Search results

Your search found 45 items
copy result link
You ran an advanced options search
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year
Home  /  Search Results
Date: 2018
Abstract: Zwischen Berghain und Club Odessa, zwischen Assimilation und Desintegration, zwischen orthodox, liberal und säkular: Achtzig Jahre nach der Reichspogromnacht zeigt sich das jüdische Leben in Deutschland in einer ungeahnten Vielfalt. Junge Jüdinnen und Juden ergreifen in diesem Buch das Wort. Gibt es im 21. Jahrhundert so etwas wie ein „deutsches Judentum“? Wie sinnvoll ist das Reden von einer jüdischen Renaissance, wenn sich Jüdinnen und Juden heute ganz neu und in Abgrenzung zu alten Bildern und Vorstellungen definieren? Was bedeutet es für Deutschland, wenn sich Jüdinnen und Juden mit anderen religiösen, ethnischen und kulturellen Minderheiten solidarisieren und sich nicht gegen sie ausspielen lassen möchten? Und wie ist dem neu erwachenden Antisemitismus zu begegnen? Die Generation der Autorinnen und Autoren in dieser Sammlung steht heute für ein neues jüdisches Selbstbewusstsein und für neue Selbstbehauptung. Es wird deutlich, dass sich die Autorinnen und Autoren einbringen möchten. Es wird gegen altbewährte Klischees und Voreingenommenheiten angeschrieben. Der Band fasst die Entwicklungen der letzten dreißig Jahre zusammen und weist hinaus auf die Zukunft einer Gemeinschaft, die sich in einem Prozess der Identitätsfindung neu definiert. Es entsteht das Bild eines lebendigen, vielfältigen jungen Judentums in Deutschland, das immer stärker Räume für sich innerhalb der Gesamtgesellschaft einfordert. Pluralität ist eine der neuen Werte einer sich verändernden deutschen und europäischen Gesellschaft. Diese Pluralität ist dem Judentum seit jeher inhärent. Und in Anbetracht gesellschaftlicher Diskurse, in denen die Herausforderung der Pluralität immer an erster Stelle genannt wird, zeigt dieser Band für alle Leser*innen: Juden und Jüdinnen haben der Gesellschaft viel zu geben an Erfahrungen mit Pluralität. Dass zu dieser ein intensiver Streit gehört, das ist so selbstverständlich wie das Ziel, dass das Streiten zu einem Gelingen einer gemeinsamen Lebenswelt beitragen muss, soll der Streit fruchtbar und somit sinnvoll sein. Das Machloket, für das Hannah Peaceman in ihrem Beitrag plädiert, ist ein wesentliches Merkmal einer jüngeren Generation an Jüdinnen und Juden, die streiten, auch streitbar sein möchten. Aber alle Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Bandes vereint der Wunsch, unsere gemeinsame deutsche und europäische Lebenswelt mitzugestalten, sie für alle lebenswerter zu machen.
Date: 2018
Date: 2018
Abstract: In welchen Manifestationen tritt Antisemitismus im digitalen Zeitalter in Erscheinung? Wie, wo und von wem werden judenfeindliche Inhalte artikuliert und verbreitet?Welche Stereotype werden kodiert, welche Argumente benutzt? Welche Rolle spielen Emotionen und irrationale Affektlogik beim aktuellen Einstellungs- und Verbalantisemitismus? Inwiefern hat das Internet die Verbreitung und Intensivierung von Antisemitismen akzeleriert und forciert? Wie lassen sich die modernen Ausprägungen
des Judenhasses wissenschaftlich beschreiben, einordnen und erklären?

Die von der DFG vier Jahre lang geförderte Langzeitstudie zur Artikulation, Tradierung, Verbreitung und Manifestation von Judenhass im World Wide Web1 hat diese Fragen im Rahmen der empirischen Antisemitismusforschung systematisch und datenreich
untersucht.

