Search results

Your search found 704 items
Previous | Next
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year
turned off because more than 500 resultsView all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >>
Home  / Search Results
Date: 2020
Date: 2020
Abstract: JPR’s COVID-19 survey looks at how Jews have been impacted by the pandemic in terms of their health, jobs, finances, relationships and Jewish lives. The findings are being shared in a series of short reports looking at key policy issues, and this one focuses on the issue of how comfortable Jews feel about attending Jewish activities and events in person.

Drawing on survey responses from July 2020, it finds that whilst Jews situate themselves across the full length of the ‘comfort scale’ (running from very comfortable to very uncomfortable), there is a clear leaning towards the uncomfortable end.

Unsurprisingly, those who are uncomfortable are likely to be in older age bands and/or suffering from health conditions that make them particularly vulnerable to the virus. Similarly, those who have had the virus and continue to suffer from secondary symptoms (i.e. ‘Long COVID’) also tend to be uncomfortable about attending events in person.

However, there are some interesting exceptions. The most elderly appear to feel more comfortable than average, and the youngest age bands (those aged 16-24) feel more uncomfortable than average. Those who have had COVID-19 and recovered feel more comfortable than those who have not. And those who have experienced job losses, or have been furloughed, are rather less comfortable than those whose working loves have remained reasonably stable.

It is also very striking to see that, denominationally, the Strictly Orthodox feel most comfortable about attending in-person events, whereas non-synagogue members feel most uncomfortable. Members of other ‘mainstream’ denominations cluster together in between. However, people’s level of religiosity is actually a slightly better predictor than denomination of how comfortable they feel about attending community activities or events in person – those with strong religiosity are most likely to feel comfortable, and those with weak religiosity most likely to feel uncomfortable.

Perhaps most interestingly, there is an important relationship between how comfortable people feel about attending community activities and events in person, and their general state of mental health. Those showing signs of psychological distress feel notably less comfortable than others.

Brief details about the methodology used in the survey are contained in the report. A more detailed methodological is being prepared and will be available shortly.
Date: 2018
Author(s): Ehsan, Rakib
Date: 2020
Abstract: In late 2019, the Henry Jackson Society commissioned polling organisation Savanta ComRes to undertake a survey involving a weighted sample of 750 British Muslims. Respondents were asked about their perspectives on a number of topics. These included: other faith groups; prominent geopolitical players; and the perceived level of Jewish global control. This represents one of the most systematic and comprehensive surveys into the socio-political attitudes –
both domestic and international – of British Muslims. According to the study:

- When compared with their perception of other faith groups, British Muslims have the least favourable attitude towards Jewish people.
- The only people viewed less favourably by British Muslims than Jewish people are those belonging to no religious group (atheists/non-believers).
- British Muslims who are more socially integrated through their friendship groups, have a more favourable view of both Jews and the State of Israel.

These are a number of observations of significance:

-A December 2019 ICM Unlimited poll found that 18% of the general population felt Jews have disproportionate influence over business and finance. In this survey of British Muslims, 34% were of the view that Jews have too much control over the global banking system.
- The same ICM poll found that 15% of the general population felt Jews have disproportionate influence in politics. In this Savanta ComRes poll, 33% of the British Muslim respondents were of the view that Jews have too much control over the global political leadership.
- On the matter of ‘dual loyalty’, the ICM survey found that 24% of the general population believed British Jews were more loyal to Israel than to the UK. The corresponding figure for British Muslims, in this survey by Savanta ComRes, is 44%.
- When compared to British Muslims who are not university-educated, British Muslims who are university-educated are more likely to agree with the view that British Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the UK, along with holding the broader belief that Jews have too much global control.
- The majority of British Muslims who report that they attend a mosque at least 3-4 times a week, believe British Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the UK – 55%. The corresponding figure for British Muslims who very occasionally or never attend a mosque is 34%
Date: 2018
Abstract: The fight against antisemitism through the means of education should begin from as early an age as possible. Various informal, educational projects exist that work towards this goal, using a number of different methods. However, these projects often operate separately and on an ad hoc basis in educational institutions, hence they lack an overarching concept or idea for the students. This makes the projects less efficient, and their short and long term impact becomes more difficult to evaluate. Generally speaking, Jewish history and religion are not part of the national curriculum in secondary schools. In the rare cases when aspects of Judaism are taught, the main focus is on the Holocaust, which often has a negative and counterproductive effect. For this reason, the main objective of the New World project was to educate students on topics such as Hungary’s role in the Holocaust (which is still not fully accepted by Hungarian society), prejudices, radicalisation and Jewish identity.

