Andre Oboler Thank you Efraim. If I might make a suggestion… if you can include some more detail about Ireland in it the reply that would be helpful. It is in a slightly different category to the others because the problem there (as I understand it) is mostly BDS related – which means (1) it will be covered by the specific working group on BDS rather than by one of the geographic working groups, (2) I’m not convinced there is a widespread understanding about the deep antisemitism in the BDS movement. Turning the conversation in this direction before the Global Forum starts will give those in the working group more time to plan. You might also want to speak with the chairs of the relevant working groups to see what background material can be prepared in advanced and shared with participants to prepare them for the meeting… the chairs are listed in the draft program. I know my own working group is requesting information from our participants and providing documents for their feedback in advance of the conference… I suspect the others will do the same, particularly if others volunteer to provide some of the background material.

April 24 at 3:12pm · Like

Dovid Katz Hi Andre, What happened last time ended up being a huge boost to efforts to obfuscate, deny and cover for state-sponsored antisemitism; see Efraim’s article at the time: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=163966 (the bigshots did not even hang around; after their gala opening speeches, they headed out to collect ‘investments’ at other events). With the ‘protection’ of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and some select UJI’s (Useful Jewish Idiots) who’d received medals and titles from Baltic rulers, the opportunities to even state the real issues approached zero. Those of us who tried then to say a polite word find ourselves not being brought over this year…
For the record, here are two versions of enumerations of the actual problems all of which have simple good-will solutions:
(1) https://defendinghistory.com/7-solutions;
(2) http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/he-ambassador-asta-skaisgiryt%C4%97-liau%C5%A1kien%C4%97-lithuanian-ambassador-london-uk-abandon-state-sponsored-anti-semitism-and-holocaust-obfuscation
From the top right of www.DefendingHistory.com you can see details of the plan to obtain millions for a Disneyland Vilna ghetto tourist site even while the last surviving Vilna ghetto resistance heroes go to eternity accused to being criminals by the same Lithuanian government. Now if the official used the opportunity to Jersualem to APOLOGIZE to the defamed Jewish partisans by name, and in public, that would be progress and not rehash of the usual cover-up.
Last time around, the inspiring late Israeli ambassador to Lithuania and Latvia, Chen Ivri Apter zal, quietly made sure that second and third opinions WOULD be at the conference. The same year he publicly honored one of the defamed partisans and denounced the politics of Double Genocide: 
https://defendinghistory.com/tel-avivs-leivick-house-releases-2009-video-of-ambassador-chen-ivri-apter/44176
Best from Vilnius, DK

April 25 at 11:38am · Like · Remove Preview

Michael Shafir The proof of the pudding is still in its eating. So far, that has proved to be “mission unswallowable” not only in this gathering but everywhere, including the ITF.

April 25 at 11:48am · Like

Dovid Katz Thanks, Michael. As for the ITF, one can only hope that its leaders will study the REAL work of some of its prized partners and beneficiaries in Eastern Europe, starting with the ‘red-brown commission’ here in Lithuania: 
https://defendinghistory.com/category/the-red-brown-commission
and

April 25 at 12:00pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Dovid Katz https://defendinghistory.com/red-brown-commissions/critiques

April 25 at 12:01pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Andre Oboler Dovid, this years Global Forum, as I’ve written, has been arranged rather differently. It is modeled not on 2009 but rather on a 2011 working group meeting the MFA organised for the online antisemitism working group. That meeting included discussions with Facebook (via a video link) about Holocaust denial. The discussions were hard where they needed to be, and the working group decided not to issue a press release because doing so would give Facebook credit for attending the meeting, and the working group felt that was not deserved. This can be compared to the ICCA Task Force on Online Hate (run by the ADL) where the companies have been given seats on the task force and experts in the field have been excluded. Looking at those two extremes, I am confident the Global Forum’s approach is the right one and the experts are in a position to ensure real progress is made. It took a real effort to ensure this Global Forum Conference actually occurred (you;ll not it is 18 months over due) – and I hope everyone will be supportive of the effort going into it. I don’t just mean morally supportive, I mean that those who are attending need to put in the effort, before, during and after, to ensure a strong result.

