and other problematic areas in the human rights field. We will 
84 

continue to make our position known in the United States, in the former Soviet 

Union, and in international fora. 

NCSJ and our member organizations are working hard to support the ongoing revival of former Soviet Jewish communities, and we look forward to continuing to 

work with Congress and the OSCE on these vital issues. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity and for the good work of this organization. 

Mark B. Levin, Executive Director of NCSJ: Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, 

Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia since 1992, is one of the organized Jewish community’s leading experts on national and international political and legislative 

issues. Mr. Levin travels extensively throughout the former Soviet region on a frequent basis. 

In 2008, Mr. Levin received the Soviet Jewry Freedom Award from the Russian Jewish Community Foundation, and the Order of Merit medal from Ukraine President 

Viktor Yushchenko. In 2006, Mr. Levin was honored for 25 years of distinguished 

service with NCSJ. 

Mr. Levin has served three times as a Public Member of the U.S. Delegation to meetings of the Organization on Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and served 

as a Public Advisor for the U.S. Delegation to the 2004 Berlin Conference on AntiSemitism. He has also represented NCSJ at Democratic and Republican National 

Conventions since 1980. 

Mr. Levin made his first trip to Russia in 1982, leading a Congressional delegation 

to meet with Soviet officials and Jewish activists. He organized the first International Parliamentary Spouses for Soviet Jews Conference in Washington, D.C. Mr. 

Levin was instrumental in creating the Congressional Coalition for Soviet Jews—one 

of the largest Congressional caucuses ever formed. 

In 1987, as a member of the Summit Task Force, Mr. Levin was a key figure in organizing the Washington Mobilization on behalf of Soviet Jews which brought more 

than 250,000 people to the nation’s capital on for the December 6 ‘‘Freedom Sunday’’ 

rally. In 2002, he again worked closely with the Conference of Presidents of Major 

American Jewish Organizations and other NCSJ member agencies to organize the 

massive April 15 ‘‘National Rally for Israel.’’ 

From 1987 to 1989, Mr. Levin served as Director of the NCSJ’s Washington office. 

He has been a member of the organization’s professional staff since 1980. Prior to 

coming to NCSJ, he worked for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 

(AIPAC). Mr. Levin is a graduate of the University of Maryland. 
85 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC FUSFIELD

Mr. Chairman, 

I would like to thank you for the privilege and honor of addressing the Commission on behalf of B’nai B’rith International and its more than 200,000 members and 

supporters in over 50 countries, including many states in the OSCE region. B’nai 

B’rith would like to thank Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Cardin, and the other 

Commissioners for convening this hearing and for their strong leadership in addressing the serious problem of anti-Semitism. 

It has been 11 years since the outbreak of the second intifada in the Middle East 

and, subsequently, the start of a new wave of anti-Semitism throughout the OSCE 

region and around the world. This spread of hatred has resulted not only in widespread attacks against Jewish communities, but in a proliferation of anti-Semitic 

propaganda, much of which is directed against the State of Israel. 

Tragically, the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state has become 

a daily occurrence, as Israel’s enemies repeatedly accuse it of being a Nazi-like occupier and an apartheid state that disenfranchises the Palestinians. Falsehoods about 

Israel are repeated so often that they become widely accepted in the popular culture 

and sometimes impact government policy. The effort by Israel’s relentless critics to 

denigrate the Jewish state is not only evidence that anti-Semitism is alive and well 

66 years after the Holocaust—this new variation of the world’s oldest social illness 

actually poses a security threat to the Jewish state by intensifying its international 

isolation. 

Over the past decade, the OSCE has taken up the urgent struggle against rising 

anti-Semitism. High-level conferences in Vienna in 2003 and Berlin in 2004, as well 

as later conferences in Cordoba, Bucharest, Astana, and Prague have focused a 

needed spotlight on this and other forms of intolerance. One can feel encouraged by 

the many positive developments that have resulted from these gatherings, even 

though much more work remains to be done. 

The historic 2004 Berlin Declaration, which provided a series of important recommendations for governments to follow in combating anti-Semitism, specifically 

addressed the growing problem of anti-Semitic attacks being committed by opponents of Israel’s policies. The passage stating that ‘‘international developments or 

political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism’’ still represents a crucial stance by the OSCE against attempts 

by opponents of Jews or Israel to rationalize their hatred. 

Permanent Council Decision No. 607, which preceded the Berlin Conference, and 

Ministerial Decisions Nos. 12-04 and 10-05, which followed it, represent vital affirmations of the OSCE’s commitment to fight anti-Semitism and related forms of racism and xenophobia. That pact has been bolstered by the creation of ODIHR’s indispensable tolerance and non-discrimination unit, which carries out this important 

work each day and which includes an expert advisor on anti-Semitism, and by the 

appointment of the Chairman-in-Office’s three personal representatives on combating intolerance. 

While much has been done to fight anti-Semitism in the past decade, much work 

remains. The need for practical and effective strategies to combat and defeat this 

pathology is still crucial. To this end, 

• The OSCE’s Ministerial Council should formalize the scheduling of conferences 

on anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance at regular intervals. Over the 

next few years, we will have opportunities to mark the 10th anniversaries of 

landmark OSCE conference in Vienna, Berlin, and Cordoba. By scheduling review conferences at the appropriate intervals, we can take advantage of these 

anniversaries by challenging OSCE member-states to follow through on their 

commitments. 

• We should widely promote, within the OSCE, the European Union Fundamental 

Rights Agency’s comprehensive working definition of anti-Semitism. This document, whose principles have also been adopted by the U.S. State Department 

and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, is tremendously useful in identifying 

current manifestations of anti-Semitism to those who might not otherwise recognize them. It should be disseminated as widely as possible among public officials, educators, and journalists, among others. 

• We must enhance the funding for ODIHR’s Tolerance and Non-Discrimination 

unit, which has now become a fixed and integral part of the OSCE’s work. We 

must enable the TND unit to sustain and expand its critical activities, which 

currently include educational programs on anti-Semitism in 14 countries. At 

least two more countries may soon be added to that list. TND would like to 

adapt those materials to an online format to make them more readily accessible, 

but this will require increased support from member-states. 
86 

• Security for Jewish communities must be enhanced. In some cases additional 

money has been allocated to make this possible. But even where funding is not 

available, much can be done through the exchange of best practices, facilitated 

by the OSCE. 

• The U.S. has a critical role to play in ensuring that the OSCE maintains its 

focus on anti-Semitism as a distinct phenomenon, even as some of the remedies 

used to address anti-Semitism may have broader application. I hope that Secretary of State Clinton will attend the OSCE Ministerial Conference in Vilnius 

next week, as expected, and that when she does she will specifically reference 

the problem of anti-Semitism and the importance of the work of the three Personal Representatives and ODIHR’s Tolerance and Non-Discrimination unit. 

Her doing so will illustrate the importance of keep attention focused on antiSemitism at the highest levels. 

• We must extend, for the foreseeable future, the terms of the three personal representatives on intolerance. 

• Member-states must fulfill their reporting requirements with respect to hate 

crimes data. Fewer than 20 governments have done so until now. 

• Finally, we must strongly reinforce the crucial principle declared at the Berlin 

Conference—That no political position, cause or grievance can ever justify antiSemitism—and make clear that the demonization and delegitimization of the 

Jewish state is often none other than a pretext for the hatred of Jews themselves. 

Among the many recommendations and commitments by OSCE member-states 

that remained to be adequately implemented are government support for anti-hate 

programs; assistance in facilitating the prosecution of anti-Semitic crimes; and the 

promotion of academic exchange and educational programs. Furthermore, there 

must be follow-up in the areas of legislation; law enforcement; education; media; 

and general monitoring of anti-Semitic hate crimes. Progress in these spheres will 

require a continuation of the collaborative effort of friendly countries and NGOs in 

order for the promise of Berlin to be realized in a serious way. Education ministers 

and justice ministers, for example, should regularly meet in multilateral forums to 

develop an ongoing form of cooperation on matters related to anti-Semitism and 

hate crimes. And as OSCE member-states create legislation, they should increasingly call on the experience of NGOs to assist them in this effort. 

U.S. lawmakers have provided important leadership in these areas and their ongoing efforts should be strongly encouraged. The fact that we are joined at this hearing today by a U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Anti-Semitism is 

a positive result of the passage by Congress of the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act 

of 2004, which requires the State Department to report on acts of anti-Semitism 

around the world. Hannah Rosenthal is to be commended for her outstanding work 

in this post; Chairman Smith, Co-Chairman Cardin, and Representative Hastings 

should also be commended for their substantial contributions to the cause of combating global anti-Semitism through their participation in the OSCE process. 

Another significant development in this country occurred last year when the Department of Education issued a directive effectively applying Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 to the protection of Jewish students from anti-Semitism on campuses. This sent an important signal that some forms of even Constitutionally protected speech can amount to harassment and, when they do, the rights of the victims must be safeguarded. This action came at a time when Jewish students in this 

country are facing increased hostility related to virulent anti-Israel activism on university campuses; too often, the response from administrators and educators has 

been mere passivity. 

Last summer I had the opportunity to travel to Oslo with representatives of the 

Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In a meeting with leading Norwegian journalists, I confronted the editor of the daily paper Dagbladet with 

an editorial cartoon he had published depicting former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud 

Olmert as a concentration camp guard. His response was that the cartoon provoked 

a healthy public debate. Three months later, he ran a second piece by the same cartoonist, this one depicting Gaza as an Israeli-run concentration camp. When asked 

in an interview why he had used the flawed and inherently anti-Semitic Nazi analogy, the cartoonist replied, ‘‘Because I think it fits.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I think of my eight-month-old son Emanuel and imagine that he 

will graduate from college around the time that we mark the 100th anniversary of 

the start of the Holocaust. With very few Holocaust survivors likely to be alive then, 

and with the lessons of history that much more faded, how much more difficult will 

it be for his generation to prevent such misuses of the Holocaust analogy and to 
87 

promote an understanding that these distortions intensify the isolation of the Jewish state and undermine the security of the Jewish people? 

The implacability of the cartoonist and his editor is an unsettling reminder of the 

problem we continue to face and an illustration of why Elie Wiesel has described 

anti-Semitism as ‘‘the world’s most durable ideology.’’ As we gauge the OSCE’s 

progress in the struggle against anti-Semitism, we can draw reassurance from the 

positive accomplishment of the past eight years, even as we commit ourselves to 

sustaining and intensifying our focus. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your unstinting commitment to this issue. B’nai 

B’rith pledges its ongoing cooperation as we all confront the challenge of combating 

anti-Semitism together. The history of European Jewry in the past century is a 

tragic one. Let us be mindful of that history; let us speak out; let us use our influence; and let us act now. History demands nothing less from us. 

Eric Fusfield has served as Deputy Director of the B’nai B’rith Center for Human 

Rights and Public Policy since 2007 and as Director of Legislative Affairs for B’nai 

B’rith International since 2003. He is responsible for B’nai B’rith’s policy advocacy 

and government relations, including formulating and promoting B’nai B’rith’s agenda on Capitol Hill and representing the agency before Congress, the Executive 

branch, foreign governments, and international organizations. He also helps oversee 

B’nai B’rith’s public policy operations in Washington, New York, Brussels, and its 

other offices abroad. He has met with numerous heads of government, foreign ministers, and ambassadors; has frequently been interviewed by radio programs and 

print publications; has testified before several government bodies in the United States 

and abroad; and has spoken at many conferences and other public events. 

Mr. Fusfield previously served as Assistant Director of European Affairs for the 

American Jewish Committee for five years. The international programs he coordinated in the agency’s Washington, D.C. office involved diplomatic advocacy; outreach 

to international Jewish communities; research and analysis; and development of exchange programs. An attorney formerly in private practice, he holds degrees from Columbia University (B.A. in History), Oxford University (M.St. in Modern Jewish 

Studies), and American University (J.D./M.A. in Law and International Affairs). He 

also has studied in Sweden, Israel, and France. He has worked for several different 

law firms and Jewish organizations in Washington, and has written articles for various publications. 

Mr. Fusfield was born in Hamburg, Germany and raised in the Washington, D.C. 

area, where he still lives. In 1999 he was awarded a Nahum Goldman Fellowship 

by the Memorial Foundation for Jewish Culture and in 2005 was named a Young 

Leader by the Atlantik Bruecke Institute of Germany. He is a former President of 

Beth El House, Inc., a non-profit organization providing transitional housing for formerly homeless families in Northern Virginia. 
88 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STACY BURDETT

Let me offer special thanks on behalf of the Anti-Defamation League and its National Director, Abraham Foxman, to Chairman Smith and all of the Commissioners 

for holding this hearing today and for the many hearings, letters, and rallying cries 

that have kept this issue front and center. Your commitment to the fight against 

anti-Semitism and your determination to move from concern to action, inspires and 

energizes all of us. 

The history of the Jewish people in the OSCE Region is fraught with examples 

of the worst violations of human rights—forced conversions, expulsions, inquisitions, 

pogroms, and genocide. The struggle against the persecution of Jews was a touchstone for the creation of some of the foundational human rights instruments and 

treaties as well as the development of OSCE human dimension mechanisms. 

We focus today on anti-Semitism but we are mindful that in advancing the fight 

against anti-Semitism, we elevate the duty of governments to comply with broader 

human dimension commitments and to support ODIHR and its efforts. That is the 

core of ADL’s mission: to secure justice and fair treatment for Jews in tandem with 

safeguarding the rights of all oppressed groups. 

Anti-Semitism is a primary concern for the Anti-Defamation League—not just because we are a Jewish community organization, but because anti-Semitism, the oldest and most persistent form of prejudice, threatens security and democracy, and 

poisons the health of a society as a whole. The Anti-Defamation League was established in 1913 with its core mission to combat the then horrific discrimination 

against Jews in all facets of American life and the growth of anti-Jewish movements 

and organizations peddling their hate around the world. Over nearly a century, as 

part of the fight against anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, we have been at 

the forefront of the campaign to secure historic civil rights achievements, pioneered 

the development of model hate crimes laws, and developed anti-bias education models to address all forms of prejudice and to prepare each succeeding generation to 

live in an increasingly diverse society. 

As we have learned: where anti-Semitism flourishes, no minority group is safe. 

Nine years ago, we assembled in this hearing room and focused on three goals: 

1. Identifying and calling attention to a stunning resurgence of anti-Semitism. 

2. Exposing the broad denial and inaction of too many Participating States. 

3. Calling for measures to overcome the lack of awareness and to identify basic tools 

for the US and OSCE to respond. 

We came away from that hearing charged with re-engaging the Copenhagen Concluding Document’s call for governments to confront a 21st century anti-Semitism 

that crossed the globe in an instant. This hatred wore new masks and unfolded in 

a new era where taboos against anti-Semitism that existed after the Holocaust were 

eroded. 

You will hear today that the threat persists and follows the broad contours of the 

assessments in 2002. What we called then an ‘‘upsurge’’ proved to be more than a 

wave of incidents requiring emergency action, but an enduring reality that requires 

a comprehensive, institutionalized, and ongoing response. 

You will also hear today that the lack of political will by governments to take seriously their obligations is the single largest obstacle to progress. 

But the arsenal of tools to respond is starkly different than it was then. Think 

back to how we remarked that, in too many parts of the region, in the face of antiSemitism, there was nowhere to call and no understanding of the problem. The gaps 

in the readiness and capability to quantify and to respond on the part of the OSCE 

institutions and—-even the US Government-—were stunning. 

Terms like ‘‘hate crime’’ and ‘‘data collection’’ had hardly been uttered on the 

international stage until the 2003 Vienna conference on anti-Semitism, and they 

were incorporated into the Maastricht Ministerial Council Decision that year. 

Through that prism, the progress has been swift and the difference that nine years 

of continued advancement has made is very welcome. 
89 

OSCE: A Model IGO Approach to Fighting Anti-Semitism and Hate Crime 

When we first were confronted by the surge of anti-Semitic hate violence in the 

OSCE region, we were a community still scarred by the United Nations World Conference Against Racism in Durban and the realization that many in the international community did not view anti-Semitism as a legitimate human rights issue. 

For Jewish communities targeted in ways they had not seen in decades, there was 

no one to call, no focal point of responsibility, and an international community largely in denial. Our groups came to Congress, and to the Administration with a simple 

request: if international bodies such as the U.N. could not address the human rights 

violation that is anti-Semitism, let the OSCE, the largest regional security organization, with a body of commitments to fight anti-Semitism, convene a conference to 

address the racism and discrimination that is anti-Semitism. 

Since then, while progress in other international forums has been lagging and incremental, the OSCE has become a center of activity and progress. The OSCE has 

been a forum for forthright recognition of, and response to, anti-Semitism in what 

continues to be a poisonous and politicized environment. Key achievements include: 

• Groundbreaking Ministerial Council Decisions, Parliamentary Assembly Resolutions and tolerance conferences recognized anti-Semitism and secured commitments for action by Participating States and for the OSCE institutions. 

• The appointment by the Chair in Office of Personal Representatives on antiSemitism, on Xenophobia and on Discrimination against Muslims has added political muscle to OSCE efforts to raise the profile of these issues. 

