registered in national populations relates to the perception of antisemitism by the Jewish
population in the same country. Furthermore, the article empirically identifies distinct aspects
of antisemitism, deconstructing the concept of antisemitism and breaking it up into three
kinds of empirically differently based and composed antisemitisms (Note the plural!): classic
antisemitism, Israel-derived antisemitism and Enlightenment-based antisemitism. The article
also elaborates on some more general implications for the understanding of the character of
antisemitism in contemporary Europe, and based on that, presents some perspectives on the
development of the three distinct antisemitisms in contemporary Europe.
The countries included in the article are Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, but a special focus is placed on Sweden because
the situation in Sweden concerning antisemitism and the Jewish population’s reactions to
perceived antisemitism is particularly illustrative of some of the main points we can make
based on our investigations.
Le informazioni sono state raccolte da fonti diverse: dai soggetti coinvolti (vittime), da comunicazione della Comunità ebraica o altri enti, da fonti aperte (giornali, radio, web, etc.) e da analisi e studi fatti in proprio dall’Osservatorio antisemitismo della Fondazione Centro di Documentazione Ebraica Contemporanea – CDEC o da altre istituzioni e organizzazioni.
Nel 2013 l’Osservatorio antisemitismo ha registrato una cinquantina di episodi di antisemitismo, un numero vicino a quello degli ultimi tre anni. Si tratta principalmente di: graffiti offensivi, E-mail e post a singoli e istituzioni ebraiche, dichiarazioni pubbliche, cori e striscioni antisemiti negli stadi di calcio.
Il conteggio include gli atti più significativi e manifesti quelli cioè che hanno guadagnato visibilità mediatica consapevoli che molti altri non sono arrivati alla nostra attenzione, perché non denunciati o non pubblicati.
Il calcolo non comprende invece le numerose uscite antisemitiche sul web, tranne che per i casi più eclatanti. Al web come mezzo di diffusione dell’odio viene dedicato un paragrafo a parte.
antiebraico registrati in Italia nel 2014.
• Nel 2014 l’“Osservatorio antisemitismo” della Fondazione CDEC ha registrato una novantina di
episodi di antisemitismo, un numero nettamente superiore a quello degli ultimi tre anni e doppio
rispetto al 2013.
• Come ogni anno molti episodi di antisemitismo si sono concentrati intorno al 27 Gennaio “Giorno
della Memoria”. L’altro picco di antisemitismo è stato raggiunto tra i primi di luglio e la fine di
agosto in concomitanza con il conflitto tra Hamas e lo Stato di Israele nella Striscia di Gaza.
• Il livello di aggressività, in particolare quello verbale, è in crescita.
• Episodi di antisemitismo ed attacchi contro gli ebrei vengono da ambienti estremisti e marginali.
• Il pregiudizio antisemitico inteso come opinioni è trasversale ai diversi ceti socio culturali e politici,
l’antisemitismo - come episodi, attacchi verbali e azioni di ostilità antiebraica - contraddistingue i
gruppi politici estremisti di destra e di sinistra. I discorsi antisemiti, ossia argomentazioni fatte
pubblicamente che si riferiscono a una ideologia o a un pensiero culturale denso di stereotipi, a
seconda del paradigma cui attingono: cospirativismo, negazione della Shoah, demonizzazione di
Israele vengono espressi invece in vari contesti, non necessariamente estremisti.
• Esponenti e simpatizzanti di partiti e movimenti della destra radicale nel 2014 sono stati
protagonisti di molteplici episodi e polemiche antisemite e negazioniste, e di banalizzazione del
• Il negazionismo è molto attivo, principalmente nel web e fa parte del bagaglio ideologico e militante
di movimenti e partiti neonazisti.
• L’antisemitismo nel web è in continua crescita.
‘Official data’ is understood here as that collected by law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
This report compiles available data on antisemitic incidents collected by international, governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2004– 31 December 2014, where data are available. No official data on reported antisemitic incidents were available for seven Member States at the time this report was compiled: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta and Portugal.