Weltweit, so scheint es seit Jahren, nimmt die Artikulation und Verbreitung von Antisemitismen, insbesondere über das Web 2.0, stark zu. Diese Entwicklung in der virtuellen Welt korreliert in der realen Welt mit judenfeindlichen Übergriffen und Attacken, Drohungen und Beleidigungen sowie dem „neuen Unbehagen d.h. Furcht und Sorge in den jüdischen Gemeinden Deutschlands und Europas.

Dieser Eindruck, der sich bislang nur durch Einzelfälle dokumentiert sah (und deshalb zum Teil bezweifelt oder als subjektives „Gefühl“ in Frage gestellt wurde), wird nun durch die empirischen Daten der vorliegenden Langzeitstudie wissenschaftlich bestätigt.

Durch die Spezifika der Internetkommunikation (Reziprozität, aktive Netzpartizipation, Schnelligkeit, freie Zugänglichkeit, Multimodalität, Anonymität, globale Verknüpfung) und die steigende Relevanz der Sozialen Medien als meinungsbildende Informationsquelle in der Gesamtgesellschaft hat die schnelle, ungefilterte und nahezu grenzenlose Verbreitung judenfeindlichen Gedankengutes allein rein quantitativ ein Ausmaß erreicht, das es nie zuvor in der Geschichte gab. Die Digitalisierung der Informations-und Kommunikationstechnologie hat „Antisemitismus 2.0“ online schnell, multipel, textsortenspezifisch diffus und multimodal multiplizierbar gemacht. Jeden Tag werden Tausende neue Antisemitismen gepostet und ergänzen die seit Jahren im
Netz gespeicherten und einsehbaren judenfeindlichen Texte, Bilder und Videos. Im 10-Jahres-Vergleich hat sich die Anzahl der antisemitischen Online-Kommentare zwischen 2007 und 2018 z.T. verdreifacht. Es gibt zudem kaum noch einen Diskursbereich
im Netz 2.0, in dem Nutzer_innen nicht Gefahr laufen, auf antisemitische Texte zu stoßen, auch wenn sie nicht aktiv danach suchen.
Date: 2018
Abstract: This study, which forms part of JPR’s research programme for the Board of Deputies of British Jews, investigates the numbers of births and deaths that have taken place in Jewish population of the UK in recent years. Births and deaths reflect natural life events and are critical to understanding how the population is changing over time, particularly in terms of its size and structure. By monitoring the balance of births over deaths or vice versa (i.e. natural increase or decrease), it is possible to predict future trends, including the stability, growth or decline of the population.

The report, authored by JPR research Fellow, Donatella Casale Mashiah, demonstrates that the UK Jewish community has turned an important corner in recent years. Following several decades of demographic decline, during which Jewish deaths consistently exceeded Jewish births, births have exceeded deaths in every year since 2006, which implies Jewish demographic growth in the UK, all other factors being equal (e.g. migration, adhesions, renouncements).

The total number of Jewish births per annum in the UK has increased by about 25% over the past decade, peaking in 2011 at 3,869. This has more to do with birth rates in the strictly Orthodox part of the Jewish community than the remainder, although both sectors have seen an increase.

By contrast, the number of Jewish deaths per annum has been falling over time, broadly in line with national trends, due to increasing life expectancy. 2,411 Jewish death were recorded in the UK in 2016, the lowest number on record. The average between 1979 and 2016 was 3,738.

Denominationally, the majority of deaths (68%) in 2018 were ‘central Orthodox’ – i.e. funerals conducted under the auspices of the United Synagogue, the Federation of Synagogues, or independent modern Orthodox synagogues. These were followed, in turn, by Reform at 18%, Liberal at 6%, Sephardi at 4%, Strictly Orthodox at 2% and Masorti at 1%. These proportions are reflective of the relative size of each group in the Jewish population at the oldest age bands.

