JUSTICE - No. 74

Summer 2025 No.74 הארגון הבינלאומי של עורכי-דין ומשפטנים יהודים (ע״ר)

The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Honorary President: Judge Hadassa Ben-Itto z”l (Israel) President Emeritus: Irit Kohn (Israel) Lifetime Member: Irwin Cotler, Prof. (Canada) Honorary Vice Presidents: Oreste Bisazza Terracini, Dr. z”l (Italy), Joseph Roubache z”l (France) Board of Governors All members of the Executive Committee are members of the Board of Governors. Executive Committee President Meir Linzen (Israel) Deputy President Daniel Reisner (Israel) Vice President and Coordinator for International Organizations Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Vice President and Secretary General Rachel Levitan (Israel) Vice President and Treasurer Avraham (Avi) Doron (Israel) Vice Presidents Robert Garson (USA) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Argentina) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Chief Executive Officer Hila Kugler Ramot (Israel) Head of the Legal Center for Combating Antisemitism Avraham Yishai (Israel) Special Projects Coordinator Mala Tabory, Dr. (Israel) Representatives to the U.N. in Geneva (UNOG) Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Hila Kugler Ramot (Israel) Representatives to U.N. Headquarters in New York Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Hila Kugler Ramot (Israel) Richard Horowitz (USA) Mark Speiser (USA) Representative to the European Parliament Pascal Markowicz (France) Meir Linzen (Israel) Daniel Reisner (Israel) Pnina Sharvit Baruch (Israel) Rachel Levitan (Israel) Avraham (Avi) Doron (Israel) Marcos Arnoldo Grabivker, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Argentina) Maurizio Ruben (Italy) Robert Garson (USA) Alan Sacks (Israel) Aleksandra Gliszczynska-Grabias, Prof. (Poland) Alyza D. Lewin (USA) Amos Shapira, Prof. (Israel) Avraham Yishai (Israel) Axel Freiherr von dem Bussche, Dr. (Germany) Baruch Katzman (Israel) Calev Myers (Israel) Carlos Schlesinger (Brazil) Dalia Tal (Israel) Dan Roskis (France) Daniel Benko (Croatia) David Benjamin (Israel) David Pardes (Belgium) Edna Kaplan-Hagler, Judge (Ret.) Dr. (Israel) Elyakim Rubinstein, Justice (Ret.), Prof. (Israel) Ethia Simha (Israel) Graham ZelIick, Prof. (UK) Hernan Najenson (Argentina) Hila Kugler Ramot (Israel) Irit Kohn (Israel) Isaac (Tzachi) Shragay (Israel) Jacques Cohen (France) Jeremy D. Margolis (USA) Jimena Bronfman (Chile) Jonathan David (Israel) Jonathan Lux (UK) Julia Andras (Austria) Maria Canals De-Cediel, Dr. (Switzerland) Michael H. Traison (USA) Michael Kempinski (Israel) Nathan Gelbart (Germany) Noemi Gal-Or, Dr. (Canada) Olaf Ossmann (Switzerland) Pascal Markowicz (France) Regina Tapoohi (USA) Richard Horowitz (USA) Ronit Gidron-Zemach (Israel) Roy Schondorf, Dr. (Israel) Ruben Pescara (Italy) Sarah B. Biser (USA) Stephen C. Rothman, Judge (Australia) Stephen R. Greenwald, Prof. (USA) Suzanne Wolfe-Martin (Malta)

Summer 2025 1 JUSTICE is published by The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IJL) 10 Daniel Frisch St. Tel Aviv 6473111, Israel Tel: +972 3 691 0673 Fax: +972 3 695 3855 office@ijl.org www.ijl.org © Copyright 2025 by IJL 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 IJL Advisory Board at office@ijl.org. Back issues of JUSTICE are available at www.ijl.org. JUSTICE No. 74, Summer 2025 Editor Mala Tabory, Dr. Special Advisor Irit Kohn, Adv. Advisory Editor Alan D. Stephens Academic Advisory Board Michael Bazyler, Prof. Noemi Gal-Or, Dr. Oren Gross, Prof. Moshe Hirsch, Prof. Deborah Housen-Couriel, Adv. Robert Katz, Prof. Michla Pomerance, Prof. Arie Reich, Prof. Nicholas Rostow, Prof. Robbie Sabel, Prof. Amos Shapira, Prof. Malcolm N. Shaw, Prof. Joseph H. Weiler, Prof. Steven E. Zipperstein, Prof. Legal Editorial Staff Shani Birenbaum Jennifer Farrell, Esq. Gavriella Lazarus Graphic Design Climax Design Studio Ltd. www.climax-design.co.il | 03-7516747 Cover Photo Shabbat dinner table at Harvard Yard, organized by Harvard students for abducted hostages held in Gaza. Photographer: Yannai A. Gonczarowski Image Attribution Notice The illustration featured on this cover is used in accordance with Section 27A of the Israeli Copyright Law. Despite extensive efforts, we have not been able to identify or locate the rights holder. If you are the creator or hold rights to this work, please contact us at: office@ijl.org. We will be happy to provide proper attribution or remove the image upon request. Contents President’s Message Meir Linzen 2 Honoring Yom HaShoa: In the Shadow of October 7 Michal Cotler-Wunsh 4 Painful Beginnings: The Reconstruction of Jewish Communities in Central and Eastern Europe after the Holocaust András Kovács 12 80th Anniversary of Raoul Wallenberg’s Disappearance Irwin Cotler 18 Raoul Wallenberg – 80 Years Since the Humanitarian Hero Disappeared Ludvig Foghammar 21 Articles Addressing the Academic Boycott as a Wakeup Call for Israeli Academia Barak Medina 22 One Year Later: Antisemitism Lawsuits on College Campuses Akiva Shapiro, Harley Belmont, and Shayan Kohanteb 27 ‘It’s Unfortunate that I Have to Sue’: Why Some Jewish Students Are Suing their Universities Rebecca Massel 33 Rule of Law vs Politicization: Confronting Assaults on Israel in the American Historical Association, 2015-2025 Jeffrey Herf 39 Prosecution or Persecution? The Global Campaign to Arrest Israeli Soldiers and How Israel Can Repel it Liron A. Libman 45 Seeking Justice: Strategic Legal Action and Advocacy in Response to Antisemitism, Terrorism, and the Demonization of Israel Richard D. Heideman and Joseph H. Tipograph 54 Book Reviews Beyond Dispute: Rediscovering the Jewish Art of Constructive Disagreement By Daniel Taub Reviewed by Robbie Sabel 57 Reporting the Nuremberg Trials: How Journalists Covered Live Nazi Trials & Executions By Noël Marie Fletcher Reviewed by Sam Lehman-Wilzig 59

