Search results

Your search found 412 items
copy result link
You ran an advanced options search Previous | Next
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year View all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Home  /  Search Results
Date: 2016
Abstract: This book is the first comprehensive study of postwar antisemitism in the Netherlands. It focuses on the way stereotypes are passed on from one decade to the next, as reflected in public debates, the mass media, protests and commemorations, and everyday interactions. The Holocaust, Israel and 'the Jew' explores the ways in which old stories and phrases relating to 'the stereotypical Jew' are recycled and modified for new uses, linking the antisemitism of the early postwar years to its enduring manifestations in today's world.

The Dutch case is interesting because of the apparent contrast between the Netherlands' famous tradition of tolerance and the large numbers of Jews who were deported and murdered in the Second World War. The book sheds light on the dark side of this so-called 'Dutch paradox,' in manifestations of aversion and guilt after 1945. In this context, the abusive taunt 'They forgot to gas you' can be seen as the first radical expression of postwar antisemitism as well as an indication of how the Holocaust came to be turned against the Jews. The identification of 'the Jew' with the gas chamber spread from the streets to football stadiums, and from verbal abuse to pamphlet and protest. The slogan 'Hamas, Hamas all the Jews to the gas' indicates that Israel became a second marker of postwar antisemitism.

The chapters cover themes including soccer-related antisemitism, Jewish responses, philosemitism, antisemitism in Dutch-Moroccan and Dutch- Turkish communities, contentious acts of remembrance, the neo-Nazi tradition, and the legacy of Theo van Gogh. The book concludes with a lengthy epilogue on 'the Jew' in the politics of the radical right, the attacks in Paris in 2015, and the refugee crisis. The stereotype of 'the Jew' appears to be transferable to other minorities.

Contents:

Preface

1 Why Jews are more guilty than others : An introductory essay, 1945-2016
Evelien Gans
Part I Post-Liberation Antisemitism
2 ‘The Jew’ as Dubious Victim
Evelien Gans
3 The Meek Jew – and Beyond
Evelien Gans
4 Alte Kameraden: Right-wing Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial
Remco Ensel, Evelien Gans and Willem Wagenaar
5 Jewish Responses to Post-Liberation Antisemitism
Evelien Gans
Part II Israel and ‘the Jew’
6 Philosemitism? Ambivalences regarding Israel
Evelien Gans
7 Transnational Left-wing Protest and the ‘Powerful Zionist’
Remco Ensel
8 Israel: Source of Divergence
Evelien Gans
9 ‘The Activist Jew’ Responds to Changing Dutch Perceptions of Israel
Katie Digan
10 Turkish Anti-Zionism in the Netherlands: From Leftist to Islamist Activism
Annemarike Stremmelaar
Part III The Holocaust-ed Jew in Native Dutch Domains
since the 1980s
11 ‘The Jew’ in Football: To Kick Around or to Embrace
Evelien Gans
12 Pornographic Antisemitism, Shoah Fatigue and Freedom of Speech
Evelien Gans
13 Historikerstreit: The Stereotypical Jew in Recent Dutch Holocaust Studies
Remco Ensel and Evelien Gans
Part IV Generations. Migrant Identities and Antisemitism in the Twenty-first Century
14 ‘The Jew’ vs. ‘the Young Male Moroccan’: Stereotypical Confrontations in the City
Remco Ensel
15 Conspiracism: Islamic Redemptive Antisemitism and the Murder of Theo van Gogh
Remco Ensel
16 Reading Anne Frank: Confronting Antisemitism in Turkish Communities
Annemarike Stremmelaar
17 Holocaust Commemorations in Postcolonial Dutch Society
Remco Ensel
18 Epilogue: Instrumentalising and Blaming ‘the Jew’, 2011-2016
Evelien Gans
Author(s): Kosmin, Barry A.
Date: 2018
Abstract: The Fourth Survey of European Jewish Community Leaders and Professionals, 2018 presents the results of an online survey offered in 10 languages and administered to 893 respondents in 29 countries. Conducted every three years using the same format, the survey seeks to identify trends and their evolution in time.

The survey asked Jewish lay leaders and community professionals questions regarding future community priorities, identifying the main threats to Jewish life, views on the safety and security situation in their cities, including emergency preparedness, and opinions on an array of internal community issues. Examples include conversions, membership criteria policies on intermarriage, and their vision of Europe and Israel.