April 25 at 12:01pm · Like

Andre Oboler I should also add that the steering committee of experts is a new development (it was discussed in 2009 but didn’t really happen) and that the head of the antisemitism department in the MFA (who is coordinating the conference) is also new to his role since the last Global Forum. This conference will be a different experience to what people have seen before.

April 25 at 12:06pm · Like

Jardena Lande This is all very interesting. But I would like to make one correction with regards to the ICCA. Our task force is not ‘run by the ADL’. The ADL is surely involved and has a major role to play, but I don’t know where you get the information that it is running our task force. Our task force is co-chaired by Yuli Edelstein and Christopher Wolf.

April 25 at 12:11pm · Like

Andre Oboler Hi Jardena, you might want to tell the ADL that. “We are honored to have been appointed by the ICCA to convene this important working group” – Abraham H. Foxman, ADL. “The resolution calls on ADL to convene and move the working group forward”. “Christopher Wolf… Co-Chair of the ICCA Task Force on Internet Hate and Chair of the ADL Task Force on Internet Hate”. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Source for all of the above is: http://www.adl.org/combating-hate/cyber-safety/c/adl-teams-with-internet.html

April 25 at 12:40pm · Like

Jardena Lande You are confusing the working group (which was established by our task force) with our task force. Not the same thing. You should get your facts straight, please, or just ask . And ‘convene’ doesn’t mean ‘run’.

April 25 at 12:42pm · Edited · Like

Andre Oboler So the ICCA created working group in Ottawa (which I was a part of) which then created a task force which excluded most of the experts in the field, which in turn had the great success of creating another thing called a working group… it’s a bit like those Russian dolls.

April 25 at 12:44pm · Like

Jardena Lande Well – a lot of what you write is a matter of opinion and I won’t get involved in discussing on a Facebook post which experts should or should not have been included. But you are getting a few things wrong: the working group in Ottawa was not tasked to create the task force or was ever meant to become THE task force 1 to 1. It was the Ottawa Protocol that tasked the ICCA with creating a task force, which it did. And yes, a permanent working group was born out of this non-permanent task force, which is great. It’s really not that complicated. I won’t be going into any further discussion on this subject on a Facebook wall. I will see you soon I believe, and I am more than happy to talk to you about it then.

April 25 at 12:51pm · Like

Andre Oboler Jardena, given the Task Force was empowered directly by the Ottawa Protocol, and called for in the London Declaration, I don’t see how it can be non-permanent. The task force also had very specific remit, as outlined in the protocol, and that hasn’t been fulfilled. The needs expressed in the Ottawa Protocol are real and need to be met, and I would be happy discuss how progress can be made towards those goals… but that doesn’t seem to be the purpose of focus the ICCA’s selected internet people have been taking. Perhaps that is something the ICCA steering group can discuss when it meets. In my opinion, and this is an opinion, the ICCA Task Force really does need to get back on track and back to fullfilling the remit expressed in the Ottawa Protocol. That remit was right on target.

April 25 at 1:22pm · Like

Jardena Lande Andre, as I said I am more than happy to talk to you when we meet. However, I do have to tell you that you are quite wrong with your assessment. The Protocol, with regards to the task force, has not only been fulfilled, but in fact exceeded. I understand you disagree with the people the task force chairs have selected, and I am sorry you feel that way, but I would appreciate if you would inform yourself before you make such false statements. As I said, again, I am happy to tell you all about it when we meet.

April 25 at 1:27pm · Like

Jardena Lande And further to this, I would appreciate that if you do insist on continuing this discussion right here right now, that you take it into a different forum, rather than a facebook post.