With the professional leadership and support of the Tom Lantos Institute, a complex educational project was realised. Its components build on each other, following a single line of thought: it incorporates the performance of the play New World, a subsequent drama-based pedagogical session and finally, 2-3 weeks later, an informal educational class led by the Haver Foundation. Each step of the programme was evaluated using a variety of methods such as mini-interviews, participants’ reports and questionnaires. Following a short literature review, this report intends to give a summary of the concept, structure, conclusions and results of the project. The report is dedicated to participants and leaders of similar initiatives, as well as to a wider audience of individuals interested in the topic.
Date: 2009
Abstract: Placards carrying images of swastikas superimposed on the Star of David and the Israeli flag were commonplace in street-level protests about the recent Israeli military actions and the conflict in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. Allusions between Nazi genocidal practices and the activities of the Israeli state were also drawn in some of the speeches at protest meetings and press commentary on the conflict. Although this was not the first occasion that the ‘Nazi card’ had been played against Israel and Jews, the prevalence of the phenomenon appears to indicate its growing normalisation. Playing the ‘Nazi card’ is a discursive act involving the use of Nazi or related terms or symbols (Nazism, Hitler, swastikas, etc.) in reference to Jews, Israel, Zionism or aspects of the Jewish experience. It manifests in words uttered in speech or in writing, or in visual representations such as artwork, drawings, caricatures, cartoons, graffiti, daubings and scratchings, or visual expressions such as a Nazi salute or the clicking of heels. In many instances, the playing of the Nazi card is unquestionably antisemitic. However, the inclusion of particular modes of criticism of Israel in definitions of antisemitism has provoked controversy. The result has been a war of words which has stagnated into an intellectual and discursive cul-de-sac of claim and counter-claim about what does and does not qualify as antisemitism. Because of this, in focusing on discourse, this report attempts to shift the focus of analysis of contemporary antisemitism onto new ground: away from labelling and defining the problem, to an understanding of the consequences of particular discourse. By unravelling and dissecting various manifestations of the phenomenon, the report reveals how the playing of the Nazi card scratches deep wounds by invoking painful collective memory of the Holocaust. It also offers some recommendations as to how the problem might be addressed.
Date: 2020
Abstract: Written by the world’s leading Jewish demographer, Professor Sergio DellaPergola, and Dr Daniel Staetsky, Director of JPR’s European Jewish Demography Unit, this report shines a light on the demography of Jewish in Austria today, and presents in-depth analysis of fertility rates, age distribution data, patterns of Jewish identity, migration and intermarriage rates to predict Austrian Jewry’s future. It demonstrates, through careful and methodical analysis, that the population is projected to grow.

Whilst the Austrian Jewish population is small, its projected growth constitutes an important finding in European Jewish demography. The Jewish population of Europe has declined dramatically over the past century and a half, particularly as a result of mass migration and the Holocaust. Yet today, in several European countries, demographers are beginning to see signs of growth, driven particularly by high birth rates in the strictly Orthodox population. This study provides an important example of this phenomenon.

The report is a publication of JPR’s European Jewish Demography Unit, an initiative established in 2019 to produce new data to support Jewish community planning across Europe. Funded by the Rothschild Foundation Hanadiv Europe, the Unit is working to produce country-specific reports annually, and this study about Austria is the first of these.

The report draws on three major sources of data: the 2001 Austrian Census, comprehensive records of the Austrian Jewish community and a survey carried out by a JPR/Ipsos consortium in 2018 for the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA).

Key findings include:

