Last month, the United Nations (U.N.) unveiled its "Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism," a response to a notable rise in antisemitic incidents across various regions, including Europe and the United States. This initiative aims to improve understanding and recognition of antisemitism, yet it has drawn criticism for its lack of a clear definition of the term.
The U.N. Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) developed the Action Plan, emphasizing the need to comprehend and identify antisemitism as a critical step in combating prejudice. However, critics, including Anne Bayefsky, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, have labeled the plan a "phony exercise in futility." Bayefsky argues that the U.N. is the "leading global purveyor of antisemitism" and is merely pretending to take action against it.
One significant point of contention is the plan’s omission of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been endorsed by 45 member states and is widely accepted by major Jewish organizations. This definition is seen as essential because it acknowledges the connection between antisemitism and criticism of Israel.
During discussions surrounding the Action Plan, UNAOC Director Nihal Saad stated that the focus should be on enhancing responses to antisemitism rather than getting caught up in defining it. Saad compared the situation to the U.N.’s approach to terrorism, where a lack of consensus on definitions has not prevented the development of counter-terrorism strategies. Critics, however, argue that this approach may hinder effective identification and response to antisemitic incidents.
Bayefsky has expressed skepticism about the plan’s implementation, questioning how the U.N. can educate its staff on antisemitism without a clear understanding of what it entails. She pointed out that the U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has been silent on antisemitic behavior within the organization, despite publicly condemning antisemitism on occasions like International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
The Action Plan includes proposals for training modules for U.N. staff to help them recognize and understand antisemitism, as well as a commitment from senior officials to denounce antisemitic acts as they occur. However, critics worry about the sincerity and effectiveness of these measures.
Bayefsky has highlighted the U.N. Security Council’s failure to condemn Hamas for its actions, citing the organization’s inability to agree on what constitutes terrorism as a significant obstacle. She argues that this lack of clarity leads to a dereliction of duty in addressing antisemitism and related issues.
In response to inquiries about the Action Plan’s effectiveness in addressing antisemitism within the U.N., Saad reiterated that special rapporteurs operate independently and that their views do not necessarily reflect the U.N.’s stance. This independence has led to concerns about the U.N.’s accountability in addressing antisemitic remarks made by its officials.
As the U.N. moves forward with its Action Plan, the debate continues over how to effectively combat antisemitism while acknowledging the complexities of defining it. Critics remain vigilant, calling for more substantial actions and accountability from the U.N. in addressing this pressing issue.