From Bucharest: Corrections on Communist misdeeds

I noted that Anna Pauker had built the addition of the pool onto what is now the home of the American Ambassador. She did not. Another communist official -- who was even more of a scoundrel -- did.

On Bucharest: Talk fest or something important ?(2)

At the airport I bumped int Radu Ioaind of the United States Holocaust Museum. He had spent a good part of his time here talking with Romanian officials. They are well aware of the persistence of antisemitism in their country and are anxious to address it.

They seem to recognize, as do a number of other Eastern European countries, that one of the measures of their entry into the Western democratic world is the degree to which they address age-old problems in their country, particularly antisemitism.

I posed my question to Radu about the value of such gatherings. He was fully in agreement with what I wrote in a previous post said about this.

It's not what happens at the meeting that counts as much as the very fact of the meeting and the preparation for it by each country.

Post-Bucharest Reflections: Session on discrimination against Muslims and others

A short postscript to the previous post: I am not sure that discrimination against Muslim or, for that matter, against other religious, political, ethnic, or sexually oriented groups should be folded into a conference on antisemitism.

That is not to say -- and I stress this because there will be those who will happily misinterpret my comments -- that these are not serious problems.

At the meeting there were those who posited that some of the most vicious violence today in Europe is against Muslim women* and homosexuals.

This is horrible and must be addressed but, as I have noted elsewhere and will note in another post, antisemitism is a different matter, especially when one is talking about the European continent.

*The violence against these women is perpetrated by other Muslims. There will be those, I assume, particularly in the Muslim community who will argue this is not intolerance, this is religious discipline. I think that kind of terrible rationalization needs no comment.

From Bucharest: Session on discrimination towards Moslems -- an embarrassment

This session was an embarrassment. It was much later than it was scheduled to be because previous sessions had run over. Consequently, the translators had left so that anyone who needed a translator was out of luck. The room was quite empty because people had left for other commitments.

If you want to telegraph a message to a particular group that you don't think their issues are really important, this is a way of doing it.

I am not suggesting that that was the case, but I am suggesting that some people will interpret it as such.

From Bucharest: Some final thoughts on meetings such as this: A big talk fest or an important contribution??? (1)

Now that this meeting is over and I am about to return home, I have to ask: was this just a big talk fest [57 countries and dozens of NGOs represented] or did it -- and other meetings like it -- accomplish something?

I don't think much concrete action was accomplished in the formal part of the meetings. Too many countries used the opportunity to make canned statements and there was little give and take [except for Ambassador Finley and the Egyptian Ambassador Raouf Saad... which was dramatic, unambiguous, but not too constructive].

Last night at Shabbat dinner at the Jewish Community Center [one of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee's projects here] in addition to talking with some nice young people [yes there were more young people there than elderly], I had a conversation with Dr. Gert Wiesskirchen, the OSCE's personal representative on combating antisemitism.

He stressed the need for these meetings to be focused on implementation. In other words, what actions have been agreed upon and what has been done. Fewer speeches and more concrete analysis of what has worked and what has not.

Stacy Burdett, the ADL veteran representative at this meeting is someone who knows this process well. When I posed this question to her she said that the very fact that individual countries have to analyze what the situation is in their country, that they have to come and talk about, that a spotlight is shown on the topic is important and, in fact, may well be far more important than precisely what is accomplished at the meeting itself.

Of course, you would not have these countries assessing the situation that faces them if they were not preparing for a meeting.

So, in short, the work done for the meeting and the fact that this conglomeration of countries is saying, "this is a problem and we have to deal with it" is a valuable enterprise. [Except, of course for the Egyptians and the NGO from the Arab countries who were quite emphatic that they have no problem.]

From Bucharest: A reception at the home of the American Ambassador and a history lesson

We ended the conference with a reception at the home of American Ambassador Nicholas Taubman and his wife, Eugenia. Ambassador Taubman's father helped negotiate the agreement with the Romanian government which resulted in the release [sale] of Jews so that they could leave the country in the 1960s and early 1970s.


The Ambassador told us that the garden [above] used to be the site of 2-3 homes. They were simply torn down to create a larger garden for the communist officials. [After the end of communism the US government, I believe, had to make restitution to the families whose homes were destroyed.]




