Responding to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel Bias in the UN, Palestinian Authority, and NGO Community (U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations)

Hearing	Responding to Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israel Bias in the UN, Palestinian Authority, and NGO Community
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations
Date	June 22, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Antisemitism: The hearing focused on the growth and evolving nature of antisemitism both domestically and abroad. Subcommittee Members, Mr. Sharansky, Dr. Nazarian, and Mr. Rosenberg noted how this antisemitism has manifested in several forms, including attacks on Jewish people, the growth of White supremacist and right-wing movements, online harassment, and the spread of conspiracy theories. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest how the U.S. is working to respond to antisemitism. Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) also expressed his intention to hold future Subcommittee hearings on antisemitism. These hearings will include investigations into the United Nations (UN) Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), oversight of U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt, and an examination of the antisemitism faced by students.
  • Online Antisemitism: Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC) and Dr. Nazarian expressed particular concerns regarding the rise of online antisemitic misinformation, disinformation and harassment. Dr. Nazarian called on Congress to pass legislation that would provide transparency for social media platform actions and require the social media platforms to enforce their own terms of service. She mentioned how her organization, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), is working with California and Nevada to pass state legislation that would require social media companies to enforce their own terms of service and disclose when they remove content. However, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) cautioned against the adoption of national hate speech rules.
  • U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism: Several Subcommittee Democrats and Dr. Nazarian expressed support for the Biden administration’s recently released U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Dr. Nazarian highlighted how this Strategy involves over two dozen government agencies, the private sector, and civil society. Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Mr. Sharansky, and Mr. Kntorovich expressed concerns that the Strategy acknowledges several definitions for antisemitism. They argued that the Strategy should have solely embraced the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) 2016 working definition of antisemitism. They stated that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism is the only definition that provides a link between new and old antisemitism (i.e., antisemitism directed against Jews and antisemitism toward the state of Israel).  
  • Antisemitism in the Context of Israel Criticism: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in determining when criticism of Israel ceases to be legitimate and veers toward antisemitism. Mr. Sharansky stated that criticism of Israel veers into antisemitism when it when it demonizes Israel, delegitimizes Israel, or applies a double standard for Israel. He described this rubric as the “three-D test.” Mr. Rosenberg argued that antisemitism is generally characterized by conspiracy theories and stated that arguments where Israel serves as a stand in for Jews are antisemitic. Dr. Nazarian noted how the ADL has three main criteria for distinguishing between valid criticisms of Israel and antisemitic rhetoric: criticism that holds Jews responsible for Israel’s policies, criticism that dismisses the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, and criticism that employs antisemitic tropes and characterizations. Several Subcommittee Democrats emphasized that there must exist a right to criticize Israel when warranted. Several Subcommittee Members, Mr. Sharansky, Mr. Schiffmiller, Mr. Kontorovich, and Mr. Neuer further argued that the allegations of Israel being an apartheid state and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement are examples where criticisms of Israel veer into antisemitism. 
• Antisemitism at the UN: Several Subcommittee Members, Mr. Sharansky, Mr. Schiffmiller, Mr. Marcus, Mr. Kontorovich, Mr. Neuer, and Dr. Nazarian alleged that the UN and its various councils and agencies have repeatedly engaged in antisemitic behavior against Israel. They also stated that the UN’s treatment of Israel is legitimizing antisemitism.
  • UN Resolutions on Israel: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Kontorovich, and Mr. Neuer stated that the UN is disproportionately focusing on Israel in its resolutions. Mr. Neuer highlighted how the UN General Assembly in 2022 had considered one resolution on Iran, one resolution on North Korea, one resolution on Syria, and 15 resolutions on Israel. He added that the UN has never condemned the Palestinian Authority (PA). He further lamented how many countries will support these resolutions in order to obtain votes from Islamic states, obtain investments from sovereign wealth funds, maintain access to oil and gas, or to protect against terrorist threats. Mr. Marcus remarked that the PA uses these condemnations of Israel to justify their abstentions from peace discussions and their actions toward Israel. He stated that the PA believes that they can better achieve their objectives through having the international community pressure Israel than through engaging in peace negotiations with Israel.
  • UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC): Mr. Neuer alleged that the UNHRC has engaged in discriminatory treatment of Israel while providing a “free pass” to the countries with the greatest human rights violations. He also highlighted how countries with poor human rights records, such as China, Cuba, Eritrea, Qatar, and Pakistan, sit on the Council. He also mentioned how the UNHRC had created a commission of inquiry targeted at Israel following Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s firing of thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian centers in May 2021. He emphasized that this is the first such commission with no end date and that the commission’s scope includes all events leading up to these attacks and subsequent developments. He further alleged that several senior UNHRC officials, including UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory Chairman Navi Pillay, UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory Commissioner Miloon Kothari, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese, and Human Rights Council Branch Chief Eric Tistounet, have made antisemitic statements and have demonstrated anti-Israel bias. He specifically alleged that Mr. Tistounet has engaged in a campaign of smear attacks, censorship, and harassment against his organization (UN Watch). Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) expressed interest in developing a Congressional letter to the UN highlighting UN Watch’s complaints regarding UNHRC leadership.
  • UN World Health Organization (WHO): Mr. Neuer also expressed concerns over how the WHO will hold special debates focused on Israel. He emphasized that the WHO does not provide special focus to Syria (where hospitals are repeatedly bombed by Syrian and Russian forces) or on North Korea (which has one of the world’s worst health systems).
  • UNRWA: Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Mr. Neuer criticized UNRWA for its distribution of antisemitic textbooks and curriculum. Mr. Neuer also noted how many UNRWA teachers had promoted antisemitic hate and violence on social media and that UNRWA has failed to take action regarding these teachers. Rep. Sherman mentioned how he had proposed the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act, which would direct the U.S. Department of State to issue a report on UNRWA’s educational materials.
  • U.S. Involvement with the UN: Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA) expressed frustration over the U.S.’s funding for the UN. Several Subcommittee Democrats argued however that the U.S. must remain engaged at the UN if it seeks to influence international affairs.
• Antisemitism at the PA: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Marcus, and Mr. Kontorovich criticized the PA for promoting antisemitism. They highlighted how PA officials, including PA President Mahmoud Abbas, have made several antisemitic statements publicly and have promoted antisemitism through educational materials. They argued that this antisemitism reduces the prospects for a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.
  • Taylor Force Act Enforcement: Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) expressed interest in the current enforcement of the Taylor Force Act, which stops U.S. economic aid to the PA so long as the PA continues to provide salaries to jailed terrorists. Mr. Marcus noted how the PA has condemned this legislation and has repeatedly asserted that it will never stop paying salaries to terrorists. He recommended that the U.S. call for the overturning of UN Resolutions 3236 and 3246 because these Resolutions are used to justify Palestinian murders of Israeli civilians. He also suggested that Congress designate PA officials involved in paying salaries to terrorists as ineligible to travel to the U.S. He commented that this more targeted approach would increase the pressure on the PA to stop making payments to terrorists. Mr. Kontorovich further called on the U.S. to better publicize the PA’s “pay for slay” efforts. He also raised concerns that U.S. funds are still flowing to the PA through the World Bank.
• Antisemitism at Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Mr. Schiffmiller, Mr. Kontorovich, and Mr. Neuer further expressed concerns that certain NGOs are promoting antisemitism and seeking to legitimize antisemitic criticisms of Israel.
  • Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch: Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ), Mr. Schiffmiller, Mr. Kontorovich, and Mr. Neuer accused Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch of seeking to mask their antisemitic criticisms of Israel through using the language of human rights. Mr. Schiffmiller specifically accused Amnesty International of engaging in a concerted effort to detach Jewish history from Israel. He also accused Human Rights Watch of underreporting antisemitic incidents to intentionally downplay the threat of antisemitism. Subcommittee Chairman Smith stated that he would no longer permit representatives from these organizations to testify before the Subcommittee moving forward.
  • The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) and Al-Haq: Mr. Schiffmiller specifically criticized the PCHR and Al-Haq and described these two NGOs as the “architects” of many anti-Israeli policies. He noted how these NGOs had successfully lobbied for the UN blacklist of companies (including U.S. firms) that operate beyond the 1949 armistice line and for the launching of an ICC investigation into Israel He raised concerns over how UN agencies often cite and rely upon PCHR and Al-Haq and noted how both organizations have interacted directly with the International Criminal Court (ICC). He asserted that governments, UN frameworks, international legal bodies, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) firms, and other corporate actors should shun these groups and implement effective vetting measures to ensure that these groups do not receive funding or have their reporting relied upon.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Natan Sharansky, Chair, Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy
2. Mr. Yona Schiffmiller, Director of Research, NGO Monitor
3. Mr. Itamar Marcus, Founder and Director, Palestinian Media Watch
4. Mr. Eugene Kontorovich, Director of International Law Department, Kohelet Policy Forum
5. Mr. Hillel Neuer, Executive Director, United Nations Watch
6. Dr. Sharon Nazarian, Director, Anti-Defamation League National Board of Directors
7. Mr. Yair Rosenberg, Staff Writer, The Atlantic

