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.
Не желая искать соринку в чужом глазу, мы сочли исследование малоудачным, а причину этого усмотрели в несовершенстве собственных методов. Мы положили исследование «под сукно». Однако одна из его главных тем — тема взаимодействия воскресных и дневных еврейских школ — не утратила от этого своей актуальности. Она постоянно вставала в ходе дискуссий, которые проходили на наших семинарах, поднималась в письмах читателями нашего журнала и членами-корреспондентами Педагогического клуба НЕШ, всплывала в беседах с кормчими еврейского образования — экспертами-методистами, представителями различных академических и спонсорских структур.
В результате мы все же решились вынести на читательский суд собранные год назад материалы. Ибо постепенно нам стало ясно, что при всех своих недостатках проведенное исследование обладает одним важным достоинством: оно выявляет серьезную проблемную область, причем делает это аналитическими методами.
В основу этой статьи положен отчет, представленный социологическим бюро «НЕШ» на семинаре директоров воскресных школ СНГ и стран Балтии (Москва, 2001). Мы надеемся, что руководители и педагоги воскресных школ откликнутся на ее публикацию. Сейчас именно тот «исторический момент», когда ваши мнения могут сыграть важную роль в определении будущего еврейского образования, основного и дополнительного. Ждем ваших писем, друзья.
surprising, therefore, that Russian politics in the 1990s focused so little on Jews as a source of the political
and economic crises afflicting the country. This article investigates anti-Jewish attitudes in Russia over time
and cross-sectionally, carefully scrutinizing the hypothesis that perceptions of economic, social and political
upheaval activate latent authoritarianism into anti-Semitism. Little if any support is found for the hypothesis
and therefore it is argued that scapegoat theory, as currently constituted and applied to Jews, is too simplistic
to be useful. Russian Jews were not subject to intolerance and repression in the 1990s because anti-Semitic
beliefs were not widespread enough to be used successfully by political entrepreneurs seeking advantage
through attacks on Jews.
It was conducted at Limmud Conference in December 2015. Limmud participants were interviewed by JVN volunteers at the Conference with extra responses collected from Limmud participants online in January. 139 respondents took part in the survey, with a good representation across age groups, gender, employment status, location and volunteering experience (both general and with Limmud).
The results identify scope for improvement in volunteer recruitment and volunteer support by Limmud. It recommends a set of actions that could be taken by Limmud to help with this.
The study focuses on Limmud volunteers and draws on a survey of ten Limmud volunteer communities in eight countries - UK, USA, South Africa, Bulgaria, Hungary, Germany, Israel and Argentina - together with focus groups conducted with Limmud volunteers from around the world.
The findings provide clear evidence that Limmud advances the majority of its volunteers on their Jewish journeys, and for a significant proportion it takes them ‘further’ towards greater interest in and commitment to Jewish life.
Limmud’s principle impact on its volunteers lies in making new friends and contacts, encountering different kinds of Jews and enhancing a sense of connection to the Jewish people. For many Limmud volunteers, their experience has increased their Jewish
knowledge, their leadership skills and their involvement in the wider Jewish community. Involvement in Limmud therefore enhances both the desire to take further steps on their Jewish journeys, and the tools for doing so.
Limmud impacts equally on Jews regardless of denominationand religious practice. The younger the volunteers and the less committed they are when they begin their Limmud journeys, the further Limmud takes them. Those with more senior levels of involvement in Limmud report higher levels of impact on their Jewish journeys than other volunteers, as do those who had received a subsidy or training from Limmud.
Limmud volunteers often have difficult experiences and risk burnout and
exhaustion. While volunteers generally view the gains as worth the cost, Limmud
needs to pay attention to this issue and provide further support.
and identifications among first-generation Jewish Israeli immigrants
in Europe, and specifically in London and Paris, by means of closedend
questionnaires (N=114) and in-depth semi-structured interviews
Israelis who live in Europe are strongly attached to Israel and are
proud to present themselves as Israelis. Despite their place of residence,
these Israelis, particularly those residing in London and over the age
of 35, manage to find ways to preserve their Israeli identity. They also
perceive the need to expose their children to other Israelis as another
means of preventing assimilation. On the other hand, those who are
under the age of 35, and in particular those residing in Paris, have less
opportunity or less need to maintain their Israeli identity in Europe.
