JUSTICE - No. 58

JUSTICE The Legal Magazine of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Fall-Winter 2016 No.58 In this issue Paris Conference Statement & Presentations: "Combating Antisemitism through Legal & Other Means" Articles Catholic Church Efforts to Abate Antisemitism Anti-Judaism in Contemporary Liberation Theologies Industry of Lies Countering the BDS Movement against Israel through Legal Measures Antisemitism on the Web: Current Situation and Remedies

The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Honorary President: Hadassa Ben-Itto, Judge (Ret.) (Israel) Life time Member: Irwin Cotler, Prof. (Canada) Honorary Vice Presidents: Joseph Roubache (France) Oreste Bisazza Terracini, Dr. (Italy) Executive Committee: President: Irit Kohn (Israel) Deputy President: Haim Klugman (Israel) Vice President and Treasurer: Avraham (Avi) D. Doron (Israel) Vice President and Secretary General: Mirella M. Bamberger (Israel) Vice Presidents: Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Judge (Argentina) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Representatives to the U.N. in Geneva: Calev Myers (Israel) Gavriel Mairone (USA) Representatives to the U.N. in New York: Regina Tapoohi (USA) Calev Myers (Israel) Elad Popovich (Israel/USA) Mark A. Speiser (USA) Representative to the European Parliament: Pascal Markowicz (France) Irit Kohn (Israel) Haim Klugman (Israel) Avraham (Avi) D. Doron (Israel) Mirella M. Bamberger (Israel) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Judge (Argentina) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Amos Shapira, Prof. (Israel) Baruch Katzman (Israel) Calev Myers (Israel) Daniel Benko (Croatia) David Benjamin (Israel) David Pardes (Belgium) Edna Kaplan-Hagler, Judge (Ret.) Dr. (Israel) Ethia Simha (Israel) Gavriel Mairone (USA) Jeremy D. Margolis (USA) Jimena Bronfman (Chile) Jonathan Lux (UK) Lipa Meir, Dr. (Israel) Maria Canals De-Cediel, Dr. (Switzerland) Meir Linzen (Israel) Michael H. Traison (USA) Nathan Gelbart (Germany) Noemi Gal-Or, Dr. (Canada) Olaf S. Ossmann (Switzerland) Pascal Markowicz (France) Peggy Sharon (Israel) Pesach Kanir (Israel) Regina Tapoohi (USA) Richard Horowitz (Israel) Ruben Pescara (Italy) Sarah B. Biser (USA) Stephen C. Rothman, Judge (Australia) Stephen R.Greenwald, Prof. (USA) Suzanne Wolfe-Martin (Malta) Vera Rottenberg-Liatowitsch, Justice (Switzerland) Chief Executive Officer: Ronit Gidron–Zemach (Israel) * All members of the Executive Committee are members of the Board of Governors Board of Governors:

Fall-Winter 2016 1 Contents JUSTICE is published by The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists 10 Daniel Frisch St. Tel Aviv 6473111, Israel Tel: +972 3 691 0673 Fax: +972 3 695 3855 IAJLJ@goldmail.net.il www.intjewishlawyers.org © Copyright 2017 by IAJLJ ISSN 0793-176X JUSTICE is published for members and friends of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. Opinions expressed in JUSTICE are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JUSTICE or the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists. The accuracy of articles appearing in JUSTICE is the sole responsibility of their authors. Articles in English are welcome but should be preceded by a query to the IAJLJ Advisory Board at iajlj@goldmail.net.il. Back issues of JUSTICE are available at www.intjewishlawyers.org. POSTMASTER: Send address corrections to Justice, 10 Daniel Frisch St., Tel Aviv 6473111, Israel. The Paris Conference was implemented with the financial support of the European Jewish Fund Donors to IAJLJ The IAJLJ extends its appreciation to all the donors in Israel and abroad: GMF Foundation Levitan, Sharon & Co. Goldfarb Seligman & Co. Meitar, Liquornik, Geva, Leshem, Tal - Law Offices President’s Message 2 Paris Conference Statement 3 Articles Employing a Working Definition of Antisemitism Andrew Baker 4 Recent Efforts by the Catholic Church to Abate Antisemitism in the Wake of the Holocaust Dina Porat 7 The Return of Anti-Judaism in Contemporary Liberation Theologies Giovanni Quer 12 Industry of Lies Ben-Dror Yemini 18 Countering the BDS Movement against Israel through Legal Measures Talia Naamat 24 Antisemitism on the Web: Current Situation and Remedies Philippe A. Schmidt 30 Summary of IAJLJ Conference, Paris, September 2016 Richard Horowitz 36 Publication of JUSTICE is made possible through the generous assistance of Mr. Leonid Nevzlin JUSTICE No. 58, Fall-Winter 2016 Editor Mala Tabory, Dr. Advisory Editor Alan D. Stephens Advisory Boards Deborah Housen-Couriel, Adv. Moshe Hirsch, Prof. Natan Lerner, Prof. Michla Pomerance, Prof. Robbie Sabel, Prof. Amos Shapira, Prof. Malcolm N. Shaw, Prof. Research Assistant Alisa Gannel, Adv. Legal Copy Editor Avi Charney, Adv. Graphic Design Climax Design Studio Ltd. www.climax-design.co.il | 03-7516747 Cover photo Grande Synagogue de Paris - la Victoire, Opening Ceremony of the IAJLJ Legal Conference Photographer: Ronit Gidron-Zemach