2 No. 74 JUSTICE write these lines shortly after the conclusion of the war known as מלחמת עם כלביא ,‏ and in English as Operation “Rising Lion,” otherwise known simply as “The 12 Day War.” In the war, Israel, with help from the United States of America, attacked Iran's nuclear installations, as well as installations involved in manufacturing ballistic missiles, drones, and other weapons of destruction. The Israeli Home Front suffered serious loss of life, and substantial damage to property from Iranian missile attacks, most of which were aimed at residential areas, office buildings, and innocent civilians. Israel's attack, as an operation of last resort, sought to thwart Iran’s plan to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel by developing and manufacturing nuclear weapons and a massive arsenal of ballistic missiles and other weapons. Historically, there has not been enmity between the Persian people and the Jewish people. And there are no genuine sources of conflict between Iran and Israel, two independent states separated by a huge distance. One of the fundamental principles of the Islamic regime in Iran has been the destruction of the State of Israel. This has been the stated policy of Iran, and the regime has acted with persistence and determination for decades to achieve this aim. It has done this in several ways – from surrounding Israel with a “ring of fire” of proxy agencies, the manufacture of long-range missiles, and the development of a military nuclear program. Iran’s aim and intention is genocide – the destruction of the people in the State of Israel. This is evident from the statements of Iran’s leaders, their incitement and their actions. It is clear that among its other crimes, Iran is in breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. How cynical of South Africa and other states, prompted by Iran and its proxies, to initiate proceedings at the ICJ accusing Israel of genocide in the Gaza Strip, while Iran itself, through its statements and its actions, is working to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel. There are many strategies for dealing with Iran – military, economic (sanctions), diplomatic, including through treaties and international agreements, but we sense a lack of activity on the legal front, even if this is not the most important avenue. I hope that States (and not just Israel) and international bodies will make use of legal tools to thwart the nefarious intentions of Iran. It is difficult for me, as the son of Holocaust survivors, to avoid the comparison between the ideology of the Nazi regime and the ideology of Iran when it comes to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. There was never any historical enmity between the German people and the Jewish people, and there was certainly never any dispute between the German state and any political entity of the Jewish people because no such entity existed. Simply, the distorted ideology of Hitler and the Nazi regime took the destruction of the Jewish people as its central platform. Likewise with the Persian people. There was never any historical dispute, disagreement, or enmity between Iran and Israel. Yet today, central to the Islamic regime’s ideology is the destruction of the “Little Satan” – the State of Israel – without any logic or interest. I hope and pray that the nightmare of the threat from Iran is behind us, and that the historical bond between the great Persian people and the Jewish people, like the friendship that we once saw between Iran and Israel, can be restored once again, as of old. President’s Message I Meir Linzen Photo: Idan Gross

3 Summer 2025 The name of the recent war, Operation “Rising Lion,” originates from the Biblical story of Bilam, who was summoned by the King of Moab to curse the Jewish people. But however hard he tried, Bilam’s curse came out as a blessing: “How goodly are your tents O Jacob, your dwelling places, Israel!” May the dark days that we have witnessed here in Israel over these last two years be understood one day soon, as the start of a bright new future for Israel and the entire Middle East. And may the remaining hostages held in Gaza be soon repatriated. July 8, 2025

4 No. 74 JUSTICE thank all those who created this opportunity to engage with the legal community, possibly the most important community in this pressing issue, especially as we witness a tsunami of antisemitism around the world — in Western Europe, in the United States, in Canada, in Australia — in the aftermath and in the response to the worst attack on Jews since the Holocaust. I share with you the understanding of how dangerous it is to see the law hijacked and weaponized in order to mainstream or normalize antisemitism — an ever-mutating lethal hate that has existed for thousands of years. In this case, this strain has been enabled by latching onto the guiding social construct of our time — the “secular religion” of human rights: the international rulesbased order after the Holocaust and post-World War II. It was created from the ashes of the Holocaust so that despite “Never Again,” in an Orwellian-inverted reality we are witness to “again and again,” be it in Sudan or in other parts of the world, while the international community remains silent. I share with you my analysis of how we got to the moment in which a tsunami of antisemitism emerged in response to the attack of October 7, Simchat Torah in Israel. I explore this so that we can comprehend what we need to do in order to identify and combat this evermutating lethal hate, as Professor Wistrich called it, “the oldest hatred in the world,” effectively, including using the law. I begin by analyzing how we arrived here — not just with the 1948 sort of reconstitution, formation of the State of Israel, the nation state of the Jewish People, but by looking at Jews as a prototypical indigenous people. Jews are an indigenous people because “indigeneity” means that they speak the same language (Hebrew), traverse the same land (Israel), practice the same customs and rituals, and hearken to the same God for thousands of years. That is the literal meaning of indigeneity. This indigenous people returned to an ancestral homeland after