Learn Lessons from Night of Murdered Poets

On August 12, 1952, 13 Soviet Jews were executed by Stalin’s regime for crimes against the state in what has been named Night of Murdered Poets. The executions followed an abhorrently unfair trial held in secret. Among those tried and convicted were several prominent Yiddish writers and poets.

Today, we remember not only those 13 people murdered in Stalin’s Soviet Union, but also all those who have been killed in cold blood because of their convictions, their beliefs, or their religion.

This topic is especially timely as Iran continues to be led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and denies the Holocaust.

It is imperative that we keep a watchful eye on such regions and hold those in charge accountable for the injustices they oversee or allow to proceed. We must listen to the voices of those calling out for help and act to protect human rights where necessary. Early intervention is imperative. For otherwise, we will not have learned the lessons of the Holocaust, the Night of Murdered Poets, or the countless other attempts to covertly silence the foes of the powerful.

This anniversary is a reminder of our duty to resist those who turn to violent means in order to achieve goals set in hatred and intolerance.

Why It’s Important for B’nai B’rith International to be at the Durban II Conference on Racism

The United States made the right call when it announced February 27 that it would forgo an international racism conference sponsored by the United Nations and set for Geneva the week of April 20. B’nai B’rith International (BBI) plans to have a delegation of more than 50 people in attendance at the Durban II racism conference. So why, if we urged the U.S. and other nations to skip it (Israel, Canada, and Italy are also sitting out), is it right for B’nai B’rith to go in force?

It’s simple: to bear witness. The U.S., Israel, Canada, and Italy rightly recognized that the conference is clearly heading down an anti-Israel path. By staying home, those nations are telling the world that they will not be part of such a charade. But our role is different. As a global human rights group, it is incumbent upon us to carefully monitor the proceedings of a conference devoted to combating racism and intolerance, and to call attention and speak loudly if it veers off course, especially when it focuses so negatively on Israel.

B’nai B’rith will actively participate in Jewish non-governmental organization (NGO) side events in Geneva. These events and programs will provide an important counterpoint to events by pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel NGOs.

The original Durban conference of 2001 was such an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic free-for-all that B’nai B’rith joined the United States, Israel, and other NGOs in walking out in protest amid anti-Semitic portrayals of Israel as an apartheid state. By being there, BBI was able to tell the world what transpired. Going to Durban II will allow us to fill that role again.

The question of whether to go or not to go to Geneva for the Durban follow-up conference presented a catch-22. This Durban dilemma represents a conflict between having a voice within a terribly, and possibly fatally, flawed system, or having no voice at all.

As more and more preparatory meetings took place, it became strikingly clear that the new conference would follow an eerily similar route to that of the original summit.

Although meant to evaluate the progress of declarations from the original World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, early review conferences have included the same unrelenting focus on Israel and the same anti-Semitic denouncements. There seemed no interest in taking on the real problems of discrimination and intolerance in our world. It has become standard and accepted practice for countries with some of the world’s worst human rights records to point the finger at Israel.

The message sent by the United States in abandoning these hopelessly tainted proceedings is immeasurable. For the United States, choosing not to participate became a matter of principle. To be part of a process hijacked by the likes of Libya, Iran, and Syria is to be part of the problem. Until this point, preparations for the conference have focused a microscope on Israel – the sole democracy in the Middle East – while blatant racism, human rights violations, and intolerances by numerous other nations go undeterred. Women are forbidden to congregate publicly in Iran and are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, North Koreans are starving to death, and in Darfur hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions displaced. And yet somehow, tiny Israel gets all the attention.

The original Durban conference taught the world that nefarious nations, voting blocs, and even NGOs can sway the truth and even sway an international organization like the United Nations.

To be sure, in theory the conference is necessary. But in practice, the conference will most likely cross over the brink again into counter-productivity. An international conference against racism should promote fair and uniform human rights standards and be built on a framework of civil conduct and mutual respect. It should not be preternaturally preoccupied with vilifying Israel and ignoring real promoters of racism.

The Durban Review Conference has squandered a remarkable opportunity to demonstrate that the world community is serious about exposing and eradicating racism and fighting intolerance. But as defenders of human rights, the broader Jewish community and our own constituency expect B’nai B’rith to carefully monitor the proceedings. We are choosing to attend because with more than 60 years of commitment at the U.N., B’nai B’rith has been an unwavering advocate for Israel and a strong defender of global human rights. Our vigilance continues.

The U.S. Makes the Right Call

In a welcome move on February 27, the U.S. State Department said it would not participate in the Durban Review Conference on racism, commonly called Durban II. State officials said that pre-conference discussions in Geneva made it clear that the tone and direction of the conference, scheduled for April, would not change. The original Durban conference of 2001 was such an anti-Israel and anti-Semitic free-for-all that B’nai B’rith joined the United States, Israel, and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in walking out in protest amid anti-Semitic portrayals of Israel as an apartheid state.

A little history is in order to understand where BBI has been on this topic. Like many Jewish groups, the question of whether to go or not to go to Geneva for the Durban follow-up conference presented a catch-22. This Durban Dilemma represented a conflict between having a voice within a terribly, and possibly fatally, flawed system, or having no voice at all.

As more and more preparatory meetings took place, it was becoming strikingly clear that the new conference would follow an eerily similar route as the original.

Although meant to evaluate the progress of declarations from the original World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, early review conferences have included the same unrelenting focus on Israel and the same anti-Semitic denouncements. There seemed no interest in taking on the real problems of discrimination and intolerance in our world. It has become standard, and accepted practice for countries with some of the world’s worst human rights records to point the finger at Israel.

In a February 16 meeting with leaders of major American Jewish organizations, Israel Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appealed to the United States to forgo the conference. Livni had announced in November that Israel would not attend. Until the U.S. decision, Israel and Canada were the only two nations to announce a formal embargo of the conference.