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ):

• He remarked that there is growing antisemitism worldwide and lamented how Jews are being subjected to bias, hate, violence, and cruelty based on their religion.
  • He asserted that this “pernicious manifestation of evil” must be exposed and more effectively combatted.
• He mentioned how Robert Bowers had recently been found guilty of dozens of federal hate crimes for murdering 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
  • He also recounted how there have been several recent antisemitic attacks within his state of New Jersey.
• He discussed how the hearing would focus on “rampant” antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the UN, at the PA, and in the NGO community.
  • He mentioned how he had chaired 20 previous Congressional hearings on combating antisemitism and indicated that he plans to hold a series of additional hearings on this topic during the current Congress.
• He noted how Dr. Nazarian had asserted that antisemitic hate and prejudice is “deeply entrenched” globally (including throughout Europe and the U.S.).
  • He also noted how Dr. Nazarian had identified Middle Eastern and Northern African countries as having the highest levels of antisemitic attitudes “by far.”
• He remarked that Israel faces an ongoing and existential threat (which he largely attributed to antisemitism) and contended that the U.S. and the “free world” must continually strengthen its friendship with and support for Israel.
• He then expressed his appreciation for Mr. Sharansky’s appearance at the hearing and highlighted Mr. Sharansky’s experience as a political prisoner in the Soviet Union.
  • He mentioned how Mr. Sharanksy had been a topic of conversation in all of his conversations with Soviet Union officials.
• He highlighted how Mr. Sharanksy had previously argued that antisemitism often tries to hide behind a veneer of legitimate criticism of Israel and how Mr. Sharansky had proposed the “three-D test” to ascertain when antisemitism is occurring.
  • He noted how this test finds that criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic when it demonizes Israel, delegitimizes Israel, or applies a double standard for Israel.
• He then applauded Mr. Neuer’s efforts to expose and combat the UN’s bias against Israel, particularly at the UNHRC.
  • He highlighted how the UN General Assembly had condemned Israel in 15 resolutions in 2022 compared to 13 for the rest of the world during the same year.
• He further expressed appreciation for Mr. Marcus’s efforts to expose the Palestine Liberation Army’s (PLA) “unrelenting” antisemitic attacks.
  • He noted how the PA honors murderers of Israelis and provides salaries to jailed terrorists that have murdered Jews.
• He then discussed how he had helped to author the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, which had established the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism at the U.S. Department of State.
  • He noted how U.S. Department of State officials (including then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell) had opposed the creation of this Office.
• He also mentioned how he had authored the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act and the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Act.
  • He applauded the work of current U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Susan Wild (D-PA):

• She attributed recent attacks against U.S. synagogues to the antisemitic, racist, and xenophobic ideology of White supremacists.
• She stated that extremist far-right movements and governments around the world (including in the U.S.) have emboldened this ideology.
  • She commented that this ideology was made evident during the 2017 Charlottesville Unite the Right rally.
• She also stated that this ideology fuels dangerous conspiracies, such as the claim that a cabal of Jews is organizing mass influxes of immigrants and refugees into the U.S.
  • She asserted that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has embraced this conspiracy theory and accused Prime Minister Orbán of scapegoating a prominent Jewish figure (George Soros) with “blatantly” antisemitic rhetoric.
• She further mentioned how antisemitic leaflets had recently been airdropped on neighborhoods within her Congressional District.
• She then discussed how there has occurred a “disturbing pattern” of antisemitic rhetoric from Palestinian leaders that has also been present in Palestinian textbooks.
  • She asserted that antisemitism is the “driving ideology” of the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror organizations.
• She also remarked that there is antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the UN and criticized the UN General Assembly and its sub-agencies for disproportionately focusing on Israel.
• She stated however that the U.S. can only make progress in combating antisemitism globally through diplomatically engaging with international stakeholders.
  • She cautioned the U.S. against retreating from international forums and pursuing isolationism.
• She then expressed support for the U.S.-Israel partnership and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
  • She called for using the U.S.’s voting power and influence to support Israel while advancing peace, security, rights, and dignity for both Israelis and Palestinians.
  • She contended that a two-state solution constitutes the only method for guaranteeing that Israel remains a democratic Jewish state indefinitely and for providing equal freedom and justice for the Palestinian people.
• She expressed hope that the hearing would focus on combating global antisemitism and asserted that this effort would involve addressing the problem of White supremacist ideology.
• She specifically called on Congress to advance the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism (which was recently released by the Biden Administration).
  • She also called on Congress to support the Office of the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism.

Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC):

• She remarked that the “scourge” of antisemitism has infected societies around the world for centuries.
  • She commented that the hatred of Jews drawn from conspiracy theories, lies, and malign ideas has led to the murder of Jews during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, numerous Programs, the Holocaust, and the 2018 Tree of Life Synagogue Attack.
• She described antisemitism as a persistent and shape-shifting hatred without bounds and lamented how antisemitism is increasing in the U.S. and around the world.
• She also remarked that anti-Israel rhetoric can often fall outside the bounds of legitimate discussion of policy differences and “lurch with ease” into antisemitism.
  • She asserted that Congress must oppose antisemitism in all of its forms.
• She applauded the bipartisan effort to secure the first ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
  • She commented that this strategy provides the U.S. with an opportunity to counter domestic antisemitism and lead countries around the world on similar efforts.
• She applauded the Biden administration for its work to address antisemitism and its development of an actionable strategy that contains timelines and provides accountability.
  • She expressed interest in working with Congress, the Biden administration, and U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt to further address the problem of antisemitism.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Natan Sharansky (Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy):

• He thanked the Biden administration for recently issuing the first ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
• He raised concerns however that the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism acknowledges several definitions for the term “antisemitism” and stated that the U.S. only should embrace IHRA’s 2016 working definition of antisemitism.
  • He commented that this 2016 IHRA working definition of antisemitism is the only definition that provides a link between new and old antisemitism (i.e., antisemitism directed against Jews and antisemitism toward the state of Israel).
• He recounted how the Soviet Union had used attacks on the state of Israel as a means of scapegoating the country’s Jewish population for the country’s problems.
• He also recounted how the World Conference Against Racism (WCAR) in 2001 had accused of Israel being an apartheid state.
  • He stated that this accusation had resulted in a proliferation of antisemitic propaganda against Israel in the Middle East region and lamented how this criticism had been deemed to be legitimate.
• He remarked that the WCAR had led him to propose his “three-D test” for distinguishing when criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic.
  • He explained that this test finds that criticism of Israel becomes antisemitic when it veers into demonization, double standards, and delegitimization.
• He asserted that his “three-D test” would conclude that antisemitism is present in the UNHRC’s treatment of Israel, the BDS movement, efforts to deny Jewish people the right to have their own state, and descriptions of Israel as a satanic or neo-Nazi force.
  • He also noted that the 2016 IHRA working definition of antisemitism provides examples of when criticisms of Israel veer into antisemitism.
• He mentioned how he had visited about 100 universities over the previous 20 years and testified that had observed that new forms of antisemitism that focus on attacks on Israel are harming Jewish students.
• He remarked that the U.S. must maintain a single definition of antisemitism to effectively combat antisemitism and expressed his support for the 2016 IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