• The creation of a specialized unit on tolerance which included a dedicated staff 

advisor on anti-Semitism 

ODIHR Tools and Responses 

ODIHR has used the decisions and taskings in an expansive way to address challenges and expose gaps. ODIHR reports have examined critical questions: 

• What are governments doing to combat hate crime? Where are the gaps? 

• What are effective educational approaches to deal with anti-Semitism? 

• How is the Holocaust commemorated across the Region? 

• What role can governments, parliamentarians and public officials play in getting the most out of these commemorations? 

ODIHR has used its mandate and the findings of its reports to develop innovative 

approaches to fill those gaps. Today there is an impressive body of cutting edge program activity underway as part of the Tolerance and non-Discrimination program. 

The ODIHR’s Toolbox for Combatting Hate Crime [Appendix I] is an impressive 

menu of tools that addresses directly precisely the problems, the policies, the target 

groups that we have identified repeatedly. Participating States can avail themselves 

of tools to: 

1. Educate students about anti-Semitism, its past and present 

• ODIHR teaching materials are adapted and customized to relate to the history, 

language and experience of students in nine countries—with four more versions 

under development now. 

• Addressing Anti-Semitism: Why and How? A Guide for Educators givesteachers 

definitions and strategies they can use to tackle anti-Semitism in the classroom. 

It is available in 9 languages and currently being translated into Turkish. 

• Make Holocaust education mandates and Holocaust Memorial Days an opportunity to recognize and address the reality that anti-Semitism did not die with 

Hitler. Preparing Holocaust Memorial Days: Suggestions for Educators guides 

teachers on how to use remembrance days to address anti-Semitism today and 

underscore that anti-Semitism did not die with Hitler. It is available in 13 languages. 

2. Help Governments Fulfill Commitments to Address Hate Crime 

• The annual report on hate crime—Incidents and Responses—highlights the 

prevalence of hate and notes how governments and civil society are responding; 

• Guide Participating States in drafting effective hate crime laws. Hate Crime 

Laws: A Practical Guide provides practical advice for lawmakers, community organizations and law enforcement for responding to bias crimes. Developed with 
90 

input from an international team of judges, prosecutors, human rights officials, 

representatives of international non-governmental organizations, including 

ADL, the guide has already been used by ODIHR as the basis for legislative 

reviews and training sessions and has been translated into several languages. 

• Train to build the capacity of Participating States’ criminal justice systems and 

the law-enforcement officials, prosecutors and judges that staff them; 

• Partner with and empower communities to respond and prevent hate crime. 

ADL was proud to work with OSCE’s ODIHR in creating a resource guide for 

communities-—‘‘Preventing and Responding to Hate Crimes.’’ The guide provides a menu of tools to help non-governmental organizations respond to hate 

crimes and to serve as a bridge between officials and the communities they 

serve. 

• Support practical initiatives by civil society to monitor and report hate crimes 

and fill in the gap left by the unmet commitments of governments. 

So now, in the face of hate, there is a place to call, a locus for action, an intergovernmental partnership with civil society to spotlight and combat this problem. Institutions, including those of the United Nations, are partnering with ODIHR and 

using OSCE materials in areas like Holocaust remembrance and education. 

This is a model for how, in the relatively brief time of seven years, an organization can transcend a reticence to address the problem and catalyze a serious IGO 

initiative to combat not just anti-Semitism but also hate crimes and discrimination 

on a comprehensive basis. 

Through our engagement with the Helsinki Commission and the State Department and with ODIHR, the Anti-Defamation League has been gratified to be involved in putting the fight against anti-Semitism squarely on the OSCE human dimension agenda and to putting our experience to work in helping the OSCE develop 

a toolkit to fight anti-Semitism that holds incredible promise and potential. 

The major challenge today is how to build more political will at a high level, so 

more governments are willing to use these tools to help meet their commitments. 

What is Anti-Semitism? 

Anti-Semitism is a form of hatred, mistrust, and contempt for Jews based on a 

variety of stereotypes and myths, and often invokes the belief that Jews have extraordinary influence with which they conspire to harm or control society. It can target Jews as individuals, as a group or a people, or it can target Israel as a Jewish 

entity. Criticism of Israel or Zionism is anti-Semitic when it uses anti-Jewish stereotypes or invokes anti-Semitic symbols and images, or holds Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel. I have appended to my statement a brief description of anti-Semitism and the manifestations we are seeing today. 

What is the Nature and Magnitude of the Problem? 

Appendix II of this statement notes the key themes of contemporary anti-Semitism, and Appendix III outlines select incidents that exemplify some of the trends 

discussed below. As a practical matter, anti-Semitism manifests itself in two primary areas: public discourse and incidents of harassment, vandalism and hate violence. As such, while anti-Semitism can require distinct responses, a number of the 

recommendations we have to fight anti-Semitism are also components of a comprehensive hate crimes response strategy. 

The Data Deficit 

The first question you should have is: what is the scope and magnitude of antiSemitism today? The answer to that question points to a key obstacle. There is a 

massive data deficit across dozens of countries that do not monitor or document 

anti-Semitic incidents. 

The obstacles to comprehensive data collection by police—and the disincentives to 

reporting for victims of these crimes—are significant. Some of the most likely targets of hate violence are the least likely to report these crimes to the police. But 

we have focused on data collection, because it is the essential jumping off point for 

prevention and response. Counting these crimes requires defining anti-Semitic hate 

crimes and training police to recognize and understand them. Where there is data, 

there is awareness; where thhere is awareness, there is action. 

We first called for data collection on anti-Semitism in this room. Those calls, amplified by then New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani at the first OSCE conference on 

anti-Semitism in Vienna in 2003, culminated that same year in ODIHR being 
91 

tasked by the Maastricht Ministerial Council with serving as a ‘‘collection point’’ for 

incidents of anti-Semitism and responses. 

What ODIHR’s Report Shows 

ODIHR has done a great service by fulfilling a charge that is essentially passive 

in nature and using it to highlight challenges and create tools advocates can use 

to urge progress. 

The annual report, Hate Crimes in the OSCE: Incidents and Responses, is a 

straightforward presentation of available information on anti-Semitic incidents and 

the actions governments are taking in response. While compiling available data on 

incidents provides only a limited view of the actual prevalence of anti-Semitism, 

presenting hard information about current government policies and actions is a useful measure of how governments are responding and how seriously they are addressing problems. 

The ODIHR report lays bare for us to see which countries are fulfilling their commitments, beginning with the first step of monitoring anti-Semitism in their country. The report documents whether and how their laws and policies address crimes 

motivated by anti-Semitism and which governments share this information with 

ODIHR and with the public. 

While the ODIHR effort is not aimed at judging governments and their performance, it lifts the veil on what governments are doing and allows advocates to make 

their own assessment. For the last three years, the Anti-Defamation League has 

partnered with Human Rights First to convert ODIHR’s information into a scorecard which rates the performance of OSCE Participating States in specific areas of 

monitoring and addressing hate crimes. The report assesses the performance of Participating States not based on where incidents occur, but by the policies and procedures they use to respond—-for which they have direct responsibility. 

This is an important barometer by which we measure the performance of governments. So, seven years after Ministers stood in Berlin with great fanfare and committed to gather data on anti-Semitism and hate crime, only four of the 56 OSCE 

Participating States actually submitted information to ODIHR on anti-Semitic incidents for this year’s hate crime report. 

While monitoring efforts by non-governmental organizations may only provide a 

limited picture, it is meaningful that the ODIHR augments the government-supplied 

data with information provided from NGOs and documented in the media. So the 

ODIHR report makes clear that the absence of official data certainly does not signify a lack of anti—Semitic incidents in a given country. The ODIHR report noted 

that, in 26 of the countries where no data on anti-Semitism was submitted, a number of anti-Semitic incidents were reported by media, Jewish communities, or other 

non-governmental sources like the Tel Aviv University’s Stephen Roth Institute. 

The Increase of US Reporting 

We worked together, Congress and NGOs, to strengthen US reporting to fill the 

data deficit, because we understood that, regardless of What the OSCE and other 

governments might do, US reporting on anti-Semitism as a human rights and religious freedom issue is an indispensable tool in spotlighting the problem and a tool 

for US diplomacy. As with any reporting which originates in embassies around the 

world, US reporting on anti-Semitism has varied from place to place. We were enthusiastic about the introduction of the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 

2004 to call for State Department efforts to improve their reporting and their engagement. 

As a result of the enactment of the law, first introduced by Chairman Smith and 

others, US embassies are mandated to seek out information on trends in anti-Semitism as part of their core human rights and religious freedom monitoring function. 

The increased reporting is accompanied by increased awareness and enhanced engagement by America’s diplomats. 

The impact of this routinized and required scrutiny is evident in the reports themselves. The number of countries in which the State Department is documenting incidents of anti-Semitism has more than doubled. You see a similar jump in reporting 

when you look just at OSCE Participating States as a group. 
92 

Country Reports on 

Human Rights 

Country Reports Citing 

Anti-Semitism or its Absence 

Incidents of AntiSemitism Reported Anti-Semitism Reported in 

OSCE Participating States 

2002 30 30 30 

2010 192 62 38 

But mandating reporting is not sufficient to make a difference. The reports are 

only one indicator of how the issue of anti-Semitism has growing recognition and 

presence across the private and public diplomacy instruments in the State Department. The Special Envoy position, also created by the law, provides an invaluable 

platform to strengthen the reporting as well as the US response. ADL has consistently pressed for the fight against anti-Semitism to be a part of US policy and for 

the response to employ the full array of US policy and diplomacy mechanisms. Continued support for a strong Special Envoy will ensure that the US maintains a specialized focus on anti-Semitism and a dedicated effort to mobilize the arsenal of US 

diplomatic tools to respond. 

The Special Envoy has instituted expanded training on anti-Semitism in the State 

Department’s Foreign Service Institute to give diplomats the understanding and 

tools to recognize anti-Semitism and the contemporary forms it takes. The Foreign 

Service Institute course on ‘‘Promoting Human Rights and Democracy’’ now includes 

training, led by ADL and the Special Envoy which is being integrated into the Foreign Service Institute’s future courses, including in a new curriculum on religious 

freedom launched this summer. The ability to integrate training on the ODIHR definition, how to spot anti-Semitism and what the indicators mean for American diplomats serving in places as diverse as Saudi Arabia, Khartoum, Oslo, Kigali, Bogota, 

Tbilisi, Madrid, and Jakarta is a very meaningful step. 

ADL has been proud to partner with the State Department to share our training 

and subject matter expertise. This program models the best of what a public-private 

partnership can achieve. 

Indeed, the growth of the reporting reflects a greater awareness of what anti-Semitism is and how it threatens human rights. The State Department Country Reports 

on Human Rights have been increasingly attentive to the issue of how anti-Semitism in the public discourse puts Jews at risk, as well as how hostility toward Israel 

and Jews is intertwined. The importance of this kind of reporting also demonstrates 

the need for sustained FSI training on what is a delicate and nuanced issue. 

The enactment of the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act did more than create 

a position or ask for a report. It launched a process that is dynamic and evolving. 

For NGOs and communities, the Special Envoy and her staff have established 

their office as a real listening post and a focal point for bringing issues forward for 

high-level attention by Regional Bureaus or the Secretary herself. At a very practical level, the Envoy’s office is a hub for information and advocacy inside the State 

Department and for Jewish communities as well through quarterly NGO strategy 

meetings and the regular flow of information back and forth through the Envoy’s 

newsletter and new media tools. 

Overview and Trends 

Violence against Jews and Jewish institutions has been documented mostly in 

Western Europe and North America—with large concentrations of reported incidents in the UK, France, the US, and Canada. These are also countries with large 

Jewish communities and also better government and NGO monitoring. 

Everyday Insecurity, Harassment, Vulnerability 

The Anti-Defamation League is deeply involved in fighting discrimination today 

and, during our century of work, discrimination had been a major barrier for Jewish 

participation in the life of the countries in which they live, including the United 

States. 

Today, overt anti-Jewish discrimination is not the law of the land anywhere in 

the OSCE Region, nor is it the chief barrier to the full realization of the rights of 

Jews. Today, a Jew’s right to live in security with dignity and freedom to express 

his/her identity is threatened by an atmosphere of intimidation and ugly acts of hatred. It manifests in the form of violent hate crimes, which target Jews and visible 

Jewish sites such as schools, synagogues, and cemeteries. It is the everyday harassment that prevents Jews in so many places from being able to express who they 

are, to freely wear yarmulkes, Stars of David, or even T-shirts bearing Hebrew let-
93 

1 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Antisemitism, Summary Overview of the 

situation in the European Union from 2001-2010, Apri1 2011, page 4. 2 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Antisemitism, Summary Overview of the 

situation in the European Union from 2001-2007, Jan. 2008, page 19. 

tering or slogans. Rabbis, parents, and students live with the knowledge that walking the streets bearing an identifiable Jewish symbol could put you at risk of violence, intimidation, and harassment. This is the unwritten rule many Jews are 

forced to live by. 

Stroll through some Jewish neighborhoods around Brussels and you will find 

bearded Jewish men wearing baseball caps instead of yarmulkes. Ask yourself what 

it would mean if in Baltimore or in Elizabeth NJ, your Orthodox Jewish constituents were forced to hide their traditional religious garb or symbols just to avoid harassment that has become commonplace. 

In so many communities, when we ask Jewish leaders about the nature and levels 

of threats, they discount stunning incidents of bias or harassment as simply a fixture of the landscape in which they live. Incidents and situations that would be 

scandalous in any American city often go unreported or are ignored. 

In Latvia, for example, during an interview in March on a major TV station, a 

neo-Nazi called for Jews to be shot and hanged from lampposts. The police opened 

an investigation, but inexplicably closed it several months later without bringing 

any charges. 

Just last week in Belgium, a 13 year-old Jewish girl was attacked and severely 

beaten by five schoolmates of Moroccan origin, who repeatedly called her a ‘‘dirty 

Jew’’ and told her to ‘‘go back to her country.’’ According to the Central Council of 

Jewish Organizations of Belgium, the police did not consider it an anti-Semitic incident. Except for one Jewish member of parliament, no public figure condemned the 

attack. 

This is part of the routine calculus of trepidation and caution that Jews must 

navigate. This is impossible to measure, but it is possible, indeed vital, to address. 

Governments must meet their commitment to keep Jews and all their inhabitants 

safe from discrimination and hate violence. 

Anti-Semitic Hate Linked to Demonization of Israel 

Expressing disagreement with Israeli action through violence against one’s Jewish 

neighbor or the Jewish community is untenable and a violation of rights. Yet, successive reports by both Inter-Governmental and Non-Governmental Organizations 

note that there is a direct link between flares of Israeli-Palestinian tensions and a 

spike in anti-Semitic hate violence. 

When Israel has taken action to defend its citizens from attacks from Gaza or 

Lebanon, we have witnessed Jews around the world also coming under attack. Following events like Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, we saw anti-Israel rallies and demonstrations in Europe and the US become scenes of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery. Jews were beaten on the street. Synagogues were fire-bombed. The OSCE’s 

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights first documented this phenomenon during the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah: ‘‘Analyses and investigations of these incidents show that the projection of anti-Israel sentiment onto 

Jewish communities throughout Europe was a widespread pattern in 2006, with the 

conflict between Israel and Hezbollah frequently being used as a justification for 

anti-Semitism.’’ 

Anti-Zionism as a Mask for Anti-Semitism 

Not only are events in the Middle East a catalyst for anti-Semitic incidents, but 

anti-Zionism and anti-Israel animus are used as a thin disguise for anti-Semitism. 

The European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency in its Working Paper on antiSemitism (April 2011) notes ‘‘the use of anti-Zionism as a way to circumvent prevailing taboos that still exists around using old anti-Semitism.’’ 1 This follows on 

other FRA reports like one in 2008 that observed: ‘‘Anti-Semitic activity since 2000 

is increasingly attributed to a ‘new anti-Semitism’ characterized primarily by the 

vilification of Israel as the Jewish collective, and perpetrated primarily by members 

of Europe’s Muslim population.’’ 2
94 

3 Cnaan Lipshiz, Swedish mayor calls both Anti-Semitism and Zionism forms of’unacceptable 

extremism’, Ha’aretz, Jan. 29,2010, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spagcs/1146123.html. 4 Karel Berkhout, Anti-Semitism on the rise in Amsterdam, NRC Handelsblad (Netherlands), 

Jan. 26, 2010,http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2468489.ece/Anti-SemitismlonlthelriselinlAmsterdam. 5 OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Hate Crimes in the OSCE Region: Incidentsand Responses, Sept. 18, 2007, http://www,osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/09/ 

26296l931len.pdf. 

A prime example of this is playing out in Sweden where, in January 2009, 

Malmo ̈’s mayor Ilmar Reepalu said ‘‘we accept neither Zionism nor antisemitism’’ 

in Malmo ̈ and that the Jewish community could help reduce tensions in the city by 

condemning Israeli actions. He then criticized the Jewish community for organizing 

a pro-Israel demonstration, since that ‘‘could send out the wrong signals.’’ 3

These incidents are more than just one day stories. Two and a half years after 

the Malmo ̈ incident—just this week—ADL received a report from the Swedish Committee Against Anti-Semitism (SKMA) that Palestinians continue to harass Swedish 

Jews in front of Malmo ̈’s synagogue. According to SKMA, neither the police nor the 

politicians have reacted adequately. 

