Abstract: The proliferation of antisemitic content on small, high harm online services poses a significant risk to users of user-to-user safety. This includes risks of radicalisation into extremist and violent ideologies, and with serious implications for online threats, abuse and harassment. These risks are exacerbated when users are from a group with protected characteristics, which include age, race, sex and sexual orientation.
In relation to antisemitism, content on these small services tends to be more extreme than the anti-Jewish racism on
large, mainstream platforms. As a result, it helps radicalise people into extreme narratives, the results of which have
included violence against Jews. The proliferation of antisemitism online also contributes to the rising levels
of racism that divide communities. It eases the spread and amplification of conspiracy theories that undermine
trust in democratic institutions and erode liberal values of tolerance and inclusion, across Europe. It also helps
normalise antisemitism in both online and offline discourse.
These small platforms, including, for example, BitChute, Gab, and 4chan, often operate with minimal moderation
and are also sometimes encrypted, providing safe havens for extremist content that includes antisemitic tropes,
incitement to violence, and radicalising material. Despite the harm they cause, many of these platforms manage to
escape robust regulation in Britain and the EU.
This is particularly worrying, considering the major increase in antisemitism in Europe. In Britain, the Community
Security Trust (CST) recorded 3,528 antisemitic incidents for 2024. This is roughly double the number of incidents
recorded in 2022, and slightly less than the number recorded in 2023–when there was a sharp rise following
the 7 October Hamas attack on Southern Israel.
In the EU, some organisations across Europe reported an increase of more than 400% in antisemitic incidents following 7 October 2023. A 2024 survey found that 96% of respondents from 13 EU countries have encountered
antisemitism in their daily life. Hate crimes tend to be severely under-reported, so these numbers–although
high– still represent only a portion of the real occurrence of antisemitic hate crimes.
In this report, we examine the antisemitic content that originates from these small services, and how it migrates to
larger platforms, where it spreads at a greater rate and has a wider, even worldwide, reach. This report will begin with an overview of antisemitism on small services and the synergy with larger services, to explain the risks. We will then look at services to demonstrate the origins of antisemitic content on these platforms. The report ends with recommendations for policy and regulation, to tackle the harm caused by small services, urging decision-makers and regulators to apply stronger enforcement and risk-based platform categorisation to protect Jewish communities and our democracies.
Abstract: The monograph contains the results of the author's research on the European Union's (EU) policy regarding the "Jewish question", as well as the characteristics of contemporary Jewish communities in Europe. It analyzes current issues related to the development and implementation of the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021–2030).
It is argued that the development of new legislation to combat antisemitism, based on the definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), as well as the implementation of effective measures to support the development of Jewish life (the term "Jewish life" refers to the development of the traditional way of life of the Jews), are important tasks not only for the EU but for the entire civilized world. European efforts in these areas can serve as a benchmark and model for the United States, Canada, and other countries where such practices are just beginning to be established.
The author also analyzes the challenges of combating antisemitism in the EU and the reasons for the increasing emigration of Jews from the European continent. The monograph is intended for political scientists, historians, civil servants from EU countries and EU candidate countries, students of humanities, and all those interested in Jewish Studies.
Topics: Antisemitism: Incident Monitoring, Antisemitism: Online, Politics: Democratic Politics, Elections and Voting, European Union / European Commission, Hate and Hate Speech, Internet, Islamophobia, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Social Media, Racism, Ukraine-Russia War and Conflict (2014 onwards)
Abstract: W wyniku przeprowadzonego drugiego etapu pilotażowego monitoringu, mającego zbadać zjawisko narastającej liczby treści o charakterze nienawistnym w internecie w okresie kampanii wyborczej, dokonano wielu istotnych obserwacji.
Kampania do Parlamentu Europejskiego, będąca kolejną z serii kampanii wyborczych odbywających się w krótkim odstępie czasu od poprzednich, miała miejsce w okresie okołowakacyjnym, co wiązało się z mniejszym zaangażowaniem zarówno ze strony partii politycznych, jak i użytkowników internetu. Mimo tego obniżonego poziomu zaangażowania wzrost treści o charakterze nienawistnym był już zauważalny przed formalnym rozpoczęciem kampanii, co sugeruje, że polityczny i społeczny klimat pozostawał spolaryzowany na skutek poprzednich wyborów do Sejmu i Senatu, które odbyły się 9 października 2023 roku.
Wraz z formalnym rozpoczęciem kampanii wyborczej zaobserwowano stały wzrost aktywności w serwisach internetowych oraz ciągłą tendencję wzrostową treści o charakterze nienawistnym. Po zakończeniu kampanii doszło do istotnego zmniejszenia liczby tego typu treści.