The respondents were comprised of presidents and chairpersons of nationwide “umbrella organizations” or Federations; presidents and executive directors of private Jewish foundations, charities, and other privately funded initiatives; presidents and main representatives of Jewish communities that are organized at a city level; executive directors and programme coordinators, as well as current and former board members of Jewish organizations; among others.

The JDC International Centre for Community Development established the survey as a means to identify the priorities, sensibilities and concerns of Europe’s top Jewish leaders and professionals working in Jewish institutions, taking into account the changes that European Jewry has gone through since 1989, and the current political challenges and uncertainties in the continent. In a landscape with few mechanisms that can truly gauge these phenomena, the European Jewish Community Leaders Survey is an essential tool for analysis and applied research in the field of community development.

The Survey team was directed by Dr. Barry Kosmin (Trinity College), who has conducted several large national social surveys and opinion polls in Europe, Africa and the U.S., including the CJF 1990 US National Jewish Population Survey.
Date: 2007
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: 2017
Abstract: Le nombre d’actes antisémites ayant donné lieu à un dépôt de plainte est passé de 808 en 2015 à 335 en 2016. Soit une baisse de 58%.

Le déploiement du plan de protection statique par l’opération Sentinelle à travers la France a, selon toute vraisemblance, contribué activement et dans des délais courts à cette baisse. Les effets à moyen et long termes des plans gouvernementaux luttant contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme sont très attendus pour continuer à réduire le nombre d’actes racistes et antisémites encore trop nombreux.

Relevons derrière ces chiffres encourageants certaines réalités qui doivent être intégrées à
l’analyse :

-L’ultra violence et le terrorisme, qui ciblent les Juifs en France, éclipsent souvent l’antisémitisme « du quotidien ». De très nombreuses victimes d’agressions verbales ou de violences légères antisémites ne déposent plus plainte. Elles cèdent à une
habituation ou à une banalisation. Le curseur de l’antisémitisme est allé si loin dans la terreur que les « signaux plus faibles » ne sont plus dénoncés ; alors que leur gravité et conséquences désastreuses restent entières.

-1 acte raciste sur 3 commis en France en 2016 est dirigé contre un Juif alors que les Juifs représentent moins de 1% de la population.

-Depuis de nombreuses années, il existe un glissement fort des propagandes et discours antisémites des anciens supports vers Internet. Or, à ce jour, le recensement exhaustif des incitations à la haine ou à la violence antisémites sur le Net n’existe pas.

-L'antisionisme et la haine d'Israël grandissants œuvrent comme des paravents masquant, décomplexant, voire légitimant l’antisémitisme. Comment mesurer et étudier un phénomène pour le combattre si on lui permet de se dissimuler ? Comment
cautionner un délit par un autre délit ?
Date: 2017
Abstract: Denne rapport beskriver og analyserer antallet af registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark i 2016. Rapporten er udarbejdet på grundlag af anmeldelser til AKVAH, der udgør en del af Det Jødiske Samfunds sikkerhedsorganisation.

AKVAH har i 2016 registreret 22 antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark fordelt på følgende kategorier: Forsøg på drab, trusler, antisemitiske ytringer, hærværk og anden chikane. Hændelserne fordeler sig på ét tilfælde af forsøg på drab, to tilfælde af trusler, 17 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer, et tilfælde af hærværk og et tilfælde af anden chikane. Ud af de 22 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser er der tre hændelser, hvor det er vurderet, at de alene kan betegnes som potentielt antisemitiske.

De 22 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i 2016 er fire hændelser færre end antallet af
registrerede hændelser i 2015, der var på 26. Den eneste stigning i antallet af registrerede hændelser er sket inden for kategorien antisemitiske ytringer. I 2015 registrerede AKVAH 11 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer, som var den største hændelsesgruppe i det daværende år. Dette antal steg i 2016 til 17 registrerede tilfælde. Kategorien udgør således stadigvæk den største hændelsesgruppe.

Antallet af trusler, antallet af overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane samt antallet af hærværkshændelser er derimod faldet. I 2015 blev der registreret syv tilfælde af trusler, mens der i 2016 blev registreret to tilfælde. Ligeledes blev der i 2015 registreret fire tilfælde af overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, mens der i 2016 ikke er blevet registreret sådanne tilfælde.

