Search results

Your search found 73 items
Previous | Next
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year View all 1 2
Home  / Search Results
Author(s): Spitz, Derek
Date: 2022
Abstract: In May 2021 Jewish Voice for Labour (“JVL”) published a combative document entitled How the EHRC Got It So Wrong-Antisemitism and the Labour Party. The document criti­cises the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s October 2020 Report of its investiga­tion into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The Commission found the Labour Party responsible for antisemitic conduct giving rise to several unlawful acts in breach of the Equality Act 2010. In addition to its legal findings, it also made critical factual findings, identifying a culture of acceptance of antisemitism in the Labour Party, which suffered from serious failings in leadership, where the failure to tackle antisemitism more effectively was probably a matter of choice. The essence of JVL’s attack on the Commission’s Report is as follows. First, it is said that the Commission did not and could not lawfully investigate antisemitism as such; to the extent that it purported to do so, its findings of unlawfulness are purportedly meaningless. Secondly, JVL claims that the Commission made no finding of institutional antisemitism. Thirdly, by failing to require production of evidence referred to in a certain leaked report, probably prepared by Labour Party officials loyal to Jeremy Corbyn, the Commission is accused of nullifying at a stroke the value of its own Report as a factual account. Fourthly, JVL claims the Commission’s Report is not just legally unten­able, but purportedly a threat to democracy. Finally, JVL claims the Commission’s analysis was not just wrong, but that it exercised its statutory powers in bad faith. This article offers a response to each of the five pillars of JVL’s attack, all of which collapse under scrutiny. As to the first pillar, the article identifies the disappearing of antisemitism as the linchpin of JVL’s argument and shows how JVL’s criticism is underpinned by a political epistemology of antisemitism denialism. As to the second pillar, it shows that the absence of the term “institutional antisemitism” in the Commission’s Report is a semantic quibble. In sub­stance, the Commission found that the conduct under investigation amounted to institu­tional antisemitism. As to the third, the article demonstrates that JVL’s complaint about the Commission’s failure to call for production of the leaked report is perverse because that report constitutes an admission of the correctness of the complaints put before it. More­over, the Corbyn-led Labour Party itself decided that it did not want the Commission to consider that material. As to the fourth pillar, the article shows that far from being a threat to democracy, the Commission’s Report grasps the nettle of antisemitism denial. It con­cludes that continuing to assume and assert that Jews raising concerns about antisemitism are lying for nefarious ends may itself be, and in at least two cases was, a form of unlawful anti-Jewish harassment. As to the fifth, the article rebuts the extraordinary charge that the Commission exercised its powers in bad faith. Rather strikingly, neither JVL nor Jeremy Corbyn was willing to take the Commission on judicial review. The article concludes by considering how the poverty of JVL’s reasoning, coupled with the extravagance of its accu­sations, invites a symptomatic reading of Antisemitism and the Labour Party as a disap­pointing illustration of left-wing melancholia.
Author(s): Denis, Sieffert
Date: 2020
Abstract: Depuis 1967, le conflit israélo-palestinien a souvent été un facteur de tension au sein de la société française. Racisme, antisémitisme, affrontements communautaires se nourrissent de l’interminable crise du Proche-Orient. Pour quelles raisons particulières la France est-elle plus sensible qu’aucun autre pays occidental aux échos d’un conflit lointain et localisé ? Dans ce livre informé, Denis Sieffert s’efforce de remettre en perspective les relations tumultueuses entre la France et Israël. Plus qu’une simple affaire de politique étrangère, le Proche-Orient agit comme un miroir pour la société française et les communautés qui l’habitent. C’est pourquoi toute prise de position prend un caractère passionnel. Depuis le parrainage d’Israël par la IVe République jusqu’au caillassage du Premier ministre Lionel Jospin à l’université de Bir Zeit, en passant par la fameuse déclaration du général de Gaulle en 1967 à propos du peuple juif « sûr de lui-même et dominateur », et le « sauvetage » de Yasser Arafat par François Mitterrand en 1982, les débats et polémiques ont souvent divisé l’opinion française et ses responsables politiques. Denis Sieffert explore ici le rôle du passé colonial français toujours douloureux, la relation difficile entre le sionisme et la République et, plus largement, le problème que soulèvent les doubles allégeances. Il rappelle les liens que les grandes familles politiques conservent, plus d’un demi-siècle après la naissance d’Israël, avec les protagonistes du conflit. Il montre en particulier que les socialistes, comme leurs ancêtres de la SFIO, restent souvent très liés à Israël, alors que les communistes, l’extrême gauche, les Verts et les altermondialistes sont, eux, engagés dans le soutien des Palestiniens.
Author(s): Renton, David
Date: 2021
Abstract: Between 2015 and 2020 the Labour Party was riven by allegations that the party had tolerated antisemitism.