Analiza zachowań użytkowników internetu podczas monitoringu ujawniła, że wzrost treści nienawistnych rozprzestrzeniał się między różnymi grupami, co świadczy o dynamicznym i płynnym charakterze tego zjawiska. Zauważono, że nienawistne treści skierowane do jednej grupy mniejszościowej często prowadziły do generowania nienawiści wobec innych grup mniejszościowych. Szczególnie interesującym aspektem jest fakt, że wzrost treści antysemickich korelował z nasileniem treści antyukraińskich i antyuchodczych, co sugeruje związek między różnymi formami nienawiści w dyskursie społecznym.
Zapraszamy do zapoznania się z raportem
Spis treści:
Wstęp
Metodologia
Badanie – wyniki
Analiza zmian
Treści o charakterze antysemickim
Treści o charakterze antyuchodźczym i antymuzułmańskim
Treści o charakterze antyukraińskim
Treści o charakterze anty-LGBT+
Wnioski końcowe
Publikacja powstała w ramach projektu „Kompleksowa strategia przeciwdziałania antysemickiej mowie nienawiści w przestrzeni publicznej”, finansowanego przez Fundację Pamięć, Odpowiedzialność i Przyszłość, realizowanego przez Żydowskie Stowarzyszenie Czulent przy wsparciu merytorycznym Centrum Badań nad Uprzedzeniami.
Niniejsza publikacja nie prezentuje stanowiska i opinii Fundacji Pamięć, Odpowiedzialność i Przyszłość (EVZ).
Abstract: The recent Eurozone crisis and the outbreak of political and populist Euroscepticism pose an unprecedented challenge to advocates of the post-war ‘Idea of Europe’. In the United Kingdom and France, some of the most eloquent and impassioned defences of ‘Europe’ have been penned by Jewish intellectuals. The historian Walter Laqueur, the philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy and journalists such as David Aaronovich, for example, have all rallied to the cause of ‘Europe’. This article will focus on the responses of Robert Menasse and Henryk Broder, two Jewish intellectuals from Austria and Germany, who have recently published powerful reflections on the European idea. Menasse’s polemic of 2012, Der Europäische Landbote (The European Courier), defends the idea of Europe as a ‘Friedensprojekt’, or ‘peace project’, and the European Union as an institutional antidote to the destructive power of nationalism and the self-interest of the nation-state. Broder’s bestselling book of 2013, Die letzten Tage Europas: Wie wir eine gute Idee versenken (The Last Days of Europe: How we are Scuppering a Good Idea), embraces ‘European values’ but launches a critique of a European Union which stifles pluralism and critical debate. This paper analyses how Menasse and Broder define the idea of ‘Europe’ and argues that, despite their differences, in form and content, the work of Menasse and Broder draws on a common tradition of enlightened cosmopolitanism as well as informs the renewed academic debate in the humanities and social sciences about the place of ‘cosmopolitanism’ in our global world.
Abstract: Antisemitism was on the rise after 9/11, yet, until 2015, there was weak policy to address it at the national and EU levels. The following examines why and how antisemitism policy emerged on the EU agenda culminating in the creation of the 2021 comprehensive strategy to combat antisemitism. Utilizing punctuated equilibrium theory, crisification literature and literature on Commission entrepreneurship, the article explores why, although other violent attacks had occurred against Jews, it would take the double attacks in 2015 to bring attention to antisemitism within the Commission. Leadership at the EU level, NGOs working with EU institutions, a working definition of antisemitism, along with pre-existent EU legal bases in antidiscrimination law, would help promote antisemitism policy to the EU level. The EU's adoption of antisemitism policy demonstrates both Commission agenda setting and prioritizing antisemitism due to its threat to EU fundamental ideals, thus promoting a ‘European polity’ based on values.
Abstract: The experience and perceptions of the Jewish community and wider European population, recorded antisemitic incidents, the increasing level of antisemitic content online and sociological research show the persisting presence of antisemitism in the European Union. A 2021 survey on the prevalence and intensity of anti-Jewish prejudices in 16 European countries found that on average, 20 % of the population in the countries under scrutiny can be regarded as (strongly or moderately) antisemitic, whereas the proportion of latent antisemites was 14 %, with six countries where the aggregate proportion of strongly, moderately and latently antisemitic people was above 50 %. Research has also shown – and it has also been reported from a number of Member States in the context of the current report – that the consecutive crises of the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russian aggression on Ukraine have intensified antisemitic sentiments across Europe. The cut-off date of the research on which the report is based was 7 July 2023, therefore, the study does not reflect the unprecedented spike in antisemitism and antisemitic incidents in Europe and across the world following the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians on 7 October 2023. Thus, the impact of the attacks and their aftermath could not be taken into account in this study. With a view to combating racial and/or religious hatred, including antisemitism, the European Union has not only adopted policies and commitments, but it has also put in place numerous legal instruments that can be used to counter different forms of antisemitism, including but not limited to the Framework Decision on combating certain forms of expressions of racism and xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive, the Employment Equality Directive, and the Victims’ Rights Directive. The importance of effectively applying this legislation to fight antisemitism is emphasised in the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021-2030), in which the European Union pledged to ‘step up action to actively prevent and combat’ the phenomenon in all its forms. This thematic report provides a comparative overview of how these legal instruments have been complied with in the 27 EU Member States, and aims to establish how and to what extent the legal framework and its practical application in the different Member States provide protection against antisemitism in three main areas: (i) non-discrimination; (i) hate crimes; and (iii) hate speech. It identifies gaps in the existing legal protections and/or their enforcement across the EU Member States and makes recommendations on mechanisms for the provision of effective protection against acts motivated by antisemitism.
