```

[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

              RESPONDING TO ANTI-SEMITISM AND ANTI-ISRAEL
                 BIAS IN THE UN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY,
                           AND NGO COMMUNITY

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON GLOBAL HEALTH,
                        GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
                      INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 22, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-36

                               __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,
                       or http://www.govinfo.gov
                       
                                __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
56-738                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                           
                      
                      COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                   MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey        GREGORY MEEKS, New York
JOE WILSON, South Carolina           BRAD SHERMAN, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            GERALD CONNOLLY, Virginia
DARRELL ISAA, California             WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts
ANN WAGNER, Missouri                 AMI BERA, California
BRIAN MAST, Florida                  JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
KEN BUCK, Colorado                   DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              TED LIEU, California
MARK GREEN, Tennessee                SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
ANDY BARR, Kentucky                  DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 COLIN ALLRED, Texas
YOUNG KIM, California                ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida               SARA JACOBS, California
BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan              KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa      SHELIA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                    Florida
WARREN DAVIDSON, Ohio                GREG STANTON, Arizona
JIM BAIRD, Indiana                   MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
MIKE WALTZ, Florida                  JARED MOSKOWITZ, Florida
THOMAS KEAN, New Jersey              JONATHAN JACKSON, Illinois
MICHAEL LAWLER, New York             SYDNEY KAMLAGER-DOVE, California
CORY MILLS, Florida                  JIM COSTA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              JASON CROW, Colorado
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN JAMES, Michigan
KEITH SELF, Texas

                Brendan Shields, Majority Staff Director
              Sophia A. LaFargue, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                

           Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights
                    and International Organizations

                CHRISTOPHER SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
MARIA SALAZAR, Florida               SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania,
AMATA RADEWAGEN, American Samoa        Ranking Member
FRENCH HILL, Arkansas                AMI BERA, California
RICH McCORMICK, Georgia              SARA JACOBS, California
JOHN JAMES, Michigan                 KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
                Mary Vigil, Subcommittee Staff Director
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               WITNESSES

                                                                   Page
Mr. Natan Sharansky, Chair, Institute for the Study of Global 
  Antisemitism and Policy........................................    10
Mr. Yona Schiffmiller, Director of Research, NGO Monitor.........    22
Mr. Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director, Palestinian Media Watch.    35
Mr. Eugene Kontorovich, Director of International Law Department, 
  Kohelet Policy Forum...........................................    58
Mr. Hillel Neuer, Executive Director, United Nations Watch.......    70
Dr. Sharon Nazarian, Director, Anti-Defamation League National 
  Board of Directors.............................................    81
Mr. Yair Rosenberg, Staff Writer, The Atlantic...................    94

                                APPENDIX

Hearing Notice...................................................   121
Hearing Minutes..................................................   123
Hearing Attendance...............................................   124

 
                    RESPONDING TO ANTI-SEMITISM AND
                ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS IN THE UN, PALESTINIAN
                      AUTHORITY, AND NGO COMMUNITY

                              ----------                              

                        THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 2023

                House of Representatives,  
      Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human  
                 Rights, and International Organizations,  
                                    Committee on Foreign Affairs,  
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:14 a.m., in 
Room 2200, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 
Smith [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Mr. Smith. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Global 
Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations 
will come to order. And good morning.
    The rising tide of antisemitism worldwide is cause for 
serious alarm. With no sign of abating anywhere, Jewish men, 
women, and children continue to suffer bias, hate, cruelty, and 
violence, simply because they are Jewish. This pernicious 
manifestation of evil needs to be exposed, and it needs to be 
more effectively combated.
    The purveyors of antisemitism never take a holiday, nor 
should we. Silence is not an option.
    A few days ago, as I think everybody in this room knows, 
Robert Bowers was found guilty of dozens of federal hate crimes 
for murdering 11 people at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue 
in 2018, the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S. history.
    In April of 2022, Dan Marsh from my hometown of Manchester 
attacked a Jewish man waiting at a stop sign in Lakewood, New 
Jersey, stole his car, and ran over two other Jewish men and 
stabbed another. He awaits trial on numerous charges, including 
antisemitic hate crimes.
    Just two weeks ago, Ron Carr also of Manchester, my 
hometown, painted swastikas on 15 houses and burnt a house to 
the ground. The perpetrator has been arrested and charged with 
36 criminal counts.
    Today's hearing focuses on rampant antisemitism, anti-
Israel bias, in the United Nations, the Palestinian Authority, 
and the NGO community. In the past, I have chaired 20 
congressional hearings on combating anti-Semitism, but this 
year we are going to do a whole series--and into next year--
that will cover every aspect of this horrible hate.
    One of our witnesses today, Dr. Sharon Nazarian of ADL, 
notes that antisemitic hate and prejudice is deeply entrenched 
globally, including throughout Europe and the United States, 
and that the Middle East and Northern African countries have 
``by far the highest level of antisemitic attitudes.''
    Israel, as we all know, faces an ongoing existential 
threat, and it is due in large part to antisemitism. America 
and the free world must continually strengthen the bond of 
friendship and tangible support for Israel.
    Among the distinguished--our distinguished panel of experts 
today--and what a distinguished panel--we welcome the legendary 
human rights leader and former Soviet political prisoner Natan 
Sharansky. As part of the delegation led by NTSJ that included 
my good friend Mark Levin, we met with Natan Sharansky's mother 
40 years ago--that is, in 1983--in Moscow, who asked us not 
only to press for her son's release from the Gulag but to 
insist that he get desperately needed medicine. And in every 
meeting we had with Soviet officials, Natan Sharansky was what 
we began with.
    A few years later, Congressman Frank Wolf and I traveled to 
Perm Camp 35, the infamous concentration camp where Natan 
Sharansky bravely resisted every Soviet attempt to break his 
indomitable will. Pushing Gorbachev's glass nose to the limits, 
we videotaped every conversation with political prisoners and 
shared that with Natan when we got back, as he had just 
recently been released, so we gave it to him, and he said, 
``They were my friends.''
    At a hearing that I chaired in June of 2004, and at the 
OSCE Berlin Conference, Natan Sharansky powerfully articulated 
his incisive 3D test for identifying antisemitism and said that 
it often tries to hide behind the veneer of a legitimate 
criticism of Israel.
    He said, and I quote, ``Of course, if you want to be 
successful in the struggle against antisemitism, as against any 
other evil, there must be moral clarity on the issue, what we 
are talking about.''
    It is important to define the line between legitimate 
criticism of Israel and antisemitism. Israel is a strong 
democracy and the only democracy in the Middle East. And it is 
built on the criticism for both within and without. ``Of 
course, we support all forms of legitimate criticism,'' he went 
on, ``but it is very important to see the difference, draw the 
line between legitimate criticism and antisemitism.''
    According to history, D test, criticism of Israel is 
nothing less than antisemitism when it passes over into 
demonization, the first D, of Jews in Israel. Being legitimized 
as the Jewish state, the second D, or applies a double 
standard, and that certainly happens all over the world, 
particularly at the U.N. And there is one standard for Israel 
and another standard for every other country.
    Another witness today, Hillel Neuer, executive director of 
U.N. Watch, has been a mighty force for the good of exposing 
and fighting an unconscionable human bias against Israel, 
including at, of all places, the U.N. Human Rights Council. He 
underscored that bias late last year again when he pointed out 
that the U.N. General Assembly condemned Israel for a total of 
15 resolutions targeting the Jewish state in 2022 compared to 
13 for the rest of the world.
    He said, and I quote, ``The U.N.'s latest assault on Israel 
with a torrent of one-sided resolutions is surreal,'' he said, 
``despite the fact that Israel is the Middle East's only 
democracy, and instead the U.N. is empowering the region's 
despots.''
    Itamar Marcus, director of the Palestinian Media Watch, 
exposes the PLA's unrelenting antisemitic attacks and notes 
that ``The combination of political and religious antisemitism 
with hatred of Israel, all in the name of Allah, directly leads 
to the PA's policy to see murdering the Israelis as heroic and 
Allah's will.''
    And as a result, 100 percent of the murders of Israelis are 
honored, 100 percent of terrorists in jail for murdering Jews 
receive PA salaries, 100 percent of terrorists killed while 
murdering Jews are declared to be martyrs.
    Each of our witnesses are uniquely qualified, have been 
leaders for years in this struggle, and are making a 
significant difference in this human rights struggle.
    Finally, as the author of the original provisions of the 
Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, originally the bill 
was just going to be a 1-year review, we added a special envoy 
and made it an office. It was opposed by some in the State 
Department, surprise, surprise, including Colin Powell who 
wrote a 4-page letter against it, which only got us even more 
worked up to get it passed.
    I also am the author of the Frank Wolf International 
Religious Freedom Act, which also provides a great push for all 
religious bias and prejudice and hate, and also, in 2021, wrote 
the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act, 
which upgraded and strengthened the special envoy to the rank 
of ambassador, reporting directly to the Secretary of State. 
And I, like I think every--I know everyone on this panel--
interact regularly with Ambassador Lipstadt and her staff and 
are truly grateful for her leadership.
    I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague, 
Congresswoman Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you so much, and thank you to all of our 
witnesses, including our virtual witness, for being here on 
this incredibly important topic.
    And thank you to our chairman for convening this hearing.
    Less than a week ago, a man in Michigan with a history of 
neo-Nazi associations and antisemitic social media posts was 
charged with planning to attack a local synagogue to attack--to 
mark the fifth anniversary of the attack on two mosques in 
Christchurch, New Zealand.
    On the same day that he was arrested, the man responsible 
for the attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in my home state 
of Pennsylvania, the worst single antisemitic attack in our 
Nation's history, was finally convicted.
    The threat connecting these incidents is clear in my view. 
It is the viciously antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic 
ideology of white supremacists, who have been emboldened by far 
too many extremist far right movements in governments around 
the world in recent years, including right here in the United 
States.
    This was the ideology on display as neo-Nazis stormed the 
streets of Charlottesville in 2017 chanting ``Jews will not 
replace us.'' I remember watching that on television and just 
the horror that I felt as I saw that.
    This is the ideology that fuels dangerous conspiracy 
theories, like the claim that a cabal of Jews is organized mass 
influxes of immigrants and refugees into our societies. This is 
the ideology that leads Victor Orban in Hungary, arguably the 
most influential sitting leader in the global far right 
ecosystem today, to amplify that very same conspiracy theory 
and to devote the full force of his government to scapegoating 
a prominent Jewish public figure, George Soros, with blatantly 
antisemitic rhetoric.
    In the year 2023, the forces of antisemitism remain 
incredibly deadly and pervasive here in our country and around 
the world. And I have to add parenthetically that just 
yesterday I learned there was media in my home district, 
Pennsylvania 7, about antisemitic leaflets that were being 
dropped in neighborhoods from the sky.
    Horrifying in this day and age. Horrifying in my own 
community. And I received a number of very concerned texts and 
phone calls and emails from people in my district, and I was 
just stunned. But if you care to look it up, it is in the media 
in Allentown, Pennsylvania.
    So this is what I intend to devote the bulk of my time in 
this hearing to today. But of course there is a disturbing 
pattern of antisemitic rhetoric from Palestinian leaders that 
has also been present in Palestinian textbooks. And 
antisemitism is the driving ideology of the Hamas and 
Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organizations.
    These antisemitic views must be confronted as well for the 
benefit of all, and there is no doubt that there is 
antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the United Nations. This 
has been documented extensively over the years, including by 
the witnesses before us today.
    The disproportionate focus of the General Assembly and its 
subagencies on the Jewish state should be alarming to all. At 
the same time, we know that progress only comes when we are 
engaged and we have a seat at the table. Tough, robust, 
principled, diplomatic engagement on the international stage, 
not retreating and surrendering to isolationism is the only 
path forward.
    Here is what I also believe. As a steadfast supporter of 
the U.S.-Israel partnership, who precisely because of that 
strong support that I have, believes passionately in a two-
state solution, I have and I will always support the policy of 
using the full force of the vote and voice of the United States 
to stand with our ally, Israel, while advancing peace, 
security, rights, and dignity for both Israelis and 
Palestinians.
    I am a proud Jewish American, and my Judaism anchors my 
belief in universal rights and dignity. That means two states 
for two people living peacefully and securely. That is the only 
way we can guarantee that Israel remains a democratic Jewish 
state indefinitely while providing equal freedom and justice 
for the Palestinian people.
    And I say this not just as a member of Congress, but as the 
mother of two young adults who have been raised in their Jewish 
faith, who have been to Israel on multiple occasions, and who I 
want to have the land of Israel there for in their future long 
after I might be gone.
    In this hearing, and more broadly, I hope that we can focus 
on genuinely taking on antisemitism around the world wherever 
and whenever it occurs, and that starts with taking on the 
forces of white supremacism that seek to deny the fundamental 
humanity of the Jewish people. Let us work together to protect 
Jewish communities by advancing the landmark U.S. National 
Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism that was recently released by 
the Biden Administration.
    Let us redouble our efforts to support the work of the 
Office of the Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism 
around the globe. Let us stand together and in doing so 
demonstrate that our Nation stands strong against the murderous 
poison of antisemitism.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Ms. Wild.
    I would like to yield to Ms. Manning such time as she may 
consume.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you so much, Chairman Smith and Ranking 
Member Wild, and thank you to all of our witnesses for joining 
us today. And hello to my friend, Natan, who I believe is 
joining us from Israel.
    And, Mr. Chairman, let me say how proud I am to serve with 
you as co-chair of the House Bipartisan Task Force for 
Combating Anti-Semitism.
    The scourge of antisemitism has infected societies around 
the world for centuries. It is the hatred of Jews drawn from 
conspiracy theories, lies, and malign ideas that has led to the 
murder of Jews during the Crusades, the Inquisition, countless 
pogroms, the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews during 
the Holocaust, violent attacks on Jews in our country walking 
down the streets of New York and Los Angeles and the murder of 
11 Americans praying in a synagogue in Pittsburgh.
    It is something that I have been working to try to defeat 
my entire adult life. It is a history I carry on my shoulders 
every day. Anti-Semitism is a persistent, shape-shifting hatred 
that knows no bounds. Sadly, it is on the rise here in the 
United States and around the world. It is also undeniable that 
anti-Israel rhetoric can often fall outside the bounds of 
legitimate discussion of policy differences and lurch with ease 
into antisemitism.
    We must stand against antisemitism in all its forms. That 
is why it is so important that members of both parties call for 
and help secure the first ever U.S. National Strategy to 
Counter Anti-Semitism. This whole-of-society strategy gives us 
a one-of-a-kind opportunity not just to counter antisemitism in 
this country but to lead countries around the world to do the 
same.
    I want to congratulate the Biden Administration for taking 
this issue seriously and for coming up with a strategy that is 
actionable with timelines and accountability, and it contains a 
variety of action steps for Congress to take.
    I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress, 
with my good friend Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, and the 
Administration, to make sure a terrible past is not repeated 
under our watch.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Kathy.
    We are going to again do a quick mic check with Natan 
Sharansky, but I will introduce him and all of our witnesses 
very briefly. And your full resumes will be included in the 
introduction, but these are the shortened versions.
    Natan Sharansky is chair of the Institute for the Study of 
Global Antisemitism and Policy. In the past, he has also served 
as chairman of the executive of the Jewish Agency for Israel, 
as minister or deputy prime minister in foreign government of 
Israel. Prior to that, he established a party in order to 
accelerate the integration of Russian Jews into Israel. And 
before that he was a political prisoner, as we all know, and an 
incredible refusenik and a man of great honor and courage.
    He is the author of four books and the recipient of 
America's two highest awards, including the Congressional Medal 
of Freedom and the Presidential and the Congressional Medal of 
Honor.
    Our second witness, Yona Schiffmiller, is director of 
research at NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institute. 