2 No. 58 JUSTICE t the time this issue of JUSTICE goes to press, and as the day honoring human rights took place a few days ago, I feel that special reference should be made to the genocide in Syria. As the whole world watches the horrendous situation perpetrated on Syrian citizens by the Syrian government, Russia, and Hezbollah — murder and the burning of women and children, starving the population, the UN institutions dealing with human rights face this situation without response, though they were founded initially to prevent such hideous acts. Has there been progress through international law since World War II? This will remain an open question. In the next issue of this publication, we will analyze some of the legal aspects of the events that the IAJLJ deals with on a daily basis. This issue of JUSTICE is devoted to the IAJLJ conference on "Continuing the Dialogue: Combating Antisemitism in Europe through Legal and Other Means," which took place in Paris in September 2016. My opening address at the Conference, followed by the Conference Statement, is cited below: It is my pleasure to welcome you to our conference, during which we will discuss combating antisemitism in Europe through legal and other means. It was organized by the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ) and the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, which is the academic advisor to the conference. The IAJLJ was established in 1969 by three leading jurists – René Cassin, Arthur Goldberg and Haim Cohen. One of its principal goals as an organization advocating human rights is fighting antisemitism. I am positive that the founders of this association would not believe that antisemitism has reached the level of gravity and prevalence that we experience today. Due to the worsening situation, our organization’s current activity involves combating this upsurge of antisemitism. The tragic events that occurred here and in other cities in France are the reason that we decided to dedicate the conference on this subject in Paris. By being here with you, we are conveying the message that in no way will we surrender to such horrendous acts of violence perpetrated against Jews and non-Jews alike. As a legal organization, we naturally deal with adherence to laws and their fulfillment by the relevant authorities. In the past year, the IAJLJ, together with the Kantor Center, initiated a series of seminars with the Justice Ministries of the EU countries, in an effort to convince Justice Ministers and legal bodies to accept the working definition of antisemitism. Adopting this definition, we believe, will serve as a common platform for various countries to combat antisemitism in the framework of the law. Many articles have been written about the meaning of antisemitism, and many have attempted to explain why it exists. As we are here in France, let us recall the message of Jean Paul Sartre, who wrote in October 1944, two months after Paris was freed from the Nazis in World War II, “Concepts and Thoughts on the Jewish Question.” His writings include numerous works dealing with antisemitism. Sartre argued1 that antisemitism is not an “idea” in the commonly understood sense of the word: it is not a point of view based rationally upon empirical information calmly collected and calibrated in as objective a manner as possible. It is first of all a passion. It is indeed often a deep and destructive passion. Voltaire also referred to the Jewish question with radical ridicule and contempt, which is why I am not quoting what he wrote and said about the Jewish people. Much has been written about antisemitism, but to my regret it has not had any effect on diminishing this plague. We must remember that in France before World War II, Jews were a central component in French politics. Léon Bloom served as Prime Minister and Georges Mandel as a Minister in various positions. They played crucial roles in the cultural and economic life of France. On the other hand, they were confronted with equally forceful hatred of Jews. Coming back to present times, reading the 2015 Report written by the Jewish Community Security Service2 in cooperation with the French Ministry of Interior department for assistance to those who suffered, a very troubling picture emerges. According to this published report, in 2015 in France, there were 808 antisemitic President’s Message A 1. Jean-Paul Sartre, ANTI-SEMITE AND JEW (1948). 2. 2015 Report on Antisemitism in France, Jewish Community Security Service, available at http://www.antisemitisme. fr/dl/2015-EN.pdf (last visited Jan. 2, 2017).