Today the core Jewish population of Austria is estimated to be just above 10,000. The ‘core Jewish population’ consists of people who would explicitly identify themselves as Jews. This is the highest number of Jews observed in Austria since the 1960.
According to the Israeli Law of Return – which uses a broader definition to determine who is entitled to migrate to Israel and immediately apply for Israeli citizenship – the eligible Jewish population in Austria is currently about 20,000.
The core Jewish population constitutes 0.1% of the total population of Austria. 64% of all Austrians are Roman Catholics, 17% are unaffiliated in religious terms, and 8% are Muslims.
The Jewish population of Austria is growing and may reach 11,000-12,000 by the mid-2030s.
About 86% of all Austrian Jews reside in Vienna. Only 19% of all Austrians live in Vienna
The average number of children that a Jewish woman in Austria is expected to have in her lifetime is 2.5; strictly Orthodox Jewish women have 6–7 children per woman, on average, while non-strictly Orthodox Jewish women typically have about 2. The average among Austrian women in general is 1.5.
Migration has been a powerful factor of growth in the Austrian Jewish population. Jews born in Israel constitute about 20% of Jews in Austria today.
About 78% of Jewish households in Austria are affiliated with the Jewish community through membership of its representative organisation. Compared to other communities around the world, this is a very high level of affiliation.
About 30% of Jews in Austria identify as ‘Orthodox’ or ‘Traditional’ and 19% as ‘strictly Orthodox.’ 15% identify as ‘Reform/Progressive’ and 19% as ‘just Jewish.’ Austrian Jewry has one of the highest proportions of strictly Orthodox Jews of all European Jewish communities.
Due to their high fertility, the strictly Orthodox represent the main engine of population growth for the Jewish community as a whole. For the same reason, their share in the Jewish population is expected to increase significantly in the medium term.
About two thirds (70%) of partnered Austrian Jews have a Jewish partner.
About 70% of all Jewish children of compulsory school age in Austria attend Jewish schools. While 100% of strictly Orthodox Jews attend Jewish schools, among the non-strictly Orthodox uptake is still significant – about 52%.
Date: 2020
Abstract: Growing up Jewish in Poland presents the findings of a study about the developmental trajectories of 17 children and adolescents from 14 families living in Poland who attended the Lauder-JDC International Jewish Youth Camp Szarvas (Hungary) for the first time at the time of the study (2015-2018). Resorting to a longitudinal analysis, the present study aims to examine what happens, over a period of three years, to a group of Jewish boys and girls that have experienced a Jewish summer camp for the first time in summer 2015. The study focused on the role that the summer camp itself plays in shaping a proactive Jewish life but also analyzed more globally other aspects that influence Jewish participation. What are the main factors that affect Jewish participation both on the kid’s and on the parents’ perspective? What are the possible “Jewish” trajectories of 13-to-16-year-old teenagers in Central Eastern Europe? Do they keep connected with Jewish life? If yes, how? What’s their scale of values? What are their priorities, their hopes, and their perceived future as they make their way from teenagehood to young adults?

The main methodological feature of this study lies in it being a qualitative, longitudinal, observational cohort study. In contrast to most studies that explore development retrospectively, this study involved interviewing first-time Szarvas campers and their families over a longer period, with up to three consecutive interviews per family over a period of three years. To our knowledge, this research experience is unique in Jewish Europe.
Author(s): Graham, David
Date: 2020
Abstract: This report, published in conjunction with the Isaac and Jessie Kaplan Centre for Jewish Studies at the University of Cape Town, contains a detailed demographic assessment of the South African Jewish population and the results of the 2019 Jewish Community Survey of South Africa – the largest and most extensive study of its kind ever undertaken. The fieldwork for the survey generated a final sample of 4,193 individuals (aged 18 and over) living in 2,402 unique households. Accounting for everyone living within those households, the report draws on data on 5,287 individuals.

Authored by JPR Senior Research Fellow Dr David Graham, the report finds that the Jewish population of the country has declined over the past twenty years, mainly as a result of migration, but also due to the natural ageing of the population. Jews have emigrated from South Africa in significant numbers since the 1960s; the study speculates that the South African Jewish diaspora may now be larger than the Jewish population living in South Africa.

However, despite the numerical decline, the report demonstrates that the South African Jewish community is remarkably vibrant and resilient. Overall, Jewish identity in South Africa appears to be stronger, and more religious, than in either Australia or the UK and the community remains very close-knit.

The study finds significant differences between the Jewish communities of Johannesburg and Cape Town, with 48% in Johannesburg self-identifying as either Orthodox or strictly Orthodox, compared with 22% in Cape Town. In Cape Town 40% self-describe as Progressive or Secular, compared with 18% in Johannesburg.

The report explores South African Jews' sense of belonging to the country and sense of satisfaction with their lives, as well as their attitudes to issues such as unemployment, government corruption and crime levels, anti-Israel sentiment and antisemitism. It also contains new data on synagogue membership and Jewish school enrolment.

The study is designed to provide an up-to-date set of empirical data to help Jewish community leaders plan for the future, including those involved in social care, health and welfare, education, religious life and combating antisemitism.
Date: 2020
Date: 2020
Abstract: [Edited from press release]

Le bureau français de l’American Jewish Committee (AJC) a publié aujourd’hui sa première « radiographie » de l’antisémitisme en France ; une enquête sur les perceptions des Français et des Français de confession ou de culture juive sur la question de l’antisémitisme.

L’étude a été réalisée par l’institut de sondage IFOP, en partenariat avec la Fondation pour l’innovation politique (Fondapol). Un échantillon de 505 Français juifs et de 1027 Français a été interrogé selon un questionnaire commun.


« Les statistiques publiées chaque année par le ministère de l’Intérieur, bien qu’essentielles, ne reflètent pas les différentes facettes du problème que représente l’antisémitisme dans notre pays. Les données existantes s’appuient principalement sur les plaintes déposées, mais elles ne tiennent pas compte de la perception du problème et de son impact sur la vie des citoyens français » explique Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache, directrice de l’AJC Paris.

