An interim report by Ahmed Shaheed, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, was presented at the UN general assembly on 23 September 2019. Articles 17 and 18 of the report are dealing with antisemitism and BDS. In article 17, the Special Rapporteur noted an increase of incidents in "what is sometimes called ‘left-wing’ antisemitism," in many countries. Of individuals who claim to hold anti-racist or anti-imperialist views, employ antisemitic narratives and sometimes even Holocaust denial, when expressing anger at the policies and practices of the Government of Israel. Some have "conflated Zionism, the self-determination movement of the Jewish people, with racism" and claim that Israel has no right to exist. In article 18, the Special Rapporteur noted that the "objectives, activities and effects” of BDS are “fundamentally antisemitic." The movement promotes BDS against those who they think "‘complicit’ in violations of the human rights of Palestinians by the Government of Israel." But in fact, the Special Rapporteur states that BDS, "one of its core aims is to bring about the end of the State of Israel." By often employing "antisemitic narratives, conspiracies and tropes in the course of expressing support for the BDS campaign". The Special Rapporteur emphasized that "expression which draws upon antisemitic tropes or stereotypes, rejects the right of Israel to exist, or advocates discrimination against Jewish individuals because of their religion, should be condemned."
Coinciding with the UN determination of BDS as anti-Semitic, Israel's Ministry of Strategic Affairs has recently published a report, “Behind the Mask: The Antisemitic Nature of BDS Exposed”. The report, which was presented to the European Parliament on September 25, 2019, showcased numerous examples of the antisemitic nature of BDS. Such as, calls for Jews to “go back to the ovens!”, accusations of poisoning water supplies, equation of Israel with Nazi Germany, and calls for the destruction of the Jewish State, among others. The report includes antisemitic imagery of Jews as pigs, octopuses, Jewish big noses, Jewish obsession with wealth, Jews as controlling the world and the global “Jewish lobby.”
Amid the efforts to define BDS as anti-Semitic, activist-academics in Western universities who are closely associated with Palestinians increased their efforts to defend BDS. IAM has reported on many cases since 2004.
One recent example was featured on September 18, 2019, by the Middle East Monitor, a media outlet run by Dr. Daud Abdullah, the deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain and a lecturer of Islamic Studies at Birkbeck College U.K. The article discussed a German court-case which ruled unlawful the exclusion of a Palestinian organization from cultural events, on account of supporting BDS. The court constituted it is an “unequal treatment”. The ruling came four months after the German Bundestag voted in favor of a non-binding motion defining BDS as anti-Semitic. The court decision upheld the principals of freedom of speech, including the freedom to discuss and promote boycott campaigns, as protected speech. Claiming victory is the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC), representative of the German-Palestinian Women’s Association which was excluded by the City of Bonn for supporting BDS. Among the documents filed by ELSC's Attorney Ahmed Abed, was an expert opinion by Prof. Moshe Zuckermann, emeritus professor at Tel Aviv University. In his opinion, Zuckermann argued that anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are three distinct categories which must be treated separately and that the attempt to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic is “manipulative and guided by ideological interests”. Arguably, Zuckermann himself is ideologically motivated.
Last but not least, another group of Israeli political activists among them academics have launched a campaign to undermine the Israeli attempts to prevent BDS. Some, like Rachel Giora and Kobi Snitz, are the earliest proponents of BDS. Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace group, reported the case, that in a recent hearing at the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice refused to reveal the identity of international law firms that help with anti BDS efforts in Europe. The Petition for freedom of information was filed by Attorney Itay Mac, demanding to disclose the details of the law firms' identity and the nature of the service which they give to the Israeli Ministry of Justice. The petition was originally filed by Mac in November 2017 along with “human rights activists” TAU Prof. Rachel Giora and Dr. Kobi Snitz of Weizmann Institute, among others.
For years IAM has reported on Israeli academics who advance their political agenda while being paid by the Israeli taxpayers. University administrators have been reluctant to put an end to this abuse for fear of backlash by the international academic community which can be easily mobilized to defend the “academic freedoms” of pro-Palestinian academics. The fear of international pressure contributed to the fact that Israel has the most liberal definition of academic freedom, a definition that would not be tolerated in other Western countries. The result is as sad as it is predictable: an outmoded social science curriculum where cutting edge subjects and methodology are pushed aside, to offer slots to radical activists. Despite poor international ranking for Israeli social sciences, nothing has been done to rescue the field.
Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism, and Criticism of Israel
are three different Categories,
that must be treated separately. The attempt to portray the BDS-movement
as anti-Semitic is "manipulative and ideologically driven."
Ministry of Strategic Affairs report exposes the antisemitic nature of BDS at the European Parliament in Brussels
25 Sep 2019
Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan: “I call on the member states of the EU not to take part in the discriminatory and antisemitic BDS campaign the goals of which include the destruction of the Jewish State.”
Today (Wednesday, September 25 2019), Minister of Strategic Affairs Gilad Erdan revealed at the European Parliament in Brussels a new report from the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, “Behind the Mask: The Antisemitic Nature of BDS Exposed
”. The event was organized by the European Jewish Association (EJA), led by Rabbi Menachem Margolin, and included in attendance are the special envoys charged with combatting antisemitism from both the US, Elan Carr, the EU, Katharina von Schnurbein, members of European Parliament, and leading Jewish organizations. Tomorrow (Thursday, September 26), Minister Erdan will deliver and discuss the report in Berlin with the German Minister of Interior Horst Seehofer and Dr. Felix Klein, the Federal Commissioner of Jewish Life in Germany and the Fight against Antisemitism.
Behind the Mask reveals how the BDS leadership hides behind a mask of liberal values and human rights, while disseminating content relating to Israel which is blatantly antisemitic.
As part of Minister Erdan’s policy of ‘going on the offensive’, numerous examples from within the report of the antisemitism of the BDS leadership were showcased today in European Parliament, including calls for Jews to “go back to the ovens!”, poison water supplies, accusations of a global “Jewish lobby”, equating Nazi Germany and Israel, and calls for the destruction of the Jewish State. Jews and Israelis were shown to be represented with vulgar antisemitic stigmas including being shown as pigs, octopuses, having big noses, having an obsession with wealth, and controlling the world.
Recently, there has been an increasing international interest regarding antisemitism in relation to the boycott and delegitimization of Israel. In addition to the important decision by the German Bundestag to condemn BDS's "methods and motives" as anti-Semitic, this week the UN’s Ahmed Shaheed released a first report of its kind on anti-Semitism titled, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief ”. The report mentions contemporary antisemitism and BDS, noting: There is an alarming rise in “antisemitism of the extreme left, in which individuals claiming to hold anti-racist and anti-imperialist views use antisemitic narratives or tropes in the course of expressing anger at the policies or practices of the Government of Israel" (Article 17 of the report). Shaheed even refers to the UN Secretary General’s view on the matter in which he stated the denial of the right to Israel to exist is a contemporary form of antisemitism. In Article 18 Shaheed stated those who reject “the right of Israel to exist, or advocates discrimination against Jewish individuals because of their religion should be condemned."
The report shows how over the past 15 years the BDS campaign has promoted demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and, in so doing, has exacerbated anti-Semitic rhetoric against Jews worldwide.
Behind the Mask documents numerous examples in which leading BDS activists or organizations disseminated content that meet the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism as defined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism which has been formally adopted by 15 countries and the European Union.
The examples cited in this report are divided into three main sections: expressions of classic antisemitism; Holocaust inversion; and denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination – all forms of antisemitism under the IHRA Working Definition.
Last February, the Ministry of Strategic Affairs released the "Terrorists in Suits" report (Hebrew), which revealed more than 100 links between the terrorist groups Hamas and the PFLP with prominent BDS organizations. Following the report, several European countries expelled BDS activists, cancelled BDS events, and closed BDS bank accounts. The new "Behind the Mask" report is another step in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs campaign to reveal the true motives of the BDS leadership.
Minister Gilad Erdan: “Today we have proven beyond a doubt that BDS is an anti-Semitic campaign led by supporters of terror with one purpose: the elimination of the Jewish State. I urge Western countries not to take part in the anti-Semitic lies of BDS, not to legitimize its racism, and surely not fund it.”
Victory as German court rules anti-BDS motion breaches principle of equality
September 18, 2019 at 2:26 pm
A German court has ruled that the exclusion of a Palestinian organisation from a cultural festival on account of its support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement constituted “unequal treatment” and a breach of law, four months after the German parliament voted in favour of a motion defining BDS as anti-Semitic.
The court decision, which will be seen as a major legal test of the non-binding motion passed in May by the Bundestag, upheld the principals of freedom of speech, including the freedom to discuss and promote boycott campaigns, protected under Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), which Germany has integrated into its national legislation.
The German-Palestinian Women’s Association was excluded by the City of Bonn for supporting BDS. In court, attorney Ahmed Abed has used an expert opinion by Prof. Moshe Zuckermann, emeritus professor at Tel Aviv University. Zuckermann argued that anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel are all three distinct categories which must be treated separately, and that the attempt to portray the BDS movement as anti-Semitic is “manipulative and guided by ideological interests”.
Item 69 (b) of the provisional agenda*
Promotion and protection of human rights: humanrights questions, including alternative approaches forimproving the effective enjoyment of human rightsand fundamental freedomsElimination of all forms of religious intolerance
Note by the Secretary-General*
*The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the GeneralAssembly the interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion orbelief, Ahmed Shaheed, submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution73/176.
