Abstract: Im Jahr 2021 stellten eine Reihe von Wissenschaftler_innen die „Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism“ (JDA) vor, eine Antisemitismus-Definition, die den Anspruch hat, die Arbeitsdefinition der International Holocaust Rembrance Alliance (IHRA) zu ersetzen. Das Working Paper unterzieht die politische Rahmung, die Kerndefinition und die 15 Leitlinien der JDA einer genauen Untersuchung. Es wird gefragt, ob die JDA Antisemitismus in einer Form beschreibt, der es staatlichen und zivilgesellschaftlichen Akteur_innen erlaubt, mit ihr Antisemitismus zu erkennen. Die genaue Lektüre zeigt, dass die JDA zentral geprägt ist von Leerstellen und Widersprüchen, die eine konfliktlose Anwendung nicht erlauben. Die Leerstellen und Widersprüche – u.a. ein unklarer Umgang mit Kontexten zur Einschätzung antisemitischer Aussagen o.ä., die Abgrenzung von Antisemitismus und Kritik an israelischer Politik oder
eine unklare Einordnung der Gleichsetzung Israels mit NS-Deutschland – stehen dabei zum Teil mit der politischen Rahmung der JDA in einem Verhältnis.
Abstract: Der Beitrag untersucht, inwiefern die Betrachtung von institutionellem Antisemitismus und von Antisemitismus in Institutionen hilfreich ist, um aktuelle antisemitische Dynamiken angemessen zu beschreiben. Er liefert konkrete
empirische Befunde dazu, wie Betroffene Antisemitismus in (ausgewählten) Institutionen erleben: Ausgehend von Interviews und zivilgesellschaftlich dokumentierten Vorfällen wird gezeigt, wie wirkmächtig entsprechende
antisemitische Erfahrungen für die Betroffenen sind. Auf der Grundlage des Forschungsstands und einer Begriffsbestimmung, die zwischen institutionellem Antisemitismus und Antisemitismus in Institutionen unterscheidet, wird die Bedeutung von Institutionen für antisemitische Dynamiken herausgestellt; dafür wird das Konzept der Gelegenheitsstrukturen erläutert und genutzt. Schilderungen aus qualitativen Interviews mit Jüdinnen_Juden verdeutlichen und konkretisieren, wie Betroffene Antisemitismus in Institutionen erleben und welche Rolle institutionelle Routinen, Regeln und Normen spielen. Der Beitrag argumentiert, dass der Blick darauf einen wichtigen Beitrag leistet, um gegenwärtigen Antisemitismus zu verstehen.
Abstract: In this policy paper:
Renowned demographer and President of JPR’s European Jewish Demography Unit Professor Sergio DellaPergola explores possible futures for the Jewish People over the next century, not by making precise predictions, but by identifying the core structural forces that have shaped Jewish history and will continue to do so. It highlights the enduring complexity of Jewish identity and existence, examining not only whether the Jewish People will endure but also in what form.
Some of the key findings and arguments in this policy paper:
Three enduring questions will shape the Jewish future: What defines Jewish identity? How is it transmitted? How do Jews relate to non-Jews as a minority? How does the Jewish collective organise and defend its shared interests?
Jewish existence will continue to rest on three interconnected pillars: Israel – a sovereign Jewish state, demographically strong but politically challenged; Diaspora – diverse minority communities, often influential but structurally vulnerable; the Israel–Diaspora relationship – a critical but fragile axis.
Three key dynamics affect Jewish demographics: Ageing and low fertility in most Diaspora communities; higher fertility in Israel, especially among more religious groups; and potential long-term transformation of the Jewish population’s internal composition.
Future migration patterns will depend heavily on political stability, economic conditions and levels of security and antisemitism.
Assimilation and identity erosion remain major challenges, while new forms of ‘joining’ Judaism may emerge.
Jews will continue to represent a tiny global minority, and Jewish life will continue to be shaped by external perceptions and pressures. At the same time, antisemitism is expected to persist in evolving forms.
Israel is likely to become home to the majority of the world’s Jews within decades. This shift will redefine the meaning of Jewish peoplehood, its cultural and political priorities and the power dynamics within global Jewry.
Rapid growth of more religious populations (particularly Haredim) may reshape economic structures, political systems and social cohesion.
Leadership capacity must include three key requirements: the ability to unite diverse segments of the Jewish People, a realistic assessment of challenges and opportunities, and the development of new or improved shared decision-making frameworks.