Selon l’enquête, la majorité des Français comme des Français d’origine juive considère qu’il y a beaucoup d’antisémitisme en France et que le phénomène est en augmentation.

70% des Juifs français déclarent avoir été victimes d’au moins un incident antisémite au cours de leur vie (84% pour les Français juifs de moins de 25 ans). Un tiers des Français juifs se sentent menacés en raison de leur appartenance religieuse ; le sentiment de menace est beaucoup plus fort chez les Juifs pratiquants et les jeunes Juifs (moins de 35 ans). Les deux principaux lieux où des incidents antisémites se produisent sont la rue (54%) et l’école (55%). Pour 26 % des Français ayant subi une agression physique, cela s’est produit à l’école ou dans un contexte scolaire. Pour échapper à l’antisémitisme, les Français juifs évitent certains territoires (44%) et s’abstiennent d’afficher des symboles exprimant leur judaïsme (37%). Un quart des Français juifs ont déclaré avoir déjà évité de révéler leur appartenance à la communauté juive sur leur lieu de travail.

« Il est très inquiétant de constater que l’antisémitisme a un impact sur la vie et le mode de vie de la majorité des Français juifs. Nous remarquons amèrement que ces derniers n’ont pas de répit face à l’antisémitisme. Cela doit cesser » a déclaré Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache.

Un Français sur cinq déclare avoir déjà entendu une personne de son entourage dire du mal des Juifs. 16% des Français disent avoir déjà assisté à une agression verbale antisémite. La grande majorité des Français (73%) et des Français juifs (72%) considèrent que l’antisémitisme concerne la société française toute entière.

« L’antisémitisme fait partie de la vie quotidienne des Français dans leur ensemble. C’est un phénomène qu’ils perçoivent et qui les touche. C’est désormais une préoccupation pour toute la société française, et non plus seulement pour les Français d’origine juive. C’est donc la note finale encourageante et positive de cette enquête : nous ne sommes plus aussi seuls, pour combattre ce fléau, que nous avons pu l’être – ou avons eu le sentiment de l’être – par le passé. Cela doit se refléter dans les actions politiques ; la lutte contre l’antisémitisme doit être une priorité nationale disposant de moyens adéquats pour couvrir l’ensemble du territoire français. » conclut Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache.
Date: 2019
Abstract: [Edited from press release]

The AJC Paris study was conducted by IFOP, a leading polling firm, in partnership with Fondapol, a major French think tank. They polled 505 French Jews and 1027 French people between October 14 and November 19, 2019.

As antisemitism in France continues to spiral, Jews and the general population in France agree on the magnitude of the problem, according to the American Jewish Committee (AJC) Paris survey of perceptions of and experiences with antisemitism in France.

But alignment on the antisemitism threat to French society, and the government’s weak responsiveness, does not mitigate the fears of Jews about their safety and future in France.

Nearly three-quarters, 73%, of the French public, and 72% of Jews, consider antisemitism a problem that affects all of French society. 47% of the general public and 67% of the Jewish respondents say the level of antisemitism in France is high, while 27% and 22%, respectively, say it is low.

While 53% of the general public say antisemitism has been increasing, and 18% decreasing, in recent years, 77% of Jews say it has increased and 12% decreased.

The AJC Paris survey found that 70 percent of French Jews say they have been victims of at least one antisemitic incident in their lifetime, 64% have suffered anti-Semitic verbal abuse at least once, and 23% have been targets of physical violence on at least one occasion, with 10 percent saying they were attacked several times.

The continued spiraling of antisemitism in France has led significant percentages of the Jewish population to take protective actions. More than one-third, 37%, refrain from using visible Jewish symbols, 25% avoid revealing their Jewish identity in the workplace, and 52% have considered leaving France.

Overall, 44% of the Jewish sample say the situation for French Jews is worse than a year ago, only 11% say it is better and 42% no better or worse.

The youngest Jews, ages 18-24, are on the “front line” more than older cohorts in confronting antisemitism. 84% of them have suffered at last one antisemitic act, compared with 70% of all respondents; 79 percent had suffered verbal abuse, compared with 64% of all respondents, and 39% faced an act of physical aggression, compared with 23% of the full Jewish sample.

Visibly religious French Jews feel the most vulnerable, with 74% of them saying they had been a victim of at least one act of verbal abuse, compared with 64% of the full Jewish sample.

The main locations where antisemitic incidents occur the most are in the street and school. 55% said they had been insulted or threatened on the street, and 59% said they had suffered physical abuse in the school.

54% were victims of verbal abuse, and 26% had been victims of antisemitic violence in schools.

But equally disturbing is the finding that 46% said they had suffered anti-Semitic verbal abuse in the workplace.

