48 No. 78 JUSTICE The key point in Powell’s address concerned Israel. “It is not antisemitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel,” he said, “[b]ut the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures.”6 It was the first time that a senior representative of the U.S. government officially recognized Israel-Nazi comparisons as crossing the line between legitimate criticism and outright bigotry. Powell’s statement was an important step in shaping an international consensus on the definition of antisemitism. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, which then was in the process of developing a “working definition of antisemitism,” included points about Israel that were very similar to what Powell said in Berlin. The center’s definition helped shape the text prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016. The IHRA definition has since been adopted by 47 countries and more than 1,000 institutions and local governments worldwide.7 America’s Response to Antisemitism, Then and Now Secretary Powell’s stance contrasted sharply with the way his predecessors at the State Department responded to antisemitism abroad 70 years earlier. The policy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and his administration was to maintain diplomatic and trade relations with Nazi Germany and refrain from criticizing its persecution of the Jews. FDR held 430 press conferences between January 1933 and November 1938, and never once raised the issue of Germany’s Jews.8 On the day of Powell’s remarks in Berlin, Rep. Lantos introduced the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, HR 4230, requiring the appointment, within the State Department, of a U.S. envoy to monitor and combat “antisemitism and antisemitic incitement that occur in foreign countries.” The law also obligated the State Department to report to Congress each year on antisemitism around the world. The rationale for the legislation was threefold. First, the problem had reached such proportions that it necessitated serious and sustained attention. Second, the U.S. has a long and noble history of speaking out against human rights abuses abroad. And third, the U.S. has a strategic interest in fighting antisemitism, since hatred of Jews had become intertwined with hatred of America in the ideology of Muslim terrorists. The latter point in effect linked the fight against antisemitism with President George W. Bush’s post-9/11 war on terrorism. A second congressional initiative offered an additional reason for the Bush administration to cooperate. On May 17, 2004, U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-Colo.) introduced a resolution commending the participants in the Berlin conference and urging each of them to follow up by “appointing a high level ‘personal envoy’ to ensure sustained attention to OSCE commitments on the reporting of anti-Semitic crimes.” Thus the U.S. administration could have treated the Lantos and Campbell bills as the appropriate sequel to Berlin. Instead, the Bush administration became the main obstacle to passing the legislation.9 Playing Favorites On July 19, 2004, the State Department declared its opposition to the Lantos bill on the grounds that the U.S. should refrain from giving “preference” to any “single religious or ethnic group.” The State Department argued that focusing on antisemitism would be showing “favoritism” to Jewish targets of bigotry.10 The State Department nonetheless said it would support a weaker version of the bill, introduced by two of the administration’s Republican allies, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-Ohio). Their bill would require a one-time report by the State Department on antisemitism around the globe; there would be no ongoing reporting, and no new envoy position. 6. Remarks at the Conference on Anti-Semitism of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (April 28, 2004), available at https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/31885.htm 7. JCPA, supra note 3. 8. Laurel Leff and Rafael Medoff, “New Documents Shed More Light on FDR’s Holocaust Failure,” AMERICAN JEWISH WORLD (April 30, 2004). 9. S. Con. Res. 110, 108th Cong. (2003-2004). 10. Josh Richman, “State Department Opposes New Antisemitism Office,” THE FORWARD, Aug. 6, 2004.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=