Der er også sket et fald i antallet af hærværksepisoder. I 2016 blev der registreret et tilfælde af hærværk, hvilket er et fald på to tilfælde i forhold til 2015. I både 2015 og 2016 er der blevet registreret ét tilfælde af kategorien drab og drabsforsøg. Generelt set er der registeret et samlet fald i antallet af ”grovere” antisemitiske hændelser fra 2015 til 2016.
Date: 2016
Abstract: Denne rapport beskriver og analyserer antallet af registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark i 2015. Rapporten er udarbejdet på grundlag af anmeldelser til AKVAH, der udgør en del af Det Jødiske Samfunds sikkerhedsorganisation.

Året 2015 er særligt, fordi det omfatter terrorangrebet på Københavns Synagoge. Natten mellem den 14. og 15. februar blev dansk-jødiske Dan Uzan myrdet af terroristen Omar El-Hussein, der havde palæstinensisk baggrund. AKVAH har ikke tidligere registreret antisemitisk motiverede mord, og det er så vidt vides første gang siden Anden Verdenskrig, at en jøde har mistet livet i Danmark, alene fordi vedkommende var jøde.

AKVAH har i 2015 registreret 26 antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark fordelt på følgende kategorier: Drab, overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, trusler, antisemitiske ytringer og hærværk. Hændelserne fordeler sig på ét tilfælde af drab, fire tilfælde, der kan kategoriseres som overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, syv tilfælde af trusler, 11 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer
og tre tilfælde af hærværk. Ud af de 26 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser er der to hændelser, hvor det er vurderet, at de alene kan betegnes som potentielt antisemitiske. Der er desuden én af de 26 registrerede hændelser, hvor det ikke har været muligt at afgrænse gerningstidspunktet til en specifik måned.

Det registrerede antal af antisemitiske hændelser i 2015 på 26 er 28 hændelser mindre end antallet af registrerede hændelser i 2014, der var på 54. Der er altså registreret omkring 50 % færre hændelser i 2015 end i 2014.

Når man ser nærmere på de enkelte hændelser, fremgår det, at det særligt er hændelser tilknyttet den ”mildeste” kategori, antisemitiske ytringer, som er blevet reduceret voldsomt i 2015. I 2014 registrerede AKVAH hele 39 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer. Dette tal blev i 2015 reduceret til 11 registrerede tilfælde. Mens kategorien antisemitiske ytringer i 2014 således kendetegnede omkring 75 % af det samlede antal registrerede hændelser, er denne andel faldet til omkring 40 % i 2015. Kategorien udgør dog stadigvæk den helt klart største hændelsesgruppe.
Date: 2016
Abstract: This article explores contemporary images of Jews and Muslims in Norway by using qualitative empirical data, namely the answers to an open-ended question that was included in a quantitative survey on attitudes towards Jews and other minorities in Norway, conducted in 2012. The target group for the survey consisted of Norwegian residents aged 18 and above. A total of 1522 people answered the questionnaire. The results of the survey can be considered as representative of the Norwegian population with respect to age, gender, education and geographical distribution.

Respondents were asked what they regarded to be the reasons for existing negative attitudes towards Jews and Muslims respectively. This article analyzes whether the perceptions reflected in the respondents’ answers represent stereotypical views and partly include traces of conspiracy beliefs. The article also discusses these perceptions within the broader perspective of Norwegian society, asking in which ways the data reflects ideas of inclusion and exclusion.

The analysis exposes differences regarding traditional stereotypes and prejudices against the two minorities and the ways in which these prejudices are linked to (perceived) contemporary conflicts and tensions – both within Norwegian society and internationally. Negative attitudes towards Jews are often explained with reference to the role played by Israel in the Middle East conflict, and almost never with specific reference to Norwegian society. The material contains few examples describing Jews as scapegoats for current social problems in Norway. On the contrary, respondents’ answers indicate social distance. Approximately half of the answers claim that negative attitudes towards Jews are due to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The images of Jews presented in connection with this conflict are predominantly negative and characterized by topics such as oppression, ruthlessness and power. The analysis shows how these statements serve to reduce complexity by effectively equating “Jews” with “Israelis”. As a consequence Jews seem to be excluded from the notion of the Norwegian national collective.

The statements about Muslims show that they are regarded to be citizens and as such part of Norwegian society, but with characteristics perceived as problematic and threatening. Respondents often connected negative attitudes towards Muslims with a “foreign culture”. Many statements describe Muslims as oppressive to women, as harboring undemocratic attitudes or as criminals.