Abstract: Judenfeindschaft wird in der deutschen Gesellschaft offiziell geächtet. Jugendliche lassen sich ebenso ungern wie Erwachsene sagen, sie hätten Vorurteile, wären sich ihrer nur nicht bewusst. Deswegen kann es Gruppen wie ein unterschwelliger Vorwurf erscheinen, wenn TeamerInnen von außerhalb zu ihnen kommen, um mit ihnen einen Workshop gegen Antisemitismus durchzuführen. Es ist mitunter hilfreich, bei der Ankündigung des Workshops nicht von Antisemitismus zu sprechen, sondern ihn als Fortbildung zu den Ursachen des Rechtsextremismus anzukündigen. Der Schulunterricht über den Nationalsozialismus und die Lehren aus der Geschichte haben, wie die öffentlichen Debatten der vergangenen 15 Jahre, nicht nur dazu geführt, dass Menschen ihre Einstellungen selbstkritisch reflektierten, sondern auch dazu, dass sie lernen, was offiziell gewünscht ist. Das führt die pädagogische Arbeit gegen Antisemitismus in eine gefährliche Zwickmühle: einerseits judenfeindliche Vorstellungen zu überwinden, andererseits die latent vorhandenen Bilder und Denkweisen erst einmal hervorzulocken und erkennbar werden zu lassen.
Abstract: Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, welches Empathieverständnis sich für eine wirksame Antisemitismusprävention in öffentlichen Institutionen eignet, wenn die Rolle von Emotionen und affektiven Deutungsmustern im Antisemitismus ernst genommen und Empathie als wichtige Ressource professionellen Handelns verstanden wird. Dabei wird die professionelle Haltung von Staatsbediensteten in ihrem rollenspezifischen institutionellen Kontext in den Blick genommen, deren Verständnis im Beitrag auf der Grundlage eines reflexiven Professions- und Haltungsverständnisses entfaltet wird. Auf Basis aktueller empirischer Befunde zu antisemitischen Erfahrungen in Institutionen und zum Phänomen eines zunehmend tolerierten Antisemitismus wird gezeigt, dass kognitives Faktenwissen zwar eine notwendige Grundlage bildet, allein jedoch nicht ausreicht, um Betroffene zu schützen und verantwortliches Handeln im öffentlichen Dienst zu fördern.
Im Zentrum steht ein an Carl Rogers orientiertes Empathieverständnis, das Empathie als Teil einer Haltung konzipiert, die Selbstwahrnehmung, emotional anschlussfähiges Verstehen und kognitive Differenziertheit verbindet, ohne in eine Identifikation mit der anderen Person zu münden. Darauf aufbauend werden die personellen und prozessualen Bedingungen und Wirkfaktoren eines solchen Empathieverständnisses herausgearbeitet. Auf dieser Grundlage wird ein Modell empathisch-selbstreflexiver Professionalität weiterentwickelt und dargelegt, das die Verschränkung von Wissensbeständen, berufsethischen Anforderungen und emotionsreflexiven Lernprozessen beschreibt. Praxisorientierte Zugänge wie Focusing dienen dabei als Beispiel für Herangehensweisen, die emotionale Resonanzen bewusst machen und in Reflexionsprozesse über antisemitismuskritische Fragestellungen integrieren.
Es wird argumentiert, dass eine empathisch-selbstreflexive Professionalität Staatsbedienstete darin unterstützt, Ambivalenzen auszuhalten, für jüdisches Leben und Betroffenenperspektiven zu sensibilisieren und zugleich handlungs- und urteilsfähig zu bleiben. Damit wird ein konzeptioneller Rahmen für antisemitismuskritische Bildungsarbeit im öffentlichen Dienst skizziert, der fachliches Wissen mit einer auf kommunikativer Rationalität beruhenden Haltung verbindet.
Abstract: Not all children growing up in the charedi community are being denied secular education. However, many are. This paper sets out current loopholes and gaps in UK education policy and enforcement, and the implications for children, especially boys, growing up in the chassidic segment of the UK charedi community. We should note that similar issues arise in other countries with large chassidic communities.
However, irrespective of sex, or the type of institution, the systemic goal of the leadership in parts of the charedi community, is that the education in their schools should not provide children with access to a broad and balanced school education, nor access to further education. As a result, many charedi children are prevented from accessing the wider workforce, as there is no route to many career opportunities.
Restricting secular education limits the future autonomy of charedi boys due to lack of literacy, numeracy and recognised qualifications. For girls, the restriction on future autonomy is a consequence of the lack of access to KS5 qualifications and early arranged marriage, which can be socially coerced, and motherhood.
We have set out in this paper our suggested solutions; some of which would require primary legislation. Other solutions require secondary legislation, or simply improved oversight, enforcement and better funding.
We have set out the consequences of denial of secular education and lack of access to qualifications in addendum C. We have also set out more details on the diversity of the charedi community in addendum D. A glossary of Hebrew and Yiddish terms is set out in appendix 5.