His research is focused on issues related to the provision of 
humanitarian assistance, including the diversion of aid by 
terrorist organizations in Gaza and the West Bank. He has also 
researched and written on the nexus between terror-linked NGOs 
and U.N. agencies, as well as relationships between these 
organizations and donor governments. Important work.
    Our third witness is Itamar Marcus, who is the founder and 
director of Palestinian Media Watch. For over 20 years he has 
researched the Palestinian Authority world and has written 
hundreds of reports and articles on PA activity, statements, 
education, sports culture, and other frameworks the PA controls 
as it relates to the peace process.
    Mr. Marcus was appointed by the Israeli government in 1999 
to represent Israel in negotiations with the PA, incitement in 
the ``Trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee'' that was chaired 
by the United States.
    Our fourth witness, Eugene Kontorovich, is a professor at 
George Mason's Scalia School of Law, and director of its Center 
for International Law in the Middle East. He is also the head 
of the International Law Department at the Kohelet Policy 
Forum, a Jerusalem-based think tank, and is recognized as one 
of the world's preeminent experts on international law and the 
Israeli-Arab conflict.
    He has emerged as pretty much of a one-man legal lawfare 
brain trust for the Jewish state according to Haaretz.
    We will then hear from Hillel Neuer, who is the executive 
director of U.N. Watch, a human rights NGO in Geneva, 
Switzerland. Mr. Neuer taught international human rights at the 
Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as vice president of the 
NGO Special Committee on Human Rights in Geneva.
    I know that I frequently--and I told him this a moment 
ago--go to his website. When the human rights--U.N. Human 
Rights Commission matriculated to the Human Rights Council, 
there was no change. All this talk of reform, and Israel is 
still an overwhelming focus, you know, to, where is North 
Korea? Where is Iran? Where is China? And so many other 
despotic states.
    So he does an amazing job, and, again, thank you for that 
leadership.
    Our sixth witness will be Dr. Sharon Nazarian, who is a 
member of the Anti-Defamation League's National Board of 
Directors, and is president of the Y&S Nazarian Family 
Foundation, with a regional office in Israel named for the Ima 
Foundation. She is founder of the Younes & Soraya Nazarian 
Center for Israel Studies at the University of California, 
UCLA.
    And, again, thank you for all that ADL does in terms of 
chronicling with polls and empirical data this terrible cancer 
called antisemitism.
    And our seventh witness, Yair Rosenberg, is a staff writer 
at The Atlantic, where he covers the intersection of policies, 
culture, and religion, and writes a newsletter. He has reported 
on antisemitism for over a decade across multiple continents.
    Previously a senior writer at Tablet Magazine, he has also 
written for the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the 
Wall Street Journal. Thank you as well for being here.
    I would like to now just do a mic check to make sure that 
Natan Sharansky can provide us with his comments.
    [Pause.]

 STATEMENTS OF NATAN SHARANSKY, CHAIR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY 
OF GLOBAL ANTISEMITISM AND POLICY; YONA SCHIFFMILLER, DIRECTOR 
OF RESEARCH, NGO MONITOR; ITAMAR MARCUS, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, 
   PALESTINIAN MEDIA WATCH; EUGENE KONTOROVICH, DIRECTOR OF 
  INTERNATIONAL LAW DEPARTMENT, KOHELET POLICY FORUM; HILLEL 
    NEUER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UNITED NATIONS WATCH; SHARON 
 NAZARIAN, DIRECTOR, ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE NATIONAL BOARD OF 
   DIRECTORS; AND YAIR ROSENBERG, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC

                  STATEMENT OF NATAN SHARANSKY

    Mr. Sharansky. Dear Congressman Smith, we are comrades in 
arms for many years. And Congressman Smith, Congresswoman Wild, 
and all the other members, thank you for organizing it, and 
thank you for permitting and agreeing that I will speak in such 
a way through Zoom.
    But please, if the connection will be bad, don't suffer and 
move to the other speakers. I will not be upset.
    So I am dealing with the problem of antisemitism 
practically for the 50--last 50 years as a human rights 
activism political prisoner of the Soviet Union, and then as a 
minister in Israel government dealing with antisemitism, and 
then as the head of Jewish agency.
    And let me show--share some of my experience. So recently, 
the White House released the first ever U.S. National Strategy 
to Combat Anti-Semitism, a very comprehensive plan, and we 
thank President Biden, Second Gentleman Emhoff, Special Envoy 
Lipstadt, and Ambassador Rice for compiling this comprehensive 
plan.
    And I have to say that Jewish organizations, Jewish world, 
reacted very positively. But there is one point, one paragraph, 
in this plan, which caused confusion or mixed reactions. And 
I'll read it. There are several definitions of antisemitism 
which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase 
understanding of antisemitism. The most prominent is the non-
legally binding, working definition of antisemitism adopted in 
2016 by the 31 member states of the International Holocaust 
Remembrance Alliance, so called IHRA definition, which the 
United States has embraced.
    In addition, the Administration welcomes and appreciates 
the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts.
    So why should this be a problem? Because IHRA definition is 
the only one which really connects the old antisemitism 
attacking Jews and the new antisemitism attacking state of 
Israel.
    Well, what should be their connection? I had to answer this 
question for many, many years. After all, antisemitism, the 
oldest existing hatred directed against Jewish people. And 
Israel is a relatively young state, 75 years old. Why 
disagreement about the way it was created, the fact that it was 
created?
    The disagreement with the policy of this or that 
government, why it should be called antisemitism? And I have to 
say that the--that in the Soviet Union there was no such a 
question, because in the Soviet Union it was clear at the 
moment. Soviet Union starts new round of attacks on Israel. 
Everybody knew that Jews have a problem.
    The Jews who have no idea what the word Zionism means, but 
they should be concerned about their place of work, about their 
career. They should be concerned that they will be demanded 
immediately to condemn Zionism, because the Jewish religion 
would condemn any connection with Jewish nationalism.
    And when another round of attacks on Jews where there is 
nationalist or so-called cross-mobilized started almost 
immediately moving also. And I believe that it is because 
Soviet Union was a dictatorship, and dictatorship always needs 
scapegoat, enemy, and there was no better enemy scapegoat, 
internal and external, than Jews and the state of Israel.
    And that is why when I moved to the free world, I was 
really surprised when the year 2000 at the U.N. conference, 
which was the first United Nations global conference against 
racism, they came with one conclusion, that Israel is an 
apartheid state, the one which follows the example of South 
Africa. And suddenly all the democratic states in the Middle 
East is questioned about the legitimacy of its existence, such 
as the cartoons against Israeli leaders look exactly like the 
cartoons at the times of Nazis, also with propaganda.
    Suddenly, Israel is a tool that is treating Palestinians 
exactly as Nazis about treating the Jews, and we--part of the 
cultural intersect that Palestinian refugee camps, that is 
exactly the Auschwitz of today. And all this, it was insisted 
that it is all a legitimate criticism of Israel. That is when I 
proposed my three D's: demonization, double standard, and 
delegitimization. They were saying these are the main tools 
against Jews for 1,000 years.
    Of course, being a double standard, in law or without law, 
Jewish demonization, the Jews are the claws of Satan, et 
cetera, and the famous denial of the legitimacy of Jewish 
religion, but replaced entirely, and the famous article by Jews 
about the nation. These were the tools.
    So I said when there is clear demonization, a double 
standard of Jewish state, or the delegitimization of Jewish 
state, it should be treated as antisemitic. And then, if you 
accept this formally, understand why the treatment of Islam, 
the Human Rights Committee of United Nations, is antisemitic, 
why BDS movement, which has singled out Israel is antisemitism, 
while denial of the right of Jewish people to have their own 
state is antisemitism, and of course why demonization of Israel 
as some satanic force or neo-Nazi force is antisemitic.
    And, in fact, later in 2016, IRHA definition--that is the 
exact definition which does deal with the formulas, which gives 
examples when criticisms of Israel becomes antisemitic, that is 
exactly the demonization, double standard, delegitimization.
    So when I was traveling--in the last 20 years, I visited 
about 100 American campuses. I could see very clearly how dis-
confident, how badly feel Jewish students, especially Zionist 
students, because of this new antisemitism, and vice versa, the 
attacks on Jews almost immediately are accompanied by the 
attacks on Israel.
    So that is like very closely linked phenomenas, and we get 
it--that's--when Americans, the antisemitism rise on both 
sides. You can't make a deal with this phenomena without 
recognizing all of the--part of it. But we really have to have 
one definition in order to do this, and that is why IHRA 
definition is so important. And that is why I really call 
American station does such a wonderful job in building 
comprehensive plan to stick to this definition of antisemitism.
    We will not be able to win if people on the left will be 
attacking antisemitism of the right, and the people on the 
right will be attacking antisemitism on the left. There should 
be no left and right. Demonization of Jewish people and 
demonization of the state of Israel, the double standard of 
Jews, the double standard of Israel, delegitimization of Jews 
and state of Israel is one and the same phenomena. And please 
let's stick by this definition.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sharansky follows;]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Sharansky, thank you so very much again not 
only for appearing today--and I know you have a hard stop at 
11:50--but above all for your leadership for the last half-
century. It has been extraordinary. Your bravery is, like I 
said at the beginning, the stuff of legends.
    I remember asking you once how--because I went to Perm Camp 
35 to visit, saw the SHIZO where--the solitary confinement, and 
was just--cells and you spent time there. And I remember asking 
you once how you got through that, and you did make mention of 
how you meditated on the psalms and how important that was to 
you.
    So, again, I want to thank you, and I know my good friend, 
Ms. Wild, would like to just say something as well.
    Ms. Wild. Yes. Thank you very much. Sorry for the delay in 
getting started, but we really appreciate your testimony.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very, very much.
    I would like to now ask Mr. Schiffmiller if you would 
present your remarks.

                 STATEMENT OF YONA SCHIFFMILLER

    Mr. Schiffmiller. Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I thank you for 
convening today's hearing and for the opportunity to testify.
    Appearing today in my personal capacity, I am director of 
research for NGO Monitor, founded by Professor Gerald Steinberg 
in 2002 following the antisemitic proceedings of the 2001 
Durban Conference Against Racism described both in my written 
testimony and by Mr. Sharansky.
    NGO Monitor is a globally recognized research institute 
promoting democratic values and good governance. By publishing 
independent analyses of NGOs, their funders, and other 
stakeholders, we work to ensure that decisionmakers and civil 
society operate in accordance with the principles of 
accountability, transparency, and universal human rights.
    In a 2017 presentation, the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, 
who served for over 20 years as the chief rabbi of the United 
Kingdom, was a member of the British House of Lords and an 
internationally renowned scholar, noted that antisemites often 
couch their anti-Jewish rhetoric in the language of the highest 
ideals of the day.
    During the Middle Ages, it was religion; in the 20th 
century, science. And today it is human rights discourse, which 
is used to mask and legitimize antisemitic agenda.
    The pathological obsession with Israel that permeates 
institutions and organizations that claim the mantle of human 
rights has led to the manipulation, distortion, and perversion 
of these truly lofty ideals. In my written testimony, I 
summarize several NGO-driven campaigns, including BDS 
initiatives, attempts to blacklist and sanction the IDF, 
threatening Israel with ICC investigations, and explicit calls 
for dismantling the Jewish state.
    NGOs that oppose Jewish self-determination have learned 
that adopting the language of human rights and international 
law is the most effective strategy for achieving their goals.
    However, when responding to acts of terrorism and violent 
antisemitism, many of these organizations reveal their true 
beliefs. Some actors ignore these phenomena altogether, while 
others, particularly officials at European government-funded 
Palestinian NGOs, justify violence.
    In my written testimony, I described Human Rights Watch, 
HRW, invokes human rights principles to accuse Israel of 
committing apartheid and to lobby for a host of BDS measures. 
However, when the rights of Jews are violated, HRW is absent. 
In 2021, the ADL recorded 2,717 antisemitic incidents in the 
United States, the highest total since the organization began 
tracking in 1979.
    HRW's 2022 World Report covering 2021 does not mention 
antisemitism in the United States even once.
    Jews appear to be the exception to the supposed pursuit of 
universal human rights. Abhorrent as this indifference is, the 
celebration of and justification for violence expressed by 
officials at European-funded Palestinian NGOs is uniquely 
disturbing.
    Take for instance the cases of the Palestinian Center for 
Human Rights, PCHR, and Al-Haq, an organization whose terror 
ties, as well as its extremely anti-Zionist and international 
BDS campaigning, are described in greater detail in my written 
testimony.
    These two European government-backed NGOs are among the 
architects of many of the anti-Israel efforts detailed in my 
written testimony, successfully lobbying for the U.N. blacklist 
of companies operating beyond the 1949 armistice line, 
including American firms, as well as the launching of an ICC 
investigation into Israel, a worrying precedent for U.S. 
officials and military personnel.
    As I describe in my written testimony, Al-Haq in particular 
is one of the leading actors seeking to apply the apartheid 
label to Israel and defines the Jewish state as inherently 
illegitimate.
    Last month, as Islamic Jihad and other terrorist 
organizations launched over 1,200 rockets towards Israeli 
population centers--each one a war crime--PCHR published a 
statement in which it ``affirms the Palestinian people to 
resist the occupation by all available means, including armed 
struggle.'' Under pressure from donors, this text was amended.
    Statements by PCHR's board members and by officials at Al-
Haq and other Palestinian NGOs reveal how pervasive those 
attitudes are. In a Facebook post published during the 
fighting, PCHR board member Nadia Abu Nahla referred to Israel 
as ``the Nazi criminal occupation,'' adding ``May the 
resistance,'' a euphemism for Palestinian terrorist 
organizations, ``have victory.''
    Following a January 26 IDF operation in Jenin in which 10 
Palestinians, mostly armed members of terrorist organizations, 
were killed in a gun battle, Abu Nahla wrote, ``Oh he who 
guides the blood vengeances. May you guide our blood 
vengeance.'' Are these the words of a human rights defender?
    On January 28, 2 days after the gun battle in Jenin, seven 
Israeli civilians were murdered by a Palestinian terrorist 
outside of a Jerusalem synagogue. In an interview given 2 days 
later, the deputy chair of PCHR's board of directors said that 
Palestinians are not prevent ``from taking revenge against the 
massacres that are occurring in Palestine,'' adding ``The flame 
of Palestinian resistance shall not end but continue as long as 
there is occupation, settlement, and Judaization.''
    Al-Haq officials have also legitimized the text on Israeli 
civilians. Following the massacre outside the Jerusalem 
synagogue, Al-Haq legal researcher and advocacy officer Aseel 
Al Bajeh wrote, ``Why are settlers allowed to be in occupied 
Jerusalem, a war crime that the world recognizes?'' Adding 
separately ``Forcing Palestinians to defend their right to 
resist is another complicity with Israel's colonialism.''
    Just yesterday she wrote, ``Shedding Palestinian blood and 
destroying entire families and futures is Zionism.'' She 
accompanied the statement with pictures of Palestinians killed 
in clashes with the IDF this week, including two Hamas members 
who murdered four Israeli civilians just 2 days ago and three 
members of Islamic Jihad killed last night after they opened 
fire at an Israeli border crossing.
    There are other such statements from board members and 
officials from these and other European government-funded 
Palestinian NGOs. But to catalogue them all would require more 
time than we have here today.
    Allow me to conclude with a word on the European funding 
that I have been referencing. In recent years, Al-Haq has 
received grants from the European Union as well as from the 
governments of France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and 
Sweden. PCHR has received funding from the European Union as 
well as from the governments of Switzerland and Norway and from 
U.N. agencies.
    The director of PCHR, Raji Sourani, a man who has been 
publicly celebrated by the Popular Front for the Liberation of 
Palestine, a U.S. designated terrorist organization, was hosted 
this week by Dutch officials in The Netherlands.