Beyond the overarching story of the Jewish population that these data reveal, the numbers themselves are also essential for planning purposes. They are of significant value to local authorities, politicians, community leaders, educators and charitable organisations among others, since they can be applied to assess a variety of communal needs, such as childcare facilities, school places, elderly care facilities, religious services and burial grounds.
Author(s): Samson, Maxim G. M.
Date: 2018
Author(s): Kahn-Harris, Keith
Date: 2018
Abstract: The Limmud Impact Study looks at how successful Limmud has been in taking people ‘one step further on their Jewish journeys’, what these journeys consist of and their wider impact on Jewish communities.

The study focuses on Limmud volunteers and draws on a survey of ten Limmud volunteer communities in eight countries - UK, USA, South Africa, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Israel and Argentina - together with focus groups conducted with Limmud volunteers from around the world.

The findings provide clear evidence that Limmud advances the majority of its volunteers on their Jewish journeys, and for a significant proportion it takes them ‘further’ towards greater interest in and commitment to Jewish life.

Limmud’s principle impact on its volunteers lies in making new friends and contacts, encountering different kinds of Jews and enhancing a sense of connection to the Jewish people. For many Limmud volunteers, their experience has increased their Jewish
knowledge, their leadership skills and their involvement in the wider Jewish community. Involvement in Limmud therefore enhances both the desire to take further steps on their Jewish journeys, and the tools for doing so.

Limmud impacts equally on Jews regardless of denominationand religious practice. The younger the volunteers and the less committed they are when they begin their Limmud journeys, the further Limmud takes them. Those with more senior levels of involvement in Limmud report higher levels of impact on their Jewish journeys than other volunteers, as do those who had received a subsidy or training from Limmud.

Limmud volunteers often have difficult experiences and risk burnout and
exhaustion. While volunteers generally view the gains as worth the cost, Limmud
needs to pay attention to this issue and provide further support.
Date: 2018
Abstract: Issues arise when trying to understand the motivation of policymakers to preserve the assets of cultures that do not belong to the mainstream population. Tunbridge and Ashworth's seminal study on ‘Dissonant Heritage’ and Bennett's developmental model of intercultural sensitivity (DMIS model) provide a basis to evaluate both the motivations and the existence of a cultural dissonance. As there is a growing worldwide trend towards preserving and developing Jewish heritage tourism (JHT) this study examines Jewish heritage sites in three Macedonian cities endowed with rich Jewish history. Unlike previous studies concentrating on the notion of dissonant heritage, this research focuses on the motivation for preserving such sites, an issue hardly tackled before. Previous studies suggested the prevalence of six possible motives: guilt, facing harsh history, emphasis on dark tourism, revival of a harmonious past, respect, and economic benefits. Data were obtained via face-to-face interviews conducted with policy-makers from central and local governments. The interviews were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively in order to determine the leading motives for preservation. The findings indicate that by establishing and maintaining Jewish Heritage sites, stakeholders reflect sentiments of respect and admiration for the perished Jewish community and a longing for the revival of an elusive harmonious past. The potential economic benefits and dark tourism surfaced only as minor motives. Practically, JH preservation is used to revive dialogue with a forgotten past that may also contribute to urban tourism development in the future. Conceptually, the interviews did not reveal any indication of heritage dissonance, a finding that stands in sharp contrast to the dissonant heritage theory.
Author(s): Berek, Mathias
Date: 2018
Abstract: There is a persistent claim that new migrants to Europe, and specifically migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA migrants), carry antisemitism with them. This assertion is made to different degrees in different countries and can take different forms. Nevertheless, in Europe, the association of rising antisemitism with migrants from the Middle East and North Africa
is widespread and needs to be evaluated.

MENA migrants have been symbolically central to the migration debate since 2011. These years have been framed by the Arab spring and its aftermath and by Europe’s crisis of refugee protection. This research project has focused specifically on MENA migrants, in response to the intensity of this debate, and in accordance with the brief from Foundation EVZ. The central concern of the research project has been to investigate whether the arrival of MENA migrants since 2011 has had an impact on antisemitic attitudes and behaviour in Western Europe. This report deals with the case of Belgium. The report also considers whether government and civil society agencies have identified a problem of antisemitism among MENA migrants. The findings are based on an extensive survey of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence. Additionally, new qualitative research has been undertaken to investigate the experiences and opinions of a range of actors.

