The American Bar Association (ABA) passed a contentious resolution on antisemitism on Monday but removed a reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition from the final revised vote. In addition, an Israeli think-tank published an extensive report about one of the main organizations that promoted the revision of the ABA resolution.
This revision of the resolution is a result of a major campaign waged by extremist anti-Israel groups, incl. Human Rights Watch (HRW), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and others. A letter was sent to (ABA) in January calling for the rejection of a resolution on antisemitism that endorsed the international-consensus IHRA Working Definition of antisemitism. The letter was written on behalf of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans for Peace Now, Center for Constitutional Rights, Foundation for Middle East Peace and Palestine Legal.
“The International Legal Forum (ILF), a global network of over 4,000 lawyers and activists committed to combating antisemitism in the international legal arena, welcomes ABA’s intent on combating antisemitism, as reflected in the adoption of Resolution 514.”
Arsen Ostrovsky, Human Rights Attorney and CEO of the International Legal Forum
“The International Legal Forum (ILF), a global network of over 4,000 lawyers and activists committed to combating antisemitism in the international legal arena, welcomes ABA’s intent on combating antisemitism, as reflected in the adoption of Resolution 514,” said Arsen Ostrovsky, Human Rights Attorney and CEO of the International Legal Forum, adding that he expresses “deep disappointment that the ABA cowered to anti-Israel extremists by rejecting the endorsement of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.”
What is the IHRA working definition of antisemitism?
The IHRA working definition - the most widely endorsed and respected definition of antisemitism in the world - has been adopted by over 35 countries, multilateral organizations and hundreds of civil society institutions. One of the examples of antisemitism according to IHRA is “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
In addition, a new report by an Israeli think-tank claims that Human Rights Watch (HRW), a non-profit global organization not only ignores the phenomenon of antisemitism but also has fought against initiatives that have been created to combat it. According to a report by NGO Monitor obtained by The Jerusalem Post, In 2003, HRW committed to “bring problems of antisemitism into the overall human rights discourse.” However, according to the facts that have been collected by NGO Monitor, for the past 20 years, “HRW has done the opposite: Failing to contribute meaningfully to ending hatred of and attacks against Jewish people.” According to the report, since 2003, HRW “has consistently opposed and obstructed meaningful initiatives to combat antisemitism.”
NGO Monitor's initial report was written as a result of the fact that HRW initiated the aforementioned letter to the American Bar Association (ABA) in January and it turned out to be successful on their behalf.
The report declared that “HRW has embraced obstructionism during a period of marked increase in antisemitism and antisemitic attacks around the world – and especially in the United States – reflecting HRW’s total lack of credibility on the issue of antisemitism prevention.” In addition, it was stated that “HRW officials, including long-time leader Ken Roth, have made numerous antisemitic comments and shared antisemitic content on social media.”
NGO Monitor proves that HRW actually “ignores” antisemitism. They reviewed HRW publications from 2003-2022. During that time, they identified only 12 cursory instances where HRW discussed antisemitism and antisemitic events per se, without linking them with other issues such as Islamophobia and other forms of racism. “This excludes passing mentions of antisemitic incidents; HRW opposition to restrictions on antisemitic activity and speech, almost always without suggesting meaningful concrete alternatives; and HRW denying that antisemitic activity and speech is, in fact, antisemitic,” the NGO Monitor report stated.
In order to prove its point, NGO Monitor brings an example from their annual report. The ADL reported 2,717 antisemitic incidents in the US in 2021, the highest total since the organization began tracking in 1979. In sharp contrast, HRW’s 2022 World Report (covering 2021) does not mention antisemitism in the US.
The ADL reported 2,024 antisemitic incidents in the US in 2020, then the third-highest total recorded. HRW’s 2021 World Report made no mention of antisemitism in the US.
NGO Monitor added that in addition to ignoring antisemitism as a phenomenon, HRW also failed to report on major antisemitic incidents such as a fatal terrorist attack in 2019, when two members of the Black Hebrew Israelite hate group murdered six people in a Jewish grocery store in Jersey City, New Jersey. ”NGO Monitor could not identify a single mention of this crime on HRW’s website,” the report said.
