Search results

Your search found 388 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
Home  /  Search Results
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.
Abstract: One of the most important preconditions of the fight against anti-Semitism is possessing knowledge of the prevalence of anti-Semitism and the reasons behind it. Consequently, the main objective of Action and Protection Foundation (APF) is to fll this knowledge gap. APF monitors Hungarian public events and media on a monthly basis and points out anti-Semitic actions. Without analyzing and evaluating the data collected by the regular monthly monitoring activity, there is no real protection for the community. In this semiannual report, we summarize the results of our monitoring activity between January and June 2017. The report deals with two different kinds of actions: anti-Semitic hate crimes and incidents generated by hatred. In this report, we call both of these two actions hate crimes. In both cases, it is an important criterion that anti-Semitism is identifed in the background as the main driver

Az antiszemitizmus elleni küzdelem egyik legfontosabb feltétele a zsidóellenesség okainak pontos ismerete és az antiszemitizmus valódi elterjedtségének vizsgálata. A Tett és Védelem Alapítvány (TEV) fő célja ezért a kérdést övező ismerethiány felszámolása. A TEV havi rendszerességgel, szakmailag megalapozott módon figyeli a magyar közéleti eseményeket, a különböző médiumokat, és azonosítja az antiszemita megnyilvá- nulásokat és cselekedeteket. A rendszeres havi monitoring tevékenység során összegyűjtött információk elemzése, értékelése nélkül nem lehet valós védelmet biztosítani a zsidó közösség számára. Ebben a féléves jelentésben a 2017. januártól júniusig terjedő időszak monitoring tevékenységének eredményeit foglaljuk össze. A jelentés kétféle cselekménnyel foglalkozik: az antiszemita gyűlölet bűncselekmé- nyekkel, illetve a gyűlölet motiválta incidensekkel. A jelentésben e kettőt összefoglalóan gyűlölet-cselekményeknek nevezzük. Mindkettő esetében fontos kritérium, hogy azok elkövetésének hátterében azonosíthatóan megjelenjen az antiszemita motiváció.

Author(s): Róna, Dániel
Date: 2017
Abstract: Az antiszemitizmus elleni küzdelem egyik legfontosabb feltétele a zsidóellenesség okainak pontos ismerete és az antiszemitizmus
valódi elterjedtségének vizsgálata. A Tett és Védelem Alapítvány (TEV) fő célja ezért a kérdést övező ismerethiány felszámolá-
sa. A TEV egyfelől havi rendszerességgel,szakmailag megalapozott módon fgyeli a magyar közéleti eseményeket és a sajtót, és
ezek alapján kimutatja az antiszemita megnyilvánulásokat és cselekedeteket. A rendszeres havi monitoringtevékenységgel összegyűjtött információk elemzése nélkül nem lehet valós védelmet biztosítani a közösség számára. Ebben az éves jelentésben a 2016 évi havi monitoringtevékenység eredményeit foglaljuk össze.

A jelentés kétféle cselekménnyel foglalkozik: az antiszemita gyűlölet-bűncselekményekkel, illetve a gyűlölet motiválta
incidensekkel. A jelentésben ezt a kettőt összefoglalóan gyűlöletcselekményeknek nevezzük. Mindkettő esetében fontos kritérium,
hogy azok elkövetésekor azonosítható az antiszemita motiváció. Az egyes kategóriák részletes meghatározása a módszertan fejezetben található.

Az események regisztrálásán kívül fontos azok különböző jellemzőinek számbavétele is. A havi jelentések adatait összegezve éves
jelentésünkben az eseteket incidenstípusokaz incidensek áldozatai és elkövetői, és a szervezettség szintje szerint elemeztük. 2016 -
ban az Alapítvány 48 antiszemita gyűlöletcselekményt azonosított: az esetszám csökkent a 2015. éves (52) monitoringtevékenység során zonosítottakhoz képest, de még mindig magasabb, mint a 2014. évi. (37). Az esetszámok havi hullámzása az elmúlt két év tendenciái alapján nagyfokú véletlenszerűséget mutatnak: politikai uborkaszezonban és évközben is tapasztaltunk már magasabb és alacsonyabb értékeket. A regisztrált cselekmények kicsivel több, mint háromnegyede, 77 százaléka a gyűlöletbeszéd kategóriájába tartozik, emellett még rongálást és fenyegetést észleltünk. A gyűlöletcselekmények kronológiáját külön fejezetben mutatjuk be.

A TEV nemcsak a közéleti-politikai antiszemita eseményeket térképezi fel, hanem a magyar társadalom zsidósághoz fűződő viszonyáról, ismereteiről és az antiszemitizmus elterjedtségéről szóló tudásunkat is bővíteni kívánja. Ennek érdekében Alapítványunk
megbízásából a Medián Közvéleményés Piackutató Intézeta korábbi évekhez hasonlóan 2016 novemberében átfogó, országos
reprezentatív felmérést végzett erről a témákól. A kutatás publikációja teljes terjedelemben magyar és angol nyelven is a TEV
honlapján található, az eredmények összefoglalását pedig ebben a jelentésben egy különálló fejezetben ismertetjük.