Rabbi Menno ten Brink of Amsterdam summed up this sentiment: ‘‘Their reasoning goes something like this: Israelis are Jews, Palestinians are Arabs, so we Moroccan ‘Arabs’ in the Netherlands are going to take on Dutch Jews.’’ 4

Equating Israel with Nazism and Jews with Nazis 

The use of Nazi imagery to portray the Jewish state is a perversion of memory, 

an insult to those who perished in the Holocaust, an affront to those who survived 

the horrors of Nazi Germany and to those who fought to defeat the Nazis. 

This widespread use of Holocaust and Nazi analogies goes well beyond legitimate 

criticism of Israel. Particularly dangerous and disturbing is the use of Nazi imagery 

to depict Israelis and comparisons of Israel’s actions to the absolute evil perpetrated 

by the Nazis in the Holocaust. These comparisons and imagery are modern incarnations of the age-old myths of Jews as a satanic and conniving force which endeavors 

to take over the world. 

Caricatures that depict Israelis as Nazis appear with alarming frequency in the 

Arab press, on the web, and even in some mainstream European newspapers. 

ODIHR first documented this in its 2006 report which noted that, as part of organized and spontaneous anti-Semitic violence, ‘‘direct reference to the Third Reich 

was often made, with Holocaust imagery being used as a rhetorical device to threaten Jews or to equate them with the perpetrators of the Holocaust.’’ 5

European media have also included clearly anti-Semitic caricatures. 

• In Norway, one of the largest mainstream dailies, Dagbladet, published a cartoon in October that compared Gaza and Buchenwald. 

• In Belgium, a major Flemish paper, De Morgen, published a cartoon of a Jew 

carrying two suitcases bursting with cash and the caption, ‘‘Switzerland, the 

Promised Land.’’ 

(See illustrations on following pages.) 
95 
96 
97 

Conspiracy Theories Gaining Acceptability in Public Discourse 

One of the constant themes of anti-Semitism is that, in every generation, conspiracy theories emerge that appeal to people from the fringes of society to the 

mainstream. In Sweden in 2009, a false and malicious report in a Swedish newspaper that Israeli soldiers abducted and killed Palestinians, including children, to 

harvest their internal organs mushroomed into a global conspiracy theory. Within 

months, the story generated several conspiracy theories about Jewish plots to harvest organs from victims around the globe, including from kidnapped Algerian and 

Ukrainian children and from Haitians pulled from the rubble of the earthquake that 

devastated their nation. 

The false conspiracy theory related to the Israeli rescue teams in Haiti reached 

all the way to the British House of Lords, where Baroness Jenny Tonge called on 

Israel to launch an investigation into the conduct of its military in Haiti. Tonge 

made the comment after an English-language Palestinian newspaper, The Palestine 

Telegraph, published an article that cited a report by Hezbollah’s Al-Manar TV regarding the organ trafficking allegations. The Palestinian paper lists Tonge as one 

of two members of a ‘‘board of patrons.’’ Following the story, Tonge apologized. However, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, called Tonge’s comment 

‘‘unacceptable’’ and he subsequently removed her from her position as party spokeswoman on health issues. 

The conspiracy theories have been reported as fact by Iranian and Arab media, 

including Syrian TV, Press TV, a state-funded Iranian TV news channel, and leading pan-Arab satellite news networks Al Jazeera and Al-Arabiya. In addition, newspapers in Jordan, Oman, Qatar, and other Arab countries published a series of editorial cartoons that depicted Israelis as vicious butchers who were gleefully cutting 

off the body parts of Arabs and trading in Palestinian organs. 

Anti-Semitism in Politics and Political Discourse 

Of great concern is the return of political anti-Semitism in Hungary and Ukraine, 

home to two large Jewish communities. Jobbik is a major Hungarian party, Which 

won over 15 percent of the vote in the 2010 parliamentary election. Its leaders have 

a long history of anti-Semitic statements and used anti-Semitic campaign materials. 

In Ukraine, the anti-Semitic Svoboda party came in first place with 30–40% of the 

vote in the last regional elections in three western oblasts—Lvov, lvano-Frankivsk, 

and Ternopil. In September, Svoboda’s leaders organized an anti-Jewish protest, 

‘‘Uman without Hasidim,’’ against the annual Rosh Hashanah pilgrimage of Hasidic 

Jews from around the world to a famous rabbi’s grave in city of Uman. 

Complacency in the face of anti-Semitism by politicians is another concern. In Belgium, Laurent Louis, a member of parliament from the small MLD party, said that 

the Parti Populaire (PP) ought to change its name to ‘‘PJB’’ for ‘‘Parti Juif de 

Belgique’’ (Jewish Party of Belgium) for having Jewish members and for its support 

of Israel. Louis has stated on many occasions that Israel is no different from the 

Nazi regime. No major political figure denounced Louis’ statement. Last year, European Union’s Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht, a former Belgian Foreign Minister, said in a radio interview, ‘‘It is not easy, even with a moderate Jew, to have 

a rational conversation.’’ The European Commission only said that it was a personal 

comment and took no action against de Gucht. He remains a member of the EU’s 

highest political body. 

In Greece, the anti-Semitic LAOS party was invited into the current coalition government, despite past statements by its leaders that denied the Holocaust, blamed 

9/11 on the Jews, and asserted that ‘‘Jews have no legitimacy to speak in Greece 

and provoke the political world.’’ 

Anti-Semitic Incidents in the US 

The good news is that we in the United States have continued to enjoy a period 

of relative calm, where the overall numbers are mostly unchanged and the incidents 

are isolated. But the bad news is that for all our efforts to educate, to raise awareness, and to legislate, anti-Jewish incidents remain a disturbing part of the American Jewish experience. 

The FBI’s just released annual report Hate Crime Statistics 2010, found that in 

2010, the number of reported anti-Jewish crimes decreased slightly, from 931 in 

2009 to 887 in 2010. However, the data revealed a very disturbing and persistent 

fact: two-thirds of the reported religion-based crimes in 2010 were directed against 

Jews and Jewish institutions—consistent with data over the past decade. The report 

details hate crimes by states, cities, towns, and colleges and universities. A chart 
98 

which compiles and compares the FBI data from 2010 to 2000 is included as Appendix IV at the end of this statement. 

Reporting is a challenge in the US as well. Eighty of the largest cities in the 

United States—all over 100,000 in population—either did not report data to the FBI 

in 2010 or affirmatively reported zero hate crimes to the FBI in 2010. The fact that 

law enforcement agencies in 80 major cities either did not report hate crime data 

or affirmatively reported zero hate crimes in their jurisdiction should prompt questions and/or concern about the seriousness of their response to hate violence. 

The ADL Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents, released last month, found that the 

number of anti-Semitic incidents increased slightly in 2010, to a total of 1,239 incidents, compared to 1,211 incidents reported in 2009. This is the first increase reported by ADL since the numbers hit a record high in 2004, when the U.S. experienced 1,821 incidents of anti-Semitism. Since 2004, the total number of anti-Jewish 

incidents had declined incrementally each year. 

The 2010 Audit comprises data from 45 states and the District of Columbia, including official crime statistics as well as information provided to ADL’s Regional 

Offices by victims, law enforcement officers, and community leaders and members. 

The Audit encompasses criminal acts, such as vandalism, violence and threats of violence, as well as non-criminal incidents of harassment and intimidation. 

Continuing a longtime trend, the states with the highest totals were those with 

large Jewish populations. The top four states were California, with 297 incidents in 

2010, up from 275 in 2009; New York, with 205 incidents, down from 209; New Jersey, with 130 incidents, down from 132; and Florida, with 116 incidents, up from 

90. 

According to the Audit, other states with double-digit totals in 2010 include Massachusetts (64, up from 55 in 2009); Pennsylvania (42, down from 65 in 2009); Colorado (38, up from 14); Connecticut (38, up from 24); and Texas (37, up from 28). 

Addressing Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel Activity on College Campuses 

As both a civil rights and Jewish community organization, the Anti-Defamation 

League works to address anti-Semitism and anti-Israel activity on American college 

campuses in a nuanced and thoughtful manner. The rights to free speech and academic freedom are sacred and deserve protection. At the same time, when antiIsrael activity crosses the line into anti-Semitism and expressions of support for terrorism, or when the Israel activity is so pervasive and severe that it creates a hostile environment for Jewish students, it is imperative to expose these incidents, 

speak out strongly in opposition, and urge university officials to issue condemnations. ADL also works with Hillel professionals and students to address these 

issues. 

ADL strongly welcomed the October 26, 2010 Dear Colleague guidelines issued by 

the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to address bullying 

in schools. 

We believe members of the Helsinki Commission should be aware that the OCR 

Dear Colleague letter made clear that anti-Semitic harassment on campus can be 

prohibited by federal civil rights law. ADL had called for clarification of this issue 

in a March 2010 letter that the League helped coordinate with 12 other Jewish organizations. That letter called on the Department to interpret Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and discrimination—including anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment that 

crosses the line into anti-Semitism. 

Specifically, the OCR guidance makes clear that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964—which bars schools receiving federal dollars from discriminating based on 

‘‘race, color or national origin’’—protects Jewish students from anti-Semitism on 

campuses ‘‘on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.’’ The OCR guidance defines Title VI coverage as follows: 

While Title VI does not cover discrimination based solely on religion, groups 

that face discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or 

ethnic characteristics may not be denied protection under Title VI on the 

ground that they also share a common faith. These principles apply not just to 

Jewish students, but also to students from any discrete religious group that 

shares, or is perceived to share, ancestry or ethnic characteristics (e.g. Muslims 

or Sikhs). 

This clarification is particularly welcome in conjunction with ADL’s continuing 

work to combat anti-Semitic bullying, harassment and bigotry on campus—including 

anti—Semitic intimidation of pro-Israel activists. At times, anti-Semitic conduct 

amounting to intimidation, harassment, and discrimination is manifested not by 
99 

overt anti-Semitic expression, but instead by anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment 

that crosses the line into anti-Semitism. The OCR guidance covers harassment that 

is ‘‘sufficiently serious that it creates a hostile environment and . . . is encouraged, 

tolerated, not adequately addressed or ignored by school employees.’’ 

While a complete examination of the parameters of the Title VI coverage of antiSemitic, anti-Israel, or anti-Zionist activities on campus is beyond the scope of this 

statement, it is critically important to distinguish between anti-Semitic activities on 

campus and anti-Israel activities. We certainly do not believe that every anti-Israel 

action is a manifestation of anti-Semitism. But the League is, obviously, concerned 

about organized anti-Israel activity which can create an atmosphere in which Jewish students or faculty members feel isolated and intimidated. 

In addition, importantly, in recent years both the US Commission on Civil Rights 

(USCCR) and the State Department have tailored their own responses to the spread 

of this new stream of anti-Semitism that manifests itself as vilification of Israel. 

Both use definitions similar to the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism. 

In its short April 2006 ‘‘Finding and Recommendations of the United States Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Campus Anti-Semitism,’’ the USCCR stated: 

On many campuses, anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old antiJewish stereotypes and defamation. This has included, for example, anti-Israel 

literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose, as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial. Such propaganda should be distinguished from legitimate discourse 

regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when 

camouflaged as anti-lsraelism or anti-Zionism. 

As previously mentioned, ADL recognizes that much vehemently anti-Israel and 

anti-Semitic speech can—and should—be protected First Amendment activity. This 

is as it should be in a nation that values freedom of speech. There is a high bar 

before any speech or conduct can amount to legally actionable harassment. Nevertheless, conduct that threatens, harasses, or intimidates particular Jewish students 

to the point that their ability to participate in and benefit from their college experience is impaired should not be deemed unactionable simply because that conduct 

is couched as ‘‘anti-Israel’’ or ‘‘anti-Zionist.’’ It is also the case that harassment or 

intimidation that holds Jewish students responsible for the acts of other Jews, or 

of Israel, is better understood as ethnic or ‘‘national origin’’ discrimination than as 

religious discrimination. 

Here are four examples of campuses on which a climate of persistent anti-Israel 

activity is concerning: 

University of California—Irvine 

In recent years UC Irvine has become a center for anti-Semitic activity, much of 

it organized by the Muslim Student Union (MSU) which has been responsible for 

staging large events every spring featuring virulently anti-Semitic speakers. One 

such speaker, Amir Abdul Malik Ali, gave a speech in May 2010 titled ‘‘Death to 

Apartheid’’ in which he compared Jews to Nazis, expressed support for Hamas, 

Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad (groups designated as Foreign Terrorist Organization 

by the United States Department of State) and called for the destruction of the 

‘‘apartheid state of Israel.’’ MSU has also distributed radical and anti-Semitic literature through Al Kalima, UCI’s Muslim student paper. This activity has created 

an environment in which many Jewish students do not feel safe to openly express 

their Jewish identity on campus. ADL has worked closely with UCI Chancellor Michael Drake to address this situation and create a more inclusive environment on 

campus, with moderate success so far. 

Evergreen State College, Washington 

Jewish students and faculty have reported, both to ADL and to the media, that 

Evergreen State College does not always feel like a safe place for Jewish students. 

A November 2010 news article on MyNorthwest.com quoted Josh Levine (then president of the campus Hillel Foundation) saying, ‘‘There are days I feel uncomfortable 

walking across campus alone because I wear a yarmulke on my head.’’ In 2008– 

2009, a pro-Israel organization was created that was almost immediately met with 

opposition, including students who set up ‘‘mock checkpoints’’ designed to imitate 

the Israel Defense Forces and forced students to show identification in order to continue onto campus. Five Jewish students reportedly left the college at the end of 

the school year because of this and other related harassment. Akiva Tor, Israel’s 

Consul-General for the Pacific-Northwest region, has expressed his concern about 
100 

this situation, noting that pro-Israel students do not feel comfortable expressing 

their opinion ‘‘without being harassed.’’ In May 2010, graffiti featuring hate messages and ‘‘depicting the Star of David . . . and epithets and a Nazi ‘SS’ symbol,’’ 

were found near the school’s library, according to the university’s Bias Incident Response Team. The college notified ADL of the incident. In June, the student body 

passed a resolution supporting divestment from companies that profit from Israel. 

The decision passed with 79.5% of the vote. 

Hampshire College, Massachusetts 

In the last several years, students at Hampshire College have reached out to the 

ADL to express their fears about the climate on campus. They have reported feelings of intimidation and of being silenced. In 2007–2008 when Jewish students on 

campus declined to sign a petition calling for divestment from the State of Israel, 

they were shouted at and called ‘‘killers’’ and ‘‘murder lovers.’’ In 2009, students reported feeling consistently intimidated, marginalized, and unwelcome on campus. 

Former College President Ralph Hexter was fairly responsive to the concerns of the 

Jewish students on campus. In February 2009 he attended a discussion with Jewish 

students to provide a forum for them to share their concerns and the following September, the ADL conducted a training for the administration on how to create and 

support an open environment on campus that is safe for all individuals and points 

of view. When President Hexter stepped down from his position in the fall of 2010, 

ADL again began to receive reports of students being harassed, bullied, and silenced 

on campus, including one student who received an anonymous death threat via email. Following these incidents, ADL has continued to work with the university administration to address the situation. 

Rutgers University, New Jersey 

Over the past couple years, allegations of a hostile environment for Jewish students at Rutgers have been raised. We believe university officials have been insufficiently attentive to this issue to date. For example, since May 2011, the Anti-Defamation League has been corresponding with Rutgers President Richard L. McCormick concerning anti-Semitic remarks attributed to a staff member. In December, 

2010, this individual posted a comment on Facebook in response to a column written 

by a student in the student newspaper. In her Facebook posting, the staff member 

referred to the student as a ‘‘Zionist pig’’ and encouraged others to post comments 

on Facebook and write letters to the student newspaper. We believe that it is simply 

unacceptable for a university employee to publicly use such hurtful, derogatory, and 

poisonous language when referring to a student. We had called on President McCormick to initiate an investigation and pursue appropriate disciplinary action if the 

allegations are verified. To our knowledge, neither action has been taken. We are 

not aware of any investigation or follow up. In fact, it is our understanding that 

university officials have yet to interview the student involved or even attempted to 

contact him about the posting and its impact on him. 

Incubator, Broadcaster: The Arab and Muslim World 

For decades, the Anti-Defamation League has focused on monitoring and exposing 

the anti-Semitism that has pervaded the Arab and Muslim print media. Since this 

Commission met in 2002 to examine the resurgence of anti-Semitism, there has 

been a growing awareness and understanding of the role that demonizing Israel and 

Zionism plays in fomenting hatred of and violence against Jews. This section focuses 

on examples of more traditional anti-Semitism but it is vital to recognize that antiZionism and the vitriolic hatred of Israel promoted in the Arab world draws on traditional anti-Semitic themes, fosters hatred of Jews and often veers into anti-Semitism itself. 

Our particular monitoring focus has been editorial cartoons, where we have found 

that the exaggerations intrinsic to caricatures all too often propagate age-old antiJewish stereotypes and myths. 

In Arabic newspapers across the Middle East one can find a steady stream of images depicting Jews and Israelis drawing on a series of incendiary themes: 

• Jews and Israelis as stooped, hook-nosed and money-hungry, as snakes (a particularly nefarious figure in the Arab world) bent on world domination. 