This national report contributes to a larger research project conducted in 2016/2017 across five European countries – Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A final report, Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: is there a connection? Findings and recommendations from a five-nation study, draws out common trends, makes comparisons and provides recommendations for civil society organizations and for governments.
Date: 2018
Abstract: There is a persistent claim that new migrants to Europe, and specifically migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA migrants), carry antisemitism with them. This assertion is made to different degrees in different countries and can take different forms. Nevertheless, in Europe, the association of rising antisemitism with migrants from the Middle East and North Africa is widespread and needs to be evaluated.

MENA migrants have been symbolically central to the migration debate since 2011. These years have been framed by the Arab spring and its aftermath and by Europe’s crisis of refugee protection. This research project has focused specifically on MENA migrants, in response to the intensity of this debate, and in accordance with the brief from Foundation EVZ. The central concern of the research project has been to investigate whether the arrival of MENA migrants since 2011 has had an impact on antisemitic attitudes and behaviour in Western Europe. This report deals with the case of the United Kingdom. The report also considers whether government and civil society agencies have identified a problem of antisemitism among MENA migrants. The findings are based on an extensive survey of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence. Additionally, new qualitative research has been undertaken to investigate the experiences and opinions of a range of actors.

This national report contributes to a larger research project conducted in 2016/2017 across five European countries – Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A final report, Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: is there a connection? Findings and recommendations from a five-nation study, draws out common trends, makes comparisons and provides recommendations for civil society organizations and for governments.
Date: 2018
Abstract: There is a persistent claim that new migrants to Europe, and specifically migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA migrants), carry antisemitism with them. This assertion is made to different degrees in different countries and can take different forms. Nevertheless, in Europe, the association of rising antisemitism with migrants from the Middle East and North Africa is widespread and needs to be evaluated.

MENA migrants have been symbolically central to the migration debate since 2011. These years have been framed by the Arab spring and its aftermath and by Europe’s crisis of refugee protection. This research project has focused specifically on MENA migrants, in response to the intensity of this debate, and in accordance with the brief from Foundation EVZ. The central concern of the research project has been to investigate whether the arrival of MENA migrants since 2011 has had an impact on antisemitic attitudes and behaviour in Western Europe. This report deals with the case of the Netherlands. The report also considers whether government and civil society agencies have identified a problem of antisemitism among MENA migrants. The findings are based on an extensive survey of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence. Additionally, new qualitative research has been undertaken to investigate the experiences and opinions of a range of actors.

This national report contributes to a larger research project conducted in 2016/2017 across five European countries – Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A final report, Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: is there a connection? Findings and recommendations from a five-nation study, draws out common trends, makes comparisons and provides recommendations for civil society organizations and for governments.
Date: 2018
Abstract: There is a persistent claim that new migrants to Europe, and specifically migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA migrants), carry antisemitism with them. This assertion is made to different degrees in different countries and can take different forms. Nevertheless, in Europe, the association of rising antisemitism with migrants from the Middle East and North Africa
is widespread and needs to be evaluated.

MENA migrants have been symbolically central to the migration debate since 2011. These years have been framed by the Arab spring and its aftermath and by Europe’s crisis of refugee protection. This research project has focused specifically on MENA migrants, in response to the intensity of this debate, and in accordance with the brief from Foundation EVZ. The central concern of the research project has been to investigate whether the arrival of MENA migrants since 2011 has had an impact on antisemitic attitudes and behaviour in Western Europe. This report deals with the case of France. The report also considers whether government and civil society agencies have identified a problem of antisemitism among MENA migrants. The findings are based on an extensive survey of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence. Additionally, new qualitative research has been undertaken to investigate the experiences and opinions of a range of actors.