The home is quite beautiful with an indoor pool [visible from a small dining room]. The house has an interesting history. It was "given" to Anna Pauker, the Foreign Minister of Romania in the Communist regime. She expanded the house to include the pool wing.

Next door to this beautiful home is a pretty decrepit apartment house. During the communist era, in order to keep ordinary people from seeing how the communist officials lived they erected a large sheet to block the view. Every couple of days the sheet would be blown down and have to be replaced.

You can see the edge of the apartment house in the right of this photo. I learned this history from my friend Radu Ioaind of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [on left] who grew up in the apartment house.

From Bucharest: Some photos from the meeting

C. Christian Kennedy, U.S. Special Envoy for the Holocaust issues in conversation with Jeremy Katz, Special Assistant to President Bush for Policy. Christian Kennedy handles property restitution issues among other matters. Jeremy Katz works on domestic policy has well as being the special liaison to the Jewish community.

Malcolm Honelein paying rapt attention to the proceedings.

Immediately after speaking on behalf of the USA at the session on Holocaust education. I noted that Holocaust education, while crucial, is NOT an antidote against prejudice, discrimination or intolerance. I also spoke about how impressive the materials on the Holocaust which have been prepared by the OSCE/ODIHR in that they are country specific.

Views from the Palace

To give you additional indication of Communist leader Ceaucescu's mega-maniacal behavior this is the view from the Palace. You can see how an entire neighborhood[s] was destroyed, a boulevard created, and dozens of Stalinesque buildings erected.

In fact, though it has been a long time since I visited here, I was struck that I recognized nothing. Then I was shown area after area where the old buildings are gone and these large, heavy, and completely tasteless apartment buildings have replaced old -- sometimes quite lovely -- neighborhoods.

All because Ceauescu wanted a modern city.

A true megalomaniac.

From Bucharest: Discussion of Antisemitism

[Former Canadian Minister of Justice and Attorney General Irwin Cotler and Rep. Eric Cantor, leader of the US delegation in front of the "Palace."]

The discussion of antisemitism was, as is predictable at a gathering such as this, all over the place. At times it got caught up in or lost in the general talk about intolerance. At other times it was hard hitting and quite specific.

Many of the countries spoke about the record of what they have done in the past. Much attention was focused on the UK and the hard hitting parliamentary report it prepared last year on the existence of antisemitism in the UK. The House of Commons created a new tool to assess the existence of antisemitism.

The Israelis were quite specific in what they thought should be done in response among the actions they called for was a demand issued directly to the Iranians that they stop the campaign of Holocaust denial and antisemitism. They also urged educational and legal approaches to the problem.

Interestingly the Chair of the antisemitism session, Dr. Bert Wiesskirchen, supported Minister Herzog's comments and stressed that the demonization of Israel is none other than antisemitism in another guise.

What is clear is that in many countries there is a new kind of toxic antisemitism which involves young people among others. One delegate commented that there was a feeling that "Europe has been caught in maelstrom that shows it has not liberated itself from demons of the past."

In certain countries there has been a "revival of the Jew as a mythical enemy." Part of this stems from a hostility to the idea of a united Europe and, of course, to a severe anti-Americanism and to all forms of Western influence. There is a basic intolerance of diversity in many European countries.

Those who feel disenfranchised by the changes in their society find antisemitism increasingly attractive.

Another point of view was that, while antisemitism is not the most acute problem in Europe, it is so much discussed because the way in which it is addressed is a litmus test of the strength of democratic institutions in a society.

One delegate said it can point to a degree of moral health.

The French delegate acknowledged that the recent rise in antisemitism may be linked to the war in Lebanon but that that is not only factor.

The delegate called attention to the fact that the figures which report on antisemitic incidents often do not take account of low intensity antisemitism which is to be found in streets: harassment, public discourse during political campaigns, proliferation of racist, antisemitic, xenophobia Internet sites.

The French made specific mention of the Halimi incident, the young man who was tortured to death for mere fact of being Jewish. The "Middle East had no part to play here. He was killed just because he was Jewish."

