Critics Rebuke UN’s Antisemitism Action Plan as Ineffective and Insufficient

Critics Rebuke UN’s Antisemitism Action Plan as Ineffective and Insufficient

In a recent move, the United Nations (U.N.) unveiled its “Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism.” This plan emerges amid heightened concerns over a surge in antisemitic incidents targeting Jewish communities globally, particularly in Europe and the United States. However, many experts contend that the initiative falls short of addressing the issues it aims to combat.

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, defined the plan as a “phony exercise in futility.” She argues that it was produced by an organization perceived to be the “leading global purveyor of antisemitism,” asserting that the U.N. is merely attempting to appear proactive without effecting real change.

The Gaps in Definition

Developed by the U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), the plan emphasizes the significance of understanding antisemitism to combat hatred effectively. Notably absent, however, is a clear definition of antisemitism itself, a critical component for any meaningful action. The plan alludes to, but ultimately excludes, the widely accepted definition by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which has garnered approval from 45 member states and major Jewish organizations worldwide.

According to Bayefsky, the absence of a precise definition impedes the U.N.’s ability to take substantial action, as she stated, “The U.N. champions the idea that victims of hate and intolerance define their own experiences — except when it comes to Jews.” Without a robust framework to identify antisemitism, effective countermeasures become nearly impossible.

Responses from U.N. Officials

Nihal Saad, Director of UNAOC, addressed questions about the lack of a definition, suggesting that focusing on broader understanding rather than specific definitions avoids unnecessary debates that distract from the plan’s aims. Saad referenced other international issues, noting that even the absence of a universally accepted definition of terrorism had not obstructed progress in counter-terrorism efforts.

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior advisor to the Counter Extremism Project, raised concerns regarding the U.N.’s inefficacy in classifying groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis due to the ambiguity surrounding definitions. He noted that actions taken against such groups often lag as consensus on their designation remains elusive.

The Implications of Inaction

Bayefsky criticized the U.N. Security Council for its failure to condemn Hamas for the atrocities committed, including the events of October 7th, underscoring how the lack of a clear definition of terrorism hampers vital international responses. Furthermore, she pointed out that the U.N. exhibits a troubling silence regarding actions from its own officials that can be interpreted as antisemitic.

Proposals of the Action Plan

The Action Plan lays out proposals that include the development of training modules for U.N. staff to recognize and understand antisemitism and a commitment from senior officials to denounce antisemitic expressions as they arise. However, critics like Bayefsky question the feasibility of these initiatives. She noted, “The U.N. claims to be committed to educating staff about antisemitism without knowing what counts as antisemitism. Any actual educator gives that lesson plan an ‘F.’”

Leadership Accountability

Despite public declarations from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres calling for a condemnation of antisemitism, critics argue that he remains muted when incidents arise within the U.N. itself. Bayefsky pointed out that Guterres’ inaction regarding openly antisemitic remarks from U.N. officials reflects a broader issue of accountability.

When questioned about the U.N.’s ability to respond to such remarks, Saad clarified that special rapporteurs operate independently and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.N. as a whole. However, critics maintain that the U.N. must take a firmer stance against antisemitism to genuinely fulfill its responsibilities.

A Call for Genuine Action

To combat antisemitism effectively, Bayefsky asserts that the U.N. must first acknowledge its complicity and engage in a genuine introspection, starting with a public “mea culpa.” The absence of such an acknowledgment hampers the institution’s credibility and efforts to address antisemitism meaningfully.

As the international community continues to grapple with rising antisemitism, the U.N.’s latest action plan faces significant scrutiny. Without concrete measures and a clear definition, many wonder if the initiative is merely a symbolic gesture rather than a commitment to meaningful change.