Regarding the responsiveness of elected officials, Jews and the general public agree. Only 47% of Jews and 48% of the general public have confidence in the President of France tackling antisemitism, 46% of Jews and 41% of the public in the French government, and 58% of Jews and 56% of the public in local elected officials

Author(s): Somers, Ali
Date: 2018
Author(s): Somers, Ali
Date: 2019
Author(s): Sapiro, Philip
Date: 2019
Abstract: The Representative Council’s demographics officer analyses data to assist various bodies to plan for the
future needs of the Jewish community in Liverpool, Wirral, Chester, and adjoining areas. These needs include
the scale of Jewish educational and social facilities for children, synagogue provision, welfare and social
provision for adults, residential care and, ultimately, burial needs. As with all Jewish demographic studies, the
question of who should be included arises. The government’s 2011 National Census used self-identification
as its definition of a member of a religion; for our purposes we ‘simply’ need to estimate the numbers of
people who might wish, now or in the future, to avail themselves of the services of the community – we might
call these ‘community affiliatable’ people, or simply ‘our community’. The work of the demographics officer
does NOT in any way seek to identify our community by name; indeed almost all data sources used exclude
any means of identifying individuals. The approach adopted merely seeks to quantify our population by
gender and age, with some analysis of the geographic spread across our community area.
The analysis falls into three elements:
 An annual ‘snapshot’ of population elements - the main sources for which are data provided by the
shuls, the King David & Harold House Foundation, MJCC (on certain burials) and Greenbank Drive
Limited. My thanks to the administrators and honorary officers of those organisations for their
patience in completing the various forms.
 An assessment of the current overall size and age breakdown of the community, which builds on the
‘snapshot’, and makes use of information from both the 2011 National Census, and our own local
census also undertaken in that year.
 A projection of the future size and shape of the community.
Date: 2019
Abstract: This report, produced by Professor P. Weller and Dr. I. Foster of the University of Derby, United Kingdom, is based on two phases of research conducted in six OSCE participating States—Belgium, Germany, Greece, Moldova, Poland and the United States of America—between December 2016 and May 2018. The research took various forms, including focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, observations, as well as desk research based on published literature. A detailed bibliography of works consulted is provided in an appendix to the report. The report provides background information about the history of anti-Semitism in each of the countries studied, along with recent statistics concerning reported anti-Semitic incidents in each country. The report does not compare how significant an issue anti-Semitism is in these participating States; rather, it presents an overall pattern of evidence to identify a range of key challenges with at least some relevance for teaching about and addressing anti-Semitism in classroom contexts across the OSCE region as a whole, and thus provides the basis for recommendations that could inform the development of teacher resources to meet those challenges in any OSCE participating State, not just the ones studied for this report. The research has made clear that, while the incidence, frequency and forms of anti-Semitism may vary over time, it remains a reality in OSCE participating States. However, there is relatively little published research on anti-Semitism among young people as such, and even less that is specifically focused on teaching about anti-Semitism and/or addressing it in classroom contexts. Therefore, the primary research that informs this report makes a clear contribution to understanding anti-Semitism as it currently exists in a number of OSCE countries, albeit subject to certain limitations in terms of methodology, which are noted in the report’s appendices.
Author(s): Ullrich, Peter
Date: 2019
Abstract: Mit der im Jahr 2016 von der International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) anerkannten «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» liegt ein Instrument für die notwendige Erfassung und Bekämpfung von Antisemitismus vor, das weite Verbreitung gefunden hat. In einem Handlungsfeld, das durch hochgradige begriffliche Verunsicherung gekennzeichnet ist, verspricht die Definition als praktische Arbeitsgrundlage begriffliche Orientierung. Tatsächlich stellt die «Arbeitsdefinition» mit ihrer konkreten, ohne Fachterminologie auskommenden Sprache sowie mit anschaulichen Beispielen, die den Begriff Antisemitismus anhand typischer, immer wieder auftretender Phänomene verdeutlichen, inzwischen eine Grundlage für die Arbeit verschiedener Nutzer*innengruppen dar. Zudem erfolgte mit der Aufnahme bis dato nur wenig beleuchteter (israelbezogener) Aspekte von Antisemitismus eine zum Zeitpunkt der Formulierung der Definition (Anfang der 2000er Jahre) notwendige Aktualisierung der Diskussion.

