Assessing the American Jewish Institutional Response to Global Anti-Semitism

, October 1, 2005

Jewish Political Studies Review 17:3-4 (Fall 2005)

The new, global anti-Semitism presents a unique challenge because of its emphasis on public campaigns to delegitimize Israel, the Jewish people, and Judaism. The various responses of American Jewish organizations display three levels of engagement – core participation, selective interest, and minimal interest. Initiatives by these agencies in the European sphere have sometimes prompted criticism, particularly by French Jewish activists who allege presumptuous attitudes that put their own community in a difficult situation. These frictions partly reflect the larger political tensions between the United States and its European allies.

In general, the patterns of American Jewish involvement on this issue resemble those observable in their activities within the United States.

Introduction

The emergence of global anti-Semitism, and more particularly its manifestations in the Arab, Muslim, and European worlds, have prompted a debate about the quality and scope of the American Jewish community’s response to this phenomenon. Before venturing an assessment, it is important to define the special features of this new form of anti-Semitism.

Global anti-Semitism represents a different challenge to Jews, Judaism, and Israel than earlier kinds. What is now confronted is a political and public relations offensive that is aimed at discrediting the case for Israel, subverting the legitimacy of the Jewish people, and undermining the integrity of Judaism as one of the major world religions.

This contemporary wave of anti-Semitism uses the following strategies:1

  1. Portraying the policies of the United States as serving “Zionist” interests, benefiting the state of Israel, and supporting Jewish “international goals” 
  2. Defining Jews as defenders of Western concepts, values, and ways
  3. Accusing Israel of Nazi-like practices and ideas and associating Israeli leaders with Hitler, while using terms such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes
  4. Employing conspiracy theories and the like as a way of linking Jews to larger, more sinister matters, from control of international business and banking to “Zionist” domination of U.S. foreign policy

To achieve their basic goals of isolating and stigmatizing Israel, the Jewish people, and Judaism, today’s anti-Semites use some more specific tactics:

  • Boycotts and disinvestment campaigns directed at Israel
  • Introducing one-sided international resolutions that single out Israel and its policies
  • Efforts to target and remove Israeli faculty from research projects and academic boards
  • Framing hate messages against Israel, Jews, and Judaism in the name of academic and press freedom
  • Physical attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions
  • Introducing in the international media misleading headlines, defamatory cartoons, and stories inaccurately portraying Israel
  • Conspiracy theories
  • Holocaust denial

Irwin Cotler has suggested that three themes in particular define this new anti-Semitism. First, genocidal anti-Semitism entails the public call for the destruction of the state of Israel and the killing of Jews. Terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad operate as “genocidal bombers”; religious elites including Muslim clerics present these objectives as sacred obligations of their followers; and in “state-sanctioned” policies, countries such as Iran work for Israel’s annihilation.

The second theme is that of political anti-Semitism. Here there are many examples of international initiatives singling out Israel. Where other peoples are granted the “right of self-determination” under international law, significant elements of the global community deny this to Jews. Israel’s very character or right to exist is put in question, and insidious aims are attributed to it.

Third, ideological anti-Semitism entails applying specific odious labels to Israel. These include such notions as “Zionism is racism,” “apartheid state,” and Holocaust and Nazi terminology such as “genocidal policies against the Palestinian people.”2

Table 1 characterizes the new, global anti-Semitism and differentiates it from earlier forms.