thousands of years of exile and persecution and committed themselves to equality. The Holocaust was just the most immediate or most “modern” awful event of that exile and persecution, of which we must understand the moment in which we address now the critical reclaiming of what the State of Israel is. This is Israel's vision, mission and values, anchored in our Declaration of Independence. The State of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish People. From 1948 to 1973, we witnessed a series of wars and military campaigns between wars driven by the intent to annihilate the Jewish State — the “Jew” among the nations, if you will. Conventional wars failed one after the other, and 1975 is, for me, the first salvo of the appropriation and weaponization of the international institutions, its mechanisms, and the principles that we lawyers often refer to, in that international rules-based order with a 1975 UN Zionism as Racism Resolution. “Zionism is racism” was Soviet propaganda adopted by the UN, and it remains alive and well on university campuses in 2025, online, and on the streets. “Zionism is racism” is the initial attack of what I would call the unconventional war for hearts and minds that begins to appropriate and hijack those international institutions, mechanisms, agencies, and principles, in this sort of multi-front war. But it begins very carefully, according not just to Israel's ambassador at the UN at the time, Chaim Herzog, who ripped up the resolution, but also to Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Ambassador to the UN in 1975, who understood precisely where we have arrived today in a very troubling, almost prophetic speech in which he said, “If Nazism is racism and Zionism is racism, then Zionism is Nazism.” Honoring Yom HaShoah: In the Shadow of October 7* Michal Cotler-Wunsh * Edited transcript of an IJL international webinar, April 22, 2025. As Keynote Speaker, Adv. Michal Cotler-Wunsh addressed the evolving nature of antisemitism, examining its mutations over the decades and its present-day manifestations in a post-October 7 world. She shared insights from her unique role as Israel’s Special Envoy for Combatting Antisemitism. I

5 Summer 2025 Welcome to 2025! Across every university campus that I have visited, every city space where I have come to speak, Zionism is equated with Nazism. Moynihan understood already 50 years ago that there is a very short mile to go between the appropriation of international institutions and mechanisms, and the claim that “Zionism is racism” as the forerunner of this modern mutation of antisemitism. We have arrived now at this understanding − 50 years after the Resolution, and 80 years after the liberation of the concentration camps. I am a trustee in the Rabbi Sacks Legacy. Rabbi Sacks had an understanding that explains what it is about antisemitism that in many ways is different from every other kind of hate. It is a very particular kind of lethal hate because it has the ability to mutate by latching onto the guiding social constructs of religion, science, and the secular religion of our times: human rights. This evermutating virus develops new strains, resistant to the inoculation that we may have created in the past, 80 years ago, where we were able to recognize how the mutation latched onto the guiding social construct of science. The older strains, as we know in a post-COVID world, do not die or disappear. Rather, the new strains are the ones that enable the outburst of the virus once again. Therefore, “Zionism is racism” as the gateway in this unconventional war for public opinion leads me to the 2001 Durban Conference Against Racism. That conference turned into an antisemitic hate fest, witnessed precisely by human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch, Bob Bernstein and others, that saw their life's work — human rights and the pledge of “Never Again” that demanded the equal and consistent application of foundational principles — be appropriated, hijacked, and weaponized for purposes of demonization, delegitimization, and double standards. Following Dreyfus, seated on the dock of the accused as a Jew, now, the Jew among nations is seated on the dock of the accused in international institutions and vilified by their legal mechanisms. Meir Linzen mentioned the ICC and the ICJ in his speech at this forum. I will delve further into the implication of why this is not just a Jewish issue or a Jewish lawyers’ issue, but a far more existential moment for all who cherish these foundational principles, mechanisms, and institutions that were mandated and entrusted to uphold, promote, and protect this international rules-based order equally and consistently. The 2001 Durban Conference Against Racism gave birth to a second blood libel, the accusation that “Israel is an apartheid state.” Israel Apartheid weeks have occurred since that 2001 Durban Conference Against Racism on every campus across North America, Europe and Australia, and in other areas as well. So, we have “Zionism as racism” as blood libel number one and “Israel Apartheid week” as blood libel number two. Now there are 24 years’ worth of university graduates who believe that “Zionism is racism” and who opine that “Israel is an apartheid state.” In addition to, or alongside, these Israel apartheid weeks, what takes place is the very lengthy democratic process to create a holistic definition of antisemitism. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism is a critical resource. It enables us to identify all strains of what an evermutating virus is. That is why it includes eleven examples. The working definition was adopted by more than 40 countries, and more than 1,200 entities, including many universities. As lawyers, we know that every law begins with definitions. If you cannot define a phenomenon, you cannot identify and then combat it. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism was created not by the State of Israel nor by Jews, but by those who understand the ever-mutating ability of this lethal hate that latches onto guiding social constructs of each time period, including this pernicious strain of antiZionism or the denial of Israel's very right to exist. AntiZionism turns the Zionist into a racist. That then enables the resurgence of all strains of antisemitism in those eleven examples included in the definition, from the Jews killing Jesus to the Jews controlling the world, to the individual Jew responsible for the actions of the State of Israel − which is demonized, illegitimized, and subject to double standards − whether that Jew (or Zionist) happens to be in Sydney, Australia, or Montreal, Canada, or in Amsterdam. The understanding that anti-Zionism has created this new strain of antisemitism means that this mutated lethal strain affects a significantly broader range of targets. You need not be a Jew to be the target of this lethal hate. My friend, Congressman Ritchie Torres in the United States, is not a Jew, and yet is as much a target of this strain of anti-Zionism because he simply believes in Israel's right to exist even though he does not live in Israel. In this analysis, which identifies the 1975 blood libel number one that “Zionism is racism” and blood libel number two from the 2001 Durban Conference Against Racism that “Israel is an apartheid state,” we witness the most Orwellian inversion of fact and law in the aftermath of the October 7, 2023 massacre. The State of Israel defends itself from the openly declared intent to perpetrate

6 No. 74 JUSTICE genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity by Hamas, a genocidal terror organization which repeatedly stated its intent to commit a million October 7s − because the State of Israel exists. Even as the State of Israel is defending itself from this openly declared genocidal intent, it is accused by none other than South Africa, having itself committed genocide, a term coined by Raphael Lemkin whose entire family was annihilated in Auschwitz, and crimes against humanity, a legal concept pioneered by Hersch Lauterpacht. Utilization of the Genocide Convention in the International Court of Justice against Israel, one of the first signatories of the convention, is backed by what I call the human rights industry. It is not really human rights per se, because it is no longer human rights if Amnesty International openly redefines genocide by removing the need for intent from the crime of genocide. In this sequence, in a post-2023 massacre, October 7 was actually an attack of barbarism on civilization. I often refer to what is occurring today as the eight war front, as we describe Israel fighting on seven fronts. The eighth war front refers to the responses to the October 7 massacre, the atrocities, the war crimes, the crimes against humanity. What I mean by the “responses” includes the responses of silence from international organizations. I spoke at the UN one month after October 7 and Israel had barely begun to understand what had to be done to respond. Not one women's organization or children's organization unequivocally condemned the atrocities perpetrated on that day. So, “we believe you, unless you're a Jew,” represented the going statement one day after October 7, one month after October 7, and eighteen months after October 7. These were responses of silence. Then there were responses of denial of the Holocaust. I certainly experienced this growing up in Canada. Systematic Holocaust denial or curriculum Holocaust denial with Ernst Zündel and James Keegstra, who tried to teach Holocaust denial, but were prevented from doing so in Canada in the 1980s, when I was in high school. Denial of October 7 began on October 7, even as its barbaric perpetrators streamed the atrocities, the war crimes, and the crimes against humanity, because we are also meeting in a time shaped by social media — something we cannot ignore. I will delve into that below, through the Interparliamentary Task Force to Combat Online Antisemitism and the work we did there. But the understanding that denial began on that day was most disturbing, certainly for me. Perhaps this sounded the alarms of urgency, though I understood precisely that the tsunami of antisemitism might erupt. Denial was not something I could have fathomed to the extent that it appeared. The next type of responses were those of justification: Professors who were exhilarated by the atrocities. Judith Butler, whose textbooks I studied in law school, explaining that rape is armed resistance. Justification across spaces and places on the streets of New York City, of Toronto, of Sydney, and so on, justifying the atrocities perpetrated by a designated, prescribed terror organization. Not condemning that terror organization or its supporters but instead condemning the Jew among the nations that like any other country had to protect its civilians and borders. And finally, the attack on Jews and Zionists, private individuals on campus, online, at work, and on streets around the world. Aleksandra Gliszczyńska–Grabias quoted the most recent Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report, and noted that in this tsunami of antisemitism there is an increase of several hundred percent in this new strain of antisemitism − anti-Zionism − that enabled all of the old strains to be legitimized, normalized, and mainstreamed so that there is no longer any differentiation. I went on a speaking tour before I was in the current role to which I was appointed three weeks before October 7, to talk about antisemitism and combating antisemitism with human rights across law schools in North America − Colombia, NYU, Rutgers, Yale, and others. At the entrance to NYU Law School, I was greeted by a sign written in big pink chalk letters, “Zionists not welcome,” where the term Zionists is just coding for “Jew.” Well, you no longer need to code it so that what you see in an elementary school in Australia or in other places around the world is “kill the Jews.” These expressions have become legitimate and mainstreamed and justify hate that not only targets Jews, but also targets anybody who stands up to this hate and believes in the right of the State of Israel to exist. After that sort of analysis, I think we must be most cognizant of the context of the Yom HaShoah sort of moment in which we meet. For many years, we focused on remembering what happened in the Holocaust. But that is not enough. Remembering what happened without understanding the mechanism that enabled it to happen, the “how it happened” is actually the failure to uphold the pledge of “Never Again.” I will say it again: “Never Again” is a prospective commitment. “Never Again” in the future. We cannot prevent the past. We are commanded to remember the past. The word zachor is the word that appears most often in the Old