3 Fall-Winter 2016 incidents that were reported to the police. In fact, due to the many unreported incidents, the actual number is much higher. For the first time in recent history, antisemitism in France reached new heights unrelated to the armed conflict in the Middle East. According to this Report, in 2015, Jews suffered 40% of all racial hate crimes in France and 40% of violent racial assaults, while they constitute less than 1% of the population. These numbers illustrate a grossly antisemitic reality in France. Such a situation should not be allowed to continue and warrants a major change in approach to combating this threat to Jews everywhere. We all know that the law is only one means that society uses to defend itself against such activities. In my mind, education is the most significant avenue in combating antisemitism, as it teaches openness to accept the stranger as a free citizen entitled to equal human rights. In this avenue, there should be considerable investment. At this conference, we will deal with antisemitism as viewed from different angles. We will, of course, relate to the working definition of antisemitism, the activities of the authorities and the influence of social media and all media including newspapers, on antisemitism, terror, and other related issues. I close with two citations from an article entitled “Is it Time for the Jews to Leave Europe?” by Jeffrey Goldberg,3 National Correspondent of The Atlantic. Manuel Valls, the Prime Minister of France, said that “the choice was made by the French Revolution in 1789 to recognize Jews as full citizens.” “To understand what the idea of the Republic is about, you have to understand the central role played by the emancipation of the Jews. It is a founding principle.” A student interviewed after the attack on the magazine Charlie Hebdo, said there were signs, pins and stickers everywhere proclaiming “Je suis Charlie.” However, after the attack on the supermarket and other Jewish targets, there were no signs, pins or stickers “Je suis Juif.” Irit Kohn The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, in cooperation with the Kantor Centre for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, held an international conference in Paris in September 2016. The conference, entitled: "Continuing the Dialogue: Fighting Antisemitism through Legal and Other Means," was generously supported by the European Jewish Fund, established by Dr. Moshe Kantor. The participants' deliberations demonstrated the importance of adopting a working non-legally binding definition of antisemitism. The combination of a working definition that may serve as the basis for specific legislation and legal measures is the key for enforcement agencies and judicial systems that would present a firm united stand. At the conference, we presented, among other important topics, the historical and factual reasons for the rise of antisemitism in Europe over the past decade and discussed how the printed and the electronic media are replete with disinformation and lies about the Jewish people and the State of Israel, and how antisemitism relates to terror. As the significance of the issue is clear, we, as lawyers and scholars, presented both firm and feasible solutions at the conference: - Adopting the working definition of antisemitism; - Enacting specific laws relating to antisemitism in the EU and other international bodies, while amending relevant, current laws that contain lacunae vis-à-vis antisemitism. - Increasing the enforcement of such current laws by using the above-mentioned measures. PARIS CONFERENCE STATEMENT 3. Jeffrey Goldberg, Is it Time for the Jews to Leave Europe? THE ATLANTIC, Apr. 2015, available at http://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2015/04/is-it-time-for-the-jewsto-leave-europe/386279/ (last visited Jan. 2, 2017).

4 No. 58 JUSTICE n the spring of 2002, Javier Solana, the foreign policy chief of the EU, was visiting Washington. He met with the U.S. Secretary of State, as was his regular pattern, but this time he also met with Members of Congress. His advisors had recommended these conversations as a way to build broader American support for his transatlantic activities. I had the occasion to see him that same evening. While he expected to take some heat on his analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he told me he was surprised at the number of Members who voiced concern about the increased antisemitism in Europe. “I don’t see it,” he said. Some of us recall the difficulties in those years—notably in France but in other Western European countries as well—in getting governments even to acknowledge there was a problem. Jewish communities themselves began to record and enumerate antisemitic incidents. As very few governments were yet identifying hate crimes as a special category, they had no similar record of their own.1 But even when specific events were acknowledged by state authorities, there was still resistance to consider them antisemitic. In Paris, the perpetrators were generally understood to be young males from the banlieues. Authorities had two very different explanations to offer, both rejecting the antisemitic label. At times, they were grouped together with numerous other attacks on nonJewish property and labeled as general acts of vandalism carried out by disadvantaged and unemployed youth. But when the Jewish nature of the target could not be denied, those same authorities would highlight the Middle Eastern background of the attackers and explain that they were political acts carried out by people who were angry at Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. Either way, it shouldn’t be characterized as antisemitism, they said.2 We know that reasoning could not be sustained, and eventually political leaders were forced to concede that attacks on synagogues and Jewish schools were antisemitic, even if the motivations did not necessarily follow the more traditional pattern of the past. The steady increase in antisemitic incidents throughout that year and the next led the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) to prepare its own analysis and report on antisemitism in the fifteen-Member European Union. This too was not without controversy. The EUMC initially commissioned the Berlin Center for the Study of Antisemitism to compile the report, but then decided not to release it. It maintained that this first report was uneven and incomplete and would instead carry out the work itself. Some critics claimed that the EUMC leadership was embarrassed that it highlighted the new sources of antisemitism stemming from Arab and Muslim communities in Europe. Although the EUMC’s own study drew similar conclusions, its press summary of the report instead emphasized the more traditional sources of attacks generated by neo-Nazi, white power and other groups on the extreme right.3 The EUMC relied on its own network of monitors in each EU country to provide input for its report, drawing on what could be gleaned from a number of opinion surveys and limited data primarily compiled by civil society organizations. At the same time, the EUMC conducted interviews with 35 leaders and representatives of Jewish communities in eight EU countries. The “empirical data” presented a mixed picture, not so bad in some places and a bit worse in others, while the picture that emerged from the personal interviews was significantly darker. Jewish leaders were uniformly pessimistic about the climate, and a number of those interviewed had serious doubts about what the future would hold. The EUMC did not try to reconcile these differences; in fact, it presented them in two separate volumes. Some observers suggested that these European Jews exaggerated the problem, implying that the traumatic Holocaust experience that a number of them had endured clouded their present day assessment abilities. But it was Employing a Working Definition of Antisemitism I Rabbi AndrewBaker 1. Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003. European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (2004), p. 26, available at http://fra.europa. eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/184-AS-Main-report. pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2016). 2. American Jewish Committee meeting with French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine. Opening of the United Nations General Assembly, Nov. 2001. 3. Kenneth S. Stern. ANTISEMITISM TODAY: HOW IT IS THE SAME, HOW IT IS DIFFERENT, AND HOW TO FIGHT IT (2006), p. 97.