Abstract: Postkoloniale und poststrukturalistische antirassistische Theorieansätze gewinnen weltweit einen immer größeren Einfluss an Universitäten, im Politik- und Kulturbetrieb sowie in sozialen Bewegungen. Das Bild, das prominente Vertreterinnen und Vertreter dieser Ansätze dabei von Antisemitismus und Holocaust einerseits, Judentum und Zionismus andererseits zeichnen, weist systematische Verzerrungen und Fehler auf: Unterschiedliche Formen und Radikalitätsgrade der begrifflichen Entspezifizierung oder Verharmlosung von Antisemitismus, der Relativierung der Shoah sowie der Dämonisierung Israels und des Zionismus sind dabei festzustellen. Die folgende Bibliographie bietet einen ersten Überblick über Kritiken an postkolonialen, bzw. postmodern-antirassistischen Deutungen von Antisemitismus, Shoah, Zionismus und Israel. Nicht alle der dabei aufgelisteten Texte sind grundlegende Kritiken an solchen Ansätzen. Manche kritisieren lediglich spezielle, aber signifikante Punkte der postkolonialen und antirassistischen Deutung der oben genannten Themen. Eine Liste mit ausgewählten kritischen Beiträgen zur 2020 begonnenen deutschen Feuilleton-Debatte über postkoloniale Theoretiker wie Achille Mbembe, Michael Rothberg oder Dirk Moses wurde ebenso angefügt wie einige Literaturhinweise zu Kritiken an der Israel-Boykottkampagne BDS, dem prominentesten politischen Bewegungskontext postkolonialer und antirassistisch artikulierter Angriffe auf den jüdischen Staat. Berücksichtigung fanden in Gestalt einer separaten Liste auch Kritiken an der sog. Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, weil diese als wesentlicher Versuch gewertet werden kann, ‚subalterne‘ oder ‚postkoloniale‘ Formen von israelbezogenem Antisemitismus zu verharmlosen.
Abstract: In Germany, pro-Palestine protests in the form of camps and institute occupations have occurred and continue to take place at universities. Antisemitic incidents have been reported at many of these protests. Following the initial data collection in December 2023, this report provides a new, focused, up-to-date assessment of the opinion climate in the context of the Middle East conflict and antisemitic attitudes at German universities. Exactly one year after the first report, the results of two recent surveys by the Higher Education Research Unit (AG Hochschulforschung) are summarized here. First, based on a large online survey conducted in December 2024 with over 1,800 students, we report on these students’ assessments of the conflict and antisemitic tendencies among them. This follows
on directly from the previous study mentioned earlier (Hinz et al., 2024), enabling us to describe possible changes compared to last year. In some places, we also examine the assessments and attitudes of students compared to a sample from the general population. Second, we present the results of a simultaneous survey of university rectorates on antisemitic incidents and the universities' reactions to these incidents. At the invitation of the German Rectors’ Conference (HRK), a total of 94 university management teams took part in this separate online survey.
The results indicate that universities have been strongly affected by antisemitic incidents and that antisemitic resentment remains at a constant level. A high level of vigilance is still required, particularly
with regards to Israel-related antisemitism
Abstract: What drives antisemitic hostility in the 21st century? Competing theoretical frameworks provide different answers: the generalist framework views antisemitism as a manifestation of general outgroup hostility common to various
forms of prejudice, while the particularist framework posits that antisemitism today is distinctively linked to antizionist sentiment—enmity toward Zionism, Israel, and its supporters. This study evaluates these frameworks through a comparative, longitudinal case study of antisemitic hostility in Germany, Sweden, and Russia (1990–2020), using a mixed-methods approach to integrate incident counts, victimization surveys, media analysis, and expert interviews. Findings suggest that the particularist framework better explains observed patterns of variation in antisemitic hostility, with flare-ups in the Middle East conflict generating or catalyzing antisemitic hostility in other societies depending on the strength of local antizionist sentiment. The results support new directions
in prejudice research that differentiate between generalized and group-specific forms of hostility, where the latter are highly context-dependent.
Abstract: The spread of hate speech and anti-Semitic content has become endemic to social media. Faced
with a torrent of violent and offensive content, nations in Europe have begun to take measures to
remove such content from social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. However, these
measures have failed to curtail the spread, and possible impact of anti-Semitic content. Notably,
violence breeds violence and calls for action against Jewish minorities soon lead to calls for
violence against other ethnic or racial minorities. Online anti-Semitism thus drives social tensions
and harms social cohesion. Yet the spread of online anti-Semitism also has international
ramifications as conspiracy theories and disinformation campaigns now often focus on WWII and
the Holocaust.
