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: Denne rapport beskriver og analyserer antallet af registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark i 2016. Rapporten er udarbejdet på grundlag af anmeldelser til AKVAH, der udgør en del af Det Jødiske Samfunds sikkerhedsorganisation.
AKVAH har i 2016 registreret 22 antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark fordelt på følgende kategorier: Forsøg på drab, trusler, antisemitiske ytringer, hærværk og anden chikane. Hændelserne fordeler sig på ét tilfælde af forsøg på drab, to tilfælde af trusler, 17 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer, et tilfælde af hærværk og et tilfælde af anden chikane. Ud af de 22 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser er der tre hændelser, hvor det er vurderet, at de alene kan betegnes som potentielt antisemitiske.
De 22 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i 2016 er fire hændelser færre end antallet af
registrerede hændelser i 2015, der var på 26. Den eneste stigning i antallet af registrerede hændelser er sket inden for kategorien antisemitiske ytringer. I 2015 registrerede AKVAH 11 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer, som var den største hændelsesgruppe i det daværende år. Dette antal steg i 2016 til 17 registrerede tilfælde. Kategorien udgør således stadigvæk den største hændelsesgruppe.
Antallet af trusler, antallet af overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane samt antallet af hærværkshændelser er derimod faldet. I 2015 blev der registreret syv tilfælde af trusler, mens der i 2016 blev registreret to tilfælde. Ligeledes blev der i 2015 registreret fire tilfælde af overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, mens der i 2016 ikke er blevet registreret sådanne tilfælde.
Der er også sket et fald i antallet af hærværksepisoder. I 2016 blev der registreret et tilfælde af hærværk, hvilket er et fald på to tilfælde i forhold til 2015. I både 2015 og 2016 er der blevet registreret ét tilfælde af kategorien drab og drabsforsøg. Generelt set er der registeret et samlet fald i antallet af ”grovere” antisemitiske hændelser fra 2015 til 2016.
Abstract: Denne rapport beskriver og analyserer antallet af registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark i 2015. Rapporten er udarbejdet på grundlag af anmeldelser til AKVAH, der udgør en del af Det Jødiske Samfunds sikkerhedsorganisation.
Året 2015 er særligt, fordi det omfatter terrorangrebet på Københavns Synagoge. Natten mellem den 14. og 15. februar blev dansk-jødiske Dan Uzan myrdet af terroristen Omar El-Hussein, der havde palæstinensisk baggrund. AKVAH har ikke tidligere registreret antisemitisk motiverede mord, og det er så vidt vides første gang siden Anden Verdenskrig, at en jøde har mistet livet i Danmark, alene fordi vedkommende var jøde.
AKVAH har i 2015 registreret 26 antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark fordelt på følgende kategorier: Drab, overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, trusler, antisemitiske ytringer og hærværk. Hændelserne fordeler sig på ét tilfælde af drab, fire tilfælde, der kan kategoriseres som overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, syv tilfælde af trusler, 11 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer
og tre tilfælde af hærværk. Ud af de 26 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser er der to hændelser, hvor det er vurderet, at de alene kan betegnes som potentielt antisemitiske. Der er desuden én af de 26 registrerede hændelser, hvor det ikke har været muligt at afgrænse gerningstidspunktet til en specifik måned.
Det registrerede antal af antisemitiske hændelser i 2015 på 26 er 28 hændelser mindre end antallet af registrerede hændelser i 2014, der var på 54. Der er altså registreret omkring 50 % færre hændelser i 2015 end i 2014.
Når man ser nærmere på de enkelte hændelser, fremgår det, at det særligt er hændelser tilknyttet den ”mildeste” kategori, antisemitiske ytringer, som er blevet reduceret voldsomt i 2015. I 2014 registrerede AKVAH hele 39 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer. Dette tal blev i 2015 reduceret til 11 registrerede tilfælde. Mens kategorien antisemitiske ytringer i 2014 således kendetegnede omkring 75 % af det samlede antal registrerede hændelser, er denne andel faldet til omkring 40 % i 2015. Kategorien udgør dog stadigvæk den helt klart største hændelsesgruppe.
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: Commemorating the seventy-year anniversary of the Holocaust in Hungary, this book focuses on current practices in teaching the Holocaust.