The present report by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, AhmedShaheed, identifies violence, discrimination and expressions of hostility motivated byantisemitism as a serious obstacle to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion orbelief. The Special Rapporteur notes with serious concern that the frequency of antisemiticincidents appears to be increasing in magnitude in several countries where monitors attemptto document it, including online; and that the prevalence of antisemitic attitudes and the riskof violence against Jewish individuals and sites appears to be significant elsewhere, includingcountries with little or no Jewish population. He finds that these incidents have created aclimate of fear among a substantial number of Jews, impairing their right to manifest theirreligion, and that discriminatory acts by individuals and laws and policies by governmentshave also had a negative impact. The Special Rapporteur stresses that antisemitism, if leftunchecked by governments, poses risks not only to Jews, but also to members of otherminority communities. Antisemitism is toxic to democracy and mutual respect of citizensand threatens all societies in which it goes unchallenged.The Special Rapporteur urges States to adopt a human-rights based approach incombatting antisemitism, as in combatting other forms of religious intolerance. Heencourages States to identify, document, and prohibit the commission of antisemitic hatecrimes; to implement such measures; to enhance government outreach to Jewishcommunities; to protect individuals at risk of violence; and to take actions in the areas ofeducation and awareness-raising aimed at curbing the spread of antisemitic views. TheSpecial Rapporteur also directs recommendations to the media, to civil society, and to theUnited Nations on efforts that all stakeholders can take to combat antisemitism and promotereligious freedom and pluralism.* A/74/xx*
* This report was submitted after the deadline to reflect the most recent developments.A/74/358Advance Unedited VersionDistr.: General23 September 2019Original: EnglishPage 2A/74/3582Activities1.In its resolution 40/10, adopted on 21 March 2019, the Human Rights Councilextended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for a periodof three years. The current mandate holder, Ahmed Shaheed assumed his mandate on 1November 2016 following his appointment to the mandate by the Council during its thirty-second session.2.An overview of the activities of the mandate holder between 1 August 2018 and 28February 2019 is provided in the report that he presented to the Human Rights Council at itsfortieth session (A/HRC/40/58). In addition, he undertook a country mission to theNetherlands from 28 March to 5 April and to Sri Lanka from 15-26 August. The SpecialRapporteur participated in workshops that examined the overlaps between freedom ofreligion or belief and the Sustainable Development Goals, held in Geneva and in Oslo andorganized workshops in Montevideo, Buenos Aires, Tunis, Colombo and Geneva to assessthe relationship between gender equality and freedom of religion or belief. He addressed theInformal Meeting of the United Nations General Assembly on Combatting Antisemitism andOther Forms of Hate, on 26 June, in New York. In July, he participated in the GlobalConference on Media Freedom held in London and the Ministerial Conference on ReligiousFreedom held in Washington, DC.3.The details of the consultations that he convened for the present report are listed inparagraph eight below.Combatting Antisemitism to Eliminate Discrimination andIntolerance Based on Religion or Belief4.Amidst an apparent surge in hate motivated by religious animus worldwide, hostility,discrimination and violence motivated by antisemitism has received scant attention as ahuman rights issue. Overall, data collection worldwide is limited, and in many statesantisemitic harassment is significantly underreported.1 Nevertheless, reports of hostility,discrimination and violence motivated by antisemitism have increased in many parts of theworld.2 Official and non-governmental monitors worldwide recorded a significant rise in thenumber of antisemitic incidents in 2017 and 2018 and reports of violent manifestations ofantisemitism (physical attacks, with or without weapons) increased by 13 per cent globallyin 2018.3 Studies also demonstrate that anxiety is high among Jewish communities innumerous jurisdictions. One survey found that 85 percent of respondents felt antisemitismwas a serious problem in their country, 34 percent reported that they avoided visiting Jewishevents or sites because of safety concerns, and 38 percent had considered emigrating becausethey did not feel safe as a Jew.4 Additionally, some States impose formal barriers to theenjoyment of freedom of religion or belief by Jewish persons, including measures thatprohibit the donning of religious attire or impose, though not necessarily for antisemiticmotivations, limits on the religious rite of male circumcision and restrictions on kosherslaughter practices.5.Antisemitism, expressed through acts of discrimination, intolerance or violencetowards Jews violates a number of human rights including the right to freedom of religion orbelief. Attacks on synagogues, schools, and the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, forexample, are explicit infringements that interfere with the concrete realities and practices ofan individual’s religious life. Likewise, acts engendered by antisemitism which resultin social exclusion and harassment of Jews can violate the right to freedom of religion or1 Consultations with Jewish communities conducted by the Special Rapporteur.2 See http://www.kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/Antisemitism%20Worldwide%202018.pdf.3 See http://www.kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/Antisemitism%20Worldwide%202018.pdf.4 EU Fundamental Rights Agency, Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism - Second survey ondiscrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/2nd-survey-discrimination-hate-crime-against-jews (FRA survey), p. 16.Page 3A/74/3583belief, in particular the right to be free from discrimination and intolerance on the basis ofone’s religion (or perceived religion).6.The Special Rapporteur is mandated by Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 5 toidentify existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religionor belief and to examine incidents and governmental actions that are incompatible with theprovisions of the 1981 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms ofIntolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief.6 The right to freedom ofreligion or belief includes the right of individuals to practice and profess a religion or beliefand the right to be free from discrimination by reason of identification (real or imaginary)with groups defined by reference to religion (or absence of religion).77.This report explores the global phenomenon of antisemitism – prejudice against, orhatred of, Jews and its impact on the right to freedom of religion or belief of Jewishindividuals and communities worldwide. The report calls attention to the perniciousimpediment antisemitism poses to the human rights of not just Jewish individuals, but to therights of all in societies in which this insidious hatred is unaddressed. As UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, remarked, “…anti-Semitism is not a problem for the Jewishcommunity alone”. It threatens “all people’s human rights” and “where there is anti-Semitism, there are likely to be other discriminatory ideologies and forms of bias”.8 Thereport further highlights government restrictions which may undermine the right of Jewishpersons to freedom of religion or belief, documents incidents and trends related to antisemiticviolence, and explores the drivers of antisemitism along with the promulgation of antisemiticattitudes, online and off-line, that engender these acts. The Special Rapporteur concludes byidentifying how various manifestations of antisemitism infringe upon the right to freedom ofreligion or belief, including intolerance and discrimination, and recommends that States takeurgent steps using a human rights-based approach to address both the root causes and impactsof this global phenomenon.I. Methodology8.Information for this report was primarily gathered from victims of antisemitic acts;representatives and religious leaders of Jewish communities; rights monitors and advocates;along with academics, legal experts and security officials in nine countries through a seriesof consultations in Buenos Aires, Argentina; Ottawa and Toronto, Canada; Paris, France;Vienna, Austria; Budapest, Hungary; Oslo, Norway, The Hague and Rotterdam, TheNetherlands; New York, United States; and in London, United Kingdom from 28 March –27 June 2019. Participants in an initial meeting held in Geneva in May 2018 included arepresentative of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, thePersonal Representative of the Chairperson-in-Office of the Organization for Security andCooperation in Europe (OSCE) on Combating Anti-Semitism, the European CommissionCoordinator on Combating Antisemitism, the United Nations High Commissioner for HumanRights and representatives of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. TheSpecial Rapporteur also gathered information from representatives of Jewish communitiesand institutions located in Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq,Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, and Tunisia that participated in a series of meetings held inWashington, D.C. United States.95 A/RES/HRC/6/37.6 A/RES/36/55.7 A/RES/36/55, Article 2.8 https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-09-26/secretary-generals-remarks-high-level-event-power-education.9 These consultations were organised with the cooperation of the Office of the High Commissioner forHuman Rights, Ralph Bunche Institute, UNESCO, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, JacobBlaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, World Jewish Congress, European JewishCongress, the UK All Party Group on Antisemitism, the Government of Canada, and the Governmentof Norway.Page 4A/74/35849.The Special Rapporteur invited civil society and other stakeholders to submitinformation about laws and policies affecting the right to freedom of religion or belief ofJews along with information about civil society and government responses to those incidentsin their respective countries.10Dozens of reports and studies produced by monitors,researchers, and rights organizations actors, many of them referenced in the present report,were also reviewed.10.Finally, nineteen states responded to a series of questions circulated by the SpecialRapporteur on 4 March 2019 to all UN member states. The survey inquired about legalprotections for the right to freedom of religion or belief for Jewish persons; about measuresfor identifying, monitoring and responding to incidents that constitute incitement to, orperpetuation of acts of discrimination, hostility or violence against Jewish persons; and aboutbest practices for combatting antisemitism in their countries.II. Key Findings11.The Jewish population was estimated to be 14,606,000 worldwide in 2018, with 15countries in the Americas, Western and Eastern Europe being home to the largest populationsoutside of Israel. It is estimated that almost forty-five per cent (approximately 6,469,800persons) are located in the Americas, the vast majority of whom reside in the United Statesof America, where they make up two percent of the total population, and approximately390,000 of whom reside in Canada.11 Some 1,015,000 Jews (6.9 percent of the world’s Jewry)live in Western European countries. There are approximately 320,000 Jews in EasternEurope,12 and approximately 200,000 Jews in the Asia-Pacific & Oceania regions,13 wherethe largest populations reside in Australia (91,000),14 Iran (10,000)15 and New Zealand(7,000).16 There are also approximately 7,179,400 Jews in the Middle East and North Africa,the vast majority of whom live in Israel,17 and approximately 70,000 Jews live in SouthAfrica.1812.Aptly coined, ‘the oldest hatred’, prejudice against or hatred of Jews, known asantisemitism, draws on various theories and conspiracies, articulated through myriad tropesand stereotypes, and manifested in manifold ways; even in places where few or no Jewishpersons live. This includes ancient narratives promoted by religious doctrine andpseudoscientific theories offered in the latter half of the second millennium to legitimizebigotry, discrimination and genocide of Jews. More contemporary forms of antisemitismemploy narratives about the role of Jews in society –– frequently informing or intersectingwith other forms of bigotry, misogyny, and discrimination.A. Historical narratives and tropes13.Some of the oldest antisemitic narratives can be traced back to theologies thatattributed collective guilt for the murder of Jesus to Jews–– treating them as “malicious” and“evil”. Such tropes, which identify Jews as descendants of Judas or Satan and depict them as“cunning, controlling, and powerful”, have been promoted through religious teachings,depicted in art and have sometimes motivated contemporary antisemitic acts. Other tropesreflect contempt