Mr. Yona Schiffmiller (NGO Monitor):

• He mentioned how his organization, NGO Monitor, was founded in response to the “antisemitic proceedings” of the WCAR and explained that NGO Monitor publishes independent analyses of NGOs, their funders, and other stakeholders.
• He referenced a 2017 presentation from the late Rabbi Jonathan Sachs (who was a member of the British House of Lords) that had argued that antisemites often frame their anti-Jewish rhetoric in the language of the highest ideals of their times.
  • He elaborated that antisemites had used religion to frame their anti-Jewish rhetoric during the Middle Ages and science to frame their anti-Jewish rhetoric during the 20th Century.
• He asserted that antisemites are now using human rights discourse to mask and legitimize their antisemitic agendas.
• He remarked that many self-purported human rights organizations and institutions have a “pathological obsession” with Israel, which has led to the manipulation, distortion, and perversion of human rights ideals.
  • He indicated that his written testimony summarizes several NGO-driven campaigns, including BDS initiatives, attempts to blacklist and sanction the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), threats of ICC investigations against Israel, and explicit calls for dismantling Israel.
• He stated that NGOs that oppose Jewish self-determination have adopted the language of human rights and international law to advance their goals.
• He remarked however that many of these NGOs reveal their true beliefs when responding to acts of terrorism and violent antisemitism.
  • He commented that some actors will completely ignore the phenomena while other actors (particularly officials at European-funded Palestinian NGOs) will justify violence.
• He specifically alleged that Human Rights Watch will invoke human rights principles to accuse Israel of committing apartheid and to lobby for several BDS measures against Israel.
  • He commented however that Human Rights Watch will remain silent when the rights of Jews are violated.
• He discussed how the Anti-Defamation League had recorded 2,717 antisemitic incidents in the U.S., which was the highest total of antisemitic incidents since the organization began tracking these incidents in 1979.
  • He noted how Human Rights Watch’s 2022 world report covering 2021 does not make any mentions of antisemitism in the U.S.
• He then remarked that the celebration of and justification for violence expressed by officials at European-funded Palestinian NGOs is “uniquely disturbing.”
• He specifically criticized the PCHR and Al-Haq and described these two NGOs as the “architects” of many anti-Israeli policies.
  • He noted how these NGOs had successfully lobbied for the UN to blacklist of companies operating beyond the 1949 armistice line (including U.S. firms) and the launching of an ICC investigation into Israel.
  • He highlighted how Al-Haq is one of the leading actors seeking to apply the apartheid label to Israel and to define Israel as inherently illegitimate.
• He also mentioned how PCHR had recently issued a statement affirming the ability of Palestinians to resist Israel by all available means (including armed struggle) after Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations had launched over 1,200 rockets toward Israeli population centers.
  • He indicated that this statement was subsequently amended following pressure from PCHR’s donors.
• He asserted that statements from PCHR’s board members, Al-Haq officials, and other Palestinian NGOs reveal pervasive antisemitic attitudes within these organizations.
  • He specifically mentioned how PCHR board member Nadia Abu Nahla has made posts on Facebook that described Israel as the “Nazi criminal occupation” and expressed support for Palestinian terrorist organizations.
  • He also mentioned how Al-Haq legal researcher and advocacy officer Aseel Al-Bajeh has made statements justifying attacks on Israeli civilians.
• He then discussed how Al-Haq has received grants from the EU, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in recent years and how PCHR has received grants from the EU, Switzerland, Norway, and UN agencies.
  • He highlighted how Dutch officials had hosted PCHR Director Raji Sourani this week.
• He raised concerns over how UN agencies often cite and rely upon PCHR and Al-Haq and noted how both organizations have interacted directly with the ICC.
• He remarked that antisemitic NGOs (such as PCHR and Al-Haq) ought to be expelled from the policymaking community (rather than funded, sought after, and consulted with).
  • He asserted that governments, UN frameworks, international legal bodies, ESG firms, and other corporate actors should shun these groups and implement effective vetting measures to ensure that these groups do not receive funding or have their reporting relied upon.

Mr. Itamar Marcus (Palestinian Media Watch):

• He remarked that the PA’s antisemitism constitutes a fundamental part of Palestinian ideology and serves as a motivator for the PA’s terrorism.
• He stated that the PA’s political antisemitism has three stages.
  • He indicated that the first stage involves presenting Jews as inherently evil and as a danger to all of humanity.
  • He indicated that the second stage involves the claim that Jews are hated and responsible for antisemitism.
  • He indicated that the third stage involves the claim that Western countries had initiated Zionism to get rid of their Jews and that Israel is thus a “colonial implant” with no right to exist.
• He mentioned how the PA had already broadcasted an interview three times this year with a researcher that made antisemitic claims and had cited the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
  • He explained that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a text that claims that there is a Jewish plan to subjugate humanity and criticized the PA’s repeated claims that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an authentic document.
• He also mentioned how PA President Mahmoud Abbas had publicly asserted that ten centuries of massacres against Jews (as well as the Holocaust) were the result of the Jew’s “social role, usury, and banks.”
  • He also highlighted how PNA President Abbas had recently delivered a UN speech where he had asserted that the United Kingdom (UK) and the U.S. were planting a foreign entity in Palestine to both get rid of their Jewish populations and to exploit the Palestinians.
• He remarked that PNA President Abbas’s recent statements are indicative of Palestinian ideology that Israel is the result of settler colonialism and does not have a right to exist.
  • He asserted that Palestinian anti-Zionism is founded in Palestinian antisemitism.
• He then referenced a 2014 ADL poll that had found that 87 percent of Palestinians believed that it is “probably true” that people hate Jews because of the way that Jews behave.
• He stated that this denial of Israel’s legitimacy leads directly to the PA teaching that Israel will inevitably be destroyed.
  • He highlighted how the PA expresses this view in children’s educational materials.
  • He also mentioned how a recently conducted poll had found that 66 percent of Palestinians do not believe that Israel will celebrate its 100th anniversary while just 27 percent of Palestinians believe that Israel will celebrate its 100th anniversary.
• He remarked that the continued Palestinian belief of Israel’s inevitable destruction will serve as a motivator for terrorism and stated that the PA’s antisemitism has become an important source for global antisemitism.
• He then discussed how religious antisemitism further reinforces the PA’s political antisemitism.
  • He mentioned top PA religious advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash has publicly described Jews as humanoids, apes, and pigs and Israel as “Satan’s project.”
  • He also noted how Mahmoud Al-Habbash has justified the killing of Israelis on religious grounds.
  • He further noted how other key Palestinian religious figures have expressed similar antisemitic sentiments regarding Jews and Israel.
• He remarked that the PA’s combination of political and religious antisemitism leads the PA to justify every single murder of Israelis and to honor these murderers.
  • He noted how PA Prime Minister Muhammad Shtayyeh had recently posted pictures of a murdered Israeli family on his Facebook account.
  • He further mentioned how a recent poll had found that 86 percent of Palestinians do not believe that the PA has the right to arrest armed groups to prevent them from perpetrating attacks against Israel.
• He described the PA’s antisemitism as the “elephant in the room” that the international community has ignored and asserted that antisemitism is embedded in the PA’s worldview.
• He remarked that eliminating the PA’s antisemitism is a necessary precondition for a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine.