• Israeli leaders are regularly depicted as Nazis, at the same time that other articles deny or diminish the Holocaust. 

• Jewish caricatures shown manipulating the United States government, as the 

puppeteers behind the President, the Secretary of State and Congress. 

• Other caricatures show the US and Israel as partners plotting to dominate the 

world, the United Nations, the Arabs, the Palestinians. 
101 

6 Al-Manar has a long record of incendiary anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-American programming. It appears to be the source of the conspiracy theory that claimed that 4,000 Israelis 

were absent from their jobs at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, thereby implying 

that Israel was in some way behind the attack. The story was posted on its Web site on September 17, 2001 and picked up by extremists around the world. It has been banned from broadcasting several European countries and the United States. 7 The Middle East Media Research Institute, Syrian TV and Organ Transplant Experts: Israel 

Reminiscent of Shylock, Engages in Organ Trafficking in Haiti and Worldwide, Jan. 27, 2010, 

http://www.memritv.orglclip/en/2370.htm. 

• Anti-Jewish conspiracies blaming Jews and Israel for things like the H1N1 

virus outbreak, criminal organ harvesting from Palestinians, Algerians and Haitians (depending on the conspiracy theory). 

• Jews are subtly scapegoated, depicted as fomenting and benefiting from internal 

conflict in the Arab world. 

Anti-Semitism is also broadcast on television across the Arab and Muslim world. 

Among the most infamous examples are two dramatic, multi-part, mini-series which 

were broadcast during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan—the major ‘‘sweeps’’ period for Arab television. The Egyptian-produced Horseman Without a Horse—aired 

on Egyptian state television in 2002, and the Syrian-produced Ash-Shatat—aired in 

2003 on the Hezbollah owned Al-Manar satellite network. 6

Horseman featured base stereotypical depictions of Jews living in nineteenth century Egypt plotting to take over Palestine, the Middle East, and the entire world, 

guided by the infamous anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Ash 

Shatat was saturated with horrifying stereotypes of Jews, references to the Protocols, and included a shocking dramatization of a rabbi slitting a Christian child’s 

throat to drain blood to make matzah. In both dramas, Jews were presented as conspiring, violent, evil, and manipulative characters who would quickly betray their 

native country and even their community for their own interest. 

Organizations monitoring major Arab satellite and state-run television networks 

and television stations affiliated with the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, have 

documented anti-Jewish statements and characterizations permeating news programs, religious broadcasts and documentaries. Recent examples include: 

• Iranian television regularly broadcast speeches by Iranian leaders, such as 

President Ahmadinejad, questioning the Holocaust, and talk shows featuring infamous Holocaust deniers. 

• MEMRI (The Middle East Media Research Institute) released video of a January 2010 program on Syrian Television alleging that Israeli rescue workers in 

Haiti were harvesting the organs of earthquake victims for trafficking. In the 

panel discussion, Dr. Jassem Zakariya, Professor of International Relations, Damascus University, states: 

‘‘Of course, when we watch the scenes in this fine report, Shakespeare immediately comes to mind . . . 

Moderator: Shylock . . . 

Dr. Jassem Zakariya: Shylock, yes. As we see, the Jew has not changed—especially the Zionist Jews, who are now gathered in the so-called ‘Israel,’ which is 

the largest concentration in history of war criminals, who committed crimes against 

humanity. This is how they will be remembered if they continue with this.’’ 7

• Al Aqsa TV, the Hamas-run television station, incites hatred of Jews and 

Israelis. The station, directed by Palestinian Legislative Council member Fathi 

Ahmad Hammad, began broadcasting in the Gaza Strip in January 2006. Much 

of Al Aqsa TV programming that glorifies violence is geared towards children, 

including music videos. In April 2007, the show ‘‘Tomorrow’s Pioneers’’ featured 

a Mickey Mouse-like character, Farfour, promoting a message of radical Islam, 

anti-Semitism and hatred for the West. Farfour encouraged comments from 

children such as a call to ‘‘annihilate the Jews.’’ On April 3, 2009, Hamas’ Al 

Aqsa TV broadcast a play that included the ancient blood libel of Jews using 

blood for religious rituals. The play, ‘‘The House of Sheikh Yassin’’ was performed at the Hamas-affiliated Islamic University in Gaza City, featured the 

character of an ultra-orthodox Jewish father. According to a translation by the 

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center, the father declares: ‘‘We Jews hate Muslims. We 

like to kill Muslims. We Jews drink the blood of Muslims and Arabs.’’ He then 

turns to the audience and asks, ‘‘Are you Arabs? Are you Muslims? I hate you. 

I hate you for the sake of [our] God’s will.’’ Later, the father says to his son, 

‘‘Shimon, I want to teach you some things: first of all, you have to hate Muslims.’’ Shimon answers, ‘‘I don’t like them, I hate them.’’ The father continues, 
102 

8 Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center, Thehate industry: Hamas incorporates crude anti-Semitism into its battle 

for hearts and minds, Apr. 8, 2009, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malamlmultimedia/English/ 

engln/html/hamasle069.htm 9 The Middle East Media Research Institute, Egyptian Cleric Ahmad ’Eid Mihna: The Jews 

Are Behind Misery, Hardship, Usury, and Whorehouses, Jan. 10,2010, ht1Jl://www.memritv.org/ 

clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2409.htm. 

‘‘You have to drink Muslim blood. We have to wash our hands in Muslim blood’’ 

[in the context of Jewish ritual hand washing before prayer], and adds, ‘‘We 

have to conspire against Arabs and Muslims to satisfy God. We will destroy the 

Arabs and the Muslims.’’ 8

• Sermons by Muslim clerics broadcast on stations across the region are peppered 

with anti-Semitic accusations and references. For example, a MEMRI transcript 

of a speech by Egyptian cleric, Ahmad ’Eid Mihna, broadcast in January 2010 

on Egypt’s Al-Shabab TV in which he stated: ‘‘The history of the Jews shows 

that they are against any reform movement in the world. Any reformer, 

Muslim or not, will be attacked by the Jews. The Jews are like that. They 

thrive only on civil strife, on the selling of arms, on usury, on whorehouses, and 

so on . . . Jews will be Jews—everywhere and always. Their innate characteristics include lying, deceiving, the practice of usury, and the selling of arms. 

Even when it comes to our brothers in Hamas—may Allah grant them victory— 

their number one source of weapons is the Jews. They buy weapons from Jewish traitors.’’ 9

• The most recent State Department Country Report on Human Rights in Saudi 

Arabia noted the anti-Semitism propagated by imams like the broadcast on Al 

Jazeera of Saudi cleric Khaled Al-Khlewi referring to Jews as ‘‘treacherous, disloyal, deceitful, and belligerent by nature.’’ 

The Arab Spring Climate 

The impact of decades of these demonizing depictions on generations of Arabs cannot be discounted. While reading the morning newspapers or watching television 

with their family, many in the region have only encountered Jews as images of evil, 

threatening, subhuman figures to be feared, hated and fought against. 

Compounding this problem is the instantaneous, global transmission of these images via the internet and satellite television, from the Middle East to Europe, Africa, Asia, and the United States, reaching and potentially radicalizing a much larger 

audience. 

In the era of the ‘‘Arab Spring,’’ we have seen new manifestations of anti-Jewish 

demonization. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood, and its political party, the Freedom and Justice Party, which is expected to play a major role in the country’s political future, has espoused militant anti-Semitic and anti-Israel messages at political 

rallies, and in their media. For example, a November 24, 2011 article in in the 

Brotherhood’s Arabic language newspaper, Risalat al Ikhwan reads: ‘‘[Muhammad] 

held treaty after treaty with the Jews . . . which the prophet and the Muslims adhered to faithfully, while the Jews breached all treaties. Then began the epic stories 

of jihad and fighting to protect the message [Islam] from the enemies . . . ’’ 

Anecdotally, we have heard of Western journalists being physically attacked on 

Cairo streets and accused of being Jews and Israelis. 

We know well the connection between charged rhetoric and violent action. Incitement can create an environment conducive to, and accepting of, violence and terrorism. We have also seen that where Jews are scapegoated and demonized, incendiary anti-American rhetoric flourishes as well, inviting extremists to step in with 

violent action. 

An Egyptian born in 1979 at the time of the signing of the Camp David Accord, 

the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, and going to the polls this week, has 

lived an entire life in the era of peace between Israel and Egypt. Yet, given the images in the media and other influences in society, it is more likely than not that 

this Egyptian has incorporated the age-old anti-Semitic canards about Jews and Judaism into his or her world view. He or she has also been educated to believe antiSemitic conspiracy theories—told that Jews introduced AIDS to Egypt; that Israel 

developed a special gum sold in Egypt that promotes promiscuity among young 

Egyptian girls; even a claim in the Egyptian weekly Al-Usbu’ that Israel was responsible for a tsunami as a result of an Israeli nuclear underground test that was 

conducted in the Indian Ocean. Given these ingrained prejudices, this Egyptian, 

more likely than not, does not understand or support Egypt’s diplomatic relationship 

with the Jewish state, which has brought stability to the region, and great benefits 
103 

to both countries. Particularly at this time of turmoil and transition in Egypt, when 

rejecting the peace treaty with Israel has become an obligatory political position and 

the messages from the dominant political force, the Muslim Brotherhood, demonize 

Jews and Israel, these attitudes will undoubtedly have great consequences Egypt’s 

policies towards, Israel and the United States, and thus on regional stability. 

Official Responses Across OSCE: Fear, Denial, and Ambiguity 

As a community, we have had meaningful access and opportunity to raise the 

issues with leaders at the highest levels in most places where Jews are targeted and 

there are examples of leadership that have made a difference. In both France and 

the UK, anti-Semitic attacks reached all-time highs in 2009, yet we commended 

both governments for their serious and sustained responses, including unambiguous 

condemnations by President Nicolas Sarkozy and then-Prime Minister Gordon 

Brown. However, all too often, even where there are documented cases or examples 

of systemic public incitement, leaders at the highest levels of government often dismiss them as ‘‘isolated.’’ Other times, when a case is being investigated, we are told 

that since a process is underway, the leadership must not comment on an ongoing 

investigation or trial. While prosecution of anti-Semitic crimes is vital, the minority 

of cases that make it to prosecution are resolved many months or even years after 

the community has suffered the impact of the incident. Further, even where there 

are such laws, the lack of faith of targeted groups in the police or judicial system 

makes victims reticent to even initiate action. 

In many places there are laws prohibiting anti-Semitic violence or discrimination, 

but a law is not enough if the political leadership does not lay down a marker affirming that anti-Semitic accusations and conspiracy theories have no place in a 

country that respects Jewish rights, minority rights, human rights. We in the U.S. 

attach great importance to the value of leaders condemning anti-Semitic hate speech 

and believe that it can help protect vulnerable communities more than some legal 

remedies available in other countries. 

Even where hate speech is prohibited by law, judicial remedies in no way substitute for a swift statement from a political leader that sends an unequivocal message to extremists, reassuring the community that they are a valued part of their 

country, and that their rights enjoy the support and backing of the government. 

The key is to overcome the denial and defensiveness that prevents solution 

-oriented action. Time and again, governments respond to ADL reports and even our 

polling data with one reflexive response: ‘‘The data is flawed because my country 

is not an anti-Semitic country.’’ We remind governments that the real measure of 

a society is not the presence of anti-Semitic attitudes or the documentation of incidents but rather how robust a response and prevention mechanism is in place to 

help the victims, to ensure that these incidents are investigated and prosecuted, and 

that the attitudes and rhetoric are rejected by the leaders. 

Recommendations for Action: 

Governments bear the primary responsibility to ensure that Jews are afforded the 

same rights as others to live in security and with dignity in their communities. If, 

in the past, the challenge was to combat state-supported anti-Semitism, the challenge now lies in the need for states to make good on their pledges to fight antiSemitism, by mobilizing political will and utilizing the human rights and anti-discrimination instruments related to anti-Semitism and intolerance. 

Below are recommendations for governments to institutionalize a systemic, comprehensive strategy. 

What OSCE Participating States Can Do 

Start by using your own bully pulpit to speak out. Political leaders have the most 

immediate and significant opportunity to set the tone of a national response to an 

anti-Semitic incident. Nothing gives a greater sense of security than seeing antiSemitism publicly rejected. This signals that the government takes seriously the 

right to live free of harassment. Even without hate crimes laws, where there is political will, where the police know anti-Semitism when they see it, when local and 

national officials marginalize and reject it, people are more secure. 

Lead by example and set a tone of civility. Political leaders should lead by 

examplein their own country and must never engage in divisive appeals that demonize any member of society based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or religion. When political leaders are determined to build consensus 

across party lines to demonstrate that some behaviors are beyond the pale, we see 
104 

real change. We know in our own country the power that words have to shape, not 

just our political debate, but the environment in which targeted communities live. 

Zero tolerance for anti-Semitism in international forums. The action in the OSCE 

has shown that leaders can use international forums to marginalize instead of to 

‘‘tolerate’’ anti-Semitism. 

Support the reappointment of the Personal Representative of the CiO on Anti-Semitism. 

Support ODIHR focus on anti-Semitism and ask for other countries to join the effort. The US should support the specialized work of the OSCE Office for Democratic 

Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Tolerance and non-Discrimination Unit. 

But what does it say when most governments will come to an OSCE conference to 

condemn anti-Semitism, yet only the same two or three delegations come forward 

each time with support for education programs and other tools to combat anti-Semitism and hate crime? 

Enact inclusive hate crimes laws. The OSCE has developed guidance to establish 

a common framework for improving responses to hate crimes. 

Partner with communities and empower them to help address hate crime. 

Educate about anti-Semitism and empower students to reject and combat it. Antibias lessons which focus on the specific nature of anti-Semitism should be integrated 

into the curriculum and into after-school activities. Education ministries should establish anti-bias teaching standards and model policies to protect students from 

school-based anti-Semitic incidents and harassment. Schools should adopt formal 

written policies governing how teachers, administrators and security professionals 

identify and respond effectively to bias-motivated bullying, violence, and harassment. The policy should include formal reporting and complaint procedures and facilitate cooperation between educators and law enforcement officials. 

Promote effective Holocaust remembrance and education. There is increased recognition that Holocaust education alone does not counter anti-Semitism and that effective programs must also address contemporary anti-Semitism as a separate subject. 

Utilize parliamentary forums. Many of the initiatives we have described were the 

product of Congressional hearings and inquiries like this one. The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has mobilized some of the OSCE efforts. The All-Party Parliamentary 

Inquiry Into Antisemitism in the UK is also a model other parliaments could follow. 

Parliamentarians from different countries gathered in London in February 2009 for 

the founding Conference and Summit of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism, issued a ‘‘London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism’’ 

which any parliamentarian can endorse. A follow-up conference was held in Ottawa 

in November 2010, which led to the Ottawa Protocol on Combating Antisemitism 

of September 2011. 

What the US Can Do 

Prioritize combating anti-Semitism on bilateral agendas. The US should let our 

allies know that addressing anti-Semitism and hate crime is part of our bilateral 

agenda. Special Envoy Rosenthal can play a role in putting a country’s lack of compliance on the US agenda. Congress has a central role to play in promoting this emphasis both within the State Department and in your own bilateral contacts and 

outreach to foreign officials. 

Sustain support for the Office of Special Envoy. One of the primary reasons it is 

so important that Presidents Bush and Obama appointed Special Envoys to Monitor 

and Combat Anti-Semitism is because anti-Semitism is a continuously mutating 

phenomenon that is not always easy to discern. As this testimony has set out, it 

sometimes must be addressed in unique ways and it requires the attention of someone experienced to have a particular focus on crafting a strategy to address it. 

Congress and the Administration should have visible contact with Jewish communities. While many embassies have deep and longstanding relationships with Jewish 

community activists, there are many communities which have never had contact 

with their local US mission. Outreach to Jewish communities is one way to facilitate 

data collection and connect Jewish communities with US resources and efforts. 
105 

Elevate the Role of the US National Point of Contact on Hate Crime. The US is 

well poised to lend expertise and put forward programming initiatives as part of the 

OSCE discussion on hate crime. But that effort should engage hate crime experts 

who can put forward practical tools and initiatives. Although the US drove the creation of the OSCE hate crime initiative, the current list of the 56 National Points 

of Contact shows that the US is the only country that has designated an officer of 

its OSCE mission as its National Point of Contact on hate crime. While diplomats 

play a vital role in safeguarding and advancing our agenda on a day-to-day basis 

in Vienna, there is no question that the US would be well served by putting our 

best hate crime experts into this mix as so many of the other countries do. 

Combating anti-Semitism should be part of the full array of human rights and democracy programming, funding, and public diplomacy efforts. For example, the 

State Department’s International Visitor Programs and other US-funded exchange 

and public diplomacy programs should reflect the growing US and international recognition of anti-Semitism and of the problem of hate crime broadly. US assistance 

programs should fund prevention as well as response efforts. While part of the challenge is to institute legal norms and protections for victims of anti-Semitism, we 

also know that prevention efforts can head off tension, conflict, and violence that 

can erupt when anti-Semitism goes unanswered. US assistance programs could 

focus on public education campaigns to promote tolerance. 

