28 No. 59 JUSTICE Soviet Jews; redemption of Ethiopian Jewry; and the eternal issue of antisemitic outbursts. There are several Jewish bodies with consultative status at the UN and other bodies. A few of them are really federative, global entities such as the World Jewish Congress or WIZO. Others are merely practical coalitions led by one major but not international organization.8 Eight organizations have been admitted in the important category B and others only in category C. The question may be asked if it is really important that individual Jewish organizations should give up their independent action for the sake of joining forces. It is a legitimate question, but it seems that in today's international climate, joint efforts may be more effective. Otherwise, those who claim that the independent State of Israel should take over the central role in the defense of Jewish interests may be proven right. International life is presently undergoing far-reaching changes. The Trump factor, the Brexit phenomenon, the slowly progressing pacification attempts in Latin America, the evident growth of the right-wing – in some cases extreme rightist parties – all demand a readjustment of the foreign policy behavior of states. In the case of the Jewish people, the need to avoid an entanglement in conflictive situations is particularly evident. The local problems should be exposed or argued by local spokesmen, or those in which they have delegated powers. Again, this does not mean to interfere in the absolutely legitimate and natural rights of the Jewish State – whatever Jewish means – to assume a reasonable degree of action in favor of those Jews who need it. Of course, reason calls for coordination and consultation for the sake of more efficient action and better results. A major question to be asked is if a systematic classification of issues is possible. First of all, there are major global issues, in one form or another, affecting all Jews. Examples are, of course; antisemitism and the existence and security of the State of Israel, leaving aside the crucial problem of its nature as a Jewish State. In these two cases, there is no doubt that the State as well as Jewish international organizations with a status in inter-state entities are fully entitled to speak-up and defend the attacked interest. At the other end, when a particular problem directly affects only a given Jewish community, common sense and political expedience dictate that the defense of the particular interest should be undertaken by a member of the community authorized to speak on its behalf. If, for example, separate Jewish education or any religious practice – say, shechita (ritual slaughter) – is restricted or forbidden, the organization of which the affected community is a member should represent the community’s interest; it should certainly not be the State of Israel, or any other state that might like to intervene. Without doubt, certain cases do not fit clearly into one category. Common sense and understanding of international life and tensions should be the guiding principles. Related to this issue, is the personal problem of Jews occupying diplomatic or other representative positions in states of which they are citizens. It is a delicate matter. An ugly incident with UNESCO (October 2016) provides an example of such a situation. A Jewish-Mexican diplomat felt that his conscience did not permit him to vote for the anti-Jewish resolution; instead, he opted to leave the room, though he was aware of the consequences of his action. Such personal problems are, of course, not too common, but they take place. They are not related to the issue of representation but indicate the complexity of some situations in international life. A good number of Jewish organizations took advantage of the right proclaimed in Article 71 of United Nations Charter9 granting consultative status, in various degrees, to entities devoted to the ideals of the world body. A few Jewish organizations exercised this right actively and frequently. Others were not too efficient in using this prerogative. As noted, some Jewish organizations opted to associate themselves with other groups, so as to be able to enjoy the right established in Article 71. At some stages of the evolution of the United Nations, and under the influence of the Middle East conflict, there were attempts to limit the rights of some Jewish organizations. They were not successful thanks to the relations between the Jewish organizations and the major powers. Of course, the fact that the Jewish organizations were genuinely characterized as being international in nature, identified with United Nations purposes, and were not front entities for a particular state, was clearly helpful. A cursory listing of issues dealt with by the world Jewish organizations will be useful. Such a list would include general human rights, racial and religious discrimination, antisemitism, incitement, genocide, war crimes, statelessness, migrations, minorities – as I described in a brochure in the 1970s, in connection with a seminar devoted to the Universal Declaration.10 As I argued in 8. For instance, two major Jewish organizations, the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B'rith, established coalitions to obtain consultative status at the UN. 9. U.N. Charter art. 71. 10. Natan Lerner, THE WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, Geneva 1978.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=