April 25 at 1:28pm · Like

Dovid Katz A number of debates involving Israeli policy and East European antisemitism / Holocaust Obfuscation (and revisionism, including the Double Genocide movement) are chronicled at: 
https://defendinghistory.com/israel-debates/

April 25 at 3:03pm · Like · Remove Preview

Dovid Katz Note also that three of the Jewish partisan heroes (Holocaust survivors who escaped the Vilna and Kovno ghettos) still defamed by Lithuanian prosecutors are Israeli citizens… More at: https://defendinghistory.com/blaming-the-victims

April 25 at 3:05pm · Like · Remove Preview

Andre Oboler Dovid, are you attending the Global Forum? These are all useful things to bring up at the relevant working group… or better yet, to put into a documents that can be sent to the chairs of the working group in advance so discussion of these items can be planned (and so the chair can consider allocating specific time to these issues). Equally helpful would be a list of action items detailing who needs to do what to correct the situation. This could then lead into an action plan the working group can discuss on an approach to get there.

April 25 at 4:48pm · Like

Dovid Katz  I couldn’t agree with you more about proposed solutions, and respectfully ask you and colleagues to look at these two versions of essentially analogous sets of morally straightforward just remedies:
https://defendinghistory.com/7-solutions
and
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/he-ambassador-asta-skaisgiryt%C4%97-liau%C5%A1kien%C4%97-lithuanian-ambassador-london-uk-abandon-state-sponsored-anti-semitism-and-holocaust-obfuscation
Best from Vilnius,
Dovid

April 25 at 8:07pm · Like · Remove Preview

Dovid Katz PS: Please see also our pages on:
(1) state sponsored monuments to actual Holocaust perpetrators and collaborators:https://defendinghistory.com/memorials-to-holocaust-collaborators-in-public-spaces-and-state-sponsored-institutions-in-lithuania
On last year’s ceremonial reburial of the 1941 Nazi puppet PM:
https://defendinghistory.com/new/34584
(2) section on antisemitism in this part of the world:
https://defendinghistory.com/category/antisemitism-bias

April 25 at 8:17pm · Like · Remove Preview

Dovid Katz Andre, sorry for the avalanche of PS’s… When reading Dr. Zuroff’s article, it is important to remember that he brings to the table around a quarter century of close study of these issues in the Baltics, and an understanding of how government officials’ righteous pontifications about progress on this or that have successfully been used over the years to cover for the distortion of the Holocaust and state toleration of many kinds of antisemitism (in the icy Kovno/Kaunas this past February, he and I were among the tiny handful of protesters at the neo-Nazi march that glorified the same Nazi puppet PM glorified by the state less than a year ago). For the Baltic antisemites, one of the main strategies is, to put it bluntly “undermining Zuroff” because he has been exposing the cover-ups here all these years. One of many examples (this one from two decades ago):https://defendinghistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1993July8EfraimZuroffInJP.jpg

April 25 at 9:00pm · Like · 1 · Remove Preview

Monica Lowenberg Re Dr Andre Oboler’s recent article on the global forum to combat antisemitism. http://blogs.jpost.com/content/global-forum-combat-antisemitism

In view of the facts I have presented, I find it of serious concern that Dr Oboler should initially publish the second part of my comment starting with ‘one further point’ and then delete it. The fact that now none of the comment is published for the public to read and judge for themselves would suggest that Dr Oboler is being far from transparent.

The ‘offending comment’ is below

As much as it would be heart warming to think that like a computer programme if one put A and B together one would get C unfortunately, humans and certainly governments rarely behave how one would like them to. With all due respect Dr Oboler as much as all of us would like to think that the conference soon to take place will make strident steps in fighting antisemitism unless for example the Lithuanian representative confirmed PRIOR to attending the conference that the Lithuanian government were NOW dealing with antisemitism in Lithuania and making public apologies for the actions they have instigated and supported, as listed in the petition below, a petition that highlights all the varying forms of antisemitic acts the Lithuanian government have taken an ACTIVE part in since 2008 in particular and ESCALATED since attending your first conference in 2009 then it is naive to believe that the second conference will make any profound changes. In fact by being allowed to attend the conference it will probably make them worse. At the end of the day ACTIONS DO SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/he-ambassador-asta-skaisgirytė-liauškienė-lithuanian-ambassador-london-uk-abandon-state-sponsored-antisemitism-and-holocaust-obfuscation

One further point and correction: the Global Forum in 2009 was the third of its kind, the first was in 2007, the second in 2008 and now, in 2013, we have the fourth. To date Lithuania has done absolutely NOTHING to combat antisemitism except attend conferences on the subject.

