Last Thursday the White House issued the first-ever position paper on a U.S. Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. This statement from President Biden was followed by a detailed set of recommendations of new actions which the U.S. was undertaking to combat the unprecedent outbreak of anti-Semitic acts over the past several years. First Gentleman Doug Emhoff as well as Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, expanded upon the statement with a set of specific, detailed initiatives which the U.S. Government was undertaking.
The general call for action included four major proposals:
1.to increase awareness and understanding of both antisemitism and Jewish American heritage.
2. to improve safety and security for Jewish communities.
3. to reverse the normalization of antisemitism; and
4. to build coalitions across communities to fight hate.
Beyond the rhetoric, there were detailed steps to be implemented by Congress; government agencies and departments; state and local governments; academic institutions; businesses; and religious communities. The President’s plan called upon the recording industry and professional sports teams specifically to address antisemitism. The program focused on both left and right-wing based antisemitism as well as on-line and cyber-based antisemitism. In a detailed section, the proposal dealt with campus-based discrimination against Jews.
What was noticeable and predictable was that even as straight-forward the proposals were, they also produced expected political responses from numerous quarters. Rather than a bi-partisan sense of accomplishment in this major new human rights initiative, there were critiques and disappointments expressed in the Administration’s land-breaking statement and action recommendations.
As Washington has done for generations, there was a major hesitation expressed about the United States accepting an internationally promulgated definition of antisemitism. The Administration did not adopt the world-wide International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. While this definition has been adopted by governments at numerous levels around the world, it was not confirmed by the Administration. (Hopefully, it will not take the United States 40 years before it will affirm this definition, as was the case before the U.S. Senate ratified the Genocide Convention following World War II.)
Those on the right attacked the President for his failings while those on the left supported his position. Some of those identified as progressive Democrats argued that the IHRA definition does not leave sufficient space for those who may criticize the State of Israel. The Administration did not want a public fight within the Democratic Party. At the same time the President felt obliged to combine his attack on antisemitism with his policy to combat all forms of hate, intolerance, and prejudice.
In defending the Administration, Ambassador Lipstadt hailed this action as a major breakthrough in the fight against the world’s oldest hatred. On the other hand, those on the right suggested that antisemitism was being homogenized within other biases and prejudices.
As had occurred during the Trump Administration, political leaders continued to be unable to address civil rights and human rights issues in a non-partisan manner. This fight paralleled the inability to marginalize those who failed to recognize the significance of the Black Lives Matter or the #MeToo movements as legitimate responses to police brutality targeting of African Americans and the gross violations and sexual abuse of women. Politics has now overtaken concern for fundamental rights and liberties in the country. It is one thing for Members of Congress to challenge concessions made over raising the debt ceiling, but it is an entirely different matter to dismiss attacks on people of color, sexual orientation, or antisemitism.
There were GOP voices who challenged the Biden Administration for watering down the effectiveness of the antisemitism resolutions, despite the Republican party’s own failure to police antisemitism in its ranks. There was little recognition of the importance of the prejudice against Jews which has developed during the past few years, without necessarily attacking specific groups or individuals. There is room to challenge the various giveaways or give-backs that President Biden or Speaker McCarthy made during their debt negotiations, but fighting antisemitism must not be a process of debate.
Kommentare