Experts Critique UN’s Antisemitism Action Plan: A Futile Endeavor?

Experts Critique UN’s Antisemitism Action Plan: A Futile Endeavor?

Last month, the United Nations (U.N.) unveiled its “Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism,” addressing the troubling rise of antisemitic incidents targeting Jews and Jewish institutions across Europe, the United States, and beyond.

Voices of Dissatisfaction

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, expressed skepticism about the initiative, describing it as a “phony exercise in futility.” Bayefsky contended that the U.N. is the “leading global purveyor of antisemitism,” claiming the plan is merely a façade to feign action against one of humanity’s oldest prejudices.

Defining Antisemitism: A Missed Opportunity

Developed by the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), the Action Plan stresses the critical importance of understanding and identifying antisemitism. However, Bayefsky highlighted an essential flaw: the plan lacks a clear definition of antisemitism. Notably, it mentions the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, which has been accepted by 45 member states and endorsed by a majority of significant Jewish organizations worldwide. This definition acknowledges the connection between antisemitism, Zionism, and Israel—a crucial aspect that the U.N. neglects.

What the Plan Proposes

Among the key proposals outlined in the Action Plan are training modules designed to help UN staff recognize and understand antisemitism and an expectation for senior officials to openly denounce antisemitic actions as they occur.

A Discrepancy in Accountability

During an interview with Fox News Digital, UNAOC Director Nihal Saad was asked why the Action Plan omits a definition of antisemitism. Saad replied that the focus should be on understanding the issue instead of getting embroiled in debates over definitions, which can detract from the primary goal: enhancing responses to antisemitism.

Pointing to other topics lacking consensus on definitions, Saad noted that the U.N.’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy has proceeded without a universally accepted definition of terrorism. However, his remarks raise questions about the effectiveness of such approaches in tackling antisemitism.

The Complexity of Identifying Terrorism

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior advisor to the Counter Extremism Project and former U.N. Monitoring Team coordinator, voiced concerns about the difficulties in addressing issues like terrorism due to the lack of a solid agreement on what constitutes it. He pointed out that the U.N. struggles to label groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorists, thereby hindering coherent action against these entities.

The U.N.’s Response: An Ongoing Challenge

Bayefsky criticized the U.N. Security Council for its failure to address antisemitic violence effectively. According to her, the Council has never condemned Hamas for its actions on October 7th due to disagreements over terrorism definitions. This, she argued, exemplifies a severe failure of duty.

Questions of Implementation

With the U.N.’s commitment to educate its staff on antisemitism called into question, Bayefsky pointed out the inherent contradictions in the plan. She remarked that teaching about antisemitism without a clear understanding of what it entails results in an ineffective educational approach.

Leadership and Responsibility

Bayefsky asserted that the U.N. is not adequately tackling anti-Jewish prejudice at the highest levels. Despite U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ statements condemning antisemitism, Bayefsky claimed there are notable instances where he refrains from addressing the issue within the U.N., particularly when the offenders are affiliated with the organization.

A Path Forward: A Call for Reflection

Looking ahead, experts assert that the U.N. must recognize its complicity in perpetuating antisemitism to effectively combat it. Bayefsky’s idea of beginning with a “mea culpa” emphasizes a critical necessity for accountability and honesty from the international body.

As discussions continue, the responsibility falls on the U.N. to ensure its actions and intentions align with the ethos of combating antisemitism rather than merely creating plans that ultimately lack substance.

In a climate where antisemitism persists, it is crucial for global institutions to take definitive steps toward meaningful action, fostering understanding, and mutual respect across diverse cultures and faiths.