This national report contributes to a larger research project conducted in 2016/2017 across five European countries – Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A final report, Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: is there a connection? Findings and recommendations from a five-nation study, draws out common trends, makes comparisons and provides recommendations for civil society organizations and for governments.
Date: 2018
Abstract: There is a persistent claim that new migrants to Europe, and specifically migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA migrants), carry antisemitism with them. This assertion is made to different degrees in different countries and can take different forms. Nevertheless, in Europe, the association of rising antisemitism with migrants from the Middle East and North Africa
is widespread and needs to be evaluated.

MENA migrants have been symbolically central to the migration debate since 2011. These years have been framed by the Arab spring and its aftermath and by Europe’s crisis of refugee protection. This research project has focused specifically on MENA migrants, in response to the intensity of this debate, and in accordance with the brief from Foundation EVZ. The central concern of the research project has been to investigate whether the arrival of MENA migrants since 2011 has had an impact on antisemitic attitudes and behaviour in Western Europe. This report deals with the case of Belgium. The report also considers whether government and civil society agencies have identified a problem of antisemitism among MENA migrants. The findings are based on an extensive survey of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence. Additionally, new qualitative research has been undertaken to investigate the experiences and opinions of a range of actors.

This national report contributes to a larger research project conducted in 2016/2017 across five European countries – Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A final report, Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: is there a connection? Findings and recommendations from a five-nation study, draws out common trends, makes comparisons and provides recommendations for civil society organizations and for governments.
Author(s): Feldman, David
Date: 2018
Author(s): Feldman, David
Date: 2018
Author(s): Feldman, David
Date: 2018
Author(s): Graham, David
Date: 2018
Abstract: JPR’s report, European Jewish identity: Mosaic or monolith? An empirical assessment of eight European countries, authored by Senior Research Fellow Dr David Graham, asks whether there is such a thing as a European Jewish identity, and, if so, what it looks like.

The question of whether there is a Jewish identity that is at once common to all European Jews but also peculiar to them, has intrigued scholars of contemporary Jewry since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This study contrasts the European picture with the two major centres of world Jewry, the United States and Israel, and examines the nature and content of Jewish identity across Europe, exploring the three core pillars of belief, belonging and behaviour around which Jewish identity is built.

This research was made possible by the advent of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey in 2012 examining Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitism across nine EU Member States: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Sweden and the UK. As well as gathering data about antisemitism, the study investigated various aspects of the Jewishness of respondents, in order to ascertain whether different types of Jews perceive and experience antisemitism differently. This study focuses on the data gathered about Jewishness, thereby enabling direct comparisons to be made for the first time across multiple European Jewish communities in a robust and comprehensive way.

The report concludes that there is no monolithic European identity, but it explores in detail the mosaic of Jewish identity in Europe, highlighting some key differences:
• In Belgium, where Jewish parents are most likely to send their children to Jewish schools, there is a unique polarisation between the observant and non-observant;
• In France, Jews exhibit the strongest feelings of being part of the Jewish People, and also have the strongest level of emotional attachment to Israel;
• Germany’s Jewish community has the largest proportion of foreign-born Jews, and, along with Hungary, is the youngest Jewish population;
• In Hungary the greatest relative weight in Jewish identity priorities is placed on 'Combating antisemitism,' and the weakest level of support for Israel is exhibited;
• In Italy, respondents are least likely to report being Jewish by birth or to have two Jewish parents;
• The Jews of Latvia are the oldest population and the most likely to be intermarried;
• The Jews of Sweden attach a very high level of importance to 'Combating antisemitism' despite being relatively unlikely to experience it, and they observe few Jewish practices;
• In the United Kingdom, Jews observe the most religious practices and appear to feel the least threatened by antisemitism. They are the most likely to be Jewish by birth and least likely to be intermarried.