    In addition to being funded by U.N. governments--excuse me, 
by European governments, both organizations are cited and 
relied upon by U.N. agencies and mechanisms and have interacted 
directly with the ICC. Simply put, this must end. Organizations 
like these, of which there are unfortunately many more, should 
be expelled from the policy-making community, not funded, 
sought after, and consulted with.
    Governments, U.N. frameworks, and international legal 
bodies, as well as ESG firms and other corporate actors, should 
shun these groups and implement effective vetting measures that 
ensure that no like-minded actors are supported or their 
reporting relied upon in the future. There can be no Jewish 
exception to the cause of universal human rights, nor should 
those professing violence be permitted to masquerade as human 
rights practitioners.
    I thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I 
look forward to the subcommittee's questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schiffmiller follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much for your very eloquent 
statement, and your written statement just has so much even 
more. So I deeply--we deeply appreciate it.
    Mr. Marcus.

                   STATEMENT OF ITAMAR MARCUS

    Mr. Marcus. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, esteemed 
members of Congress, thank you very much for calling this 
hearing, and thank you very much for inviting me.
    I appear before you today as head of Palestinian Media 
Watch to shed light on a fundamental and lethal component of 
Palestinian Authority ideology, which is Palestinian Authority 
antisemitism. Palestinian Authority antisemitism is not a 
collection of isolated hate speech. By today, it is a 
fundamental part of Palestinian ideology, and it is a great 
motivator of Palestinian Authority terror.
    I will focus today on two aspects of Palestinian Authority 
antisemitism, which is the political antisemitism and the 
religious antisemitism. The Palestinian Authority political 
antisemitism has three stages. The first is presenting the Jews 
as inherently evil and endangering not just Palestinians but 
endangering all of humanity.
    Number two is that Jews are, therefore, hated and 
themselves are responsible for antisemitism.
    Finally, the Western countries are anxious to solve their 
problem of--the Jewish problem by getting rid of the Jews. They 
were the ones who initiated Zionism, and they were the ones who 
initiated the establishment of the state of Israel to solve 
their Jewish problem. Israel, therefore, is a colonial implant 
with no right to exist.
    Now, I want to show you--give you some examples of this in 
Palestinian Authority leadership as well as from their official 
media. Already in 2023, this following interview with a 
Palestinian researcher, Palestinian Authority broadcast three 
times already this year, and it goes as follows.
    He quotes, ``Jews are arrogant by nature. They do not 
accept the other. The Jewish thinking is based on racism that 
caused them to be hated everywhere, and the Jewish thinking is 
based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The Europeans 
hated them and wanted to get rid of them, so they had the idea 
of establishing a Jewish state.''
    And, like I say, PATV broadcast their entire horrific 
interview three times already this year. Elie Wiesel has said 
about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, if ever there was a 
piece of writing that could produce mass hatred, this is one, 
and yet the PA continues to present this as an authentic 
document of Jewish plant to subjugate humanity.
    Mahmoud Abbas, in a televised speech, said the following, 
that 10 centuries of massacres of Jews, as well as the 
Holocaust itself, were caused by the Jewish ``social role, 
usury, and banks.'' Abbas was literally saying that the 
Holocaust the Jews brought on themselves because of the social 
role.
    Now, just now at the U.N. last month, Habbas spoke, and 
this is what he said. Britain and the United States decided to 
plant a foreign entity in our homeland for colonialist 
purposes. These countries wanted to get rid of the Jews and 
profit from them in Palestine. Two birds with one stone.
    Abbas was revealing this fundamental of Palestinian 
ideology, which is that Israel is the result of settler 
colonialism and, therefore, has no right to exist.
    Now, what is clear from this is that Palestinian anti-
Zionism is founded in Palestinian antisemitism.
    Now, this PA demonization of Jews has been accepted by 
Palestinians as fact. And according to a 2014 ADL poll, they 
found ``87 percent of Palestinians say it is probably true that 
people hate Jews because of the way Jews behave.'' Eighty-seven 
percent of Palestinians were hated--Jews are hated because of 
the way they behave.
    Now, this denial of Israel's legitimacy leads directly to 
the PA teaching that Israel will eventually inevitably be 
destroyed. And I will give you some examples from children's 
education in the Palestinian Authority. This is a Fatah 
children's magazine called Waed, and they have quotes in there 
like ``There is no invader who invaded this land that did not 
leave it defeated. That is what will happen to the Zionist 
invaders.''
    The goal is to liberate Palestine that was stolen by the 
colonialist and aggressive Zionist movement. A key to the 
colonialism appears--and this as well--Algeria's experience, 
which was the end of French colonial rule, talks about assures 
that the Jewish settlers in Palestine will disappear in the 
end. Jews will all leave Palestine. This is Fatah education.
    Now, I just read a poll this morning which is added in, 
which connects to this teaching that Israel will eventually be 
destroyed, will disappear. The poll was done by Khalil Shikaki, 
the most important Palestinian pollster, and the question was, 
will Israel celebrate its 100th anniversary? Sixty-six percent 
of Palestinians said no; 27 percent said yes. So two-thirds of 
Palestinians have accepted this ideology that Israel inevitably 
will be destroyed.
    And I will add that as long as Palestinians believe there 
is a chance to destroy Israel, that is a great motivator for 
terror.
    Now, Palestinian Authority antisemitism has also become an 
important source for global antisemitism. Last week when Fatima 
Mohammed spoke at CUNY University law school graduation, she 
said, ``Israel is a project of settler colonialism.'' She was 
literally repeating this fundamental part of Palestinian 
Authority ideology.
    Now, with the political antisemitism embedded in 
Palestinian ideology, then comes the religious ideology, the 
religious antisemitism, which puts Allah's stamp of approval on 
this hatred.
    And I will quote some of the things from Mahmoud al-
Habbash. He is the most important religious figure in the PA. 
He is Mahmoud Habbas' personal adviser on Islam, and he is head 
of the Sharia courts.
    And this is what he said on TV. Jews are humanoids, 
creatures that Allah created in the form of humans, those who 
Allah has cursed and made them apes and pigs.
    He also taught that Jews throughout history have worked 
together with Satan disseminating evil. Israel, he said, 
because it is a Jewish state, is Satan's project, and that is 
the reason the Palestinians are in conflict. Again, this is the 
most important religious figure in the PA, Habbas' adviser.
    This same adviser also taught the religious reason to kill 
Israelis. He started by quoting from the Quran where the Quran 
says kill them, and then he, in his own words, defined 10 
categories of crimes for which to kill people. All are crimes 
that he routinely accuses Israel of doing--taking their land, 
taking their homeland, et cetera.
    So here he was saying the Quran is telling you to kill, and 
then he ends with a quote from the Quran, ``Kill them wherever 
you find them.'' Again, this is Habbas' adviser on Islam.
    Last year during the Ramadan, PATV preacher prayed, 
``Allah, delight us with the extermination of the evil Jews.'' 
And an important Palestinian religious figure who teaches, he 
is responsible for teaching preacher training, he said, ``Allah 
willing, the end of the Jews and America that supports the Jews 
will be in Palestine.''
    This combination of political and religious antisemitism 
results in the PA's justifying every single murder of every 
Israeli and honoring every murderer.
    Two months ago, an Israeli mother and her two daughters, 
Lucy, Maia, and Rina Dee, were murdered in a drive-by shooting. 
After Israel tracked down the killers, the murderers and killed 
them, Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh posted pictures of the 
murderers of the Dee family on his Facebook page with the text 
``Glory and eternity to our righteous Shahids,'' our righteous 
martyrs, people who died for Allah.
    The automatic Palestinian Authority support for every 
murderer, no matter what Israeli is killed, including Israeli 
children, can only be understood when recognizing the 
centrality of Palestinian Authority antisemitism, which sees 
murdering of Jews and Israelis as justified as an ideal act for 
Allah.
    Now, a new Palestinian poll I mentioned, I found this 
morning something also shocking that I want to read to you 
related to the support for killing Israelis. Eighty-six percent 
of the Palestinian Authority of Palestinians--I am sorry, 86 
percent say the Palestinian Authority does not have the right 
to arrest members of these armed groups to prevent them from 
carrying out attacks against Israel.
    The armed groups that are doing all the recent terror, 86 
percent of Palestinians say the Palestinian Authority should 
not arrest them and disarm them.
    Palestinian Authority antisemitism I would say is the 
elephant in the room that the international community has 
ignored, looking for all sorts of other reasons to blame the 
conflict on. It is now embedded in Palestinian Authority world 
view and is being echoed in CUNY University and around the 
world. It is urgent that PA antisemitism be put front and 
center, and discussions about any future solution have to 
include a major focus on Palestinian Authority antisemitism.
    Only after this fundamental reason for Palestinian hate is 
eliminated can the Palestinian Authority be a potential peace 
partner and will be the chance for stopping the spread of 
Palestinian antisemitism around the world.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Marcus follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Kontorovich.

                STATEMENT OF EUGENE KONTOROVICH

    Mr. Kontorovich. Thank you. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 
Wild, honorable members of the committee, I am honored to be 
invited here to discuss contemporary antisemitism.
    Opposing antisemitism is easy because everyone is on your 
side. Certainly, in polite society, you won't find anyone 
embracing the label. Today the general anathema on antisemitism 
makes anti-Zionism a convenient and common substitute. At the 
same time, criticism of Israel, as one would of any other 
country, is entirely legitimate, thus defining ``antisemitism'' 
accurately is crucial.
    Those who seek to single out, delegitimize, and harm the 
world's primary Jewish community claim that they are merely 
responding to the bad things the Jewish state actually does. 
They have reasons, you see. They have reasons.
    The notion of antisemitism, how does one answer this? The 
notion that antisemitism only applies to unreasoning, foaming 
at the mouth, purely emotional Jew hated, misunderstands what 
antisemitism is and has always been as I will show.
    These remarks are very timely, because the Biden 
Administration's new National Strategy on Anti-Semitism harms 
efforts to respond to it by referring to two different and 
fundamentally contradictory definitions of it.
    The remainder of my testimony explains why the IHRA 
definition discussed by Mr. Sharansky is correct in identifying 
Israel as a major focus of antisemitism and addresses the 
claims made by the Nexus Document cited in the National 
Strategy, which argues that double standards against Israel 
should not be presumed to be antisemitic.
    The only widely accepted definition of antisemitism today 
is the working definition of the International Holocaust 
Memorial Association, IHRA. It crucially states that anti-
Zionism or anti-Israel conduct can be manifestations of 
antisemitism.
    IHRA's definition provides several examples, claiming the 
existence of Israel is illegitimate for ab initio, the 
widespread practice of applying double standards to the Jewish 
state or ``requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded 
of any other democratic nation.''
    This IHRA definition obviously struck a chord. It has been 
formally adopted by at least 39 countries, the EU, the EC, the 
OSC, most U.S. states, and the vast majority of ideologically 
diverse jurisdictions, universities, and entities around the 
world.
    The U.S. has also adopted the IHRA definition, and the 
National Strategy on Anti-Semitism reaffirms that while also 
``welcoming what is known as the Nexus Document,'' an effort 
designed to undermine the Israel-focused aspect--the Israel 
antisemitism of IHRA's definition.
    Nexus does not treat as presumptively antisemitic either 
the questioning of the basic legitimacy of Israel's existence 
or the application of double standards, discriminatory 
standards to Israel. According to Nexus, such views may have 
legitimate grounds. We will discuss what those may be.
    Unlike IHRA's adoption by a wide range of countries, not a 
single country has adopted the Nexus definition. So Nexus last 
month leaped from discussions of like-minded academics straight 
into a White House policy document. While the IHRA definition 
remains the only one officially used by the Government, the 
National Strategy citation of Nexus harms efforts to respond to 
antisemitism by referring to these two different definitions.
    Israel bashing is ostensibly directed against the state of 
Israel, not the Jews. So how can it be antisemitic? In anti-
discrimination law, American anti-discrimination law, it is 
well known that discrimination need not be 100 percent 
congruent with the targeted class.
    Proxies for race, sexual orientation, and so forth, can be 
discriminatory using proxies. Moreover, no one disputes that 
the political treatment of a country could potentially be a 
proxy for bigotry against the faith or ethnicity of that 
country. For example, when the prior Administration adopted 
immigration restrictions on five Muslim majority countries, 
many members of this House denounced it as a Muslim ban, even 
though it cited countries, not religions.
    Israel is by far the largest Jewish community in the world, 
and the home to the plurality--and soon the majority--of the 
world's Jews. The vast majority of American Jews identify 
closely with Israel, making Zionism a convenient proxy for 
Jewishness.
    Unfortunately, some people who understand that proxy--a 
country could be a proxy for bigotry, who vigorously denounced, 
for example, President Trump's immigration rules as a Muslim 
ban, now argue that it is okay to single out Israel and apply 
to it double standards. This is a double standard within a 
double standard.
    The claim that anti-Israel obsession is merely about 
Israeli policies needs to be evaluated in a historical context. 
For 2,000 years, the obsessive focus on the supposed wrongs of 
this one tiny group has resurfaced across an amazing array of 
cultures and epochs. From the Romans to the Crusades, from the 
Reformation to the Inquisition, from national to international 
socialism, the justifications change, the target remains the 
same.
    Finally, the Jewish people in our times reconstituted their 
nation and immediately found it the subject of unparalleled 
international defamation and libel. Jews have been hated 
sometimes as adherents of a faith, sometimes as members of a 
people. Now the extraordinary enmity is aimed at their state. 
The coin lands on the same side on every toss. It is an amazing 
coincidence. The segue from earlier modes of antisemitism to 
anti-Zionism is stunning.
    Now, effective antisemites have always sought to justify 
their bigotry by claiming that they simply object to the bad 
things that Jews do. Capitalism, communism, monarchy-ism, not 
accepted Christianity, even Hitler had elaborate policy reasons 
for his opposition to Jewry. In contemporary terms, he thought 
they harmed global human rights.
    The accusations leveled against Israel today resemble those 
made by antisemites throughout history. Instead of Jews being 
accused of killing Gentile children, Israel is accused of 
deliberately killing Palestinian children. Instead of Jews 
being accused of causing a plague among Gentiles, Israel is 
accused of causing disease amongst Palestinians.
    The accusation of apartheid is a modern blood libel, an 
absurd big lie, and responding to it justifies it more than it 
deserves, but inciteful in ways that cannot be rectified by 
mere refutation.
    Just as the classic blood libel resonated with religious 
preoccupations of earlier ages, today's claims resonate with 
the ethnic justice concerns of our own times. That is the power 
of apartheid. That in our times several members of Congress can 
level such accusations against the Jewish state is truly 
distressing.
    Now I want to say that the Nexus Document says there may be 
a valid reason for people to care more about Israel. They say 
maybe people care about Israel because Israel gets more U.S. 
foreign aid than other countries.
    Now, in my written testimony, I have a chart of how much 
aid different countries get from the United States. And as you 
will see, Israel does in fact get more, and there are--there is 
much more hostility to Israel. I have various measures of 
hostility to Israel, New York Times' resolutions.
    As you see, after Israel it drops off very 
disproportionately. Egypt, King Jordan, massive recipients of 
U.S. aid. They don't get half of the criticism of Israel, not 
in Congress, not in the United Nations, and not in the pages of 
The New York Times.
    So whatever this phenomenon is, it seems to only work for 
Israel, this aid-focused justification.
    And, finally, I will close by pointing out of course 
countries around the world have very harsh policies against 
Israel. I have a table in my testimony where I show U.K.'s 
votes against Israel. Are these other countries voting against 
Israel because of U.S. foreign aid? It doesn't stand to reason.
    So this form of antisemitism is one of the dominant forms 
of our day and must be taken very seriously.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kontorovich follows:] 
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Neuer.

                   STATEMENT OF HILLEL NEUER

    Mr. Neuer. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, members of 
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this 
important hearing. I have come here directly from the United 
Nations Human Rights Council session underway now in Geneva to 
report to you about the antisemitism and demonization of Israel 
that is taking place there and in many other parts of the 
United Nations.