The report also stated that there wasn't any condemnation of the fatal terrorist attack in Toulouse, France, in 2012, where a gunman murdered four people, including three children, outside a Jewish school. “HRW did not condemn the attack as antisemitism on its website until January 2015. Even then, the context was an article following a string of Islamist terrorist attacks against French Jews and other targets, that antisemitism should be tackled alongside Islamophobia.” NGO Monitor added that in the same article, HRW cites Collectif contre l'islamophobie en France (CCIF), a French organization, for information regarding anti-Muslim incidents. CCIF was disbanded in 2020 by the French government for promoting antisemitic individuals and for ties between CCIF officials and Al-Qaeda members.
According to the report, HWR also opposed measures to protect Jews and fight antisemitism. “HRW has consistently campaigned against practical measures designed to protect Jewish communities and prevent further antisemitism,” the NGO Monitor report said. They cited the letter to the ABA, as well as their response to the terrorist attack in the Kosher supermarket in Paris that left four dead. NGO Monitor explained that “The French Minister of Justice instructed prosecutors to adopt a ‘systematic, adapted and individualized’ approach to combating antisemitic and other types of hate speech, and speech glorifying terrorism.” HRW responded with a number of publications, arguing that such measures are “likely to have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in France, weaken[s] its credibility as a country that stands up for freedom of expression and set[s] a dangerous example for governments that are quick to use counterterrorism laws to silence their critics.”
A third example is a campaign of HRW in 2019 against the German Bundestag resolution acknowledging that anti-Israel boycotts can be antisemitic, calling on the German government to reject it while labeling it “misplaced and the wrong way to combat antisemitism.”
The report suggested that “ironically, in the same article, HRW acknowledged an increase in violent antisemitism across Europe, but its only suggestions were ‘investigating and punishing’ violent antisemitism and ‘addressing head-on the antisemitic bullying in our schools.’”
NGO Monitor also believes, according to their research, that the HRW is “instrumentalizing antisemitic attacks,” and explained that “often, HRW ignores an antisemitic incident until it can be exploited to strike at a more politically expedient target.” They give an example of the 2019 attack in a Poway, California synagogue, murdering one Jew and wounding three, including a child. “HRW did not mention the assault on its website until August 29, 2019, and even then in a single sentence, when it authored a piece criticizing then President Trump for calling Jewish supporters of the Democratic Party “disloyal.”
The organization’s 2020 “World Report” dedicated one sentence to the murder, mentioning it together with acts of violence in Texas and Ohio by “men espousing white supremacist, antisemitic, and misogynist views.”
Finally, HRW is blamed by NGO Monitor for promoting antisemitic rhetoric: “Under the 30-year leadership of Ken Roth, HRW and its leadership advanced antisemitic tropes in the obsessive focus on Israel,” the report said.
Examples of Roth’s rhetoric can be found in a series of tweets in 2021 in which he blamed Israel for the rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK. He tweeted: “Antisemitism is wrong and long preceded the creation of Israel, but the surge in UK antisemitic incidents during the recent Gaza conflict gives the lie to those who pretend that the Israeli government’s conduct doesn’t affect antisemitism.” After intense criticism, Roth later deleted the tweet, claiming he was “misunderstood.”
Similarly, in 2014, Roth blamed attacks on Jews in Germany and the rise of antisemitism in Europe on Israel’s conduct during the 2014 Gaza War. “Germans rally against antisemitism that flared in Europe in response to Israel's conduct in the Gaza war. Merkel joins,” he tweeted, sharing a New York Times article, titled “Germans rally to protest antisemitism over Gaza war.” He also then promoted a letter published in The New York Times and The Guardian equating “Nazi genocide” with “the massacre of Palestinians in Gaza.” Roth retweeted another post that included the tagline “‘Never again’ must mean NEVER AGAIN FOR ANYONE!”