7 Summer 2025 Testament. We are commanded to remember the past. But it is not enough to remember the past. We remember the past in order to be able to identify the threats of the present and to be able to prevent the recurrence of atrocities in the future. The focus singularly on what happened, without understanding the mechanism of how it happened − which brings me straight to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism − is a failure across the board that has enabled the narrative that says that the State of Israel exists because the Holocaust occurred. It is precisely the opposite. The Holocaust could not have occurred had the State of Israel existed. The State of Israel is not a 77-year young reparation prize for the murder of six million Jews. The moment that we enable that narrative to be told, we must look inward and ask ourselves about the concept of understanding what we tell our own children when they go to Poland, when they participate in the March of the Living, when they come to Israel. That is not why the State of Israel exists. The State of Israel, as I stated, is the nation state of the Jewish People, a prototypical indigenous people who returned after millennia of exile and persecution and committed to equality. That is the Declaration of Independence vision, mission, and values of the State of Israel. It is the Holocaust itself that has been appropriated in this Orwellian inverted moment. In order to be able to justify this strain of antisemitism that unleashed a tsunami of all strains of ever-mutating antisemitism, all eleven examples of the IHRA working definition constitute, from my perspective, the most prompting moment. My goal was to create a national strategy for combating antisemitism. My understanding that it is the Holocaust itself that has been appropriated and weaponized at this Orwellian moment to demonize, delegitimize, and apply double standards to the State of Israel brings me to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. This definition, as opposed to all the other definitions that have been offered, and used by, for example, the White House National Strategy for Combating Antisemitism, that referred to the nexus definition, which actually negates that part of the IHRA working definition. Without the mechanism, without the how, without understanding the demonization, delegitimization and double standards, it is the mechanism that enables not “Never Again,” but again and again. It enabled the genocide in Rwanda − the Houthis and the Tutsis. That did not happen overnight. Demonization, delegitimization, and double standards is the dangerous mechanism that enables genocide. We saw it in a post-October 7 reality, not just in the demonization, delegitimization and double standards of the State of Israel. What allowed people to walk past the posters of Kfir Bibas and rip them down was that mechanism, so well infiltrated into university spaces, educational spaces, and online spaces. For those who demonize, delegitimize and apply double standards, that was not a human baby whose poster they were ripping down. In my first emergency trip to the United States, walking past the African American Museum, I thought of Emmett Till, the fourteen-year-old African American boy whose brutal murder in 1955 became a catalyst for the civil rights movement. I had this Emmett Till moment just as Israel was about to reveal what happened on October 7, including the rape and the sexual crimes that happened on that day. Emmett Till's mother makes the decision to bury Emmett in an open casket so that the community will look in, her children will look in, and the police will look in to see what it is that kills, what it was that murdered Emmett Till. I had this moment that made me sick to my stomach. If you understand the mechanism of demonization, or dehumanization when it is an individual, then you understand that as we were contemplating opening up the casket, if you will, and incurring additional trauma to ourselves, to our families, to our loved ones, I realized that it may very well be that people will look in the casket and say, “that's just a Jewish woman, she deserved it.” Or they won't look in at all, or they will not say that they “believe” you because you are a Jew. In fact, that is the result that we have seen in a postOctober 7 reality. The understanding, when I speak, especially with lawyers, that it is the law, its mechanisms and institutions mandated and entrusted to be upheld, promoted, and protected equally and consistently. Every lawyer here knows that selective application of any rule, of any law, of any principle renders the paper it is written on irrelevant, and the rule ceases to protect anyone; the understanding that the reclamation of law must begin with the law and with its institutions. I mentioned the ICC, the ICJ courts of last resort, and the implication of their weaponization. When I was a Knesset member, I was the first-time liaison to the issue of the ICC. At that point in time in 2020, Fatou Bensouda had already rendered her decision regarding the State of Israel, completely ignoring seven countries’ amicus briefs that stated clearly that there is no justiciability, that the issue of complementarity hadn't been met, and so on, with legal principles being completely ignored.