Mr. Eugene Kontorovich (Kohelet Policy Forum):

• He indicated that while there exists widespread public opposition to antisemitism, he asserted that anti-Zionism serves as a convenient and common substitute for antisemitism.
  • He commented that the right to criticize Israel (as well as any other country) is legitimate, which necessitates an accurate definition for antisemitism.
• He noted that parties that seek to single out, delegitimize, and harm Israel claim that they are merely responding to Israel’s bad actions.
  • He asserted that the notion that antisemitism only applies to unreasoning and purely emotional hatred of Jews misunderstands the true nature of antisemitism.
• He remarked that the newly issued U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism would harm efforts to respond to antisemitism through referring to two different and “fundamentally contradictory” definitions of antisemitism.
• He expressed support for IHRA’s 2016 working definition of antisemitism because it recognizes Israel as a “major focus” of antisemitism.
  • He highlighted how IHRA’s definition provides several examples for when criticisms of Israel veer into antisemitism, such as claims that Israel’s existence is illegitimate and the applications of double standards to Israel.
• He discussed how 39 countries, the European Union (EU), the European Commission (EC), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), most U.S. states, and “a vast number” of ideologically diverse jurisdictions, universities, and political entities around the world have adopted IHRA’s 2016 working definition of antisemitism.
  • He highlighted how the U.S. has also adopted this definition and that the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism reaffirms this definition.
• He noted however that the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism also welcomes the Nexus Task Force’s definition of antisemitism.
  • He asserted that this definition seeks to undermine the Israel-focused nature of IHRA’s 2016 working definition of antisemitism.
• He discussed how the Nexus Task Force’s definition of antisemitism does not treat the questioning of the basic legitimacy of Israel’s existence or the application of double standards to Israel as presumptively antisemitic.
  • He noted how the Nexus Task Force argues that such views may have legitimate grounds.
  • He also highlighted how no country has adopted the Nexus Task Force’s definition of antisemitism.
• He remarked that the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism’s citation of the Nexus Task Force’s definition of antisemitism harms efforts to respond to antisemitism through referring to two different definitions.
• He stated that while Israel bashing is ostensibly directed toward the state of Israel (and not Jews), he noted how U.S. anti-discrimination law does not require that discrimination be completely congruent with a targeted class.
  • He explained that the use of proxies for protected classes (such as race and sexual orientation) can be discriminatory.
• He asserted that the political treatment of a country can be used as a proxy for bigotry against the faith or ethnicity of that country.
  • He mentioned how many members of Congress had criticized the Trump administration’s adoption of immigration restrictions on five Muslim-majority countries as religiously discriminatory (even though the restrictions cited countries and not religions).
• He discussed how Israel has the world’s largest Jewish community and noted how most American Jews identify closely with Israel, which renders Zionism a convenient proxy for Jewishness.
  • He asserted that many of the critics of the Trump administration’s immigration restrictions are now applying double standards to Israel.
• He then discussed how Jews have been subjected to intense scrutiny for over 2,000 years across many cultures and epochs.
  • He commented that while the justifications for this scrutiny may change over time, he emphasized the target of this scrutiny has remained constant.
• He noted how the Jewish people had only recently reconstituted their nation and stated that Israel had immediately found itself to be the subject of an “unparalleled” international defamation and libel.
  • He commented that the enmity toward Jewish people is now aimed toward their state.
• He remarked that effective antisemites have always sought to justify their bigotry through claiming that they simply object to bad actions being committed by Jews.
  • He noted how these historical justifications included capitalism, communism, monotheism, and non-acceptance of Christianity.
• He asserted that current accusations leveled against Israel resemble accusations made by antisemites throughout history.
  • He noted that these include accusations that Israel is killing children, causing disease, and functioning as an apartheid state.
  • He specifically lamented how several members of Congress have described Israel as an apartheid state.
• He then noted how the Nexus Task Force had suggested that people may care more about Israel because of the foreign aid it receives from the U.S.
  • He acknowledged that while Israel does receive significant U.S. foreign aid, he stated that Israel receives substantially more hostility than other countries that receive U.S. foreign aid (such as Egypt and Jordan).
  • He further highlighted how many foreign countries maintain hostile policies toward Israel and commented that U.S. foreign aid cannot be reasonable justification for this foreign hostility.

Mr. Hillel Neuer (United Nations Watch):

• He noted that while the UN’s charter guarantees the “equal treatment of nations large and small,” he asserted that the UN’s actions would suggest that one of its principal purposes is to censure Israel.
  • He highlighted how the UN General Assembly had considered one resolution on Iran, one resolution on North Korea, one resolution on Syria, and 15 resolutions on Israel in 2022.
• He also stated that the WHO will hold special debates focused on Israel.
  • He emphasized that the WHO does not provide special focus to Syria (where hospitals are repeatedly bombed by Syrian and Russian forces) or on North Korea (which has one of the world’s worst health systems).
  • He highlighted how the WHO had instead recently elected North Korea to its executive board.
• He further stated that the UNHRC provides a “free pass” to the countries with the greatest human rights violations and highlighted how countries with poor human rights records, such as China, Cuba, Eritrea, Qatar, and Pakistan, sit on the Council.
  • He noted how the UNHRC has not censured any of these countries.
  • He also mentioned how the UNHRC had recently appointed Iran to serve as chair of its Social Forum and thanked members of Congress for criticizing this appointment.
• He discussed how Israel is the only country in the world with a standing agenda item at the UNHRC and highlighted how the UNHRC has adopted 103 resolutions on Israel since its creation in 2006.
  • He noted how the UNHRC had adopted two resolutions on Sudan, three resolutions on Venezuela, 14 resolutions on Iran, 16 resolutions on North Korea, and 42 resolutions on Syria by contrast.
• He mentioned how the UNHRC had created a commission of inquiry targeted at Israel following Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s firing of thousands of rockets at Israeli civilian centers in May 2021.
  • He emphasized that this is the first such commission with no end date and that the commission’s scope includes all events leading up to these attacks and subsequent developments.
• He noted how the UNHRC’s commission of inquiry is chaired by Navi Pillay and highlighted how Ms. Pillay has signed petitions lobbying governments to sanction Israel.
  • He recounted how his organization, UN Watch, had made a legal request demanding that Ms. Pillay recuse herself from the inquiry and indicated that this legal request had been ignored.
• He also mentioned how Miloon Kothari serves as a commissioner on this commission of inquiry and noted how Mr. Kothari has previously made claims about a “Jewish lobby” and questioned Israel’s right to be a member of the UN.
  • He indicated that Mr. Kothari remains in his commissioner post, despite being condemned for antisemitism by numerous countries and UN officials.
• He commended U.S. Ambassador to the UNHRC Michèle Taylor for her efforts to lead 27 UN member states in objecting to the UNHRC’s commission of inquiry and for calling for an end to anti-Israel bias at the UNHRC.
• He then mentioned how the UNHRC had recently appointed Francesca Albanese as its United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories and indicated that Ms. Albanese only has a mandate to investigate only “Israel’s violations.”
  • He noted how Ms. Albanese has repeatedly equated Palestinian suffering with the Holocaust, accused Israel of war crimes, apartheid, and genocide, and has claimed that America is “subjugated by the Jewish lobby.”
  • He also mentioned how Ms. Albanese has repeatedly legitimized terrorism and had told a Hamas conference that Hamas has a right to resist Israel.
• He then discussed how UN Watch is now being targeted for its exposure of the UN’s discrimination and asserted that UNHRC senior official Eric Tistounet is perpetrating a campaign of smear attacks, censorship, and harassment against UN Watch.
  • He stated that Mr. Tistounet has tampered with speaker’s lists to prevent UN Watch from speaking at the UNHRC and has falsely claimed that UN Watch is an Israeli government-organized non-governmental organization (GONGO).
  • He also mentioned how a UNHRC whistleblower had reported that Mr. Tistounet had frequently used antisemitic tropes against UN Watch to suggest that the organization was secretly controlling member states and other NGOs.
  • He further noted how Mr. Tistounet has unfairly demanded to see UN Watch’s speeches in advance so that he can prepare drafts of reprimands against the organization.
• He recounted how Mr. Tistounet had directed UNHRC staff to go to internet cafes to anonymously defame him online according to leaked emails.
  • He also noted how Mr. Tistounet had directed UNHRC staff to devise ways to have UN security physically detain him so that he could not enter the UNHRC’s chamber.
• He mentioned how UN Watch had filed a detailed complaint against Mr. Tistounet with the UN in October 2022 and indicated that the UN has not taken action on this complaint.
  • He further stated that Mr. Tistounet has continued to tamper with the UNHRC’s speaker’s lists in order to favor sympathetic NGOs.
• He called on the U.S. and other countries to demand that Mr. Tistounet be suspended and that the UN Secretary General establish an independent investigation into Mr. Tistounet.
• He concluded that UN bodies routinely apply double standards to Israel and criticize the country in an antisemitic fashion.