    Now, the U.N. Charter guarantees ``the equal treatment of 
nations large and small.'' Yet if an alien from another planet 
would visit the United Nations and listen to its debates, read 
its resolutions, and walk through its halls, it could logically 
conclude that a principal purpose of the world body is to 
censure a tiny country called Israel.
    At the General Assembly, as you indicated, Mr. Chairman, in 
2022, there was one resolution on Iran, one on North Korea, one 
on Syria, and 15 on Israel. At the World Health Organization, 
every year its annual assembly deviates from global public 
health for a special debate singling out Israel.
    There is no such focus on Syria where hospitals are 
repeatedly bombed by Syrian and Russian forces, nor on North 
Korea, one of the worst health systems in the world. On the 
contrary, the WHO recently elected North Korea to its executive 
board.
    At the U.N. Human Rights Council, most of the world's worst 
abusers get a free pass. Worse, many abusers sit on the 
Council, including China, Cuba, Eritrea, Qatar, and Pakistan. 
None of these has ever been censured. And last month when it 
came time to appoint a chair of the U.N. Human Rights Council 
social forum, they decided to appoint the Islamic Republic of 
Iran. I want to commend all of the members of Congress who have 
written to complain about that.
    While dictators are honored, a democracy is scapegoated. 
The only country in the world with a standing agenda item at 
the Council is not China, which violates the basic human rights 
of 1.5 billion people, a fifth of humanity, nor is it Iran, 
which beats, blinds, and poisons women and girls for the crime 
of protesting, it is Israel.
    From the Council's creation in 2006 to today, the Council 
has adopted two resolutions on Sudan, three on Venezuela, 14 on 
Iran, 16 on North Korea, 42 on Syria, and 103 on Israel. So 
more on Israel than on Iran, Syria, and North Korea combined.
    Now, in May 2021, after Hamas and Islamic Jihad fired 
thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian centers, the Council 
met in special session and created a Commission of Inquiry 
targeting Israel. It is the first such commission with no end 
date. It is mandated to report in perpetuity. Its scope 
includes not only the war of that year but all events leading 
up to it and since. They have the unprecedented mandate to 
examine ``root causes of the conflict,'' including alleged 
``systematic discrimination based on race.''
    As chair of the inquiry, the Council decided to appoint 
Navi Pillay, who has signed petitions lobbying governments to 
``sanction apartheid Israel.'' She is the objective chair. U.N. 
Watch documented her extreme bias in a legal request demanding 
that she recuse herself. This was completely ignored.
    Another commissioner is Miloon Kothari. I just heard him 
speak two days ago in Geneva. Last summer he gave an interview 
where he ranted about ``the Jewish lobby,'' and he questioned 
Israel's right to be a member of the U.N. He was condemned by 
numerous countries and U.N. officials for antisemitism, yet he 
remains in his post.
    In this regard, I want to commend the U.S. Ambassador to 
the Human Rights Council for her superb work, Michele Taylor, 
in leading 27 member states this week to object to this 
Commission of Inquiry and to call for an end generally to anti-
Israel bias at the Council.
    Now other Council officials need to be examined. Last year 
the Council appointed Francesca Albanese as its ``special 
rapporteur on Palestine.'' The mandate in fact is to 
investigate only ``Israel's violations.'' U.N. experts are 
obliged to be objective. Before she was appointed, we informed 
the Council that Albanese has repeatedly equated Palestinian 
suffering with the Nazi Holocaust, accused Israel of war 
crimes, apartheid, and genocide. In a 2014 Facebook post, she 
wrote that America is ``subjugated by the Jewish lobby.''
    The Council knew all of this and appointed her. One year 
into the post, she has repeatedly legitimized terrorism and 
addressed the Hamas Conference where she said, ``You have a 
right to resist.''
    Mr. Chairman, because of our work exposing and fighting 
this kind of discrimination, we are now being targeted. U.N. 
Watch, the Swiss nonprofit association that I direct, was 
founded in Geneva 30 years ago by former U.S. ambassador and 
civil rights leader Morris Abram. We have never received 
funding from any government and are supported solely by 
charitable donations.
    Our reports and speeches exposing anti-Israel prejudice, 
combating dictatorships at the Human Rights Council, are seen 
worldwide.
    In retaliation, the powerful chief of the Council's 
secretariat, Mr. Eric Tistounet, is running a campaign of smear 
attacks, censorship, and harassment against me and our 
organization. He tampers with speakers' lists to prevent us 
from taking the floor at the Human Rights Council.
    According to whistleblower testimony by his former 
colleague, Emma Reilly--she has appeared on BBC and reported in 
Le Monde--Mr. Tistounet justified his actions by falsely 
claiming that U.N. Watch was ``an Israeli GONGO,'' which means 
a fake government operated NGO.
    When discussing U.N. Watch with its colleagues, Ms. Reilly 
reports that this chief of the Human Rights Council secretariat 
would frequently use antisemitic tropes to the effect that we 
were controlling members states or controlling NGOs behind the 
scenes.
    In October, we filed a complaint with the Secretary General 
of the United Nations, which can be found at UNWatch.org/abuse. 
Based on leaked internal emails and whistleblower testimony, 
our complaint documents how Mr. Tistounet, in violation of U.N. 
rules, systematically orders his staff to manipulate speakers' 
lists to prevent U.N. Watch from speaking at the Human Rights 
Council.
    For example, at least year's June session, 2022, we 
requested to speak for 36 interactive dialogues. Groups close 
to Mr. Tistounet received about 15 speaking slots. We received 
zero.
    Mr. Tistounet has concocted a fictitious rule, especially 
for us, demanding to see our speeches in advance, enabling him 
to draft reprimands, which he would then hand to the chair at 
the podium to read out against me without any basis. According 
to leaked internal documents, which he has never disputed, when 
Mr. Tistounet learned in 2007 that I was the victim of a false 
arrest due to mistaken identity, he sent out a celebratory 
email to his 50-member staff at the Human Rights Council.
    The chief of the Human Rights Council secretariat 
instructed his U.N. employees to secretly go to an internet 
cafe to anonymously defame me online to post the material next 
to videos of my speeches about the Council.
    Finally, according to leaked emails, Mr. Tistounet told his 
staff to think of ways to have me physically detained by U.N. 
security in order to block me from entering the Council chamber 
in Geneva.
    Now, we filed a detailed complaint about all of this with 
Secretary General Guterres in October. The United Nations 
Assistant Secretary General Martha Lopez replied that it would 
be considered ``as per internal procedures.'' Eight months 
later, nothing has happened.
    On the contrary, in the current June-July session of the 
Council, from which I have just come here, I have just received 
word from my colleagues in Geneva that the speakers' lists were 
again manipulated by Mr. Tistounet. Groups that are close to 
him, like Amnesty International, received 19 speaking slots. We 
are being prevented from speaking more than once.
    Mr. Chairman, in summary, because of our work to expose 
antisemitism and other forms of prejudice and injustice at the 
Human Rights Council, its chief of staff is trying to censor 
and silence us. He doesn't want the world to know.
    We appeal to the United States and other countries that 
care about human rights to demand that this bigoted and corrupt 
official be suspended, and that the Secretary General create an 
independent investigation as requested in our complaint.
    In conclusion, U.N. bodies routinely apply double standards 
to Israel, not expected of other democracies. Singling out the 
world's only Jewish state for opprobrium in a way that is 
wholly disproportionate to its deficiencies. U.N. officials 
have claimed that the state of Israel is a racist endeavor, 
drawn comparisons of current Israeli policy to that of the 
Nazis, or accused Israel of ``genocide.''
    Under the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, it is 
clear that the actions of numerous U.N. bodies and officials 
are antisemitic in effect, if not intent.
    I want to thank this committee for taking up this urgent 
matter, and especially you, Chairman Smith, for your 
leadership.
    I thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Neuer follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much, Mr. Neuer. If you could, 
we will put together a letter to Guterres and others laying all 
of this out. We will ask the Administration as well to double 
down on their efforts. You know, I am glad you pointed out the 
27 nations. That was a good step in the right direction.
    But to ostracize you, to smear you personally and the 
organization, is outrageous. And even the seemingly mundane 
idea of manipulating the speakers' lists, that becomes all 
important because you lose your right to speak, and that can't 
happen.
    So everything you can give us to--about the complaint, and 
I guarantee--matter of fact, I would say with my colleagues 
here, we will make sure--I mean, I did meet with Secretary 
Guterres 2 months ago for a lengthy--I did not bring up your 
complaint. I didn't know about it. I am sorry. But I will take 
it to him in New York.
    Mr. Neuer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.

                  STATEMENT OF SHARON NAZARIAN

    Dr. Nazarian. Good morning, Chairman Smith and Ranking 
Member Wild. Thank you for inviting me to testify at this 
important meeting.
    I also would like to thank the chairman and Congresswoman 
Manning for their continued leadership as co-chairs of the 
Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Anti-Semitism.
    Thank you for the entire committee for your bipartisan 
commitment to fighting antisemitism and your support for a 
strong U.S.-Israel relationship.
    Since 1913, ADL's mission has been to stop the defamation 
of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment 
to all. I am proud to support that mission as a member of the 
ADL's national board of directors and previously as senior vice 
president for international affairs, where I led our efforts to 
fight global antisemitism and anti-Israel bias.
    We are currently witnessing an alarming increase in 
antisemitism and anti-Zionism at levels unseen for decades. 
ADL's domestic and international surveys, as well as our annual 
audit of domestic antisemitic incidents, provide ample evidence 
that antisemitic attitudes and incidents are on the rise in the 
U.S. and have not diminished globally.
    Moreover, our research shows that antisemitism is 
increasingly a trans-national issue. Hate and prejudice knows 
no boundaries in our globalized world that connects people 
through travel, technology, and social media.
    ADL's global 100 index of antisemitism, first fielded in 
2014, found that 1 billion adults across 102 countries harbor 
significant antisemitic incidents. Sentiments, excuse me. A 
follow-up survey this year found that approximately 1 in 4 
adults in European--in 10 European countries with some of the 
largest populations--Jewish populations subscribe to dangerous 
antisemitic tropes, hateful charges such as Jews controlling 
the government or being more loyal to Israel than to their own 
countries.
    Too much power in business, too much control over the 
government, responsibility for world wars, these ideas do not 
live in a vacuum. They affect real people. From Johannesburg to 
Paris to Santiago, time and time again I have heard from 
members of the Jewish community who have lived under a constant 
deluge of anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
    This hate knows no borders. Anti-Semitic conspiracy 
theories and harassment continue to spread online. ADL surveys 
consistently show how Jews are targeted online because of their 
identity. In 2022, ADL's online hate and harassment survey 
found that 37 percent of Jewish respondents were harassed 
online because of their religion.
    As an Iranian American who fled my country of birth because 
of antisemitic persecution, I know personally the consequences 
of inaction. The tyrannical Iranian regime did not just 
demonize Jews, it took away our homes and livelihood, and 
continues to threaten Israel, deny the Holocaust, and oppress 
women and religious minorities to this day.
    And while ADL has worked to be a leading voice fighting 
hate, we cannot do this work alone. The United States and the 
international community must adopt a whole-of-government and 
whole-of society approach to address a global threat of this 
magnitude.
    We enthusiastically welcome the release of the historic 
U.S. National Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism and its embrace 
of the IHRA definition. We hope it will serve as a model for 
future efforts globally and for the international community to 
replicate it.
    Global leaders must recognize the gravity of the threat of 
growing antisemitism. Many countries and entities, including 
the EU, OAS, and OSCE, have taken concrete steps in the fight 
against antisemitism, including strategies and appointing 
envoys.
    We welcome the U.N.'s stated commitment to work on this 
issue, but the U.N. cannot deny its own history in fermenting 
antisemitism and anti-Zionism. Leaders must denounce all 
manifestations of antisemitism, including anti-Zionism, and 
plans are only as strong as its implementation.
    So global challenges require global solutions. We urge 
Congress and the members of this committee to take concrete 
steps to fight global antisemitism in the world and online, 
including ensuring that the Administration has all the 
resources it needs to implement the National Strategy to 
Counter Anti-Semitism, funding and growing the Office of the 
Special Envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, supporting 
tech policy reform that addresses antisemitism online, and we 
all know education is key.
    So passing the Holocaust Education Anti-Semitism Lessons 
Act, the HEAL Act, and pushing for greater global education on 
the Holocaust and antisemitism. And, finally, urging your 
partners in the international community to do the same.
    So thank you for your time, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Nazarian follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you so very much.
    Mr. Rosenberg.
    Mr. Rosenberg. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Wild, members 
of the committee, I am very happy to be here. My voice, another 
story. I will do my best and I thank you for bearing with me.
    Thank you for inviting me today to testify on the subject 
of antisemitism I covered for over a decade as journalist. For 
the record, I am against it. That line might sound like a joke, 
but it wasn't always the obvious position in this body. In 
1934, Pennsylvania Representative Louis McFadden stood on the 
House floor and bemoaned alleged Jewish control of the American 
economy. ``Is it not true,'' he declared, ``that in the United 
States today the Gentiles have the slips of paper, while the 
Jews have the gold?'' We have come a long way since then. In 
the past, it was not uncommon for Jews to be called before 
parliaments and political leaders. However, the intent was not 
to protect them, but to persecute them.
    There are people, as you have heard on this panel, who come 
from countries like the former Soviet Union, Iran, that 
repressed their Jews in living memory. So I think I speak for 
everyone at this table when I say I am grateful to be here. I 
am grateful to you for being here. And I am grateful to live in 
an exceptional country where a conversation like this is not 
just possible, but desired.
    That said, I think there is a general sense backed up by 
data and events that you have heard that in the last decade 
antisemitism has gradually worsened rather than abated in 
America and around the world which raises the question, if more 
people than ever are aware of the perils of anti-Jewish 
bigotry, why does it persist?
    Well, I want to argue that a major reason for this is that 
the stories that we tell about antisemitism and where it comes 
from are too narrow and convenient. For some people, talking 
about anti-Jewish prejudice understandably means talking about 
neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the far right. For others, 
as reflected in the framing of this hearing, it means talking 
about anti-Israel sentiment that too often lapses into 
antisemitism.
    I reported on both of these stories at length. These 
narratives dominate the discourse because they contain real 
truth, but also because they are easy for partisans to tell 
about their ideological opponents. But they aren't the whole 
story and I would like to tell you a different one right now 
because until we challenge the comfortable conversation about 
antisemitism, I think we are unlikely to impact the problem.
    That story goes like this. For almost as long as there have 
been Jewish people, there has been anti-Jewish prejudice. This 
bigotry predates the United States of America and the modern 
state of Israel. It is older than capitalism and communism, 
Republicans and Democrats, progressives, and conservatives. And 
it precedes Christianity and Islam. Because of this while 
antisemitism is expressed by all of these communities, it can't 
be caused by them. The source has to be something more 
fundamental. What would that be?
    Well, consider recent antisemitic incidents that on the 
surface seem to have little in common with each other. In 2018, 
as we have heard, a white supremacist massacred 11 congregants 
at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue. In 2019, assailants 
tied to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement shot up a Kosher 
supermarket in Jersey City, killing three. And in 2022, an 
Islamic extremist held an entire congregation hostage in 
Colleyville, Texas for much of the Jewish Sabbath.
    To take another odd example, both the Supreme Leader of 
Iran's Islamic theocracy and Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh 
shooter who hated Muslims posted memes on social media alleging 
Zionist control of American politics. During the 2016 
Presidential race, which I covered, supporters at campaign 
events for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were captured 
on camera claiming that Zionists run America's finances. I have 
links to those incidents in my written testimony and it is 
instructive viewing.
    What unites all of these seemingly disparate antisemitic 
actors? It is not their identity or background, but rather 
their adherence to a conspiracy of Jewish control. The 
Pittsburgh white supremacist believed that Jews were 
responsible for flooding the country with the brown people that 
he hated as part of the so-called ``Great Replacement of the 
white race.''