for the Jewish religion, including the recurring false allegation that Jews10 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/FreedomReligion/Pages/ReportSRtotheGeneralAssembly.aspx.11 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-population-of-the-world.12 Countries included Albania, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania, North Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, SerbiaSlovakia, Slovenia and Ukraine.13 https://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/global-religious-landscape-jew/.14 http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A28.15 http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A28.16 http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A28.17 Countries surveyed: Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, and Yemen.18 http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=POP&f=tableCode%3A28.Page 5A/74/3585engage in the ritual murder of non-Jews (the “blood libel”), continue to pervadecontemporary discourse.1914.Antisemitism is also often expressed in racialized terms; characterizing Jewish peopleas sub-humans that must be excluded from ‘normal’ human civilization.Thispseudoscientific approach was used to justify the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, whileantisemitic expressions of Holocaust denial seek to repudiate or minimize the harrowinghistorical facts of the systematic murder of six million Jews.15.Assertions that Jews are a “wandering” people without a land or nation, whosemembers conspire to advance their collective interests to the detriment of their ‘host’countries, or that Jews constitute a “powerful, global cabal” that manipulates governments,the media, banks, the entertainment industry and other institutions for malevolent purposes,are also expressions of antisemitic attitudes. Many of these negative stereotypes werepromulgated in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a discredited forgery widelydisseminated in the Middle East alleging a secret Jewish plan for world domination, writtenin the late nineteenth century. These stereotypes often underpin modern conspiracy theoriesattributing responsibility to Jews for everything from immigration to terrorist attacks.B. Trends in contemporary rhetoric16.The Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the growing use of antisemitic tropes by whitesupremacists including neo-Nazis and members of radical Islamist groups in slogans, images,stereotypes and conspiracy theories meant to incite and justify hostility, discrimination andviolence against Jews.17.The Special Rapporteur also takes note of numerous reports of an increase in manycountries of what is sometimes called ‘left-wing’ antisemitism, in which individuals claimingto hold anti-racist and anti-imperialist views employ antisemitic narratives or tropes in thecourse of expressing anger at policies or practices of the Government of Israel. In some cases,individuals expressing such views have engaged in Holocaust denial; in others, they haveconflated Zionism, the self-determination movement of the Jewish people, with racism;claimed Israel does not have a right to exist; and accused those expressing concern overantisemitism as acting in bad faith. He emphasizes that it is never acceptable to render Jewsas proxies for the Government of Israel. He further recalls that Secretary-General Guterreshas characterized “attempts to delegitimize the right of Israel to exist, including calls for itsdestruction” as a contemporary manifestation of antisemitism.2018.The Special Rapporteur further notes claims that the objectives, activities and effectsof the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement are fundamentally antisemitic.21 Themovement promotes boycotts and stockholder divestment initiatives against Israeli orinternational corporations and institutions that BDS supporters maintain are ‘complicit’ inviolations of the human rights of Palestinians by the Government of Israel. Critics of BDSassert that the architects of the campaign have indicated that one of its core aims is to bringabout the end of the State of Israel and further allege that some individuals have employedantisemitic narratives, conspiracies and tropes in the course of expressing support for theBDS campaign. The Special Rapporteur notes that these allegations are rejected by the BDSmovement, including by one of its principal actors, who asserted that the movement is“inspired by the South African anti-apartheid and U.S. Civil Rights movements;”22maintained that they oppose all forms of racism and that they take steps against those whouse antisemitic tropes in the campaign, and stressed that they employ “nonviolent measures19 See, e.g., Mark Weitzman, Antisemitism: A Historical Surveyhttp://www.museumoftolerance.com/education/teacher-resources/holocaust-resources/antisemitism-a-historical-survey.html.20 See https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-09-26/secretary-generals-remarks-high-level-event-power-education.21 See, e.g., “https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/world/middleeast/bds-israel-boycott-antisemitic.html”.22 Information gathered from responses by the Palestinian BDS National Committee (BNC) to questionsraised by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, 15 July 2019.Page 6A/74/3586to bring about Israel’s compliance with its obligations under international law.”23 Concernabout the adoption of laws that penalize support for the BDS movement, including thenegative impact of such laws on efforts to combat antisemitism have also been communicatedto the Special Rapporteur. He recalls that international law recognizes boycotts asconstituting legitimate forms of political expression, and that non-violent expressions ofsupport for boycotts are, as a general matter, legitimate speech that should be protected.However, he stresses that expression which draws upon antisemitic tropes or stereotypes,rejects the right of Israel to exist, or advocates discrimination against Jewish individualsbecause of their religion should be condemned.C. Regional Trends19.Public attitudes towards Jews vary across the world. In eastern European countries,for example, biased attitudes among the general public towards Jews are apparentlyprevalent. One study revealed that 55.98 percent of Poles surveyed reported that they wouldnot accept a Jew as a family member,24 and some 42 percent of Hungarians polled said theythought Jews held too much sway over the worlds of finance and international affairs.25 InPoland, recently, an effigy of Judas depicted as a caricature of a hooked-nose Jew, wasbeaten, beheaded, burned, and drowned as part of a revived Easter holiday ritual.2620.Experts and monitors reported that the proliferation and gains in political prominencemade by Neo-Nazi, right-wing political parties, are the source of a preponderance ofantisemitic incidents in that part of the world.27 Political parties, including Jobbik in Hungary,they report, offer hate-filled antisemitic, discourses varnished over with appeals to‘nationalism’.28 Such appeals offer classic narratives and tropes that characterize Jews as‘powerful conspirators’ to their audiences in order to scapegoat them, immigrants, Muslimsor Roma –– depending on the context –– for the economic insecurities being experienced inthose countries.21.Jews in Poland are subject to narratives meant to humiliate and demean them, alongwith institutional measures reportedly meant to disavow aspects of the country’s Holocausthistory and to limit expression. In 2018, for example, an Amendment to the Act on theInstitute of National Remembrance was signed into law by Polish President Andrzej Duda.It criminalized false public statements that ascribe to the Polish nation collectiveresponsibility in Holocaust-related crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity,or war crimes, or which "grossly reduce the responsibility of the actual perpetrators". Thelegislation was amended four months later, and a joint Israel-Poland statement condemningboth antisemitism and anti-Polish sentiment was issued.29 Ukraine also adopted a legalprohibition on criticism of the ‘Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-UPA), a groupwhich collaborated with the Nazis and took part in ethnic cleansing including the Lviv Jewishpogrom and the Volyn massacre.3022.Media reports suggest that links between American and European neo-Nazis arestrong and growing stronger.31 Sources in some countries also raised concern about theincreasing prevalence of antisemitic rhetoric that appears to be pervading evermore febrilepolitical climates. In this regard, monitors, academics and researchers spoke to the challenges23 Ibid.24 See, http://forward.com/news/world/360967/anti-semitism-spikes-in-poland-stoked-by-populist-surge-against-refugees/.25 https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/.26 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/jewish-poland-effigy-easter-ritual-burned-judas-a8880801.html and https://www.algemeiner.com/2019/04/22/polish-catholic-church-leader-condemns-shocking-easter-ritual-involving-antisemitic-judas-effigy/.27 While antisemitism is central to the ideology, neo-Nazism also embraces Islamophobia, xenophobia,racism, homophobia and discrimination against people with disabilities.28 See, e.g. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/sites/default/files/Jobbik-Party-Fact-Sheet-final.pdf.29 https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/poland-grants-initial-approval-controversial-death-camp-bill-180967975/.30 https://www.osce.org/odihr/395318.31 See, A/HRC/38/53 para 10.Page 7A/74/3587presented by what appears to be a resurgence of classic antisemitism in online chatter andoffline political activity being advanced by right-wing supremist groups. They alsoexpressed alarm about what appears to be an increasing use of antisemitic tropes byprominent political figures, along with the politicization of these incidents that only serve toinflame tensions. In the United Kingdom, the Equality and Human Rights Commissionlaunched in 2019 an investigation into allegations of antisemitism within The Labour Party.3223.The Special Rapporteur also received reports that Jewish university students in theUS, Canada, and Western Europe are experiencing increased expressions of antipathy andhostility, particularly directed towards members of Jewish student organizations andparticipants in such activities, that seriously impact their rights to freedoms of association,peaceful assembly and their rights to manifest their religious beliefs. In some instances,Jewish students reported being condemned as complicit in the actions of the Israeligovernment by fellow students and organizations aligned with the political “left”. 3324.The Special Rapporteur received numerous reports that in countries in the Middle Eastand North Africa (MENA), Jews are frequently conflated with Israel and Zionism, even incountries with a deep history of Jewish life. Literature demonizing Jews is prevalent in themedia in this region.34 School textbooks in Saudi Arabia contained antisemitic passages, withsome passages even urging violence against Jews.35In August, the United NationsCommittee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed serious concern“about the existence of hate speech in certain media outlets, especially those controlled byHamas, social media, public officials’ statements and school curricula and textbooks, whichfuels hatred and may incite violence, particularly hate speech against Israelis, which at timesalso fuels antisemitism.”3625.Though there are small Jewish populations in the Asia Pacific region, representativesreported some particularly concerning examples of pervasive antisemitic rhetoric, oftenreportedly stemming from popular association of all Jews with Israel and its policies.37 Forexample over 57 percent of teachers and lecturers and 53.74 percent of students in Indonesiaagreed with a survey statement claiming that “Jews are the enemies of Islam.”38D. Antisemitic Violence: Regional Trends26.A number of exceptionally violent antisemitic incidents have had an outsized impacton Jewish individuals’ sense of security in recent years. On 27 October 2018, a gunmanattacked the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pennsylvania, United States, murdering elevencongregants and injuring seven others in the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history. Hiscomments during the attack and social media activity on the days preceding it revealed abelief in a host of antisemitic conspiracy theories rooted in a far-right, white supremacistideology.39 Six months later, on 29 April 2019, a gunman similarly motivated by whitesupremacist ideology killed one congregant and wounded three others at a synagogue in thePoway California community, United States.4032 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/inquiries-and-investigations/investigation-labour-party.33 Consultations Jewish communities from April – June 2019.34 Examples: In Saudi Arabia, the newspaper Al-Iqtisadiyya printed an editorial cartoon showing agrinding machine in the shape of the Star of David, grinding Gazans into skulls. In Algeria,Echourouk El Youmi published an article claiming that Jews had been plotting against Muslims forcenturies, that Jews were responsible for most of the disasters