Note: Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ) expressed interest in developing a Congressional letter to the UN highlighting UN Watch’s complaints regarding UNHRC leadership.

Dr. Sharon Nazarian (Anti-Defamation League):

• She testified that ADL’s domestic and international surveys, as well as its 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.
  • She also noted how ADL’s research increasingly shows that antisemitism is increasingly a transnational issue.
• She mentioned how ADL’s Global 100 Index of Antisemitism first fielded in 2014 had found that one billion adults across 102 countries harbor significant antisemitic sentiments.
• She also noted how a 2023 follow-up survey had found that approximately one out of four adults in ten European countries (which have some of the largest Jewish populations) subscribe to dangerous antisemitic tropes.
  • She indicated that these tropes include the belief that Jews have too much power in government and business, that Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own countries, and that Jews are responsible for world wars.
• She then discussed how antisemitic conspiracy theories and harassment are spreading online according to the ADL’s surveys.
  • She noted how the ADL’s 2022 online hate and harassment survey had found that 37 percent of Jewish respondents were harassed online because of their religion.
• She recounted how she had personally fled Iran because of the country’s antisemitic persecution and highlighted how Iran had taken the homes and livelihoods of their Jewish population.
  • She commented that Iran is continuing to threaten Israel, deny the Holocaust, and oppress women and religious minorities.
• She remarked that the U.S. and the international community must adopt a “whole of government” and a “whole of society” approach to address the global threat of antisemitism.
• She expressed the ADL’s appreciation for the recent release of the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and applauded the strategy for its embrace of the IHRA 2016 working definition of antisemitism.
  • She expressed hope that the strategy will serve as a model for future global efforts and the international community.
• She remarked that global leaders must recognize the gravity of the threat of growing antisemitism and highlighted how many countries and entities, including the EU, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the OSCE, have taken concrete steps to combat antisemitism.
  • She indicated that these steps have included the adoptions of strategies and the appointments of envoys.
• She indicated that while she was appreciative of the UN’s stated commitment to address antisemitism, she stated that the UN must acknowledge its history of fomenting antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
• She remarked that global leaders must denounce all manifestations of antisemitism (including anti-Zionism).
  • She asserted that the effectiveness of efforts to combat antisemitism would depend entirely on implementation.
• She urged Congress to take action to take concrete steps to combat global antisemitism and online antisemitism.
  • She indicated that these steps include ensuring that the Biden administration possesses sufficient resources to implement the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, funding and growing the Office of the U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, supporting technology policy reforms that address online antisemitism, passing the Holocaust Education and Antisemitism Lessons (HEAL) Act, pushing for greater global education on the Holocaust and antisemitism, and urging international partners to take similar actions.

Mr. Yair Rosenberg (The Atlantic):

• He first applauded the U.S. for its evolving attitudes toward antisemitism and for its strong interest in combating antisemitism.
  • He noted however that antisemitism has gotten worse in the U.S. and around the world over the previous decade and expressed interest in addressing the persistence of antisemitism.
• He remarked that the current narratives surrounding the issue of antisemitism are too narrow and convenient.
  • He commented that some people focus their consideration of the issue on neo-Nazis, White supremacists, and far right movements while other people focus their consideration of the issue on anti-Israel sentiment that veers into antisemitism.
• He stated that these narratives dominate the discourse because they contain truth and are politically convenient.
• He remarked that antisemitism has existed for as long as there have been Jewish people and noted that this bigotry predates the U.S. and the modern state of Israel.
  • He also noted that antisemitism predates market ideologies, political ideologies, Christianity, and Islam.
• He asserted that antisemitism is based on a belief that there exists a Jewish conspiracy controlling the world.
  • He noted that this type of belief differs from more traditional personal prejudices and commented that personal prejudices are just one element of antisemitism.
• He indicated that while antisemitism is a pre-political belief, he stated that antisemitism is often expressed within political contexts.
• He stated that while most people would dismiss explicit arguments that Jews are controlling politics and the economy, he suggested that there is often more receptiveness toward arguments based on stand-in figures for Jews.
  • He noted how these stand-in figures often include George Soros, the Rothschilds, Zionists, and Israelis.
• He asserted that these uses of stand-in figures for Jews serve as updates to traditional antisemitic arguments that are aimed toward contemporary audiences.
  • He emphasized that these arguments ultimately tie back to the longstanding trope that Jews are conspiring to control the world.
• He acknowledged however that many of these actors (including George Soros and Israel) possess real power and influence and can warrant legitimate criticisms for how they exercise their power and influence.
  • He mentioned how he had personally criticized the actions of George Soros and Israel.
• He stated however that this criticism is often replaced with conspiracy in which the Jewish target is transformed into an avatar of absolute evil that is responsible for the world’s problems.
• He remarked that this conspiratorial worldview threatens democracy because it undermines the ability of people to rationally solve their problems.
  • He also asserted that this conspiratorial worldview harms Israelis and Palestinians because it undermines peace negotiations.
• He concluded that this conspiratorial worldview threatens Jewish people everywhere.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ):