5 Fall-Winter 2016 also possible that this same experience might have heightened their awareness and ability to sense things coming that others would not yet see. It is important to recall that in the aftermath of this examination, the EUMC presented its own lengthy discussion about the need and the difficulty in defining antisemitism. Among the points it raised for debate and clarification: 1. Are attacks on Jews by definition antisemitic? What if the perpetrators didn't know they were Jews? Conversely, even if the victims were not Jews, if they were perceived as such and targeted for that reason, shouldn’t they be considered antisemitic? 2. Additionally, one must account for what may be termed the “imaginary Jew,” who frequently serves as the focus of antisemitic invective as well as motivation for an attack. This is the Jew of conspiracy theories, the manipulator of world economies and the media, simultaneously responsible for communism and capitalism and all the ills of the world. This is a form of antisemitism that can exist even in places where Jews themselves are absent. 3. Already at the time of this study, there was what some termed the “new antisemitism,” or new manifestations of antisemitism. Most notably this referred to antisemitism as it relates to the State of Israel. In the area of hate crimes, this debate centered on whether attacks on Jewish targets motivated by animus toward Israel should be considered antisemitic. (As noted above, some authorities instead considered them political in nature.) But what is really so different in holding a Jewish community in Paris or Brussels responsible for the perceived misdeeds of Israel today than it was to blame it for causing the Plague in previous centuries? 4. Perhaps still more complicated—and controversial— was whether anti-Zionism itself should be considered a form of antisemitism. For some of the EUMC commentators, the focus should be on the motivation of the hostility. If it stemmed from viewing Israel through a conventional antisemitic lens, it should count, they argued. But if it was politically oriented, it should not. However, motivations whether in act or expression are hard to determine. Instead, others maintained that the focus should be on the observable nature and intensity of the attack. They sought a way to measure crossing the line from criticism to something more. Demonizing Israel and questioning its right to exist were some examples. Portraying Israel with the traditional images and stereotypes of anti-Jewish hatred was another. Less controversial, but still significant elements of antisemitism can be traced to traditional Christian teaching of Jews as a benighted and debased people, eternally responsible for the death of Jesus. This may have diminished as a problem in an increasingly secular Western Europe and with a Catholic Church that had revised its own view of Judaism. But this was not the case in Eastern Europe, including in countries that would eventually become Members of the European Union. In these countries, religious identity played a much stronger role and the impact of the Second Vatican Council on interreligious tolerance had not really taken root. The same could also be said for Holocaust denial. Western Europe had over half a century to confront its Holocaust-era history. For some, this included the adoption of legislation that prohibited denying the Holocaust or classified it as a punishable form of racial incitement. Eastern Europe was only just beginning to confront its own complicated history. And if not outright denial, the distortion of Holocaust history was—and in some cases very much still is—a serious challenge. It was both the limited, and at times conflicting, data on antisemitism in the EU and the recognition that it is a complex phenomenon (whether old or “new”) that led the EUMC to develop a Working Definition of Antisemitism that was released on January 28, 2005.4 We have now the benefit of over a decade to observe the situation in Europe—incidents of antisemitism, the responses of governments, the efforts to monitor and record data and to educate. What do we find? n Antisemitic incidents as recorded by governments and civil society monitors have steadily increased. Times of heightened conflict between Israel and the Palestinians appear to trigger a surge in these incidents. They may diminish in the aftermath but still level off at a plateau that is higher than at previous times. There is certainly an improvement in recording data, which may also partially account for the increase. At the same time, we are mindful that the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey of Jews in eight EU countries found that 75 percent of those responding said they did not report what they witnessed or experienced.5 4. Dina Porat, The International Working Definition of Antisemitism and Its Detractors. 5 ISRAEL JOURNAL OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS (2011), p. 93, available at http://www.kantorcenter. tau.ac.il/sites/default/files/DinaPorat5%209_0.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2016). 5. Discrimination and hate crimes against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism. FRA- European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2013), p. 13.