that have befallen Muslims, and thatJews controlled the media, cinema, art, and fashion. In Qatar, the privately-owned Al-Raya newspaperpublished a cartoon showing a witch with a Star of David wand causing inter-Arab disputes.35 https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/teaching-hate-and-violence.36 UN Doc. CERD/C/PSE/CO/1-2, para. 19(c).37 Consultations with Jewish community representatives from Indonesia.38 https://conveyindonesia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Survey-Nasional-Keberagamaan-GenZ.pdf.39 https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/10/28/analyzing-terrorists-social-media-manifesto-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooters-posts-gab.40 https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/New-Details-Emerge-in-Deadly-Poway-Synagogue-Shooting-511375582.html; https://ctc.usma.edu/terrorist-attacks-jewish-targets-west-2012-2019-Page 8A/74/358827.Earlier, between 2012 and 2015, French citizens carried out violent attacks resultingin deaths at a Hyper Casher kosher supermarket in Paris, at the Jewish Museum of Belgium,and at a Jewish day school in Toulouse. In 2015, a Danish citizen who had pledged loyaltyto the Islamic State carried out multiple attacks in Copenhagen, including one outside asynagogue while a bat mitzvah was being celebrated, killing a volunteer security guard. Thealleged perpetrators in all four of the above-mentioned cases were reportedly motivated byviolent Islamist-extremist ideology.41 In 2012, a suicide bomber allegedly affiliated withHezbollah detonated a bomb on a bus at Burgas airport in Bulgaria, killing five Israelitourists.42 In 2008, Islamist terrorists attacked the India Centre of the Jewish ChabadLubavitch movement as part of eleven coordinated shooting and bombings across Mumbai,killing five people, including a Rabbi.28.In 2017, some 58 percent (1,749) of hate crimes in the United States that weremotivated by bias against a person’s religious orientation were driven by antisemitic bias.43Approximately 41 percent (842) of all hate crimes committed in Canada in 2017 weremotivated by bias against people’s religious orientation, up 83 percent from the previousyear.4429.In Western Europe, French authorities reported that antisemitic acts increased by 74percent from 2017 to 2018,45 with antisemitic acts constituting half of all documented hatecrimes and close to 15 percent of the incidents involving physical violence.46 Germanauthorities reported a 10 percent rise in documented antisemitic acts from 2017 to 2018,including a 70 percent increase in violent acts.47 In May 2019, Germany’s governmentcommissioner on antisemitism warned Jews against wearing the kippa in public for fear oftheir safety.48 Similarly, civil society groups in the United Kingdom reported a 16 percentincrease in antisemitic incidents from 2017-2018.49 Reports indicated that Jews in the UnitedKingdom who wear visible indicators of their religion are especially susceptible to verbalattacks and harassment. Antisemitism increased in their country according to 89 percent ofrespondents in the Fundamental Rights Agency 2018 survey of the 12 European states thatcontain over 96 percent of European Union’s Jewish population.5030.The Special Rapporteur received numerous accounts concerning vandalism anddesecration of Jewish synagogues and cemeteries, as well as other recognizably Jewish sites.The Gothenberg Synagogue in Sweden was attacked in 2017. In March 2018, elevensuspected members of one violent neo-Nazi group were arrested in connection with thevandalization of the entrance to a Jewish cemetery outside Athens, Greece.51 The UN HighCommissioner for Human Rights recently condemned repeated instances of vandalism,including with swastikas, of a Holocaust memorial exhibition in Vienna, Austria.5231.The Special Rapporteur received accounts of attacks on Jewish sites in Moldova,where a Holocaust memorial was damaged before its unveiling and a Jewish cemetery wasthe target of an arson attack;53 in Hungary; and in the Czech Republic.atlantic-divide-european-american-attackers/.41 https://ctc.usma.edu/terrorist-attacks-jewish-targets-west-2012-2019-atlantic-divide-european-american-attackers/.42 https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/europe/bulgaria-implicates-hezbollah-in-deadly-israeli-bus-blast.html.43 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318.44 https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2019001/article/00008-eng.htm.45 https://www.france24.com/en/20190212-france-anti-semitism-acts-outrage-rise-vandalism-jewish-symbols-halimi-veil-bagelstein.46 http://www.kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/Antisemitism%20Worldwide%202018.pdf.47 https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/antisemitische-kriminalitaet-gewalt-gegen-juden-drastisch-gestiegen/23980318.html.48 https://www.dw.com/en/german-official-warns-jews-against-wearing-kippahs-in-public/a-48874433.49 https://cst.org.uk/news/blog/2019/02/07/antisemitic-incidents-report-2018.50 See, FRA survey.51 https://greekcitytimes.com/2018/03/07/greek-counter-terrorism-police-arrest-six-in-neo-nazi-combat-18-crackdown/.52 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24652&LangID=E.53 https://www.osce.org/odihr/317166?download=true.Page 9A/74/358932.In the MENA region, El Ghriba Synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia was attacked in 2018,54two synagogues in Shiraz, Iran were attacked in 2017,55 and a Jewish cemetery in Basateen,Cairo was vandalized in 2018.56 Authorities in both Egypt and Tunisia have taken securitymeasures to protect Jewish religious leaders, Jewish religious sites, and Jewish heritage sitesfrom being attacked, vandalized, or desecrated.57 In 2013, the synagogue in Surabaya,Indonesia was targeted by protests, threats and attacks, forcing the last synagogue in thecountry to shut down.58.33.In Australia, there were 366 antisemitic incidents logged from 1 October 2017 to 30September 2018.59 This included 156 attacks (3 physical, 88 harassment, 19 vandalism and46 graffiti) and 204 threats (email, postal mail, telephone, leaflets/posters) and represented a59 percent increase overall.60 It was reported that intimidation and harassment of Jews occursregularly around synagogues on the Jewish Sabbath when Jews are attending religiousservices.34.The Special Rapporteur notes news reports concerning recent antisemitic violence inArgentina.61 On the other hand, representatives of Jewish communities in Brazil, Chile,Colombia, and Mexico, reported to the Special Rapporteur that antisemitic hate crime isrelatively rare in their respective countries.E. Online manifestations of antisemitism35.Antisemitic hate speech is particularly prevalent online. Unanimous concern raisedby all those engaged for this report noted that platforms like GAB (The Free SpeechNetwork), 4Chan, and Twitter provide a forum for people who are geographically distantfrom one another to create networks in which they are able to share extreme antisemiticviews. A study of online antisemitic hate speech found on Twitter in English revealed 4.2million antisemitic tweets in one year alone, not including tweets of images or emojis.62Publicly prominent Jewish individuals and organizations are also specifically targeted withantisemitic comments online.36.Sixty-eight percent of all antisemitic discourse online originated in the United Statesin 2016. Analysts note that the number of individuals who use social media in the US (200million per week) far exceeds the number of social media users in all other countries, andthat the proportion of citizens in the US uploading antisemitic posts on social media platformsis equal to or less than that of other, smaller countries. In 2016, 8,000 antisemitic posts wereobserved across social media platforms in Canada. Most posts took the form of expressionsof hatred on Twitter.37.In 2016, approximately 2,700 antisemitic posts were seen on social networking sitesin Brazil, a relatively low number compared to the number of active users of social media.Most of the discourse originated on Twitter and in blog posts and consisted of expressions ofhatred against Jews. In Mexico, there were approximately 2,000 antisemitic posts seen onsocial media throughout 2016. Here too, most of the discourse consisted of expressions ofhatred that originated on Twitter. Civil society organizations registered a total of 404antisemitic incidents in Argentina in 2017, a 14 percent increase since 2016. Online incidentsaccounted for almost 90 percent of all incidents in Argentina reported in 2017. Thoseincidents were up significantly to 47 percent in 2014, compared with only three percent in2008. The circulation of antisemitic propaganda represented a key source of antisemitic54 https://www.jta.org/2018/01/15/israel/five-men-arrested-in-connection-with-firebomb-attack-on-synagogue-in-tunisia.55 https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/two-iranian-synagogues-in-shiraz-vandalized-1.5629841.56 https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/54105/Head-of-Egyptian-Jewish-community-My-father%E2%80%99s-tomb-was-vandalized.57 Consultations with Jewish communities.58 https://www.timesofisrael.com/indonesias-last-synagogue-an-intended-heritage-site-destroyed/.59 http://www.ecaj.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ECAJ-Antisemitism-Report-2018.pdf.60 Ibid.61 https://www.jta.org/2019/06/12/global/officials-alarmed-by-anti-semitic-assaults-in-argentina.62 https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.01644.Page 10A/74/35810manifestations reported in Western European countries. Online incidents constituted 41percent of the reported cases in the Netherlands, 45 percent of those registered in Austria,and the majority of antisemitic incidents reported in Italy and Switzerland.6338.In Australia, antisemitism is most frequently encountered online.64 In December 2017,Twitter disabled thousands of accounts promoting antisemitic hate, including the account ofAustralian Neo-Nazi group, Antipodean Resistance.65 However, many of those users latermigrated to Gab, a Twitter-like platform which permits hate speech. The Gab account is stillin use.6639.Antisemitism online includes far-right tropes that Jews spearhead feminist, LGBTI,and immigration movements as a method to perpetrate a “white genocide”: conspiracytheories that have been repeated in the online manifestos posted by far-right terrorists priorto mass shootings in synagogues. One study of the neo-Nazi web forum, Stormfront, foundthat more than 9,000 threads related to feminism had been established since its inception.67Of those threats, more than 60 percent mentioned Jews with many claiming that Jews areleading the feminist movement.68 Another study, focused on 4chan, found, conservatively,630,000 antisemitic posts in 2015, rising to 1.7 million in 2017. 69F. Government measures that may infringe upon freedom of religion orbelief40.The Special Rapporteur received information about official laws and policies thathave affected the ability of Jewish communities to manifest their religion. Representatives ofthe Jewish community in Morocco told the Special Rapporteur that Jewish prisoners areforbidden from bringing kosher food into prisons. In Egypt, there have been officialrestrictions on Jewish festivities including the festival commemorating the 19th centuryJewish Rabbi Yaakov Abu Hatzeira, which a court found should be permanently banned dueto “its violation of public order and morality and its contradiction with the reverence andpurity of religious rites.”7041.Governments in several countries have also adopted measures that prohibit non-stunned slaughter, which is the prescribed method of slaughtering an animal for foodproduction purposes practiced by the adherents of some religious traditions, including Jewsand Muslims. Non-stunned slaughter is banned in Slovenia71 and is highly regulated inAustria, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Cyprus.72 Poland is also consideringrestricting the export of kosher meat from Poland which could affect Jewish communitiesacross the continent.73 Sweden, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark require prior stunning beforeslaughter. Finland requires concurrent sedation; legislation is pending that would requireprior stunning. At the subnational level, two of Belgium’s three regions have recently enactedlaws requiring prior stunning, which will become effective in 2019 unless overturned bylitigation pending in Belgium’s constitutional court. There are currently no restrictions on theexport or import of kosher meat to these countries. The Council of Europe’s Convention forthe Protection of Animals for Slaughter and the European Union’s Council Regulation1099/2009 provides that animals should be stunned before they are slaughtered but allows63 http://www.kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/Antisemitism%20Worldwide%202018.pdf.64 Consultations with the Jewish community.65 http://www.ecaj.