Abstract: Artist Gunter Demnig’s counter-memorial project Stolpersteine (stumbling blocks) installs small brass plaques into the pavement in front of homes from which Nazi victims were deported. Extending to 27 countries, over 70,000 plaques are embossed with the names and fates of individuals memorialized. This article discusses the material, visual and narrative representations of the afterlives of the victims, addressing how the memory of their lives has been muted, forgotten and reinserted into the landscape. It is based on fieldwork throughout Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. Stolpersteine, as objets chargés, engender contestations: they are celebrated, banned, cherished and vandalized. For some, Stolpersteine can serve as ersatz gravestones. Their afterlives are complex and destabilizing, both inspiring and politically controversial. Drawing from Nora’s notion lieux de mémoires, the concept of lieux chargés is introduced to theorize the salient sites and events relating to the processes, dynamics and emerging rituals surrounding Stolpersteine.
Abstract: Paideia - the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden was created in 2000 as an academic and applied institute of excellence, with the mandate of working for the rebuilding of Jewish life and culture in Europe, and educating for active minority citizenship. It does this through offering an intensive one-year educational program in Jewish Studies directed at future leaders of Jewish life and inter-cultural work. Each year 20-25 participants attend the program, from both Jewish and non-Jewish backgrounds and a variety of European countries. In addition to the one-year Jewish Studies Program, Paideia has also developed activities for its graduates including alumni conferences, educational weekends and Project-Incubator, a two-week summer program to support projects and social innovation across Europe. Project-Incubator was introduced as a follow-up program for alumni, but has expanded its target group beyond graduates. Since its introduction in 2006, the program has developed over 100 different projects. After several years of activity, Paideia decided to conduct an evaluation study to provide a systematic overview of the program's contributions and achievements, and identify unmet needs. The evaluation comprised a follow-up study of all graduates from 2002-2009. This reportpresents the findings of that study. The study findings showed that graduates view the Paideia program as very successful and feel that it contributed to them to a great extent. It was found that all graduates continue to be involved in Jewish activities in their countries of residence. Most report that the program has had an important impact on their professional-life career, on their pursuit of Jewish Studies and on their involvement in Jewish community activities.
Abstract: This article addresses the issue of teaching Judaism for students in the teacher-training programme and those training to become clergy in a Swedish milieu. A major challenge in the secular post-Protestant setting is to pinpoint and challenge the negative presuppositions of Judaism as a religion of legalism, whereas the student’s own assumption is that she or he is neutral. Even if the older paradigms of anti-Jewish stereotypes are somewhat distant, there are further patterns of thought which depict Judaism as a ‘strange’ and ‘legalistic’ religion. Students in the teacher-training programme for teaching religion in schools can in class react negatively to concepts like kosher slaughter, circumcision and the Shabbat lift. Even if the explanatory motives vary, there is nonetheless a tendency common to ordination students, relating to a Protestant notion of the Jewish Torah, commonly rendered as ‘Law’ or ‘legalism’. This notion of ‘the Law’ as a means of self-redemption can, it is argued in the article, be discerned specially among clergy students reading Pauline texts and theology. This analysis shows that both teacher-training and textbooks need to be updated in accordance with modern research in order to refute older anti-Jewish patterns of thought. As for the challenge posed by the simplistic labelling of both Judaism and Islam as religions of law, the implementation of the teaching guidelines concerning everyday ‘lived religion’ enables and allows the teacher to better disclose Judaism, Christianity and Islam as piously organised living faiths rather than as being ruled by legalistic principles.
Abstract: This study, the first to assess mortality among Jews around the world during the COVID-19 crisis, draws on data from a wide variety of sources to understand the extent to which Jews were affected by coronavirus in different parts of the world during the first wave of the pandemic, March to May 2020.
The first section describes the methods of quantification of COVID-19 mortality, and explains why measuring it using the excess mortality method is the most effective way to understand how Jewish communities have been affected. The second section presents data on Jewish mortality during the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic, drawing particularly on data provided to JPR by Jewish burial societies in communities all over the world. It does so in a comparative perspective, setting the data on Jews alongside the data on non-Jews, to explore both the extent to which Jews have been affected by the COVID-19 epidemic, and how the Jewish experience with COVID-19 compares to the experience of non-Jewish populations.
The immediate impression is that there is not a single ‘Jewish pattern’ that is observable everywhere, and, with respect to the presence of excess mortality, Jewish communities, by and large, followed the populations surrounding them.
The report cautions against speculation about why Jews were disproportionately affected in some places, but rule out two candidate explanations: that Jewish populations with particularly elderly age profiles were hardest hit, or that Jews have been badly affected due to any underlying health issue common among them. They consider the possibility that Jewish lifestyle effects (e.g. above average size families, convening in large groups for Jewish rituals and holidays), may have been an important factor in certain instances, noting that these are unambiguous risk factors in the context of communicable diseases. Whilst they suggest that the spread of the virus among Jews “may have been enhanced by intense social contact,” they argue that without accurate quantification, this explanation for elevated mortality in certain places remains unproven.