6 No. 58 JUSTICE n There has been growing recognition by governments and international organizations of the severity of the problem. That FRA survey revealed high levels of anxiety and uncertainty on the part of Jews in the EU. A follow-up survey—unfortunately not scheduled until 2018—will tell us if those fears have increased, as many believe to be the case. n There is little doubt today that a significant source of antisemitic incidents can be traced to parts of the Muslim and Arab communities in Western Europe. This is reflected in the FRA survey, where Jewish respondents say the largest number of the incidents come from “someone with an extremist Muslim view.”6 But it is not so easy to find empirical data to support this conclusion. Hate crime reporting often includes no description of the perpetrators, even where that information is known. Only a few reports will disaggregate information based on ideology, describing them as holding right-wing extremist, left-wing extremist or Islamic extremist views. Some countries are prevented by law from identifying religion in any data collection. Others avoid it for fear of “stigmatizing” one religious community. But where more detailed survey data is available—e.g., a Forum for Living History survey of Swedish students in 20107 and a Fondapol survey of French Muslims in 2014—we see that European Muslims have a significantly higher level of anti-Jewish sentiments than others in their society.8 n European Jewish communities continue to serve as targets for anti-Israel animus. Attacks on synagogues and community buildings have become less frequent, no doubt due in some measure to the increased security at these sites. But, Jewish community leaders and activists offer abundant anecdotal evidence of rhetorical abuse. Their own activities and programs and even their own private movements may be restricted or inhibited by anti-Israel demonstrators or those who harbor strong, anti-Israel sentiments or the fear of encountering such people. Jewish organizations that choose to mount their own public demonstrations in support of Israel must brace for openly antisemitic counter-demonstrators. n There is less doubt today than a decade ago that antiZionism is frequently a mask for antisemitism. There was a time early in the 20th century, and well before the Holocaust, when many Jews themselves may have questioned the Zionist goal of reestablishing a Jewish state in its historic homeland. In the early days of the state, there were those who maintained that adherence to Zionist principles obligated all Jews in the Diaspora to immigrate to Israel. But today, Zionism is widely understood to mean the right of the Jewish people to their own state in the land of their ancestors—no more and no less. With such an understanding, it is very hard to argue that anti-Zionism is merely a form of political criticism of Israeli policies. These various, multiple manifestations of antisemitism are identified in the Working Definition, which in May 2016 was also adopted for use by the 31-Member International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).9 Currently the German Chairmanship of the OSCE is making efforts to secure a similar consensus agreement by its 57 participating States. A growing number of governments and civil society organizations already make use of the working definition as a tool for police training, for educating prosecutors and judges, and for monitoring and data collection. It is a useful guide for identifying antisemitism, and when standardized and endorsed by international organizations, it is more useful still. With all the work and genuine effort that has been directed at combating antisemitism, it is sadly still present. But no one today can say, “I don’t see it.” n Rabbi Andrew Baker is AJC Director of International Jewish Affairs. He serves as Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairmanship-in-Office on Combating Antisemitism. 6. Id. at 27. 7. The many faces of intolerance: A study of Swedish upper secondary school students’ attitudes in Sweden 2009/2010 school year. Living History Forum (Jan. 2010), p. 101, available at http://www.levandehistoria.se/sites/default/ files/wysiwyg_media/report_the_many_faces_of_ intolerance_.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2016). 8. Dominique Reynié, Anti-Semitic Attitudes in France: New Insights. La Fondation pour l’innovation politique (2014), p. 6, available at www.fondapol.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015/03/Anti-Semitic-Attitudes-in-France-NewInsights-20151.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2016). 9. Press Release, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (May 26, 2016), available at www. holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/files/press_ release_document_antisemitism.pdf (last visited Oct. 23, 2016).

7 Fall-Winter 2016 n December 10, 2015, at a press conference held in the Vatican, the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews issued an unprecedented declaration of utmost historical importance, titled "'For the Gifts and the Calling of God Are Irrevocable': A Reflection on Theological Questions Pertaining to CatholicJewish Relations." It marked the 50th anniversary of the "Nostra Aetate" ("In Our Time"), the 1965 declaration that was at its time a watershed in Jewish-Christian relations. Yet it should be noted that prior to the issuing of this declaration, "a very special general audience" was organized, according to the desire of Pope Francis, on October 28, 2015, exactly on the day Nostra Aetate was promulgated. A major conference, with hundreds of participants, held on that day in the Pontifical Georgian University in Rome, was addressed by the Pope, who spoke quite emphatically about interreligious dialogue and cooperation.1 Why was there a need to issue the December declaration, in addition to the very warm and clear address the Pope delivered barely a few weeks before? Let us first take a close look at the Nostra Aetate of 1965, and at the documents issued by the Catholic Church between then and the 2015 events, and then present the December 10th Pontifical document, in light of our topic: the recent efforts of the Church to abate antisemitism. Nostra Aetate – “In Our Time” – is the Declaration on the Relations of the Church to non-Christian Religions, proclaimed at the end of the second synod, better known as the Second Vatican Council. Initiated by Pope John XXIII, formerly Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, this impressive gathering took place over a period of three years, from 1962-1965, and was attended by some 3,000 cardinals and bishops from the world over. In his capacity as the Vatican's delegate in Istanbul, Roncalli met members of the rescue delegation from the Yishuv, as well as members of the Jewish community in Palestine under the British Mandate between the two World Wars, and learned from them about the horrors of the Holocaust. Roncalli, a warm and open person, was deeply moved and was in tears when he heard about the sinking of the Struma, the loaded refugee boat that was denied access to Turkish ports, and more so when he was presented with the Protocols of Auschwitz. He did his best to extend help, wrote intensively to Pope Pius XII and to heads of European countries he had contacts with, in an attempt to alleviate the plight of their Jewish communities.2 After the war, when the establishment of a Jewish state was at stake, Roncalli became instrumental in the behind the scenes diplomatic efforts to gain U.S. members' votes by facilitating audiences with Zionist activists and high level Vatican officials.3 Once Roncalli became Pope, he did not forget the Holocaust, or its implications for the Jewish people. At the second Vatican Council, he initiated a revolution in the ways of the Church at large, where the volume published in its wake included a page and a half that came to be known as "the Jewish Document" or the Nostra Aetate Declaration. This short document marked a theological revolution, a watershed in Christian-Jewish relations. Due to the importance the wording of such a declaration carries, and to the fact that this wording serves as a basis for subsequent Papal documents published in subsequent years, let us explore its significance: "The Church cannot forget that it received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant." "Maria, and her son Jesus, were Jews," the text goes on, Recent Efforts by the Catholic Church to Abate Antisemitism in the Wake of the Holocaust O Dina Porat 1. Presentation of the 8 page abstract of the December 10, 2015 Document, by Cardinal Kurt Koch, took place at a Tel Aviv University special conference, on December 14-15, 2015. For the text of the abstract see http://www.vatican. va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relationsjews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20151210_ebraismo-nostraaetate_en.html (last visited Jan. 5, 2017). 2. See Dina Porat and David Bankier, RONCALLI AND THE JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST: CONCERNS AND EFFORTS TO HELP (Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, 2014), p. 135. 3. See State of Israel, THE FOREIGN MINISTRY: THE FIRST 50 YEARS (Moshe Jaeger, Yoseph Govrin and Arie Oded, eds., Keter, Jerusalem, 2002) (Hebrew), pp. 998-1002.

