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).
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.
Abstract: Antisemitisme.be recense, depuis l’année 2001, les actes antisémites commis sur l’ensemble du territoire belge et, chaque année, publie un rapport sur l’antisémitisme en Belgique.Dans ce document, vous découvrirez la liste de tous les incidents recensés, notre méthodologie de travail, ainsi qu’une analyse de l’année écoulée.
Les incidents recensés et analysés dans ce rapport sont ceux qui nous ont été communiqués ou qui ont fait l’objet d’une plainte pour racisme. Les chiffres repris dans cette analyse reflètent bien sûr une tendance et non une photographie exacte dans l’antisémitisme en Belgique.
Tant que les membres de la Communauté juive se sentiront, à juste titre, en insécurité, tant que les institutions juives auront besoin d’être protégées, tant qu’ils ne pourront pas circuler comme tout citoyen belge en toute sécurité lorsqu’il arbore un signe apparent de judaïté (kippa, étoile de David…), l’antisémitisme devra être combattu et les autorités politiques devront y mettre tous les moyens.
Abstract: This report presents the main findings of FRA’s second survey on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of hate crime, discrimination and antisemitism. It analyses data from the responses of 16,395 selfidentified Jewish people (aged 16 or over) in 12 EU Member States – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. These Member States are home to over 96 % of the EU’s estimated Jewish population. In addition to the 12 EU Member States mentioned above, FRA also carried out the survey in Latvia. Due to the low response level to the online dissemination campaign in Latvia, changes in recruitment methodology and data collection were applied. While the survey was able to reach more respondents in this way, the changes in the respondent recruitment and data collection methods limit the scope for comparisons between Latvia and the other survey countries.
Topics: Antisemitism, Fundraising and Philanthropy, Israel Attachment, Jewish Continuity, Religious Denominations, Security, Surveys, Jewish Leadership, Jewish Organisations, Main Topic: Identity and Community, Jewish Identity
Abstract: The Fourth Survey of European Jewish Community Leaders and Professionals, 2018 presents the results of an online survey offered in 10 languages and administered to 893 respondents in 29 countries. Conducted every three years using the same format, the survey seeks to identify trends and their evolution in time.
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.
Abstract: The robbery and restitution of Jewish property are two inextricably linked social processes. It is not possible to understand the lawsuits and international agreements on the restoration of Jewish property of the late 1990s without examining what was robbed and by whom. In this volume distinguished historians first outline the mechanisms and scope of the European-wide program of plunder and then assess the effectiveness and historical implications of post-war restitution efforts. Everywhere the solution of legal and material problems was intertwined with changing national myths about the war and conflicting interpretations of justice. Even those countries that pursued extensive restitution programs using rigorous legal means were unable to compensate or fully comprehend the scale of Jewish loss. Especially in Eastern Europe, it was not until the collapse of communism that the concept of restoring some Jewish property rights even became a viable option. Integrating the abundance of new research on the material effects of the Holocaust and its aftermath, this comparative perspective examines the developments in Germany, Poland, Italy, France, Belgium, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
CONTENTS
List of Abbreviations
Preface
Part I: Introduction
Introduction: A History without Boundaries: The Robbery and Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe
Constantin Goschler and Philipp Ther
Part II: The Robbery of Jewish Property in Comparative Perspective
Chapter 1. The Seizure of Jewish Property in Europe: Comparative Aspects of Nazi Methods and Local Responses
Martin Dean
Chapter 2. Aryanization and Restitution in Germany
Frank Bajohr
Chapter 3. The Looting of Jewish Property in Occupied Western Europe: A Comparative Study of Belgium, France, and the Netherlands
Jean-Marc Dreyfus
Chapter 4. The Robbery of Jewish Property in Eastern Europe under German Occupation, 1939–1942
Dieter Pohl
Chapter 5. The Robbery of Jewish Property in Eastern European States Allied with Nazi Germany
Tatjana Tönsmeyer
Part III: The Restitution of Jewish Property in Comparative Perspective
Chapter 6. West Germany and the Restitution of Jewish Property in Europe
Jürgen Lillteicher
Chapter 7. Jewish Property and the Politics of Restitution in Germany after 1945
Constantin Goschler
Chapter 8. Two Approaches to Compensation in France: Restitution and Reparation
Claire Andrieu
Chapter 9. The Expropriation of Jewish Property and Restitution in Belgium
Rudi van Doorslaer
Chapter 10. Indifference and Forgetting: Italy and its Jewish Community, 1938–1970
Ilaria Pavan
Chapter 11. “Why Switzerland?” – Remarks on a Neutral’s Role in the Nazi Program of Robbery and Allied Postwar Restitution Policy
Regula Ludi
Chapter 12. The Hungarian Gold Train: Fantasies of Wealth and the Madness of Genocide
Ronald W. Zweig
Chapter 13. Reluctant Restitution: The Restitution of Jewish Property in the Bohemian Lands after the Second World War
Eduard Kubu and Jan Kuklík Jr.