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/ECAJ-Antisemitism-Report-2018.pdf.66 Ibid.67 https://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/APT-Google-Report-2019.1547210385.pdf.68 Ibid.69 https://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/5982-Misogyny-and-Antisemitism-Briefing-April-2019-v1.pdf.70 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30626088.71 https://english.sta.si/1804329/slovenia-to-ban-ritual-slaughter.72 https://www.loc.gov/law/help/religious-slaughter/europe.php#_ftn118.73 https://forward.com/food/416983/all-the-european-countries-where-kosher-and-halal-meat-production-are-now/.Page 11A/74/35811Member States to derogate from the stunning requirement to allow for religious lawslaughter.42.No Eastern European country bans male circumcision. However, in Slovenia publicofficials have publicly criticized the ritual and Rabbis have been obstructed in carrying outthe procedure. Several European states have adopted or are considering adopting measuresrelated to circumcision.43.Restrictions on kosher meat or male circumcision do not appear to be driven solely byantisemitism, but they may interfere with the ability of Jews to observe rituals and ceremoniesin accordance with the precepts of one’s religion or belief.44.Jews face political exclusion in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the constitution barsanyone who is not one of the country’s three main ethnic groups – Bosniaks, Croats, andSerbs – from holding the Office of President or a seat in the national house of peoples; oneof two parliamentary houses. Though the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2009that this restriction discriminates against Jews (and Roma),74 the state has not amended theconstitution.45.In Canada, Jewish groups protested against adoption of Bill 21 by the government ofQuébec province on 16 June 2019. The Bill, which seeks to amend the Charter of humanrights and freedoms, claims that the wearing of religious symbols interferes with maintainingone’s duty towards the neutrality of the state and that, therefore, there is a need to amend theQuebec Charter to include a measure that restricts public servants, including police officers,judges and public-school teachers, from wearing religious attire or symbols while performingtheir duties. This measure will discriminate against persons, including Jews, who holdreligious convictions that must be manifested through attire and symbols as they carry outtheir daily lives.G. Monitoring and reporting antisemitism46.Monitoring mechanisms for hate crimes are non-existent in many states. States withsuch mechanisms have adopted diverse approaches for collecting information about hatecrimes, with different states covering myriad criminal offences and bias motivations. In manycases, information is rarely comprehensive or disaggregated, making it difficult to captureimportant elements of antisemitic acts necessary to identifying measured and informedresponses. Unfortunately, many states fail to report altogether. The Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has endeavoured since 2004 to collect data onantisemitism and other hate crimes through its Office for Democratic Institutions and HumanRights (ODIHR), but only 15 of the 57 member states sent in data on antisemitic incidents in2017.7547.Under-reporting is also is significant problem. In one survey 79 percent of respondentswho had experienced harassment in the five years preceding the survey did not report abuse,primarily because they believed nothing would change if they did.76 Civil society and OCSEreports convey that many Jewish individuals do not feel comfortable reporting theirexperiences to law enforcement owing to the apparent normalisation of incidents, distrust inthe criminal justice system, lack of resources, or fear that reporting a hate crime will revealtheir Jewish identity to the public.77 In some instances, victims may not identify the crimeagainst them as a hate crime, either because the experience is so common among those intheir circumstances or because they are unaware that a crime with a hate motive is moreserious than the same crime without such a motive.7848.Moreover, in 2014 fewer women than men reportedly experienced antisemiticharassment (17 percent compared to 24 percent).79 These results could evidence a greater74 Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (27996/06 and 34836/06).75 http://hatecrime.osce.org/2017-data.76 FRA survey, p 12.77 Anna Zielinska, ODIHR advisor on Antisemitism, consultation. See also, FRA survey.78 See, FRA survey.79 https://www.osce.org/odihr/320021?download=true.Page 12A/74/35812threat generally felt by women during periods of disruption or it might signify significantunder-reporting. Such under-reporting distorts statistics and may create the impression thathate crimes are less prevalent than they actually are.49.The Special Rapporteur also observes that most civil society entities monitoringantisemitism, including Jewish organizations, do not substantially engage with UnitedNations human rights monitors. This lack of communication has inhibited the ability of UNexperts and the inter-governmental bodies to which the experts report to address antisemiticacts and recommend actions to combat them.8050.The aforementioned myriad forms of antisemitism are reflected in the “WorkingDefinition of Antisemitism” adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance(IHRA) in 2016.81 The product of an initiative first undertaken in 2005 by the EuropeanUnion Monitoring Center, the Working Definition was developed as a non-legal tool tofacilitate more accurate and uniform monitoring of antisemitism across the countries thathave adopted it and educating officials and the broader public about the diverse forms ofantisemitism.51.The Working Definition defines antisemitism generally as: “a certain perception ofJews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestationsof antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” The definition further offersthe following illustrations:• Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewishcollectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any othercountry cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews withconspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things gowrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employssinister stereotypes and negative character traits.• Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, theworkplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context,include, but are not limited to:-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name ofa radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegationsabout Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especiallybut not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jewscontrolling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imaginedwrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for actscommitted by non-Jews.-Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality ofthe genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germanyand its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggeratingthe Holocaust.-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the allegedpriorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claimingthat the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected ordemanded of any other democratic nation.80 Submission by Jacob Blaustein Institute.81 https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/working-definition-antisemitism.Page 13A/74/35813-Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g.,claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of theHolocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property– such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because theyare, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available toothers and is illegal in many countries.52.The definition has been adopted by a number of countries and agencies,82 some ofwhich have taken diverse approaches in the ways they have utilized it. It has been endorsedby the European Parliament, which has recommended its adoption by EU member states,83and the Secretary-General of the Organization for American States.84 It is used by a numberof civil society organizations monitoring antisemitism and was recognized by the UNSecretary-General in 2018.8553.The Special Rapporteur notes that critics of the Working Definition have expressedconcern that it can be applied in ways that could effectively restrict legitimate politicalexpression, including criticism of policies and practices being promoted by the Governmentof Israel which violate the rights of Palestinians. Such concerns are focused on three of theillustrative examples attached to the definition namely, claiming that the existence of Israelis a racist endeavour; requiring of Israel a behaviour not demanded of other democratic states;equating Israeli government policy with that of the Nazis. The Special Rapporteur notes thatthe IHRA definition does not designate these as examples of speech that are ipso factoantisemitic and further observes that a contextual assessment is required under the definitionto determine if they are antisemitic. Nevertheless, the potential chilling effects of the use ofthese examples by public bodies on speech that is critical of Israeli government policies andpractices must be taken seriously as should the concern that criticism of Israel sometimes hasbeen used to incite hatred towards Jews in general such as through expression that feed ontraditional antisemitic stereotypes of Jews. Therefore, the use of the definition, as a non-legaleducational tool, could minimize such chilling effects and contribute usefully to efforts tocombat antisemitism. Where public bodies use the definition in any regulatory context, duediligence must be exercised to ensure that freedom of expression within the law is protectedfor all. The Special Rapporteur affirms that the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition ofadvocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,hostility or violence, General Comment 34 of the Human Rights Committee and GeneralRecommendation 35 of CERD provide relevant guidance in this regard.54.The Special Rapporteur recalls that, as discussed below, international human rightsinstruments also stress the responsibility of public officials to refrain from expressingreligious, racial and other forms of intolerance, as well as a duty to condemn expression that,even if protected by law, nevertheless reflects antisemitic attitudes. As set out in the RabatPlan of Action, “Political and religious leaders should refrain from using messages ofintolerance or expressions which may incite violence, hostility or discrimination; but theyalso have a crucial role to play in speaking out firmly and promptly against intolerance,82 As of August 2019, the Working Definition had been adopted by Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada,Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Moldova, TheNetherlands, Romania, Slovakia, and the United Kingdom. It is also used by the U.S. StateDepartment and the U.S. Department of Education, and the Ministry of Education of Greece.83 https://www.timesofisrael.com/european-parliament-votes-to-adopt-working-definition-of-anti-semitism/.84 https://www.oas.org/en/about/speech_secretary_general.asp?sCodigo=19-0036.85 https://www.un.org/press/en/2018/sgsm19252.doc.htm.Page 14A/74/35814discriminatory stereotyping and instances of hate speech.”86 The Special Rapporteurconsiders that tools such as the Working Definition, when used as a non-legal tool that relieson a contextual assessment of when speech can be deemed antisemitic, would serve avaluable fun'ction by communicating to public officials and the public at large widely-sharedconcerns about explicit and implicit forms that contemporary manifestations of antisemitismcan take.H. Best Practices55.The majority of groups in Western Europe and the Americas engaged for the presentreport expressed satisfaction with measures taken by governments to protect Jews in theirrespective countries. Fifty-six percent of those surveyed by FRA positively assess theirnational governments’ efforts to ensure the security needs of the Jewish communities. 