In June 2014, at a conference co-organised by the Tom Lantos Institute, a group of professors, scholars, museum directors, and activists involved in memorial projects met at Central European University (CEU) in Budapest, Hungary, to discuss the future of Holocaust Studies. This subsequent book publication considers the potential of Holocaust memorialization and memory work to serve as a catalyst for addressing discrimination today by exploring different innovative teaching practices in higher education as well as bold and creative civic and institutional initiatives.
The authors who contributed to this book project come from across Europe and North America and their work showcases new directions in Holocaust education and commemoration.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTIONS
Anna-Mária Bíró
Introduction 6
John Shattuck
Introduction 7
Andrea Pető and Helga Thorson
Introduction: The Future of Holocaust Memorialization 8
PART 1
Institutional Perspectives and Challenges 11
Paul Shapiro
Facing the Facts of the Holocaust: The Challenges and the Cost of Failure 12
Karen Jungblut
The Future of Holocaust Memorialization: Institutional Perspectives
and Challenges 16
Holocaust Discourses Now 21
Cecilie Felicia Stokholm Banke
Teaching the Holocaust as Part of Local History: The Case of Denmark 22
Klas-Göran Karlsson
Holocaust History and Historical Learning 29
John C. Swanson
Returning to History: Memory and Holocaust Education 35
PART 2
Benefits and Challenges of Digital Resources 41
Helga Dorner, Edit Jeges, and Andrea Pető
New Ways of Seeing: Digital Testimonies, Reflective Inquiry,
and Video Pedagogy in a Graduate Seminar 42
Elizabeth Anthony
The Digital Transformation of the International Tracing Service Digital
Collection 46
Working against Prejudice and Hate 53
Ildikó Barna
Introducing a New Subject in a Challenging Environment among Students of
Military Sciences, Public Administration, and Law Enforcement in Hungary:
A Case Study 54
Heike Radvan
Facing Current Anti-Semitism, Racism, and Neo-Nazism: Talking about the
Holocaust in Local Initiatives in East Germany 60
Charlotte Schallié
The Case of Feincost Adam©: Confronting Antisemitism
through Creative Memory Work 65
Rethinking Pedagogical Practices
Annamaria Orla-Bukowska
Remembering Righteousness: Transnational Touchstones
in the International Classroom 72
Helga Thorson and Andrea van Noord
Stories from the Past, Creative Representations of the Future:
Inter-Cultural Exchange, the Possibility of Inter-Generational Communication,
and the Future of Holocaust Studies 80
Local Initiatives in Commemorating the Holocaust
Barbara Kintaert
Shedding Light on the Past: Digging for Information and
Grassroots Memorialization
88
Borbála Klacsmann
Memory Walk: History through Monuments 100
Gabor Kalman
Filming the Past for the Present 105
About the Authors 1
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: Quelle est la fréquence des actes antisémites violents dans l’Europe d’aujourd’hui et quelles sont les tendances observables ? Dans quelle mesure les membres de la communauté juive sont-ils exposés dans les différents pays ? Qui sont les auteurs de ces crimes ?
Il est évidemment impératif de pouvoir répondre à ces questions aussi précisément que possible si l’on veut combattre efficacement l’antisémitisme, et en particulier l’antisémitisme violent.
Le travail présenté dans cette note tente d’établir une première comparaison des niveaux de violence antisémite dans différents pays en combinant les données relatives aux incidents fondées sur les rapports de police avec les résultats d’une enquête sur l’antisémitisme réalisée en 2012 par l’Agence des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne (FRA). Un échantillon de sept pays (Allemagne, Danemark, France, Royaume-Uni, Norvège, Suède et Russie) permet d’esquisser des analyses mais c’est surtout sur la base des données de quatre pays du panel (France, Royaume-Uni, Allemagne et Suède) que l’étude comparative a été rendue possible. C’est en France que l’exposition des Juifs à la violence antisémite semble la plus forte.
Concernant les auteurs d’actes antisémites violents, les données disponibles montrent, en Europe de l’Ouest, la prédominance de personnes de culture musulmane, alors qu’en Russie le profil qui prévaut est celui de militants d’extrême droite.