8 No. 74 JUSTICE We cannot think for a moment that this is just about the State of Israel, that this is just about Jews and Zionists around the world, and that it is not about the dangerous collapse of the infrastructure post-World War II, written in the ashes of the Holocaust and the promise of “Never Again.” Even as we witness this axis of evil of which Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis are proxies of just one member, the Islamic Republic of Iran, we can, of course, add Russia and China. China is a great example because the utilitarian antisemitism of China came into play just weeks after October 7. I do not know how familiar you are with Bin Laden's “Letter to America,” which was disseminated on TikTok weeks after October 7. You might ask, “what's the connection?” Well, the connection was very clear with Gen Zers, who suddenly understood that Bin Laden was right, just as Hamas is right in this war of barbarism on our shared civilization. And so, if we encapsulate the understanding that we have as lawyers, it is that it began at the Liebermann Villa in which the Wannsee Conference took place. Though I know what it is that enabled the creation of the Final Solution, seeing on paper the clarity with which the number of Jews in each and every country is listed, I note that nine of the fifteen men in that room were lawyers. More than half held doctorates. The understanding that it is the hijacking and weaponization of the law that enables the systematic demonization, delegitimization, and double standards, as I called it, “that mechanism” that is integral to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as opposed to all the other definitions that have been suggested. Only the IHRA is the result of a long democratic process, and only the IHRA working definition is internationally recognized, adopted by more than 40 countries, and more than 1,200 entities. That understanding becomes a personal issue for any one of us who understands the danger of enabling the co-opting and weaponization of the law, which can then justify, legitimize, and enable the worst atrocities that have occurred throughout history. The hope that I have is the understanding that for thousands of years our people had no ability to fight back; no ability to rise from the dock of the accused. We know J’accuse and Émile Zola and so on, but now we have the ability and the responsibility. Only now that we have about 45% of us in that nation state to which we returned after thousands of years of exile and persecution, in the State of Israel, 45% of us are in North America and 10% of us are in the rest of the world in relative safety and security. Although it is very unpleasant, we have the responsibility to face this as a people, recognizing that we are the front lines of this raging existential war on our shared humanity, freedom, and the dignity of difference, to which the late Rabbi Sacks made very clear − that antisemitism is the most reliable sign of a major threat. That understanding not only gives me this sense of urgency, but also a sense of hope. I quote the late Rabbi Sacks again, who says hope, as contrasted with optimism, “is the belief that together we can make something okay.” Hope is a very active virtue that takes courage. I have witnessed three of my children serve as soldiers, as well as all our friends’ children, and all of our children’s friends. I have witnessed a generation of action and courage. And it is the role and responsibility of our generation: to be able to not only witness what they are doing and have done, rising to the challenge and running towards the fire, if you will, on October 7. The responsibility for all of us, each in our world and in this case in our legal world, is to act with courage in the way that IJL does and in many contexts. Each participating individual − wherever you may be from − provides the sense of hope that I believe enables us to renew not just the covenant of fate, but also the sense of being a prototypical indigenous people. This is not just a religion (we have a religion), not just a culture (we have a culture), not just a state (now that we have a state), but a prototypical indigenous people. The covenant of destiny, not just fate in which antisemitism, hate from the outside, defines for us or reminds us of who we are as a people, but the covenant of destiny in which we opt in, we lean on, we choose proactively to not just fight back, but to remember who we are. We need to reclaim our identity as Zionists, which is integral to the identity of the majority of Jews and not something that we can shed when convenient. We need to reclaim the foundational and human rights principles that have been hijacked and appropriated, and in many ways renew that covenant of destiny to be able to realize not just our role and responsibility as individuals, as collectives, as communities, but as the nation state of the Jewish People. Q&A Session with Michal Cotler-Wunsh Q: Please clarify the idea of defining and appropriating a legal definition or legal violation for a purpose other than the law intended? A: When you equate Zionism with racism, you not only do an injustice to Zionism, the progressive national

9 Summer 2025 liberation movement of the Jewish People, anchored in the identity of Jews who for thousands of years prayed and yearned and longed to return to Zion, you actually redefine the concept so as to alter it in a manner that minimizes any suffering from racism. It is the same with apartheid. Apartheid has a definition. The State of Israel has its challenges, but it is not an apartheid state. When you utilize that term in an inappropriate manner, you turn the State of Israel into the pariah among nations. In that way, the state of the Jews, which is intended to be an equal state in the family of nations, is turned into the “Jew” of the states − demonized, delegitimized, and suffering from the application of a double standard. Regarding genocide, the altered definition is most important. Genocides are taking place in the world where we live, in Sudan, for example. South Africa hosted their leader, who is actually guilty of committing genocide in Sudan, weeks before filing that “alleged” accusation against Israel in the ICJ. When you have collapsed those principles, when you have rendered them meaningless, and the institutions created as courts of last resort − I only touched on this point briefly − but the ICC and the ICJ were courts of last resort that were actually, with legal terminology, created with limited resources in order to be able to deal with the worst atrocities committed in places in which there are no legal mechanisms to try those atrocities. Well, if you utilize them in a way that not only quashes their principles of justiciability and complementarity, and all the other principles that they completely overlooked and ignored, then they also fail to address the real issues in the real places in which these ongoing crimes are happening. Think of Amnesty International itself redefining genocide or Human Rights