87 TheSpecial Rapporteur notes that many governments, including those that responded to thesurvey circulated for this report, have taken steps to combat antisemitism and pledged tostrengthen their efforts. Such steps include the establishment of hate crime legislation whichdenotes an unequivocal response to the inciting feature of hate crimes. Countries in theAmericas such as the United States, Canada, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, for example, haveadopted such legislation and the majority of the OSCE countries have established hate crimestatutes in their jurisdictions. Authorities in major cities in the United States, such as NewYork, have also established specific task forces that are supported by trained law enforcementofficials to monitor, identify, and respond to hate crimes.88 In 2017, Poland created a policecoordinator for combatting hate online. Sweden has a national contact point on hate crime.56.The Norwegian government reported that its Action Plan Against Antisemitism(2016-2020) takes a multidisciplinary approach, having adopted hate crime laws, establishedmechanisms for monitoring, investigating and reporting on antisemitic acts, and supportinginitiatives that inform about the diversity in Jewish life and history in Norway and monitorattitudes in the population. In the Netherlands, hate speech online and offline is punishable.In addition, other measures to combat antisemitism include strengthening local approachesthat promote dialogue between different religions, educational projects aimed at preventingantisemitic chanting in soccer stadiums and supporting teachers to discuss sensitive issueslike antisemitism and Holocaust-denial in the classroom. The federal budget in Germanyincludes funds to compensate victims and the bereaved of extremist violent crimes (hardshippayments).57.Unfortunately, satisfactory responses to tackle the frontier of ubiquitous antisemitismonline have been elusive. Member states continue to test approaches for responding toantisemitic attitudes, particularly those which incite hostility, discrimination and violencewhile respecting the right to freedom of expression and opinion. In 2016 the EuropeanCommission together with Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft adopted an EU code of conductto tackle online hate speech within 24 hours in Europe.58.Some states have increased their security measures around synagogues, with somecountries placing guards outside synagogues and requiring state security services to vet anyperson wishing to enter or visit them. Others have committed funding to support rebuilding.Germany submitted that the state is rebuilding synagogues, bears half the costs of the upkeepof Jewish cemeteries and has numerous public places of remembrance and memorial sitesspecifically devoted to Jewish victims of the Holocaust.59.In Morocco, the government has been making a concerted effort to work with NGOsto preserve and restore Jewish culture, including 12 Jewish cemeteries, and to open a newJewish museum in Fez. Egypt is also working to restore and protect the second oldest Jewishcemetery in the world, and to open a new Jewish museum, in efforts spearheaded by an NGO86 A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, annex, para 36.87 FRA survey, p 12.88 Information gathered from consultation with New York communities, 11 April 2019, where membersof the NYS Hate Crimes Task Force participated.Page 15A/74/35815but supported by the government.89 In Tunisia, the State provides security for all synagoguesand partially subsidizes their maintenance and restoration costs. Senior state fun'ctionariesparticipate in important Jewish festivals to demonstrate solidarity.9060.In Sweden, a public body, the Living History Forum (LHF) produces educationalexhibition material and materials for the classroom on democracy and human rights and usesthe Holocaust and other crimes against humanity as a starting point. Many states teach aboutthe Holocaust in schools. However, the Special Rapporteur notes the concern amongst manystakeholders that Holocaust education is not enough to effectively teach people to recognizeand respond to antisemitism. Empathy training, religious education and modern images aboutJews should be promoted through education for children.III. Conclusions: The impact of antisemitism on the right tofreedom of religion or belief61.The 1981 UN Declaration unequivocally condemns discrimination and intolerance onthe basis of religion or belief. Its article 2(2) defines intolerance and discrimination based onreligion or belief as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion orbelief and having as its purpose or its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition,enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis.”62.The Special Rapporteur is alarmed by the increase in antisemitism in many countries,driven by sources including individuals motivated by white supremacist and radical Islamistideologies. Furthermore, he is alarmed by violent attacks targeting Jewish communitiesworldwide and by information indicating that some authorities have allegedly incited,directly engaged in, or failed to respond to violent or threatening antisemitic actscommissioned by private actors. He is also concerned at the apparent increase in expressionsof antisemitism emanating from sources on the political left as well as with discriminatorylaws, regulations and policies of States.63.As a result of this increase in antisemitism, members of the Jewish communities in anumber of countries have reported that they are increasingly reluctant to display religiousattire, such as the kippah, or to carry out public discussions in a traditional languageindicative of their ethno-religious heritage (Hebrew) for fear of being subject to harassment,discrimination or violence. Individuals also report abstaining from identifying publicly asJews, expressing their cultural identity or attending Jewish religious and cultural events –effectively excluding Jews from public life. In many places, Jewish communities have beencompelled by the threats they face to seek or establish extensive security measures for theirplaces of worship, their schools, and other religious and cultural sites. It is, therefore, criticalthat governments be expeditious now in their efforts to combat antisemitism, which not onlyimpairs the human rights of Jews, but also, if left unchecked in any society, will serve toundermine peace and security for all.64.It is impossible to deduce the full extent of antisemitic acts committed with anycertainty –– either globally or in any one country –– given the disparities in monitoring andreporting methodologies and the serious and pervasive under-reporting of antisemitic acts byvictims worldwide. Consequently, policymakers may be challenged when trying to employdata to ascertain the prevalence and impact of hate crimes, or the efficacy of existingresponses. However, existing data does indicate that antisemitic acts are on the riseworldwide, which requires urgent and effective action by States to combat the phenomenon.65.In many countries with smaller or non-existent Jewish communities, however,including in the Middle East and North Africa and the Asia-Pacific regions, authorities donot monitor antisemitic incidents, hate speech, or hate crimes. Nevertheless, reports byrepresentatives of non-governmental organizations, provided directly to the SpecialRapporteur confirmed that in some cases antisemitic attitudes appear to be prevalent,tolerated and even propagated by State officials.89 Consultation with the Drop of Milk Foundation, Egypt.90 A/HRC/40/58/Add.1, para 47.Page 16A/74/3581666.Moreover, manifestations of antisemitic attitudes, including antisemitic hate crimes,online and offline not only affect their victims, but also can evoke fear amongst Jewishcommunities, marginalize individuals in vulnerable situations, promote disinformation andcan incite hatred, discrimination and violence. As outlined by the Special Rapporteur’spredecessor, “[t]he spread of negative stereotypes and prejudices … poisons the relationshipbetween different communities and puts people belonging to religious minorities in avulnerable situation.”91 Additionally, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms ofracism has noted that Holocaust revisionism contributes to the rehabilitation anddissemination of Nazism and creates fertile ground for nationalist and neo-Nazidemonstrations.92Hate speech and stigmatization of Jews can undermine externalexpressions of the right to freedom of religion or belief.67.There is limited research on the gendered aspects of antisemitism. Research conductedby the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in the UK found that while women are less likelyto be a victim of an antisemitic attack (14 percent women vs 74 percent men), marginallymore women avoid public Jewish events for safety reasons (24 percent vs 21 percent) orremove symbols identifying them as Jewish in public (55 percent vs 50 percent) than men.93In accordance with a human rights based approach, States and civil society should ensure thatframeworks to address both antisemitism and sexism pay attention to the intersectingreligious and gendered identities.68.There is not a more graphic example than the Holocaust of how religious and racialhatred can lead to genocide; and there have been many cases since showing how indifferenceto manifestations of such hatred can lead to the destruction of societies. The SpecialRapporteur emphasizes that under international human rights law, States are required to enactor rescind legislation, where necessary, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion orbelief, including against Jews, and to take all appropriate measures to combat intolerance andviolence on such grounds, including where such acts are manifested by private persons.Article 20 (2) of the ICCPR imposes upon States Parties the duty to “prohibit by law” anyadvocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,hostility, or violence. Similarly, Article 4 (a) of the ICERD requires States to declare as anoffence punishable by law, “incitement to racial discrimination, as well as acts of violence orincitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnicorigin”.69.While a robust approach to combating manifestations of hatred is required, criminalor other punitive measures should only be used as a last resort where less restrictive measureshave failed.94 The Human Rights Committee, CERD and the Rabat Plan of Action have allsuggested that an intent to incite discrimination, hostility or violence should be required ifspeech or other form of incitement is to be criminalized under international standards.95Furthermore, the Rabat Plan of Action recommends that domestic legal frameworks onincitement to hatred expressly refer to article 20 (2) of the Covenant and include robustdefinitions of key terms such as “hatred”, “hostility”, “advocacy” and “incitement” asdefined in the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality.96 Accordingly,States should aim to combat speech that does not meet this threshold of Article 20 (2),91 A/HRC/22/51, para 47.92 See, A/HRC/38/53, para 15.93 See, https://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/5982-Misogyny-and-Antisemitism-Briefing-April-2019-v1.pdf.94 See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para 34.95 The term “advocacy” necessarily implies intention. See, A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para 29; Seegenerally Human Rights Comm., General Comment No. 34, CCPR/C/GC/34 (describing theapplication of art. 19 of the ICCPR on freedoms of opinion and expression) Additionally, in its 2013General Recommendation 35 on racial hate speech the CERD Committee published guidance thatState parties should recognize as “important elements” of any offence of incitement “the intention ofthe speaker and the imminent risk or likelihood that the conduct desired or intended by the speakerwill result from the speech in question.”.96 See A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 21; https://www.article19.org/data/files/pdfs/standards/the-camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expression-and-equality.pdf.Page 17A/74/35817primarily through counter speech and educational measures, consistent with internationalhuman rights standards.70.The Special Rapporteur notes that both impunity for antisemitic hate crimes andsuppression of speech that does not carry criminal intent can undermine the urgent effortsneeded to combat antisemitism. He therefore underscores the importance of taking urgentaction to address antisemitism and of doing so within a wider human rights framework. Asthe OSCE Ministerial Decision 10/7 of 30 October 2007 notes, while the specificities ofdifferent forms of intolerance must be acknowledged, it would be important to take a‘comprehensive approach and [address] cross-cutting issues in such fields as, inter alia,legislation, law enforcement, data collection and monitoring of hate crimes, education, mediaand constructive public discourse and the promotion of inter-cultural dialogue, in order toeffectively combat all forms of discrimination.’9771.Moreover, civil society actors engaged for this report stressed the importance ofeducation and highlighted effective pedagogical methods; emphasizing that teaching aboutantisemitism should aim to engender empathy for victims of antisemitism and other formsdiscrimination/hatred while avoiding perpetuating victimhood of Jews and that someapproaches to Holocaust education without fostering critical thinking, risked reinforcing anegative image of Jews. An empathetic approach, they note, can foster positive attitudestoward diversity.72.The Special Rapporteur also commends the UN Secretary-General’s recognition thatthe threat of antisemitism requires the urgent and committed attention not just of all MemberStates, but of the United Nations itself.98 In this regard, he notes the recent launch of the UNStrategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech99. Soft law instruments and guidance documentsdeveloped under the auspices of the United Nations100 can provide essential guidance forstrategies to combat antisemitism and other forms of intolerance.IV. Recommendations73.The Special Rapporteur urges States, civil society, the media and the UnitedNations to follow a human rights-based approach to combatting antisemitism. Thisincludes implementing measures which foster the development of democratic societiesthat are resilient to extremist ideologies, including antisemitic propaganda, by fosteringcritical thinking, empathy, and human rights literacy among self-reflective citizens withthe requisite proficiency and confidence to