    One of the Black Hebrew Israelites sympathizers in Jersey 
City wrote on social media about how Jews control the 
Government and the British Islamic extremist who targeted the 
Texas synagogue did so, bizarrely, because he thought American 
rabbis held sway over the U.S. authorities and could free 
someone from prison.
    This is not, as you might have noticed, how we usually 
think about antisemitism. Most people parse it understandably 
as a personal prejudice like many others in which a bigot 
simply despises a group because they are different, too Black, 
too Brown, too Muslim, too Jewish. Anti-Semitism is a personal 
prejudice, but it is also something else. It is a conspiracy 
theory about how the world works that blames sinister string-
pulling Jews for social and political problems and this is the 
kind of antisemitism that as we have seen is more likely to get 
people killed, because many well-meaning individuals don't 
understand how it works though and to miss much of it.
    That is a problem because while the antisemitic conspiracy 
theory is pre-political, it is regularly expressed politically 
in ways designed to evade our defenses. Today, fewer people 
would fall for Congressman McFadden's bald claim that ``the 
Jews control our politics and economy.'' But substitute George 
Soros or the Rothschilds or the Zionists or Israel and suddenly 
the antisemitic argument regains its appeals and respectable 
people and institutions, as we have heard, start nodding their 
heads and suggesting maybe we should debate the subject. 
Because people have been--long been conditioned to conceive of 
Jews in an underhanded fashion, it doesn't take much to update 
the ancient conspiracy theory to persuade contemporary 
audiences. And thanks to centuries of material blaming the 
world's problems on its Jews, conspiracy theorists seeking to 
scapegoat someone for their sorrows inevitably discover that 
the invisible hand of their oppressor belongs to an invisible 
Jew.
    Now to be clear, actors like Soros or state of Israel 
possess real power and influence and certainly warrant critique 
for how they exercise it. I have written both of those 
critiques. The problem is rather that such criticism is too 
often replaced with conspiracy in which the Jewish target is 
transformed into an avatar of absolute evil who stands behind 
the world's ills. This way of thinking threatens democracy 
because as long as prejudiced people pin their societies' 
problems on Jewish culprits they will be unable to organize 
collectively to rationally solve them. The conspiracy theory 
threatens both Israelis and Palestinians because when the 
conversation over their conflict is captured by antisemites, 
legitimate criticism cannot be heard and both parties 
inevitably lose. And of course, it threatens Jewish people 
everywhere which should be enough reason for us all to oppose 
it.
    Thank you for your time and I look forward to answering any 
questions you might have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rosenberg follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Smith. Thank you very much as well, Mr. Rosenberg, for 
your reporting, your writing, and for being here today.
    I have a number of questions but I'll just do a few and 
then yield to my colleagues and, hopefully, we will have time 
not be interrupted by votes for a second round.
    You know, you get insights, you know, on trips to Israel. I 
will never forget, I made one trip, always bringing up 
antisemitism, but I met with a group of Palestinian students. 
It was at the Catholic University of America in Bethlehem and 
three fourths of all the students happened to be Muslims. And 
it was about a two hour town meeting. It was all their top 
leadership student-wise, you know student council presidents 
and everybody. And we got very quickly to 9/11.
    Now in my district we lost a number of people to 9/11, you 
know, they were in the Twin Towers, obviously, and these 
students all asserted with absolute certainty that no Jews died 
in 9/11 and that the Jews were responsible for it. Well, I know 
and I told them this and I argued with them very, very 
aggressively that I knew many of the families who died. I 
worked on a lot of things relevant to compensation and 
everything else with the Special Master and all that and there 
were so many of the families and so many of them were Jewish, 
Jewish widows, Jewish families, and they all know who did it 
and were killed in the process. I mean, at least our Government 
did a very good job with the 9/11 Commission, so effectively 
run by Tom Kaine and Lee Hamilton. You know, ferreted out the 
information in a very, very comprehensive way.
    And they persisted and it just underscored to me, and I am 
sure maybe to you, that hate speech and antisemitism always 
employs lies and hyperbole and scapegoats and just causes--
smears people, as you are being smeared, Mr. Neuer, in order to 
get their way. They don't care about the truth.
    So I walk away with that as another one of those instances 
and then when you go through and, again, all your statements 
were outstanding, and as I delve into what was actually written 
and what you ladies and gentlemen wrote, the quotations from 
the leaders of the Palestinian Authority and the like are 
just--I mean, one from Palestinian Media Watch, Mr. Marcus, 
where you say the PA director of preacher training taught on PA 
TV, ``Allah willing, the end of the Jews in America that 
support the Jews will be in Palestine.''
    They are talking about total annihilation, total 
destruction, and also so many of the quotes that all of you 
have mentioned that are just--let me just say to Mr. 
Schiffmiller, and maybe you want to comment on it further, I 
have been disgusted with Amnesty International Human Rights 
Watch. It used to be that Amnesty International were about 
political prisoners and they had a very stellar reputation for 
taking the sides in an objective way, naming the country, for 
political prisoners. They have reneged on all of that.
    I was here when they had the apartheid fights, again, in 
South Africa, and I supported those sanctions. Apartheid is an 
abomination and thankfully it is in trash heap of history. But 
to sit there and take that type of language and smear Israel 
with it is appalling. And Human Rights Watch is doing the exact 
same thing and I just find it appalling.
    I have had them, representatives of those groups, come and 
testify on other issues, but, you know, it just occurred to me, 
I am going to boycott them. Any hearing I have in human rights, 
Amnesty is not invited, nor is Human Rights Watch, because of 
their smear, their horrible smear. And you might want to speak 
a little bit further to that if you would like to.
    I ask all of you, how is the Taylor Force Act being 
implemented? Are you satisfied with what the U.S. Government is 
doing?
    Mr. Neuer, you mentioned about the good work that was done 
with the 27 nations that have objected, but generally speaking, 
how up the chain of command has it gotten to, does it get to? 
President Biden's desk, so that he talks the war evaders? 
Certainly to our Secretary of State, because I believe many 
countries take their cue on how high up that chain the protests 
go. And it is not where we ought to be and we will be as a--and 
we know our ambassador-at-large is doing a very good job and 
she has direct access, I wrote the law, to the Secretary of 
State.
    But my hope is that there will be--especially as a result 
of your amazing testimonies, and this great group of people who 
all work every day on combating antisemitism, we are at a pivot 
point. It is getting worse. And maybe if you could speak to 
that as well. And I have so many other questions, but I don't 
want to take away from my other colleagues.
    But I just hope--you know, we do far more than we have 
done, maybe some resolutions would be--we have done them in the 
past and we will do them again.
    Brad, you have done resolutions. We have all done them. And 
I think we need to circle and think with an action plan on for 
things we ought to be doing.
    So Mr. Schiffmiller.
    Mr. Schiffmiller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To your question 
about amnesty or to your point about Amnesty, I mention in my 
written testimony that the Mayor of Frankfurt has accused 
Amnesty of promoting ethnic cleansing for a lot of the rhetoric 
that it has been promoting. And, particularly, you mentioned 
the apartheid claims that are made by Amnesty. One of the 
things that set Amnesty apart from a lot of the other 
organizations that are pushing this sort of rhetoric is they 
have made a concerted effort to try to detach Jewish history 
from the land of Israel because that is not politically 
convenient for them. And so they have made a concerted effort 
to try to say Jewish presences in the old city of Jerusalem, 
Jewish historical sites in other parts of the country are 
places that should not be visited, should not be accessible to 
people and they have really made a major assault on Jewish 
cultural rights and Christian cultural rights in order to 
achieve a specific political outcome.
    Mr. Marcus. Thank you. I would like to talk about Taylor 
Force Act and it is very significant. It has always been 
discussed here in Congress. The Palestinian Authority was 
already condemning it and when it passed, the Palestinian 
Authority has probably said hundreds of times that they will 
never, ever stop paying a salary to terrorists. And this is 
significant, and this was mentioned, the Palestinian Authority 
claims that they have an international right to what they call 
resistance and they claim that that resistance includes the 
right to kill any Israeli.
    And I am going to tell you where the blame for that is. I 
actually put this as an appendix in my written document, but I 
want to just specify it here. There are two U.N. Resolutions, 
3236 and 3246, from 1974 and 1975, and these resolutions say 
that the Palestinians have a right to use all means to get 
their rights.
    Now, in one of them, in U.N. 3246, it also talks about 
liberation from colonial and foreign domination and the ability 
to use all means, including armed struggle. And they also talk 
about specifically Palestine there.
    So what is going on here? The U.N. with this decision 
completely adopted the Palestinian Authority narrative that 
Israel is a colonial country with no right to exist and, 
therefore, Palestinians have the right to use armed conflict 
against Israel. They, therefore, say that they have a right to 
kill Israelis. They say Taylor Force Act is wrong because their 
prisoners are prisoners of war with U.N.-guaranteed rights to 
kill Israelis.
    One of the things that--one of the recommendations that I 
put in the written testimony is that the United States should 
initiate the same way with Zionism is racism which was passed 
at that same time, was canceled. These two resolutions, 3236 
and 3246, should--must be canceled because they tell the 
Palestinians that they have an international right to use all 
means and they translate this into murdering civilians.
    We are actually preparing a full report on the endless 
number of times they have cited these resolutions to justify 
killing and to condemn Taylor Force. That is the first thing in 
terms of an action that I think the United States can do is to 
move ahead on that.
    The second things is the Palestinian Authority, the Taylor 
Force Act says the United States--the Palestinian Authority 
can't get any American money and the Palestinians claims 
ignored it. And they have managed to finance. When I say 
managed, for over two years now, they have only been paying 70 
percent or 80 percent of the salaries of their civil servants 
and they are not quite managing, but they don't care if people 
suffer. They continue to pay salaries to terrorists.
    What I think could be done and I also list this as one of 
the recommendations, if the punishment for the Taylor Force 
Act, for a violation of Taylor Force would have personal impact 
on individuals. And I am talking about designating the people 
in the Palestinian Authority who are involved in the pay of the 
salaries to terrorists and awarding to the families of the 
martyrs to designate them to be aliens that are ineligible to 
travel to the United States. I think the designating of 
individuals who are involved in this will take it from a 
general, okay, we're losing some money, will have a personal 
impact and weaken the list of every single Palestinian leader 
and the administrator who is involved in paying----
    [Crosstalk.]
    Mr. Smith. Because the Magnitsky Act would be a tool that 
we could use to----
    Mr. Marcus. We will prepare that document for you. Okay. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Kontorovich. Chairman, first of all, I want to relate 
to what you said about Amnesty and Human Rights Watch and their 
apartheid blood libel and very strongly applaud the stance you 
have taken about engaging with them because it is exactly when 
otherwise mainstream institutions start to spread, when 
otherwise polite institutions start to spread these kinds of 
lies, that is what gives them respectability.
    And, indeed, apartheid is part of a broader effort to use 
international law language and international law concepts in a 
sui generis way and create unique applications of international 
law, sometimes even unique international rules that apply just 
to say Israel apartheid is an extreme example, but its name is 
an Afrikaner word that was meant specifically to describe South 
Africa. They could have just said racism, bad discrimination, 
but they wanted to go all the way with apartheid because this 
is fundamental in delegitimization of Israel.
    For example, in international law, a country's borders, 
there is a universal rule of international law that says when 
you have a new country, its borders are the borders of the last 
top level administrative unit in the territory. This sets the 
borders around the world. It sets the borders in the Middle 
East, except for Israel.
    In international law, there is a rule that says and I am 
quoting International Committee of the Red Cross, ``occupation 
ceases when the occupying forces are driven out or evacuate the 
territory.'' They dropped a footnote, ``except for Israel-
Gaza.''
    In international law, a country's capital is where a 
country chooses to place it except for Israel. Indeed, classic 
antisemitism sought to restrict where Jews can live leading to 
the invention of the ghetto. That was invented for Jews.
    Today, international law is distorted to plan the entire 
areas of Holy Land off limits to Jews and as my research shows, 
Israel is the only country that has been accused of war crimes 
for letting their people live in certain places, despite many 
territorial disputes around the world and addressing this legal 
ghetto in international law is a fundamental step we need to 
take.
    As for Taylor Force, I want to point out two points. First 
of all, Taylor Force requires that the Government publicize the 
Palestinian Authority's pay for slay efforts, that it make 
known in the United States to people what the Palestinian 
Authority is doing. That has not been aggressively implemented.
    And secondly, there is a way in which money is getting from 
the United States to the Palestinian Authority and directly and 
is very disturbing the World Bank. The World Bank obviously in 
the United States is a significant supporter, picks the 
president. The World Bank not only funds the Palestinian 
Government generously, it specifically whitewashes its pay for 
slay program. It is supposed to make reports on every country 
what their finances are like.
    Are they engaged in fiscally-prudent policies? And they 
have a normal report about the Palestinian Authority. It reads 
like any other report that they would write. They write about 
their pension system. They write about government corruption, 
mismanagement, except seven percent of the budget is just 
missing. So to ignore that and white wash that in their reports 
is something shocking and it is not because they don't know 
about it.
    Mr. Neuer. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your 
commitment to intervene in the matter that we raised of the 
Human Rights Council harassment and censorship of our 
organization for speaking out against antisemitism and anti-
Israeli prejudice.
    I will note that the same individual involved here, Mr. 
Eric Tistounet, the Chief of the Human Rights Council 
Secretariat, has also been accused of handing over the names of 
Chinese dissidents to Beijing in advance of their speaking at 
the Council so that these exiled dissidents could have their 
families--so that China could pressure their families back home 
to prevent them from speaking. This was documented in a BBC 
documentary called The Whistleblowers and Emma Reilly has 
testified about this.
    Mr. Chair, you asked about how high up the chain it goes in 
terms of the United States Government speaking out on these 
issues, whether it reaches the table of the President and of 
course, the higher it goes, the more it will make an impression 
either on the United Nations or on other states. I don't know 
the answer to that question.
    I don't know how high it goes, but I absolutely agree that 
the United States must show that these issues are a priority 
and that means it would have to come from the highest level, 
whether it is the Secretary of State or whether it is the 
President. In that regard, I will note something that is 
mentioned in my written testimony. The United States last year 
decided to give $344 million to UNRWA. Now that organization 
could have a humanitarian role to play, but in our report in 
March, together with a group IMPACT SC, we identified 133 UNRWA 
teachers and staff who were found to promote and violence, 
antisemitic hate and violence, on social media. An additional 
82 teachers affiliated with 30 UNRWA schools were involved in 
distributing hateful content, antisemitic content to students.
    An example is a teacher in Lebanon for UNRWA, Elham 
Mansour, who wrote on Facebook, ``By Allah, anyone who can kill 
and slaughter any Zionist and Israeli criminal and doesn't do 
so, doesn't deserve to live. Kill them and pursue them 
everywhere. They are the greatest enemy. All Israel deserves is 
death.'' This is a teacher of Palestinian children. We are 
paying for it. I am a Canadian citizen. I live in Switzerland. 
All of our Western countries are paying for it. The United 
States is giving $344 million.
    Now, the U.S. made certain demands, but are they made at 
the highest levels? Are they made at serious levels? I am not 
sure because when we report these things, the immediate 
reaction of UNRWA is not to call us and say, who are these 
teachers, can you help us root out the hate? But it is to smear 
us. Again, the same approach. And so I do hope that the United 
States will speak out on these issues at the highest level.
    Finally, I just want to pick up on something that you, Mr. 
Chairman, indicated about how the group's Amnesty and Human 
Rights Watch have betrayed their founding mission and have 
resorted to the worst kinds of anti-Zionism, accusing Israel of 
being an apartheid state. You know, one of the individuals I 
mentioned, Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur at the 
U.N. on Palestine, she was condemned by the Special Envoy, the 
United States Special Envoy on Anti-Semitism, Deborah Lipstadt 
and by the U.S. Ambassador of the Human Rights Council for her 
comments such as America is subjugated by the Jewish lobby and 
other rabid forms of anti-Israel hate and supporting terrorism.