Table 1: The New Anti-Semitism

Characteristics Traditional anti-Semitism Global anti-Semitism
Individual vs. collective Traditional anti-Semitism generally involved at any given time a specific target possibly an attack on an individual or a Jewish institution, or criticism of a specific Jewish concept or behavior. The new forms of anti-Jewish activity are directed at the collective enterprise:Israel, peoplehood, and Judaism.
Local-national vs. global Historically, one could identify localized and at times nationally inspired and directed, anti-Semitic behaviors. The new anti-Semitism is not directed at specific Jews in a particular setting but at the perception of Jewish power and influence. This involves orchestrated actions against Israel and the belief in an international Jewish conspiracy. Similarly, global anti-Semitism is not the province of one sector of the political community but rather finds adherents both on the Right and the Left, offering a unique locus of shared interests for extremists.
Targeted forms of anti- Semitism vs. a broad assault on Israel and Jews Traditional anti-Semites acted against specific Jewish targets to symbolize the general hatred of the Jewish people. Anti- Semitic behavior usually involved individuals or small groups undertaking specific actions against individual Jews or Jewish institutions. The emphasis is on making global and multiple accusations against the Jewish people, Judaism, and Israel, and initiating coordinated actions against these targets. Various tools are employed including the media, street agitation, and the academic world. Jews and Israel are linked to major, negative, international concepts such as racism and apartheid.
Separate considerations vs. linked purposes Anti-Semites tended to be devoted to their specific cause, and rarely sought to link their agenda with other endeavors. Many of those who, for example, oppose the war in Iraq have incorporated an anti-Israeli focus in their attacks on U.S. policies.

 

 

The American Jewish Response: An Overview

Some critics in Europe and Israel have questioned how seriously the American Jewish community is relating to this growing anti-Semitism, especially in terms of institutional visibility and effectiveness.

Several key factors emerge in the American Jewish response. There is today a heightened public and institutional focus on the issue. As discussed below, there are varying levels of engagement. The American Jewish press, for its part, regularly reports on global anti-Semitism, and specifically on anti-Israeli statements and activities by individuals, organizations, and governments.


The Historical Perspective

Since the Mortara Affair in the 1850s, American Jewry has been involved in matters related to anti-Semitism on the European continent. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, on many occasions American Jewish leaders sought U.S. government intervention in cases of Jewish persecution in Europe.3

In the 1930s, there was a major debate among the main Jewish defense organizations about what strategies to take toward the rise of the Nazis in Germany. The American Jewish Congress advocated a highly public campaign, whereas the American Jewish Committee favored low-key diplomatic initiatives. In the end the more cautious approach prevailed despite efforts by some to mount a more confrontational response to the Nazi policies.


Cultural and Political Concerns

A current point of controversy is how American Jewish political action is perceived elsewhere in the Jewish world, particularly by leaders of the European communities. American Jewish organizations play to different, sometimes competing constituencies. On the one hand, they need to demonstrate to their membership base and principal supporters a serious approach to the international challenges, thereby confirming their credibility for internal fundraising purposes and underlining their status as global institutions. These priorities may not, however, directly comport with the interests or sensibilities of their European counterparts, who remain concerned about outside interference in their affairs or favor what they consider a European approach to the issues. This is linked in part to the broader European debate about alleged American domineering behavior in the international context.

Statements by some of the American Jewish organizations in their publications and websites indeed show a certain political brinksmanship. This involves using threatening terms such as “warn” in regard to specific European governments’ failure to deal adequately with anti-Semitism.

The main American Jewish organizations have distinctive political styles.4 The strategies they use partly reflect their historical approaches to advocacy. For instance, the American Jewish Committee prides itself on its commitment to diplomacy and the quality of its institutional research. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), however, has centered its messages on the persona of its national director, who not only defines the agency’s positions but shapes how they are conveyed. Seeking to compete with the public and sometimes strident voice of the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has tended to link its focus on global anti-Semitism to other core themes including Holocaust education, neo-Nazi activities, and the case for Israel.

More broadly, American Jewish agencies’ approaches may reflect distinctive cultural styles and organizational tactics that are not always familiar to European Jewish publics. Indeed, the American Jewish bodies are patterned on advocacy models found in the general American political arena. This pertains both to the more diplomatic style of the American Jewish Committee and to the more high-profile stances, aimed at attracting media coverage, of the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center.