peacefully and collectively rejectantisemitism and other forms of intolerance and discrimination. It also requiresinvestments in education and training to enhance society-wide literacy about thedifferent ways in which antisemitism manifests itself.A. States and political actors74.The primary responsibility for addressing acts of intolerance and discriminationrests with States, including their political representatives. As such states must alsofoster freedom of religion or belief and pluralism by promoting the ability of membersof all religious communities to manifest their right to freedom of religion or belief, andto contribute openly, on an equal footing, to society.75.Governments must also acknowledge that antisemitism poses a threat to stabilityand security, and that antisemitic incidents require prompt, unequivocal responsesfrom leaders. Such responses should be based on the recognition that the commissionof antisemitic hate crimes engages the obligation of the State under international human97 https://www.osce.org/mc/29452?download=true.98 https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-01-27/secretary-generals-memory-victims-holocaust-remarks.99 https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/UN%20Strategy%20and%20Plan%20of%20Action%20on%20Hate%20Speech%2018%20June%20SYNOPSIS.pdf.100 See e.g. A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix; A/HRC/40/58, annexes I and II; A/HRC/RES/16/18.Page 18A/74/35818rights law to protect Jews against the violation of their fundamental rights. States mustalso invest in preventive security measures, compliant with international human rightslaw, to deter antisemitic hate crimes.76.States should enact and enforce hate crime legislation that recognizesantisemitism as a prohibited bias motivation and that is clear, concrete and easy tounderstand. States should impose systems, routines and training in place to ensure thatrelevant officials recognize antisemitic hate crimes and record them as such. Whilerecalling that racist and religious intolerance, including antisemitism, are commonlyexpressed through coded expressions, it is recommended that a clear set of indicatorsfor identifying bias motivation be employed in law enforcement. Because of codedexpressions and the continuing reinvention of new forms of antisemitic speech andaction, such indicators would not in themselves be all-encompassing or prove that anincident was a hate crime. However, where an antisemitic crime is established in linewith the criteria set out under international law, there must be recourse to remedy tovictims of such hate crimes.77.The Special Rapporteur recognises that the IHRA Working Definition ofAntisemitism can offer valuable guidance for identifying antisemitism in its variousforms, and therefore encourages States to adopt it for use in education, awareness-raising and for monitoring and responding to manifestations of antisemitism. TheSpecial Rapporteur recommends its use as a critical non-legal, educational tool thatshould be applied in line with guidance provided by the Rabat Plan of Action, HumanRights Committee in General Comment 34, and the CERD in GeneralRecommendation 35. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes that criticism of theGovernment of Israel is not per se antisemitic, as stated in the Working Definition,unless it is accompanied by manifestations of hatred towards Jews in general, orexpressions that build on traditional antisemitic stereotypes.78.States should establish data-collection systems to document information onantisemitic hate crimes. Collecting accurate, disaggregated data is essential for enablingpolicy makers and law-enforcement authorities to understand the scope of the problem,discern patterns, allocate resources and investigate cases more effectively. States shouldalso work with Jewish communities and organizations to strengthen efforts to monitor,document and report on hate crimes and other acts motivated by antisemitism, andshould consider appointing a senior official to oversee such efforts.79.Accessible and confidential mechanisms that facilitate the reporting ofantisemitic hate crimes should be established, and efforts to raise awareness withinJewish communities as to where and how to report incidents should be undertaken.Governments should hold consultations with Jewish communities and relevant victimsupport organizations to develop effective strategies in support of victims and theyshould work with national human rights institutions, academics, NGOs andinternational organizations to conduct surveys that help clarify the needs of victims ofantisemitic attacks.80.Political parties should adopt and enforce ethical guidelines in relation to theconduct of their representatives, particularly with respect to public speech. Partyleaders must promptly, clearly and consistently reject manifestations of antisemitismwithin their parties and in the public discourse.B. Civil society81.Civil society organizations should take a multi-stakeholder, multidisciplinary,human rights-based approach to combatting antisemitism. Academic experts andresearchers can support governments by providing independent expert advice andinsights on the prevalence and manifestations of antisemitism, as well as on effectiveways to counter it. They can support the work of states to monitor and report onantisemitic hate crimes, and other expressions of antisemitic attitudes. The SpecialRapporteur notes that the OSCE has designed a guide to spread the practice of civilPage 19A/74/35819society coalition building to address discrimination and build more peaceful andtolerant societies. 10182.Civil society organisations have a responsibility to ensure that their ownpractices do not contribute to antisemitic discourses. They can play an important rolein raising awareness about the various ways in which antisemitism can be manifestedand about the impact of prejudiced messages faced by Jews and Jewish communities onhuman rights and society at large. These actors can also support government efforts toraise awareness within Jewish communities as to where and how to report antisemiticincidents.83.They can also play an integral role in reassuring the Jewish community after anattack, including in co-operation with parliamentarians and government officials andother communities and by publicly demonstrating solidarity and signaling a zero-tolerance policy towards antisemitism. Civil society, including faith-based actors,should also strive to establish collaborative networks to foster mutual understandingand solidarity, promote dialogue and inspire constructive action.84.Educators can develop curricula that raise awareness about human rights andfoster empathy through the incorporation of creative exercises and content thatchallenge and counteract antisemitic attitudes. Effective methodologies for educatingstudents about antisemitic narratives include exploring the history of stereotypes,examining the role of power dynamics in such prejudices and acknowledging sharedresponsibility for identifying and rejecting antisemitic tropes. In this regard, the SpecialRapporteur notes the UNESCO/ODIHR guidelines for policymakers on AddressingAntisemitism through Education102 and the UNESCO/ODIHR guidance and supportmaterials for teacher training on Addressing anti-Semitism in Schools.85.NGOs have and should continue to play an important role in denouncingantisemitism online and bringing incidents to the attention of lawmakers and the widerpublic, relating it to the overarching issues of hate speech and incitement to violenceand terror.C. Media86.Social media companies should take reports about cyberhate seriously, enforceterms of service and community rules that do not allow for the dissemination of hatemessages, provide more transparency of their efforts to combat cyberhate, and offeruser-friendly mechanisms and procedures for reporting and addressing hateful content.87.They should also report criminal antisemitic behaviour online to relevant locallaw enforcement agencies, including expression that constitutes incitement todiscrimination, hostility or violence.D. UN System88.The UN system has a vital role to play in engaging with Jewish communities tocombat antisemitism. The Secretary General should consider appointing a senior-levelfocal point in the Office of the UN Secretary-General with responsibility for engagingwith the Jewish communities worldwide, as well as monitoring antisemitism and theresponse of the UN thereto.89.Various entities of the United Nations system, including OHCHR, UNESCO, theAlliance of Civilizations, and the Office of the Special Advisor on the Prevention ofGenocide should enhance their cooperation with relevant human rights treaty bodiesand special procedures mandate holders in order to stimulate joint action onantisemitism and other forms of hate.101 https://www.osce.org/odihr/385017?download=true.102 https://www.osce.org/odihr/383089.
משרד המשפטים מסרב לחשוף את זהות עורכי הדין הפועלים נגד החרם
22 בספטמבר 2019
משרד המשפטים מסרב לחשוף את זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין–לאומיים הפועלים נגד אנשי תנועת החרם על ישראל הפועלים באירופה. מחר (שני) צפוי להתקיים דיון בבית המשפט העליון, בפני השופטים יצחק עמית, יעל וילנר ועופר גרוסקופף, בערעור על ההחלטה.
עתירת חופש מידע הוגשה על ידי עו"ד איתי מק בדרישה לחשוף את הפרטים על זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין–לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים למשרד המשפטים הישראלי. עתירה הוגשה במקורה בחודש נובמבר 2017 על ידי מק יחד עם פעילות ופעילי זכויות האדם סהר ורדי, עופר ניימן, רחל גיורא וקובי סניץ.
מזה מספר שנים שמשרדי הממשלה חלוקים ביניהם על הקצאת סמכויות הטיפול במה שהוגדר כ"דה–לגיטימציה נגד מדינת ישראל בחו"ל", ובפרט על הקשר של הממשלה עם ארגונים לא ממשלתיים, קבוצות ויחידים בחו"ל אשר תומכים במדיניות של ממשלת ישראל.
גם מבקר המדינה התקשה להבין מה באמת עושים משרד החוץ והמשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים בנושא זה. תחילה פנינו בבקשת חופש מידע אל שני המשרדים האלה, כדי לקבל מידע על ההתקשרויות שלהם עם גורמים זרים. להפתעתנו, מתשובת משרד החוץ עלה כי המשרד הממשלתי שהתקשר עם גורמי חוץ לצורך המאבק בחרם ("בי.די.אס") הינו דווקא משרד המשפטים.
לאחר מכן, במענה לבקשת המידע שהוגשה אליו, משרד המשפטים הודה שהוא מממן באופן
חשאי גורמי חוץ, שהם משרדי עורכי דין בין–לאומיים, כדי להיאבק נגד פעילות בי.די.אס שמקיימים אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים באירופה. משרד המשפטים מסר לנו מסמכים חלקיים ומצונזרים, ומסרב למסור במלואם מסמכים רלוונטיים נוספים. זאת לטענת המשרד כדי למנוע את חשיפת זהות משרדי עורכי הדין ומהות השירות שהם נותנים בתמורה למיליוני שקלים. משרד המשפטים מנמק את סירובו בכך שהחשיפה תפגע ביחסי החוץ של מדינת ישראל, תפגע בדיונים הפנימיים במשרד, ותגרום לשיבוש בתפקודו.
לדברי עו"ד מק "על פני הדברים, נראה כי סירוב משרד המשפטים לחשוף את המידע לגבי זהות משרדי עורכי הדין ומהות השירות שעליו אזרחי ישראל משלמים מיליוני שקלים נועד רק כדי למנוע את המבוכה והפגיעה בכבוד, באמינות וברצינות משרד המשפטים ושל מי שהיתה שרת המשפטים איילת שקד: במקביל למאבק משרד המשפטים ושרת המשפטים שקד, כאבירי השקיפות, לחקיקה בכנסת שתטיל שקיפות מוגברת על המימון הזר שמקבלים ארגוני זכויות האדם בישראל, מתברר כי הם בעצמם מימנו ומממנים באופן חשאי גורמי חוץ הפועלים באירופה נגד אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים, וכן כדי להשפיע על דעת הקהל באירופה התומכת יותר ויותר ב–בי.די.אס".
העותרים סבורים שמשרד המשפטים מחויב בשקיפות כלפי הציבור הישראלי שזכאי לדעת למי המדינה משלמת מיליוני שקלים ומה השירות שניתן בתמורה. הציבור הישראלי אינו יכול לפקח באופן אפקטיבי על משרד המשפטים והפרויקט שהוא מנהל בעניין באירופה, כל עוד שמשרד המשפטים מסרב לחשוף מי הם גורמי החוץ איתם נעשתה ההתקשרות ומה מהות השירות.
בנוסף על הפגיעה בעיקרון השקיפות, קיימת סכנה של "מדרון חלקלק" אנטי–דמוקרטי בהסתרה, בגישה כאילו "צבאית" אל נושא אזרחי מובהק, ובבלבול ההגדרות אצל משרד המשפטים והמשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים המוביל את הפרויקט. ישנו חשש כי הפעילות החשאית של משרד המשפטים תאבד שליטה (ככול שהדבר טרם קרה). תמרור אזהרה עולה מתוך המקרה של משטר האפרטהייד בדרום אפריקה, אשר גלש לפעילות לא חוקית במאבקו נגד פעילות ביקורתית בין–לאומית. קיים חשש שנעשות פעולות לפגיעה בזכויות חוקתיות של אזרחי ותושבי אירופה, ולהפללה של הפעילים הבין–לאומיים, שנחצים קווים אדומים שעלולים להביא לשלילת חירותם ולפגיעה פיזית של ממש בהם.
יצוין שמנכ"לית המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים והסברה, תא"ל (מיל') סימה ואקנין–גיל הציגה בכנסת את מאבקה באזרחים בחו"ל המבקרים את מדינת ישראל כמערכה צבאית והשוותה את עבודתה במשרד האזרחי לפעילותה בתפקידיה בצבא ולמעורבותה בסוגיות צבאיות כגון "חיזבאללה או כספי טרור או סוריה או כל מדינה אחרת ש[נגדה] ניהלתי מערכה". כמו–כן ואקנין–גיל העידה שהיא משתמשת בעבודתה בלוגיקה של חיל האוויר, הכוללת איסוף מודיעין, הסברה והתקפה.
לפי הפרסום של המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים, בתחילת חודש נובמבר 2017, המשרד מגדיר את רשת ארגוני ה–בי.די.אס "רשת אדומה". הבחירה להגדיר אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים באירופה כ"אויב" וכרשת "אדומה", מעלה זיכרונות רעים מהעבר. כידוע, מדינת ישראל נתנה סיוע צבאי במשך עשרות שנים לדיקטטורות ברחבי העולם כדי לרדוף ולחסל את ה"אדומים" או מי שנחשד בתמיכה בהם – מצ'ילה של פינושה, קונגו של מובוטו, משטר האפרטהייד בדרום אפריקה ועד הפיליפינים של הדיקטטור מרקוס.
המסמכים המצונזרים החלקיים שנמסרו לנו, והנימוקים להשמטת פרטים מתוך מסמכים אלה ולאי מסירת מסמכים מלאים ורלוונטיים נוספים, מעלים חשד כבד להתנהלות לא תקינה ולא חוקית של משרד המשפטים בחו"ל. בין היתר, אחד ממשרדי עורכי הדין הוחלף על רקע חשש לניגוד עניינים.