Az éves jelentés az antiszemitizmus okainak megértéséhez is hozzá kíván járulni. A „Gyűlöletcselekmények és gyűlölet motiválta
incidensek és társadalmi következményeik” című fejezetben a jelentés áttekinti a klasszikus és modern szociálpszichológiai,
történeti és kulturális magyarázatokat, majd mindegyik elmélet jelenkori érvényességét is teszteli: összeveti azokat a friss Medián-kutatás eredményeivel.

A monitoring és kutatás mellett Alapítványunk tevékenységében jelentős mértékben megjelenik a jogi segítségnyújtás és az
oktatás is. Jelentésünkben bemutatjuk azon jogszabályokat, amelyek jelenleg a gyűlöletcselekmények elleni küzdelem jogi kereteit
adják Magyarországon, valamint beszámllunk az általunk kezdeményezett 13 jogi eljárásról feloszlatási kérelem, kérvény,
munkaügyi kereset, törvényességi felügyeleti eljárás kezdeményezése és vádindítvány ügyekben.

Oktatási tevékenységünk a középiskoláknak kidolgozott programmal bővült, melynek keretében 35 intézményben több, mint
2100 diák vett részt az etika tantben lebonyolított előadásokon.

Jelentésünkben a vizsgált időszakban a nyilvánosság fgyelmét jelentős mértékben felkeltő kiemelt üggyel foglalkozunk
(esettanulmány). Az eset leírásán keresztül megfgyelhetjük, hogyan reagáltak a külön böző hivatalos és félhivatalos szervek, civil
szervezetek. 2014-ben a német megszállás emlékműve és a Sorsok Háza projekt kapott kiemelkedő fgyelmet, a 2015-ös évben
a Pázmány egyetemen bevezetett kötelező holokauszt-kurzust övező közódott 2017-re)
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: 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?
Author(s): Loentz, Elizabeth
Date: 2006
Abstract: Minority and immigrant Germans' embrace of the derogatory term Kanake as a self-ascription and of the low-status ethnolect Kanak Sprak has been compared to US rappers' combative use of "niggah" and Black English. This essay, however, compares the revaluation of the term Kanake, a non-assimilatory Kanak identity, and the ethnolect Kanak Sprak to some early 20th century German Jews' revaluation and embrace of Eastern European Jewish culture and Yiddish. It demonstrates also how non-minority and non-Jewish Germans have used Yiddish and Kanak Sprak in literature, theater, film, and popular culture to re-inscribe ethnic difference, especially at times when minorities and Jews were becoming indistinguishable from non-minority Germans (emancipation edicts or nationality law reform). Because Kanak Sprak is inseparable from HipHop culture, the second half of the essay examines the many parallels between the importation and naturalization of German HipHop and German Klezmer. Both were imported from the United States in the early 1980s; and following the fall of the Berlin Wall and German re-unification, both have played a role in German Vergangenheitsbewältigung [mastering the past]. While HipHop and Klezmer have become the soundtrack of German anti-racism, anti-Nazism, and multiculturalism; some observers are critical of non-minority and non-Jewish Germans' appropriation or instrumentalization of ethnic music, and have cited instances of antisemitism and racism in German Klezmer and HipHop.
Date: 2017
Abstract: CIDI registreerde in 2016 109 antisemitische incidenten in Nederland, tegenover 126 in 2015. In meer Europese landen, bijvoorbeeld in Frankrijk, is een daling geconstateerd. Deze cijfers zijn echter hoger dan vóór 2014, met 171 incidenten een piekjaar in verband met de oorlog in Gaza.

CIDI is verheugd over de daling, maar wijst tegelijk op de volgende twee punten: Na twee jaar is het aantal meldingen nog hoger dan in het ‘normale jaar’ 2013, toen heeft CIDI 100 incidenten geteld. Bovendien is de daling voor een groot deel toe te schrijven aan het dalen van het aantal scheld-email-berichten (van 12 in 2015 naar 7 in 2016); dit medium lijkt vervangen te worden door sociale media, waarover CIDI steeds meer meldingen ontvangt.

Sociale media hebben steeds meer invloed op de publieke opinie en het maatschappelijk veld. Daarom heeft CIDI besloten met ingang van 2017 incidenten op internet die op personen gericht zijn ook mee te nemen in de Monitor Antisemitische Incidenten.

Vooral het dalen van het aantal incidenten op scholen stemt positief. Helaas is het aantal incidenten rondom voetbal nog steeds hoog. (9 in 2016, 10 in 2015) en is het aantal scheldpartijen gestegen. In de categorie scheldpartijen en lastigvallen op straat heeft CIDI in 2015 24 incidenten geregistreerd, in 2016 waren het 25 incidenten.

