Vienna 2003 - 06.19.2003

 

 

 

 

June 2003 International Conference on Anti-Semitism

Session 4 Intervention

Robert J. Meth
Chairman, NCSJ: Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia

I am Robert Meth, Chairman of NCSJ: Advocates on behalf of Jews in Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States & Eurasia. I would first like to congratulate the panel for this morning’s session, including my colleague Robert Rifkind of the American Jewish Committee and the Blaustein Institute. To the Americans and Europeans here as well, please accept my appreciation for your insights and your commitment to promoting positive change.

Earlier this morning, NCSJ and the Institute on Religion and Public Policy cosponsored a discussion on “Media Strategies to Combat Anti-Semitism.” I will focus on this topic and present just a few of the highlights from that session. 

In our breakfast session, we focused as much as possible on proactive methods to address anti-Semitism through the media, and to sensitize the media effectively to the dangers of anti-Semitism and the opportunities for advancing tolerance and pluralism. 

Before sharing my reflections, let me point out some of the questions we sought to articulate. How can we apply models from one part of Europe to another, or from North America to this continent? How can the OSCE specifically effect positive change? 

To what extent can politicians and activists influence the coverage or priorities of the news and other media? How much can – or should – the media determine what issues that politicians and the public pursue? If European society stigmatizes religion, will the media be able to understand anti-Semitism as a human rights issue rather than a Jewish issue? How much can the media be part of the solution, and how much is it part of the problem? We have many questions, and asking the questions may be the best contribution that media can provide. Why would so many in the media prefer not to cover this conference, or its story? 

In some cases, politicians may challenge the media to ask tough questions. Elsewhere, it is the media who will challenge politicians and society itself. Media shapes the language we use, the norms we follow, and personalities we admire. And it has been the OSCE or CSCE that for nearly 30 years has challenged Americans and Europeans to stand up and be counted, to make the kind of real change that ensures real stability.

I hope that the next steps in initializing an OSCE mechanism on anti-Semitism, including the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, will include active involvement by the Representative on Freedom of the Media. It is vital to engage all relevant aspects of the OSCE framework as well as every participating State, and to increase opportunities for exchange and growth. 

In Russia particularly, but also in Belarus and elsewhere, periodicals with virulent anti-Semitic messages are widely available. Even as a last resort, the banning or fining of publications that incite hatred cannot be a permanent solution if mainstream media will not disavow the purveyors of hate. The OSCE can help set and implement standards that recognize the specific conditions and concerns in North America, Europe, and the Soviet successor states. The OSCE can work with media and other engines of civil society in true partnership to produce not rhetoric but results. In this effort, the post-communist states and societies have much to teach us, especially where freedom and tolerance are not taken for granted. 

Let me cite a partial success story from Lithuania. Speaking to a conference of the American Jewish Committee last year, Emanuel Zingeris reported that 

…anti-Semitic stereotypes are slowly fading from the parlance of the educated youth. The language of the mass media has become less crude in the last two or more years, although anti-Semitic content resurfaces with unexpected force in public discussions on the Middle East, particularly in anonymous exchanges on the Internet…

In my view, anti-Semitism has not disappeared – it just has acquired a more latent form. It may appear, for example, in public attitudes and official statements against the restoration of the Vilnius Jewish historical quarter. The surge in anti-Semitic expression that occurs in Internet discussions on the Middle East is remarkable, though. 

I would like to close by evoking the late Morris Abram, no stranger to these halls, a leader in the American civil rights movement and in so many American, Jewish and international causes – including the Soviet Jewry movement and NCSJ. Responsible for the famous 1963 “one man, one vote” landmark Supreme Court ruling, Morris maintained that appeals to racism and bigotry are effective only so long as tolerate by society. As America’s opinion-leaders began making clear in the 1960s that racist rhetoric was unacceptable, mainstream politicians and others stopped using it. 

Obviously, media outreach is not enough by itself. “The media” is not the problem. We must ensure, however, that it becomes more of the solution. In combating anti-Semitism, the media may or may not have an obligation as such. There can be no question, however, of our obligation to reach the media and not take anything or anyone for granted.