A/HRC/56/67 D. NGO Monitor 59. NGO Monitor reported that, despite the important role that civil society should play in combating Nazism, neo-Nazism and antisemitism, there have been incidents of antisemitism within civil society organizations working on human rights. Such incidents have reportedly been on the rise since the 7 October attacks by Hamas and have allegedly taken place within organizations receiving funding from regional and international organizations. 60. NGO Monitor reported on one of the most important ways that organizations could prevent Nazism and neo-Nazism, namely, to utilize tools by which it could be identified. NGO Monitor referred to the working definition of antisemitism adopted under the auspices of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, noting the examples of the “new” antisemitism set out in the definition, which NGO Monitor described as singling out and blaming the Jewish State, denying Jews a nation State, delegitimizing the existence of Israel as the Jewish State and disguising antisemitism as the fight against the State of Israel. NGO Monitor noted that the Alliance’s working definition had been adopted by a number of Governments, as well as intergovernmental and local organizations. NGO Monitor provided information about efforts to advocate for the adoption by the United Nations of the Alliance’s definition and for its use by United Nations bodies and mechanisms. 61. NGO Monitor reported about governmental practices that it welcomed in relation to addressing antisemitism, including in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. It provided a series of recommendations, including that all States and the United Nations adopt and enforce the working definitions of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance of antisemitism and Holocaust denial and distortion, the appointment of a coordinator on antisemitism within the United Nations, the engagement of United Nations human rights mechanisms with mainstream Jewish community officials and organizations, revoking the funding for civil society organizations that incited antisemitism and the enactment of a complaint mechanism within the United Nations where victims of antisemitism could report incidents and obtain appropriate remedies. E. World Jewish Congress 62. The World Jewish Congress provided information about recent trends in extremism, neo-Nazism and antisemitism. It referred to data indicating that antisemitism was rising globally and within several countries. It outlined trends in regional and transnational cooperation between extremist groups and how those phenomena created new challenges in addressing racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. It reported that those transnational networks acted as means of collaboration and of unifying far-right extremist narratives and activities. The formation of Alliance Fortress Europe in 2020, as a response to the social upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic, was cited as an example. It noted that the role of those networks was multifaceted, encompassing coordination on major events, the organization of join demonstrations, the sharing of propagandist materials and financial support systems and the exchange of tactics to promote a unified racist, xenophobic and antisemitic manifesto. 63. The World Jewish Congress reported on how the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent Hamas-Israel armed conflict have been contributing to antisemitism, including the emergence of an “accelerationist” Neo-Nazi movement, which viewed the Israel-Hamas armed conflict as an opportunity to radicalize, recruit and incite violence against the Jewish community. It also noted the spread of misinformation and hate speech online, as well as a resurgence of the use of Nazi symbols, specifically at protests and rallies concerning the situation in the Middle East. 64. The World Jewish Congress provided information about the measures taken by States, as well as regional organizations, to address racism, xenophobia and antisemitism. It referred to the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance as a useful tool to demonstrate the different ways that antisemitism continued to manifest and damage Jewish individuals and communities, through its list of 11 examples of antisemitism. It noted that the Alliance’s definition had been adopted by 43 States since 2017 and different measures taken at the national level, such as strategies 12 GE.24-08848