Abstract: This article sets out to discuss the emergence of (anti) ‘new antisemitism’ as a transnational field of governance, and particularly as a field of racial governance. Romeyn’s interest is not so much in the ‘facts’ of antisemitism or ‘new’ antisemitism, but in the ways in which it functions as a ‘power-knowledge’ field in which a cast of actors—global governance actors, such as the United Nations, UNESCO, the Organisation for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, the European Commission, non-governmental organizations, experts and scholars, and politicians—set out to define, invent measuring tools and technologies, analyse, formulate policy statements and programmes, and develop ‘interventions’ to address and redress (‘fight’) the ‘problem’. Embedded in the new antisemitism as a field of governance are the assumptions that, ideologically, it is imbricated in the universalist anti-racism of the liberal left, and that, culturally, it emanates to a significant extent from within ethnocultural or ethno-religious attitudes peculiar to populations originating from Northern Africa, the Maghreb or, more specifically, from majority Islamic countries. With respect to the latter groups, global governance actors concerned with the fight against the ‘new antisemitism’ instate a ‘regime’ that performatively enacts boundaries of belonging. This regime erects an interior frontier around culture/religion that effectively externalizes and racializes antisemitism.
Abstract: How attached do European Jews feel to the countries in which they live? Or to the European Union? And are their loyalties ‘divided’ in some way – between their home country and Israel? Answering these types of questions helps us to see how integrated European Jews feel today, and brings some empiricism to the antisemitic claim that Jews don’t fully ‘belong.’
This mini-report, based on JPR's groundbreaking report ‘The Jewish identities of European Jews’, explores European Jews’ levels of attachment to the countries in which they live, to Israel, and to the European Union, and compares them with those of wider society and other minority groups across Europe. Some of the key findings in this study written by Professor Sergio DellaPergola and Dr Daniel Staetsky of JPR’s European Jewish Demography Unit include:
European Jews tend to feel somewhat less strongly attached to the countries in which they live than the general population of those countries, but more strongly attached than other minority groups and people of no religion.
That said, levels of strong attachment to country vary significantly from one country to another, both among Jews and others.
European Jews tend to feel somewhat more strongly attached to the European Union than the general populations of their countries, although in many cases, the distinctions are small.
Some European Jewish populations feel more strongly attached to Israel than to the countries in which they live, and some do not. The Jewish populations that tend to feel more attached to Israel than the countries in which they live often have high proportions of recent Jewish immigrants.
Having a strong attachment to Israel has no bearing on Jewish people's attachments to the EU or the countries in which they live, and vice versa: one attachment does not come at the expense of another. They are neither competitive nor complementary; they are rather completely unrelated.
Jews of different denominations show very similar levels of attachment to the countries in which they live, but rather different levels of attachment to Israel and the EU.
Abstract: Even though the self-critical dealing with the past has not been an official criteria for joining the European union, the founding of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research and the Holocaust-conference in Stockholm at the beginning of 2000 seem to have generatedinformal standards of confronting and exhibiting the Holocaust during the process called “Europeanization of the Holocaust”. This is indicated by the fact that the Holocaust Memorial Center in Budapest opened almost empty only weeks before Hungary joined the European Union although the permanent exhibition had not been ready yet. The Croatian case, especially the new exhibition that opened at the KZ-memorial Jasenovac in 2006, will serve in order to examine how the “Europeanization of the Holocaust” impacts on a candidate state. The memorial museum resembles Holocaust Memorial Museums in Washington, Budapest etc., but, although it is in situ, at the site of the former KZ, the focus clearly lies on individual victim stories and their belongings, while the perpetrators and the daily “routine” at the KZ are hardly mentioned. Another problem influenced by the international trend to focus on (Jewish) individuals and moral lessons rather than on the historical circumstances is that the focus on the Shoa blanks the fact that Serbs had been the foremost largest victim group. The third field, where the influence of “European standards” on the Croatian politics of the past will be examined, is the equalization of “red and black totalitarianism” at the annual commemorations in Jasenovac. While this was already done during the revisions era of President Franjo Tudman during the 1990, today it perfectly matches EU-politics, as the introduction of the 23rd of August, the anniversary of the Hitler-Stalin-pact, as a Memorial day for both victims of Nazism and Stalinism shows.