On Nov 29, 2019, the Oxford Digital Diplomacy Research Group (DigDiploROx) held a one-day
symposium at the European Commission in Brussels. The symposium brought together diplomats,
EU officials, academics and civil society organizations in order to search for new ways to combat
the rise in online anti-Semitism. This policy brief offers an overview of the day’s discussions, the
challenges identified and a set of solutions that may aid nations looking to stem the flow of antiSemitic content online. Notably, these solutions, or recommendations, are not limited to the realm
of anti-Semitism and can to help combat all forms of discrimination, hate and bigotry online.
Chief among these recommendations is the need for a multi-stakeholder solution that brings
together governments, multilateral organisations, academic institutions, tech companies and
NGOs. For the EU itself, there is a need to increase collaborations between units dedicated to
fighting online crime, terrorism and anti-Semitism. This would enable the EU to share skills,
resources and working procedures. Moreover, the EU must adopt technological solutions, such as
automation, to identify, flag and remove hateful content in the quickest way possible. The EU
could also redefine its main activities - rather than combat incitement to violence online, it may
attempt to tackle incitement to hate, given that hate metastases online to calls for violence.
Finally, the EU should deepen its awareness to the potential harm of search engines. These offer
access to content that has already been removed by social media companies. Moreover, search
engines serve as a gateway to hateful content. The EU should thus deepen is collaborations with
companies such as Google and Yahoo, and not just Facebook or Twitter. It should be noted that
social media companies opted not to take part in the symposium demonstrating that the solution
to hate speech and rising anti-Semitism may be in legislation and not just in collaboration.
The rest of this brief consists of five parts. The first offers an up-to-date analysis of the prevalence
of anti-Semitic content online. The second, discuss the national and international implications of
this prevalence. The third part stresses the need for a multi-stakeholder solution while the fourth
offers an overview of the presentations made at the symposium. The final section includes a set
of policy recommendations that should be adopted by the EU and its members states.
Abstract: Amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, antisemitic scapegoating has surfaced, giving ammunition to antisemites and extremists looking for someone to blame. Online, memes have been circulating espousing antisemitism, whilst offline, several public figures and others in the public eye have alluded to Jews being the cause of the pandemic. Blame and scapegoating of Jews is not new, and it didn’t take long for antisemitism to mutate. Concerning coronavirus, Jews have not been the primary target for hatred. Anti-Chinese messages are being shared online, with references to the “Chinese flu”, the “Wuhan virus” and the “kung flu”. This collective blame leading to denigration
of, and attacks on, people of Chinese descendent, is reminiscent the collective blame in antisemitic conspiracy theories. This briefing highlights several examples of scapegoating of Jews for earlier global pandemics and addresses Covid related antisemitism in the United Kingdom and globally.
Abstract: Developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI) are prompting governments across the globe, and experts from across multiple sectors, to future proof society. In the UK, Ministers have published a discussion paper on the capabilities, opportunities and risks presented by frontier artificial intelligence. The document outlines that whilst AI has many benefits, it can act as a simple, accessible and cheap tool for the dissemination of disinformation, and could be misused by terrorists to enhance their capabilities. The document warns that AI technology will become so advanced and realistic, that it will be nearly impossible to distinguish deep fakes and other fake content from real content. AI could also be used to incite violence and reduce people’s trust in true information.
It is clear that mitigating risks from AI will become the next great challenge for governments, and for society.
Of all the possible risks, the Antisemitism Policy Trust is focused on the development of systems that facilitate
the promotion, amplification and sophistication of discriminatory and racist content, that is material
that can incite hatred of and harm to Jewish people.
This briefing explores how AI can be used to spread antisemitism. It also shows that AI can offer benefits
in combating antisemitism online and discusses ways to mitigate the risks of AI in relation to anti-Jewish
racism. We set out our recommendations for action, including the development of system risk assessments,
transparency and penalties for any failure to act.
Abstract: As a consequence of the Holocaust, Israel’s security is officially regarded as part of Germany’s
“reason of state”. Yet the criteria for a responsible relationship between Germany and Israel are by
no means self-evident or without logical or practical contradictions. One of the complications is
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In order to better understand this complication, I examine two
familiar national narratives, one from each side, about possible connections between the Nazi era,
the Holocaust, and this conflict. I also put the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a broader historical
context. It turns out that the examined relationships are not as obvious as the familiar narratives
describe them. The origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are older than the Nazi era and the
Holocaust, and they also point to broader European responsibilities more generally, to Europe’s
nationalism, anti-Semitism, colonialism and imperialism – with irresponsibilities towards both
Jews and Arabs. In no way does such a comprehensive perspective affect Germany’s special historical responsibilities resulting from the Holocaust. But it puts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a
more complete and also more honest framework, with consequences for Germany’s moral and
political position
