Critics Dismiss UN Action Plan on Antisemitism as Ineffective: A Call for Genuine Reform

Recently, the United Nations (U.N.) unveiled its “Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism.” This initiative aims to address the alarming increase in antisemitic incidents targeting Jews and Jewish institutions across Europe, the United States, and beyond.

Expert Opinions Fuel Concerns

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, criticized the Action Plan, labeling it a “phony exercise in futility.” According to her, the plan serves mainly as a facade created by an organization that she views as a prominent global promoter of antisemitism, aiming to give the illusion of taking action against it.

Definition of Antisemitism Remains Elusive

Crafted by the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), the Action Plan asserts that “the ability to understand and identify antisemitism is crucial to global efforts to combat hatred and prejudice.” Yet, the plan notably falls short by not providing a clear definition of antisemitism. This lack of clarity raises questions about how effectively it can aid in identifying and combatting anti-Jewish sentiment.

Ignoring Established Definitions

The plan references, but does not embrace, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism. This definition, accepted by 45 member states, is endorsed by most major Jewish organizations worldwide because it acknowledges the connection between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. Bayefsky highlights this omission as a significant flaw.

The UN’s Double Standards

Bayefsky pointed out a troubling inconsistency in the U.N.’s approach. “The U.N. promotes the notion that victims of hate should define their experiences of discrimination and violence. However, this principle seems to be selectively applied when it comes to Jews,” she remarked.

The UNAOC’s Position on Definition

Nihal Saad, director of the UNAOC, explained that the focus of the Action Plan is to enhance understanding of antisemitism rather than to engage in debates over definitions. Saad suggested that focusing on definitions can distract from the vital goal of improving responses to antisemitism.

Comparisons with Counter-Terrorism Strategies

Saad drew parallels with the challenge of defining terrorism. He noted that despite the lack of consensus on terrorist definitions, the U.N. has successfully developed a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. However, critics like Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior advisor to the Counter Extremism Project, argue that this approach still leads to inefficiencies in addressing groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Failures in Defining Terrorism

Fitton-Brown pointed out that the absence of a clear definition has led to failures in the U.N.’s responses to various terrorist groups. For instance, he stated that the U.N. has not condemned Hamas for its actions, citing that a lack of agreement on what constitutes terrorism hampers decisive action.

Call for Genuine Education and Awareness

Among the initiatives proposed by the Action Plan is the introduction of training modules designed to help U.N. personnel recognize and understand antisemitism better. However, Bayefsky questioned the practicality of such training, arguing that effective education requires a clear understanding of what antisemitism entails. “Teaching staff without a clear definition is ineffective and deserves an ‘F’ for educational value,” she stated.

Addressing Inconsistencies from Within

Bayefsky expressed skepticism regarding the U.N.’s commitment to combating antisemitism. While U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres emphasized the importance of condemning antisemitism on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Bayefsky claimed that his silence on matters involving U.N. officials accused of antisemitic behavior portrays a lack of true commitment.

Response from the U.N.

Inquiries made to both Saad and Farhan Haq, spokesperson for Guterres, regarding potential comments on antisemitic remarks from U.N. special rapporteurs, resulted in the assertion of the independence of these individuals. Saad reiterated that special rapporteurs operate independently and their views do not necessarily reflect the U.N.’s stance.

A Call for Accountability

Bayefsky asserted that for the U.N. to effectively combat antisemitism, it must first acknowledge its own shortcomings. A genuine apology and recognition of failings should pave the way for meaningful reform and action.

Looking Ahead

As the conversation surrounding antisemitism evolves, stakeholders are calling for a more substantial and definitional approach to the issue within the U.N. The effectiveness of the Action Plan will ultimately depend on the organization’s willingness to engage with these pressing concerns and enact real change.