Watch, when Bob Bernstein, its founding president, wrote, I believe, in the late 80s, an article that was published in The New York Times about human rights lost in the Middle East. He predicted this just like Patrick Moynihan predicted it in the UN, because they were both witness to the appropriation of their life's work of human rights. So, when you take legal terms and change their meaning, you not only weaken their meaning or invert their meaning, in our case or in antisemitism, because that's how antisemitism works. It is actually the inversion, the Orwellian inversion. But it does not only do this great injustice or is unable to render justice to those for whom those mechanisms were created to protect, it actually collapses the entire coal mine, if you will. As I said in the UN a month after October 7, we may be the bloody canary in the coal mine, but the coal mine will collapse. So, if October 7 is that Kristallnacht moment, 85 years after Kristallnacht, and 75 years after the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, it too is appropriated in that way, that is not just a problem for the Jew among the nations and the State of Israel. That is not just a problem for Jews or supporters of the State of Israel around the world. That is a problem for all of us who cherish these foundational principles created with the pledge of “Never Again,” utilizing these legal principles and mechanisms that have meaning and appropriating and changing them actually collapses the entire infrastructure. Q: What are your thoughts on the Irish claim that as Israel is committing genocide, the term should be redefined? A: Yes, that is really a continuation of that Amnesty International redefinition of genocide. This reminds me of something that I didn't say. What the responses to October 7 revealed in pulling off so many masks, is the intersection between − I will call it the international institutions and human rights Industry − between university spaces that have relinquished the responsibility of teaching how to think for the very dangerous prospect of teaching what to think. That is what we see at Harvard and at Yale. And I have said this to university presidents: if that is the moment in time that universities must reflect on, that is a moment of reckoning. But it intersects with those international institutions and human rights with what is happening on university campuses and with the social media spaces. We should now understand that those three, I call them echo chambers, are not singularly separate. I underscore the importance for lawyers to be able to understand that, because we understand how to see the breadth of things across all those ecosystems instead of going down rabbit holes. An example of this is fighting only antisemitism online, fighting only antisemitism in international institutions, or fighting antisemitism only in this university or in all universities. The understanding is that if we are going to be able to get ahead of this, we must stop with what I call whacka-mole, right? Especially with what happens online. It is very visible. Regarding what happens online, including “we want content moderation” − I don't want content moderation. I don't believe that what happens in digital spaces is free speech. It is very expensive speech. It is a very lucrative business model. Somebody is making a lot of money

10 No. 74 JUSTICE from this polarizing, fragmenting speech of which antisemitism is just predictive of the danger. What we should be demanding is transparency, transparency of algorithms, transparency of policies, transparency of the implementation of policies. Here too, lawyers understand that when there are policies that are not expected of an entire industry that is a money-making industry. It is a business. It is a business model. And the understanding that free speech is being appropriated in many ways to cover for what is conduct for what is actually shouting “fire” needlessly in a crowded theater, for what is your fist punching and hitting my nose literally on streets or on university campuses. But what happens online doesn't stay online. It spills over into the streets, and in that sense is very critical in understanding, especially for those of us with legal background and legal education, because it means that there are possibilities for holding people to account by utilizing existing laws. Forget the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. When I meet with university presidents or mayors or police chiefs or legislators around the world, it is about implementing existing legislation, whether it is immigration legislation or policies on university campuses that do not allow the use of megaphones. I am not even talking about the big stuff. You know, I am not even talking about understanding that what we have seen on university campuses, that's not speech, that's conduct, right? Vandalism, harassment, bullying, barring other students or faculty from equal access to research, to education. That's conduct. That's not speech. Forget that − you could say it is a theoretical conversation. I am talking about the application and implementation of existing rules, laws, and policies equally and consistently. Even when it comes to David, who happens to be a Jew, Sally, who happens to be a Zionist, or Fred, who believes that Israel has a right to exist. And that's an entire additional conversation that actually delves into what we have seen in what I call the DEI infrastructure across spaces and places. This merits an entire conversation that lawyers also need to have. Because a DEI infrastructure was created, assuming that it continues to exist, that is not applied to everybody across the board. This includes David, Sally, and Fred. That is not a DEI infrastructure that anybody should be espousing. If it is applied to everybody across the board, then we can talk about how it is − and this is a different conversation I won't delve into now, but I do think it intersects with an understanding of social justice or social injustice − that democratic countries have reached a point that actually in many ways intersects with what we can offer to the rest of the world. We can talk about how it is that we have transitioned from equality and equal opportunity − Martin Luther King's dream that his four daughters would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin − to an understanding and the use of the word equity that does not mean the same thing as equal opportunity. It actually means equal results. It is a completely different term and we can delve into that too, again, as there are lawyers in the room. Q: Should we still push for more states, more institutions and more entities to adopt the IHRA definition, despite all these difficulties and controversies? Or is it irrelevant? And as you said, we should concentrate fully on demanding that applicable law is being applied? A: I believe that both must happen. The IHRA working definition is the single definition that enables us to identify and combat all strains of what an ever-mutating