The US must not demur from addressing anti-Semitism with Muslim and Arab 

leaders. In his Cairo speech, President Obama spoke directly to the Arab World 

about the centuries of persecution and anti-Semitism endured by the Jewish people. 

The President understood the challenge, that hatred of Jews is deeply rooted there 

and is poised to be part of the landscape for generations if it is not addressed. The 

instruments of US public diplomacy and President Obama’s emissary to the Organization of the Islamic Conference should actualize the spirit of the President’s statement in Cairo and seek ways to address the issue of anti-Semitism where it is needed most. 

Provide training and assistance to improve the policing and prosecution of antiSemitism. US training and technical assistance programs, such as rule of law and 

judicial assistance programs and police training delivered through US International 

Law Enforcement Academies, are prime vehicles to reach governmental and law enforcement audiences around the world. We should not miss an opportunity to provide training on hate crime response, including legal tools, model policies, and training on investigating and prosecuting anti-Semitic crimes. 

Strengthen the fight against anti-Semitism and intolerance at home. Congress has 

been instrumental in advancing the fight against global anti-Semitism on the international stage. As legislators, each of you has the ability to also strengthen America’s efforts to address and prevent anti-Semitism and hate crime here at home. The 

federal government has an essential role to play in helping law enforcement, communities, and schools implement effective hate crimes prevention programs and activities. We know of no federal anti-bias or hate crimes education and prevention 

programming that is currently addressing youth hate violence. Members of Congress 

should authorize federal anti-bias and hate crimes education programs to help 

schools and communities address violent bigotry. 
106 
107 
108 
109 

APPENDIX II: WHAT IS ANTI-SEMITISM? 

Anti-Semitism is a form of hatred, mistrust, and contempt for Jews based on stereotypes and myths. It can invoke the belief that Jews have extraordinary influence 

with which they conspire to harm or control society. It can target Jews as individuals, as a group or a people, or it can target Israel as a Jewish entity. Criticism 

of Israel or Zionism is anti-Semitic when it invokes anti-Jewish stereotypes, symbols 

and images, or holds Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel. 

Anti-Semitism has existed over many centuries and the negative stereotypes it 

draws on have taken hold in the popular culture and thought of many societies. It 

can take the form of hate speech, discrimination, or violence against people or property. It may target individuals or communities on small or large scales. The most 

extreme example of this was the Nazi’s organized plan to exterminate the Jews 

through the Holocaust. 

Various forms of intolerance—racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism—share many elements in common. Stereotyping, seeing the victim as the other, are among these 

common elements. On the other hand, there are core characteristics unique to each 

type of hatred. In the case of anti-Semitism, it resides in a matrix of three beliefs 

about Jews: 

1. They have almost mythical, overwhelming power; 

2. They are more loyal to an outside party than they are to their own country; 

3. They approach work or involvements, not merely as individuals, but rather in 

a cabal, in a conspiracy to achieve some sinister, Jewish-centric end. 

This matrix is insidious and provides the fuel for a lethal form of hatred, political 

anti-Semitism. This belief system, when running rampant, created the justification 

for large-scale murders of Jews on the grounds that Jews were so poisonous that 

society had a right to defend itself in any way against this poison. 

There is sometimes confusion around the term ‘‘Semitic,’’ which historically has referred to a language group that includes Arabic, Amharic, and Hebrew. ‘‘Semite’’ 

was a term that described a person who spoke one of these languages. Notwithstanding the traditional meaning of the word ‘‘Semite,’’ anti-Semitism in conventional English refers specifically to hatred of Jews. 

The word ‘‘anti-Semitism’’ is generally attributed to Wilhelm Marr, who used the 

German term ‘‘Antisemitismus’’ in a book entitled ‘‘The Way to Victory of 

Germanicism over ‘Judaism,’ ’’ in 1879. Marr claimed that ‘‘scientific’’ research into 

the characteristics of the Jewish ‘‘race’’ justified hatred for Jews. The same year his 

book was published, Marr founded a political party, ‘‘The League of Antisemites,’’ 

which campaigned for the expulsion of Jews from Germany. Just over half a century 

later, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party took this racial hatred for Jews a deadly step 

further when they exterminated six million Jews in what they called ‘‘The Final Solution.’’ 

There are two key points to understanding the origins of the word ‘‘anti-Semitism.’’ 

The first is that ‘‘anti-Semitism’’ was popularized as a term not by Jews themselves, 

but by individuals and political groups who openly proclaimed hatred of the Jewish 

people. The second is that ‘‘anti-Semitism’’ in modern English refers solely to hatred 

directed against Jews. Some who express prejudice or hatred toward the Jewish people claim that they cannot be anti-Semites because they too, as speakers of a Semitic language, are technically ‘‘Semites.’’ This semantic argument that a speaker 

of a certain language cannot by definition hold prejudice against Jews detracts from 

the real issue and undercuts the potential for dialogue about ways to end hatred 

of all kinds. 

Today, it is all too common to find anti-Semitism under the guise of extreme criticism of Israel or of Zionism, the founding nationalist ideology of the Jewish state. 

In these cases, criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-Semitism when such criticism invokes age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes, or when Israel is singularly demonized. 

Holocaust denial is a form of anti-Semitism that minimizes or denies the Nazi regime’s systematic mass murder of six million Jews in Europe during World War II. 

Holocaust deniers suggest that Jews pulled off a scam of monumental proportions, 

compelling governments, media, and academia around the world to acknowledge a 

catastrophe that never really happened. 

The most vexing issue raised by anti-Semitism is its constant presence throughout 

history, across different societies and cultures, as well as its continued existence in 
110 

our own time. It’s important to note that the presence of a substantial Jewish community is not a necessary condition for anti-Semitism to emerge. An anti-Semitic 

campaign launched by Poland’s communist regime in the late 1960s was described 

by one scholar as ‘‘anti-Semitism without Jews,’’ because Poland’s Jewish community, which numbered over 3 million before World War II, had already been decimated by the Nazi Holocaust and further depleted by the emigration of survivors. 

Today, the Arab and Islamic world is a major incubator of anti-Semitism towards 

Jews individually or as a collective, even though the Jewish population in these 

countries is nearly invisible. 

The existence of anti-Semitism in societies where there are few or no Jews, and its 

evolution throughout history, demonstrates how deeply embedded anti-Semitism has 

been across different cultures and also why persecution has been a constant fear in 

Jewish life for centuries. Anti-Semitism has been compared to a virus which adapts 

to different conditions. As with a virus, when it comes to anti-Semitism, it is possible to identify both consistent elements and elements which, while borrowing from 

previous eruptions, are updated to suit a particular environment. Many of these elements—conspiracy theories, myths, mob violence and much else—recur throughout 

the history. 

Raul Hilberg, an eminent historian of the Holocaust, telescoped the history of antiSemitism like this: ‘‘The missionaries of Christianity had said in effect: You have 

no right to live among us as Jews. The secular rulers who followed had proclaimed: 

You have no right to live among us. The German Nazis at last decreed: You have 

no right to live. The German Nazis, then, did not discard the past; they built upon 

it. They did not begin a development; they completed it.’’ 
111 

APPENDIX III: EXAMPLES OF ANTI-SEMITIC INCIDENTS ACROSS THE OSCE REGION, 2010—2011 

2010 Incidents 

Austria 

July 30, 2010—Villach—Five teenagers between 17 and 19 years old vandalized 

a memorial for Nazi victims. The five were known by police to be members of a neoNazi group. The memorial, with the names of residents who were killed by the 

Nazis, has been repeatedly damaged since it was unveiled in 1999. 

March 5, 2010—Upper Austria—Vandals defaced the walls of the former Nazi 

concentration camp Mauthausen with anti-Jewish and anti-Turkish slurs. 

Belgium 

May 21, 2010—Brussels—An identifiably Jewish rabbi was walking down the 

street when a bucket of water was dumped on him from an apartment balcony. 

April 13, 2010—Brussels—A Molotov cocktail was thrown at a synagogue in the 

Anderlecht neighborhood. Neighbors put out the fire, resulting in only superficial 

damage. 

April 5, 2010—Antwerp—According to a complaint to the police, three women 

around 20 years old and of Arab descent yelled insults at Jewish pedestrians from 

a car. One woman reportedly got out of the car, grabbed a young Jewish girl by the 

throat, and threatened to kill her. When a young man tried to separate them, the 

other two women got out of the car, shouting anti-Semitic insults, and one hit the 

young man. The police arrived and restored order. 

April 1, 2010—Antwerp—A visibly identifiable Jew was accosted as he approached 

his car, parked on a street near a mosque, and told ‘‘If we see you again, we’ll kill 

you.’’ 

January 15, 2010—Antwerp—A Molotov cocktail was thrown at the main entrance of the Bouwmeester synagogue. Some burn marks were left on the wall near 

the door, but no other damage was reported. Police are investigating. 

Bulgaria 

May 14, 2010—Sofia—A memorial to Soviet World War II soldiers was spraypainted with Stars of David and the phrase ‘‘Occupiers from distant lands.’’ 

Canada 

April 5, 2010—Gatineau, Quebec—Two students at Carleton University, including 

the vice-president of the Carleton University Students’ Association, were allegedly 

harassed and chased by a group of men brandishing a machete and screaming antiSemitic remarks in English and Arabic. The victims said they were assaulted outside of a bar by a group of ten men, who threatened and hit them. After running 

to a nearby parking lot, the assailants allegedly reappeared in a car, calling the students ‘‘F***ing Jews’’ and wielding a machete. As the students ran from the parking 

lot, one of the attackers threw the machete, narrowly missing them. 

Czech Republic 

August 30, 2010—Prague—A swastika was drawn on the front stoop of the Jubilee Synagogue. 

Denmark 

June 15, 2010— Copenhagen—Tombstones were broken in the Jewish cemetery. 

France 

October 11, 2010—Paris—A Jewish high school student had a sticker put on his 

back that read, ‘‘I boycott the Israeli occupier.’’ 

October 3, 2010—Strasbourg—Swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti were painted on 

the house of a Jewish doctor. 

September 29, 2010—Aubervilliers—A Jewish teenager on his way to a synagogue 

was attacked and robbed by several individuals, who said ‘‘Dirty Jew, I’m going to 

take out my knife’’ and ‘‘We Algerians are going to kill you.’’ 

September 13, 2010—Toulouse—A synagogue in a suburb of Toulouse was burglarized and ‘‘dirty Jews’’ was written on the ark housing the Torahs. 

August 24, 2010—Paris—An anonymous letter with a death threat and nine bullets was sent to the synagogue in Draney (a suburb of Paris where the Vichy government established a transit camp and from where 65,000 Jews were deported to 

death camps). The death threat read, ‘‘dirty Jew, we’re going to put nine bullets in 

each of you.’’ According to reports, the letter also contained a swastika and an allusion to the Gaza flotilla, and a similar letter was received by a synagogue in Stains, 

another Paris suburb. 
112 

August 17, 2010—Toulouse—A Jewish woman was accosted on a plaza by two 

men, who reproached her for buying food and not respecting the Ramadan fast. 

When the woman responded that she was Jewish, the two men called her a ‘‘dirty 

Jew’’ and hit her in the head, causing her to fall to the ground. A security guard 

who was present did not intervene. When police investigators later asked the guard 

why he did nothing, he responded that he was in a hurry to get home to break the 

Ramadan fast at sundown. The attack reportedly occurred at 7:30 p.m. Sundown on 

that day was at 8:55 p.m. 

August 3, 2010—Marmande—A Holocaust memorial in the town of Marmande, 

near Bordeaux, was vandalized. The monument, which lists the names of camps to 

which French Jews were deported, was spray-painted with ‘‘lies,’’ ‘‘Zionism,’’ and 

dollar signs. Nearby the same red paint was used to draw swastikas and ‘‘France 

for the French!’’ 

July 29, 2010—Paris—Swastikas were spray-painted on several kosher shops and 

a Jewish school in the center of Paris. 

July 22, 2010—Melun—Anti-Semitic graffiti and swastikas were spray-painted on 

the front of the town’s only synagogue and over the entire surrounding wall. The 

public prosecutor of the town, southeast of Paris, said that highest priority would 

be given to the investigation, as this was the first such attack in Melun. 

July 21, 2010—Wolfisheim—Twenty-seven graves were desecrated at a Jewish 

cemetery near Strasbourg. 

June 13, 2010—Nice—A group of young men of North African descent threw rocks 

at a Chabad rabbi while shouting, ‘‘Jew murderers.’’ 

June 7, 2010—Paris—A man of North African origin walked up the aisle of a 

train, shouting, ‘‘Are you a Jew? Are you a Jew?’’ When he came upon a man whom 

he took for a Jew, he shouted, ‘‘I don’t like Jews! I’m going to beat you. Did you 

see what your cousins did in Gaza?’’ He punched him in the face and threw him 

to the ground. The victim was hospitalized. 

June 4, 2010—Paris—Five students, ages 14 to 21, were subjected to anti-Semitic 

taunts and threats at a subway station in the Paris suburb of Bruney. Two men 

reportedly insulted them, yelled ‘‘Death to you,’’ ‘‘Jews, we’ll kill you all,’’ and 

‘‘Fofana, Fofana’’ (the name of the leader of the Gang of Barbarians who tortured 

and murdered llan Halimi in 2006). One reportedly showed a knife and made a sign 

of throat-cutting. After a student called the police, the men were arrested in a nearby supermarket. 

June 7, 2010—Metz—A Molotov cocktail was thrown at a Jewish elder care home; 

no damage was reported. 

June 6, 2010—Nice—A rabbi was insulted on the street and rocks were thrown 

at him, injuring his leg. 

April 30, 2010—Nimes—Three men, described as being of Arab descent, assaulted 

an 80-year-old Jewish man with tear gas in front of the town’s synagogue and 

spray-painted ‘‘F--—the Jews’’ on the wall. As of May 5, police have one suspect in 

custody and are searching for the two others. The attack was widely condemned, 

including by the Muslim Council of France. 

March 18, 2010—Marseille—‘‘Jews are whores’’ was spray-painted on the Ohel 

Yaacov synagogue. 

January 26, 2010—Strasbourg—Swastikas and anti-Semitic phrases such as 

‘‘Juden Raus’’ (Jews out) were painted on more than 30 headstones in a local Jewish 

cemetery. Some of the headstones were also damaged or overturned. 

Germany 

August 28, 2010—Dresden—The door of a Jewish funeral home was set on fire, 

but quickly extinguished by firefighters after being alerted by a passing cyclist. 

August 4, 2010—Bocholt—Ten gravestones were vandalized at a Jewish cemetery 

with swastikas and other anti-Semitic slogans. 

June 22, 2010—Sahlkamp, Hanover—Members of a Jewish dance troupe were 

forced off stage during a neighborhood street festival, after a group of children and 

teenagers pelted the dancers with stones and used a bullhorn to scream anti-Semitic 

remarks. One of the dancers was injured. The dance group of the Liberal Jewish 

Congregation in Hanover ended their performance. The assailants were reportedly 

of Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi, Iranian and Turkish origin. Politicians and local associations responded in outrage and disbelief to the incident. 

June 15, 2010—Babenhausen—Swastikas were spray-painted on tombstones in 

the town’s Jewish cemetery. 

June 1, 2010—Hessen—‘‘Free Gaza—long live global intifada’’ and ‘‘Stop the offense against the Gaza-flotilla’’ were spray-painted on the door of the Jewish Council. 
113 

May 16, 2010—Worms—A synagogue was doused with flammable liquid and set 

on fire during the night, resulting in a blackened exterior but no major damage. Police found eight copies of a note that stated, ‘‘So long as you do not give the Palestinians peace, we are not going to give you peace.’’ Kurt Beck, premier of the German 

state of Rhineland-Palatinate, said, ‘‘The perpetrator should know that such an act 

against a Jewish house of God is a travesty that we will pursue with all legal 

means.’’ 

March 26, 2010—Berlin—A man and two women, all in their 20’s, were beaten 

on a subway station platform. The three were approached by a man who asked if 

they were Jewish. He reportedly returned some time later with a group of youths 

who attacked the three, physically beating and kicking them and hitting them over 

the head with beer bottles. 

Greece 

June 22, 2010—Athens—Red swastikas were painted on the walls of the Jewish 

Museum of Greece. 

June 13, 2010—KavaIa—‘‘Jews Murderers’’ was spray-painted on a wall of the 

local Jewish cemetery. 

June 6, 2010—Komotini—A man was arrested after he allegedly spray-painted a 

swastika on a Holocaust Memorial. 

May 17, 2010—Rhodes—The Holocaust monument on the island of Rhodes was 

vandalized. A heavy object was used to damage the granite facade in several places. 

May 13, 2010—Thessaloniki—Gasoline-soaked rags and were used to set fire to 

a tomb in the Jewish cemetery. Swastikas and anti-Semitic graffiti reading ‘‘Fire to 

the Jews’’ and ‘‘Juden raus’’ appeared on a number of tombstones and on the wall 

of the cemetery. Three Greek neo-Nazi activists were arrested on suspicion of writing Nazi slogans on the cemetery walls. The Greek Government strongly condemned 

the vandalisms. 