Irwin Cotler, who spoke on behalf of Canada, noted that the Supreme Court of Canada had observed that the Holocaust did not begin in gas chambers but with words. He attacked Ahmadinejad who supported "state sanctioned on fundamental principles that underpin Helsinki accords."

After the bombing of a Jewish school in Montreal, Rex Murphy, a CBC commentator observed that "the bombing was directed at the Jewish community as a whole. To ignore that particularity is to diminish criminality."

Cotler stressed that the "demonization of Israel can provide license for attacks on Jews. It is not discrimination in the abstract. It attacks Jews in their specificity. ... These are not random acts of racism but intentional acts of Jewish hatred. Don’t ignore particularity of this hate. If we ignore it harm victim a second time."

Other things were said but in the end the question remains, what kind of action can be taken to address the situation.

More thought on this later.

From Bucharest: The Egyptian delegate in his own words

Seems that the Egyptian delegate, H.E. Ambassador Raouf Saad, Assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Egypt, gave the OSCE the precise text of his remarks so that it could be distributed to the delegates.

[NOTE: This is not standard operation procedure so it suggests that the Egyptians were very comfortable, if not proud, of what they said.]

This is the presentation which set off the American Ambassador, Julie Finley. [See previous post] Lest anyone think I was in anyway exaggerating what he said, I quote:

1. The the anti Semitism [Note: this is how the word is repeatedly used in the document, no hyphen, two separate words] phenomena don't exist in the Arab world as this concept don't apply to the Arab cultural body and the Jewish communities are even called "our cousins" in the Arab common spoken language. It's worth mentioning in this regard that the Jewish communities lived and flourished and where [sic.] fully integrated in the Arab societies till the middle of the past century.

2. I noted that the tone and approach used by many speakers portrayed the Jewish people as hated people and subject to suppression all over the world, the the extent that the Israeli Minister for Social Affairs [Herzog] is asking for governmental protection for Jewish communities in light of this growing phenomenon and its surge in new regions like Latin America.

3. I find that his approach contradicts the facts of life as the Jewish people are strong and influential and rather growing in power in many parts of the world. So the question poses its self [sic], if such a way of thinking serves the interests of the Jewish people. Moreover, I believe that instead of spreading the negative image we need to look for the reasons behind that feeling towards Jews.

4. To this end, we must make the difference between anti Semitism and the rejection of the Israeli practices in the Middle East and other parts of the world.

5. Consequently, I believe that achieving a fair, just, and lasting peace in the Middle East will certainly contribute to contain and reduce this negative feeling against the Jews thus putting the anti Semitism in its real size

Chapter II
At the end of this session the Chair, Dr. Gert Wiesskirchen, said "Egypt suffers from the same problems we all do." It was an eloquent and powerful answer to the Egyptian's remarks.

In the next session, the Egyptian Ambassador commented on both Ambassador Finley's response to him and Dr. Wiesskirchen's remarks:

After hearing the interventions made by the lady US delegate, it is the chairmanship's responsibility to ensure that the delegations are not terrorized by certain individuals who are not accustomed to democratic dialogue.

I ask you Mr. Chairman, to convey to the OSCE Presidency, our outrage at the deplorable intervention made by the lady delegate which crossed all boarders [sic] of constructive and diplomatic practices.

Moreover, I ask you, Mr. chairman to convey to the OSCE presidency our displeasure with the way the moderator conducted this part of the session.

The moderator not only failed in applying discipline on this part of the session, but also made an unnecessary and biased comment regarding my country Egypt.

From Bucharest: An Arab NGO demonstrates why we need these kind of meetings... despite himself

This morning, at a session on dsicrimination against Christians, the representative of the Islamic Societies of the Arab States [an NGO] launched into a long and virulent attack on Israel.

He began by claiming that Islam was under seige all over as exemplified by the headline in an Austrian [I think it was Austrian, he was hard to understand] paper: Islam: The Fascism of the 21st Century?

He said that there is an urgent need to discuss the attacks on Islam particularly the scurrilous [my word] link betwee "terrorism and Islam which is a religion of ethics, tolerance, and values."

He stated unequivocally that "All Arab states condem all forms of terrorism and intolerance."