Bei einer näheren Untersuchung offenbaren sich jedoch auch gravierende Mängel. Insbesondere ist die «Arbeitsdefinition» inkonsistent, widersprüchlich und ausgesprochen vage formuliert; mithin erfüllt sie nicht die Anforderungen guten Definierens. Die Kerndefinition des Antisemitismus ist zudem reduktionistisch. Sie hebt einige antisemitische Phänomene und Analyseebenen hervor, spart aber andere, wesentliche, sehr weitgehend aus. Dies gilt insbesondere für ideologische und diskursive Aspekte, beispielsweise den Antisemitismus als verschwörungstheoretisches Weltbild. Ebenso fehlt eine Erwähnung organisationssoziologischer Aspekte der Mobilisierung in Bewegungen und Parteien sowie deren Niederschlag in diskriminierenden institutionellen Regelungen und Praxen. Zudem können manche israelbezogenen Beispiele, die der Kerndefinition hinzugefügt sind, nur mithilfe weiterer Informationen über den Kontext als antisemitisch klassifiziert werden, da das Beschriebene mehrdeutig ist. Es tritt in komplexen, sich überlagernden Konfliktkonstellationen auf, bei denen eine Zuordnung zu einem spezifischen Problemkreis wie Antisemitismus oft nicht einfach möglich ist. Ein Beispiel sind die sogenannten doppelten Standards. Sie sind kein hinreichendes Kriterium, um eine antisemitische Fokussierung auf Israel von einer solchen zu unterscheiden, die mit den Spezifika israelischer Politik und ihrer weltpolitischen Bedeutung zusammenhängen.

In der Folge begünstigt die «Arbeitsdefinition» eine widersprüchliche und fehleranfällige Anwendungs praxis und führt zu Einschätzungen von Vorfällen oder Sachverhalten, die nicht auf klaren Kriterien basieren, sondern eher auf Vorverständnissen derer, die sie anwenden, oder auf unreflektiert übernommenen verbreiteten Deutungen. Die Anwendung der «Arbeitsdefinition» produziert die Fiktion eines kriteriengeleiteten, objektiven Beurteilens. Die Definition stellt prozedurale Legitimität für Entscheidungen zur Verfügung, die faktisch auf der Grundlage anderer, implizit bleibender Kriterien getroffen werden, welche weder in der Definition noch in den Beispielen festgelegt sind.

Die Schwächen der «Arbeitsdefinition» sind das Einfallstor für ihre politische Instrumentalisierung, etwa um gegnerische Positionen im Nahostkonflikt durch den Vorwurf des Antisemitismus moralisch zu diskreditieren. Dies hat relevante grundrechtliche Implikationen. Die zunehmende Implementierung der «Arbeitsdefinition» als quasi-rechtliche Grundlage von Verwaltungshandeln suggeriert Orientierung. Stattdessen ist sie faktisch ein zu Willkür geradezu einladendes Instrument. Dieses kann genutzt werden, um Grundrechte, insbesondere die Meinungsfreiheit, in Bezug auf missliebige israelbezogene Positionen zu beschneiden. Anders als die Bezeichnung «Arbeitsdefinition» suggeriert, findet auch keine Weiterentwicklung der Definition statt, um diese Schwächen zu beheben.

Fazit: Der Versuch, Probleme allgemeiner begrifflicher Klärung und universeller praktischer Einsetzbarkeit mithilfe der «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» zu lösen, muss insgesamt als gescheitert angesehen werden. Vor allem aufgrund ihrer handwerklichen Schwächen, ihrer defizitären Anwendungspraxis, ihres trotzdem teilweise verbindlichen rechtlichen Status und ihrer politischen Instrumentalisierbarkeit mit problematischen Implikationen für die Meinungsfreiheit kann die Verwendung der «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» nicht empfohlen werden. Eine mögliche Ausnahme könnten lediglich eng umgrenzte pädagogische Kontexte darstellen.

Wie die Entstehungsgeschichte der «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» und ihre weite Verbreitung deutlich machen, gibt es – auch angesichts einer weiter bestehenden Bedrohung durch gegenwärtigen Antisemitismus – einen großen Bedarf vonseiten verschiedener Institutionen nach in der Praxis anwendbaren Kriterien zur Identifikation antisemitischer Phänomene. Folglich ist die Entwicklung von klaren und kontextspezifischen Instrumenten für die Praxis dringend zu empfehlen.
Date: 2019
Abstract: 174 actes antisémites recensés en 2018 dont 2 agressions physiques.

Les réseaux sociaux concentrent la grande majorité des actes recensés dans ce rapport soit 64%.
Une tendance observée depuis plusieurs années. Les médias en général concentrent 24% des chiffres.