Committee’s International Centre for Community
Development (JDC-ICCD), and conducted by a research
team at Trinity College (Hartford, Connecticut, USA)
between June and August 2015, the Third Survey of
European Jewish Leaders and Opinion Formers presents
the results of an online survey administered to 314
respondents in 29 countries. The survey was conducted
online in five languages: English, French, Spanish, German
and Hungarian. The Survey of European Jewish Leaders
and Opinion Formers is conducted every three or four
years using the same format, in order to identify trends
and their evolution. Findings of the 2015 edition were
assessed and evaluated based on the results of previous
surveys (2008 and 2011).
The survey posed Jewish leaders and opinion formers a
range of questions about major challenges and issues that
concern European Jewish communities in 2015, and about
their expectations of how communities will evolve over
the next 5-10 years. The 45 questions (see Appendix) dealt
with topics that relate to internal community structures
and their functions, as well as the external environment
affecting communities. The questionnaire also included
six open-ended questions in a choice of five languages.
These answers form the basis of the qualitative analysis
of the report. The questions were organized under the
• Vision & Change (6 questions)
• Decision-Making & Control (1 question)
• Lay Leadership (1 question)
• Professional Leadership (2 questions)
• Status Issues & Intermarriage (5 questions)
• Organizational Frameworks (2 questions)
• Community Causes (2 questions)
• Jewish Education (1 question)
• Funding (3 questions)
• Communal Tensions (3 questions)
• Anti-Semitism/Security (5 questions)
• Europe (1 question)
• Israel (1 question)
• Future (2 questions)
• Personal Profile (9 questions)
My paper focuses on the shift in emphasis from the need to preserve such sites as places of memory to an increasing concern with other issues. Such issues range from tourism promotion to the promotion of multiculturalism. This emphasis on preparing the younger generation for a future in a new multicultural state provides much of the motivation for central and local government to lend support to such initiatives, whether in Sweden, Germany or Italy, for instance.
The paper focuses on the Jewish Museum in Bologna, where I conducted fieldwork between 1999 and 2002. The study illustrates the mix of policy objectives involved, such as heritage preservation, urban regeneration, cultural policy and educational objectives. The theoretical discussion seeks to combine Clifford's notion of the museum as a contact zone (Clifford, 1997) with Foucault's notions on discourse formation (Foucault, 1972). In the process, the analysis of the museum's political economy extends beyond the four walls of the museum into the adjoining space of the ghetto and the city.
L’Associazione di cultura ebraica Hans Jonas (www.hansjonas.it) nasce alla fine del 2009 per promuovere attività di formazione, ricerca ed elaborazione culturale in seno alle comunità ebraiche italiane e nella società. Da allora l’Associazione ha organizzato due Master per giovani dirigenti delle comunità ebraiche e diversi convegni di studio. Con questo testo l’Associazione apre le sue pubblicazioni.
Jews see themselves – and also are seen as such by many educated Italians – as one of the “tribes” of what can best be called “the Italian nation in the making.” The rise in recent decades of the Northern League shows once again that the idea of Italy as a single state is a contested one. In such a context there is suddenly a place again for the Jews as one of the distinct Italian groups, as was the case for many centuries before Italian unity.
Another development of the last decades has been the reinvention of the Italian Fascist Party. Most of its members joined in 1995 a new movement, Alleanza Nazionale. Its leader, Gianfranco Fini needed the Jews and Israel to give legitimization to his party as genuine democrats.
External developments have fostered a sudden reemergence of Italian Jewry. This has made Italian Jews again proud of their identity.
The author presents an outline of the history of Jewish women in Italy, going back to their involvement with Jewish and Christian courts in the late Middle Ages. Highlights include women's struggles against forced conversion, anti-Semitism, and the creation of the Italian ghetto; women's involvement in Garibaldi's Resorgimento; the early popularization of the Bat Mitzvah celebration; the first Italian Jewish woman to have a rabbinic education; women's role in the anti-Nazi resistance and later in Holocaust awareness; and finally women's active leadership in the modern Italian Jewish community.