The data shows how people develop generalizations, describing something as “typically Muslim” or “typically Jewish”, reflecting current debates and media coverage. Such generalizations derive their strength from placing the speaker in a morally superior position. In the present material these attitudes represent the antithesis of an implicit notion of the Norwegian community as a liberal, egalitarian and peace-loving society. Despite the differences, a clear picture emerges that the characterizations of both Jews and Muslims seem to serve a common function: to provide a contrast to this national self-image. Such polarized notions of “us” and “them”, however, undermine the values generally constructed as “Norwegian”: when “the other” bears problematic features that we do not want to acknowledge in ourselves or our communities, we lose the ability to critically reflect on who we are. While maintaining an idealized notion of “us”, we become increasingly dependent on a rejection and denial of the “other”.
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: 2014
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."
Date: 2013
Abstract: Despite the Holocaust’s profound impact on the history of Eastern Europe, the communist regimes successfully repressed public discourse about and memory of this tragedy. Since the collapse of communism in 1989, however, this has changed. Not only has a wealth of archival sources become available, but there have also been oral history projects and interviews recording the testimonies of eyewitnesses who experienced the Holocaust as children and young adults. Recent political, social, and cultural developments have facilitated a more nuanced and complex understanding of the continuities and discontinuities in representations of the Holocaust. People are beginning to realize the significant role that memory of Holocaust plays in contemporary discussions of national identity in Eastern Europe.

This volume of original essays explores the memory of the Holocaust and the Jewish past in postcommunist Eastern Europe. Devoting space to every postcommunist country, the essays in Bringing the Dark Past to Light explore how the memory of the “dark pasts” of Eastern European nations is being recollected and reworked. In addition, it examines how this memory shapes the collective identities and the social identity of ethnic and national minorities. Memory of the Holocaust has practical implications regarding the current development of national cultures and international relationships.

Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Preface and Acknowledgments
Introduction
John-Paul Himka and Joanna Beata Michlic
1. "Our Conscience Is Clean": Albanian Elites and the Memory of the Holocaust in Postsocialist Albania
Daniel Perez
2. The Invisible Genocide: The Holocaust in Belarus
Per Anders Rudling
3. Contemporary Responses to the Holocaust in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Francine Friedman
4. Debating the Fate of Bulgarian Jews during World War II
Joseph Benatov
5. Representations of the Holocaust and Historical Debates in Croatia since 1989
Mark Biondich
6. The Sheep of Lidice: The Holocaust and the Construction of Czech National History
Michal Frankl
7. Victim of History: Perceptions of the Holocaust in Estonia
Anton Weiss-Wendt
8. Holocaust Remembrance in the German Democratic Republic--and Beyond
Peter Monteath
9. The Memory of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Hungary
Part 1: The Politics of Holocaust Memory
Paul Hanebrink
Part 2: Cinematic Memory of the Holocaust
Catherine Portuges
10. The Transformation of Holocaust Memory in Post-Soviet Latvia
Bella Zisere
11. Conflicting Memories: The Reception of the Holocaust in Lithuania
Saulius Sužied<edot>lis and Šarūnas Liekis
12. The Combined Legacies of the "Jewish Question" and the "Macedonian Question"
Holly Case
13. Public Discourses on the Holocaust in Moldova: Justification, Instrumentalization, and Mourning
Vladimir Solonari
14. The Memory of the Holocaust in Post-1989 Poland: Renewal--Its Accomplishments and Its Powerlessness
Joanna B. Michlic and Małgorzata Melchior
15. Public Perceptions of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Romania
Felicia Waldman and Mihai Chioveanu
16. The Reception of the Holocaust in Russia: Silence, Conspiracy, and Glimpses of Light
Klas-Göran Karlsson
17. Between Marginalization and Instrumentalization: Holocaust Memory in Serbia since the Late 1980s
Jovan Byford
18. The "Unmasterable Past"? The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Slovakia
Nina Paulovičová
19. On the Periphery: Jews, Slovenes, and the Memory of the Holocaust
Gregor Joseph Kranjc
20. The Reception of the Holocaust in Postcommunist Ukraine
John-Paul Himka
Conclusion
Omer Bartov
Contributors
Index
Editor(s): Blobaum, Robert
Date: 2005
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.
Author(s): Kijek, Kamil
Date: 2017
Abstract: Artykuł ten przedstawia najważniejsze wątki krytycznej debaty wokół treści wystawy stałej Muzeum Historii Żydów Polskich Polin. Analizując różnice między dwoma polami badawczymi – studiami żydowskimi i studiami nad relacjami polsko-żydowskimi – autor broni tezy, że wiele krytycznych głosów w debacie wynika z niezrozumienia różnic między przedmiotem badań tych dwóch pól, po części wynikającego z obecnej sytuacji – panującego nacjonalizmu i etnocentryzmu, wywierających wpływ również na polskie debaty historyczne. Domaganie się od wystawy opowiadającej tysiącletnią historię Żydów na ziemiach polskich, aby koncentrowała się głównie na stosunku społeczeństwa większościowego do Żydów, grozi popełnieniem błędu teleologii, to jest interpretowaniem wcześniejszych wydarzeń i procesów jako nieuchronnie prowadzących do Zagłady, a także pomijaniem wszystkich tych elementów dziejów żydowskich, które z perspektywy Holokaustu i badań nad antysemityzmem nie mają znaczenia. Tego rodzaju postulaty i stojące za nimi metahistoryczne założenia grożą pozbawieniem Żydów roli podmiotów w ich własnej historii. Z drugiej strony autor tekstu wskazuje na elementy narracji wystawy stałej Muzeum Polin, w których rzeczywiście w niedostateczny sposób uwzględniona została problematyka antysemityzmu jako ważnego elementu żydowskiego doświadczenia i kluczowego czynnika dziejów Żydów w Polsce. Przywrócenie rzeczywistego dialogu i komunikacji pomiędzy przedstawicielami studiów żydowskich i badaczami relacji polsko-żydowskich, przy zachowaniu autonomii tych dwóch pól i zrozumieniu różnic pomiędzy nimi, jest też istotne z punktu widzenia niewątpliwych zagrożeń w postaci prób wykorzystania Muzeum Polin w budowie upolitycznionych, bezkrytycznych wizji historii Polski i stosunku Polaków do Żydów.

