Search results

Your search found 74 items
copy result link
You ran an advanced options search Previous | Next
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year View all 1 2
Home  /  Search Results
Date: 2007
Abstract: The robbery and restitution of Jewish property are two inextricably linked social processes. It is not possible to understand the lawsuits and international agreements on the restoration of Jewish property of the late 1990s without examining what was robbed and by whom. In this volume distinguished historians first outline the mechanisms and scope of the European-wide program of plunder and then assess the effectiveness and historical implications of post-war restitution efforts. Everywhere the solution of legal and material problems was intertwined with changing national myths about the war and conflicting interpretations of justice. Even those countries that pursued extensive restitution programs using rigorous legal means were unable to compensate or fully comprehend the scale of Jewish loss. Especially in Eastern Europe, it was not until the collapse of communism that the concept of restoring some Jewish property rights even became a viable option. Integrating the abundance of new research on the material effects of the Holocaust and its aftermath, this comparative perspective examines the developments in Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Belgium, Hungary and the Czech Republic. CONTENTS List of Abbreviations Preface Part I: Introduction Introduction: A History without Boundaries: The Robbery and Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe Constantin Goschler and Philipp Ther Part II: The Robbery of Jewish Property in Comparative Perspective Chapter 1. The Seizure of Jewish Property in Europe: Comparative Aspects of Nazi Methods and Local Responses Martin Dean Chapter 2. Aryanization and Restitution in Germany Frank Bajohr Chapter 3. The Looting of Jewish Property in Occupied Western Europe: A Comparative Study of Belgium, France, and the Netherlands Jean-Marc Dreyfus Chapter 4. The Robbery of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe under German Occupation, 1939–1942 Dieter Pohl Chapter 5. The Robbery of Jewish Property in Eastern European States Allied with Nazi Germany Tatjana Tönsmeyer Part III: The Restitution of Jewish Property in Comparative Perspective Chapter 6. West Germany and the Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe Jürgen Lillteicher Chapter 7. Jewish Property and the Politics of Restitution in Germany after 1945 Constantin Goschler Chapter 8. Two Approaches to Compensation in France: Restitution and Reparation Claire Andrieu Chapter 9. The Expropriation of Jewish Property and Restitution in Belgium Rudi van Doorslaer Chapter 10. Indifference and Forgetting: Italy and its Jewish Community, 1938–1970 Ilaria Pavan Chapter 11. “Why Switzerland?” – Remarks on a Neutral’s Role in the Nazi Program of Robbery and Allied Postwar Restitution Policy Regula Ludi Chapter 12. The Hungarian Gold Train: Fantasies of Wealth and the Madness of Genocide Ronald W. Zweig Chapter 13. Reluctant Restitution: The Restitution of Jewish Property in the Bohemian Lands after the Second World War Eduard Kubu and Jan Kuklík Jr. Chapter 14. The Polish Debate on the Holocaust and the Restitution of Property Dariusz Stola Part IV: Concluding Remarks Conclusion: Reflections on the Restitution and Compensation of Holocaust Theft: Past, Present, and Future Gerald D. Feldman Notes on Contributors Select Bibliography Index
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."
Date: 2017
Abstract: La Fondazione Centro di Documentazione Ebraica Contemporanea e Ipsos hanno realizzato un’indagine volta ad indagare quali siano oggi le opinioni ed i sentimenti degli Italiani nei confronti degli ebrei: apertura/chiusura, possibili stereotipi diffusi, fino ad arrivare al misurare la presenza o meno di un vero e proprio antisemitismo.

L’indagine si inserisce all’interno di un quadro conoscitivo da parte dell’Osservatorio antisemitismo del CDEC già molto articolato, approfondito e ricco di indagini passate sia di natura qualitativa che quantitativa, sebbene – soprattutto quelle quantitative – siano un po’ datate nel tempo.

L’obiettivo di CDEC è stato dunque quello di disporre di un’indagine di scenario aggiornata, caratterizzata da una solida metodologia di rilevazione e che possa diventare un punto di partenza anche per monitoraggi periodici che vadano a costruire una sorta di «barometro dell’intolleranza».

Affrontare un tema come quello delle opinioni nei confronti di gruppi etnici o religiosi specifici, espone ai rischi della cosiddetta desiderabilità sociale, cioè al fatto che gli intervistati più difficilmente esprimono direttamente posizioni critiche o negative su temi come questo. In sostanza, sapendo che le proprie opinioni possono essere oggetto di riprovazione sociale, si tende a non esprimerle se non addirittura a mascherarle.

E’ apparso opportuno quindi far precedere il set di domande dedicate al tema specifico, da alcune domande utili a classificare gli intervistati in termini di apertura più generale nei confronti del mondo e verso «l’altro» e il «diverso», già sperimentate e validate da Ipsos in altre indagini su temi analoghi con un approfondimento sul tema dell’immigrazione: al netto dei rischi terroristici, respingimento o accoglienza? Gli immigrati sono un problema per il nostro stile di vita?
Date: 2016
Date: 2014
Date: 2015
Abstract: La presente “Lettera di informazione” riassume i principali casi di antisemitismo e di pregiudizio
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
nazifascismo.
• 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.
Author(s): Kosmin, Barry A.
Date: 2016
Abstract: Launched by the American Jewish Joint Distribution
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
following headings:
• 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)
Author(s): Clark, David
Date: 2007
Abstract: The immediate postwar in Europe was characterised by collective amnesia concerning where Jews had lived prior to the Holocaust. By the 1970s and mid-1980s, there was a revival of interest in residential areas, synagogues and cemeteries connected with a Jewish past, right throughout Europe, including former communist countries in the 1990s. This resulted in much renovation and the attempt to provide new uses for such sites as museums and cultural centres.

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.

Author(s): Segre, Dan V.
Date: 2010
Author(s): Nissan, Ephraim
Date: 2011
Date: 2011
Abstract: This paper presents preliminary findings of a work-in-progress on contemporary
European Jewish philanthropy. The purpose of the paper is to show that EuropeanJewish
philanthropy exists and how it is changing. It discusses both donations within
Europe and towards Israel, focusing on the case study of Italy within the broader
European context. As it represents a first attempt to study European- and ItalianJewish
philanthropy, this exploratory work shows how much more research is needed
in the field. An important aspect that emerges from this research and which has a
strong impact on the scope of the paper itself is the absence of real transparency in the
field of fundraising in Italian Jewish institutions, both within Italy and towards Israel.
The paper therefore suggests that it may become part of a more systematic project for
enhancing transparency in Jewish philanthropic organizations to create a more
competitive and clear environment for growth and impact.
After discussing the factors that make European-Jewish philanthropy invisible as
compared to US-Jewish giving, the paper maps out pan-European Jewish agencies
and initiatives and focuses on new trends of European-Jewish giving. One of the most
significant challenges to a study of European-Jewish philanthropy is its heterogeneity,
forcing research to focus on one country at a time. As no research has hereto focused
on Italian-Jewish giving, the paper focuses on the Italian case and presents the results
of the first survey on Italian-Jewish philanthropy focused on both institutions and
private donors. Within the limits of available data, it presents mostly qualitative
findings on trends of donations within Italian-Jewish organizations, on profiles of
Italian-Jewish donors and the changing dynamics of modalities of giving. Findings on
Italy are then compared with UK- and French-Jewish giving—as these represent the
countries with the largest Jewish populations in Western Europe. This comparison
shows how Italian-Jewish philanthropy is at the beginning of processes of change that
are already well underway in other European countries. The paper concludes with
recommendations on directions for further research, in addition to policies of better
transparency