The older Israelis in London are also somewhat more integrated with
the proximal host and have a stronger Jewish identity than do younger
Israelis, particularly those residing in Paris. Living in Europe allows
Israelis to flourish economically without having to identify with or
belong to a cultural and social ethnic niche. The ethnic identity of
first-generation Israeli immigrants in Europe is multifaceted. While it
is primarily transnational, it is also dynamic and constantly changing
though various interactions and is, of course, susceptible to current
local and global political and economic events. For younger Israeli
immigrants, assimilation into the non-Jewish population appears to be
a possible form of identity and identification. This assimilation may be
moderated among young adults who build bridges with local Jewish
communities in tandem with their transnational formal connections
with Israel, a process that can benefit both sides. Such a process - the
reconstruction of ethnic Israeli-Jewish identity and collaborative
identification with local Jews - has the potential to strengthen and
enhance the survivability of European Jewry at large.
Jewish community in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland and Romania.
There was wide agreement among the populations’ value prioritization,
but they are not monolithic. Overall, family-related values were more
important than materialistic values. Those in Romania were the most
religious, those in Hungary the least so.
A graphic portrayal of the data is presented and interpreted, guided
by the Schwartz axiological typology. Sub-populations by home country
and age group are compared in the context of this model. The older
cohort tends towards Family-related values, while the younger cohort
tends towards values of Hedonism and Stimulation. The placement of
the national sub-groups illustrates their relative emphasis on materialist
values versus post-materialist values of self-enhancement, which reflects
the degree of democratization of the countries and the socio-economic
level of the Jewish communities.
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”.
including almost 13,000 Muslims altogether. While no comprehensive study has been conducted on an international comparative scale and most national studies focus on selective samples such as certain ethnicities or student groups, a review of the available surveys shows a clear tendency: antisemitic attitudes are significantly more widespread among Muslims than among other segments of European societies. What is more, the interpretation of Islam seems to be highly relevant. Antisemitic attitudes are particularly strong among believing and practicing Muslims and correlate with authoritarian, “fundamentalist” interpretations of Islam. A comprehensive survey on antisemitism in France is discussed in detail.
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."
In total, 2,125 responses were collected, of which 890 full responses were taken for further analysis. The survey sample spans 27 European countries.
The report is available in English and in Hebrew.
Bodnár Dániel, a TEV kuratóriumi elnöke szerint a legszomorúbb a felmérésben, hogy nőtt a holokausztot tagadók és relativizálók aránya. Bodnár Dániel szerint rosszul beszélünk a holokausztról, és ebben a politikai véleményformálókon kívül a zsidó közösségeknek is van felelőssége.
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.
Az antiszemitizmusról rengeteg szó esik, nagy a félelem, de a fogalom pontos jelentése, tartalma és kiterjedése beszélőtől és beszédhelyzettől függően elasztikusan változik. Tett és Védelem Alapítvány kezdeményezésére Kovács András szociológus szakmai irányítása mellett 2013-ban megvalósult felméréssel a társadalomban tapasztalható antiszemita érzületeket mérte egy 1200 fős mintán alapuló adatfelvétellel, amit a tervek szerint évente két alkalommal megismétlődik.
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?
This report, presenting the findings of the surveys, helps us to gauge the level of anti-Semitism in the country and pinpoint those sectors of society that are most prone to espouse it.
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.
of 20141, the Scottish Government funded the Scottish Council of Jewish
Communities (SCoJeC) to carry out a small-scale inquiry into ‘What’s changed
about being Jewish in Scotland’ since our 2012 inquiry into the experience of
‘Being Jewish in Scotland’.
Our principal findings were:
- 38 respondents to our survey (32%) explicitly talked about a
heightened level of anxiety, discomfort, or vulnerability, despite not
having been directly asked.
- 20 respondents (17%) – many more than in 2012 – told us that they
now keep their Jewish identity secret.
- As a result there is less opportunity for Jewish people to develop
resilient and supportive networks and communities.
- 76% of respondents said that events in the Middle East have a
significant impact on the way they are treated as Jews in Scotland.