hate is. And the reason that we have seen that pushback, there was pushback that began long ago. Because the ability to sever the connection of Jews to Zionism, as if it is a political statement, succeeded as antisemitism succeeded in the past: to tell Jews that if you just shed that religious pound of flesh, then you could be a good human being. And that didn't work out so well. IHRA is key for me. And I have met with universities around the world, university presidents, those that have adopted, they must implement. Those that haven't adopted are in no way capable of identifying this strain of antisemitism that is running rampant on their campus, or in their corporation, or in their city, or by their police officers. The understanding is that IHRA is the result of a long democratic process. The only internationally recognized definition of antisemitism and, as with any other hate, because I'm a single standard girl, those of us who experience antisemitism get to define it. No one gets to tell somebody who experiences anti-Black racism, “Yeah, that's not racism.” Well, neither does anyone get to tell those of us who experience antisemitism in all of its strains. That doesn't mean that there are no Jews who say, “I'm an anti-Zionist.” Of course there are. It's the number one question I get in every meeting that I've had with the second gentleman, with university presidents, with mayors. “Oh, I have a Jew who says they're an anti-Zionist.” And I say, “that's their right.” But what's not their right, is to preclude me, or the students at your campus, or the citizens in your city, to self-identify as who they are because Zionist is

11 Summer 2025 integral to the identity of the majority of Jews and many non-Jews who believe in Israel's right to exist. And as I don't tell them how to self-define, they don't get to tell me how to self-define. And your responsibility, Mr. President, is to ensure that all of us are afforded the same opportunities. So therefore, I thank you for the opportunity to clarify. I recommend everybody read the IHRA working definition. The number one question I always get is, oh, criticism of the State of Israel. The number one line in IHRA is, criticism of the State of Israel, of its policies, whatever politicians, that's not antisemitism. Of course it's not. It's how democracies thrive, criticism. What is antisemitism is delegitimization, the denial of Israel's very right to exist. And if October 7 and the responses to it exposed anything, it is the removal of many masks. It is that it's not about where the borders are. It's not about 1967. It's about Israel's very existence. On October 7, those who were attacked on that day were even the most committed peace activists in this country. The understanding that it is delegitimization, the denial of Israel's right to exist, where no country's right to exist is called into question: not Cuba, not Iran, not the United States, not France. And that − once again, I'm a single standard girl − is a big old double standard. Therefore, it is the IHRA that we must not only fight for, but ensure that more spaces are committed to. I will share with you that in the global guidelines for combating antisemitism, which my counterparts and I passed in Argentina marking 30 years for the AMIA (Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina) bombing, once again, the reference is singularly to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. Thirty-seven countries basically recommitted to that IHRA working definition. Now we must hold them to account that they are committed to that IHRA working definition, whether they're in university spaces, city spaces, and so on. One more thing that's very important for me to say is that Israel is the current president of IHRA. It is very important for me to bring this into Israel as well. I've met with all the university presidents, the college presidents, it's a tall order and not so easy. If Meir Linzen is interested in helping me make accessible why the IHRA is important because universities are actually a network as social media spaces are a network, then I welcome any assistance with that as well. It's not so simple. The only university so far that has adopted the IHRA working definition as a statement saying, “we know to recognize antisemitism” is Ben-Gurion University. A second point that I want to make is that not only are we in sort of a reactive battle vis-à-vis IHRA, and with a huge pushback on it, but in places like Canada, for example, the Ontario School Board has adopted terms like “APR,” anti-Palestinian racism. And as you know now, I'm a definitions girl. The definition of antiPalestinian racism essentially means that a Zionist is an anti-Palestinian racist. So that is how anti-Palestinian racism is defined in the Ontario School Board. Public schools − students, teachers, principals − are now committed to a term. They haven't adopted IHRA, but they have adopted APR. So, we are not just one step ahead. We are one step behind, with not just the inability to comprehensively identify and combat antisemitism, but a whole new challenge. Israel Apartheid weeks began in Canada. BDS as a sort of movement, I will say, or a campaign across campuses began in Canada. Anti-Palestinian racism is the next big thing to look for that will actually render every individual who selfidentifies or is perceived to be a Zionist an anti-Palestinian racist. That is the moment in time that we're at that makes IHRA that much more important. Final Remarks − Aleksandra Gliszczyńska–Grabias Thank you so much Michal. I hope this conversation will continue. I am also receiving enormous praise here for you on WhatsApp. We are humbled and honored by your masterful presentation, which was really extremely impressive. I truly hope that we can develop the collaboration with the IJL and also engage our audience further. But concluding, I would also like to thank wholeheartedly Mala Tabory, our driving force behind this event and many other events at IJL. Mala's idea for this webinar was brilliant, the choice of the speaker — even better. Thank you also to Meir Linzen for being with us and also for your personal perspective of remembrance, which is also very important. n Michal Cotler-Wunsh, LL.B, LL.M, is Israel’s Special Envoy for Combatting Antisemitism, and a Senior Policy & Strategy Advisor. A former Member of Knesset, she chaired and served on several key committees. Michal served as the first Knesset liaison to the issue of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and co-founded the Interparliamentary Task Force to Combat Online Antisemitism. Michal’s work focuses on antisemitism, international law, human rights, and Zionism. She has diverse legal, academic, and professional experience, including roles at the Jewish Federations of North America, Nefesh B’Nefesh, and Reichman University in Herzliya. Michal serves as a trustee for The Rabbi Sacks Legacy. She lives in Ra’anana, Israel, with her husband and four children.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=