The Key American Institutional Players

A three-tier framework is helpful for quantifying and classifying the nature of the American Jewish institutional responses to the issue of global anti-Semitism. Specific organizations can be evaluated within each category:

  1. Core participation: An active agenda designed to elicit public awareness, political intervention, and social-behavioral change. 
  2. Selective interest: Primarily a reporting role while introducing a few initiatives, along with undertaking a monitoring function. 
  3. Minimal commitment: Exclusively a reporting role aimed at providing information on global anti-Semitism to constituencies without any direct engagement.


Core Participation

Groups in this cohort use a host of public policy tools to convey Jewish concerns about international anti-Semitism to officials in Washington, the United Nations, and world capitals. These institutions demonstrate six distinctive responses:

  • Sponsoring research on anti-Semitic trends
  • Hosting high-level meetings and participating in international diplomatic conferences
  • Producing publications focusing attention on this issue
  • Testifying before congressional and international bodies
  • Developing international ad campaigns
  • Using press briefings and statements


Core-participant institutions include the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The first two are the most active in this arena. Each of these organizations uses some of the above tools, and devotes significant attention to global anti-Semitism on its website.

Anti-Defamation League

The ADL employs international press releases and is publishing a series called “Global Anti-Semitism: The New Threat.”5 The first two installments have been “90 Ways to Respond” and “Fighting Hate around the World.” The ADL also mounted an international television ad campaign titled “Anti-Semitism Is Anti-All of Us,” designed to coincide with the 2004 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Conference in Brussels focusing on racism, xenophobia, and discrimination, and the opening of the fall 2004 UN General Assembly.6 In its Annual Report for 2004, the ADL noted that in 2003 it spent 6 percent of its program budget on “International Affairs,” 11 percent on “Education,” and 10 percent on “Marketing and Communications.” Each of these categories is aligned with the agenda of fighting global anti-Semitism.7

American Jewish Committee

The American Jewish Committee’s engagement in the international sphere is described in materials from its website:8“As AJC’s agenda has expanded over the years, it has been referred to as the “state department” of the American Jewish community. Our staff experts use a combination of groundbreaking research, innovative educational programming and diplomacy to advance our concerns as Americans and as Jews. The highpoint of our international outreach each year is the “Diplomatic Marathon,” a two-week period in September when AJC leaders meet with the heads of state or foreign ministers of dozens of countries who come to New York for the opening of the UN General Assembly. Advocacy for Israel at the UN and in other international forums tops the discussion. AJC’s large-scale diplomatic undertaking is unparalleled among nongovernmental organizations and underscores our long-term commitment to global outreach as a way to ensure the well being of Israel and Jewish communities around the world.”The Committee outlines its main activities in response to the emerging European anti-Semitism:”The past three years have seen a startling intensification of anti- Semitism in Europe – leaving many Jews feeling more vulnerable and disillusioned than at any time in the last half century. Hundreds of aggressive and often violent acts have targeted Jews and Jewish institutions across Europe, particularly Western Europe.”AJC has been working intensively with European governments to confront anti-Semitism in their countries. AJC played a leading role in the planning process of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s…conferences on anti-Semitism, the first in Vienna in June 2003 and then again last April in Berlin. During the two conferences, high-level representatives of OSCE nations met to address the alarming rise of anti-Semitic violence in their region. For months prior to the event, AJC worked in Washington and European capitals to organize the forum. Rabbi Andrew Baker, AJC’s director of international Jewish affairs, was a member of the U.S. Public Delegation to the Vienna conference, chaired by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.Through its close contacts to diplomats and government officials, its ability to exert leadership among the major Jewish organizations, and its initiative to coordinate leading Jewish and non-Jewish organizations, AJC also played a crucial role in the success of the OSCE Conference in Berlin. AJC Executive Director David A. Harris addressed the conference. Just prior to this second meeting on anti- Semitism, AJC’s Berlin Office co-sponsored a daylong NGO forum focused on strategies for combating anti-Semitism. Thirty-six U.S. and European Jewish organizations signed an NGO Forum Declaration, which was presented to the OSCE Conference. Robert Rifkind, chair of AJC’s Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights (JBI), addressed the forum and presented a new JBI report, After the Promise: Keeping OSCE Commitments to Combat Anti-Semitism.