- 80% of respondents said that the events in the Middle East during
summer 2014 had negatively affected their experience of being
Jewish in Scotland.
- 21 respondents (18%) mentioned the raising of Palestinian flags
by some Local Authorities as having contributed to their general
sense of unease.
- 16 respondents (13%) told us that they no longer have confidence in
the impartiality of public authorities, including the police.
- Several respondents said that, for the first time, they were
considering leaving Scotland.
- Antisemitism in social media was a much greater concern than in
our 2012 inquiry.
- 12 respondents (11%) told us they found it difficult to find anything
good to say about being Jewish in Scotland.
Commenting on the preliminary findings of our inquiry into What’s Changed About
Being Jewish in Scotland, Neil Hastie, head of the Scottish Government Community
Safety Unit, said: “The emerging themes from this report are particularly valuable;
as is the data on how the international context can impact very palpably on the
experience of being Jewish in Scotland. There is much in this for us (and Ministers)
We are disturbed by the extent to which this inquiry shows that Jewish people’s
experience in Scotland has deteriorated as a result of the wider community’s
attitudes towards events in the Middle East. But despite the negativity and level
of discomfort expressed by many respondents, and the fact that some are, for
the first time, wondering whether they should leave Scotland, the vast majority of
Scottish Jews are here to stay, and we therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s
willingness to listen to the concerns of Jewish people in Scotland to ensure their
safety and well-being
A ground-breaking survey commissioned by NHS Salford Clinical Commissioning (CCG) has revealed concerns about immunisation take-up, healthy eating, amounts of exercise and attitudes to mental health within the predominately orthodox Jewish communities in the city.
507 people took part in the year-long research project that included peer-led focus groups as well as questionnaires. Key findings reveal that less than half of the participants take more than one hour of exercise per week, with around a quarter taking less than 30 minutes. Only half meet recommended levels of physical activity, which is significantly below the England average of 61%. Fewer than half of respondents believe exercise is very important, with far fewer men than women valuing exercise.
There is particular concern related to men’s lack of exercise, with just over a third meeting the recommended levels of physical activity compared to 67% nationally. The percentage of women meeting recommending levels at 56% is comparable to the 55% of women nationally.
With regards to children’s exercise, only 40% think it is very important that their child exercises. Less than half the children do more than an hour’s exercise per week, with a third doing less than 30 mins per week. Boys tend to do slightly more exercise than girls (possibly because they play football or ride bikes), contra to what was reported as being undertaken by the adults themselves; the trend seems to be that boys are more active than girls but this switches as they become adults.
The research also suggests that the healthy eating message is not always getting through to this community; only 10% of children are getting their ‘5 a day’ with 40% getting less than 3 fruit or veg a day. Over half the children in this community seem eat cake at least once a day, though crisps and other unhealthy snacks seem far less frequent. Alcohol consumption for adults is, however, very low compared to the rest of the population, although 12% of respondents might be classed as ‘binge-drinkers’ on the Sabbath.
Attitudes to immunisation in the orthodox Jewish community remain a concern. 13% said they would be unlikely to immunise their child in the future whilst 20% felt they were not given enough information about immunisation. For Salford as a whole, MMR immunisation take-up by 5 years olds averages over 97% which is far higher than appears in the Jewish communities.
Take up of cervical smears is also lower than the rest of the population with 67% claiming they would be likely to have a smear compared to the 80% target in Salford. It is thought that some of the lower uptake of cervical screening may be due to the low perceived risk of HPV infection and cervical cancer, the higher number of pregnancies and religious norms relating to menstruation.
Other findings of interest include the fact that almost a half of participants believe that mental health is a big stigma within the Jewish community which may prevent many people seeking the help they need.
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)
Holocaust victims and survivors in Zagreb, with support by Jewish community
Zagreb, Claims conference research funds and JOINT.
This is the second social Survey on the same population of Jewish community in
Zagreb. First survey which was realized before ten years – in 1995, had a great
success by providing with relevant data social and humanitarian work in Community,
what was important at that time, after the war in ex-Yugoslavia.
With the present research in 2005, we wish to obtain a key informant survey to
facilitate community social work, with respects to the needs of the Jewish elderly and
the implication of the aging in the Jewish community.