Principaux vecteurs d’antisémitisme

L’extrême-droite : recrudescence de leurs activités en 2018 et intensification des liens entretenu par ces groupes entre les différents cantons romands, la France et l’Italie.
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 ». 21% des actes recensés ont trait à la théorie du complot juif.
Le conflit israélo-palestinien reste une des sources permanentes d’antisémitisme. La nazification d’Israël et l’antisionisme concentrent 29% des actes.
Le négationnisme est toujours une réalité en Suisse. 26% des actes antisémites recensés concernent le négationnisme de la Shoah.
La banalisation de plus en plus fréquente du discours antisémite sous couvert de « blague potache » et dans le discours public.
L’année 2019 n’a pas démarré sous de meilleurs auspices. Le pseudo-humoriste Français Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala, dans son dernier « spectacle » au Théâtre de Marens en janvier, a franchi une ligne rouge que la CICAD n’entend pas accepter sans agir. Par conséquent, la CICAD a dénoncé pénalement Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala le 7 février 2019 suite à ses récents propos négationnistes.

Recommandations

La lutte contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme doit se concevoir dans une approche d’éducation, de prévention tout en favorisant une mobilisation des plus actives. La CICAD émet plusieurs recommandations détaillées dans le présent rapport. L’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) est l’une d’entre elles.

Il est indispensable qu’une définition précise de l’antisémitisme soit adoptée en Suisse. La working definition de l’IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) sur l’antisémitisme est devenue la référence dans plusieurs états d’Europe.

Chaque acte antisémite est une atteinte à nos libertés et notre conscience collective qui mérite des prises de position publiques claires.

La Suisse n’est pas un « îlot » épargné par la hausse de l’antisémitisme observée en Europe même si ce dernier s’exprime moins violemment que dans d’autres pays.
Date: 2019
Abstract: Der Schweizerische Israelitische Gemeindebund SIG hat im Jahr 2018 42 antisemitische Vorfälle (exklusive Online) registriert. Darunter waren 1 Tätlichkeit, 11 Beschimpfungen und 5 Schmierereien und keine Sachbeschädigungen. Online, also in den sozialen Medien und den Kommentarspalten von Zeitungen, wurden 535 Vorfälle registriert. Überdies kommt noch eine Dunkelziffer an nicht gemeldeten Vorfällen hinzu.

Inhaltlich wurden vier verschiedene Kategorien unterschieden: Antisemitismus allgemein (148 Vorfälle), Schoahleugnung/-banalisierung (37), israelbezogener Antisemitismus (170) und zeitgenössische antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien (222). Gerade antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien haben in der heutigen Zeit
weiterhin enorm Konjunktur. Dabei werden die verschiedensten und absurdesten Theorien verknüpft, diese
weisen letztlich aber alle auf eine angebliche «jüdische Weltverschwörung» hin (vgl. Kapitel 2.1).

Über 90 Prozent der erfassten Online-Vorfälle stammen von den Social-Media-Plattformen Facebook und
Twitter. Diese Tendenz deckt sich auch mit den allgemeinen Feststellungen zu «Hate Speech» auf den
sozialen Medien. Weit weniger antisemitische Beiträge gibt es in den Kommentarspalten auf den Webseiten der
Schweizer Zeitungen. Dies liegt sicherlich auch daran, dass diese Kommentare vor der Veröffentlichung meist
kontrolliert werden (vgl. Kapitel 2.2).

Sogenannte «Trigger», Anlässe oder Ereignisse, die für einen begrenzten Zeitraum eine massiv höhere Anzahl an antisemitischen Vorfällen zur Folge haben, spielen bei der Verteilung der antisemitischen Vorfälle eine zentrale Rolle. Insbesondere im Internet werden viele der antisemitischen Kommentare durch ein bestimmtes Ereignis bzw. die Berichterstattung darüber ausgelöst. International sind dies vor allem Ereignisse im Nahen Osten. In der Schweiz waren besonders die Berichterstattungen über den Prozess gegen den Rechtsextremisten Kevin G., ein Blick-Artikel über muslimischen Antisemitismus, der Angriff eines mit einem Messer bewaffneten Mannes auf eine Gruppe Juden sowie die Diskussion um jüdisch-orthodoxe Feriengäste Auslöser für überdurchschnittlich viele antisemitische Kommentare und Posts (vgl. Kapitel 2.4)


La Fédération suisse des communautés israélites FSCI a recensé un total de 42 incidents antisémites (occurrences en ligne non comprises), dont 1 cas de voie de fait, 11 cas d’insultes et 5 de graffitis, mais pas de déprédations. En ligne, c’est-à-dire dans les médias sociaux et les colonnes de commentaires des journaux en ligne, 535 incidents ont été enregistrés. Ceci sans compter les cas n’ayant fait l’objet ni d’un signalement ni d’un recensement.