He then turned to Israel. He said: "Rejection of racism and antisemitism does nhot mean that we have to remain silent towards the occupation powers which deny the legitimate rights of the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular."

"The question is: why are the Moslems and Arabs accused of antisemitism when at the same time they are subjected to occupation."

"Antisemitism is an European phenomenon. It was not known in the Arab lands at all."

He attacked Israeli MP and Cabinet Member Herzog for "mixing between antisemism and anti-Israeli policies and anti-Zionism which is a political doctrine based on occupation and expantionism."

"Antisemitism must not be exploited," he said, "to cover up the occupation power and pracitices of Israel... including the racist wall."

His distortions of history [Jews and, for that matter, Chrisitians were persecuted in Arab lands and contemporary facts, i.e. the intense antisemitism on Egyptian and Syrian TV or Ahmadinejad's comments [just two examplesamong many others], what I find amazing is the absolute refusal of people such as this and his Egyptian partner the day before to acknowledge that maybe -- just maybe - they too have done something wrong.

At the very least, when he finished the Chair asked all other spreakers to be short and constructive.

From Bucharest: An Egyptian distorts and an American explodes

[Ambassador Julie Finley at bilateral meeting with representatives of Finland. Rep Cantor is to the left and Dr. Gregg J. Richman of the State Department to his left.]


In a previous post I noted that some amazing things had happened at yesterday's session. It is early a.m. and I am rushing off to breakfast but, since I won't have a chance to blog until tonight, I thought I should explain what happened.

During the session on antisemitism [more on that later], the Egyptian representative said that "antisemitism does not exist in the Arab world. Jews have lived the best part of their history in the Arab countries until the first half of the 20th c."

He then said one must distinguish between antisemitism, anti-Judaism, and anti-Israel practices. He stressed that he was not talking about anti-Israel attitudes but practices. Here, he said, was the crux of the relationship between the Middle East conflict and the phenomenon of antisemitism.

He then said: "I feel nervous that Jews are being portrayed as subjects of hatred. It is wrong to portray Jews as victims. Jews are strong and have an influence that is rising in other countries."

"Why," he asked, "is this phenomena happening?" Because of Israeli practices. He concluded by saying: "A major part is the solution is to address Israeli practices. Peace would be an answer."

I simply could not believe what I was hearing nor, for that matter, could Ambassador Finley, the US ambassador to the OSCE. By this point she had taken the US chair at the table.
She signaled asking to be recognized and when she was she let loose.

She said, turning to the Egyptian representative, "If you think Jews have not suffered and are not the most likely to suffer your brain is swimming in caramel." [She later said that they had some sort of caramel dessert at the luncheon for the heads' of delegations and that's why she used that metaphor. I wonder how the translators dealt with the word caramel.]

She then went on to say: "The intensity of the hatred shown to the Jews is unparalleled. This organization must concentrate on solving antisemitism." [And not become caught up in focusing on other problems.] "The same tools you use to solve antisemitism will be the same tools you use to conquer the other 'antis.'"

"When Algeria refuses to go to a seminar hosted by Israel what can of cooperation is that? I am challenging you all go back to Vienna and solve the problem of antisemitism. The others [forms of intolerance] will take care of themselves."

Whew. It was quite a statement. The reactions were varied. Some people praised her for being so direct, particularly to the Egyptian. Others, who agreed with her statements, felt that it could have been said in a more constructive fashion.

She certainly left no doubt where she stood.

BTW, the session ended with the chair saying to the Egyptian: "Egypt suffers from the same problem we all face."

From Bucharest: A unequivocal condemnation of antisemitism by Dr. Richard Land, President, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Libery Commission

During the bi-lateral meeting with the British, Dr. Richard Land, President of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission made a powerful and unequivocal condemnation of antisemitism.

He described antisemitism as unique which must be recognized as having the potential to do violence in an unparalleled fashion.

My guess is that there will be those reading this blog who are not fans of the Southern Baptists. One must, however, give people such as Dr. Land tremendous credit for their absolutely unequivocal and forceful condemnation of this phenomenon.

Though one might argue that they are simply stating the truth, given the reluctance of so many others to see things in this fashion, I say Bravo.

