On March 27 in Jerusalem, a conference on the issue of the revival of intense and dangerous antisemitism was held, sponsored by Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Ministry. Who didn’t attend?
Invited participants who declined their invitations included Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL); the UK’s Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis; Germany’s anti-antisemitism strategist Felix Klein; and French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy.
On the other hand, Sylvan Adams, the new World Jewish Congress-Israel Region head, spoke, and Malcolm Hoenlein was among those who attended. Grassroots people and many dozens of other involved activists, including Michael Rappaport and Elizabeth (Lizzy) Savetsky among other influencers and people with online presence, also attended and were enthusiastically involved.
French and Spanish were competing with English and Hebrew.
It wouldn’t be that unfair to say that the dividing line could be seen as between those who are actually getting things done and those who are either trying to get things done – or more often – just giving the impression they are doing anything truly effective.
According to Haaretz, “There were hardly any leaders of major Jewish organizations or communities in attendance.” I was present, and I can attest there were leaders present and those not of any Jewish establishment, including students and those of the younger generation and, perhaps, more importantly, non-Jewish leaders.
At a press conference, MK Amichai Chikli did not hold back in responding to Haaretz’s criticism. He said the newspaper “stabbed IDF soldiers and the state of Israel in the back” and added that it “promotes antisemitism.” Perhaps, as if to validate Chikli’s estimation, the paper published an anti-conference op-ed by Em Hilton, who is policy director at Diaspora Alliance and a co-founder of Na’amod UK, both extremist anti-Zionist groups.
Na’amod’s notoriety stems from its members’ recitation of kaddish (the mourner’s prayer) in front of England’s Parliament for fallen Hamas terrorists back in 2018. Another of the group’s co-founders informed the antisemitic Owen Jones in an April 2024 interview that its main focus is to “de-center Israel from Judaism.”
To fraternize with certain antisemites is acceptable as long as it’s all for the cause of denigrating Israel, we can conclude.
There were those with their feet on the ground, their fingers on their keyboards, and their minds constantly trying to come up with new initiatives rather than those simply with their posteriors in executive boardroom chairs. The former are the ones trying.
It can be surmised that this, too, is what truly annoyed the conference’s opponents.
Of course, there is a limit to grassroots activism. There’s not enough money, nor is there enough political leverage.
And their reach is not comparable to Jews-in-suits, who can enter senior political echelons. For that, yes, the Conference of Presidents, the ADL, the French CRIF, and Britain’s Board of Deputies possess a level of access those lower down the totem pole don’t have.
One would assume that fighting antisemitism would be a cause that would unite Jews. That was not to be at this conference.
Non-attendees and critics meet with Israel’s Arab antisemitic enemies
In the case of Rabbi Mirvis, his office released a statement saying that he would no longer be attending after he was made aware that “a number of far-right populist politicians” would be attending.
Oddly, a month earlier, on February 11, Rabbi Mirvis was presenting King Charles III a copy of the Drumlanrig Accord, a document that sought to “affirm the principles of coexistence, peace, and a shared commitment to justice and compassion” between Muslims and Jews.The accord notes that the Quran “instructs Muslims to invite people of the Scripture to come together on a ‘common word’ (Qur’ān 3:64)” and emphasizes “the importance of dialogue and reconciliation.” An admirable statement.
Yet three verses later in that Qur’an chapter, we read that Abraham was a Muslim, a reverse supersessionism, as a simple search by the blogger Elder of Ziyon discovered.
Moreover, verses 69-71 are quite anti-Jewish. Jews, they read, “would love to lead you astray,” they reject “the revelations of God,” and they “confound the truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the truth?” This antisemitism Rabbi Mirvis can get along with? He can shake hands with its authors and pose for shared photographs? Yet “European far-right politicians” are outside any fraternization.
Many of those who criticized the inviting of controversial political figures into the “tent” are very much in favor of inviting themselves into confabs, dialogues, and other meetings with Israel’s Arab antisemitic enemies. No problem there.
As a new report by Palestinian Media Watch’s Itamar Marcus published on March 26 details that there is a rebirth of Nazi ideology in the Palestinian Authority. They see the Jews just as the Europeans and Hitler saw the Jews. They are antisemitic but Jews abroad insist we make peace with them.
At the conference, a leader of France’s National Rally, Jordan Bardella, declared, “I’m aware of the symbolic significance of this invitation.” Unfortunately, those in the Diaspora who declined to participate refused to accept its significance.
Israel is not a shtetl. It is not a small community of Jews who need to assure its existence and well-being out of self-recognition of its own weakness and physical powerlessness. It is a state, and, as a result, its interrelationships with the non-Jewish world are necessarily different than those of the shtadlan, the intercessor for the interests of the ghetto.
Moreover, as much as those who think otherwise, if not for Israel’s existence and strength, a strength based not only on its army but also its innovation, its economy, and its national spirit, Diaspora Jewish life would be more than endangered. Mobilizing politicians from all viewpoints to combat antisemitism is not a choice but a duty. It will also better protect the Jews residing abroad.
Israel’s strength is also exhibited in its ability to persuade rightists and, in some cases, those formerly unfavorably inclined towards Jews, to reverse their thinking. This is what was at the core of last week’s conference, and too many Jewish leaders could not accept that.
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.