Quatre catégories d’incidents différentes ont été déterminées en fonction de leur teneur : antisémitisme général (148 incidents), négation et banalisation de la Shoah (37), antisémitisme en rapport avec Israël (170) et
théories du complot antisémites contemporaines (222). Cette dernière catégorie des théories complotistes antisémites connaît une croissance importante à l’heure actuelle. Les théories les plus diverses et les plus
absurdes se combinent pour, en fin de compte, toutes aboutir à une prétendue « conspiration mondiale juive »
(voir chapitre 2.1).
Plus de 90 pour cent des incidents en ligne ont pour
origine les plateformes de médias sociaux Facebook et
Twitter. Cette tendance est corroborée par ce que l’on
sait d’une manière générale des propos haineux circulant sur les réseaux sociaux. Beaucoup moins nombreuses sont les entrées antisémites que l’on trouve
dans les colonnes de commentaires des sites des
journaux suisses, ce qui s’explique certainement par le
fait qu’elles sont généralement contrôlées avant d’être
publiées (voir chapitre 2.2).
On appelle « déclencheurs » des circonstances ou des
événements ayant pour effet, durant une période limitée, une augmentation massive du nombre d’incidents
antisémites : ils ont un impact considérable sur l’occurrence et le nombre d’incidents antisémites. Sur Internet
en particulier, nombreux sont les commentaires suscités
par un certain événement ou un reportage. Sur le plan
international, ils ont surtout pour cause des événements
au Proche-Orient. En Suisse, les articles de journaux
portant sur le procès intenté à l’extrémiste de droite Kevin G., un article du Blick sur l’antisémitisme musulman
et l’attaque au couteau d’un homme contre un groupe
de vacanciers juifs orthodoxes ont provoqué un nombre
particulièrement élevé de commentaires et de posts antisémites (voir chapitre 2.4).
Date: 2018
Abstract: ON NE PEUT RAISONNABLEMENT PAS PARLER DE BAISSE DE L’ANTISEMITISME

Le nombre d’ACTES antisémites (ACTIONS + MENACES) ayant donné lieu à un dépôt de plainte est passé de 335 en 2016 à 311 en 2017. Soit une baisse de 7%.

‣ Mais ce chiffre est faussement encourageant. Relevons certaines réalités qui doivent être prises en compte dans l’analyse:

Le nombre des ACTIONS antisémites (attentat ou tentative, homicide ou tentative, violence, incendie ou tentative, dégradation ou vandalisme) ayant donné lieu à un dépôt de plainte est passé de 77 en 2016 à 97 en 2017. Soit une hausse de 26%.

Parmi ces violences, notons l’assassinat sauvage de Sarah Halimi (z’l), une femme de 65 ans, à son domicile dans le 11ème arrondissement de Paris.

Le nombre des MENACES antisémites (propos / geste menaçant ou démonstration injurieuse, tract / courrier, inscription) a diminué de 17% en 2017 comparativement à 2016 (214 contre 258).

Précisons que plusieurs facteurs viennent relativiser cette baisse :

✓ La comptabilisation des MENACES n’inclut que quelques faits relevés sur Internet mais pas la pleine activité antisémite sur Internet. Or, la majeure partie des discours et propagandes antisémites a migré vers Internet ces
dernières années.
✓ Le curseur de l’antisémitisme en France est allé tellement loin, jusqu’au terrorisme, assassinant même des enfants, des vieilles dames, que les témoins ou victimes de « l’antisémitisme du quotidien » manifestent une
sorte de résignation et d’habituation. Ils ne déposent plus plainte pour des faits considérés comme « mineurs » comparativement aux violences physiques antisémites. Or ces mêmes actes du quotidien donnaient lieu à
des plaintes il y encore quelques années. Une partie de ces « signaux plus faibles » ne sont plus dénoncés alors que leur gravité et leurs conséquences désastreuses restent entières

De nombreuses victimes d’actes antisémites disent ne pas porter plainte par peur de représailles.
✓ De nombreuses victimes d’actes antisémites sont peu confiantes sur l’aboutissement d’une enquête et sur l’issue d’une procédure pénale.
Le nombre des MENACES antisémites ayant donné lieu à une plainte représente donc un volume très inférieur à la réalité.
En 2017, une augmentation très forte des ACTIONS antisémites (+26%) et une baisse « artificielle » des MENACES (-17%) conduisent à une vraie inquiétude et à la nécessité de plans d’action forts et immédiats en matière d’éducation, de prévention et de sanction.
‣ 1 acte raciste sur 3 commis en France en 2017 est dirigé contre un Juif. Rappelons que les Français juifs représentent moins de 1% de la population et subissent 33% des actes racistes.
‣ L'antisionisme et la haine d'Israël prolifèrent de façon décomplexée, voire admise. Ils oeuvrent comme des paravents masquant, voire légitimant l’antisémitisme. Comment mesurer et étudier un phénomène pour le combattre si on lui permet de se dissimuler ? Comment cautionner un délit par un autre délit ?
Author(s): Volovici, Leon
Date: 1994
Date: 2019