A Potpourri of Anti-Semitism Consideration
The disheartening regularity of anti-Semitic outrages across the country and around the world and the steady increase in anti-Semitism make serious consideration of its frequency, motivation, objectives and impact unavoidable. I have been involved with, or particularly moved by, three such considerations. This month, the Ottawa Jewish Community Centre produced another session of its “Philosophers’ Café” - a monthly public discussion forum dealing with current topics of particular interest to the Jewish community. The Café topic was a documentary of anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish biases in European and, primarily, British media - with coverage of the 2002 fighting in Jenin as its prime focus. The documentary, entitled: “Jenin: Massacring Truth” and produced by Martin Himel of the Global Television Network, examined coverage of the events in Jenin - including the alleged massacre of 500+ Palestinians... Looking back with hindsight, Mr. Himel sought to explain how such respected media such as: the BBC, the London Times, The Manchester Guardian, as well as the UN’s own communications department could have reported a massacre - complete with the most vivid, lurid and sensational orchestration - that simply never took place. A week earlier, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, (CAUT), published a short article stating its reaction to the fire bombing of the Montreal Talmud Torah. Finally, on June 21st, Ms. Anne Bayefsky, senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School addressed a conference called: “Confronting Anti-Semitism: Education for Tolerance and Understanding” , sponsored by the UN Department of Information. The nature, content and sincerity of these various efforts to react to, and confront, anti-Semitism are, in many ways, a study in contrasts - and, themselves, deserve some consideration. Good The “Philosophers’ Café” proved to be calm, informative and surprisingly unemotional. In fact, its most contentious aspects related to its organization rather than anything said at the Café. For three full weeks, this columnist laboured to identify two knowledgeable persons to act as lead-off discussants for consideration of Mr. Himel’s documentary. Ultimately, those selected were: Leonard Stern, journalist and editorial writer for the Ottawa Citizen and Prof. Karim Karim of the Carleton University School of Journalism and author of “The Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence” - both of whom have considerable familiarity with reporting on the middle east. However, prior to this, I had approached several, senior journalists known to me. Each either refused to participate and/or suggested that finding anyone to tackle such a “controversial” topic would be very, very difficult. The most disappointing refusal came from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Despite their key role in foreign reporting for Canadians, CBC Communications ultimately ruled that no one, not a journalist, producer or any news editor would be permitted to help us with this discussion. The fear evidenced by these various persons and organizations was almost palpable. In the event, Mr. Stern, a Canadian-born Jew and Prof. Karim a Moslem of East Indian descent - contributed significantly to a thorough discussion of the documentary. Nothing about anti-Semitism can be called “good” but, the discussion - calm, serious and informed - proved very enlightening. Although demonstration of blatant, often inflammatory, anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias - its origins and very serious impact - evidenced by such respected media and international organizations - left everyone present in a somber mood, the exercise itself proved people can deal with such topics and, making use of different perspectives and experience, to improve awareness, identify considerable common ground and increase understanding. Bad CAUT’s reaction to the Talmud Torah affair was summarized in two paragraphs: “.... CAUT executive voted to donate $1,000 ... to help rebuild (the Talmud Torah) library.... Council delegates also unanimously passed the following resolution...: “Violence and hate crimes target and intimidate vulnerable groups, and attack diversity of thought, belief and opinion. Therefore, be it resolved that CAUT reaffirms its active commitment to: fight discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, uphold the dignity of and worth of every individual.... and promote and defend the civil liberties and human rights of all.” Not till you compare this reaction to that of Rex Murphy, (see: May 2004 Farshteinen “Speaking Volumes”) with its eloquent insistence that the attack against the Talmud Torah be seen for exactly what it is - a specific attack on Jews qua Jews, as opposed to some general disrespect for non-specific civil rights or ‘Canadian values’, etc. and then realize that, in this entire statement, the words “Jew” or “Jewish” do not appear once, do you appreciate the depth of its profoundly hollow insincerity and damnable trivialization of the event and of anti-Semitism in general. Ugly Ms. Bayefsky spoke to those attributes of the UN treatment of anti-Semitism that have bothered Jews, of all political persuasions and viewpoints . And, in so doing, revealed the ugliness of anti-Semitism partially tolerated, in some case facilitated and, in still others, practiced, by what was intended as the world’s major instrument for: protection of human rights, and respect for nations large and small. Disappointment “...(At present),.. the relationship between Jews and the UN is at an all-time low. The UN took root in the ashes of the Jewish people, and according to its charter, was to flower on the strength of a commitment to tolerance and equality for all (people) and of nations large and small. (Instead it)...provides a platform for those who cast the victims of the Nazis as the Nazi counterparts of the 21st century... (and)...has become the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism - intolerance and inequality against the Jewish people and its state. Nature of anti-Semitism “... (Contemporary anti-Semitism at the UN)... means, (for example), refusing to admit only Israel to the vital negotiating sessions of regional groups ...(within)...the Commission on Human Rights... It means devoting six of the ten emergency sessions ever held by the General Assembly to Israel... By contrast...(none). was ever held on the Rwandan genocide.... or ethnic cleansing....in Yugoslavia or the death of millions (in)...two decades of atrocities in Sudan.... More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state’s human rights violations adopted by the Commission over 40 years have been directed at Israel. But there has never been a single resolution about the decades-long repression of the civil and political rights of 1.3 billion people in China or the million migrant workers in Saudi Arabia kept as virtual slaves.....” Accountability “...(Some rationalize)... anti-Semitism at the UN by pointing to a range of motivations in UN corridors including: commercial interests, regional politics, preventing scrutiny of human rights violations closer to home, or enhancement of individual careers. UN actors... almost uniformly (deny) the nature of the pathogen coursing through these halls. They ignore the infection and applaud the host, forgetting that the cancer which kills the organism will take with it both the good and the bad. “I challenge... (Mr. Annan)... if (he) is serious about eradicating anti-Semitism to:... - name .. terrorists that kill Jews because they are Jews - (condemn) human rights violators wherever they dwell.... even if it is Riyadh or Damascus - stop condemning the Jewish people for fighting back against their killers And, when (next) someone asks (him) to stand for a moment of silence to honour those who would destroy...Israel... to say ‘no’.”