The United States taking part in a preparatory meeting was in line with the Obama administration’s stated commitment to diplomatic engagement. Riding a wave of global interest in our new administration, the U.S. participation was aimed at changing the tone of the Durban preparations.

But that proved to be a mission impossible. U.S. officials concluded the anti-Israel language was so embedded in the draft documents that a fair conference could not be had. We hope the withdrawal by the U.S. will open the door for a number of European nations that have already said if the offending language stays in they would not participate in the conference.

The message sent in the United States’ abandoning these hopelessly tainted proceedings is immeasurable. For the United States, choosing not to participate became a matter of principle. To be part of a process hijacked by the likes of Libya and Iran is to be part of the problem. A conference with the stated mission of fighting intolerance is now led by an amalgam of nations that should serve as examples of what not to do. The conference is once again focusing a microscope on Israel – the sole democracy in the Middle East – while blatant racism, human rights violations, and intolerances by numerous nations go undeterred. Women are forbidden to congregate publicly in Iran and are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, North Koreans are starving to death, and in Darfur hundreds of thousands have been murdered and millions displaced. And yet somehow, tiny Israel gets all the attention.

The original Durban conference taught the world that nefarious nations and voting blocs can distort the truth and even sway an international organization like the United Nations.

To be sure, in theory the conference is necessary. But in practice, the conference has once again crossed over the brink into inconsequence. An international conference against racism should promote fair and uniform human rights standards and be built on a framework of civil conduct and mutual respect.

It would have been counterproductive and counterintuitive to attend a conference on combating racism put on by an organization that is preternaturally preoccupied with vilifying Israel and ignoring real promoters of racism.

The Durban Review Conference has squandered a remarkable opportunity to demonstrate that the world community is serious about exposing and eradicating racism and fighting intolerance.

World Must Speak Out Against Chavez

The following Op-Ed, written by B'nai B'rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin, recently appeared on JTA.org.

World Must Speak Out Against Chavez (JTA)

The following opinion piece appeared on JTA.org on February 2, 2009:

It is increasingly unsafe to be a Jew in Venezuela.

The latest example of the growing hostility toward Jews came on Jan. 30, when a Caracas synagogue was vandalized by armed perpetrators who threw Torah scrolls and prayer books on the floor, and wrote on the walls “We don’t want Jews here” and “Jews get out.”

This latest anti-Semitic act demonstrates once again the vulnerability of Jews in Venezuela. Over the last few years, Venezuelan Jews have been increasingly the target of ever bolder anti-Semitic attacks.

Anti-Israel news is in abundance on Venezuelan state-controlled television and radio stations, which have been featuring excerpts from “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” the anti-Semitic tract -- proven to be a forgery -- that claims a Jewish plot to rule the world. During the Gaza conflict, large swastikas connected to Stars of David by an equals sign were painted on synagogues and other buildings associated with the Jewish community.

These alarming trends, including the attack on the synagogue, are a direct result of the atmosphere that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is cultivating and reflect the degree to which he has made a mockery of his commitment last year with the presidents of Brazil and Argentina to combat anti-Semitism.

Chavez is inciting hatred by singling out Jews in Venezuela from their countrymen. The Venezuelan leader publicly urged Jews to stand up against Israel and compared the Israeli incursion in Gaza to the Holocaust. These disingenuous and irresponsible remarks have placed the Jewish people in Venezuela in a situation of tremendous vulnerability.

In December, Chavez and his foreign minister, Nicolas Maduro, made incendiary statements about the situation in the Gaza Strip that culminated in the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador from Caracas -- more evidence of Chavez’s extreme ideology.

Without making any serious analysis of the context of the Gaza conflict or even mentioning Hamas’ years of terrorist attacks against Israel, the Chavez regime called Israel a “genocidal” state that is willingly attacking the “peaceful, unarmed and defenseless Palestinians.”

Shamelessly manipulating history, Chavez dares to say that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 in order to be able to attack the area and get rid of all the Palestinians. He calls Israel “the murderous arm of the United States” and claims that the CIA and Israel’s intelligence unit, Mossad, assassinated PLO leader Yasser Arafat in order to divide the Palestinian people.

Chavez also asserts that the United States would like to have “other Israels” in Latin America to attack the Latin American people, and that it should not be allowed to do so.

People may wonder why the president of Venezuela -- a country that is so far from the Middle East, and where Jewish and Arab minorities have traditionally had a peaceful coexistence -- even has a position on the conflict in Gaza, one that is more anti-Israel than the positions of the president of the Palestinian Authority and other Arab leaders. But Chavez’s recent anti-Israel statements, and the weekend synagogue attack, are not entirely surprising. Chavez has always been able to capitalize on the anti-American sentiment prevailing in the region, and attacking Israel -- a staunch U.S. ally -- provides the perfect opportunity.

His manipulation of the facts of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict also unmasks his long alliance with Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, as well as his profound sympathy for the Iranian regime’s extreme anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda. Chavez and his ally, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, share a frightening worldview.

Chavez’s recent remarks on the Gaza situation drew protests from 75 scholars from all over the world who signed a petition decrying his comparison of Israeli actions to the Holocaust.

In their protest letter to Chavez, the Holocaust scholars cite a 2008 U.S. State Department report that lists “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” as an example of anti-Semitism. The Holocaust scholars asked Chavez to “retract your comparisons of Israel to the Nazis and refrain from making any such comparisons in the future.”

It would seem naive to expect Chavez to renounce his views. But his insidious remarks must be publicly denounced lest anyone, world leader or world citizens, think his remarks are acceptable. To remain silent is to be complicit.

For a link to the story on JTA.org, click here.