    You know, not long ago, about a year or two ago, she gave 
an interview in Italian and she said, she looked up to the 
heavens and she said in Italian, there are two groups that have 
issued reports on apartheid and picking up on what Eugene just 
mentioned, how these groups legitimize hate. And she said we 
need to thank these two groups, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch 
because they liberated the word, they liberated the word. And 
she is right. Because these established groups made these 
reports, someone like Francesca Albanese who praises the 
antisemite Roger Waters who praises Hamas and empowers them, 
she is empowered by these groups. So I think it is important to 
note this. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. For the record and I appreciate you bringing up 
UNRWA, we are planning a hearing on UNRWA. I have had one, too, 
before and we actually went through the textbooks during the 
course of that hearing and the antisemitic hatred was replete. 
They claimed they cleaned it all up. I don't believe that for a 
moment, so we will be doing that hearing.
    And the second thing is, especially as the major donor for 
UNRWA, second is that we are going to be looking at UNESCO as 
well which the Biden administration says he wants to rejoin and 
they are claiming all kinds of arrearages that they claim we 
owe. And we left there because of the antisemitic work that 
they were doing, but also they recognized Palestine as a member 
state which they had no right to do.
    I would like to now yield to Ms. Wild.
    Ms. Wild. I am going to pass to Mr. Phillips in the 
interest of his schedule. I am going to be here for the 
duration, so go ahead, Mr. Phillips.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Ranking Member Wild and Mr. 
Chairman, to our witnesses, greetings, and to all of you here 
and watching and care about this terrible disease. It is an 
ancient disease. It is not unique to any time or place. It 
predates the United Nations. It predates any NGO about which we 
are speaking. And it certainly predates the Israeli-Palestine 
issue.
    I am an American because of antisemitism. My great-great-
grandparents fled Russia because of Tsar Nicholas II and that 
was 130 years ago and five generations later, I am now a member 
of the United States Congress and I have to bear witness along 
with some of my colleagues here today of January 6th, the 
insurrection in the Capitol which was terrible. What was 
equally terrible was to see a man in the hallway that day 
wearing a shirt, here at the behest of the former President 
Donald Trump, that said Six Million Wasn't Enough. Six Million 
Wasn't Enough. I had to bear witness to that in 2021 in this 
country.
    And my point is that this is not unique to the 
organizations about which we are speaking. It is not unique to 
any part of the world. It is just as big of a problem in the 
United States of America as it is anywhere else. So I want to 
start with that.
    Dr. Nazarian, can you talk about the links between 
nationalism and white nationalism in the United States and 
antisemitic movements around the world?
    Dr. Nazarian. Thank you, Mr. Phillips. I think your 
comments are exactly right and we are all disheartened to watch 
that display on January 6th in our nation's Capitol.
    As I mentioned before, as an Iranian-American who left Iran 
because of religious Jewish persecution, coming here and seeing 
our democracy under attack on that day was really something I 
think my father never thought that bringing us to this country 
we would face such a scene.
    The connection between white supremacy and antisemitism and 
its global connotation is powerful. We have seen at ADL through 
our research that the ideology between white supremacy which is 
the idea of white replacement, white genocide, the Great 
Replacement theory, has now been interconnected and spread 
globally in France, in Germany, whether it is QAnon or other 
manifestations of this ideology which has antisemitism at its 
rooms, but also racial hatred of all forms. And what connects 
all of this is the mechanism used to divide society. So it is 
targeting Jews. It is targeting other groups. It is using the 
idea of others coming in, replacing us, and that you see in 
Hungary. You see in Poland. And so the manifestation of this 
transnational ideology is a real threat.
    As we think about--we testified before a congressional 
committee in 2018. I did personally, looking at the 
transnational nature of white supremacy, and so we have to 
understand what is happening in our country, first and 
foremost. We have to--our law enforcement at ADL, number one, 
provider of training for law enforcement on these very issues. 
Our Center on Extremism tracks white supremacist groups and 
their ideology, their manifestos that they put out. And then we 
track and we see the same wording, the same language, you know, 
tracks between U.S., in Europe, in Australia, in New Zealand 
with Christchurch, so this transnational nature of white 
supremacy is a threat that we all have to be very concerned 
about and paying attention to. So I thank you for raising that.
    Mr. Phillips. And in your estimation, is there anything 
that those of us who are trying to combat antisemitism might be 
doing that actually might be promoting more of it?
    Dr. Nazarian. So look, I think the national plan that was 
just unveiled by the Biden administration is a true road map 
for what we need to be doing as a whole of society. Without it, 
and we looked at the European countries. Each one by one came 
up with their own national strategy. The European Union came up 
with it and we looked and learned from them and incorporated 
some of their learning.
    It has to be a whole of society and a whole of government 
approach and that is why we are so thrilled about this plan 
because it is over two dozen agencies that are involved, all 
sectors of U.S. society from the corporate sector to every 
agency to civil society. We all have to be responsible. So I 
think what is happening in the world is divisiveness and 
political leaders using this ideology in order to get what they 
need. But have to fight against that.
    Mr. Phillips. Thank you. Well, my time is running out. I 
just want to end with a few points that we need to fight 
antisemitism, not just around the world, but in this country as 
well. I as a Jewish American, member of the United States 
Congress, I need space and place to criticize any country, at 
any time, for any reason if I see it just and I think we have 
to maintain space and place to criticize Israel sometimes, too. 
Sometimes it is antisemitic. I think we can all agree. We 
cannot limit that space though to a point where it becomes 
anti-democratic.
    And then lastly, there is messaging about maybe leaving the 
U.N., defunding, parting from it, and I would just make the 
case that that is analogous to leaving the U.S. Congress 
because you don't like what is going on it. My God, we would 
all be gone here very quickly. It is better to be at the table, 
in the room, in the arena. I just want to part with that and 
say thank you to those trying to fight this terrible disease. 
We must do it together. And we must recognize that it is in the 
heart of our own country right now as well. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. Ms. Wild.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you very much and I associate myself with 
the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Phillips.
    This is going to be kind of a general question for all of 
you and then I am going to pass to my colleagues, but I have 
many more questions, depending on how long we go.
    I am a big believer that the hallmark of a democracy is 
that citizens should be free to criticize their own government 
without serious repercussion and I am someone who has actually 
done so with administrations of both parties here in the United 
States. And I also believe that this liberty should extend to 
our democratic allies. They should be able to comment on and 
criticize our Government, constructively, as we should be able 
to with them. Our European allies come to mind. There is 
frequent interchange of--with countries that we clearly enjoy 
an allied relationship, very supportive relationship, but we 
don't always see eye to eye.
    Often though when we express concern about the actions of 
the Israeli Government, we are labeled and especially and 
ironically by some of our colleagues across the aisle, our 
Republican members, and others in the fervent pro-Israel 
community sometimes, as antisemites. I find this label, 
especially when it is thrown about by members of Congress who 
have very little understanding of Judaism or Israel, including 
some who are QAnon followers, to be a very offensive statement 
as you can imagine.
    So to all of you in the interest of time, I am going to ask 
you perhaps to be satisfied if one of your colleagues says 
something that is similar to what you would say to defer, but 
to all of you, I want to know what you believe is the point 
where healthy criticism of Israel and I am talking about 
Israel, not Jews, becomes antisemitism, especially specifically 
when spoken by an elected representative in the United States 
Government?
    Who wants to go first?
    Mr. Rosenberg. I will take about 30 seconds.
    Ms. Wild. Sure.
    Mr. Rosenberg. I am sure we can do it. So I am not going to 
be able to solve it in 30 seconds. The unsatisfactory answer is 
that as a reporter I found that when you are trying to figure 
out is something antisemitic or not, you have to look at the 
context, you have to look at the person and their history, and 
you have to make considered judgments.
    I think some of the conversation we heard here about 
specific definitions of antisemitism is the sort of thing that 
intellectuals love to do which is if you just get the language 
exactly right and have the right words on the page, that 
somehow that obviates the need for judgment, but that is not 
actually true.
    In the specific case, I think I spoke a little bit, too, 
how I--you know, adjudicated many cases that come across my 
desk when I get asked these questions, as a reporter or my 
editor asks me to write about it, which is we have a long 
history of antisemitic ideas and tropes. We have this idea of a 
Jewish conspiracy that controls the world and is responsible 
for all sorts of social and political ills. If someone is 
simply doing a find and replace, inserting Israel where the 
Jews used to be, so now it is Israel controls the Government. 
Israel controls the media.
    As Pakistan's Foreign Minister ironically said on CNN in 
2021, and Israel did not turn off CNN, it was unclear why, but 
these things happen, people believe them. If someone is doing 
that, I don't think it takes a great genius to figure out, 
right? And you don't need to be fooled. There is someone trying 
to update something that is an ancient way of talking about 
Jews.
    Anti-Semitism likes to dress itself up, respectively. The 
word antisemitism that is where it comes from. Jews didn't make 
up this word. A non-Jew named Wilhelm Marr, a German 
nationalist, popularized the term because he founded a group 
called the League of Antisemites, which sounds like he handed 
over the Marvel Universe to Mel Gibson. But it was a real 
thing.
    Ms. Wild. I'd be interested in hearing from Mr. Kontorovich 
or Mr. Neuer on this.
    Mr. Kontorovich. Thank you. So, I think there's a couple of 
things to look at. One, and I agree, I would associate myself 
with Mr. Rosenberg's comment, that context matter. And, 
particularly, quantity and volume matters. Right? So, the 
Representatives in the U.S. Congress have the whole world to 
work with.
    And one of the striking things for example about the United 
Nations, where Israel, well, between 1967 and 2016, whenever 
they last counted, was accused of violating the Geneva 
Conventions 500 times, compared to all the other countries in 
the world two times. It's the volume.
    And, you know, what's an appropriate volume? You can get, 
you can understand that by the context of how other countries 
are talked about.
    And, secondly and related, so, intensity and frequency. 
Second related to this is double standards. And that's why IHRA 
is so crucial in identifying double standards.
    We normally consider using double standards to be a form of 
discrimination. If there is some ethnic group that is having a 
law or a rule applied to it and it's not being applied to 
another ethnic group, we say, that's a problem.
    We say that's discriminatory. All the more so if the rule 
doesn't even exist. If it's only being--if it's sort of 
invented in the context of Israel as many of these 
international rules are.
    So, that is why the use of double standards. And the very 
quick check, are the things you're saying or doing about 
Israel, does it apply with how you deal with other situations 
in the world?
    I can--I cite in my testimony some examples of prominent 
critics of Israel, including some people in this House, who say 
look, we're just against settlers, we're just against 
occupation, who've actively fundraised for pro-settler or pro-
occupation movements in other parts of the world.
    Nagorno-Karabakh, which I understand was another hearing 
Mr. Smith had yesterday, and others. So, you know, there's 
occupied territories around the world, that gives you a very 
good check.
    So, consistency is a good way of doing it. And I'd add one 
more highlight. Certain things, you know, while volume and 
frequency is important, certain things are such blood rivals, 
are resonant of such a divisive misery trope.
    Apartheid, which is a word that's also been used in this 
building, again, because it is so fundament--if you say Israel 
has discriminatory policies, if you say Israel like America, 
you know, has problems with minority rights, like many western 
democracies struggle with, that's one thing.
    But, when you go to apartheid, because what's the remedy to 
apartheid? Ending the regime. So, that's essentially a call to 
end the state of Israel as we know it.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you. That was very helpful. I'm going to 
ask--I'm going to pass at this point. Mr. Smith, do you want to 
call your next witness?
    Mr. Smith. Yes.
    Ms. Wild. I'm sorry, your next questioner.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. McCormick, do you have any questions?
    Mr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank 
you all for being here today. This is quite an honor.
    It's interesting that some people would think that some of 
this stuff is contrived when it talks about the discrimination. 
But, I've literally had people call me up, very educated 
people, and talk to me about this idea that somehow or another, 
the Jews are responsible for the Corona virus.
    I'm not joking. I'm talking about highly educated people 
talking a whole conspiracy theory. And the way they come up 
with this and the things they read are just, it baffles me.
    But, to add onto that, there is not just a conspiracy, but 
an open ended, easy to observe relationship between China and 
the U.N. right now. And seeing what the U.N. does right now, 
how many times, I'll ask the Director, Mr. Director, how many 
times has the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions 
condemning Israel? Approximately?
    Mr. Neuer. In the year 2022 there were 15 resolutions on 
Israel. And there was one on Iran, one on Syria, one on North 
Korea, and 15 on Israel.
    There have been hundreds over the years.
    Mr. McCormick. Hundreds?
    Mr. Neuer. Yeah.
    Mr. McCormick. Hundreds, yeah. And every year probably at 
least double digits, right?
    Mr. Neuer. Yes, sir.
    Mr. McCormick. Okay. And how many against the Palestinian 
Authority?
    Mr. Neuer. The Palestinian Authority is never condemned by 
the United Nations.
    Mr. McCormick. Never?
    Mr. Neuer. No.
    Mr. McCormick. This is the United Nations. I believe that 
they have some sort of headquarters in this area, or at least 
in this country, which is--drives me crazy. But, to watch the 
United Nations now conspiring with China and Palestine.
    And watching this new idea that somehow or another they're 
going to come up with a solution that hasn't been thought about 
in this peace process that's going to carve out something for 
Palestine against everything that we've ever fought for in the 
last, since Israel has been established in the modern era. It 
baffles me.
    But, I just want to point out that we don't have to look at 
conspiracy theories. We can literally see it right in front of 
our eyes.
    We can see the United Nations being antisemitic, and quite 
frankly, anti-American, because this is a relationship that 
we've had since the original founding of the new Israel, if you 
will.
    I think we can all agree that the United Nations has done 
nothing, nothing to be evenhanded. And it has been nothing but 
heavy-handed against Israel.
    Could we agree on that? Anybody want to disagree with that? 
So, I will take that as an affirmative, I think. Silence is 
considered affirmative.
    So, where do we go from here? In my opinion, I would just 
like to state that the United Nations is becoming troublesome. 
And yet, we fund it in a very large way, the United States 
does, with no accountability for what they do against Israel as 
a country, or against our interest as it relates to Israel.
    So, I'd just like to state for the record that I have a big 
problem with the United Nations and its funding. I'm just going 
to say it for the record, because of its antisemitic and anti-
American behavior.
    With that, if anybody wants to make a comment in that 
regard. And be bold. Make your statements. This is the place. 
You're on TV.
    Make your statement, make your case to the American people 
and to everybody around the world why we see this 
discrimination and how it's affecting the world order and 
inhibiting the peace process.
    I open it to the floor.
    Mr. Neuer. Well, thank you, Congressman. Certainly, we see 
grave distortions of the U.N.'s founding principles. Our 
organization U.N. Watch supports the U.N. Charter, which speaks 
of freedom, international peace, and security. Was founded by 
the great liberal internationalism in the post-World War II 
era, led by the United States.
    But, sadly dictatorships in too many U.N. bodies, not all, 
but in too many U.N. bodies, they dominate. You mentioned 
China. China is a regular member of the Human Rights Council.
    The United States, to its credit, tried to introduce a 
resolution about one million Muslim Uyghurs who are put into 
camps. The Human Rights Council shot it down. Would not even 
hold a debate on that subject. China holds sway.
    I mentioned moments ago to the Chairman that one of the 
leaders of the Human Rights Council Secretariat hands names of 
dissidents over to China, which allows them to pressure their 
family members back home so that they won't testify.
    China played a very nefarious role at the World Health 
Organization where two of the Goodwill Ambassadors, one of them 
is the wife of the Chinese dictator, is a WHO Goodwill 
Ambassador. Another one is a Chinese broadcaster who used his 
role as a WHO Goodwill Ambassador to promote propaganda on 
behalf of the Chinese regime during the period of the Corona 
virus.