Abstract: Drawing upon developments in cultural and social memory studies and Europeanization theory, this article examines the Europeanization of Holocaust memory understood as the process of construction, institutionalization, and diffusion of beliefs regarding the Holocaust and norms and rules regarding Holocaust remembrance and education at a transnational, European level since the 1990s and their incorporation in the countries of post-communist Eastern Europe, which is also the area where the Holocaust largely took place. The article identifies the transnational agents of the Europeanization of Holocaust memory—the European Union’s parliament, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and its Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, as well as the United Nations. It analyzes chronologically the key Holocaust-related activities and documents of these agents, highlighting East European countries’ varied and changing position towards them. It examines synchronically the outcome of the Europeanization of Holocaust memory by these transnational agents—a European memory of the Holocaust—identifying its key components, discussing the main aspects, and illustrating the impact of this process and outcome upon the memory of the Holocaust in the East European countries. The article argues that the Europeanization of Holocaust memory has significantly contributed to the development of Holocaust memory in Eastern Europe, although other agents and processes were also involved.
Abstract: This detailed and thorough report is rapidly becoming the ‘must-read’ study on European Jews, taking the reader on an extraordinary journey through one thousand years of European Jewish history before arriving at the most comprehensive analysis of European Jewish demography today.
Written by leading Jewish demographers Professor Sergio DellaPergola and Dr Daniel Staetsky, the Chair and Director of JPR’s European Jewish Demography Unit respectively, it explores how the European Jewish population has ebbed and flowed over time. It begins as far back as the twelfth century, travelling through many years of population stability, until the tremendous growth of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, followed by the dramatic decline prompted by a combination of mass migration and the horrors of the Shoah. Extraordinarily, after all this time, the proportion of world Jewry living in Europe today is almost identical to the proportion living in Europe 900 years ago.
Using multiple definitions of Jewishness and a vast array of sources to determine the size of the contemporary population, the study proceeds to measure it in multiple ways, looking at the major blocs of the European Union and the European countries of the Former Soviet Union, as well as providing country-by-country analyses, ranging from major centres such as France, the UK, Germany and Hungary, to tiny territories such as Gibraltar, Monaco and even the Holy See.
The report also contains the most up-to-date analysis we have on the key mechanisms of demographic change in Europe, touching variously on patterns of migration in and out of Europe, fertility, intermarriage, conversion and age compositions. While the report itself is a fascinating and important read, the underlying data are essential tools for the JPR team to utilise as it supports Jewish organisations across the continent to plan for the future.
Topics: Antisemitism: Education against, Antisemitism: Right-Wing, Antisemitism: Left-Wing, Antisemitism: Muslim, Antisemitism: New Antisemitism, Antisemitism: Incident Monitoring, Antisemitism: Discourse and Tropes, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Terrorism, European Union / European Commission, Integration, Antisemitism: Strategy and Policy
Abstract: Antisemitism can be expressed in the form of verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, discrimination and unequal treatment, property damage and graffiti or other forms of speech or text, including on the internet. Antisemitic incidents and hate crime violate fundamental rights, especially the right to human dignity, the right to equality of treatment and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
The present report provides an overview of data on antisemitism as recorded by international organisations and by official and unofficial sources in the 28 European Union (EU) Member States, based on their own definitions and categorisations. ‘Official data’ are understood here as those collected by law enforcement agencies, other authorities that are part of criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
This is the 15th edition of FRA’s report on the situation of data collection on antisemitism in the EU (including reports published by FRA’s predecessor, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia).
Topics: Jewish Leadership and Representation, Interviews, Jewish Continuity, Jewish Heritage, Jewish Revival and Renewal, Main Topic: Other, Policy, Strategic Planning, Governance, Oversight and Accountability, State and Government, European Union / European Commission
Abstract: The publication approaches Jewish life as a dynamic ecosystem shaped through education, culture, religious practice, heritage, civic participation and everyday forms of belonging. For centuries, Jewish communities have contributed profoundly to Europe’s intellectual, cultural, social and democratic development. At the same time, the Handbook recognises that contemporary Jewish life unfolds within increasingly fragile environments shaped by polarisation, demographic transformation, insecurity and the growing destabilisation of public discourse.