From Bucharest: A Bi-lateral meeting with the British regarding the UK boycott of Israeli academics etc.

When we had our briefing the State Department folks stressed that much of the "work" takes place in bi-lateral meetings, i.e. meetings where two delegations sit face to face and discuss the issues of concern to them, particularly as they relate to the delegation across the table.

Our first bi-lateral meeting was with the Rt Hon The Baroness Ashton of Upholland, the UK Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.

She spoke of the UK's strong desire to address antisemitism, diversity issues, and questions of immigrants and their acculturation to British society. She pointed out that her husband is descended from Austrian immigrants who were forced to flee from that country when the Nazis took over the country.

Gregg Rickman urged her not to conflate the different issues and pointed out the steep rise in number of antisemitic events in the UK. He also urged the prosecutors be pressed to utilize the laws on the UK books which guard against racial and religious incitement.

Imam Talal Eid, of the Islamic Institute of Boston and Muslim Chaplain at Brandeis, cautioned the Baroness that one cannot depend on members of the Muslim community to report on dangerous people in their midst. Simply put, he stressed, they are frightened. They have been frightened by extremists in their midst. They are simply too scared to stand up to extremists.

He spoke with passion and with force. [Later I pointed out that he had used the word terrorism while places such as the BBC and NPR insist on the pareve "militants." He laughed a bitter laugh and pointed out that the Fatah al-Islam [those who invaded the Palestinian camps and situated themselves there and began fighting with the Lebanese army] had killed Lebanese soldiers.

"If that's not terrorism," he said, what is?

We also discussed the academic boycott. The Baroness condemned it in no uncertain terms. We strongly urged that the British government take pro-active steps to address this problem. It had, we reminded her, terrible potential to spread.

From Bucharest: The Opening Plenary or Rep. Eric Cantor gets to give his much edited speech

[On the left: Gregg Rikhman, crouching, consulting with Rep. Eric Cantor on responding to Prince Hassan's criticism of US policy. Right: Rep. Eric Cantor during a meeting of the delegation, Dr. Gregg Rickman next to him]

The morning plenary began with a video presentation by Elie Wiesel and a speech by the former Crown Prince of Jordan, Hassan. Hassan spoke about the need for Muslim moderates to be nurtured. He noted that he studied Hebrew at Cambridge, has a Jew as an advisor at school, and has worked closely with a number of Jews.

He also argued that there was no such thing as Islamic terrorism. Islam is a religion and terrorism is an act. If I would have had the chance I would have pointed out to him that Islamic is an adjective which modifies the noun. But it was a relatively small part of a pretty long speech.

One section did cause a bit of commotion. He condemned America's actions in Iraq. As soon as he made that statement the American Ambassador to the OSCE, Julie Finley, jumped up and went up to the chair to give him a note. [I assume it was a request to respond at once.]

When she returned to her seat, Gregg Rickman, the U.S. Sprecial Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism immediately came over to Cantor. You can see him huddling with Cantor in the picture on the left and sitting behind Cantor in the one on the right. The blond "flip" in the picture on the left belongs to Ambassador Finley.

Rep. Cantor quickly wrote and delivered a short but forceful statement to the effect that this was a conference on antisemitism and other forms of intolerance and to make statements such as that is to hijack it for another purpose.

He spoke quite eloquently. It was interesting to watch all this happen in front of my nose.

From Bucharest: Some additional views of the Palace

There are literally hundreds of room such as these. All this in one of the poorest countries in Europe, where the populace could not get light bulbs of more than 40 watts because of a lack of electircal power.

From Bucharest: What happens when 56 countries plan a meeting

I referred to earlier to the UN resolution about the Holocaust and its failure to mention antisemitism. I continue to be flabbergasted by this. Antisemitism is “controversial” in that it is seen as helping Israel and creating sympathy for Jews.

The absurdity of this is overwhelming. It’s hard to find an analogy. Of course, let us remember that this resolution comes from the UN which not only has a dubious -- to say the very best -- record on antisemitism and has, in fact, been one of the purveyors of antisemitism. Remember the Durban conference???