SimonWiesenthal Center

In 2004 the Wiesenthal Center averaged over twenty press releases per month, with more than a third dealing with issues of European or world anti-Semitism.9 Although most of these statements were in reaction to specific anti-Semitic events or expressions, the Center also launched several proactive initiatives, including testimony to the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe in June 2004:”Years ago Simon Wiesenthal expressed the fear that we would “repeat the old mistakes under new conditions…, that we are afraid to mobilize right against wrong.” If the Holocaust has any lesson, it is precisely that we cannot stand by while antisemitism and other forms of bigotry take root. And, as our representatives, it is the role and responsibility of government to take the lead in that regard. Their silence can condemn the world; their protest can save it.10″Here as elsewhere, the Wiesenthal Center has linked contemporary anti-Semitism with the Holocaust. Throughout this document Mark Weitzman, director of the Center’s Task Force against Hate, keeps returning to this theme.

The Perspective of Their Critics

In a Jerusalem Post article, Pierre Besnainou, deputy chairman of the European Jewish Congress, is quoted as stating in a letter to the president of the Committee Representing Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF), Roger Cukierman, that: “Often when American Jewish groups have become involved in affairs in France, their manner has come across as presumptuous and somewhat patronizing, placing us in a delicate situation.” Charging that the ADL, AIPAC, and the American Jewish Committee were “interfering in and undermining” the French Jewish public’s own efforts to combat anti-Semitism, Besnainou added: “This alternating attitude of insolence and compliance, these interventions of doubtful legitimacy are creating a real risk for the interests of our community.”11As a result, Besnainou claimed, French Jews experienced “diminished credibility” when trying to engage their leaders on issues of anti- Semitism. He went on to suggest: “The question is not only of the appropriateness of this intervention, but as well of its legitimacy. There are institutions whose vocation is to represent the Jews of France and Europe.”12 Cukierman, in recent comments published in the American Jewish press, has expressed similar discomfort with some U.S.-based organizations’ approach to France.The Post, two days after the article quoting Besnainou, reported this response by Laura Kam Issacharoff of the ADL’s Israel office in a letter to French Jewish officials: “We believe that in general criticism of the ADL in this subject is unfortunate and unwarranted. We respect, work closely with and consult with CRIF, and we believe that they feel the same.”13Despite Besnainou’s charges, there is no indication that AIPAC issued any statements or was publicly active on the question of European anti-Semitism. That agency’s website, including its press releases dating back to 2001, does not include any statements on this topic, which is not surprising given AIPAC’s single-issue focus on Israel-related matters.If there are complaints about these “core” institutional participants, there may well be more unhappiness directed against the remaining two categories of American Jewish organizations. These have taken a stronger role whether in responding to the growth of global anti-Semitism or in reporting on the key issues to their primary stakeholders. Selective InterestExamples of the broad range of interest groups that could be included here are the American Jewish Congress, the World Jewish Congress (WJC), and B’nai B’rith.The American Jewish Congress has responded to the anti-Semitism issue by employing three programmatic tools: diplomatic visits, press releases, and taking part in international conferences.14 In July 2002, the Congress sent a high-level, eight-person delegation to France that met with “senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, the Foreign Ministry, and the Interior and Justice Ministries; with members of the National Assembly and Senate; and with representatives of the media and the leading French Jewish community organizations.”15 In March 2004, the organization announced that its then-national chairman Jack Rosen had been nominated by Secretary of State Colin Powell to attend the OSCE-sponsored International Conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin (28-29 April 2004). In August 2004, the Congress issued a press release calling on the French government to lead the fight against anti-Semitism.The WJC, for its part, has used a petition campaign, as well as publishing reports on anti-Semitism through its Monthly Dispatches, Policy Forum, and Policy Studies.16 The petition campaign, which seeks to obtain a million signatures, contains an educational and action program that states the following goals:17