8 No. 58 JUSTICE and the Church "also recalls that the Apostles, the Church’s main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people." Moreover, "Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod [the second Vatican Council] wants to foster and recommend" mutual understanding and respect. Having said that as an introduction and background, the text then presents three points, each of which had been awaited for almost two thousand years by Jews, as individuals and as a nation: The first states that "the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today." The second one is no less surprising, taking into account the centuries-long persecution of Jews and their thoroughly ugly and demonic image that the Church fostered: "Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures." The third and final one "decries hatred, persecutions and displays of antisemitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."4 Such words were unheard of throughout the long history of mutual Christian-Jewish relations, and went contrary to popular deeply rooted Christian beliefs. The charge of deicide was finally revoked, the right of the Jewish people to continue God's covenant in a manner equal to that of His new people, the Christians, was reinstated, and antisemitism in all times and forms was denounced unequivocally. A long line of Papal documents was written in the years that followed, continuing the spirit and wording of the Nostra Aetate. The insistence on the same spirit and wording, by a number of Popes and Vatican committees, shows that the change in the Catholic attitude toward the Jewish people was not a momentary event that accompanied a well-attended meeting such as the Second Vatican Council, but rather a long and genuine process. Indeed, in 1974, during the papacy of Paulus VI, the Papal committee for relations with the Jews issued directives and suggestions aimed at helping the believers to internalize the Nostra Aetate: this was a milestone in the history of Jewish-Christian relations, said the committee members, a milestone that was influenced by the memory of the persecution of the Jews and their annihilation in Europe before and during World War II. The committee reminded the believers that the spiritual and historical ties that bind the Church with Judaism denounce every form of antisemitism and discrimination as contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and strongly recommended that Christians strive for a better knowledge of the components of Jewish tradition.5 These words are indeed a new phenomenon, reflecting a profound change: antisemitism as contrary to the Christian spirit. In 1985, the same committee issued a much longer and detailed document on "the Right Way" to present Jews and Judaism in Catholic education and preaching. The text relies again on the Nostra Aetate and emphasizes that the uniqueness of the Jewish people is exemplary; that Jesus was and remained a Jew in Jewish Palestina in the first century and – again – that any form of antisemitism and discrimination is contrary to the very spirit of Christianity.6 This document was issued during the long papacy of John Paul II, who insisted time and again on rapprochement between the two religions and advanced it in a variety of ways. Much as it impacted on John XXIII, the Holocaust had a deep impact on John Paul II's conduct as Pope. He witnessed the disappearance of his childhood Jewish friends from his home town in Poland and was a member of the Polish underground during the war. Among the many speeches, addresses and papal documents issued during this long papacy (1978-2005), some stand out with special significance and pinpoint the continuing change: The papal committee on religious relations with the Jews carried on its work, and in March 1998, on the eve of the third millennium, published the Pope's letter to the believers, "'We Remember': Reflections on the Holocaust." This address, which by now is 4. The Nostra Aetate has been formally translated into Hebrew, under "Paulus the VI (second Vatican Council) A declaration on the Church's attitude to non-Christian Religions, 'In our Time'." For the English text see Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, Oct., 28, 1965, available at www.vatican. va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/ vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html (last visited Dec. 17, 2016). 5. Guidelines and suggestions for implementing the Conciliar Declaration "Nostra Aetate" (n. 4), Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, available at www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/relations-jewsdocs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19741201_nostra-aetate_en.html (last visited Dec. 17, 2016). 6. Notes on the Correct Way to Present the Jews and Judaism in Preaching and Catechesis in the Roman Catholic Church, Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, available at www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/ chrstuni/relations-jews-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19820306_ jews-judaism_en.html (last visited Dec. 17, 2016).