Friday at 11:24pm · Like

Andre Oboler Hi Monica, I don’t have any control over the comments on Jerusalem Post, that is done by the JPost editorial staff. All I can control is my own article – and just like anyone else, I can comment. I used by ability to edit the article to correct it as you saw. I used my ability to comment to reply to you. When I replied your comment was there in full.

Friday at 11:36pm · Like

Monica Lowenberg The first comment is in full, the reply to yours was in part there and then not.

Friday at 11:46pm · Like

Andre Oboler As I say, that had nothing to do with me. I don’t have the ability to moderate comments. As to what you say, I can only repeat what I’ve said. I think it is better for the officials to be there and for the various experts including Efraim to have the opportunity to directly challenge with the facts and with recommend action they should take (and action others should take) in the context of the working group. If the MFA made precondition I suspect they simply wouldn’t come and they would ignore whatever the Global Forum (and the specifically the relevant working groups) had to say. Once they are there it becomes an issue in their country and indeed the working group conclusions will no doubt get additional media coverage in their countries. Opposition parties too can make use of any recommendations, as can the local Jewish communities and NGOs (both Jewish and non-Jewish). Them being there lends added credibility to the idea that the Global Forum and what it has to say is significant to their country. The only catch then is ensuring that, unlike 2009, the right things are actually said. As explained the new structure gives far more power to the experts and avoids simply having a bunch of VIPs taking up all the time talking on a stage on a wide range of desperate topics all for far too little time. The only risk is that the experts do not make full use of the opportunity… and frankly I don’t think there is much risk of that. Particularly when it comes to the issues Efraim has raised.

Friday at 11:56pm · Like

Monica Lowenberg Three conferences have passed and the situation has only intensified, I am sorry but you are fooling yourself in believing that the Lithuanian government will behave any better after attending your conference. They will use it as a whitewashing exercise.

Friday at 11:59pm · Like

Andre Oboler Monica, the other three conferences have has different structures. Efraim was right about his criticism in 2009, but the situation now is different. I’m not saying it will make them changing things, there is no magic recipe for that, I am saying that the structure itself makes it impossible to effectively use the Global Forum as a white washing exercise. The only thing we know for certain is that significant pressure can be exerted on them by the experts in the working group. It would be far less meaningful, and far less effective, if they weren’t there.

Saturday at 12:07am · Like

Monica Lowenberg The Lithuanian government will not give a damn about the ‘structures’ in place I am sorry to say, they will use your conference as a whitewashing exercise. They are about PR they are not about truth. History has shown they do not change by your conferences they will not at this one either.

Saturday at 12:12am · Like

Andre Oboler Monica, the new structure means, in this order, (1) there is the opening and the officials will say what ever they say, (2) there is a full day of working groups and the relevant workings groups have plenty of time to plan a response, including taking into account anything prepared before hand, (3) the next day the working groups gets to present back in front of every one and in front of the media. Whatever the officials say, unlike last time, everything is in place for a thorough response to be given. That will blow any attempt at white washing out of the water. The end result will be more attention to the issues than if they didn’t attend. This is a positive outcome and a better outcome than if they were not invited.

Saturday at 12:19am · Like

Monica Lowenberg http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/he-ambassador-asta-skaisgirytė-liauškienė-lithuanian-ambassador-london-uk-abandon-state-sponsored-anti-semitism-and-holocaust-obfuscation

Saturday at 12:20am · Like

Monica Lowenberg At the opening please read out the above petition better still get the Lithuanian representative to read it out

Saturday at 12:21am · Like

Andre Oboler I think you have far more chance of getting it raised within the working group

Saturday at 12:25am · Edited · Like

Monica Lowenberg The issue Andre that you repeatedly fail to see is that the Lithuanian government have no intention in changing. Whether the petition gets 3 votes or 3 million is in this respect quite irrelevant. The Lithuanian government is WELL AWARE of what they have been doing as YOU ARE and by writing the article that you have done you have whether you are aware of this or not tried to discredit the hard work that people such as Efraim Zuroff and myself have been doing to expose the Lithuanian governments duplicitous actions. I am sorry but it is time for you to wake up.