That is why a meeting of the OSCE which includes antisemitism in the title is noteworthy. But even the title of this meeting was a matter of great debate. The full name is

High Level Conference on Combating Discrimination and Promoting Mutual Respect and Understanding, follow-up to the Cordoba Conference on Anti-Semitism and other forms of Intolerance

In addition to being the longest title to any conference I have ever heard of, note that the word antisemitism only appears as a reference to a previous conference. There were those counties which did not want to appear at all. Others protested. So the compromise was to mention it by referring to a conference which had already taken place.

Interestingly however the official delegate IDs we received do not include the part of the entire title. It stops after the word understanding. This is a way of not mentioning antisemitism.

[Though, as the picture shows, on the placards the entire title appears.]

The only way of describing this debate over the use of this word:

Unbelievable.

From Bucharest: The Palace - The Second Largest Office Building in the World

We then headed to what is known as the "Palace," which has the distinction of being the second largest office building in the world. [The Pentagon is larger.]

The building was built by Ceausescu. It is simply monomaniacal in size and grandeur. The building is full of marble, gold leaf, humongous chandeliers, marble floors with intricate inlays and Oriental woven rugs to match the inlay. It has 1100 rooms.

Entire neighborhoods were given a few weeks to move out so that this building could be built and a tremendous boulevard could be created leading up to it.

[I will post some pictures I took upon my return.]

From Bucharest: Thursday a.m.

Morning 1: Early a.m. The delegation met over breakfast. One of the things that had to be decided was who was to sit in the USA chair at each of the different sessions.

I was assigned to sit in the position of delegation chair for the session on Education against Intolerance, Holocaust education. [Each country has one seat at the table and the rest of the delegation sits behind. Same set up as Security Council except much bigger.]

Transport to Meeting: We then headed as a delegation over to the meeting. Since Rep. Eric Cantor is the head of the delegation he gets to ride in a special car [the rest of the delegation is in a bus behind]. Yesterday when we first went someplace as a delegation he said he would rather go on the bus with us but the Romanian security people would not let him. This morning he asked me to ride with him.

The best part was that we had a police escort and cut our way through the traffic. Too bad we did not have that on our way in from the airport. Note in the picture how the traffic is pulling aside for us as the police car clears the way.

In the car going over Rep. Cantor and I discussed the great concerns of the State Department officials over his speech and their feeling that matters needed to be worded very carefully lest we inadvertently insult a country and make it harder to work with that country in the future.

I told Canto that, apropos of the big debate yesterday over his remarks, in November 1938 right after Krystalnacht FDR was asked about events in Germany. He dodged the question and said: “Better ask State [Department] about that.”

Then he watched the human outcry – media, Universities, churches, political leaders etc. – speak out he knew that it was safe for him to say something. So at his weekly [!] press conference five days later FDR read a strong statement. It had been prepared by the State Department. But he felt it was not strong enough. So he added his own words to strengthen it.

We laughed at the thought that the same dance continues to play itself out 70 years later.

From Bucharest: Defining the Topic: Background Issues

The day is finally over [we began with a 7:30 meeting this a.m.]. Let me try to recap some of the highlights of the day.

Background: This meeting, convened by the OSCE, is one of a series of meetings that have been held over the past few years to deal with European intolerance in general and antisemitism in particular. Though that definition might be a matter of some debate. More on that later.

The initial impetus for the first meeting was the spike in antisemitism in Europe. But after a while there were those who called for a more "holistic" approach to the problem, i.e. address intolerance against Muslim [aka Islamaphobia], homosexuals, Christians as well. In other words, group them all together.

There are many people, particularly most of those on the American delegation, who argue that antisemitism is something that is quite different from the other forms of discrimination. Antisemitism is a centuries old hatred that has resulted in genocide and mass murder more than once.

Most of those who argue for this position do not, in any way, diminish the importance of the discrimination many Muslims face in, for example, employment in France and other countries. Nor do they dimiish the significance of the attacks on mosques and Muslim centres.

However, they would argue that antisemitism is far more pervasive, runs deeper in the society, is not a question of the assimilation of immigrants, and is of such deep roots that it exists in places where they are no Jews.

This was a source of tension in the planning for the meeting and would become a theme during the meeting.