January 6, 2010—Crete-—Unknown vandals broke into the island’s only synagogue and set fire to the building using an improvised firebomb. The perpetrators 

also threw a bar of soap at the building, to illustrate the common Greek anti-Semitic expression ‘‘I’ll make you into a bar of soap.’’ The building sustained significant water and smoke damage. 

Italy 

August15, 2010—Trani—‘‘Juden Raus’’ (Jews out) and a swastika were spraypainted on the exterior wall of an apartment building in Trani, a town of 50,000 

in southern Italy. 

May 13, 2010—Rome—Graffiti mocking Anne Frank and a swastika were spraypainted on a wall near an old fort where Nazis shot anti-fascists during World War 

II and which in 2009 was dedicated to victims of Nazism and fascism. The graffiti 

used a play on words in Italian to read, ‘‘Anne Frank didn’t get away with it.’’ Rome 

Mayor Gianni Alemanno denounced the incident as ‘‘obscene and shameful.’’ 

Kyrgyzstan 

September 8, 2010—Bishkek—A pipe bomb was thrown at the synagogue an hour 

before services began for the Jewish New Year. 

Latvia 

December 7, 2010—Riga—Swastikas were spray-painted on more than 100 tombstones at the New Jewish Cemetery. At a news conference, Latvian President Valdis 

Zatlers said, ‘‘We absolutely condemn vandalism in Jewish cemeteries and call for 

everything to be done to find those responsible and repair the damage.’’ 

Lithuania 

August 21, 2010—Kaunas—A pig’s head, costumed with a hat and sidelocks, was 

placed outside a synagogue. 

January 20, 2010—Vilnius—A statue commemorating Dr. Tsemakh Shabad, a 

near-legendary figure in Vilna Jewish lore, was defaced with paint. 

Poland 

July 15, 2010—Warsaw—Vandals desecrated the grave of a Polish woman who 

saved about 2,500 Jewish children from death during World War II. The words 

′′Jews out′′ were spray—painted on the Warsaw grave of Irena Sendler, who was 

recognized as one of the Righteous Among the Nations by the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Israel. 

May 8, 2010—Rzeszow—During a soccer match fans of a local team displayed a 

large banner showing a caricature of a hook-nosed stereotypical Jew with a blue and 
114 

white yarmulke—-the colors of the opposing team—-and the phrase, ‘‘Death to the 

Crooked Noses.’’ 

March 13, 2010—Krakow—A former concentration camp, Plaszow, was defaced 

with anti—Semitic slogans such as ‘‘Juden Raus’’ (Jews out) and ‘‘Hitler Good.’’ The 

vandalism was discovered on the 67th anniversary of the Nazi liquidation of the 

Krakow ghetto. 

Romania 

April 2010—Miercurea Ciuc-Three young ethnic Hungarians were arrested in a 

Transylvanian town for placing a poster on the wall of a supermarket that said, ′′Be 

ashamed. You have bought from Jews again.′′ The three are members of the local 

Hungarian Guard that is affiliated with the radical Jobbik party in Hungary. The 

phrase on the poster was used in Hungary during World War II. 

Russia 

October 6, 2010—Barnaul—‘‘The Holocaust is a myth,’’ ‘‘Adolf was right’’ and 

‘‘Death to the Jews’’ were spray-painted on the city’s synagogue. 

June 21, 2010—Tver—A homemade bomb exploded outside a Russian synagogue, 

causing property damage. Police officials have characterized the incident as ‘‘malicious hooliganism,’’ and believe it was motivated by anti-Semitism. Terrorism experts from the Moscow office of the Federal Security Service have begun a criminal 

investigation. 

March 17, 2010—Tver—Leaflets with photos of Russia’s Chief Rabbi Berl Lazar 

were hung on lampposts with the phrases: ‘‘Remember, our main enemy is the Jew. 

If you see him, beat him!’’ 

Spain 

June 16, 2010—Torremolinos—A swastika was spray-painted near the local synagogue. 

February 1, 2010—Madrid—A young Hasidic Jew was stopped on the street in the 

center of Madrid by a woman who slapped him and repeatedly hurled insults, including ‘‘Dirty Jew,’’ ‘‘You Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world,’’ and 

‘‘You Jews are thieves.’’ Bystanders called the police, who arrived while the woman 

was still there and are investigating. 

Sweden 

October 10, 2010—Malmo—About 10 teenagers threw eggs and trash cans at 

building where a weekend retreat for Jewish children was taking place. The teenagers also reportedly shouted, ‘‘Heil Hitler’’ and ‘‘Jewish pigs’’ during the attack. 

July 23, 2010—Malmo—A small explosion early in the morning blackened the entrance to the synagogue and broke three windows. A note with a bomb threat had 

been put on the synagogue door the day before. 

July 7, 2010—Stockholm—A rabbi was walking home from Stockholm’s central 

train station when four young rnen of Arab descent yelled, ‘‘You will die, f---- Israeli, 

f----- killer, you will be beaten.’’ The four then ran towards the rabbi, who escaped 

by jumping into a nearby taxi. 

June 2, 2010—Stockholm—A bomb threat was made when someone called the 

Jewish community center in and said, ‘‘the Jewish center will blow up today.’’ 

March 14, 2010—Stockholm—Rocks were thrown at the Jewish community center, 

breaking a window. 

Turkey 

June 25, 2010—Istanbul—Police arrested a man on suspicion of planning to murder rabbis in Istanbul. According to media reports, the 20-year old had sent an 

anonymous threat to a synagogue in Istanbul. 

Ukraine 

October 27, 2010—Evpatoria—‘‘Die dirty kikes’’ and swastikas were spray-painted 

on a synagogue. 

April 21, 2010—Kyiv—‘‘Death to the Jews’’ and ‘‘The Holocaust Continues’’ were 

painted on walls of a Jewish school. 

April 19, 2010—Ternopil—Twenty-six graves in the town’s old Jewish cemetery 

were vandalized with anti-Semitic and other graffiti. 

United States 

Illinois: Two suspicious packages, later determined to be explosive devices, that 

were intercepted on cargo planes were addressed to Chicago-area Jewish institutions. The packages were thought to have originated in Yemen as part of a terror 

plot by Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula. 
115 

California: At a high school party in someone’s home, one boy said to another, 

‘‘you kike’’ and punched him in the face, breaking his jaw. 

New York: A man was approached by another man on the street who pushed him 

and yelled ‘‘Go back to Aushwitz.’’ 

Florida: On the day before Yom Kippur, a group of students said to a Jewish student, ‘‘Jews starve themselves because they hate G-d.’’ The victim was struck six 

or seven times in the head and suffered a concussion. 

New Jersey: Two identifiably Jewish individuals were walking down a street 

when a pick-up truck drove past them and approximately five paintballs were fired 

from the driver-side window. 

Indiana: One campus saw a spate of incidents where a rock was thrown into the 

window of a Jewish facility, a menorah was vandalized, a display case in the Jewish 

studies department was smashed and several Hebrew-language texts (including 

some sacred texts) were stolen and were urinated on. 

California: Vandals spray painted anti-Semitic graffiti on the wall of a Jewish institution’s parking lot. Vandalism included a swastika with ‘‘88,’’ which is a commonly used number symbol meaning ‘‘Heil Hitler.’’ 

Massachusetts: A 10th grade student found a swastika, ‘‘F--- the Jews’’ and ‘‘Hitler was right’’ written on a bathroom stall. 

Connecticut: Graffiti written on stone in Jewish section of a cemetery, stating 

‘‘Damn right you kikes aren’t gonna forget,’’ with a swastika below the words. 

New York: Eight posts were defaced with blue magic marker reading: ‘‘Down with 

Jews (3 times)... ,’’ ‘‘Down with the racist Jews, exterminate them all the world will 

be a cleaner place,’’ and ‘‘Down with racist Jews.’’ 

Georgia: Someone posted ‘‘stupid Jewish bitch’’ on a teenager’s social networking 

page. 

Florida: A cantor received a threatening phone call that said, ‘‘Be careful Hitler’s 

behind you, and he’s going to put an axe in your neck.’’ 

Colorado: 3 Boulder Jewish communal organizations had their websites hacked 

and language including ‘‘Jews are terrorists. Child Organ Smugglers. F--- The Jews! 

and F--- Israel’’ was posted. 

New Jersey: A father and 12-year-old son, both identifiably Jewish, were walking 

to synagogue when a driver stopped and shouted anti-Semitic comments. 

New York: Slips of paper with the words ‘‘kill Jews’’ were found scattered across 

New York City and Nassau County. 

California: Complainant received an anonymous letter at her work address that 

said ‘‘F--- you kike, too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job.’’ 

2011 Incidents 

Belgium 

November, 2011—13 year-old Jewish girl was attacked and severely beaten by 

five schoolmates of Moroccan origin, who repeatedly called her a ‘‘dirty Jew’’ and 

told her to ‘‘go back to her country.’’ 

February 22, 2011—Antwerp—A Jewish man riding a bicycle was punched in the 

face. When he asked the attacker why he hit him, the assailant said, ‘‘Because 

you’re a Jew.’’ 

March 1, 2011—Antwerp—When three Orthodox Jews entered a cafe, the barman 

shouted at them, ‘‘No Jews.’’ When they insisted that he repeat his comment, he 

said the cafe was closed, despite numerous clients being served. 

Canada 

August 4, 2011—Toronto—A swastika with the words ‘‘Islam will rule’’ was spray 

painted on the exterior of the Beth Tikvah synagogue. 

January 15, 2011—Montreal—Vandals hurled rocks through the windows of five 

synagogues and a Jewish day school. 

France 

June 20, 2011—Paris—A 40-year-old Jewish man was attacked by two assailants 

who grabbed his bag with his tallit (prayer shawl) and tefillin (phylacteries). The 

attackers punched and kicked him in the head and body, while shouting anti-Semitic insults. The victim suffered deep bruises on his face, head lacerations that required suturing, and a fractured wrist. 

June 18, 2011—Villeurbane—A 21-year-old identifiably Jewish man was assaulted 

in a suburb of Lyon. He was accosted by an individual who said, ‘‘turn around and 

go back, you son-of-a-bitch Jew.’’ The attacker left, then returned with a hammer 

and hit the victim on the head. A dozen other assailants joined in, kicking the victim and hitting him with a nightstick. The victim was hospitalized with head and 

other injuries. 
116 

May 7, 2011—Marseilles—An 11-year-old Jewish girl on her way to a synagogue 

was accosted by a teenager who demanded to know if she was Jewish. The assailant 

threatened the girl with a knife and reportedly said, ‘‘You are going to dirty meeting.’’ Another teenager rescued the girl, who took refuge inside the synagogue. 

May 7, 2011—Marseilles—Three Jewish boys were beaten during a soccer match 

by a dozen attackers, who shouted ‘‘dirty Jews, we’re going to f--- your corpses.’’ One 

boy sustained a serious eye injury; the other two were only slightly injured. 

May 7, 2011—Nancy—A Jewish school was vandalized with anti-Semitic slogans 

and, evidence at the scene suggested, attempted arson. Minister of Education Luc 

Chatel denounced the attack as an attack on France. 

April 7, 2011—Lyon—A 21-year-old Jewish student was shot four times with a 

pellet gun in an attack involving two unidentified assailants. The incident started 

when one of the perpetrators asked the student’s name. After he responded, the perpetrator reportedly said, ‘‘You don’t look like an Antoine, you look like a Jew, you’re 

definitely a Jew.’’ When the victim confirmed he was Jewish, one of the assailants 

shot him. The student was also beaten on his head and body with the butt of the 

gun. He was hospitalized with wounds to the head, neck, abdomen, and arm. 

March 19, 2011—Garges-le`s-Gonesse—A rock was thrown through a window of a 

synagogue during an evening Purim celebration. 

March 17, 2011—Pont de Heruy—A 15-year-old Jewish boy was beaten by a group 

of about a dozen teenagers. The attackers threw him to the ground and beat him 

while yelling anti-Semitic insults. 

Germany 

March 30, 2011—Aachen—A swastika was spray-painted on the synagogue. 

January 24, 2011—Goshen—A country house owned by an identifiably Jewish 

man was the target of an arson attack. A Star of David had been painted on the 

wall, together with the word ‘‘Out,’’ and police found evidence of arson. 

Greece 

May 15, 2011—Volos—‘‘Jews you will die’’ and ‘‘Jewish (expletive), the gallows are 

coming’’ were among numerous anti-Semitic threats scrawled on the Volos synagogue and Jewish community center. Ultra-nationalist slogans, ‘‘Greece,’’ and 

crosses were also spray-painted on the synagogue’s exterior walls. 

February 8, 2011—Athens—Mikis Theodorakis, the composer of ‘‘Zorba the 

Greek,’’ said in a television interview that he is an ‘‘anti-Semite and anti-Zionist.’’ 

Hungary 

January 23, 2011—Marcali—Three teenagers toppled 75 tombstones in a Jewish 

cemetery and admitted to police that they were ‘‘showing off’’ for one another. Prime 

Minister Orban’s spokesman condemned the incident, saying, ‘‘vandalism triggered 

by anti-Semitism’’ is ‘‘offensive to the Hungarian Jewish community and to all Hungarians.’’ He added that ‘‘the government condemns vandalism and will punish such 

acts.’’ 

Netherlands 

May 14, 2011—Leek—‘‘C18,’’ a neo-Nazi slogan, and a swastika were spray-painted on the door of a Jewish school, which also houses a museum to the Jews of Leek 

who were deported and murdered during the Holocaust. 

February 10, 2011—Amsterdam—During an interfaith walk by two rabbis, two 

Muslim scholars, a bishop and a pastor in an area where several anti-Semitic incidents have occurred, a young man made a Hitler salute and yelled, ‘‘Cancerous 

Jews.’’ 

Poland 

August 10, 2011—Orla—‘‘Jews to the gas,’’ ‘‘Jude raus,’’ ‘‘All of Poland for the 

Poles,’’ and ‘‘White power’’ were spray-painted on a historic synagogue. 

Russia 

July 11, 2011—Moscow—Following the conviction of 12 neo-Nazis for murdering 

at least 20 non-Slavic people (mostly from Central Asia and the Caucasus), six Molotov cocktails were thrown at a Moscow synagogue. The synagogue did not catch fire 

and no one was injured. 

January 31, 2011—St. Petersburg—Swastikas, anti-Semitic slogans, and threats 

were spray-painted on the gate and wall of the Jewish community center. The logo 

of a neo-Nazi group, NSWP, was also drawn. 
117 

Serbia 

February 28, 2011—Belgrade—On a popular reality TV show, Serbian pop star 

Maja Nikolic said, ‘‘I don’t like Jews.’’ The Minister of Justice denounced the hate 

speech and the Public Prosecutor has opened an investigation. 

Switzerland 

February 23, 2011—Lausanne—Upon leaving a synagogue, a rabbi’s assistant was 

attacked by three individuals. The assailants asked if he was Jewish. When he responded positively, the three shouted anti-Semitic epithets, beat him with their fists 

and kicked him. Passers by intervened and called the police, who managed to arrest 

two of the assailants. 

UK 

January 29, 2011—Manchester—The head of the National Union of Students had 

to be led to safety by police from a tuition fees rally he had been due to address 

after being surrounded by protesters chanting anti-Semitic insults at him. 

Compiled by the Anti-Defamation League’s Washington Office: More information 

about ADL’s resources on hate crimes can be found at the League’s Web site: http:// 

www.adl.org and http://www.partnersaqainsthate.org/ 

c 2011 Anti-Defamation League 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 

SELECTED RESOURCES ON HATE CRIME RESPONSE AND COUNTERACTION

Anti-Defamation League 

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA): What 

You Need to Know: http://www.adl.org/combatinglhate/What-you-need-to-knowabout-HCPA.pdf 

This document provides an outline of HCPA—why it was needed and how the law 

works to protect the rights of all citizens. 

An Introduction to Hate Crime Laws: http://www.adl.org/combatinglhate/Introduction-to-Hate-Crime-Laws.pdf 

A primer on the purpose and utility of federal and state hate crime laws. 

How to Combat Bias and Hate Crimes: an ADL Blueprint for Action: http:// 

www.adl.org/blueprint.pdf 

A compilation of the best ADL resources, programs, and education initiatives designed to combat bias and hate crimes. 

Hate Crime Laws: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp 

A comprehensive overview of the history of hate crime legislation, including the 

ADL Model Hate Crime Law and an interactive map of the nation’s state hate crime 

laws. 

Hate Crime Laws: Punishment to Fit the Crime: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=3278 

A robust defense of hate crime laws by the League’s Washington Counsel. 

Bullying/Cyberbullying Prevention Law: Model Statute and Advocacy Toolkit: http:// 

www.adl.org/civillrights/Anti-Bullying%20Law%20Toolkitl2009.pdf 

This resource includes ADL’s Model anti-bullying law and an online chart of the nation’s existing anti-bullying statutes. 

http://www.adl.org/Civil Rights/letterlbullyinglcyberbullyingl201O.asp 

The League’s recommendations for anti-bullying policies and programs, sent in advance of the August, 2010 Federal Bullying Summit in Washington, DC 

FBI 

Hate Crime Statistics, 2010: http:1/www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010 

The FBI’s most recent annual hate crime report, with data collected from more than 

13,000 state and local police departments. 

