26 No. 59 JUSTICE he recent grotesque and harmful anti-Jewish resolutions adopted at one of the subsidiary committees of UNESCO raise, once more, the old issue of how Jewish interests and rights can better be defended in international organizations, and by whom. The political changes taking place in several countries add another serious dimension to the question. As it is known, in virtually all the organizations composing the United Nations family, there is almost always an automatic majority for anti-Israeli and sometimes anti-Jewish steps and declarations. This is a consequence of the composition of the international community, where anti-Zionist, or anti-Israeli, or antiJewish blocs and coalitions prevail. I am making a distinction between anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli and antiJewish texts, although I am aware of the view of many observers who are reluctant to distinguish between those different measures. In some cases they are right. Essentially, the issue I raise is contained in the question of who speaks for the Jewish people at international bodies. The dilemma is an old one and came up with great frequency since the establishment of the State of Israel.1 The matter is mostly political, but it should be tackled in principle, taking into consideration the historical, sociological and of course, geo-political ingredients. The term “Jewish interests” is not too precise. It may refer to primitive antisemitic outbursts, organized campaigns against Jewish institutions or communities, attacks against individual Jews, offenses addressed to the Jewish religion, in any of its expressions, assaults on the State of Israel or its policies, behavior or manifestations, or even distortion of historical facts, such as the denial of the Holocaust,2 as its most offensive form. Obviously, all such events have in common a similar anti-Jewish background, purpose or intention. They must be opposed, and the question is who should do so in each case, and how. The dramatic changes in Jewish life that followed World War II and caused far-reaching consequences in Jewish collective existence were tackled very early by the Jewish leadership. Already in 1950, in the Ben-Gurion—Blaustein statements exchange, Ben-Gurion promised that Israel would not interfere in Diaspora affairs, and the State for the most part does not pretend to represent Jews who are not citizens of Israel.3 Also, Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, speaking at a meeting of a world Jewish organization, stated: “Israel’s primary concern must, of course, be its own survival, and in that context Israel expected the Jews of the Diaspora “unquestioningly to accept its authority in determining its interests and policies.”4 At the same time, Sharett said: “There is a wide margin of points at issue regarding which the Diaspora as a whole, or certain sections of it in particular cases, are in their turn entitled to expect consideration on Israel’s part for their own interests, viewpoints, and susceptibilities.” Moreover, Sharett continued: There are functions of Jewish life and items in the program of Jewish public activity which lie outside the plane of Israeli affairs, such as most of the tasks assumed by Jewish organizations in defending Jewish rights in the Diaspora and tendering advice and assistance to communities in need thereof. Inasmuch as there are points of contact between the respective spheres of activity of the Israel government and Jewish organizations, co-ordination is perfectly feasible. What is eminently desirable in this Jewish Interests in International Fora T Natan Lerner 1. See, for instance, the report by Prof. Moshe Davis (Moshe Davis, IM HAKUNTRAS, Jerusalem, 1968-69 (Hebrew)) on the discussions of the group that met, under his leadership, in the Israeli President’s residence. It includes Justice Haim Cohn’s presentation on the “Jewish Interests in the Commission of Human Rights of the United Nations,” and reactions to it, among them, by this writer. 2. There is an enormous amount of literature on the struggle against antisemitism. On the inclusion of references to antisemitism in international instruments, see Natan Lerner, THE UN CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (reprint 2015) and RELIGION, SECULAR BELIEFS AND HUMAN RIGHTS (2006). 3. The 1950 Ben-Gurion-Blaustein Clarification Statements in VIGILANT BROTHERHOOD: THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE’S RELATIONSHIP TO PALESTINE AND ISRAEL (1964), at 54-56. 4. Proceedings of the Fourth Plenary Assembly of the World Jewish Congress, WJC, 1959, at 135.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=