Date: 2015
Abstract: A magyar lakosság több, mint egyharmada vall antiszemita előítéleteket – ez az egyik megállapítása annak a tanulmánynak, amit a mai napon mutatott be a nyilvánosságnak Tett és Védelem Alapítvány központjában. A Tett és Védelem Alapítvány megbízásából a Medián Közvéleménykutató Intézet készített átfogó felmérést az antiszemita előítéletek mértékéről, a zsidósággal kapcsolatos beállítódás jellemzőiről, valamint a zsidó szervezetek aktív közéleti szerepvállalásának megítéléséről.

Az 1200 fő megkérdezésével készült reprezentatív kutatás főbb megállapításai:

• Az elmúlt időszakban kis mértékben nőtt az antiszemita előítéleteket vallók aránya,

• A magyar közvéleményt csak igen mérsékelten foglalkoztatják a zsidó közélet kérdései.

• A Jobbik szavazói az átlagnál jóval nagyobb arányban vallanak zsidóellenes nézeteket,

• Szintén növeli a zsidóellenesség valószínűségét a nacionalista, rendpárti, tekintélyelvű társadalmi attitűd, és a másság különböző formáinak (homoszexualitás, kábítószer-fogyasztás, bevándorlás) elutasítása.

• A vészkorszak emlékezete mélyen megosztja a magyar társadalmat: a magyar felelősség kérdéséről éppúgy megoszlanak a vélemények, mint arról, hogy a jelenlegi közbeszédben napirenden kell-e tartani a kérdést. A nyílt holokauszt-tagadó és -relativizáló kijelentések támogatottsága a 2006-os 6-8 százalékról 2014-re fokozatosan 12-15 százalékra emelkedett.

• A magyar lakosság véleménye megoszlik abban a kérdésben, hogy a zsidóság második világháború alatti tragédiájáért ki a felelős: 51 százalék szerint Magyarország is felelős, 40 százalék szerint viszont kizárólag a németek. A válaszadók 52 százaléka nem támogatja a Szabadság téri emlékmű felépítését, 34 százalék igen.

• A kormány és a zsidó közösségek közötti párbeszédről megoszlanak a vélemények, abban is, hogy a kormánynak mikor kellene kikérni a zsidó szervezetek véleményét, és abban is, hogy a zsidó szervezeteknek milyen esetekben kellene nyilvános állásfoglalást tenniük.