Hate Crime Data Collection Guidelines: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hatecrime/hcguidelinesdc99. pdf 

The FBI’s guidelines for law enforcement agencies regarding the classification and 

collection of hate crime data. 

Hate Crime Data Collection Training Guide: http://www.fbi.goviabout-us/cjis/ucr/ 

hate-crime/trainguidedc99.pdf 

The FBI’s training manual for law enforcement agencies, with model reporting procedures and training examples. 

Department of Education 

Preventing Youth Hate Crime: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/HateCrime/start.html 

A resource that describes effective school-based hate crime prevention programs. 

Department of Education Office of Civil Rights October 26, 2010 Guidance on School 

Bullying andHarassment: http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/guidance-targetingharassment-outlines-local-and-federal-responsibility 

Department of Education/National Association of Attorneys General 

Protecting Students from Harassment and Hate Crime: http://www.ed.gov/offlces/ 

OCR/archlves/Harassmentlharassment.pdf 

A detailed guide designed to help schools develop a comprehensive approach to protecting students from harassment and hate-motivated violence. 

Department of Justice 

Addressing Hate Crimes: Six Initiatives That Are Enhancing the Efforts of Criminal 

Justice Practitioner: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bja/179559.pdf 

This Bureau of Justice Assistance report highlights six Innovative law enforcement 

Initiatives to respond to violent hate crime. 

Hate Crime Training: Core Curriculum for Patrol Officers, Detectives, and Command 

Officers: http://www.usdoj.govlcrs/pubs/hct.pdf 
124 

A comprehensive hate crime training curriculum prepared by the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Justice Department, and the Treasury Department. 

A Policymaker’s Guide to Hate Crimes: http://www.ncjrs.govlpdfflles11bja/162304.pdf 

This resource highlights the use of hate crime laws and problems that impede reporting hate crime Incidents. 

National District Attorneys Association 

A Local Prosecutor’s Guide for Responding to Hate Crimes: http:llwww.ndaa.org/ 

pdflhatelcrimes.pdf 

The single best resource designed to assist local prosecutors handling hate crime Investigations and prosecutions. 

Organization of Chinese Americans 

Responding to Hate Crimes: A Community Action Guide, 2nd Edition: http:// 

www.ocanatlonal.orgl/images/stories/docscenter/ocahatecrlme2006.pdf 

The best guidebook for community organizing and response to hate violence, with 

step-by step guidelines, checklists, internet resources, and best practices. 

SELECTED RESOURCES ON BULLYING, CYBERBULLYING, AND HARASSMENT

ADL 

1) Educational Strategies To Respond To Bullying And Cyberbullying 

ADL Curriculum Connection: ‘‘Cyberbullying: Understanding and Addressing Online 

Cruelty’’: http://www.adl.org/educatlon/currlculumlconnections/cyberbullying/default.asp 

ADL Tools for Responding to Cyberbullying: http://www.adl.org/combatbullying/ 

Committing to Respect: Lessons for Students to Address Bias: http://www.adl.org/ 

educatlon/9-11lcommittingltolrespect.pdf 

Words That Heal: Using Children’s Literature to Address Bullying: http:// 

www.adl.org/educatlon/currlculumlconnections/winterl2005 

Understanding and Addressing Cyberbullying: half-day or full-day training programs for middle and high school educators, Administrators and youth service providers: http://www.adl.org/education/cyberbullying/workshops.asp 

http://www.adl.org/education/cyberbullying/program-cyberbullying-flyer.pdf 

CyberALLyTM: a half or full-day Interactive training for middle and high school students: http://www.adl.org/education/cyberbullylng/cyberally-student-flyer.pdf 

What Can Be Done About Name-Calling: http://www.adl.org/combatbullying/pdf/ 

what-can-be-done-bullying-handout.pdf 

Take a Stand: A Student’s Guide to Stopping Name-Calling and Bullying: http:// 

www.adl.org/combatbullying/pdf/taking-a-stand-bullying-quide.pdf 

Internet Safety Strategies for Students: http://www.adl.org/education/curriculumlconnections/cyberbullying/ 

internet%20Safety%20Strategies%20for%20Students.pdf 

Confronting Hate Speech Online: http://www.adl.org/mainlinternet/ 

hatespeechonline2008.htm 

2) Advocacy Resources To Prevent And Respond To Bullying And Cyberbullying 

ADL Bullying/Cyberbullying Advocacy Toolkit for state anti-bullying laws: http:// 

www.adl.org/civillrights/Anti-Bullying%20Law%20Toolkit 2009.pdf 

Responding to Cyberhate: Toolkit for Action: http://www.adl.org/internet/Binderlfinal.pdf 

In advance of the August 11–12 Federal Bullying Summit, ADL submitted to a trio 

of federal agencies (Health and Human Services, Department of Education, Department of Justice) recommendations for programs, training initiatives, and 

researchproposals: http://www.adl.org/CivillRights/letterlbullyinglcyberbullyingl2010.asp 
125 

ADL statement at the May 13 2011 United States Commission on Civil Rights briefing on Federal Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws to Protect Students Against Bullying, Violence and Harassment: http://www.adl.org/combatbullying/ADL-USCCRstatement-on-bullying-prevention.pdf 

Updated November 2011 

Stacy Burdett is ADL’s Washington Director and heads the Government and National Affairs Office which represents the Anti-Defamation League(ADL) to the Federal government and foreign embassies on the full range of policy issues on ADL’s 

agenda. 

As the lead lobbyist on international issues, Ms. Burdett reaches out to Congress, 

the Administration and foreign diplomats to mobilize leadership and support on 

issues such as global anti-Semitism, securing fair treatment for Israel, and broader 

human rights issues like international religious freedom. Stacy is also the ADL’s 

point person on advocacy for comprehensive immigration reform and the fight 

against anti-immigrant bigotry. 

During her 18 years of service at ADL, Stacy has led efforts to advance the fight 

against anti-Semitism in international human rights fora such as the Organization 

for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations. She has testified 

before the US Congress and represented the Anti-Defamation League at numerous 

inter-governmental conferences to share ADL’s experience and strategies for countering anti-Semitism and hate crime, and for promoting anti-bias and Holocaust 

education. 

(127) 

M A T E R I A L F O R 

T H E R E C O R D 
128 

ODIHR BACKGROUNDER ON ANTI-SEMITISM ACTIVITIES—HATE CRIME

Hate Crime Report—Information received from participating States and civil society 

Information from participating States submitted to ODIHR from 2008 to 2010 

demonstrates that anti-Semitic crimes and incidents continue to occur across the 

OSCE region undermining personal, neighbourhood and regional security. These incidents include attacks against Jews or Jewish institutions and attacks against Jewish property, including the vandalism of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues. 

In 2010, twenty States reported to ODIHR that they collect data on anti-Semitic 

hate crimes. These include Austria, Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Netherlands, Poland, 

Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States. However, out of this number only three, namely France, Germany and the United Kingdom provided data in 2010. Data for the United States was released in November 

and documented 921 anti-Semitic offenses in 2010. 

• France reported 125 convictions for crimes committed with an anti-Semitic motive. French authorities also reported on an individual case that involved an attempted homicide resulting in serious injury, in which the perpetrator admitted 

that the motive was anti-Semitic. The crime was categorized as ‘‘racial, ethnic 

or religious’’; the court case is still pending. 

• In Germany, there were 1,268 anti-Semitic hate crimes, of which 37 were categorized as violent. The non violent crimes reported by the German authorities 

refer to the production and dissemination of anti-Semitic speech, including Holocaust denial. The German officials reported two instances of arson, one at a 

synagogue and one at a Jewish cemetery. 

• In the United Kingdom, official figures recorded 488 anti-Semitic hate crimes 

in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. 

Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom provided data 

for 2008 and 2009. Additionally, Belgium and France submitted data for 2008; 

meaning that that eight States submitted information to ODIHR in 2009 and six 

in 2008. 

The lack of data on anti-Semitic crimes remains a serious issue throughout the 

region. Additional efforts need to be invested to ensure that clear, reliable and detailed data are available on anti-Semitic crimes as they can enable States to assess 

the extent of hate crimes and to develop appropriate policies to address them. While 

in 2010, eight participating States provided information on new activities launched 

to combat hate crimes, none of these initiatives had a particular emphasis on antiSemitism. 

Data on hate incidents are a significant source of information for ODIHR. In 2010, 

21 civil society organizations from 31 participating States reported anti-Semitic incidents. Information from civil society included assaults, and damage or desecration 

of property, including places of worship, cemeteries, schools, the buildings of Jewish 

organizations and private homes. 

Hate Crime Report—activities in 2012 

ODIHR is currently developing a web-based interface to present the data and information on hate crimes submitted by governments and civil society. This web 

presentation will be user friendly, allowing users to upload easily the data submitted in previous years, on specific target groups or in selected countries. This will 

in particular respond to one of the shortcomings of the current Hate Crime Report: 

participating States with comprehensive data collection systems such as the United 

States or Canada have a different reporting cycle than ODIHR and thus relevant 

data is not published in the annual report. Given the fact that this is a pilot project 

for ODIHR and the sensitive nature of the data, the exact date of the publication 

of the web interface can not be determined with certainty. ODIHR expects a completion within the next 12 to 24 months. The development of the interface will include 

consultation with key actors, including representatives of participating States. 

Activities to improve government response to hate crimes 

Legislation—ODIHR continues to distribute the publication Hate Crime Laws: A 

Practical Guide. Approximately 5,500 copies of the Guide have been distributed so 

far. It is available in x languages. 

Police training—Following the independent evaluation of the Law Enforcement 

Officers Programme (LEOP), ODIHR reviewed the methodology of the programme 

and revised the content of its curriculum. The review process included the consultation of a broad group of police experts from throughout the OSCE region in May 

2011. The methodology and the curriculum of the programme, renamed Training 
129 

against Hate Crime for Law Enforcement (TAHCLE), are finalized. It is currently 

being piloted in Kosovo with the support of the OSCE Mission. 

TAHCLE is a short, compact and flexible training. It is designed to be integrated 

with other training efforts, drawing on existing resources and curricula of police 

training institutions. TAHCLE can be delivered as a training for police or as a training of trainers (ToT) for pre-service or in-service training. It can be delivered to commanders, police cadets/trainees, uniformed officers and investigators. TAHCLE is 

tailored to the needs and experiences of each country or region in which it is adopted. 

In order to address identified shortcomings in the evaluation, ODIHR defined 

TAHCLE’s methodological principles as follow: 

Interactive and motivational 

• The training is interactive because learning by doing is more effective. 

• The training is motivational as hate crime training should focus simultaneously 

on: acquiring technical skills and knowledge, as well as recognizing the adverse 

impact prejudice has on society and motivating police to address the issue. 

Human rights based 

• The programme endorses a rights-based approach because the promotion and 

respect of fundamental human rights principles, such as the right to equality, 

are essential elements to guaranteeing the security of individuals and communities. 

Experts oriented 

• The training team is composed of professional trainers and police, as well as 

prosecution experts, with comprehensive experience dealing with hate crimes. 

Ideally, experts will have understanding and experience with the local context. 

Inclusive 

• Consultation with civil society and community representatives is crucial: they 

offer significant intelligence and information in relation to the nature of hate 

crime and are important partners in effective responses to hate crime. 

Transparent and Accountable 

• The programme’s implementation is monitored in order to identify difficulties 

that need to be overcome, to recognize good practices that can be replicated and 

to help authorities make informed decisions on the next steps. 

• The programme is evaluated upon its completion to ensure its sustainability, 

and to integrate this initiative in comprehensive policy efforts aimed to address 

hate crimes. 

Activities to improve government response to hate crimes—2012 

The predecessor of TAHCLE was delivered in Poland and Croatia and has been 

used since then in the national police academies. In Poland 20,000 police officers 

were trained. Authorities in both countries expressed interest in a delivery of 

TAHCLE to their police trainers to give them the opportunity to refresh their skills 

and to amend the national curriculum as they see fit. ODIHR will present the 

TAHCLE curriculum in Poland and Croatia and seek the opportunity to gather informed feedback. 

Following the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding in Bulgaria in 2011, 

the implementation of TAHCLE will start in March 2012. The implementation plan 

includes the delivery of a training of trainers, the inclusion of TACHLE in the national curriculum for police cadets and for investigators. A crucial part of ODIHR’s 

role in the implementation of the programme includes providing support to the authorities to identify, develop and enforce policies necessary for police to use the 

skills acquired during the training. The implementation of this multi-year programme includes monitoring the delivery of training and evaluating the impact of 

the training programme. 

Additional five participating States have manifested interest in implementing 

TAHCLE. ODIHR will seek to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with at least 

two of them in 2012. 

Prosecutors —ODIHR is currently developing a Practical Guide for Prosecutors on 

Hate Crimes in close cooperation with the International Association of Prosecutors. 

The publication of the Guide is foreseen in the first half of 2012. The dissemination 

of the Guide is accompanied with the delivery of workshops for prosecutors on how 

to use legislation to prosecute hate crimes. Pilot seminars for prosecutors are being 

held in Kosovo and in Ukraine (Crimea) in December 2011. 
130 

Activities to Combat Anti-Semitism and to Promote Holocaust Remembrance and 

Education 

Participating States have committed to support programmes on education on antiSemitism and on education of the Holocaust. Participating States have also committed to promote remembrance of the Holocaust. In this regard, participating 

States were encouraged to draw on ODIHR’s expertise. ODIHR has developed technical-assistance programmes in co-operation with a number of partners, including 

the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance 

and Research, the Yad Vashem International School of Holocaust Studies in Israel, 

and Anne Frank House in Amsterdam. 

The following materials have been prepared by ODIHR: 

• Teaching Materials to Combat Anti-Semitism—developed in co-operation with 

the Anne Frank House; they aim to raise awareness among students on stereotypes and prejudices against Jews. (available at http://tandis.odihr.pl/?p=kias,tm); 

• The Guide Addressing Anti-Semitism: Why and How? A Guide for Educators, 

developed with Yad Vashem; the Guide provides educators with facts, background information and good practices regarding how to address anti-Semitism 

in the classroom. (available at http://www.osce.org/odihr/70295); 

• Preparing Holocaust Memorial Days: Suggestions for Educators is a set of recommendations for teachers on how to plan commemoration activities connected 

with annual Holocaust Remembrance Days. The Guide will be updated in 2012 

(available at http://www.osce.org/odihr/17827). 

The following is the overview of education activities on combating anti-Semitism: 

• In Austria, ODIHR’s main implementing partner is the organization Erinnern 

associated with the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education. Educational materials have been translated and are currently being tested on focus groups in 

youth clubs and schools. The Guide on addressing anti-Semitism and publication on preparing Holocaust Memorial Days are translated and disseminated. 

• In Croatia, education authorities adapted, tested and implemented the teaching 

materials. Approximately, 7,500 copies have been printed in 2008 and 2009. 

Dissemination of materials is carried out during teacher training seminars and 

online. In 2010, Croatia translated a teachers’ guide that assists teachers in lesson delivery. The Guide on addressing anti-Semitism and publication on preparing Holocaust Memorial Days are translated and disseminated. 

• Denmark is implementing and conducting training of teachers. In 2009, Danish 

education authorities organized six teachers seminars were organized about materials to combat anti-Semitism and 18 seminars on teaching about Holocaust 

and other genocides. 

• In Germany, approximately 12,000 copies of the teaching materials have been 

distributed during teachers’ seminars or through online orders. Almost 600 

teachers have been trained and more than 40 seminars organized. The Guide 

on addressing anti-Semitism and publication on preparing Holocaust Memorial 

Days are translated and disseminated. 

• The teaching materials have been prepared and translated in Hungary. A 

teacher training is planned in December. 

• In Lithuania, more than 6,000 copies of the teaching materials have been printed. Around 50 teachers have been trained during three seminars organized in 

2008 and 2009. The Guide on addressing anti-Semitism and publication on preparing Holocaust Memorial Days are translated and disseminated. 

• Anne Frank House organized eight training seminars and trained approximately 200 teachers on the use of materials in the Netherlands. The materials 

were printed in 15,000 copies. The publication on preparing Holocaust Memorial 

Days is translated and disseminated. 

• In Poland, 22 training seminars were organized in 2008 and 2009 with a total 

of 450 teachers. Materials were printed in 9,000 copies. The Guide on addressing anti-Semitism and publication on preparing Holocaust Memorial Days are 

translated and disseminated. 

• In the Slovak Republic, teaching materials were printed in 7,000 copies were 

distributed to approximately 125 schools in 2008 and 2009. Approximately, 

5,000 students have been exposed to the materials. The Guide on addressing 

anti-Semitism is translated and disseminated. 

• In Spain, materials are currently being translated. The main implementing 

partner is the organization Casa Sefarad. 
131 

1 For a copy of the final meeting report, please refer to http://www.osce.org/odihr/77450 2 Maastricht Ministerial Council decision 4/03 on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination (2003); 

Sofia Ministerial Council Decision 12/04 on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination and Annex to Decision 12/04 on Combating Anti-Semitism (2004). 

• Sweden is implementing and conducting training of teachers. Main partners include Swedish Committee against Anti-Semitism and Living History Forum. In 

2010, Sweden organized a training seminar for teachers. 

