Critics Decry UN’s Antisemitism Action Plan as Ineffective and Misguided

Critics Decry UN’s Antisemitism Action Plan as Ineffective and Misguided

In a recent move, the United Nations (U.N.) unveiled its “Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism.” This initiative was launched partly in response to a troubling spike in antisemitic incidents targeting Jewish communities and institutions across Europe and the United States. However, many experts have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of this plan.

Expert Opinions on the Action Plan

Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and president of Human Rights Voices, described the Action Plan as a “phony exercise in futility.” She argues that it stems from what she deems the leading global source of antisemitism, suggesting that the U.N. is merely pretending to address the issue.

The U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC), which developed the plan, emphasizes the importance of understanding and identifying antisemitism as key to combatting hatred and prejudice. Yet, the plan notably fails to provide a clear definition of antisemitism, raising concerns among critics.

Missing Definitions and Misguided Focus

While the Action Plan acknowledges the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, it stops short of formally adopting it. This definition has garnered support from 45 member states and is widely accepted by major Jewish organizations globally. Bayefsky highlights that this omission is significant because the accepted definition connects antisemitism with criticisms of Zionism and Israel.

“The U.N. claims that victims of discrimination should define their own experiences, but this principle doesn’t seem to apply in cases involving Jews,” Bayefsky noted.

UNAOC Responds to Criticism

Nihal Saad, UNAOC Director, was prompted to respond to criticisms regarding the lack of a clear definition of antisemitism. Saad emphasized the goal of enhancing responses to antisemitism rather than becoming sidetracked by defining the term. She asserted that discussions around definitions could detract from the primary focus of action.

Referencing complexities within various definitions, Saad pointed out that a lack of consensus about what constitutes terrorism has not stymied the U.N.’s efforts in developing a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. However, her comments about addressing antisemitism were met with skepticism, especially in light of the U.N.’s struggles to categorize groups like Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.

Flaws in Implementation

Edmund Fitton-Brown, a senior advisor at the Counter Extremism Project, also weighed in on the U.N.’s challenges. He described the Counterterrorism strategy as flawed and highlighted difficulties in categorizing certain groups as terrorist organizations, which casts doubt on the U.N.’s capacity to effectively address antisemitism.

Fitton-Brown pointed to the lack of a coherent response following high-profile attacks, such as Hamas’ actions during the October 7 incident. He noted the U.N. Security Council’s failure to condemn Hamas due to disagreements over terrorism definitions, labeling this as a serious dereliction of duty.

Proposals Within the Action Plan

The Action Plan outlines several proposals, such as training modules for U.N. staff to better recognize antisemitism. It also calls for senior officials to address antisemitic incidents as they arise. Still, Bayefsky expresses doubts about the efficacy of these measures, questioning how the U.N. can educate staff on antisemitism without a clear grasp of what that entails.

Leadership and Accountability

Critics have argued that the U.N. has not adequately addressed antisemitism at the highest levels. Bayefsky pointed out that while U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned antisemitism on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, his subsequent silence when criticisms arose internally suggests a lack of commitment.

Referencing the controversial remarks made by U.N. Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and U.N. Commission of Inquiry head Navi Pillay, Bayefsky called for more decisive action. She argued that Guterres could use his platform to condemn these behaviors but chooses not to speak out.

Moving Forward: A Call for Action

Notably, the effectiveness of the U.N. Action Plan hinges on acknowledgment and accountability for antisemitism within its ranks. As Bayefsky aptly stated, “The U.N. can’t combat antisemitism without acknowledging its guilt and starting with a ‘mea culpa.’”

Despite the ambitious goals of the Action Plan, the skepticism voiced by experts underscores an urgent need for clarity, commitment, and genuine action in combating antisemitism effectively. Otherwise, these initiatives may continue to be perceived as hollow rhetoric rather than concrete steps toward lasting change.