The report also includes a strongly worded preface from Hebrew University Professor Sergio DellaPergola, the Chair of the JPR European Jewish Demography Unit, and the world’s leading expert in Jewish demography. In it, he stresses the importance of systematically testing representative samples of the population at the national and local levels, and, in Jewish community contexts, of routinely gathering Jewish population vital statistics. He states: “If there is one lesson for Jewish community research that emerges out of this crisis it is that the routine gathering of vital statistics – the monitoring of deaths, as well as births, marriages, divorces, conversions, immigrants and emigrants – is one of the fundamental responsibilities community bodies must take.”
Abstract: This detailed and thorough report is rapidly becoming the ‘must-read’ study on European Jews, taking the reader on an extraordinary journey through one thousand years of European Jewish history before arriving at the most comprehensive analysis of European Jewish demography today.
Written by leading Jewish demographers Professor Sergio DellaPergola and Dr Daniel Staetsky, the Chair and Director of JPR’s European Jewish Demography Unit respectively, it explores how the European Jewish population has ebbed and flowed over time. It begins as far back as the twelfth century, travelling through many years of population stability, until the tremendous growth of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, followed by the dramatic decline prompted by a combination of mass migration and the horrors of the Shoah. Extraordinarily, after all this time, the proportion of world Jewry living in Europe today is almost identical to the proportion living in Europe 900 years ago.
Using multiple definitions of Jewishness and a vast array of sources to determine the size of the contemporary population, the study proceeds to measure it in multiple ways, looking at the major blocs of the European Union and the European countries of the Former Soviet Union, as well as providing country-by-country analyses, ranging from major centres such as France, the UK, Germany and Hungary, to tiny territories such as Gibraltar, Monaco and even the Holy See.
The report also contains the most up-to-date analysis we have on the key mechanisms of demographic change in Europe, touching variously on patterns of migration in and out of Europe, fertility, intermarriage, conversion and age compositions. While the report itself is a fascinating and important read, the underlying data are essential tools for the JPR team to utilise as it supports Jewish organisations across the continent to plan for the future.
Abstract: This paper aims at providing a new systemic contribution to research about perceptions of antisemitism/Judeophobia by contemporary Jews in 12 European Union countries. The perspective – the viewpoint of the offended side – has been less prominent relatively in research literature on antisemitism. The data analysis demonstrates the potential power of Similarity Structure Analysis (SSA) as a better theoretical and empirical tool to describe and conceptualize the contents of chosen research issues. After a brief review of some methodological problems in the study of antisemitism, this paper will re-elaborate data first published in the report of the 2018 FRA study Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism – Second survey on Discrimination and Hate Crimes against Jews in the EU (FRA 2018a). Topics include the perceived importance of antisemitism as a societal issue, the contents of anti-Jewish prejudice and discrimination, channels of transmission, perpetrators of offenses, regional differences within Europe, and the role of antisemitism perceptions as a component of Jewish identification. Special attention is paid to the distinction between cognitive and experiential perceptions of antisemitism, and to the typology of practical, populist, political, and narrative antisemitism.
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: Is research on antisemitism even necessary in countries with a relatively small Jewish population? Absolutely, as this volume shows. Compared to other countries, research on antisemitism in the Nordic countries (Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) is marginalized at an institutional and staffing level, especially as far as antisemitism beyond German fascism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust is concerned. Furthermore, compared to scholarship on other prejudices and minority groups, issues concerning Jews and anti-Jewish stereotypes remain relatively underresearched in Scandinavia – even though antisemitic stereotypes have been present and flourishing in the North ever since the arrival of Christianity, and long before the arrival of the first Jewish communities.
This volume aims to help bring the study of antisemitism to the fore, from the medieval period to the present day. Contributors from all the Nordic countries describe the status of as well as the challenges and desiderata for the study of antisemitism in their respective countries.
Abstract: This book illustrates the two clear trends in antisemitism today: “old” antisemitism, based in religious and racist prejudices, which has largely disappeared from public discourse in the West after the defeat of Nazi Germany, but has resurfaced in the last quarter-century in the face of right wing frustration of weakening nation states in a globalized world; and “new” antisemitism, or the antisemitic narrativization of Israel, which is most commonly found on the Left, in the Muslim world, and in the post-colonial discourse.