For the Labour right, and some in the media, the fact that such allegations could be made was proof of a moral collapse under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. Sections of the left, meanwhile, sought to resist the accusations by claiming that the numbers of people accused of racism were few, that the allegations were an orchestrated attack, and that those found guilty were excluded from the party. This important book by one of Britain’s leading historians of anti- fascism gives a more detailed account than any yet published of what went wrong in Labour. Renton rejects those on the right who sought to exploit the issue for factional advantage. He also criticises those of his comrades on the left who were ignorant about what most British Jews think and demonstrated a willingness to antagonise them.

Table of Contents
1. Introduction

2. The Uniqueness of Antisemitism

3. Naz Shah and the Cause of Palestine

4. Ken Livingstone and the Crimes of Zionism

5. Jews and the Slave Trade

6. Seeing No Evil: Trump and the US Right

7. Seeing No Evil: Corbyn and the Mear One Mural

8. Jewdas and the Figure of the Bad Jew

9. The Labour Left and the Israel Lobby

10. The Labour Right and Anti-Zionist Jews

11. The Bullying of Luciana Berger

12. Fighting the Rich, Without Fighting Jews

13. From the Edge of the Anti-War Movement

14. Israel’s Eastern European Allies

15. On Gatekeeping

16. Antisemitism and Black Emancipation

17. Conclusion
Author(s): Minerbi, Sergio I.
Date: 2003
Abstract: The purpose of this article is to analyze and confute some of the arguments recently put forward by important Italian intellectuals against Jews and against Israel. Neo anti-Semitism camouflaged as anti-Zionism is spreading in Italy today. Three main examples of this phenomenon are given: Sergio Romano, Alberto Asor Rosa, and Barbara Spinelli. Romano claims that the memory of the Shoah has become an insurance policy and is used by Israel as a diplomatic weapon, while Israel itself is "a war-mongering, imperialist, arrogant nation" and "an unscrupulous liar." Asor Rosa claims that Israel "developed a marvelous army" but at the same time "the tradition and thinking melted away," while Israel affirms, he writes, "the racial superiority of the Jewish people." For Barbara Spinelli: "Israel constitutes a scandal" for the way in which Moses' religion validates "rights which are often meta-historical" and "linked to sacred texts." Spinelli thinks that Israel should express its culpability to Palestinians and Islam. She goes as far as stating that some Israelis dream "of a sort of second holocaust." She also attacks the "double and contradictory loyalty" of the Jews. There is a short analysis of the Italian press and of the stand of the Catholic Church. The lynch in Ramallah is discussed, as well as the declarations of Ambassador Vento. The author also raises the question of school textbooks, the boycott against Israeli universities, and the existence of other voices, very different from the ones mentioned above.
Date: 2021
Abstract: Overt state-sponsored antisemitism ended in Europe with the fall of the Soviet Union. Antisemitic attitudes, however, remain prevalent in Europe, and some European political actors have instrumentalized antisemitism for political gain. This report examines both the conscious use of antisemitism in European politics and the calculated tolerance of antisemitism, demonstrating that the oldest hatred remains a modern political tool.

Unlike antisemitic incidents of violence, vandalism, or insults, the political use of antisemitism does not target Jews themselves. Instead, antisemitic propaganda targets domestic or foreign audiences as a means of gaining political support. Demonstrating tolerance for antisemitism is another tactic of attracting political support. Polling data shows that these strategies have a rational basis. ADL’s 2019 Global 100 survey of antisemitic attitudes found that one in four Europeans polled harbored antisemitic beliefs.

Antisemitic propaganda has as its goal to energize and attract followers. Antisemitic propaganda is also used to tarnish political opponents in the eyes of a specific audience by intimating that someone is Jewish, supportive of Jewish causes or of the State of Israel. Other times, political opponents are slandered as antisemites or Nazis to diminish their reputations with specific audiences. Each of these techniques will be covered in this report, which focuses on the conscious choice of instrumentalizing or tolerating antisemitism for political gain. Antisemitic rhetoric by political actors as an indicator of bias is a much broader topic, and this report does not cover those instances.