Fundamental Rights (FRA) overview of Manifestations of antisemitism in the EU.
It outlines the broad contours of antisemitism in the European Union (EU).
The update assembles statistical data covering the period 1 January 2001–31
December 2011 (where available) on antisemitic incidents collected by
international, governmental and non-governmental sources. Notable antisemitic
incidents that occurred in 2011 are highlighted throughout the update to reveal
the reality behind the figures. No data were available for Estonia, Luxembourg
(where no data are collected), Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia
at the time this working paper was compiled.
the EU published in 2004 by the predecessor of the Fundamental Rights
Agency of the European Union (FRA), the European Union Monitoring
Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It contains the latest available
governmental and non-governmental statistical data covering the years
2001 to 2009, and, in addition, selected incidents identified through nongovernmental
organisations (NGOs) and media reports.
This is the 10th in a series of yearly updates about data collected on antisemitism published by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and its predecessor, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).
This annual report compiles the available evidence on antisemitic incidents collected by international, governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2005–31 December 2015, where data are available. In addition, it includes a section that presents evidence from international organisations. No official data on reported antisemitic incidents in 2015 were available for eight Member States by the time this report was compiled in September 201
update of its 2004 report “Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the EU”. The
overview contains the latest governmental and non-governmental
statistical data covering 2001 to 2008 for those EU Member States that
have official or unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents. The
Agency collects regularly publicly available official and unofficial data and
information on racism and xenophobia in the EU Member States through
its Racism and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN) with a special focus on
The Agency’s data collection work shows that most Member States do not
have official or even unofficial data and statistics on anti-Semitic incidents.
Even where data exist they are not comparable, since they are collected
following different methodologies. For some countries, RAXEN National
Focal Points provide the Agency with lists of cases collected either ad hoc
by civil society organisations or through the media with varying degrees of
validity and reliability. Detailed data and incidents lists are presented in the
FRA electronic database, Info_Portal at http://infoportal.fra.europa.eu.
The Agency’s regular review of data collection systems indicates that most
Member States have a serious problem of underreporting, particularly in
reference to official systems of data collection that are based on police
records and on crime and law statistics, because not all anti-Semitic
incidents registered officially are categorised under the label “antiSemitism”
and/or because not all anti-Semitic incidents are reported to the
official body by the victims or witnesses of an incident.
A complementary problem to underreporting is misreporting and overreporting:
This could be the case in unofficial data collection carried out by
organisations that do not provide information concerning their
we aimed to generate a comprehensive picture of the Jewish museum
landscape across Europe, and to identify the most pressing issues,
challenges and needs faced by these institutions. We wanted to learn about
the mission, philosophy and methodology of Jewish museums, and better
understand their role and position in the cultural and educational realm at
large. We were also interested in the level of professionalization of Jewish
museums, both in staff training, collection preservation and cataloguing,
management, and the ways in which Jewish museums communicate and
arrange partnerships with one another. With a better understanding of
these issues, we want now to assess the resources needed and the funding
priorities for the next five to ten years.
The questionnaire was sent to 120 institutions in 34 countries and we
received 64 completed forms from 30 countries. The questions addressed
eleven broad topics: organisation, collections, permanent and temporary
exhibitions, facility, visitor services, public programmes, visitor
demographics, marketing and PR, finances, future plans and needs.
This diverse sample enabled us to get, for the first time, a quasicomprehensive
picture of the Jewish museum landscape in Europe, from
small community museums to landmarks of “starchitecture;” from
institutions boasting thousands of rare objects to others mostly text
panels- or technology-based; from museums employing scores of
professional staff and interns to synagogues-turned-exhibition halls run by
volunteers for a few hours a month. That was precisely the challenge: the
large and numerous discrepancies between institutions, depending on their
location, their financial and human resources, their political and economic
context, the type of visitors they receive, and other contextual
The results point to four major findings:
1. Transition from museums to multi-purpose hubs;
2. Lack of collaboration and partnerships;
3. Tension between particularistic and universalistic missions;
4. Increasing need to serve a diverse audience.