This collection of essays analyzes both old and new antisemitisms, in order to understand their place in the world of today and tomorrow. It is written by experts in the field of antisemitism working for, or connected with, the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction: The Continuity and Change of Antisemitism
Mikael Shainkman
Different Antisemitisms: On Three Distinct Forms of Antisemitism in Contemporary Europe, with a Special Focus on Sweden
Lars Dencik and Karl Marosi
Holocaust Memory and Holocaust Revisionism in Poland and Moldova: A Comparison
Natalia Sineaeva-Pankowska
Honoring the Collaborators: The Ukrainian Case
Irena Cantorovich
The Rise of the Radical Right in Europe and the Jews
Michael Whine
The Worrisome Defiance of the Golden Dawn
Michal Navoth
The Struggle over the International Working Definition of Antisemitism
Dina Porat
Discrimination against Muslims and Antisemitic Views among Young Muslims in Europe
Günther Jikeli
Debates on Islamized Antisemitism in Austria in the Wake of the Israel-Gaza Conflict, 2014
Julia Edthofer
Antisemitism and the Struggle for the “Good” Society: Ambivalent Responses to Antisemitic Attitudes and Ideas in the 2014 Swedish Electoral Race
Kristin Wagrell
Mohamed Omar and the Selective Detection of Non-Nazi Antisemitism
Mathan Ravid
After the Charlie Hebdo Attack: The Line between Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech
Andre Oboler
Online Antisemitic Propaganda and Negationism in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Ahmadinejad and His Enduring Legacy
Liora Hendelman-Baavur
The Nisman Case: Its Impact on the Jewish Community and on National Politics in Argentina
Adrian Gruszniewski and Lidia Lerner
Venezuela’s 2012 Presidential Elections: Introducing Antisemitism into Venezuelan Political Discourse
Lidia Lerner
Abstract: With contributions from a dozen American and European scholars, this volume presents an overview of Jewish writing in post–World War II Europe. Striking a balance between close readings of individual texts and general surveys of larger movements and underlying themes, the essays portray Jewish authors across Europe as writers and intellectuals of multiple affiliations and hybrid identities. Aimed at a general readership and guided by the idea of constructing bridges across national cultures, this book maps for English-speaking readers the productivity and diversity of Jewish writers and writing that has marked a revitalization of Jewish culture in France, Germany, Austria, Italy, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, and Russia.
Introduction Thomas Nolden and Vivian Liska
1. Secret Affinities: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Austria Vivian Liska
2. Writing against Reconciliation: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Germany Stephan Braese
3. Remembering or Inventing the Past: Second-Generation Jewish Writers in the Netherlands Elrud Ibsch
4. Bonds with a Vanished Past: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Scandinavia Eva Ekselius
5. Imagined Communities: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Great Britain Bryan Cheyette
6. A la recherche du Judaïsme perdu: Contemporary Jewish Writing in France Thomas Nolden
7. Ital'Yah Letteraria: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Italy Christoph Miething
8. Writing along Borders: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Hungary Péter Varga with Thomas Nolden
9. Making Up for Lost Time: Contemporary Jewish Writing in Poland Monika Adamczyk-Garbowska
10. De-Centered Writing: Aspects of Contemporary Jewish Writing in Russia Rainer Grübel and Vladimir Novikov
Abstract: ComRes surveyed 7,092 adults online in seven countries between 7th September – 20th September (Great Britain, 1010; France, 1006; Germany, 1012; Poland, 1020; Hungary, 1019; Sweden 1018; Austria, 1007). Data were weighted to be representative of each country based on age, gender and region.
Over a third of adults (36%) say they are not favourable towards Muslims in their country, compared with one in ten (10%) who say they are unfavourable towards Jews
Three in ten (28%) adults say Jewish people have too much influence in finance and business across the world, compared with other people
One in five (20%) adults say Jewish people have too much influence in media across the world compared to other people
More than two in five (44%) agree anti-Semitism is a growing problem in their country today
Two in five (40%) adults agree Jewish people are at risk of racist violence in their country
Over half (54%) of adults agree Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state
One third (32%) of adults agree criticism of Israel tends to be motivated by anti-Semitism
Three in ten (31%) adults agree Jewish people use the Holocaust to advance their position or to achieve certain goals
Over half (56%) of adults say they are not aware of ever having socialised with a Jewish person
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.
Abstract: Not only Swedish studies, but also several international studies, claim an increase in anti-Semitic attitudes in recent decades. As prejudice is acquired in the early years of socialization, and/or is innate and fairly stable over the life cycle, examining adolescents’ attitudes is vitally important. Hence, by controlling for individual demographic and socio-economic background factors, we study two interrelated questions: Has anti-Semitism among Swedish secondary school-age youths changed between 2003 and 2009? Are changes equal across groups, with a specific focus on religious groups? Using two unique cross-section surveys of secondary school-age students in Sweden for the years 2003 and 2009, we try to address the above questions. Our analysis shows, in contrast to the views of the general public and other related studies, that anti-Semitism has decreased slightly during the examined period. Moreover, the study finds a variation in anti-Semitism by religious affiliation: it has increased among Muslim youth, but remains stable in other groups.
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 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: 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: 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.