  • Strive to ensure that…legal systems foster a safe environment free from anti-Semitic harassment, violence or discrimination in all fields of life
  • Promote, as appropriate, educational programs for combating anti-Semitism
  • Promote remembrance of and, as appropriate, education about the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the importance of respect for all ethnic and religious groups
  • Combat hate crimes, which can be fuelled by racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda in the media and on the Internet
  • Encourage and support international organization and NGO efforts in these areas
  • Collect and maintain reliable information and statistics about anti-Semitic crimes, and other hate crimes, …making this information available to the public
  • Encourage development of informal exchanges among experts in appropriate for a on best practices and experiences in law enforcement and education

The dispatches dating back to July 2001 include articles on global anti-Semitism such as, for example, No. 92, “The ‘New Antisemitism’: A Volatile Mix of Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Hostility” (March 2003); and No. 96, “Old Antisemitism in the New Europe? Overcoming Romania’s Long History of Holocaust Denial” (September 2003). Among the twenty-seven Policy Forums the WJC has released, three deal with global anti-Semitism: No. 17, “France Faces Its Past: French Jews Face an Uncertain Future,” by Shmuel Trigano (1998); No. 24, “The Durban Debacle: An Insider’s View of the UN Conference against Racism,” by Congressman Tom Lantos (2002); and No. 27, “Countering Arab Antisemitism,” by Menahem Milson (2002).B’nai B’rith, which at one time was more prominent, has recently played a diminished public role. It has, however, issued some statements on aspects of the fight against global anti-Semitism18 – as in this excerpt from a press release of 16 October 2004, titled “President Signs the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness/Review Act”:”As we celebrate the 350th anniversary of the American Jewish community this year,” said B’nai B’rith International President Joel S. Kaplan, “we would do well to remember and take great pride in the words of George Washington, who told American Jewry in 1790 that the U.S. government ‘gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’ The Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004 is faithful to the spirit of Washington’s message and to the sacrosanct American tradition of tolerance and pluralism.”Slightly earlier, on 28 September, the agency issued a press statement applauding seven senators for speaking out on global anti-Semitism:”It is our hope that the assertive leadership you have shown on this issue will spur government officials, community leaders, and nongovernmental organizations to further engage in the ongoing struggle to combat anti-Semitism. By establishing a comprehensive record highlighting current anti-Semitic activities, you and your colleagues have helped provide an evidentiary basis for mounting the campaign against this persistent form of hatred.”During that same week, B’nai B’rith announced it had sent letters to those senators responsible for the adoption of a resolution expressing support for the OSCE’s ongoing work in combating anti- Semitism and other forms of bigotry.