Saturday at 12:27am · Like

Andre Oboler Monica, your ultimate position appears to be that there is no chance of change in Lithuania and the country should be boycotted and treated like Iran. The working group can discuss it and if they feel a ban is in order for future conferences, and if they want to recommend Israel break diplomatic relations, or declare war on Lithuania, I guess they can make that recommendation. Personally I don’t think it is the best approach. That leaves us with the problem of ensure the white washing problem of 2009 is solved. I believe we have solved it.

Saturday at 12:44am · Like

Monica Lowenberg My position Andre and please don’t put words into my mouth that are not there, is the following: obtain a formal, public apology from the Lithuanian government for the actions listed in the petition and a commitment to end all the actions listed PRIOR to the conference. On receipt they can then attend any conference they like on combatting anti-Semitism.

Saturday at 12:48am · Like

Monica Lowenberg ps it would be great Andre if you signed the petition, there is enough evidence out there to prove that all the points made are a 100% accurate

Saturday at 1:55am · Like

Monica Lowenberg http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/he-ambassador-asta-skaisgirytė-liauškienė-lithuanian-ambassador-london-uk-abandon-state-sponsored-anti-semitism-and-holocaust-obfuscation

To help people find out more about the situation in Lithuania seehttps://defendinghistory.com/?p=47128

https://defendinghistory.com/december-2012-london-conference-and-protest-box-coverage-to-24-dec/47637 links to You Tube clips and articles and letters

Saturday at 1:59am · Like

Andre Oboler I don’t think there is any chance of them taking those steps in the next 4 weeks, so saying they can only attend if they take them is tantamount to banning them. As explained, I don’t think that is the most productive approach. While I wish you luck with your petition, and I’ll certainly consider signing it, I’d first like to heard what the experts in the working group recommend. I won’t be in that particular working group, so won’t be part of the discussion, but I look forward to hearing the experts conclusions when they report back to the plenary session.

Saturday at 5:07pm · Like

Monica Lowenberg Andre what was your job before you did this, PR?

Saturday at 6:45pm · Like

Dovid Katz Andre, I don’t understand how the problems from 2009 have been dealt with. Then, PR tricksters from certain governments used their opening plenary speeches standing next to famous Jewish personalities as cover in their arsenal of devices for whitewashing many more abuses in the years following, in Lithuania including more accusations against Holocaust survivors, more glorification of local perpetrators (including in 2012 reburial and glorification of the 1941 Nazi puppet prime minister) and more neo-Nazi parades with government acquiescence, all on top of the European Union campaign to ‘equalize’ Nazi and Soviet crimes as a matter of law.
Specifically it would be helpful if preventive measures were taken this time. I do not advocate (nor have I ever advocated) disinviting anyone, or making the international petition a condition for anyone’s attendance or invitation to speak at the opening. I’d propose:
(a) That if the opening plenary situation includes Baltic government officials, it should also include Dr. Efraim Zuroff, director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel office, the only institution really monitoring antisemitism in these countries; the exclusion from the opening session of the one institution monitoring antisemitism in this part of the world sends the worst possible message.
(b) that someone be allowed to deliver the petition to the Lithuanian government official there and be given five minutes to read it out to the plenary session, with no restriction in time or content on what the government official will say, and a line could be added inviting speakers from Baltic governments themselves to join the cause of fighting antisemitism. Cordially inviting them to sign the petition and reading it out during the opening plenary with an announcement of the debate to follow on a following day would be a fair and just way to ensure that both sides are heard. 
(c) I didn’t understand (particularly if Dr. Zuroff is not invited to speak at the opening which would in itself be deeply regrettable, and particularly if the petition may not be read, which would also be regrettable) what is to prevent Baltic government reps from simply abusing the opening plenary once again as a stupendously useful photo-op with famous Jewish and Israeli figures and then simply not attend the specialist/expert/substantive session (which in any case will not attract the press and PR coverage which the plenary naturally attracts).Surely one cannot force the government reps honored with open plenary slots to attend any other session. 