The broad categories of the politicization of antisemitism include (1) politically motivated accusations of, or uses of, antisemitism against political opponents; (2) political appeals to antisemitic beliefs among the public, including the conspiracy theories about Jewish control of government, economy, media; and (3) tolerance of antisemitism within political movements as a strategy for increasing popular support. This list not exhaustive of the political instrumentalization of antisemitism, but this report provides illustrative examples from recent years in these broad categories.

Why is this report important? While violent antisemitic attacks receive wide publicity – and rightly so – the politicization of antisemitism can also severely impact Jewish communities. The British Jewish community provides a compelling example.

In January 2015, 11% of British Jews were considering emigrating, according to a poll by the UK’s Jewish Chronicle. That survey was conducted before Jeremy Corbyn, widely regarded within the British Jewish community as an antisemite himself, was even a leadership candidate for the Labour party. In September 2018, after antisemitism had become a serious problem in the Labour party under Corbyn, the Jewish Chronicle poll found that 39% of British Jews were considering emigrating. And in an October 2019 poll by the UK’s Jewish Leadership Council, just prior to the UK General Election, 47% of British Jews said they would “seriously consider” leaving the UK if Jeremy Corbyn were to win the election.

Had Jeremy Corbyn won, leading a major party widely recognized as tolerating antisemitism among its members, and had even 30% of British Jews emigrated as a result of that single event, that number of roughly 90,000 Jews would have been similar to the total of all the French Jews who left France over the past 20 years.

The sections below are select examples of the different ways in which antisemitism has been instrumentalized for political gain by various actors. The purposes and tactics vary substantially, but have the common element of politicizing antisemitism:

The Russian government instrumentalized antisemitism in the forms of propaganda and “false flag” operations to influence domestic and foreign public opinion in its conflict with Ukraine.
Polish political campaigns used overt antisemitic rhetoric during elections to win votes.
The Hungarian government used coded antisemitism in political campaigns against EU migration policies.
The UK Labour party consciously tolerated antisemitism to widen its political support from far-left radicals.
Ukrainian nationalists glorified World War II era fighters to promote nationalist narratives, while trivializing their involvement in the Holocaust.
The far-right Alternative for Germany party trivialized the Holocaust as part of their appeal to “Holocaust fatigue” among German voters.
Other political actors have engaged in similar acts of politicization, and their absence from this report is not indicative of any assessment. The cases below are simply the most blatant examples of the types of politicization to be highlighted.
Author(s): Bolton, Matthew
Date: 2020
Abstract: This article analyses the British left’s response to allegations of antisemitism within the UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. It uses as its foil a collection of essays on the topic written over the course of the Corbyn era for leading online outlets of the contemporary Anglo-American left, and given away as a free e-book by Verso, the world’s biggest leftist publisher, during the 2019 British election campaign. On the basis of this collection, the article suggests that the Labour antisemitism crisis was the culmination of a long process of political and theoretical degeneration within the left. It argues that the tendency to reduce of the question of antisemitism to that of class “interests,” with antisemitism understood primarily as an “instrument” used by the powerful to divide the “oppressed,” leaves many leftists unable to comprehend the possibility of exterminatory antisemitism as an end-in-itself. The appeal of this approach lies in the apparent alibi against antisemitism it provides for those on the left, like Corbyn, whose interests supposedly coincide with those of “the oppressed,” and means that accusations of antisemitism within the left can be similarly denounced as cover for the underlying ‘interests’ of those making the accusation. The article argues that the insistence that the State of Israel is “a racist endeavour,” a claim which lay at the heart of the Labour antisemitism dispute, rests upon an arbitrary and ahistorical rejection of the notion of Jewish peoplehood. This critique itself draws upon a long history of right-nationalist and liberal-republican antisemitism in which Jews were viewed as an illegitimate “anti-nation,” and in its partiality is radically distinct from a critique of the nation-state as such. The article suggests that this same partiality and ahistoricity reappears in the inability of a class instrumentalist perspective to apprehend the intrinsic, rather than extrinsic, relationship between Israel and antisemitism, and the genocidal antisemitism of the Holocaust in particular.
Date: 2010
Abstract: Loin d’avoir disparu, la haine des Juifs est entrée dans un nouveau régime en se fixant sur Israël, cible d’une guerre médiatique de haute intensité. L’antisionisme radical, dont l’objectif est la destruction de l’État juif, représente en effet la dernière figure historique prise par la judéophobie. À ce titre, négatrice du droit à l’existence d’une nation, elle constitue l’une des principales formes contemporaines du racisme. Pour comprendre comment s’est accomplie la mondialisation de cette nouvelle configuration antijuive, l’auteur dissèque le nouveau discours de propagande des ennemis déclarés d’Israël tel qu’il s’est développé au cours des années 2000-2010. La nouvelle vision antijuive, qui consiste à « nazifier » les « sionistes » en tant qu’« agresseurs » et à « judaïser » corrélativement les Palestiniens en tant que « victimes », permet d’accuser les « sionistes » de « génocide » ou de « palestinocide ». Ce discours de propagande est replacé dans son contexte international, marqué par une menace islamiste centrée sur l’appel au jihad contre les Juifs.