Minimal Commitment

Under this category, organizations often provide to their members a reporting function rather than an active program. Examples include the two major Jewish women’s organizations, Hadassah and the National Council of Jewish Women, along with the religious movements and the Labor Zionist Alliance.Hadassah, the largest Zionist women’s organization, mainly conveys its messages through its national magazine and its website. The former, apart from a generic article on European anti-Semitism19 and a more focused one on the French crisis,20 has paid minimal attention to the subject. In a statement in June 2004, Hadassah welcomed the UN Conference on Anti-Semitism as a “positive and welcome first step toward the ultimate goal of eradicating anti-Semitism at the UN and across the globe.”21The major Jewish religious streams, as well, must all be classified under “minimal commitment.” A closer analysis of the Orthodox Union (OU) found four main forms of engagement: press statements; participation in international meetings – in Berlin and at the United Nations; the mobilization of members to push for congressional resolutions in this area; and the publication of background information in the OU’s International Briefs.From 2001 to 2005, the OU issued several press statements on aspects of global anti-Semitism, including one in May 2001 that condemned Syrian President Bashar Assad’s remarks during the Pope’s visit to Damascus:”The vicious accusations proclaiming that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus and for the attempt to kill Mohammed completely undermine the spirit of reconciliation in which this visit by Pope John Paul II was made. President Assad’s repugnant remarks are more than just rhetoric; they unfortunately foment hatred of Israel and the Jewish people and destroy any hopes for peacemaking or for the harmony and reconciliation that the Pope described.22″A September 2001 statement praised the decision of the United States and Israel to withdraw from the World Conference against Racism in Durban.Another relevant press statement is that of 10 July 2002 in response to an action by Congress. Following a spate of anti-Semitic incidents in Belgium, France, and Germany over nearly a two-year period, Congress unanimously adopted House Resolution 393 and Senate Resolution 248 calling on European governments “to acknowledge publicly the anti-Semitic character of the attacks and to utilize the full power of law enforcement tools to punish those who commit acts of anti-Semitism.”23 On 17 November 2003, the OU expressed outrage over the Shabbat car bombings of two Istanbul synagogues.24In April 2004, the OU also issued a statement praising Secretary of State Powell for his condemnation of anti-Semitism at the OSCE Conference.25This was followed in June by another declaration regarding the UN Conference on Anti-Semitism: “We applaud this first step by the UN…but this cannot be the final stop in confronting this menace. Anti-Semitism is the oldest and most far-reaching bigotry in the world, targeting Israel and Jews around the globe.”26And in September 2004, the OU applauded the passage of the above-mentioned Senate resolution praising the OSCE.27A review of the websites of both the United Synagogue (Conservative) and the Union for Reform Judaism indicates that neither has formally addressed global anti-Semitism through press statements, news articles, or political action.28As for the website of the Labor Zionist Alliance, there is hardly any reference to this issue. Apart from an article on the roots of the Holocaust-denial movement, there is no mention of the more immediate topics of European or Arab anti-Semitism.29 Out of twenty press releases issued by the Alliance over the past four years, not one addresses this theme.

Conclusions

Several points emerge from this examination of the responses of American Jewish groups:

  1. Organizations with a record of international engagement are more likely to be active on this issue, particularly those that maintain field operations abroad.
  2. American Jewish groups model practices found in the general American political culture, with some variations in style. 
  3. Conflicts with European Jewish organizations partly reflect the larger political tensions between the United States and its European allies. 
  4. Organizations specifically committed to fighting anti-Semitism as part of their institutional mandate have developed substantial and distinctive ways of dealing with this issue. 
  5. Organizations with a multifaceted policy agenda are also more likely to get involved. 
  6. Agencies with greater resources – professional staff services, research capacity, international and diplomatic connections – demonstrate a higher level of action. 
  7. Institutions having a specialized agenda outside the field of political advocacy are the least connected to this issue. 
  8. Activism in this area sometimes triggers criticisms over efficacy and appropriateness by those most directly affected.

Despite the recent controversy with French Jewish leaders, American Jewish engagement with this issue seems to follow the same patterns encountered by these agencies within the United States. In light of European Jewry’s growing concern about the rise of anti- Semitism on their continent, they have a heightened anxiety about the appropriateness and scope of the American Jewish response to this phenomenon, prompting criticism and second-guessing.

*     *     *

 

 

Notes

1. Drawn from Steven Windmueller, You Shall Not Stand Idly By, American Jewish Committee, November 2004, Appendix A: “The New Global Anti- Semitism: How Does It Differ from the Past,” pp. 81-86. 

2. See Irwin Cotler, “Human Rights and the New Anti-Jewishness,” Jerusalem Post, 5 February 2004, based on a presentation to the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, November 2002. 

3. Naomi W. Cohen, “An Overview of American Jewish Defense,” in Alan Mittleman, Jonathan D. Sarna, and Robert Licht, eds., Jews and the American Public Square (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002), pp. 19-20. 