According to report author, Dr David Graham: “This report represents far more than the culmination of an empirical assessment of Jewish identity. Never before has it been possible to examine Jewish identity across Europe in anything approaching a coherent and systematic way. Prior to the FRA’s survey, it was almost inconceivable that an analysis of this kind could be carried out at all. The formidable obstacles of cost, language, political and logistical complexity seemed to present impenetrable barriers to the realisation of any such dream. Yet this is exactly what has been achieved, a report made possible through an FRA initiative into furthering understanding of Jewish peoples' experience of antisemitism. It reveals a European Jewry that is more mosaic than monolith, an array of Jewish communities, each exhibiting unique Jewish personas, yet united by geography and a common cultural heritage."
Author(s): Illman, Ruth
Date: 2018
Author(s): Zelenina, Galina
Date: 2018
Abstract: In the early 2000s, the Russian branch of Lubavitch Hasidism embodied in the Federation of Jewish communities of Russia became a self-proclaimed speaker for Russian Jewry. The paper argues that the Federation is a nation-building project which succeeded in constructing a rather limited and imported real religious community as well as a large and amorphous “imagined community” and tries to offer some inclusive agenda for Russian Jewry as a whole. Most importantly, the Federation switched from the traditional lachrymose concept of the Jewish nation, and suffering as a core of Jewish identity, to the idea of Jewish and Russian Jewish success, achievement, and heroism. The paper seeks to demonstrate that the reason for this ideological innovation lies in Lubavitch mentality (part and parcel of which is the concept of miracle and ardent messianism) as well as in surrounding all-Russian trends. The Federation’s success story and development of optimistic memories and narratives has been parallel to Russia’s “rising from its knees.” The cornerstone of the Federation’s victory on the Russian Jewish scene - its effective and continuous alliance with Kremlin - shows the same pattern: on the one side, it follows the traditional Lubavitch path; on the other, it reflects the traditional Russian idea of state-church “symphony” and dependence of the latter on the former. The attitude to Judaism on the part of the Russian Jewry that supports the Federation may be defined as “vicarious religion,” and may be compared to the “light burden” of Orthodoxy undertaken by the majority of Russians.
Date: 2018
Abstract: Het Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israel (CIDI) maakt zich zorgen over het toenemende antisemitisme op internet en in de landelijke en lokale politiek. Op internet en via sociale media worden holocaustontkenning en complottheorieën over internationale Joodse samenzweringen breed verspreid. Dit soort beelden kunnen zich omzetten in haat en daadwerkelijke verbale of fysieke agressie tegen Joden.

Zorgwekkend zijn ook politieke uitingen met een antisemitische lading. CIDI-directeur Hanna Luden: ‘De grenzen van waar legitieme kritiek op Israel overgaat in antisemitisme worden opgezocht en steeds vaker overschreden’. Dieptepunt is een afbeelding op Facebook van de politieke partij DENK waarin de machtige Joodse lobby in het schaduwduister opereert; dit in verwijzing naar de beruchte antisemitische Protocollen van de Wijzen van Sion. Uitspraken over de ‘lange arm van Israël en de Joden’ en een WhatsAppgroep waar ‘Marokkaanse joden’ van de PvdA uitgemaakt zijn voor ‘verraders van onze gemeenschap’ zijn onaanvaardbaar, aldus Hanna Luden.

CIDI heeft in 2017 voor het eerst antisemitische uitingen op internet en in het politieke domein apart geregistreerd. Het gaat om 7 incidenten in het politieke domein en 24 op internet die bij CIDI zijn gemeld en die vervolgens zijn onderzocht en getoetst aan de definitie van antisemitisme die CIDI hanteert (zie de monitor). De werkelijke omvang van het aantal antisemitische uitingen via internet en sociale media is veel groter. Het door de overheid ingestelde Meldpunt Internet Discriminatie (MiND) registreerde in 2017 236 meldingen van antisemitisme. Dit is 17% van het totaal aantal meldingen over discriminatie. Dat is een hoog percentage, gegeven dat de Joodse minderheid slechts 0,3% van de Nederlandse samenleving uitmaakt.

