Volume 4 No 1 - Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

54 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISM [ VOL. 4:27
Cooperation in Europe at its conference on antisemitism, held in Berlin two
months earlier, and establish a program for tracking antisemitic ideology
and incidents worldwide and for a special official to report and initiate or
suggest responses to manifestations of antisemitism. In 2005, the General
Assembly followed the precedent of the Council of Europe in 2001 in voting
to establish an annual UN commemoration of the Holocaust; in January
2007, it passed (by consensus rather than a tabulated vote showing who
supported or opposed or abstained) a resolution that “condemns without
reservation any denial of the Holocaust” and “urges all member states unreservedly
to reject any denial of the Holocaust as a historical event, either in
full or in part, or any activities to this end.” 40
Despite this sweeping reorientation on Jews and antisemitism, the
General Assembly essentially adheres to its longstanding anti-Israel stance,
and the “anti-Zionism” expressed at its rostrum—when speakers utilize the
arguments, emblems, stereotypes, and aims of historic antisemitism—often
serves as a fig leaf for antisemitism. In 2005 and 2006, reiterated in September
2009, 2010, and 2011, the president of Iran repeatedly called for
Israel to be “wiped off the map,” which clearly constitutes “direct and public
incitement” to commit genocide that is prohibited by the Genocide Convention
and violates the UN Charter. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
reacted critically to the Iranian president’s mockery of the Holocaust and
sponsorship of a Holocaust denial conference in Teheran, and added in his
remarks, “Nor is it acceptable to call for the elimination of any State or
people.” Some NGOs have urged indictment and trial of Iran’s president
before the International Criminal Court, but such action is unlikely; in April
2009 the president of Iran repeated the call for Israel’s destruction at the
Durban II conference, provoking a walkout of delegates and demands for
his indictment. Critics assert that the UN persists in its Manichaeanism—
that it forcefully addressed antisemitism as a threat to Jews but ignores it as
a threat to Israel. Delegates to the General Assembly represent governments/states
more than nations/peoples; they can say what they like and
enact resolutions as they wish. Yet, one must distinguish the harangues spoken
with impunity by delegates in the General Assembly from the activities
of UN officials and employees of the Secretariat and other UN agencies,
where one finds distinguished public servants who would be insulted to
hear their work impugned as antisemitic or anti-Israel, although there certainly
are some of these international civil servants who do not measure up
to the standard of impartiality and the greater good of the community at
large. It still remains to be seen whether the hope of many at the time will
40. http://www.un.org/holocaustremembrance.