    So, there is a concern that dictatorships like China, Iran 
in the past month had a trifecta of U.N. wins. I mentioned here 
that the Islamic Republic of Iran was appointed Chair of the 
Human Rights Council Social Forum. We've circulated a text, we 
would like a country to adopt it, to overturn that absurd 
decision.
    Iran was elected a Vice President of the U.N. General 
Assembly a few weeks ago. Was elected Rapporteur of the United 
Nations General Assembly Committee on Disarmament and 
International Security, which is absurd given that it is the 
perpetrator menace of the very problems that committee is meant 
to address.
    Mr. McCormick. So, I know I am out of time. So, I'm going 
to have to cut you short. But, I do want it for the record, to 
support what you're saying.
    And actually the absurdity continues if you look at the 
last ten people who have been put in charge of Human Rights in 
the United Nations is laughable. And so, I just want to say, 
I'm not really sure I'm in favor of the United Nations anymore 
because of that.
    They are corrupt and they are governed by dictators and 
theocracies and other unfair people who administer this quote/
unquote justice. Thank you.
    Mr. Marcus. Thank you. I want to add to what was said about 
the U.S., about the United Nations condemnation of Israel.
    Go on and take it to the next level. The United Nations 
condemnations of Israel, and I would say also, the European 
Union and many of the European countries constant condemnation 
of Israel isn't just making Israel feel bad.
    For the Palestinian Authority it's seen as a motivator that 
they don't have to come to the peace talks. It's a motivator 
that what they're doing is right.
    It's a motivator that they're quote/unquote, resistance is 
accepted by the international community. It goes way beyond 
just giving Israel bad press.
    It actually becomes a motivator of the Palestinian 
Authority to become more intransigent. The Palestinian 
Authority hasn't come to the negotiating table in so many 
years, in so many years because they feel that they can get by 
international pressure on Israel what they can't get from 
negotiations.
    So, the United States, your opinions in the United Nations 
have to be careful, because they are absolutely creating a wall 
in the way of negotiations by their over-condemnation of Israel 
and over-accepting of the Palestinian side in many of the 
issues that are really supposed to be for negotiations.
    Mr. Smith. Excellent point. Ms. Manning.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to ask, Mr. 
Rosenberg, I would like to start with you. You've written and 
spoken about the fact that antisemitism is malleable.
    How it appeals to different types of extremists on both 
sides. And how viewing it with partisan blinders, only calling 
it out when it's politically convenient, actually harms the 
fight against antisemitism.
    So, what can be done, in your opinion, to educate and help 
people better understand the unique shape-shifting nature of 
antisemitism, the danger of buying into conspiracy theories, 
and get them to join forces to help defeat it?
    Mr. Rosenberg. I really appreciate the question. I do 
recognize that trying to sell a nonpartisan approach to any 
issue in the U.S. Congress is kind of like trying to sell a Red 
Sox hat at Yankee Stadium. But, I'm going to do my best.
    As you've heard from my remarks, and I think you even heard 
up here from the Representatives, you heard Representative 
Smith talk about leading with people in the Middle East who 
believe that the Jews were behind 911. And then, you had 
Representative McCormick talk about people from his district 
saying the Jews are behind the Corona virus.
    I would wager to guess that the people you met with, 
Representative Smith, were not particularly sympathetic to 
Republican policies. And the people however writing to 
Representative McCormick were probably sympathetic and even 
thought he'd listen.
    Like were more sympathetic to Republican policies. But, 
rather united them with this conspiracy theory, this way of 
thinking about Jews and about the world. This seeking simple 
solutions and scapegoats for our collective problems.
    And if we focus on these sort of more fundamental 
underlying issues rather than trying to pinpoint the exact 
identity of who said it, and whether or not they're on my team, 
so should I apologize or look another way, maybe we just talk 
about in terms of principals instead of partisanship, and ideas 
instead of individuals.
    And if we can orient ourselves to think that way, and 
certainly that's how I try to write about it, I think that we 
can then start talking about this in a healthier way.
    And I think that a lot of that boils down to trying to like 
almost erase. When you see an antisemitic, a statement that's 
allegedly antisemitic, or someone says about Jews, block out 
who said it. Don't actually look at who they are or what their 
affiliations are and judge that in a vacuum. Teach people the 
history of antisemitism. Right? We had a big conversation here 
about Israel. The Israel conversation is like 12 steps up. Like 
Israel is a relatively recent invention and it's a complicated 
story.
    There's a lot of antisemitism that we can actually agree on 
that we've documented in history. You teach a lot of that to 
people, and you teach them those principals, people are smarter 
than you think, and they can apply those pretty well to the 
Israel conversation and figure out when someone is speaking to 
them in an antisemitic fashion or simply being very critical of 
Israel.
    But I find we often skip steps and we jump to the most 
controversial and political and partisan topics. And everyone 
goes into their corners.
    But if we start it, you know, at the ground level. If 
curriculums started with those sorts of things and only after 
once people have those tools, said, okay, now let's talk about 
some of these complicated statements about Israel. I think 
you'd be surprised at how many people could actually figure out 
this issue themselves.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you for that. Dr. Nazarian, as you know, 
as you've discussed, we have witnessed an uptick in U.S.-based 
extremists reaching out to their counterparts abroad and vice 
versa.
    And countries around the world are struggling to counter 
misinformation online, especially on social media, which we 
know fuels extremism and antisemitism. So, what can we do to 
counter the rapid spread of online extremist propaganda and the 
growing spread of transnational violent extremism and white 
supremacy?
    And I want to add to that, is there also an obligation on 
all of us to educate consumers to be better at, people to be 
consumers of information?
    Dr. Nazarian. Thank you, Representative Manning for asking 
that very important question. Everything that happens in real 
life and we've been discussing are critically important.
    What happens online is a megaphone of everything that's 
been discussed. Right? So, we have to acknowledge that that, 
the power of social media and the platforms are just amplifying 
everything that we've been discussing here.
    What can we do? ADL has been at the forefront of holding 
social media companies responsible for enacting their own terms 
of service.
    Now, we know that we as trusted flaggers, when we flag 
antisemitic rhetoric, white supremacist narratives, all of that 
online, they tend to react and say, okay, we'll take that down 
for you.
    What they are not doing, is first of all, doing the same 
thing with individuals who are flagging. They are not enacting 
their own terms of service. And number two, they are not doing 
it proactively.
    They have the software. They have the mechanism to know 
what language and what narratives are being propagated online 
that should be taken down.
    So, having legislation, we are looking to all of you as our 
members of Congress, that provides transparency and holds the 
platforms responsible for instituting their own terms of 
service.
    And we at ADL have already started to push these plans in 
California and in Nevada to really look at legislating and 
forcing social media companies to enforce their own terms of 
service and have transparency about the data and about what 
kind of stuff they're taking down and what they're not.
    Ms. Manning. We look forward to getting that information 
from you. And, out of respect to my colleagues who have been 
waiting patiently, I am going to yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Yes. Mr. Issa.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 
this important hearing. And thank you for allowing me to 
participate.
    You know, there really are two discussions here. And I want 
to touch briefly on both of them. You know, on a personal note, 
I grew up as an Arab American with a nice Arab name in an 
almost all Jewish neighborhood.
    Our Boy Scout troop was at the temple. And it was Orthodox, 
so Saturdays were different for me then they were for some 
other Boy Scouts. And I ended up working for a rabbi delivering 
poultry. I never understood that, in fact, antisemitism could 
be accused of being, oh, well, it's the same. They do the same.
    But I came to Congress, and I began working with many of my 
namesakes throughout the region. Some progress has been made, 
and I give credit to it. But I began hearing the, oh, well, 
here's what's happening in Israel. Here's what they do. I 
hadn't seen it in society. So, I began looking.
    And I've been to Israel and to the West Bank and to Gaza 
more times than my first Chairman, I think. I think Henry Hyde 
was still asking if I had a girlfriend there.
    And, as I went there--no. I began to see--[Laughter.]
    Still looking. But I began to see something, which was 
amazing. Which is, we have two systems, not just on each side 
of Jerusalem, East and West Bank, so to speak, but we have two 
systems of government.
    One that is in Israel, where there is bias. There are 
mistakes. People do out of greed and other reasons, slight 
Palestinians and Arab-Israelis, and for that matter, each 
other. But a system of law allows, all the way to the Supreme 
Court, adjudication. And it often reverses the wrongs, just as 
in the United States it would.
    You go to the West Bank, you don't find that. You go to 
Gaza, you don't find that. And, quite frankly, you go to almost 
all of the Arab world, you don't find that.
    I happen to be of Lebanese descent, so, I'm always proud 
that we almost have a democracy in Lebanon. And it almost 
works. But when you look at the entire Arab world, it's almost 
always one man, one vote, one time. The majority rules and 
there is no debate after that as to fairness. Fairness is 
whatever the majority provides.
    That's not true in Israel. Partially because you never 
really have a true majority. But, also because the system is 
built on a culture that I think we should all celebrate and 
respect.
    And to that extent I just came back from Paris. And it 
still slays me that founding members of the United Nations of 
Western Europe continue to part of antisemitism. The United 
States continues to not do enough.
    I chair the Judiciary's Intellectual Property Committee, 
and your point is exactly right. The tools exist to find at 
least the repeat offenders and bring them down.
    And I will say that that's one of my goals, is not to make 
up new rules. Not to force some sort of European style hate 
speech, because that sometimes promotes antisemitism as much. 
But, because we in fact can find the habitual repeat offenders 
who represent most of the cumulative hate that then breeds on 
it.
    Mr. Marcus, you particularly look at the Palestinian area. 
And one thing I want to make sure we get out here today, and I 
know this is about antisemitism, not just about the Arab 
Israeli conflict, but the teachings that are still going on in 
Palestinian schools.
    If you would comment on what we're dealing with there. And, 
on whether you see any improvement in the kind of move, 
hopefully, away from blatant antisemitism in the countries that 
have signed the Abraham Accords.
    Where do you see that progress? Because I'd like to have at 
least one minute of hope that my next trip overseas will be to 
people who are trying to be part of the solution.
    Mr. Marcus. Okay. Well, the good news is--thank you very 
much for the question. The good news is that the, many of the 
countries who have signed onto the Abraham Accords reports of 
it that on their schoolbooks and they're significantly better. 
They're significantly better.
    There's a, I think also, and you can actually go over it, 
and I think it imposes measuring antisemitism and then other, I 
think the Gulf States come out much better than the Palestinian 
Authority does.
    So, we have a fundamental problem with the Palestinian 
Authority, which is different than the rest of the Arab world. 
And, for that reason, the schoolbooks are not better.
    The education of the children, there is an absolute message 
that Israel has no right to exist. Earlier today I quoted some 
quotes from a Fatah educational magazine called Waed, 
absolutely Israel has no right to exist. Israel eventually will 
not exist.
    What happened to the French and----
    Mr. Issa. This is the ruling party.
    Mr. Marcus. Yes. This is the ruling one. What happened to 
the French in Algeria will happen to all the Jews, will 
eventually leave Palestine.
    This is--these are fundamentals of Palestinian Authority 
education and not just the Hamas. This is the PA. And that's 
where the massive work has to be done.
    It's changing the messaging to the people, because the--as 
I also pointed out earlier, the people are accepting the 
messages. We see in polls that the people adopt the messages of 
the Palestinian Authority.
    One poll earlier I mentioned, is that 87 percent of 
Palestinians who were polled felt that Israelis were hated and 
brought the hatred on themselves. They were hated because of 
their own behavior.
    Now, that is a fundamental Palestinian Authority message to 
its people. So, we see the input has terrible output. And this 
is why we've been for years screaming about the input.
    And, today, tragically we're seeing the results of this, 
where the Palestinian populations today are more and more 
extreme. In the poll that I mentioned this morning, Hamas is 
ahead of Fatah. Both, if our elections were held today, Hamas 
would get, I think it was 7 or 8 percentage points more than 
Fatah.
    Ismail Haniyeh, the head of Hamas, would get more than 
Mahmoud Abbas. And, unfortunately, the only one who would do 
better is Marwan Barghouti, who is a Fatah man who is sitting 
in jail right now with five life sentences for murdering five 
people.
    So, a killer has become, has been put on the pedestal by 
the Palestinian Authority. And the people have accepted it. And 
that's why over the years, like I've spoken in many places, and 
sometimes they say, oh, that's just incitement.
    Oh, no, it's not just incitement. You're teaching a whole 
population how to see Israel, how to see Jews. And today, we 
have the tragic results of a population that really does not 
believe in peace with Israel.
    Mr. Issa. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. And 
thank you for this hearing.
    Mr. Smith. Ms. Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for 
being here. You know, I'm the youngest Jewish member of 
Congress. And I care a lot about antisemitism and the future of 
Israel, my family who served in the IDF, who still live in 
Israel.
    And I've had many conversations with my colleagues here 
from all ranges of the political spectrum who are deeply 
concerned about what we're seeing in Israel. Around policies 
that undermine Israel's judicial system and create conditions 
that aren't conducive to a two state solution.
    A lot of the rhetoric we're hearing out of the current 
Israeli government that I would argue is as inflammatory as 
what you are citing coming from the PA about, you know, the 
Palestinian state not having a right to exist.
    And I especially hear from young American Jews who are 
having a really hard time right now, because they see an 
Israeli government that does not live up to their values that 
they were taught as Jews. That they don't feel is representing 
them.
    And yet they are then told that any criticism they try and 
have of that is antisemitism. And I actually think it's really, 
really dangerous, both for the actual fight on antisemitism and 
for the future of Israel.
    That we are conflating legitimate criticism of deeply 
problematic policies with antisemitism. And I think we need to 
reject the false notion that we have to choose between standing 
up for Israel's democracy and working to eradicate antisemitism 
around the globe.
    My cousins who are sending me selfies from the protest in 
Tel Aviv, I don't think anyone thinks they're antisemitic. And 
yet, sometimes when we try and express the same things, we are 
called that here in the United States.
    So, I guess Dr. Nazarian, I just wanted to ask you like, 
can you talk a bit about what you think explains the rise of 
antisemitism in the U.S. over the last five years?
    And whether or not it's really some people on the left who 
have some concerns about policies or, you know, as we've heard, 
folks on the right wearing shirts that say six million weren't 
enough when they tried to attack us here in the Capitol.
    And also, as you think about this balance, how would you 
advise those of us who want to make sure we are elevating these 
legitimate criticisms, how do we separate anti-Jewish rhetoric 
from criticism of the state of Israel and its policies?
    Dr. Nazarian. Thank you, Representative Jacobs. And I think 
we touched on this question a little bit. But, I'll start just 
by saying, as far as ADL is concerned, when it comes to 
differentiating between valid criticism of Israel and 
antisemitic motions, we have three very clear lines.
    Number one, if all Jews are held responsible for Israeli 
policy, that's antisemitic. Number two, if the right to self-
determination of the Jewish people is prevented, that is 
antisemitic.
    And finally, if you use antisemitic tropes, 
characterizations, and place that onto the Jewish state, that 
is antisemitic. Now, robust criticism of Israeli policy is just 
as valid as robust criticisms of American policy or any other 
democracy in hopefully any other country.
    So, that is very clear. And I think making sure that we're 
not crossing that line, and not diminishing the value of the 
term antisemitic, is very important.
    What we're seeing in the state, in the city of Tel Aviv, 
and I'm heading there tonight, my family is there right now. I 
am here today because of the importance of this hearing.
    And I--my family right now is being honored. My mother is 
being honored with an honorary Doctorate. So, I knew that I 
couldn't----
    Ms. Jacobs. Congratulations.
    Dr. Nazarian. Thank you. But, this is such an important 
hearing for me to participate in. And so, thank you for 
including me.
    That is a testament to the robustness of Israel's 
democracy. The fact that you have had nonviolent protests of 
upwards of 100s of thousands for 28 weeks in a row, shows the 
robustness of Israel's democracy.