באוגוסט אשתקד דחה השופט אלי אברבנאל את העתירה, תוך קבלת עמדת משרד המשפטים כי חשיפת זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין–לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים למשרד המשפטים הישראלי, במאבק נגד פעילי ותנועת ה–בי.די.אס באירופה, תפגע ביחסי החוץ של ישראל. השופט אברבנאל קבע כי אין עניין ציבורי בחשיפת המידע: "מחוות דעת שהוגשו לעיוני – האחת מאת משרד החוץ (מחלקת משפט בין–לאומי), והשנייה מאת המשנה ליועץ המשפטי לממשלה, עולה כי קיים חשש ממשי לכך כי גילוי המידע שבמחלוקת ייפגע ביחסי החוץ של ישראל. מדובר בהערכה מקצועית חד–משמעית שהגיון רב עומד בבסיסה. (…) יש להעיר כי אין יסוד לטענתם של העותרים כי בקשתם מעוררת עניין ציבורי גבוה, בשל חשיבותו הרבה של המידע שבמחלוקת. עיון במידע מעלה כי טענה זו אינה מבוססת. מדובר במידע הנמצא בליבת העשייה בתחום יחסי החוץ של ישראל, שמידת התועלת שבגילויו לעותרים אינה גבוהה". זאת ועוד, השופט אברבנאל חייב אותנו לשלם הוצאות למשרד המשפטים בסך 3,000 שקל.
מחר (שני) דיון בעליון בדרישה לחשוף את עורכי הדין הבינלאומיים העוסקים במאבק נגד הבי.די.אס
הנכם/ן מוזמנים/ות לדיון בבית המשפט העליון (עע"מ 6863/18), לערעור בעניין סירוב משרד המשפטים לחשוף את הפרטים על זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין-לאומיים עמם התקשר המשרד לצורך המאבק נגד פעילי תנועת הבי.די.אס באירופה ומהות השירות שהם נותנים לו.
הערהור ישמע מחר יום שני, ה-23.9, בשעה 9:00, בפני השופטים יצחק עמית, יעל וילנר ועופר גרוסקופף.
עתירת חופש מידע, בדרישה לחשוף את הפרטים על זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין-לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים למשרד המשפטים הישראלי, הוגשה במקורה בחודש נובמבר 2017 על ידי עורך הדין איתי מק יחד עם פעילות ופעילי זכויות האדם סהר ורדי, עופר ניימן, רחל גיורא וקובי סניץ.
מזה מספר שנים שמשרדי הממשלה חלוקים ביניהם על הקצאת סמכויות הטיפול במה שהוגדר כ"דה-לגיטימציה נגד מדינת ישראל בחו"ל", ובפרט על הקשר של הממשלה עם ארגונים לא
ממשלתיים, קבוצות ויחידים בחו"ל אשר תומכים במדיניות של ממשלת ישראל. גם מבקר המדינה התקשה להבין מה באמת עושים משרד החוץ והמשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים בנושא זה. תחילה פנינו בבקשת חופש מידע אל שני המשרדים האלה, כדי לקבל מידע על ההתקשרויות שלהם עם גורמים זרים. להפתעתנו, מתשובת משרד החוץ עלה כי המשרד הממשלתי שהתקשר עם גורמי חוץ לצורך המאבק בבי.די.אס הינו דווקא משרד המשפטים.
לאחר מכן, במענה לבקשת המידע שהוגשה אליו, משרד המשפטים הודה שהוא מממן באופן
חשאי גורמי חוץ, שהם משרדי עורכי דין בין-לאומיים, כדי להיאבק נגד פעילות בי.די.אס שמקיימים אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים באירופה. משרד המשפטים מסר לנו מסמכים חלקיים ומצונזרים, ומסרב למסור במלואם מסמכים רלוונטיים נוספים. זאת לטענת המשרד כדי למנוע את חשיפת זהות משרדי עורכי הדין ומהות השירות שהם נותנים בתמורה למיליוני שקלים. משרד המשפטים מנמק את סירובו בכך שהחשיפה תפגע ביחסי החוץ של מדינת ישראל, תפגע בדיונים הפנימיים במשרד, ותגרום לשיבוש בתפקודו.
על פני הדברים, נראה כי סירוב משרד המשפטים לחשוף את המידע לגבי זהות משרדי עורכי הדין ומהות השירות שעליו אזרחי ישראל משלמים מיליוני שקלים נועד רק כדי למנוע את המבוכה והפגיעה בכבוד, באמינות וברצינות משרד המשפטים ושל מי שהיתה שרת המשפטים איילת שקד: במקביל למאבק משרד המשפטים ושרת המשפטים שקד, כאבירי השקיפות, לחקיקה בכנסת שתטיל שקיפות מוגברת על המימון הזר שמקבלים ארגוני זכויות האדם בישראל, מתברר כי הם בעצמם מימנו ומממנים באופן חשאי גורמי חוץ הפועלים באירופה נגד אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים, וכן כדי להשפיע על דעת הקהל באירופה התומכת יותר ויותר ב-בי.די.אס. .
בראש ובראשונה, משרד המשפטים מחויב בשקיפות כלפי הציבור הישראלי שזכאי לדעת למי המדינה משלמת מיליוני שקלים ומה השירות שניתן בתמורה. הציבור הישראלי אינו יכול לפקח באופן אפקטיבי על משרד המשפטים והפרויקט שהוא מנהל בעניין באירופה, כל עוד שמשרד המשפטים מסרב לחשוף מי הם גורמי החוץ איתם נעשתה ההתקשרות ומה מהות השירות.
בנוסף על הפגיעה בעיקרון השקיפות, קיימת סכנה של "מדרון חלקלק" אנטי-דמוקרטי בהסתרה, בגישה כאילו "צבאית" אל נושא אזרחי מובהק , ובבלבול ההגדרות אצל משרד המשפטים והמשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים המוביל את הפרויקט. ישנו חשש כי הפעילות החשאית של משרד המשפטים תאבד שליטה (ככול שהדבר טרם קרה). תמרור אזהרה עולה מתוך המקרה של משטר האפרטהייד בדרום אפריקה, אשר גלש לפעילות לא חוקית במאבקו נגד פעילות ביקורתית בין-לאומית. קיים חשש שנעשות פעולות לפגיעה בזכויות חוקתיות של אזרחי ותושבי אירופה, ולהפללה של הפעילים הבין-לאומיים, שנחצים קווים אדומים שעלולים להביא לשלילת חירותם ולפגיעה פיזית של ממש בהם.
כזכור, מנכ"לית המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים והסברה, תא"ל (מיל') סימה ואקנין-גיל הציגה בכנסת את מאבקה באזרחים בחו"ל המבקרים את מדינת ישראל כמערכה צבאית והשוותה את עבודתה במשרד האזרחי לפעילותה בתפקידיה בצבא ולמעורבותה בסוגיות צבאיות כגון "חיזבאללה או כספי טרור או סוריה או כל מדינה אחרת ש[נגדה] ניהלתי מערכה". כמו-כן ואקנין-גיל העידה שהיא משתמשת בעבודתה בלוגיקה של חיל האוויר, הכוללת איסוף מודיעין, הסברה והתקפה.
לפי הפרסום של המשרד לנושאים אסטרטגיים, בתחילת חודש נובמבר 2017, המשרד מגדיר את רשת ארגוני ה-בי.די.אס "רשת אדומה". הבחירה להגדיר אזרחים וארגונים אזרחיים לא ממשלתיים באירופה כ"אויב" וכרשת "אדומה", מעלה זיכרונות רעים מהעבר. כידוע, מדינת ישראל נתנה סיוע צבאי במשך עשרות שנים לדיקטטורות ברחבי העולם כדי לרדוף ולחסל את ה"אדומים" או מי שנחשד בתמיכה בהם – מצ'ילה של פינושה, קונגו של מובוטו, משטר האפרטהייד בדרום אפריקה ועד הפיליפינים של הדיקקטור מרקוס.
המסמכים המצונזרים החלקיים שנמסרו לנו, והנימוקים להשמטת פרטים מתוך מסמכים אלה ולאי מסירת מסמכים מלאים ורלוונטיים נוספים, מעלים חשד כבד להתנהלות לא תקינה ולא חוקית של משרד המשפטים בחו"ל. בין היתר, אחד ממשרדי עורכי הדין הוחלף על רקע חשש לניגוד עניינים.
כפי שזכותה של מדינת ישראל לפעול בשקיפות ובמסגרת החוק נגד תנועת ה-בי.די.אס, כך גם זכותם של אזרחים ואזרחיות באירופה לפעול על מנת לשכנע את דעת הקהל ואת הממשלות במדינות מגוריהם לתמוך ב-בי.די.אס. זאת בהינתן ש"החוק למניעת פגיעה במדינת ישראל באמצעות חרם, תשע"א-2011", טרם אומץ באמנות בין-לאומיות וגם לא הפך לחלק מהדין הבין-לאומי המנהגי. כך למשל, שר החוץ של הולנד, ידידתה הקרובה של מדינת ישראל, אמר כי פעילות ה-בי.די.אס מוגנת בחופש הביטוי, וכן שר החוץ של אירלנד הגדיר פעילות זאת כעמדה פוליטית לגיטימית.
ביום 13.8.2018 דחה השופט אלי אברבנאל את העתירה, תוך קבלת עמדת משרד המשפטים כי חשיפת זהות משרדי עורכי הדין הבין-לאומיים ומהות השירות שהם נותנים למשרד המשפטים הישראלי, במאבק נגד פעילי ותנועת ה-בי.די.אס באירופה, תפגע ביחסי החוץ של ישראל. השופט אברבנאל קבע כי אין עניין ציבורי בחשיפת המידע: "מחוות דעת שהוגשו לעיוני – האחת מאת משרד החוץ (מחלקת משפט בין-לאומי), והשנייה מאת המשנה ליועץ המשפטי לממשלה, עולה כי קיים חשש ממשי לכך כי גילוי המידע שבמחלוקת ייפגע ביחסי החוץ של ישראל. מדובר בהערכה מקצועית חד-משמעית שהגיון רב עומד בבסיסה. (...) יש להעיר כי כי אין יסוד לטענתם של העותרים כי בקשתם מעוררת עניין ציבורי גבוה, בשל חשיבותו הרבה של המידע שבמחלוקת. עיון במידע מעלה כי טענה זו אינה מבוססת. מדובר במידע הנמצא בליבת העשייה בתחום יחסי החוץ של ישראל, שמידת התועלת שבגילויו לעותרים אינה גבוהה". זאת ועוד, השופט אברבנאל חייב אותנו לשלם הוצאות למשרד המשפטים בסך 3,000 ₪.
כאמור, בדיון שיתקיים מחר בבית המשפט העליון נערער על החלטתו זאת של השופט אברבנאל. נוכחותכם/ן בדיון חיונית ביותר!
לפרטים נוספים, ניתן ליצור קשר עם עו"ד איתי מק:
קישור לסיכומי המערערים
קישור לסיכומי המדינה בערעור
קישור לסיכומי תשובה של המערערים
קישור לפסק הדין בבית המשפט המחוזי
לפרטים נוספים, ניתן ליצור קשר עם עו"ד איתי מק
בניין כלל, משרד 745
רח' יפו 97, ירושלים