9 Fall-Winter 2016 7. Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente, Nov. 10, 1994, 33:AAS (acta apostolicae sedis 87 91005), 25. 8. AAS, vol. LXXXVI (1994), n.9. pp. 716-728. 9. Joseph Ratzinger, POPE BENEDICTUS XVI, JESUS OF NAZARETH, three volumes (Ignatius Press, Rome, 2011-2012). considered one of the most central expressions of the development in the Vatican in this regard, outlines the long history of Jewish-Christian relations. While some parts of the Pope's thoughts and historical facts as he presented them might be debatable, the following is beyond doubt: the depiction of the Holocaust as a merciless indelible crime, a tragedy beyond words, never to be forgotten, and the appeal, nevertheless, to the Jewish people to hear the Christians with open hearts, despite the fact that many Christians did not protest against the persecution and killing of their Jewish neighbors – and that the Church is deeply sorry about the mistakes and failures of these believers. The letter, it should be noted, does not mention the collaboration of many Christians with the Germans in the actual round- ups and killings. The address reminds its readers that Jesus was a descendent of King David, that the Jews "are our very beloved brothers," if not the elder brothers, and a warning against the evil seeds of anti-Judaism and antisemitism that should never be rooted again in any human heart.7 The basic agreement between the State of Israel and the Holy See signed in 1993 — a historical milestone in itself — includes in its second item a commitment by both sides to appropriate cooperation in the struggle against antisemitism in all its forms and all types of racial and religious intolerance. The Holy See used this opportunity to reiterate its renouncement of hate, persecution and other expressions of antisemitism directed against the Jewish people and against Jews as individuals at any time or place.8 One may mention as well the "Antisemitism: A Sin towards God and Humanity " declaration of September 1990, the "Antisemitism; A Wound to be Healed" of September 2003, and a host of other declarations and statements. In March 2000, during his visit to Israel, Pope John Paul II placed a moving personal note in the stones of the Western Wall, in which he asked God, the God who chose Abraham and his offspring, to bring His name to all nations and to forgive those who caused suffering to God's children. Pope Benedictus XVI went along the same Nostra Aetate line in his two volume biography of Jesus, in which he reiterated his and his disciples' Jewish origins, and the exoneration of the Jews from the accusations of deicide that embittered their lives for centuries.9 The above mentioned documents form an incomplete list, and one could go on quoting more speeches, addresses, letters and the like. This brings us back to the question with which we opened: why should Pope Francis have issued one more emphatic declaration in December 2015, that followed the many already existing clear cut documents that were written since 1965, including the Nostra Aetate and the October 2015 event that marked its 50th anniversary? A close look at Pope Francis' December declaration might perhaps provide an answer. The more than 30- page document was first issued in Rome on December 10, 2015 and its abstract was brought to Tel Aviv a few days later by Cardinal Kurt Koch, who leads Jewish-Christian relations in the Vatican. Cardinal Koch presented it at the opening of a special conference, attended by the heads of most religious denominations in Israel, emphasizing that it was the Pope's wish to have it presented in the Holy Land right after it was first published in Rome. This is a unique document that summarizes all the documents that preceded it, and still depicts Jewish-Christian relations in an unprecedented manner, imbued with deep respect toward the Jewish people in a clear and unequivocal way. This declaration, much as the previous ones, takes up the Nostra Aetate as a starting point, yet it "broadens and deepens" its principles, while recalling the Jewish roots of Christianity, the first of which was that "Jesus and his early followers were Jewish, shaped by the Jewish tradition of their time" (p. 1 of the abstract). This is a study document, said and wrote Cardinal Koch, "whose aim is to deepen the theological dimension of the Catholic-Jewish dialogue" (p. 3). This dialogue has a good chance now, since "from enemies and strangers we have become friends and brothers" in recent decades (p. 4). Moreover, a very close and unavoidable family relationship has developed, so much so that the present dialogue is not inter-religious but rather an intra-familial one (p. 5). There is indispensable harmony between the two testaments, the Old and the New one, and special relations between the Old and the New Covenants: "The covenant offered by God to Israel is irrevocable … the new Covenant has its basis and foundation in the Old one … the New Covenant is neither the cancellation nor the replacement but the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant (pp. 5-6). Both the original full document and its abstract do not sweep difficult problems under the carpet, like how can Jews be part of God's salvation if they do not believe in Jesus as a Christ and a messiah? This, says the Pope, and the abstract quotes, "remains an unfathomable divine mystery" (p. 6). Another thorny issue is that of the traditional wish to convert the Jews. "The Catholic Church

10 No. 58 JUSTICE neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed towards Jews," while it may be directed at members of other religions. This is an additional earthquake, since for centuries Christians prayed for the conversion of Jews, as they did in the Good Friday prayer, and attempted forced and often cruel, conversions as well. Moreover, if Christians approach Jews to explain the principles of Christianity, or are still reciting the Good Friday prayer, they should do so in "a humble and sensitive manner," because the Jews are the bearers of God's word, and because they had undergone the great tragedy of the Shoah (p. 7). Notably, the traditional ending of Papal documents is a wish for a common struggle against all manifestations of racial discrimination against Jews and against all forms of antisemitism (p. 7). The December declaration includes more utterances that were not included in the abstract. For example, a Christian can never be an antisemite, mainly because of the Jewish roots of Christianity; mutual respect is both a pre- condition for an inter-religious dialogue and its purpose; one more basic purpose of the dialogue is coming to know each