Chapter 14. The Polish Debate on the Holocaust and the Restitution of Property
Dariusz Stola
Part IV: Concluding Remarks
Conclusion: Reflections on the Restitution and Compensation of Holocaust Theft: Past, Present, and Future
Gerald D. Feldman
Notes on Contributors
Select Bibliography
Index
Abstract: The ways in which memories of the Holocaust have been communicated, represented and used have changed dramatically over the years. From such memories being neglected and silenced in most of Europe until the 1970s, each country has subsequently gone through a process of cultural, political and pedagogical awareness-rising. This culminated in the ’Stockholm conference on Holocaust commemoration’ in 2000, which resulted in the constitution of a task force dedicated to transmitting and teaching knowledge and awareness about the Holocaust on a global scale. The silence surrounding private memories of the Holocaust has also been challenged in many families. What are the catalysts that trigger a change from silence to discussion of the Holocaust? What happens when we talk its invisibility away? How are memories of the Holocaust reflected in different social environments? Who asks questions about memories of the Holocaust, and which answers do they find, at which point in time and from which past and present positions related to their societies and to the phenomenon in question? This book highlights the contexts in which such questions are asked. By introducing the concept of ’active memory’, this book contributes to recent developments in memory studies, where memory is increasingly viewed not in isolation but as a dynamic and relational part of human lives.
Contents: Introduction: the Holocaust as active memory; Linking religion and family memories of children hidden in Belgian convents during the Holocaust, Suzanne Vromen; Collective trajectory and generational work in families of Jewish displaced persons: epistemological processes in the research situation, Lena Inowlocki; In a double voice: representations of the Holocaust in Polish literature, 1980-2011, Dorota Glowacka; Winners once a year? How Russian-speaking Jews in Germany make sense of WWII and the Holocaust as part of transnational biographic experience, Julia Bernstein; Women’s peace activism and the Holocaust: reversing the hegemonic Holocaust discourse in Israel, Tova Benski and Ruth Katz; ’The history, the papers, let me see it!’ Compensation processes: the second generation between archive truth and family speculations, Nicole L. Immler; From rescue to escape in 1943: on a path to de-victimizing the Danish Jews. Sofie Lene Bak; Finland, the Vernichtungskrieg and the Holocaust, Oula Silvennoinen; Swedish rescue operations during the Second World War: accomplishments and aftermath, Ulf Zander; The social phenomenon of silence, Irene Levin; Index.
Abstract: There is a persistent claim that new migrants to Europe, and specifically migrants from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA migrants), carry antisemitism with them. This assertion is made to different degrees in different countries and can take different forms. Nevertheless, in Europe, the association of rising antisemitism with migrants from the Middle East and North Africa
is widespread and needs to be evaluated.
MENA migrants have been symbolically central to the migration debate since 2011. These years have been framed by the Arab spring and its aftermath and by Europe’s crisis of refugee protection. This research project has focused specifically on MENA migrants, in response to the intensity of this debate, and in accordance with the brief from Foundation EVZ. The central concern of the research project has been to investigate whether the arrival of MENA migrants since 2011 has had an impact on antisemitic attitudes and behaviour in Western Europe. This report deals with the case of Belgium. The report also considers whether government and civil society agencies have identified a problem of antisemitism among MENA migrants. The findings are based on an extensive survey of existing quantitative and qualitative evidence. Additionally, new qualitative research has been undertaken to investigate the experiences and opinions of a range of actors.
This national report contributes to a larger research project conducted in 2016/2017 across five European countries – Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. A final report, Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: is there a connection? Findings and recommendations from a five-nation study, draws out common trends, makes comparisons and provides recommendations for civil society organizations and for governments.