Uit de vandaag gepubliceerde ‘Monitor antisemitische incidenten in Nederland 2017’ van het CIDI blijkt verder dat het aantal antisemitische incidenten (internet niet meegerekend) vorig jaar uitkwam op 113, een lichte stijging ten opzichte van 2016. Onder dat aantal vielen 28 bekladdingen en vernielingen, waaronder het ingooien van ruiten van het Joodse restaurant HaCarmel en van de Joodse instelling Chabad Central te Amsterdam. Er werden vier geweldsincidenten geregistreerd, waaronder ernstige mishandelingen van een Joods Syrische vluchteling en twee Joodse toeristen uit Israel.

Het CIDI vindt dat geweldsmisdrijven vanuit antisemitische of anderszins discriminerende motieven zwaarder moeten worden bestraft. Wanneer iemand wordt aangevallen vanwege zijn of haar afkomst of geloof raakt dat namelijk niet alleen het individu maar de groep als geheel. Antisemitisch geweld heeft grote impact op het gevoel van onveiligheid in de gehele Joodse gemeenschap.

Een andere belangrijke aanbeveling is dat de Werkdefinitie Antisemitisme van de International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance door relevante organisaties en overheden wordt overgenomen en juridisch bindend verklaard. Momenteel wordt antisemitisme in de Nederlandse wet niet omschreven, waardoor het lastig te bestrijden is, zeker wanneer oude antisemitische vooroordelen en complottheorieën worden gerecycled door het woord ‘joden’ te vervangen door ‘zionisten’. Een heldere definitie helpt relevante actoren (politie, OM, onderwijs) antisemitisme te herkennen en te bestrijden. Een algemeen aanvaarde definitie van antisemitisme kan ook gebruikt worden op scholen en bijvoorbeeld bij de toetsing van subsidieaanvragen van maatschappelijke en religieuze instellingen.
Date: 2018
Abstract: 150 actes antisémites recensés en 2017 dont 2 agressions physiques : deux jeunes enfants insultés et victimes de crachats. Un homme tabassé et insulté en pleine rue.

30% des actes recensés ont trait au négationnisme de la Shoah, 24% à la théorie du complot juif et 23% aux théories antisémites «classiques». Par ailleurs, la répartition des actes antisémites confirme que les réseaux sociaux concentrent la grande majorité des actes recensés dans ce rapport soit 46%. Une tendance observée depuis plusieurs années.

Au-delà du recensement des actes, la CICAD propose une analyse fine de la situation et des statistiques, tout en articulant des recommandations précises pour répondre à cette problématique.

Principaux vecteurs d’antisémitisme

L’extrême-droite : recrudescence de leurs activités en 2017 et intensification des liens entretenus par ces groupes dans tous les cantons romands et en France voisine.

A l’ère des fake news et des sites de « ré information», un nombre considérable de commentaires antisémites sur internet trouvent leur source dans le complotisme, particulièrement en ce qui concerne les milieux d’extrême-droite, d’extrême-gauche, islamistes ainsi que les mouvements dits de «dissidence ».

L’affaire Jonas Fricker, qui a défrayé la chronique en 2017, a mis en lumière un phénomène de plus en plus récurrent en Suisse : la banalisation de la Shoah, notamment dans les milieux dits antispécistes.

Ainsi, l’année 2017 est marquée par un antisémitisme qui prend racine dans des idéologies antisémites profondes et des concepts éculés.

Recommandations

La lutte contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme doit se concevoir dans une approche d’éducation et de prévention. Face à ces problématiques, la CICAD émet des recommandations - extraits :

- Introduction d’une reconnaissance de la qualité de partie pour les organisations afin qu’elles puissent agir face aux contrevenants à la norme pénale contre le racisme (article 261bis CP),

- Mise en place d’une étude afin de déceler une potentielle présence de préjugés racistes et antisémites dans les établissements scolaires.

La CICAD attend des Autorités qu’elles fassent preuve d’un engagement plus conséquent à lutter contre ce fléau qu’est l’antisémitism
Date: 2018
Abstract: CST recorded 1,382 antisemitic incidents in 2017, the highest annual total CST has ever recorded. The total of 1,382 incidents is an increase of three per cent from the 2016 total of 1,346 antisemitic incidents, which was itself a record annual total. The third highest annual total recorded by CST was 1,182 antisemitic incidents in 2014.