• Chairman Smith recounted his experience meeting with Palestinian students during a trip to Israel. He noted how these students had asserted that no Jews had died during the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that the Jews were responsible for these terrorist attacks. He stated that this experience had underscored how antisemitism is based on lies, hyperbole, and scapegoats and has a total disregard for the truth. He also expressed astonishment regarding the antisemitic statements of Palestinian leaders. He expressed his disgust with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and stated that Amnesty International has departed from its original mission of supporting political prisoners. He mentioned how he had supported the U.S.’s efforts to sanction South Africa when it had maintained its Apartheid system. He criticized Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for their assertions that Israel is an apartheid state. He stated that he would no longer permit representatives from these organizations to testify before the Subcommittee moving forward. He then asked the witnesses to comment on the U.S.’s implementation of the Taylor Force Act. He also asked the witnesses to address what level of official within the Biden administration is handling the administration’s efforts to combat antisemitism. He expressed interest in ensuring that top Biden administration officials are working on efforts to combat antisemitism.
  • Mr. Schiffmiller mentioned how Frankfurt, Germany Mayor Uwe Becker has accused Amnesty International of promoting “ethnic cleansing.” He stated that Amnesty International has made a concerted effort to detach Jewish history from Israel because this linkage is not politically convenient for the organization. He asserted that Amnesty International has engaged in an “assault” on Jewish and Christian cultural rights in order to achieve a specific political outcome.
  • Mr. Marcus discussed how the PA had condemned the Taylor Force Act during its Congressional consideration process and how the PA has repeatedly stated that it will never stop paying salaries to terrorists. He noted how the PA claims an international right to resistance and that this resistance includes the right to kill Israelis. He discussed how UN Resolutions 3236 and 3246 say that Palestinians can use all means to obtain their rights. He highlighted how UN Resolution 3246 discusses liberation from colonial and foreign domination and the ability to use all means (including armed struggle) to achieve such liberation. He remarked that these UN Resolutions constitute an adoption of the Palestinian narrative that Israel is a colonial country with no right to exist, which Palestinians in turn use to justify their engagement in armed conflict against Israel. He recommended that the U.S. call for the overturning of UN Resolutions 3236 and 3246 because these Resolutions are used to justify Palestinian murders of Israeli civilians. He noted how the PA has repeatedly cited these UN Resolutions to justify their killings of Israeli civilians and to condemn the Taylor Force Act. He then explained that the Taylor Force Act prevents the PA from receiving U.S. money. He noted that the PA has continued to pay salaries (albeit reduced salaries) to terrorists involved in attacks on Israelis since the Taylor Force Act’s enactment. He suggested that Congress designate PA officials that are involved in paying salaries to these terrorists as ineligible to travel to the U.S. He commented that this more targeted approach would increase the pressure on the PA to stop making payments to these terrorists.
• Chairman Smith interjected to suggest that the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 (the Magnitsky Act) could serve as a tool to provide such targeted sanctions against PA officials.
  • Mr. Marcus expressed his organization’s willingness to identify PA officials involved in paying salaries to terrorists involved in attacks on Israelis.
  • Mr. Kontorovich first applauded Chairman Smith for his criticism of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for making claims that Israel is an apartheid state. He stated that Chairman Smith’s refusal to engage with these institutions will help to diminish the credibility of the institutions among other mainstream institutions. He remarked that the claim that Israel is an apartheid state is part of a broader effort to use the language and concepts of international law in a sui generis manner. He asserted that this approach applies a double standard to Israel. He noted how apartheid is an Afrikaner word and stated that the use of this word directly accuses Israel of engaging in the same practices of South Africa. He commented that the claim that Israel is an apartheid state is meant to delegitimize Israel. He discussed how international law dictates that a new country’s borders are based on the borders of the last top-level administrative unit in the territory. He stated that this rule is not being applied to Israel. He also noted how international law dictates that occupation ceases when the occupying forces are driven out or evacuate a territory. He indicated however that this rule is not being applied to the Israel-Gaza Strip situation. He further noted how international law dictates that a country can choose its capital. He indicated however that Israel’s chosen capital is disputed. He then discussed how classic antisemitism had sought to restrict where Jews can live, which had resulted in the invention of the ghetto. He stated however that international law has now been distorted to claim that there exist entire areas of the Jewish holy land that are off limits to Jews. He highlighted how Israel is the only country that has been accused of war crimes for letting their people live in certain places, despite the existence of many territorial disputes around the world. He remarked that Congress must address these problems in the application of international law. He then discussed how the Taylor Force Act requires that the U.S. publicize the PA’s “pay for slay” efforts. He commented that this requirement has not been “aggressively implemented.” He also discussed how U.S. funds are being indirectly distributed to the PA through the World Bank. He highlighted how the World Bank (which the U.S. financially supports) funds the PA and accused the World Bank of concealing its “pay for slay” program. He noted how the World Bank is supposed to develop financial reports on countries and stated that the World Bank’s report on the PA has 7 percent of the PA’s budget missing. He asserted that the World Bank’s omission in its report regarding the PA is intentional.
  • Mr. Neuer first thanked Subcommittee Chairman Smith for committing to intervene on the UNHRC’s harassment and censorship of UN Watch. He also highlighted how UNHRC senior official Eric Tistounet has been accused of alerting China of the planned speeches of Chinese dissidents so that China could threaten the families of these dissidents. He then remarked that the U.S. must show that the combating of antisemitism is a high priority, which necessitates action from senior Executive Branch officials (including the U.S. Secretary of State or the President). He mentioned how the U.S. had provided $344 million to the UNRWA. He stated that while UNRWA can play a humanitarian role, he noted how there are 133 UNRWA teachers and staff who have promoted antisemitic hate and violence on social media. He also mentioned how 88 additional teachers affiliated with 30 UNRWA schools were involved in distributing hateful antisemitic content. He emphasized that western countries (including the U.S.) are paying for this antisemitic instruction. He also mentioned that UNRWA had not sought to identify and fire these problematic teachers and staff after UN Watch had uncovered these problems. He stated that UNRWA had instead sought to smear UN Watch following its report on these staff and teachers. He then expressed agreement with the previous criticisms of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for their allegations that Israel is an apartheid state. He highlighted how U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt and U.S. Ambassador to the UNHRC Michèle Taylor had condemned UNHCR United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese for her anti-Israel comments. He noted how Ms. Albanese has used Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to justify her attitudes regarding Israel.
• Chairman Smith indicated that the Subcommittee is planning to hold a future hearing on UNRWA. He disputed UNRWA’s claims that it has addressed antisemitism in its textbooks. He also indicated that the Subcommittee would be looking into the UNESCO. He noted how the Biden administration wants the U.S. to rejoin UNESCO and how the U.S. had left this organization because of its antisemitic work and recognition of Palestine as a member state. 

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN):

• Rep. Phillips described antisemitism as an “ancient disease” that is not unique to any time or place and mentioned how his family had fled Russia to come to the U.S. because of the country’s antisemitism. He recounted how he had seen a protester during the January 6th U.S. Capitol attack wearing a shirt stating that not enough Jews had died during the Holocaust. He stated that this experience demonstrates that antisemitism is a global phenomenon (and not confined to individual countries and organizations). He asked Dr. Nazarian to discuss the links between U.S. White nationalism and global antisemitic movements.
  • Dr. Nazarian remarked that there exists a powerful connection between White supremacy and global antisemitism. She stated that great replacement theory has spread globally and that antisemitism and racial hatred are fundamental components of this theory. She remarked that the great replacement theory is being used to divide societies through targeting certain groups (including Jews). She noted how this theory has gained popularity in Hungary and Poland. She remarked that the transnational nature of White supremacy is a significant concern. She highlighted how the ADL is the top provider of law enforcement training on detecting and combating White supremacy. She also mentioned how the ADL’s Center on Extremism tracks White supremacist groups and their ideologies. She stated that these groups are using the same language across different countries and reiterated her concerns regarding the current transnational nature of White supremacy. She thanked Rep. Phillips for raising concerns regarding this issue.
• Rep. Phillips asked Dr. Nazarian to identify actions meant to combat antisemitism that might instead be promoting antisemitism.
  • Dr. Nazarian expressed support for the recently released U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. She noted other European countries (as well as the EU) have adopted their own strategies for combating antisemitism that had informed the U.S.’s development of its national strategy. She asserted that there must exist “whole of society” and “whole of government” approaches for combating antisemitism. She highlighted how the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism involves over two dozen government agencies, the private sector, and civil society. She lamented how world political leaders are using antisemitism to advance their own interests and asserted that the U.S. must fight back against this antisemitism.
• Rep. Phillips remarked that Congress must fight antisemitism both abroad and domestically. He also stated that there must exist the ability to criticize Israel when warranted. He lastly criticized calls for the U.S. to withdraw from the UN and asserted that U.S. participation in the UN better enables the U.S. to influence international affairs.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Susan Wild (D-PA):