It seems to me that Dr. Zuroff speaking at the opening, and someone delivering/reading the petition to the Lithuanian government at the plenary, would prevent the Forum being abused as it was in 2009 and in the years since, when the photo-ops and invites and platitudes at the plenary were used for years to obfuscate and cover for continuing toleration of antisemitism and Holocaust distortion, doing a net disservice to the causes we all hold so dear. Those fighting antisemitism in the trenches in this part of the world will not by and large be able to attend the Forum. It is hopefully not too much to ask that the Forum not undermine our work….
With all good wishes from Vilnius, 
Dovid Katz (www.DefendingHistory.com)

Saturday at 11:47pm · Like · 2 · Remove Preview

Andre Oboler Hi Monica, the experts involved in the Global Forum are all volunteers. In some cases they work for organisations whose focus is combating antisemitism, so this will form part of their day job, in other cases they don’t. I am based in Australia and don’t (and never have) been employed by the Israeli Government. I now run the Online Hate Prevention Institute, previously I was with the Zionist Federation of Australia running something called the “Community Internet Engagement Project” (which also dealt with online antisemitism), and before that I was with NGO Monitor in Israel.

19 hours ago · Like

Rachel Croucher ”Dr Zuroff’s concern about the official covering up problems in their countries is entirely misplaced. Any such action would simply result in an entire day for the relevant working group to dissect those comments before publically offering their reply”.

An “entire day”? That would barely even scratch the surface. Forgive me, but the idea of an entire day of discussions made me chuckle a little because it sounds like something come up with by good old Sir Humphrey Appleby; because we all know how much he loved his interdepartmental committees in order to sweep things under the rug (that’s not to decry the sense of purpose of some participants).

Out of interest, after the entire day of discussions, as you say, what happens with the recommendations made? Who monitors them and ensures they are carried out?

19 hours ago · Edited · Like

Andre Oboler Dovid, every single person attending the Global Forum seems to think they should speak at the opening. Or failing that, they want to speak at a plenary session. This is why the plenary sessions were abolished (with one except which I am very unhappy about as you will see above) and instead replaced with the 10 working groups. In the working group format Efraim should be able to speak, the petition could be discussed, etc. If the working group endorses the petition, I see nothing stopping the working group from making part of its “action plan” the promotion and / or delivery of this petition or a similar petition. I say promotion or delivery because one option would be for the working group to agree to deliver the petition as part of its “reporting back” – which is also done in a plenary session and in front of media. The disadvantage of presenting it at the Global Forum is that is that the petition is then closed (as it is delivered). The other option (if the working group wants to adopt the petition) would be an action plan to promote it, for example over the coming year and with coordination from the people in the working group. The working group would need to discuss the petition; whether to adopt it; if they do adopt it what they should to take it forwards; if they don’t adopt it, whether something similar should be adopted; etc.

19 hours ago · Like

Andre Oboler Hi Rachel, it is a two day conference with an opening event the night before the two days. So an entire day is half the conference. The second day is to allow all 10 working groups to report back in front of everyone. The conference has experts from all over the world, most of whom are very busy, so it needs to be kept short and sharp. The question you ask about the recommendation is a good one. Each working group will deliver a plan of action, this could include recommendations for people like the Government of Israel to consider, but more importantly, it should include action that members of the working group either working together or through their own organisations (or as individuals working on the working groups authority) can undertake. What those actions are is up to the working group. The steering group (i.e. the experts who are chairing the working groups) will be meeting with the MFA after the conference to discuss how things can be taken forward. There is also some discussion about regular meetings of the steering group / reporting back from the working group chairs as things move forward after the conference. You are right that post-conference action is where things could fall down, but that is largely up to the working group members. My concern is that major organisations may focus on their own projects while ignoring the need to move forward with the working groups work, and non-major organisations and individuals will lack the resources to make a significant difference on their own. Stopping that is really in the hands of the working group members themselves (i.e. those attending the conference).

19 hours ago · Like