    And raising very real issues about some of the judicial 
decisions that are being now floated, and we'll see where they 
go. And also about what the people of Israel want as a 
character for the Jewish and democratic character of the state 
of Israel.
    Now, we at ADL are concerned about the current government 
makeup, this coalition. Some of the ministers in there, some of 
the values they've espoused, and some of the narratives they've 
used. And we have called it out, as is our responsibility to do 
so.
    So, I believe that what causes antisemitism, we have to be 
very clear about. There's not one cause, there are multiple, as 
it is in the U.S. And we see also the same thing globally.
    There are those who, you know, use white supremacist 
ideology, there's those who use anti-Zionist ideology. And 
they're used to use Islamic extremism. So, all of this, and 
Europe is perfectly like the perfect place where this is all 
working in the same place.
    But, here in the U.S., we know that Europe is a harbinger 
of what's coming. And we have to be careful. Thank you.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. And I just want to point out, 
you know, just a few weeks ago we voted here in H.R. 5, the so-
called Parent's Bill of Rights. And Republican leadership 
actually rejected my amendment that would have included 
language stating that the actions carried out during the 
Holocaust and the sentiments of antisemitism are immoral.
    And I think it's important that we recognize the strong 
relationship between antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, 
Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. And, you know, I 
used to work at the U.N. I think the U.N. does really important 
work around the world.
    I think that oftentimes we talk about the U.N. focusing so 
much Israel, and at the same time, we here as American Jews, we 
do feel like there's a special connection to Israel. We do want 
the U.S. to have a special relationship with Israel.
    And a special relationship goes both ways. A special 
relationship both means we are very supportive of Israel and we 
should have a right to criticize what they are doing. The 
special relationship has to go both ways.
    And so, I'm really disheartened to hear of all of this 
rhetoric undermining the very important work the U.N. does 
around the world. And I think that it's dangerous for our 
national security and for our ability to build alliances around 
the world, which is the most important thing that keeps the 
U.S. safe.
    So, I know my time is up. I'll let my colleagues speak. 
But,----
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Schneider, thank you.
    Ms. Jacobs. Yeah, this entire hearing has been pretty 
disheartening as an American Jew.
    Mr. Schneider. I'm almost speechless. But, I'll proceed. 
Wow. So, it's a great time to be a Jew in America and the 
world. We can't lose sight of that.
    But, as we've talked about here, antisemitism fearfully, 
disgracefully is on the rise in the United States and around 
the world. It is crucial we stand up to it.
    And one thing as we have heard today very clearly, that 
antisemitism has been rampant at the U.N. for a very, very long 
time. And I'll come back to it, because I think Israel has made 
progress at the U.N.
    But, the focus on Israel in so many ways at the U.N. that 
has been highlighted in these, in this testimony, is critical. 
And I think it's also crucial to note that antisemitism, Mr. 
Marcus, as you have said, is core to the message Palestinians 
are sharing with their people, and critical as a tool the PA is 
using to delegitimize Israel.
    And so, I think that's all crucial. Mr. Marcus, maybe going 
back to things we all learned in elementary school, but maybe 
is important to note here.
    What is the timing of the origination of modern Zionism? I 
know it's not his question, but.
    Mr. Marcus. Well, where is the beginning of modern Zionism, 
are you talking about Herzl?
    Mr. Schneider. Yeah.
    Mr. Marcus. Yeah.
    Mr. Schneider. It goes back to the late 19th Century. And, 
as my colleague Mr. Phillips said, his family came here because 
of antisemitism.
    I have a picture of my maternal grandmother and her family 
who fled Kiev in 1912 because of the pogroms. What was the 
source of pogroms? It was antisemitism. Which many of us have 
faced that throughout our lives.
    A question about apartheid that has been brought up. This 
is for anyone. The name Khaled Kabub mean anything to anybody? 
It's a Supreme Court Justice in Israel. A Muslim Supreme Court 
Justice.
    Another random question, anyone watch the U20 World Cup? 
The team that came in third, worth clapping for, Israeli team. 
First time they qualified. Only Jews on that team? No. Of 
course not. In fact, one of the goal scorers in that third 
place game was a Muslim.
    Apartheid is separation; in a country that has Muslims on 
their Supreme Court, that celebrates the victory of their 
soccer team, football team, as I guess they would call it to 
the regular, would be separated. Not the case. But that is what 
we face in so many places around the world.
    I don't know if this is for Mr. Neuer or someone else. 
We've been trying to get Israel--or not Israel--Europe to take 
action. And, by the way, I think our definition is the right 
definition. I wish the White House had stuck to it. But why is 
it so difficult to get European governments and other 
organizations to see what, from the testimony here, appears to 
be so obvious? Mr. Neuer?
    Mr. Neuer. Thank you, Congressman. First of all, I thank 
you for your remarks concerning the absurd smear that Israel is 
somehow an apartheid state.
    It's not only false and defamatory for Israel and Israelis 
but does a disservice to the true cause of apartheid. Anyone 
like me who has been to South Africa and seen what happened 
there will understand how that undermines the struggle against 
apartheid in that country.
    As to why Europe and other governments don't see things, I 
mean, we, you know, Abba Eban, Israel's legendary statesman and 
Ambassador to the United Nations once quipped that if Algeria 
were to introduce a resolution at the United Nations declaring 
that the earth was flat and that Israel was responsible, it 
would pass by 154 to 12, with 25 abstentions.
    And that quote was made years ago, but it remains true 
today. And a number of these countries who support these 
resolutions are European democracies.
    I mentioned each year there are 15 resolutions singling out 
Israel at the General Assembly, about 10 of those 15 are 
supported by EU democracies. And why do so many countries 
support the resolutions against Israel?
    I mean, we see several factors. One is vote trading. The 
United Nations works by vote trading. You vote for me, I vote 
for you.
    There's sometimes you can actually even see letters that 
are leaked about countries. China one--sorry, Saudi Arabia and 
Russia promise to vote each other onto the Human Rights 
Council, even though they're rivals in the region.
    So, there are, you know, vote trading plays a very 
important role. Israel can offer you one vote. The Islamic 
states can offer you 56 votes. So, it's 56 to one, it's a no 
brainer.
    Mr. Schneider. Repeat those numbers?
    Mr. Neuer. Yeah. There are 56 Islamic states at the United 
Nations. There is one Jewish state. So, they come--they sponsor 
these resolutions against Israel.
    And, in exchange, you can get support from 56 votes at the 
United Nations for whatever your cause may be. For yourself or 
for your country. That's quite significant.
    There is the historic influence of oil and gas. African 
countries were told years ago, you will not get oil if you vote 
for Israel, if you have relations with Israel. That continues 
to play a role in the world.
    Sovereign wealth funds, you may or may not get billions 
from the Qatari sovereign wealth fund if you vote for a 
resolution that they support.
    And I would finally mention fear of terrorism. If your 
country will be one of the ten that will stand with Israel, 
such as the United States or typically Canada, sometimes 
Australia. If you'll be one of the handful of countries that 
stand with Israel, you may face terrorism in your country.
    So, all of those are rational factors that we may not like 
but can understand, we are politic. But, I would have to add 
that as the historian Jacob Talmon commented, that Israel today 
has become the Jew among the nations.
    And if in history, because as Mr. Rosenberg mentioned, 
we're dealing with concepts that date back thousands of years 
that are in public, in our consciousness. We may not even be 
aware of it, subconscious.
    You know, in Europe where I live, when there was the black 
plague, Jews were accused of poisoning the wells. And today, if 
there's human rights abuse, if there's racism, if there's 
health violations, it's the Jewish state that is blamed.
    Mr. Schneider. And I'm over my time. I have one yes or no 
question. And we can talk about it in writing. But, UNRWA, you 
mentioned UNRWA.
    And my broad question is, UNRWA has all kinds of problems. 
We talked about their education issues. And I'm of one mind 
that UNRWA has outlived its usefulness and it's the only 
organization that's been around for 70 years.
    The things that UNRWA does that are necessary, services 
provided, are there, and it's a yes/no, are there other 
entities that are perhaps better positioned to do that today?
    Mr. Neuer. Yes.
    Mr. Schneider. Yes, so. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Sherman.
    Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for 
holding this hearing. Thank you for allowing us who aren't 
members of the subcommittee to participate, and for your 
decades of incredible dedication on human rights.
    I see at least three streams of antisemitism. One is an 
extreme left that hates at least Israel, because it's pro-
American. And also sees the opportunity for an alliance with, I 
think you said 56 countries.
    There's also Islamic extremists. And finally, there's the 
far right that gave us Hitler and many before and many after 
him.
    There's an argument here, Zionism versus antisemitism. One 
could have said in the 1880s, you could be an anti-Zionist. And 
say look, there's already people living there. We shouldn't 
move there.
    You could also be an anti-Californian in this country, in 
the 1840s or '30s and say hey, that's part of Mexico. It 
shouldn't be part of America.
    You can say that the Slavs should not have moved to eastern 
Europe, the Turks should not have moved to Anatolia, and the 
Arabs they should not have moved to North Africa.
    But, the fact is that every other country is accepted as a 
right to live where they are not, notwithstanding that with the 
exception of perhaps the Neanderthals, just about everybody has 
moved to where they are. And, of course, there are no 
Neanderthals.
    So, to say that, you just put it in context. You could say 
down with Israel and say, you're not an antisemite. But if I 
sat here and said down with Albania, most of you would think I 
was an anti-Albanian. You can't hate the only Albanian state in 
the world and say that there should be not an Albanian state 
and not be regarded as anti-Albanian.
    And to say that Slovakia is a racist state because it chose 
to be independent of Czechoslovakia and to have a border 
separating themselves from Poland and Hungary, to say that 
there's a Slovak state, that must mean that the Slovaks are 
racist, is absurd.
    As to BDS, it's entirely appropriate to boycott countries 
you disagree with, if your disagreement is reasonable. I and 
BDS, and you've urged us to boycott and divest from Iran not 
because I think all Persians and other Iranians should be wiped 
off, you know, shouldn't have a state. But, I'd like them to 
stop their nuclear program, et cetera.
    I've got friends who won't buy a Toyota because they think 
the Japanese shouldn't hunt whales. They are not anti-Japanese 
racists. They'd be happy, they're not asking Japan to evacuate 
the Japanese islands. They're not calling for the death of all 
Japanese. They just want it.
    And if the BDF movement was one that said, we don't want to 
invest in Israel until Israel does this or that, and stops 
hunting whales. Okay. You disagree with Israel, you have a 
right to boycott. I've got other friends who won't.
    I want to thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for 
commenting. And then so many of you commenting on the UNRWA 
textbooks and curriculum.
    I want to bring to my colleagues' attention the Peace and 
Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act, which would get us an 
official State Department report on these UNRWA curriculum 
materials.
    Mr. Sharansky, it's an honor for you to be with us. And I 
wonder if you can comment on how the Soviet Union, back when it 
existed, used anti-Zionism as a tool to be antisemitic?
    Apparently the----
    Mr. Kontorovich. Could I field that question? So, also 
being from the Soviet Union, I'm also from Kiev, like Mr. 
Schneider's family. And, indeed, the auspicious year of my 
birth, 1975, was the year that the United Nations passed the 
Zionism is Racism Resolution. A resolution which has been so 
discredited that I believe seating amongst United Nations' 
resolutions the U.N. subsequently voted to override or reverse 
it.
    Now, that resolution was passed as a Soviet foreign policy 
initiative. They had a vote. They had a permanent majority of 
their allies and nonaligned states. And that was a fundamental 
product of Soviet ideology after the Yom Kippur War, to get 
this idea out there.
    Now, interestingly, it doesn't just say that Zionism is 
racism. It just came to be known as that. It also says that 
Zionism is also lots of other things that are bad, like 
colonialism and imperialism and likens it to the apartheid 
policies of South Africa.
    So, this notion that like now some human rights groups who 
said, oh, finally Israel has crossed the line. We've seen 
they've done something. They've done something bad. They've 
done something too much. Now we're going to call them 
apartheid. This is the same Soviet rhetoric from 1975 that was 
discredited, reversed, and yet, like a monster in a horror 
movie, reconstitutes itself and makes its way through even in 
these halls. Thank you.
    Mr. Smith. I'm going to thank our extraordinarily 
distinguished panel. You've given us much to think about and 
work on. The action items are running page after page based on. 
And please convey to us, all of us, next steps in addition to 
what you've said today, because we want to get it right.
    I do want to say we're going to have a number of other 
hearings, like I mentioned earlier before. We'll have one on 
UNRWA. We'll have investor at large Deborah Lipstadt come and 
testify.
    And other issues. I mean, we know that the hostility 
towards students is in the United States, in my own state of 
New Jersey, who happen to be Jewish, and it's all over the 
world. So, we may even focus one hearing just on that. But we 
will do a whole series.
    I find it appalling that the Palestinian Authority 
encourages children to kill themselves and to kill other 
people. There's nothing heroic, there's nothing noble about 
that kind of child abuse. And that's what the PA does. It's 
child abuse.
    I watched a video years ago, you know, I--well, all of us 
in high school, we used to be in pep rallies, we were in 
sports. Everybody would rally for the team, for the game that 
was going to happen that day or that weekend.
    And I watched a pep rally pushing the killing of Jews with 
people who would strap on bombs who happened to be children. 
They were lifting that up as if that was something to emulate, 
to push.
    And so, the PA has much to answer for on a whole lot of 
issues. But, abusing their own children is about as appalling 
as it gets.
    So, I do hope we can bring some additional focus to that. I 
remember watching that video. And I will never forget it, that 
they would do that to their own children. The children that 
they claim to care about.
    So, thank you. If anyone would like to say any parting 
statement. If not, that's fine, too. It's all up to you. Yes?
    Mr. Schiffmiller. Just to follow up on your last point, Mr. 
Chairman, about the abuse of children. One of the issues that 
we've been tracking very closely, and we expect we will learn 
more about in the coming, perhaps even hour or days, is a U.N. 
mechanism called the Children in Armed Conflict, which is 
designed to track abuse of children in armed conflicts around 
the world.
    And one of the areas that we see serial under-reporting in, 
is this very issue of inciting to violence, recruitment, and 
use of Palestinian children by terrorist organizations. And 
that because a lot of the data that goes into these reporting 
mechanisms are generated by NGOs, some of whom are themselves 
linked to U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, that leads 
to this under-reporting, and that leads to a warped perception 
of Israeli security policies that relate to that level of 
incitement and recruitment.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Ms. Wild. I just would like to make a very brief closing 
remark. It's often said that if you put five or six or seven 
Jews in a room, you'll get that many opinions, differing 
opinions. And, obviously, we've seen some of that. I think all 
of you had excellent written testimony. And I plan to keep it. 
And I plan to keep this binder as sort of a resource to use 
going forward.
    I get along very, very well with the Chair of this 
committee. And I think the world of him. And am grateful for 
him convening this hearing. I am going to take issue only with 
the last remarks of the Chairman, because I think it is 
incredibly important that we not broadly label all members of 
any nation or ethnicity with the bad acts of some.
    As a recovering lawyer, I will tell you that lawyers are 
regularly labeled by the worst among them. But that's a kind of 
a light version of this. I think that it's just really 
important that we not use the worst examples to connote that 
all people who are of that origin.
    Mr. Smith. Well, just to be clear----
    Ms. Wild. And that's all I--I just wanted to say.
    Mr. Smith. Go ahead. I don't say that about the 
Palestinians en masse. I say that about the Palestinian 
Authority. And--because these are their official policies. And, 
you know, again, as we all know from the Taylor Force Act, and 
we all know from, as you pointed out, 100 percent of those who 
are in prison for terrorist acts are getting paid for it. And 
they have a job waiting for them in the PA when they get out.
    But, thank you. I appreciate again, your testimony.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Smith. And thank you to my Ranking Member.
    [Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                                 [all]
```