There has been a 34 per cent increase in the number of antisemitic incidents recorded in the category of Assaults in 2017: 145 incidents in 2017, compared to 108 in 2016. As in 2016, CST did not classify any of the assaults as Extreme Violence, meaning an attack potentially causing loss of life or grievous bodily harm. This is the highest annual total of Assaults recorded by CST, surpassing the 121 incidents recorded in 2009.

Antisemitic incidents recorded by CST occurred more in the first six months of 2017 than in the second half of the year. The highest monthly total in 2017 came in January with 155 incidents; the second highest was in April with 142 incidents; and the third highest was in February with 134 incidents reported. Every month from January to October, CST recorded a monthly incident total above 100 incidents. This continued an utterly unprecedented sequence of monthly totals exceeding 100 antisemitic incidents since April 2016, a run of 19 consecutive months. There were 89 incidents recorded in November and 78 in December. There is no obvious reason why November and December 2017 saw an end to this sequence, although historically CST has usually recorded fewer antisemitic incidents in December in comparison to other months. It is too soon to predict whether this decline in monthly incident totals towards the end of 2017 marks the beginning of a downward trend from the sustained highs of the past two years.

Previous record high annual totals in 2014 and 2009 occurred when conflicts in Israel and Gaza acted as sudden trigger events that caused steep, identifiable ‘spikes’ in antisemitic incidents recorded by CST. In contrast, in 2017 (as in 2016) there was not a sudden, statistically outlying large spike in incidents to cause and explain the overall record high.
Author(s): Almog, Yael
Date: 2018
Translated Title: 2017 Antisemitism Report
Date: 2018
Abstract: Im aktuellen Antisemitismusbericht dokumentiert das Forum gegen Antisemitismus (FgA) für das Jahr 2017 insgesamt 503 antisemitische Vorfälle – der höchste Wert seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen!

Es handelt sich um gemeldete Fälle, die nach einer Überprüfung durch das FgA tatsächlich als antisemitisch eingestuft wurden. Es ist von einer höheren Dunkelziffer (nicht gemeldete Fälle) auszugehen. Die in den Bericht aufgenommenen Fälle werden vom FgA in sechs Kategorien eingeteilt.

Innerhalb eines Jahres stieg die Zahl von 477 auf 503 antisemitische Vorfälle. Über einen Zeitraum von drei Jahren hat sich die Gesamtzahl der gemeldeten Vorfälle sogar fast verdoppelt.

Betrachtet man jene Vorfälle, in denen die Betroffenen persönlich adressiert wurden (Beschimpfungen/Bedrohungen, Briefe/Anrufe, und Tätliche Angriffe), so ist ebenfalls eine Verdoppelung im gleichen Zeitraum erkennbar (s. Diagramm). Dieser Anstieg ist ein weiterer Hinweis darauf, dass es eine Enthemmung auf Seiten der Täter gibt, welche ihre Ressentiments in einer persönlich adressieren Form ausleben.

Fast zwei Drittel (62 %) der antisemitischen Handlungen können keinem ideologischen Hintergrund zugeordnet werden. Etwa 24 % aller zuordenbaren Fälle können auf einen rechten Hintergrund zurückgeführt werden, 10 % auf einen islamischen und 3 % auf einen linken Hintergrund. Wegen der hohen Zahl von ideologisch nicht zuordenbaren Fällen, kann keine Aussage darüber getroffen werden, welche Form von Antisemitismus die quantitativ größte ist: "Unsere Daten zeigen zwar nicht, von wo der meiste Antisemitismus kommt. Wenn wir uns jedoch darauf konzentrieren, was unsere Daten schon zeigen, dann erkennt man, dass Antisemitismus von überall kommt - und das ist nirgends zu akzeptieren!"