Objectives of the survey is to describe actual and recent situation and needs for the
elderly members of community older than 65 years, and to renew and support social
work, voluntaries actions and solidarity in the Jewish communities.
In the last ten years, between two surveys, we can perceive several mayor changes
in demographic, social, economical and health situation of the elderly, mainly
Increased proportion of elderly persons in the Jewish population in Croatia
Increased proportion of persons, aged 75 years and more in the population of
The rise in the number of persons aged 75 and more, increase the number of
Restrictions of public basic medical care and decline of public social welfare
Worsening of the economical situation and lowering standard of living
Changes in the role of the Jewish family in caring for the elderly
Lack of the data in community on the needs of the elderly
The research found that Israel plays a central role for British Jews, with 93% saying the Jewish state plays a “central”, “important” or “some” role in their Jewish identity, and 90% supporting Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. It reflected significant concerns about the security situation in Israel with many respondents ambivalent about withdrawal from the West Bank because of security concerns (50% vs 33% support the proposition that “Israeli control of the West Bank is vital for Israel’s security”), despite commitment to a two-state solution.
75% stated that settlement expansion formed a “major” obstacle to peace. 68% endorsed the statement “I feel a sense of despair every time Israel approves an expansion of the settlements”.
73% felt that Israel’s current approach to the peace process has damaged its standing in the world.
There is strong support for Israel to “cede territory” in order to achieve peace (62% for, 25% against). But if withdrawal is seen as posing a risk to Israel’s security, the majority then oppose withdrawal (50%:33%).
61% felt that the Israeli government’s first priority should be “pursuing peace negotiations with the Palestinians. 64% felt they had the right to judge Israel’s actions though they do not live there.
58% agree with the statement that Israel “will be seen as an apartheid state if it tries to retain control over borders that contain more Arabs than Jews” (22% disagree).
Almost 80% of respondents consider that, in the context of the conflicts raging around the world, those who condemn Israel’s military actions “are guilty of applying double standards”.
“Hawks” on Israel significantly overestimated how widely their views were shared by a factor of two while “doves” underestimated theirs by 10%. British Jews who believe Palestinians have no claim to own land think their views are shared by 49% of British Jewry, despite the actual figure being 14%.
Hannah Weisfeld, director of Yachad said of the findings of the report:
“The community is shifting. Feelings of despair, conflict between loyalty to Israel and concern over policies of the government are mainstream not marginal positions. The research shows we are more willing to speak out on these issues than ever before. Members of Anglo-Jewry who have previously been afraid to give voice to their concerns over Israeli government policy, should realise that they are in fact part of the majority.
This is against the backdrop of a Jewish community that remains fully committed to Israel and its centrality to Jewish identity.”
L’Associazione di cultura ebraica Hans Jonas (www.hansjonas.it) nasce alla fine del 2009 per promuovere attività di formazione, ricerca ed elaborazione culturale in seno alle comunità ebraiche italiane e nella società. Da allora l’Associazione ha organizzato due Master per giovani dirigenti delle comunità ebraiche e diversi convegni di studio. Con questo testo l’Associazione apre le sue pubblicazioni.
This report describes the process and results of a research study on Jewish identity and community participation in Central and Eastern Europe. In particular, it identifies trends among Jewish adults in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania. This two-year and wide-reaching study, examined views on religious observance, Jewish identity, anti-Semitism, Israel, Jewish knowledge, and organizational affiliation among 1,270 Jews, ages 18-60.
Centre for Holocaust Education, an integral part of
UCL’s Institute of Education.
It is the world’s largest ever study of its kind,
drawing on the contributions of more than 9,500
students across all years of secondary school in
England (i.e. 11 to 18 year olds). This report presents
analysis of survey responses from 7,952 students
and focus group interviews with 244 students.
The primary aim of the research was to provide a
detailed national portrait of students’ knowledge
and understanding of the Holocaust. The research
also focused on students’ attitudes towards learning
about the Holocaust and their encounters with this
history, both in and outside of school. Ultimately, the
research sought to establish an empirical basis from
which considerations of the most effective ways to
improve teaching and learning about the Holocaust
could be made