• Ranking Member Wild remarked that the hallmark of a democracy is the freedom for its citizens to criticize their government without serious repercussions. She added that this freedom of criticism should extend to democratic allies. She stated however that criticisms of Israel are often labeled as antisemitism and commented that these allegations of antisemitism often come from Congressional Republicans and pro-Israel community members. She called these allegations of antisemitism very offensive. She asked the witnesses to identify the point where legitimate criticisms of Israel veer into antisemitism (especially when spoken by U.S. elected officials).
  • Mr. Rosenberg remarked that one must consider the context of a statement and the person making the statement to determine whether the statement is antisemitic. He expressed skepticism regarding the effectiveness of specific definitions for antisemitism and asserted that contextual information still matters in determining whether statements are antisemitic. He noted how there exists a long history of antisemitic ideas and tropes. He stated that the application of these ideas and tropes to describe Israel tends to be a strong indicator of antisemitism. He commented that antisemites often try to conceal their hatred of Jews through using more respectable language.
  • Mr. Kontorovich remarked that the context, quantity, and frequency of statements matter when assessing whether a policymaker’s statements are antisemitic. He noted how the UN had accused Israel of violating the Geneva Conventions 500 times between 1967 and 2016. He indicated that the UN had accused all other countries of violating the Geneva Conventions just two times during this same period. He commented that this disparity suggests that the UN’s approach toward Israel is antisemitic. He remarked that the use of double standards is key for determining when criticism of Israel veers into antisemitism and reiterated his support for IHRA’s 2016 working definition of antisemitism. He also asserted that many international criticisms of Israel are premised on Israel’s violations of non-existent international rules. He then mentioned how his testimony cites examples of U.S. policymakers that argue that their criticisms of Israel are based on opposition to Israeli settlements while actively fundraising for settler and occupation movements in other parts of the world.  He further remarked that there are accusations against Israel that constitute “blood libels.” He specifically criticized accusations that Israel is an apartheid state. He asserted that this accusation constitutes an implicit call for the destruction of Israel because the only remedy for an apartheid regime is the elimination of said regime.

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA):

• Rep. McCormick first lamented how he had personally heard very educated people claim that Jews were responsible for coronavirus. He then discussed how China currently has a strong relationship with the UN. He asked Mr. Neuer to indicate the number of times that the UN General Assembly has passed resolutions condemning Israel.
  • Mr. Neuer noted how the UN in 2022 had passed 15 resolutions on Israel, one resolution on Iran, one resolution on Syria, and one resolution on North Korea in 2022. He stated that there have been “hundreds” of UN resolutions condemning Israel.
• Rep. McCormick asked Mr. Neuer to indicate the number of times that the UN General assembly has passed resolutions condemning the PA.
  • Mr. Neuer stated that the UN has never condemned the PA.
• Rep. McCormick questioned the UN’s ability to develop a fair solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. He accused the UN of antisemitism and anti-Americanism. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether the UN has been fair toward Israel, to which none of the witnesses responded affirmatively. He expressed frustration over the U.S.’s funding of the UN and asserted that the UN lacks accountability for its treatment of Israel. He provided the witnesses with an opportunity to address the UN’s discrimination toward Israel and how the UN’s actions impede the Israel-Palestine peacemaking process.
  • Mr. Neuer remarked there have occurred “grave distortions” of the UN’s founding principles and lamented how dictatorships often dominate UN bodies. He noted how China is a regular member of the UNHRC. He recounted how the U.S. had attempted to introduce a UN resolution to address China’s repression of Uyghurs and indicated that the UNHRC had refused to consider the resolution. He also reiterated that senior UNHRC officials will offer the identities of Chinese dissidents to the Chinese government, which enables China to exert pressure on the family members of these dissidents. He further stated that China had played a nefarious role at the WHO and highlighted how WHO Goodwill Ambassadors include Chinese President Xi Xingping’s wife and a Chinese broadcaster that used this role to promote Chinese propaganda during the COVID-19 pandemic. He also mentioned how Iran had experienced several recent successes at the UN, including an appointment to chair the UNHRC’s social forum. He called on countries to advocate that the UN overturn this “absurd” decision. He further mentioned how Iran had recently been elected as vice president of the UN General Assembly and rapporteur of the UN Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC). He described this election as “absurd” given Iran’s fostering of international conflict.
• Rep. McCormick interjected to note that his question period time had expired. He expressed agreement with Mr. Neuer’s response and criticized the countries that are leading the UNHRC. He called the UN corrupt and stated that dictators and theocracies control the body.
  • Mr. Marcus remarked that the PA uses the condemnations of Israel coming from the UN, the EU, and European countries to justify their abstentions from peace discussions and their actions toward Israel. He stated that the PA believes that they can better achieve their objectives through having the international community pressure Israel than through engaging in peace negotiations with Israel. He asserted that unfair international condemnations of Israel are thus impeding peace discussions between Israel and Palestine.

Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC):

• Rep. Manning noted how Mr. Rosenberg had stated that antisemitism is malleable and appeals to different types of extremists across the political spectrum. She also noted how Mr. Rosenberg had argued that selective condemnation of antisemitism for partisan gain will worsen the problem of antisemitism. She asked Mr. Rosenberg to provide recommendations for educating the public on the unique “shape shifting” nature of antisemitism and the dangers of conspiracy theories.
  • Mr. Rosenberg highlighted how antisemitism spans the political spectrum and involves a shared conspiracy theory involving Jews controlling the world. He commented that this conspiratorial worldview can be appealing because it offers simple solutions and scapegoats for the world’s problems. He recommended that people focus on this underlying conspiratorial ideology when reviewing an antisemitic statement rather than on the party making the antisemitic statement. He also called for education regarding the history of antisemitism and emphasized that this history predates the creation of the state of Israel. He stated that the teaching of this history will enable people to better discern when antisemitism is present during conversations about Israel. He argued that the current focus on Israel often drives people to view antisemitism as a partisan issue.
• Rep. Manning then mentioned how more U.S.-based extremists are interacting with international counterparts. She also stated that countries around the world are struggling to counter online misinformation (especially on social media). She commented that this misinformation fuels extremism and antisemitism. She asked Dr. Nazarian to provide recommendations for how the U.S. can counter the rapid spread of online extremist propaganda and the growing spread of transnational violent extremism and White supremacy. She also asked Dr. Nazarian to indicate whether Congress and stakeholders have an obligation to educate people to be better consumers of information.
  • Dr. Nazarian remarked that antisemitic activity online is indicative of current sentiment and asserted that online and social media platforms are amplifying this sentiment. She discussed how the ADL has worked to hold social media companies responsible for enforcing their own terms of service. She stated that these companies tend to take down antisemitic and White supremacist content flagged by the ADL. She expressed concerns however that these companies are not shutting down the accounts behind this content and are not proactively monitoring of hateful content. She stated that these companies possess the software and the mechanisms to proactively identify online content for removal. She called on Congress to pass legislation to bring transparency to social media platform actions and to require that social media platforms enforce their own terms of service. She mentioned how ADL is working with California and Nevada to pass state legislation that would require social media companies to enforce their own terms of service and to disclose when they remove content.
• Rep. Manning expressed interest in obtaining additional information from the ADL on this topic.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA):

• Rep. Issa noted that while some Israeli officials and policies cause harm to Palestinians and Arab-Israelis, he stated that Israel maintains a robust judicial system that can reverse these harms when they occur. He stated however that Palestinian and Arab countries do not maintain similar judicial systems that can reverse such harms when they occur. He also remarked that Israel maintains a fairer democracy than its neighboring Arab countries. He accused European leaders of fostering global antisemitism and asserted that the U.S. is not doing enough to combat antisemitism. He then noted that there do exist tools to identify repeat offenders of antisemitism rules on social media platforms and to remove these repeat offenders from the platforms. He commented however that the adoption of national hate speech rules would be counterproductive. He then expressed concerns regarding that antisemitic teachings that are occurring in Palestinian schools. He asked Mr. Marcus to comment on these teachings. He also asked Mr. Marcus to indicate whether Abraham Accords member countries are experiencing a decline in antisemitism.
  • Mr. Marcus noted how reports indicate that the school textbooks of Abraham Accords member countries have “significantly” improved in terms not carrying antisemitic content. He also noted how polls indicate that Persian Gulf states exhibit less antisemitism than the PA. He indicated however that Palestinian school textbooks contain antisemitism and that Palestinian schools tell their students that Israel has no right to exist. He further noted how these schools tell their students that Israel’s destruction is inevitable. He remarked that the U.S. must work to fix these educational challenges. He also mentioned how polling indicates that 87 percent of Palestinians believe that Israelis are hated because of their own behavior and commented that the PA is supporting this belief. He further noted how currently polling indicates that Hamas is more popular than Fatah within Palestine. He concluded that Palestine’s antisemitic teachings are having tangible impacts on Palestinian attitudes toward Jews.

Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA):

• Rep. Jacobs raised concerns over Israel’s proposed judicial reforms and stated that Israel has taken actions that are not conducive to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. She specifically expressed concerns that the Israeli government has espoused rhetoric that the Palestinian state does not have a right to exist. She stated that many young American Jews are concerned that the current Israeli government does not match their values and are scared that their criticism of the Israeli government can be construed as antisemitic. She called this situation dangerous both for efforts to combat antisemitism and for the future of Israel. She remarked that efforts to support democracy in Israel and combat global antisemitism are not mutually exclusive in nature. She asked Dr. Nazarian to identify the causes of the rise in antisemitism within the U.S. over the previous five years. She also asked Dr. Nazarian to address how anti-Jewish rhetoric can be distinguished from legitimate criticisms of Israel.
  • Dr. Nazarian discussed how the ADL has three main criteria for distinguishing between valid criticisms of Israel and antisemitic rhetoric. She first remarked that criticism of Israel is antisemitic when it holds all Jews responsible for Israel’s policies. She secondly remarked that a criticism of Israel is antisemitic if it dismisses the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. She lastly remarked that criticism of Israel is antisemitic if it employs antisemitic tropes and characterizations. She stated that there can exist valid criticism of the Israeli government’s policies and commented that any government can have its policies criticized. She called it important for there not to exist a conflation between criticism of Israel and antisemitism and warned that such conflation will devalue antisemitism as a term. She then remarked that the current non-violent protests in Israel surrounding proposed judicial reforms underscore the robustness of Israel’s democracy. She mentioned how the ADL has raised public concerns regarding certain Israeli officials and their rhetoric. She then discussed how there exist multiple causes for antisemitism, including White supremacy, anti-Zionism, and Islamic extremism. She stated that Europe contains all of these ideologies and asserted that the U.S. must prevent these ideologies from entering.
• Rep. Jacobs then lamented how House Republican leaders had rejected her amendment to the Parents Bill of Rights Act that included language stating that the actions carried out during the Holocaust and the sentiments of antisemitism are immoral. She remarked that Congress must recognize that there exists a strong relationship between antisemitism, racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia. She also mentioned how she had previously worked at the UN and stated that the UN does important work globally. She further remarked that the U.S.’s special relationship with Israel should involve both support and criticism of Israel. She lamented the criticisms being raised regarding the UN at the hearing. She stated that these criticisms undermine U.S. national security and the ability of the U.S. to build global relationships.

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL):

• Rep. Schneider lamented how antisemitism is growing both domestically and abroad and asserted that the U.S. must address this problem. He expressed dismay with the UN’s long history of antisemitism and criticized the UN’s focus on Israel. He also criticized Palestinian leadership for their promotion of antisemitism and use of antisemitism to delegitimize Israel. He then discussed how the modern Zionist movement had originated during the late 19th century. He mentioned how his family had fled Kyiv in 1912 following antisemitic Pogroms. He then highlighted how the Israel has a Muslim justice on its Supreme Court and how Israel’s U20 soccer team includes Muslim players. He asserted that this prominent Muslim participation in Israel’s government and society demonstrates that Israel is not an apartheid state. He also expressed support for IHRA’s 2016 working definition of antisemitism and stated that the White House should have exclusively adopted this definition in the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. He asked the witnesses to address why European governments and other organizations are not more aggressively working to combat antisemitism.
  • Mr. Neuer first thanked Rep. Schneider for criticizing the accusations that Israel is an apartheid state. He called these accusations false and defamatory and asserted that these accusations diminish South Africa’s experience with its Apartheid regime. He then remarked that many countries will reflexively support anti-Israel resolutions at the UN and lamented how many of these countries are European democracies. He stated that there are several factors leading countries to oppose anti-Israel resolutions at the UN. He discussed how vote trading is popular at the UN, which can explain why many countries will support these resolutions. He elaborated that many countries will engage in vote trading with Islamic states because Islamic states often vote in a bloc (which makes the trading of votes with these bloc countries very attractive). He highlighted how the UN has 56 Islamic states. He also stated that many Islamic states will condition access to their oil and gas on votes against Israel at the UN. He further noted how sovereign wealth funds may influence countries to vote against Israel through promising investments into countries in exchange for certain voting behaviors. He lastly stated that many countries will vote against Israel at the UN out of a fear that support for Israel will cause them to experience terrorism. He acknowledged that these factors may be rational (albeit unsavory). He further remarked that Israel has become a scapegoat for the world’s problems at the UN.
• Rep. Schneider then criticized UNRWA and asserted that UNRWA has “outlived its usefulness.” He asked Mr. Neuer to indicate whether there exist other entities that can perform the UNRWA services that are deemed necessary.
  • Mr. Neuer answered affirmatively.

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA):

• Rep. Sherman remarked that there are currently three main types of antisemitism: far-left antisemitism, Islamic extremist antisemitism, and far-right antisemitism. He then noted that while all countries contain populations that were not previously native to its territories, he stated that only Israel is criticized for having a population that has migrated to its territory. He also highlighted how Israel is the only Jewish state in the world and that calls for the state to be destroyed should be viewed as antisemitic. He further expressed frustration with the criticisms that Israel is racist because it asserts its independence and borders. He commented that other countries do not face these same criticisms. He then discussed the BDS Movement and stated that boycotts of countries can be appropriate if they are based on a specific policy of a country. He further expressed concerns over UNRWA’s textbooks and curriculum. He mentioned how he had proposed the Peace and Tolerance in Palestinian Education Act, which would direct the U.S. Department of State to issue a report on UNRWA’s educational materials. He asked Mr. Sharansky to address how the Soviet Union had used anti-Zionism as a tool for antisemitism. (Note: Mr. Sharanksy did not respond to this question).
  • Mr. Kontorovich mentioned how he was born in the Soviet Union. He recounted how the UN had passed Resolution 3379 in 1975, which had declared Zionism as a form of racism. He noted how the UN had subsequently voted to override this resolution. He explained that UN Resolution 3379 had been passed as a Soviet Union foreign policy initiative and that the Soviet Union had lobbied other countries to support of the resolution. He further explained that UN Resolution 3379 had claimed that Zionism constitutes a form of colonialism and imperialism and had likened Zionism to apartheid. He contended that contemporary accusations of Israel being an apartheid state are modern iterations of the claims made in UN Resolution 3379.

Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ):

• Chairman Smith indicated that the Subcommittee would be holding additional hearings on antisemitism. He indicated that these hearings would include reviews of UNRWA, testimony from U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating Antisemitism Deborah Lipstadt, and examinations of antisemitism faced by students. He called it “appalling” that the PA encourages children to kill themselves and other people and described the PA’s actions as “child abuse.” He then provided the witnesses with an opportunity to make additional statements.
  • Mr. Schiffmiller discussed how the UN maintains the Office of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, which is designed to track the abuse of children in armed conflicts globally. He stated that this Office has serially underreported how terrorist organizations incite violence and recruit and use Palestinian children. He noted how NGOs supply much of the data that supports this Office’s reports and indicated that some of these NGOs are linked to U.S. designated terrorist organizations. He stated that this reliance on NGOs for this data leads to underreporting of problems and a “warped” perception of Israeli security policies responding to this incitement and recruitment.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Susan Wild (D-PA):

• Ranking Member Wild expressed concerns that Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith’s (R-NJ) previous comments might be misconstrued as labeling all Palestinians guilty for the actions of some Palestinians.

Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Smith (R-NJ):

• Chairman Smith interjected to comment that his comments were directed at the PA and not the Palestinian people. He highlighted how the PA is providing salaries to jailed terrorists and maintains standing job offers for these terrorists upon release from imprisonment.