Les résultats présentés ici constituent une première contribution à une évaluation rigoureuse de l’antisémitisme violent dans les pays européens. Ce travail appelle à la construction d’indicateurs communs. La définition d’une mesure précise de l’antisémitisme est l’outil indispensable d’une lutte efficace contre ce redoutable préjugé, capable d’engendrer des comportements violents, y compris meurtriers.
Abstract: How often do incidents of antisemitic violence occur in contemporary Europe, and what trends are
showing? How exposed are Jewish populations in different countries? Who commits these crimes? We
need to answer such questions as precisely as possible in order to effectively combat and prevent
antisemitism in general and violent antisemitism in particular, but we lack the knowledge to do so because
systematic studies of the subject are few and far between. As a step towards filling this research gap, the
current report presents some tentative findings about violent antisemitism in a sample of European
countries and proposes directions for further research.
Combining incident data based on police reporting with a 2012 survey on antisemitism carried out by
the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA), this report tentatively compares the levels of
antisemitic violence in different countries. The seven-country sample contains comparable data for France,
UK, Germany and Sweden only. Among these countries, Jews’ exposure to antisemitic violence appears to
have been highest in France, lower in Sweden and Germany, and lowest in the United Kingdom.
Figures for Norway, Denmark and Russia are not directly comparable because of differing data
sources. However, Russia clearly stands out with a very low number of incidents considering Russia’s
relatively large Jewish population. Russia is also the only case in which there is little to indicate that Jews
avoid displaying their identity in public.
Available data on perpetrators suggest that individuals of Muslim background stand out among
perpetrators of antisemitic violence in Western Europe, but not in Russia, where right-wing extremist
offenders dominate. Attitude surveys corroborate this picture in so far as antisemitic attitudes are far more
widespread among Muslims than among the general population in Western Europe.
The findings presented here are tentative. More and better data as well as more research are needed in
order to form a more accurate picture of the nature and causes of antisemitic violence, a prerequisite for
determining relevant countermeasures.
Abstract: Hvor ofte forekommer antisemittiske voldshendelser i dagens Europa, og hvilken vei går utviklingen?
Hvor utsatt er de jødiske befolkningene i ulike land? Og hvem står bak ugjerningene? Effektiv forebygging
og bekjempelse er avhengig av at slike spørsmål besvares så presist som mulig, men vi mangler den
nødvendige kunnskapen ettersom svært lite forskning er gjort på feltet. Denne rapporten presenterer noen
tentative funn om voldelig antisemittisme i et utvalg europeiske land og foreslår retninger for videre
forskning.
Ved å bruke hendelsestall basert på anmeldelser i kombinasjon med EUs Fundamental Rights Agency
(FRA) sin spørreundersøkelse om antisemittisme fra 2012, er det mulig å foreta en begrenset og tentativ
sammenlikning av det antisemittiske voldsnivået på tvers av land. I denne rapportens utvalg foreligger
sammenliknbare data kun for Frankrike, Storbritannia, Tyskland og Sverige. Jøders utsatthet for
antisemittisk vold synes å være høyest i Frankrike, mindre i Sverige og Tyskland, og lavest i Storbritannia.
Tall for Norge, Danmark og Russland er ikke sammenliknbare på grunn av mangelfulle data. Vi har
telt 10 hendelser i Norge, 20 i Danmark og 33 i Russland for perioden 2005-2015. Nivået i Russland er
tilsynelatende svært lavt i forhold til vesteuropeiske land og gitt Russlands relativt store jødiske minoritet.
Russland er også det eneste landet der vi ikke har funnet indikasjoner på at jøder unngår å vise sin identitet
offentlig.
Tilgjengelige data tyder på at personer med bakgrunn fra muslimske land skiller seg ut blant dem som
begår antisemittiske voldshandlinger i Vest-Europa, men ikke i Russland, der høyreekstreme aktører
dominerer. Holdningsundersøkelser bygger opp under dette bildet for så vidt som antisemittiske
holdninger er betydelig mer utbredt blant muslimer enn befolkningen generelt i vesteuropeiske land.
Denne rapportens funn er tentative og ment som et oppspill til videre forskning. Bedre data og flere
systematiske studier er nødvendig for å danne et mer presist bilde av fenomenet og dets årsaker, hvilket
igjen er en forutsetning for å kunne bestemme relevante mottiltak.