• In Ukraine, more than 250 teachers have been trained in 2010. Two additional 

training seminars are planned to take place in December. Ukrainian Centre for 

Holocaust Studies printed approximately 9,000 copies of the teaching materials. 

The Guide on addressing anti-Semitism is translated and disseminated. 

Holocaust Memorial Days 

• In 2010, ODIHR published a report ‘‘Holocaust Memorial Days in the OSCE Region.’’ It provides a country-by-country overview of the official commemorative 

activities that take place in OSCE participating States on Holocaust remembrance days. 

• The data shows that 21 States commemorate 21 January (the date Liberation 

of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp). These include: Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, 

Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, 

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Canada and the United 

States commemorate Yom Hashoah —Beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 

in 1943, while Austria, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia commemorate special dates from their history. 

• The updated version of the publication will be available on 19 April 2012. 

Activities in 2012 

• ODIHR seeks to improve the visibility and the accessibility of the teaching materials. To this end, a web version of the teaching materials will be developed 

and the existing national versions will be uploaded on TANDIS and the 

websites of partner institutions. 

• The Latvian version of the teaching materials will be finalized. ODIHR is currently discussing with two additional participating States the possibility of 

adapting the teaching materials. 

• ODIHR will continue supporting training of teachers upon availability of resources. 

THE OSCE HIGH LEVEL MEETING ON CONFRONTING ANTI-SEMITISM IN PUBLIC

DISCOURSE (23–24 MARCH 2011) 

Introduction and Background 

The OSCE high level meeting ‘‘Confronting Anti-Semitism in Public Discourse’’ 

was held in Prague on 23-24 March 2011. 1 The meeting was co-organized by the 

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the OSCE 

Chairmanship-in-Office and was hosted by the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic. A total of 164 participants registered, including 51 civil society representatives. 

Participants came from 36 participating States. 

The meeting took place in the framework of the OSCE’s ongoing efforts to promote 

international co-operation to combat anti-Semitism. Ministerial Council Decisions in 

Maastricht and Sofia, 2 among others, established a broad set of commitments aimed 

at preventing and responding to anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance. Participating States have also equipped the Organization with tools to address the 

problem of anti-Semitism and there has been considerable progress in combating 

anti-Semitism in the OSCE area, and in particular in response to hate crimes. Despite these efforts, expressions of anti-Semitism in public discourse remain a serious 

issue of concern in the OSCE region. 

Key Themes and Discussions 

The meeting was organized into three working sessions, focused on: 

• Traditional anti-Semitic themes and practices (Session I); 

• International developments as a new factor related to manifestations of antiSemitism (Session II); and 

• Effective practices in combating anti-Semitism in public discourse (Session III). 
132 

3 For a copy of the final meeting report, please refer to http://www.osce.org/odihr/77450 

Session I explored the distinction between ‘traditional’ or historic forms and contemporary forms of anti-Semitism. During subsequent discussions, there was an 

overwhelming focus on hate speech regulation and in particular the challenges in 

new or transitioning states to combat such discourse. While there was a divergence 

of opinion about the role of the state in prohibiting and/or regulating hate speech, 

there was overwhelming agreement on the need to build the capacity of media professionals to report on interfaith and tolerance related issues in a professional and 

impartial manner. 

Session II provided meeting participants with an opportunity to explore how international developments can spark manifestations of anti-Semitism. In particular, 

panelists and participants discussed how events in the Middle East and negative 

perceptions of Israeli policies have been followed by spikes in anti-Semitic hate 

crimes. Other modern forms of anti-Semitism were also raised, including manifestations on the Internet. 

The focus of Session III was to share good practices and gather a set of recommendations on how to prevent and respond to anti-Semitism in public discourse. 

The value of coalition building—both within parliaments through cross party alliances and more broadly—emerged as a good practice. Education was also stressed 

for its positive value, both within the formal education sector and non-formal sector. 

Holocaust, peace and tolerance education, and the use of social networks and creative campaigns targeting youth were provided as examples. Finally, capacity building and professional development for journalists were favoured as strategies rather 

than prohibitive sanctions. 

Key Recommendations 

The following recommendations represent some of the key recommendations which 

were proposed during the high level meeting and are addressed to OSCE participating States. A full list of recommendations targeting different stakeholders, including members of the media and OSCE institutions, can be found in the meeting 

report. 3

• Participating States should implement OSCE commitments on monitoring and 

reporting of hate crimes and should enact laws that establish hate crimes as 

specific offenses or provide enhanced penalties for bias-motivated violent crimes. 

When collecting and publicizing data on hate crimes, participating States 

should produce disaggregated statistics in order to be able to distinguish antiSemitic hate crimes from other hate crimes. 

• Participating States should fulfill their obligations to provide security to vulnerable communities and invest the necessary resources to protect vulnerable community institutions and places of worship, including synagogues, cemeteries, 

and faith based schools. 

• Parliaments should consider establishing all-party parliamentary committees 

against anti-Semitism. 

• Governments should consistently and publicly denounce all forms of intolerant 

speech, and condemn the use of foreign conflicts to inflame domestic inter-communal tension. Politicians should counter hate speech and Holocaust denial 

with truthful and informative responses and should increase the use of the 

Internet and online forums in addition to traditional media sources when communicating these messages to the public. 

• Participating States should create specialized law enforcement units to monitor 

and investigate cyber hate speech and should strengthen transnational networks and partnerships that monitor and investigate hate speech on the Internet. 

• Participating States should invest in educational initiatives that confront prejudice and stereotypes related to anti-Semitism and should invest in teacher 

training programs on human rights norms and principles. 

• Participating States should invest in professional training programs for members of the media to develop their skills and capacity to report about issues facing different religious and cultural groups, including the Jewish community. 

These programs should focus on the role of the media in exacerbating and/or 

decreasing inter-ethnic tension and violence and explore issues relating to professional ethics and responsibility. 
133 

SUMMARY OF MINISTERIAL COUNCIL TASKINGS GIVEN TO THE ODIHR IN THE AREA

OF TOLERANCE AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

Ministerial Council Decision No. 4 (Maastricht MC 2003) 

— Encourages all participating States to collect and keep records on reliable information and statistics on hate crimes, including on forms of violent manifestations 

of racism, xenophobia, discrimination, and anti-Semitism, as discussed and recommended in the above-mentioned conferences. Recognizing the importance of legislation to combat hate crimes, participating States will inform the ODIHR about existing legislation regarding crimes fuelled by intolerance and discrimination, and, 

where appropriate, seek the ODIHR’s assistance in the drafting and review of such 

legislation; 

— Tasks the ODIHR, in full co-operation, inter alia, with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) and the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), as well as relevant NGOs, with serving as 

a collection point for information and statistics collected by participating States, and 

with reporting regularly on these issues, including in the format of the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, as a basis for deciding on priorities for future 

work. 

— The ODIHR will, inter alia, promote best practices and disseminate lessons 

learned in the fight against intolerance and discrimination; 

— Encourages the participating States to seek the assistance of the ODIHR and its 

Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief. 

— Undertakes to combat discrimination against migrant workers. Further undertakes to facilitate the integration of migrant workers into the societies in which they 

are legally residing. Calls on the ODIHR to reinforce its activities in this respect; 

— Undertakes, in this context, to combat, subject to national legislation and international commitments, discrimination, where existing, against asylum seekers and 

refugees, and calls on the ODIHR to reinforce its activities in this respect; 

— Tasks the Permanent Council, the ODIHR, the HCNM and the RFoM, in close 

co-operation with the Chairmanship-in-Office, with ensuring an effective follow-up 

to the relevant provisions of the present decision, and requests the Permanent 

Council to address the operational and funding modalities for the implementation 

of this decision. 

Ministerial Council Decision No. 12 (Sofia MC 2004) 

PC Decision 601 on Combating Anti-Semitism Tasks participating States to: 

— Collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about anti-Semitic 

crimes, and other hate crimes, committed within their territory, report such information periodically to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human 

Rights (ODIHR), and make this information available to the public; 

— Endeavour to provide the ODIHR with the appropriate resources to accomplish 

the tasks agreed upon in the Maastricht Ministerial Decision on Tolerance and NonDiscrimination; 

Tasks the ODIHR to: 

— Follow closely, in full co-operation with other OSCE institutions as well as the 

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), 

the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the European 

Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and other relevant international institutions and NGOs, anti-Semitic incidents in the OSCE area making 

use of all reliable information available; 

— Report its findings to the Permanent Council and to the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting and make these findings public. These reports should also be 

taken into account in deciding on priorities for the work of the OSCE in the area 

of intolerance; 

— Systematically collect and disseminate information throughout the OSCE area on 

best practices for preventing and responding to anti-Semitism and, if requested, 

offer advice to participating States in their efforts to fight anti-Semitism; 

PC Decision 621 on Tolerance and the Fight against Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination Tasks participating States to: 

— Collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about hate crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia and related discrimination and intolerance, committed 
134 

within their territory, report such information periodically to the OSCE Office for 

Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and make this information 

available to the public; 

— Endeavour to provide the ODIHR with the appropriate resources to accomplish 

the tasks agreed upon in the Maastricht Ministerial Decision on Tolerance and NonDiscrimination; 

Tasks the ODIHR to: 

— Follow closely, in full co-operation with other OSCE institutions as well as the 

United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD), 

the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), 

the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the European 

Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and other relevant international institutions and NGOs, incidents motivated by racism, xenophobia, or related intolerance, including against Muslims, and anti-Semitism in the OSCE area 

making use of all reliable information available; 

— Report its findings to the Permanent Council and to the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting and make these findings public. These reports should also be 

taken into account in deciding on priorities for the work of the OSCE in the area 

of intolerance; 

— Systematically collect and disseminate information throughout the OSCE area on 

best practices for preventing and responding to racism, xenophobia and discrimination and, if requested, offer advice to participating States in their efforts to fight 

racism, xenophobia and discrimination; 

— Support the ability of civil society and the development of partnerships to address racism, xenophobia, discrimination or related intolerance, including against 

Muslims, and anti-Semitism; 

Ljubljana Ministerial Decision No. 11 on the promotion of human rights education 

and training in the OSCE area (Ljubljana MC 2005) Tasks the ODIHR: 

— To produce a compendium of best practices for participating States on enhancing 

the promotion of human rights education and training, including the promotion of 

tolerance, mutual respect and understanding, and non-discrimination in the OSCE 

area. 

Ljubljana Ministerial Decision No. 10 on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination: Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding (Ljubljana MC 2005) Commits participating States to: 

— Strengthen efforts to provide public officials, and in particular law enforcement 

officers, with appropriate training on responding to and preventing hate crimes, and 

in this regard, to consider setting up programmes that provide such training, and 

to consider drawing on ODIHR expertise in this field and to share best practices; 

— Encourage public and private educational programmes that promote tolerance 

and non-discrimination, and raise public awareness of the existence and the 

unacceptability of intolerance and discrimination, and in this regard, to consider 

drawing on ODIHR expertise and assistance in order to develop methods and curricula for tolerance education in general, including: 

— Fighting racial prejudice and hatred, xenophobia and discrimination; 

— Education on and remembrance of the Holocaust, as well as other genocides, 

recognized as such in accordance with the 1948 Convention on the Prevention 

and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and crimes against humanity; 

— Education on anti-Semitism in order to ensure a systematic approach to education, including curricula related to contemporary forms of anti-Semitism in 

participating States; 

— Fighting prejudice, intolerance and discrimination against Christians, Muslims and members of other religions; 

— Strengthen efforts to collect and maintain reliable information and statistics on 

hate crimes and legislation within their territories, to report such information periodically to the ODIHR, and to make this information available to the public and to 

consider drawing on ODIHR assistance in this field, and in this regard, to consider 

nominating national points of contact on hate crimes to the ODIHR; 

Tasks to the Secretary General: 

— The Secretary General, drawing on the expertise of the OSCE structures and institutions, in particular the ODIHR, to provide in co-operation with participating 

States an OSCE contribution to the ‘‘Alliance of Civilizations’’ initiative and to bring 
135 

it to the attention of the Alliance of Civilizations High-Level Group by the end of 

June 2006. 

Tasks the ODIHR to: 

— Assist participating States upon their request in developing appropriate methodologies and capacities for collecting and maintaining reliable information and statistics about hate crimes and violent manifestations of intolerance and discrimination, with a view to helping them to collect comparable data and statistics; 

— Continue its co-operation with other OSCE structures and institutions, as well 

as with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 

(UNCERD), the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 

(UNHCHR), the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), the 

European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), the Task Force 

for International Co-operation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, 

and with other relevant institutions and civil society, including non-governmental 

organizations; 

— Through its Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief, to continue providing support to the participating States, upon their request, in their efforts to promote freedom of religion or belief, and to share the Panel’s conclusions 

and opinions with OSCE participating States, both bilaterally and at relevant OSCE 

conferences and events; 

Brussels Ministerial Decision No. 13 on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination 

and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding (Brussels MC 2006) Encourages the ODIHR, based on existing commitments, including through co-operation 

with relevant OSCE executive structures to: 

— Further strengthen the work of its Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Programme, in particular its assistance programmes, in order to assist participating 

States upon their request in implementing their commitments; 

— Further strengthen the work of the ODIHR’s Advisory Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief in providing support and expert assistance to participating 

States; 

— Continue its close co-operation with other relevant inter-governmental agencies 

and civil society working in the field of promoting mutual respect and understanding and combating intolerance and discrimination, including through hate 

crime data collection; 

— Continue to serve as a collection point for information and statistics on hate 

crimes and relevant legislation provided by participating States and to make this 

information publicly available through its Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Information System and its report on Challenges and Responses to Hate-Motivated Incidents in the OSCE Region; 

— Strengthen, within existing resources, its early warning function to identify, report and raise awareness on hate-motivated incidents and trends and to provide recommendations and assistance to participating States, upon their request, in areas 

where more adequate responses are needed; 

Madrid Ministerial Decision No. 10/07 on Tolerance and Non-Discrimination: Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding 

The Decision: 

— Calls for continued efforts by political representatives, including parliamentarians, strongly to reject and condemn manifestations of racism, xenophobia, antiSemitism, discrimination and intolerance, including against Christians, Jews, Muslims and members of other religions, as well as violent manifestations of extremism 

associated with aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism, while continuing to respect 

freedom of expression; 

— Underlines the continued need for participating States to collect and maintain 

reliable data and statistics on hate crimes and incidents, to train relevant law enforcement officers and to strengthen co-operation with civil society; 

— Encourages the promotion of educational programmes in the participating States 

in order to raise awareness among youth of the value of mutual respect and understanding; 

— Calls on participating States to increase their efforts, in co-operation with civil 

society to counter the incitement to imminent violence and hate crimes, including 

through the Internet, within the framework of their national legislation, while respecting freedom of expression, and underlines at the same time that the opportuni-
136 

ties offered by the Internet for the promotion of democracy, human rights and tolerance education should be fully exploited. 

Athens Ministerial Decision No. 9/09 on Combating Hate Crimes 

Calls on the participating States to: 

— Collect, maintain and make public, reliable data and statistics in sufficient detail 

on hate crimes and violent manifestations of intolerance, including the numbers of 

cases reported to law enforcement, the numbers prosecuted and the sentences imposed. Where data-protection laws restrict collection of data on victims, States 

should consider methods for collecting data in compliance with such laws; 

— Enact, where appropriate, specific, tailored legislation to combat hate crimes, 

— providing for effective penalties that take into account the gravity of such crimes; 

— Take appropriate measures to encourage victims to report hate crimes, recognizing that under-reporting of hate crimes prevents States from devising efficient 

policies. In this regard, explore, as complementary measures, methods for facilitating, the contribution of civil society to combat hate crimes; 

— Introduce or further develop professional training and capacity-building ativities 

for law-enforcement, prosecution and judicial officials dealing with hate crimes; 

— In co-operation with relevant actors, explore ways to provide victims of hate 

crimes with access to counselling, legal and consular assistance as well as effective 

access to justice; 

— Promptly investigate hate crimes and ensure that the motives of those convicted 

of hate crimes are acknowledged and publicly condemned by the relevant authorities 

and by the political leadership; 

— Ensure co-operation, where appropriate, at the national and international levels, 

including with relevant international bodies and between police forces, to combat 

violent organized hate crime; 

— Conduct awareness raising and education efforts, particularly with law enforcement authorities, directed towards communities and civil society groups that assist 

victims of hate crimes; 

— Nominate, if they have not yet done so, a national point of contact on hate crimes 

to periodically report to the ODIHR reliable information and statistics on hate 

crimes; 

— Consider drawing on resources developed by the ODIHR in the area of education, 

training and awareness raising to ensure a comprehensive approach to the tackling 

of hate crimes; 

— To seek opportunities to co-operate and thereby address the increasing use of the 

Internet to advocate views constituting an incitement to bias-motivated violence including hate crimes and, in so doing, to reduce the harm caused by the dissemination of such material, while ensuring that any relevant measures taken are in line 

with OSCE commitments, in particular with regard to freedom of expression. 

ODIHR 

— Invites the Director of the ODIHR to keep the participating States informed 

about the ODIHR’s work in assisting the participating States to combat hate crimes 

during his or her regular reporting to the Permanent Council. 

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.