Abstract: Das zentrale Anliegen dieses Forschungsprojektes war es, zu ermitteln, ob sich die Immigration aus der Region Nahost und Nordafrika seit 2011 auf antisemitische Einstellungen und Verhaltensweisen in Westeuropa auswirkt. Dieser kurze Bericht stellt eine Zusammenführung fünf einzelner nationaler Berichte (zu Belgien, Frankreich, Deutschland, den Niederlanden und dem Vereinigten Königreich) dar und präsentiert die Ergebnisse und Empfehlungen, die sich aus dem Projekt als Ganzes ergeben.
Der Bericht:
• untersucht die aktuelle Zuwanderung aus Ländern der MENA-Region nach Westeuropa
• bietet einen Überblick über das Ausmaß und die Quellen des Antisemitismus im heutigen Westeuropa
• bietet eine Einschätzung der Einstellungen von MENA-Migranten sowie der Ängste, die sie teilweise hervorrufen
• untersucht die Berechtigung von Behauptungen, dass die wachsende Zahl an MENA-Migranten in Westeuropa den Antisemitismus fördert
• enthält Handlungsempfehlungen für Regierungen und zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen und hebt Bereiche hervor, in denen weitere Untersuchungen erforderlich sind, um unser Wissen und Verständnis zu erweitern.
Abstract: JPR’s report, European Jewish identity: Mosaic or monolith? An empirical assessment of eight European countries, authored by Senior Research Fellow Dr David Graham, asks whether there is such a thing as a European Jewish identity, and, if so, what it looks like.
The question of whether there is a Jewish identity that is at once common to all European Jews but also peculiar to them, has intrigued scholars of contemporary Jewry since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This study contrasts the European picture with the two major centres of world Jewry, the United States and Israel, and examines the nature and content of Jewish identity across Europe, exploring the three core pillars of belief, belonging and behaviour around which Jewish identity is built.
This research was made possible by the advent of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey in 2012 examining Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitism across nine EU Member States: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Sweden and the UK. As well as gathering data about antisemitism, the study investigated various aspects of the Jewishness of respondents, in order to ascertain whether different types of Jews perceive and experience antisemitism differently. This study focuses on the data gathered about Jewishness, thereby enabling direct comparisons to be made for the first time across multiple European Jewish communities in a robust and comprehensive way.
The report concludes that there is no monolithic European identity, but it explores in detail the mosaic of Jewish identity in Europe, highlighting some key differences:
• In Belgium, where Jewish parents are most likely to send their children to Jewish schools, there is a unique polarisation between the observant and non-observant;
• In France, Jews exhibit the strongest feelings of being part of the Jewish People, and also have the strongest level of emotional attachment to Israel;
• Germany’s Jewish community has the largest proportion of foreign-born Jews, and, along with Hungary, is the youngest Jewish population;
• In Hungary the greatest relative weight in Jewish identity priorities is placed on 'Combating antisemitism,' and the weakest level of support for Israel is exhibited;
• In Italy, respondents are least likely to report being Jewish by birth or to have two Jewish parents;
• The Jews of Latvia are the oldest population and the most likely to be intermarried;
• The Jews of Sweden attach a very high level of importance to 'Combating antisemitism' despite being relatively unlikely to experience it, and they observe few Jewish practices;
• In the United Kingdom, Jews observe the most religious practices and appear to feel the least threatened by antisemitism. They are the most likely to be Jewish by birth and least likely to be intermarried.
According to report author, Dr David Graham: “This report represents far more than the culmination of an empirical assessment of Jewish identity. Never before has it been possible to examine Jewish identity across Europe in anything approaching a coherent and systematic way. Prior to the FRA’s survey, it was almost inconceivable that an analysis of this kind could be carried out at all. The formidable obstacles of cost, language, political and logistical complexity seemed to present impenetrable barriers to the realisation of any such dream. Yet this is exactly what has been achieved, a report made possible through an FRA initiative into furthering understanding of Jewish peoples' experience of antisemitism. It reveals a European Jewry that is more mosaic than monolith, an array of Jewish communities, each exhibiting unique Jewish personas, yet united by geography and a common cultural heritage."
Abstract: Antisemitisme.be recense, depuis l’année 2001, les actes antisémites commis sur l’ensemble du territoire belge et, chaque année, publie un rapport sur l’antisémitisme en Belgique.Dans ce document, vous découvrirez la liste de tous les incidents recensés, notre méthodologie de travail, ainsi qu’une analyse de l’année écoulée.
Les incidents recensés et analysés dans ce rapport sont ceux qui nous ont été communiqués ou qui ont fait l’objet d’une plainte pour racisme. Les chiffres repris dans cette analyse reflètent bien sûr une tendance et non une photographie exacte dans l’antisémitisme en Belgique.