Abstract: Denne rapport beskriver og analyserer antallet
af registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i
Danmark i 2013. Rapporten er udarbejdet på
grundlag af anmeldelser til AKVAH, der udgør
en del af Det Jødiske Samfund i Danmarks
sikkerhedsorganisation.
AKVAH har i 2013 registreret op til 43 antisemitiske
hændelser i Danmark fordelt på følgende
kategorier: overfaldssituationer og fysisk
chikane, trusler, antisemitiske ytringer og hærværk.
Hændelserne fordeler sig på fire tilfælde,
der kan kategoriseres som overfaldssituationer
og fysisk chikane, tre tilfælde af trusler, 31 tilfælde
af antisemitiske ytringer og fem tilfælde
af hærværk.
Ud af de 43 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser
er der seks hændelser, hvor det er vurderet,
at de alene kan betegnes som potentielt antisemitiske.
Det registrerede antal af antisemitiske hændelser
i 2013 på 43 modsvarer omtrent antallet
af registrerede hændelser i 2012, der var på
41. Der er således ikke sket nogen forbedringer
trods øget politisk opmærksomhed ved eksempelvis
Københavns Kommunes høring om antisemitisme
i København i februar 2013. Høringen
har endda ledt til en række yderligere antisemitiske
hændelser særligt for en ung jødisk teenager,
der valgte at stå frem med sin historie.
En positiv udvikling er dog, at antallet af overfaldssituationer
og fysisk chikane er blevet
halveret fra otte hændelser i 2012 til fire i 2013,
og at hærværksepisoderne desuden er blevet
reduceret fra otte hændelser i 2012 til fem i
2013. Der er herudover ikke registreret tilfælde
af diskrimination mod jøder i 2013. Antallet af
trusler er imidlertid uændret med tre hændelser
i både 2012 og 2013, og antallet af antisemitiske
ytringer er steget fra 17 til 31 hændelser,
således at antisemitiske ytringer kendetegner
næsten 75% af det samlede antal registrerede
hændelser i 2013.
En sammenligning af antallet af registrerede
hændelser fordelt på årets 12 måneder viser,
at september adskiller sig særligt fra resten af
året, fordi omkring en tredjedel af hændelserne
i både 2012 og 2013 finder sted i denne må-
ned. Begge år lå der mange jødiske helligdage i
september, og der har derfor været en større
tilstedeværelse af jøder i det offentlige rum omkring
jødiske institutioner, herunder Københavns
Synagoge, hvor mange af hændelserne har
fundet sted. Det tyder på, at antallet af antisemitiske
hændelser øges, når jøders synlighed
i det offentlige rum stiger.
Det er uklart, hvorvidt de registrerede antisemitiske
hændelser afspejler det egentlige
niveau af antisemitisme i Danmark. For det
første er der en vis usikkerhed, om det registrerede
antal antisemitiske hændelser afspejler
det virkelige antal hændelser. Der er formentlig
et vist mørketal på området, da AKVAH som
hovedregel kun registrerer hændelser, hvor
folk selv henvender sig. For det andet er det en
mulighed, at antallet af antisemitiske hændelser
holdes kunstigt nede, fordi mange jøder undgår
synlighed af frygt for antisemitisme. Med andre
ord kunne man formentlig forvente, at antallet
af hændelser var højere, hvis danske jøder var
mere synlige i gadebilledet.
Abstract: Antisemitism can be expressed in the form of verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, property damage, graffiti or other forms of text, including on the internet. This report relates to manifestations of antisemitism as they are recorded by official and unofficial sources in the 28 European Union (EU) Member States.
‘Official data’ is understood here as that collected by law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by civil society organisations.
This report compiles available data on antisemitic incidents collected by international, governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2004– 31 December 2014, where data are available. No official data on reported antisemitic incidents were available for seven Member States at the time this report was compiled: Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Malta and Portugal.