4. See Steven Windmueller, “‘Defenders’: National Jewish Community Relations Agencies,” in Alan Mittleman, Jonathan D. Sarna, and Robert Licht, eds., Jewish Polity and American Civil Society (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002). 

5. See the ADL website: http://www.adl.org/international-affairs/.

6. “First-Ever TV Ads on Anti-Semitism in Europe,” Frontline Magazine (ADL), Fall 2004, p. 7

7. “ADL Expense Allocations,” in Fighting to Keep Our World Safe, Anti- Defamation League, 2004. 

8. See the American Jewish Committee website: http://www.ajc.org. 

9. The website gives a comprehensive list of press statements and news releases covering this period: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/newsletter2.asp. 

10. “Testimony to Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,” given by Mark Weitzman, director, Task Force against Hate, Washington, DC, 16 June 2004, http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/s/content.asp?c>fwLYKn N8LzH&b>253162&ct>285556. 

11. Hilary Leila Krieger, “French Jewish Leader: US Intervention Illegitimate,” Jerusalem Post, 4 March 2005. 

12. Ibid. 

13. Jerusalem Post, 6 March 2005. 

14. See public statements and news releases on the website of the American Jewish Congress: http://www.ajcongress.org/.

15. Ibid. 

16. See the website of the World Jewish Congress for its press releases, news stories, and petition campaign: http://www.wjc.org.il/.

17. The WJC’s UN Petition includes these specific principles: http://www.wjc.org. il/petition/resolution1.cfm. 

18. See the public statements and press reports of B’nai B’rith International on its website: http://www.bnaibirth.org/.

19. Toby Axelrod, “Letter from Europe: The Shadow Returns,” Hadassah Magazine, August-September 2002. 

20. William Korey, “Memo to Europe: Try to Remember,” Hadassah Magazine, April 2004. 

21. See Hadassah’s public statement on its website: http://www.Hadassah.org. 

22. “OU Outraged by Syrian President’s Anti-Semitic Rhetoric,” Institute for Public Affairs, OU, 7 May 2001. 

23. “The Orthodox Union Applauds Passage of Resolutions Protesting Anti- Semitism in Europe,” Institute for Public Affairs, OU, 10 July 2002. 

24. “Orthodox Union Outraged by Istanbul Car Bombings at Congregations Beth Israel and Neve Shalom,” Institute for Public Affairs, OU, 17 November 2003. 

25. “Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Applauds Powell Condemnation of Anti-Semitism at Berlin Conference,” 28 April 2004, www.ou.org/public/ statements/2004/nate13.htm. 

26. “Report from Today’s United Nations Conference on Anti-Semitism: OU, Encouraged that UN Is at Last Confronting Anti-Semitism, Declares that Member Nations Must Heed Annan’sWords and Fight Anti-Jewish Bigotry,” Institute for Public Affairs, OU, 21 June 2004. 

27. “Orthodox Union Welcomes Senate Passage of Resolution on Anti-Semitism,” Institute for Public Affairs, OU, 27 September 2004. 

28. See the websites of the Union for Reform Judaism and its Religious Action Center, http://www.urj.org/ and http://rac.org/index.cfm, and http:// www.uscj.org/Newsroom5427.html.

29. See Michael Landsberg, “Anti-Semitism: Arab Style,” Jewish Frontier, Vol. 68, No. 2, April-June 2002.

*     *     *

DR. STEVEN WINDMUELLER is a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Since 1995 he has been director of the School of Jewish Communal Service at Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles. In 2004 he authored You Shall Not Stand Idly By, a community relations workbook published by the American Jewish Committee. This year, together with Professor Gerald Bubis, he completed a study on the creation of the United Jewish Communities.


About Dr. Steven Windmueller

Dr. Steven Windmueller is the Rabbi Alfred Gottschalk Emeritus Professor of Jewish Communal Studies at the Jack H. Skirball Campus of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, Los Angeles. His writings can be found on his website: thewindreport.com. Professor Windmueller is a Fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.