Tant que les membres de la Communauté juive se sentiront, à juste titre, en insécurité, tant que les institutions juives auront besoin d’être protégées, tant qu’ils ne pourront pas circuler comme tout citoyen belge en toute sécurité lorsqu’il arbore un signe apparent de judaïté (kippa, étoile de David…), l’antisémitisme devra être combattu et les autorités politiques devront y mettre tous les moyens.
Abstract: Feminist research into the position and participation of women in contemporary fundamentalist and traditionalist identity movements shows how essentialist ideologies of sexual difference are often deployed in critique of western secular liberal feminism. In this article the author draws a comparison between discourses of belonging according to studies of ba'alot teshuvahin the USA (female “returnees” to an Orthodox Jewish lifestyle), and her own interviews with “frumfrom birth” women (raised as haredi) in the strictly Orthodox Jewish community of Antwerp, Belgium. Whereas for the former, a rhetoric of choice, essentialism, and religious ideologies of female superiority appeared important, for the frum-born women, gender is more a question of orthopraxis and religious role equivalence. Nevertheless, the author argues that for the strictly Orthodox Jewish diasporic community in question, an increase in gender conservatism, with particular notions of female sexuality and modesty, goes hand in hand with isolationism vis-à-vis the surrounding secular society.
Abstract: Antisemitism can be expressed in the form of verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, property damage and graffiti or other forms of speech or text, including on the internet. Antisemitic incidents and hate crime violate fundamental rights, including the right to human dignity, the right to equality of treatment and the freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
This annual overview compiles the available evidence on antisemitic incidents collected by governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2006– 31 December 2016, where data are available. In addition, it includes a section that presents evidence from international organisations. No official data on reported antisemitic incidents in 2016 were available for 11 Member States by the time this report was compiled in September 2017.
‘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.
Abstract: This paper analyzes the challenges embedded in the conflict between the right to accessible education, which implies a prohibition on discriminatory practices in school admission, and the right to adaptable education, which accommodates children’s cultural affiliations. It shows that a normative lens, which examines the ways by which legal rules correspond to conflicting rights and interests, cannot fully capture the tension between legal prohibitions on discrimination in education and the sociocultural norms in religious communities. Thus, the paper offers a socio-legal lens, which focuses on the context of admission policies to Jewish religious schools. Based on three test cases of admission policies to Jewish religious schools in Israel, England, and Flanders, Belgium, the paper demonstrates how the legal rules regulating the admission policies are influenced by social forces. In Israel and England, these forces have facilitated a descent down slippery slope, originating with religious criteria, but concluding with discriminatory criteria. They also shaped admission practices reflecting the asymmetric power relations between the institutional school systems and individual families. The paper highlights the benefits of the Belgian policy, which proscribes religious classification of school candidates. This policy circumvents the ambiguous distinction between religion, ethnicity, and social class, and expands educational choices.
Abstract: Contemporary works have shown that antisemitism is far from moribund in Europe and it is in this context that in 2012 was conducted extensive research in the EU on current perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in Europe. I present and analyze here results that relate specifically to Belgian Jews (438 subjects out of 6,200 in eight countries). The first objective of this work is to learn about the Jewishness of our sample. Hence, we find that 40% of the respondents identify themselves as secular Jews; 15% consider themselves liberals; more than a quarter say they “observe certain traditions”; one sixth define themselves as Orthodox Jews. The data confirm, at this point, that there is only a limited correlation between religiosity and Jewishness: less religious or even non-religious people tend to express an identification with, and commitment to, Jewishness that were not weaker than the Orthodox’. The various factions are also united by a general feeling that while Belgium cannot be considered as an antisemitic state, it is currently experiencing virulent antisemitism in wide milieus. This antisemitism is bound to a sharp anti-Israelism salient in public life, the media, and the Internet. More than a number of other communities in Europe, Belgian Jews see antisemitism reigning in their environment with a gravity. They testify that the Israel-Palestine conflict weighs on their sense of insecurity; they confess that they have often considered the option of emigrating and they openly accuse Muslim extremists of inciting antisemitism. Belgian Jews also feel more vulnerable to antisemitic attacks and tend to resent a weakening in their position in society. On the other hand, what grants support to the Belgian Jews in these circumstances is that they often belong to the properous segments of the population. Moreover, there is the vitality of the community where one finds multiple forms of expression and activity - magazines, radio, clubs, synagogues, museums, etc.- and above all, exceptional educational infrastructures. These resources allow Belgian Jews, if not to protect themselves against the virus of antisemitism, at least to face it.