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: Launched by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee’s International Centre for Community Development (JDC-ICCD), and conducted by a research team at Trinity College (Hartford, Connecticut, USA) between June and August 2015, the Third Survey of European Jewish Leaders and Opinion Formers presents the results of an online survey administered to 314 respondents in 29 countries. The survey was conducted online in five languages: English, French, Spanish, German and Hungarian. The Survey of European Jewish Leaders and Opinion Formers is conducted every three or four years using the same format, in order to identify trends and their evolution. Findings of the 2015 edition were assessed and evaluated based on the results of previous surveys (2008 and 2011). The survey posed Jewish leaders and opinion formers a range of questions about major challenges and issues that
concern European Jewish communities in 2015, and about their expectations of how communities will evolve over the next 5-10 years. The 45 questions (see Appendix) dealt
with topics that relate to internal community structures and their functions, as well as the external environment affecting communities. The questionnaire also included six open-ended questions in a choice of five languages. These answers form the basis of the qualitative analysis of the report. The questions were organized under the following headings:• Vision & Change (6 questions)
• Decision-Making & Control (1 question)
• Lay Leadership (1 question)
• Professional Leadership (2 questions)
• Status Issues & Intermarriage (5 questions)
• Organizational Frameworks (2 questions)
• Community Causes (2 questions)
• Jewish Education (1 question)
• Funding (3 questions)
• Communal Tensions (3 questions)
• Anti-Semitism/Security (5 questions)
• Europe (1 question)
• Israel (1 question)
• Future (2 questions)
• Personal Profile (9 questions)
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: Anthropological analysis of the construction of history and tradition has focused on the role of the past in expressing group identities and interests. It has done so primarily in contexts where group identities are relatively clearly marked, as in nationalist movements or colonial situations. In many places, however, including many modern urban settings, group identities are ambiguous and poorly defined. In such contexts, standard approaches to the construction of the past are difficult to apply. This article contains a consideration of one such case, the Jewish community of Copenhagen, Denmark. A variety of Jewish accounts of the rescue of the Danish Jews from the Nazis in 1943 are analyzed. Emerging from a complex and deeply fragmented community, these narratives defy abstraction into a group version of the event. Thematically, however, all address problems of sameness and difference endemic to Danish Jewish life. A focus on such thematic issues allows a cultural analysis of the construction of the past, even where group identities are fragmented and incoherent.
Abstract: The present update relates to manifestations of antisemitism as they are recorded by official and unofficial sources in the 28 European Union (EU) Member States. ‘Official data’ is understood here as that collected by law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems and relevant state ministries at the national level. ‘Unofficial data’ refers to data collected by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and civil society organisations (CSOs). This update compiles available data on antisemitic incidents collected by international, governmental and non-governmental sources, covering the period 1 January 2003–31 December 2013. No data on manifestations of antisemitism were available for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia at the time this update was compiled.
This is the 10th in a series of yearly updates about data collected on antisemitism published by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and its predecessor, the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC).
Abstract: The goals of the Foundation in conducting this survey were manifold:
we aimed to generate a comprehensive picture of the Jewish museum
landscape across Europe, and to identify the most pressing issues,
challenges and needs faced by these institutions. We wanted to learn about
the mission, philosophy and methodology of Jewish museums, and better
understand their role and position in the cultural and educational realm at
large. We were also interested in the level of professionalization of Jewish
museums, both in staff training, collection preservation and cataloguing,
management, and the ways in which Jewish museums communicate and
arrange partnerships with one another. With a better understanding of
these issues, we want now to assess the resources needed and the funding
priorities for the next five to ten years.
The questionnaire was sent to 120 institutions in 34 countries and we
received 64 completed forms from 30 countries. The questions addressed
eleven broad topics: organisation, collections, permanent and temporary
exhibitions, facility, visitor services, public programmes, visitor
demographics, marketing and PR, finances, future plans and needs.
This diverse sample enabled us to get, for the first time, a quasicomprehensive
picture of the Jewish museum landscape in Europe, from
small community museums to landmarks of “starchitecture;” from
institutions boasting thousands of rare objects to others mostly text
panels- or technology-based; from museums employing scores of
professional staff and interns to synagogues-turned-exhibition halls run by
volunteers for a few hours a month. That was precisely the challenge: the
large and numerous discrepancies between institutions, depending on their
location, their financial and human resources, their political and economic
context, the type of visitors they receive, and other contextual
considerations.
The results point to four major findings:
1. Transition from museums to multi-purpose hubs;
2. Lack of collaboration and partnerships;
3. Tension between particularistic and universalistic missions;
4. Increasing need to serve a diverse audience.