other. Regarding mutual acquaintance, the following is an inspiring sentence, one that can be cherished: "one can only learn to love what one has gradually come to know, and one can only know truly and profoundly what one loves." Repeated emphasis is placed on the Holocaust as the starting point for change in the Vatican: It was the dark terrible shadow of the Holocaust over Europe during the Nazi era, says the declaration, that has led the Church to re-think its ties with the Jewish people.10 The above mentioned documents reflect an enormous change, a revolution, in the attitude of the Catholic Church to the Jewish people, from centuries-long hostility and antisemitism in a variety of forms, to expressions of friendship, kinship and respect. The change is of utmost importance: there are more than a billion Catholic believers world-wide today, and such Papal declarations, coupled by the visits of the Popes to Jerusalem, are bound to have a positive impact. Also, the manner and tone – et c'est le ton qui fait la musique – in which the change is introduced, is essential to its reception by audiences in the various countries. Indeed, it is both the warm open personality, and the contacts with Jews, that made the music: John XXIII, John Paul II and Francis had close friendship with Jews – Roncalli with the rescue delegation in Istanbul, John Paul II with his childhood friends, some of who survived and with whom he maintained contact throughout his life, and Francis with his bosom friend Rabbi Avraham Skorka whom he befriended when he was Cardinal of Buenos Aires. Indeed, the three of them, much more than other Popes that sat on the Holy See during and since the Holocaust, initiated and maintained a revolutionary change toward the Jews. Still, a number of problems accompany this development. One of them concerns timing: Pope Francis' declaration was issued in the midst of a wave of immigrants, mainly from Moslem countries, who are flooding Europe. Terror and antisemitism are on the rise for the last decade. The Moslem world has been watching with great concern the process of rapprochement between the Church and the Jewish people, and the December 2015 document was no exception.11 Is it the wish of the present Pope to form a sort of a Jewish-Christian coalition that would be a barrier to violence and terror that may originate in extreme radical Islamist circles, or will he have to find a way to keep a kind of co-existence with the Moslem world as well, in order to maintain some balance in the Vatican's foreign relations? The other problem concerns politics: Half of the Catholics today reside in third world countries, whose political leadership traditionally supports the Palestinian cause. Moreover, these leaders have been under the Soviet umbrella for decades, until 1989, and now Putin's Russia is trying to maintain this influence. Is the Vatican taking a political risk when issuing such pro-Jewish declarations? Part of the answer lies in the wish and duty of the Church to defend and protect its followers in the Middle East, and especially on Israeli territory. The Christian communities that live as a minority under the threat of the Moslem population around them are dwindling, and good relations with Israel are needed, since the Israeli authorities are their main source of support. Yet perhaps the answer lies in another direction, since Israel is bound to defend all of its citizens, with or without Papal declarations: these declarations are meant for internal Catholic use, and are part and parcel of the internal theological debate taking place among the Church's high echelons. This debate does not take into consideration the Arab and Moslem world, since it is declared and defined as an internal theological debate, not a political one. Although the Jewish communities or authorities are not direct partners to the process, nor do they have any direct impact on the deliberations, Jewish representatives are members of the bilateral committees established by the Vatican since 1980. Moreover, Israel as the state of the Jewish people is not mentioned in the 10. For the abstract, see supra note 1. 11. Meir Litvak and Esther Webman, FROM EMPATHY TO DENIAL, ARAB RESPONSES TO THE HOLOCAUST (Hurst & Company, London, 2009), ch. 4.

11 Fall-Winter 2016 documents, except, naturally, for the basic agreement signed in late 1993 between the two states. The documents are not distributed to the outside world – nor are they translated by the Vatican so as to be read by non-Catholic audiences. This is at least part of the explanation for the fact that these astonishing documents, imbued with respect and well-wishing for the Jewish world, are almost unknown in Israel or among Jews. This state of affairs also explains why there is no Jewish, rabbinical or Israeli response to the positive spirit emerging from Rome: it is simply unknown to most Jews. Another serious question is, how much of these documents' contents is known and seeping down from the high echelons into the Christian world at large; in small villages, in conservative communities, and other Christian places in the world. In Latin America and Eastern Europe, for instance, it is unclear how long will it take for the process and its good intentions to be understood and accepted by large audiences. Finally, a thought that is entirely my own: let us assume that indeed all the documents that have been presented here are of a pure theological nature, and serve theological needs and purposes, and therefore do not involve any political risk for the Popes who initiate them or go along with them. Still, they could be interpreted as having political importance, by both the Arab and Moslem world, and the Israeli-Jewish one. Let us dwell on one possible interpretation: The repeated declaration, since Nostra Aetate until Pope Francis, that God's covenant with the Jewish people is irrevocable and has actually never been broken means that the Jews were unjustly considered an accursed and detested people, and that their punishment for not accepting Jesus as the Christ, to be on exile among the nations, was unjust as well. If so, the Jews are entitled to come back to the land of their ancestors, and to rebuild their national existence, as it had been before the unjust exile. This interpretation certainly has political significance, for which we have to deeply thank the Catholic leaders – for this and for the kind friendly hand extended from Rome to Jerusalem. n Dina Porat, Chief historian of Yad Vashem, is Professor Emerita in the Department of Jewish History and head of the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry, both at Tel Aviv University.