Abstract: Ce rapport contient:
une comparaison des actes antisémites pour les années 2000 à 2003;
le total des actes antisémites pour l’année 2003;
le total des incidents par type d’incident;
le total des incidents par type de cible;
le total des incidents par ville.
Analyse des incidents recensés en Belgique depuis le 1erjanvier 2003
28 actes à caractère antisémite ont été recensés en Belgique depuis le 1er janvier 2003.
Le nombre d’incidents à fortement diminué par rapport à celui de l’année dernière, puisqu’à la même époque, 62 d’incidents avaient été perpétrés à l’encontre de la communauté juive de Belgique, soit plus du double.
Nous avions établi la relation entre les incidents survenant en Belgique à la suite de l’actualité au Proche Orient.
La population belge étant lassée d’entendre parler de ce problème, elle s’est intéressée à d’autres thématiques telles que la guerre en Irak et les problèmes socio-économiques nationaux, ce qui peut expliquer la chute du nombre d’incidents au cours de cette année 2003.
Au sujet des actes à caractère antisémite que nous avons recensé depuis 11 mois, ceux-ci sont principalement composés d’agressions, d’insultes et de menaces faites à l’encontre des membres de la Communauté juive. Les bâtiments communautaires représentent ensuite la deuxième cible. Viennent alors la dégradation de biens appartenant à des membres de la communauté juive, un attentat à la bombe, la découverte d’un colis suspect, des graffitis, la profanation de tombes juives, la découverte de cocktails molotovs, des tentatives de pénétrations dans des bâtiments communautaires, ainsi que de nombreuses prises de renseignement.
Abstract: Ce rapport contient:
une comparaison des actes antisémites pour les années 2000 à 2004;
le total des actes antisémites pour l’année 2004;
le total des incidents par type d’incident;
le total des incidents par type de cible;
le total des incidents par ville.
Analyse des incidents antisémites recensés au cours de l’année 2004
Du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2004, 46 incidents antisémites ont été recensés en Belgique.
Les villes les plus touchées sont Anvers et Bruxelles, suivent Knokke, Gand, Charleroi et Hasselt.
Deux constats clairs peuvent être mis en avant pour cette année 2004:
Le premier est l’augmentation importante d’incidents à Anvers. Alors qu’en 2002, sur les 62 incidents recensés, 7 seulement ont été perpétrés à Anvers et que, pour l’année 2003, on n’en a compté que 3 sur 28, en 2004, 20 incidents antisémites ont été recensés sur le territoire de la province d’Anvers.
Quant au second constat, il pointe la différence claire de nature des incidents antisémites entre la ville d’Anvers et les autres villes du pays. Alors que les actes antisémites perpétrés sont principalement des insultes, menaces ou actes de vandalisme dans les autres villes, 7 des 9 agressions antisémites recensées en Belgique ont été commises à Anvers, dont le plus grave fut le coup de couteau dans le dos reçu par un jeune étudiant d’une yeshiva.
Ces constats ne relèvent aucunement du hasard et plusieurs raisons peuvent être avancées pour le confirmer. Tout d’abord, la grande majorité des victimes d’actes antisémites à Anvers sont les juifs orthodoxes. Ceux-ci sont victimes de bien plus d’actes antisémites que ceux recensés. Seulement, ces victimes ne réagissent que très peu. Ce n’est que grâce à un travail de sensibilisation des organisations juives anversoises que les victimes issues de cette communauté isolée prennent maintenant de plus en plus l’initiative de déposer plainte. En outre, les victimes d’agressions sont reconnaissables en tant que juives de part leur habillement (chapeau noir, kaftan noir, papillotes…) et constituent par conséquent une cible beaucoup plus facilement repérable pour les auteurs d’agression. Enfin, l’AEL (Arab European League) est bien implantée dans les milieux arabes anversois. Ses nombreux communiqués sur l’actualité au Proche-Orient, visant à combattre l’ennemi sioniste et à stigmatiser la ville d’Anvers comme la capitale du sionisme européen, devant, à leurs yeux, devenir la Mecque du combat pour la liberté du peuple palestinien, importent le conflit et amènent des jeunes souvent désoeuvrés à commettre de tels actes.