Vandalisme (21 incidenten) en fysiek geweld (3 incidenten) vormen nog steeds een probleem. Ter vergelijking: in 2015 telden we 20 vandalisme- en 5 fysiek geweld incidenten. In 2016 telde CIDI 2016 3 meldingen in de ‘traditionele’ media. In 2015 telden we geen melding in deze categorie.

Het woord “Jood” wordt helaas steeds vaker als scheldwoord gebruikt. Steeds meer constateren we het gebruik hiervan bij (algemene, niet eens op Joden gerichte) scheldpartijen. CIDI vindt dit zeer verontrustend.

De Joodse gemeenschap wordt nog altijd bedreigd. Inlichtingen van antiterreurorganisaties in binnen- en buitenland geven aan dat joden bovenaan de “hitlijst” staan van terroristen. Daarom verdient de beveiliging van Joodse instellingen de hoogste prioriteit.

CIDI blijft wijzen op het belang van educatie vanaf jonge leeftijd, op scholen en op informele clubs zoals sportverenigingen.
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): Staetsky, L. Daniel
Date: 2017
Abstract: This study takes an in-depth look at attitudes towards Jews and Israel among the population of Great Britain, both across society as a whole, and in key subgroups within the population, notably the far-left, the far-right, Christians and Muslims.

It introduces the concept of the ‘elastic view’ of antisemitism, arguing that as antisemitism is an attitude, it exists at different scales and levels of intensity. Thus no single figure can capture the level of antisemitism in society, and all figures need to be carefully explained and understood.

It finds that only a small proportion of British adults can be categorised as ‘hard-core’ antisemites – approximately 2% – yet antisemitic ideas can be found at varying degrees of intensity across 30% of British society. Whilst this categorically does not mean that 30% of the British population is antisemitic, it does demonstrate the outer boundary of the extent to which antisemitic ideas live and breathe in British society. As such, it goes some way towards explaining why British Jews appear to be so concerned about antisemitism, as the likelihood of them encountering an antisemitic idea is much higher than that suggested by simple measures of antisemitic individuals. In this way, the research draws an important distinction between ‘counting antisemites’ and ‘measuring antisemitism’ – the counts for each are very different from one another, and have important implications for how one tackles antisemitism going forward.

The research finds that levels of anti-Israelism are considerably higher than levels of anti-Jewish feeling, and that the two attitudes exist both independently of one another and separately. However, the research also demonstrates that the greater the intensity of anti-Israel attitude, the more likely it is to be accompanied by antisemitic attitudes as well.

Looking at subgroups within the population, the report finds that levels of antisemitism and anti-Israelism among Christians are no different from those found across society as a whole, but among Muslims they are considerably higher on both counts. On the political spectrum, levels of antisemitism are found to be highest among the far-right, and levels of anti-Israelism are heightened across all parts of the left-wing, but particularly on the far-left. In all cases, the higher the level of anti-Israelism, the more likely it is to be accompanied by antisemitism. Yet, importantly, most of the antisemitism found in British society exists outside of these three groups – the far-left, far-right and Muslims; even at its most heightened levels of intensity, only about 15% of it can be accounted for by them.
Date: 2017
Abstract: How often do incidents of antisemitic violence occur in contemporary Europe, and what trends are
showing? How exposed are Jewish populations in different countries? Who commits these crimes? We
need to answer such questions as precisely as possible in order to effectively combat and prevent
antisemitism in general and violent antisemitism in particular, but we lack the knowledge to do so because
systematic studies of the subject are few and far between. As a step towards filling this research gap, the
current report presents some tentative findings about violent antisemitism in a sample of European
countries and proposes directions for further research.

Combining incident data based on police reporting with a 2012 survey on antisemitism carried out by
the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), this report tentatively compares the levels of
antisemitic violence in different countries. The seven-country sample contains comparable data for France,
UK, Germany and Sweden only. Among these countries, Jews’ exposure to antisemitic violence appears to
have been highest in France, lower in Sweden and Germany, and lowest in the United Kingdom.
Figures for Norway, Denmark and Russia are not directly comparable because of differing data
sources. However, Russia clearly stands out with a very low number of incidents considering Russia’s
relatively large Jewish population. Russia is also the only case in which there is little to indicate that Jews
avoid displaying their identity in public.

Available data on perpetrators suggest that individuals of Muslim background stand out among
perpetrators of antisemitic violence in Western Europe, but not in Russia, where right-wing extremist
offenders dominate. Attitude surveys corroborate this picture in so far as antisemitic attitudes are far more
widespread among Muslims than among the general population in Western Europe.
The findings presented here are tentative. More and better data as well as more research are needed in
order to form a more accurate picture of the nature and causes of antisemitic violence, a prerequisite for
determining relevant countermeasures.

Search results

Your search found 388 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