Enfin, les cibles restent à près de 75% des personnes physiques. Les bâtiments communautaires (centres, synagogues, musées) ont subis 5 actes de vandalisme ou menaces, tandis que les lieux publics ont fait l’objet de 4 actes de vandalisme (croix gammées, etc…).
Abstract: Ce rapport contient:
une analyse générale;
une comparaison des actes antisémites pour les années 2000 à 2006;
le total des actes antisémites pour l’année 2006;
le total des incidents par type d’incident;
le total des incidents par type de cible;
ainsi que le total des incidents par ville.
Analyse des incidents antisémites recensés au cours de l’année 2005
Du 1er janvier au 31 décembre 2005, 60 incidents antisémites ont été recensés en Belgique. Les villes les plus touchées sont Bruxelles et Anvers, suivent la région du Brabant wallon (banlieue sud de Bruxelles), Knokke, Namur et Eupen. Certains actes touchent plus largement toute la Belgique de par la spécificité du support (presse écrite, internet…).
Deux constats clairs peuvent être mis en avant pour cette année 2005 et confirment clairement les tendances rencontrées en 2004.
Le premier est le maintient d’un nombre important d’incidents à Anvers. Alors qu’en 2002, sur les 62 incidents recensés, 7 seulement ont été perpétrés à Anvers et que, pour l’année 2003, on n’en a compté que 3 sur 28, en 2004, 20 incidents antisémites ont été recensés sur Anvers et 19 nouveaux ont pu être enregistrés pour l’année 2005.
Quant au second constat, il pointe la différence claire de la nature des incidents antisémites entre Anvers et les autres villes du pays. Sur la base des incidents recensés, 75% des attaques sur les personnes ont été perpétrées à l’encontre de membres de la Communauté juive anversoise. A Bruxelles, on relève par contre une grande augmentation des actes de vandalisme (croix gammées, celtiques…).
Ces constats ne relèvent aucunement du hasard et plusieurs raisons peuvent être avancées pour le confirmer. Tout d’abord, la grande majorité des victimes d’actes antisémites à Anvers sont les juifs orthodoxes. Ceux-ci sont victimes de bien plus d’actes antisémites que ceux recensés. Seulement, ces victimes ne réagissent que très peu. Ce n’est que grâce à un travail de sensibilisation des organisations juives anversoises que les victimes issues de de la communauté orthodoxe prennent maintenant de plus en plus l’initiative de déposer plainte. Cette tranche de la communauté est plus facilement reconnaissable en tant que juive de par l’habillement de ses membres et constitue par conséquent une cible beaucoup plus facilement repérable pour les auteurs d’agression. Enfin, l’AEL (Arab European League) est très bien implantée dans la Communauté arabo-musulmane anversoise. Ses nombreux communiqués sur l’actualité au Proche-Orient, visant à combattre l’ennemi sioniste et à stigmatiser Anvers comme la capitale du sionisme européen, devant, à leurs yeux, devenir la Mecque du combat pour la liberté du peuple palestinien, importent le conflit et amènent des jeunes habilement manipulés à commettre de tels actes.
Le nombre d’actes antisémites peut paraître élevé puisqu’il égale presque les 62 actes recensés en 2002, année où s’est déroulée en Israël l’« Opération Rempart », opération qui a fait des vagues partout dans le monde et a, entre autres en Belgique et en France, été prétexte à l’importation du conflit et au passage à l’acte antisémite de certains au nom de l’antisionisme. Le nombre élevé d’actes antisémites ne signifie pas pour autant qu’il y a une augmentation de l’antisémitisme en Belgique mais est plutôt le résultat d’une meilleure communication des incidents et d’une meilleure collaboration avec les autorités compétentes.
Enfin, au niveau politique, deux résolutions du Sénat et du Parlement bruxellois ont été adoptées afin de demander aux autorités compétentes de réagir plus fermement contre l’antisémitisme, en poursuivant de façon systématique les auteurs d’actes antisémites, négationnistes et révisionnistes. Il est également demandé aux autorités compétentes de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour assurer la protection nécessaire et indispensable des membres des diverses communautés dans le cadre de leurs pratiques religieuses ou lors de la fréquentation de leurs écoles et de leurs lieux communautaires. En 2004, l’ancienne ministre de l’Egalité des Chances, Marie Arena, avait déjà, suite à plusieurs actes antisémites graves, présenté un plan en 10 points pour lutter contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme. Toutes ces initiatives doivent encore être concrétisées dans les faits…