Analysant divers matériaux symboliques exploités par la nouvelle propagande antijuive — images ou discours —, P.-A. Taguieff donne à comprendre comment et pourquoi la haine des Juifs, plus d’un demi-siècle après la Shoah, a pu renaître sous les habits neufs de l’« antiracisme » et de l’« anticolonialisme » et, grâce aux médias, se diffuser en recueillant l’assentiment d’individus parfois convaincus d’être étrangers à tout préjugé antijuif.
Date: 2009
Abstract: Placards carrying images of swastikas superimposed on the Star of David and the Israeli flag were commonplace in street-level protests about the recent Israeli military actions and the conflict in Gaza in December 2008 and January 2009. Allusions between Nazi genocidal practices and the activities of the Israeli state were also drawn in some of the speeches at protest meetings and press commentary on the conflict. Although this was not the first occasion that the ‘Nazi card’ had been played against Israel and Jews, the prevalence of the phenomenon appears to indicate its growing normalisation. Playing the ‘Nazi card’ is a discursive act involving the use of Nazi or related terms or symbols (Nazism, Hitler, swastikas, etc.) in reference to Jews, Israel, Zionism or aspects of the Jewish experience. It manifests in words uttered in speech or in writing, or in visual representations such as artwork, drawings, caricatures, cartoons, graffiti, daubings and scratchings, or visual expressions such as a Nazi salute or the clicking of heels. In many instances, the playing of the Nazi card is unquestionably antisemitic. However, the inclusion of particular modes of criticism of Israel in definitions of antisemitism has provoked controversy. The result has been a war of words which has stagnated into an intellectual and discursive cul-de-sac of claim and counter-claim about what does and does not qualify as antisemitism. Because of this, in focusing on discourse, this report attempts to shift the focus of analysis of contemporary antisemitism onto new ground: away from labelling and defining the problem, to an understanding of the consequences of particular discourse. By unravelling and dissecting various manifestations of the phenomenon, the report reveals how the playing of the Nazi card scratches deep wounds by invoking painful collective memory of the Holocaust. It also offers some recommendations as to how the problem might be addressed.
Author(s): Ullrich, Peter
Date: 2014
Abstract: Insbesondere für die deutsche Linke hat der Nahost- und Antisemitismusstreit eine immense Bedeutung und Sprengkraft. Er ist Dauerthema in linken Zeitschriften und Veranstaltungen sowie beliebter Gegenstand der Agitation konservativer Medien gegen die Linke. Gelegentliche Eskalationen zu verschiedenen Anlässen sorgen dafür, dass die Problematik ganz oben auf der politischen Agenda bleibt. Dabei verläuft die Auseinandersetzung auch innerhalb der Linken selten solidarisch. Starke Identifikationen sowie extreme und zudem häufig antagonistische Positionierungen und Blickwinkel kennzeichnen die Debatte. Regelmäßig kommt es auch zu sehr persönlichen und verletzenden Vorwürfen und Angriffen; sogar vor physischer Gewalt wird nicht haltgemacht. Und im Gewand dieser Debatte wird immer wieder auch verhandelt, was eigentlich (noch) links ist.

Ziel dieser kommentierten Bibliografie zur Thematik Linke, Nahostkonflikt und Antisemitismus ist es, zu einer Versachlichung der Diskussion beizutragen. Sie will den einseitigen Positionen, schablonenhaften Schuldzuschreibungen und ritualisierten Phrasen komplexere Perspektiven entgegensetzen, Zugang zu Hintergrundwissen und «Fakten» sowie zu den Bedingungen ermöglichen, die diese erst zu solchen machen, und somit Anregungen zur (selbst-)kritischen Reflexion geben. Die Broschüre soll zudem einen leichten Einstieg in die inzwischen doch recht umfassende Literatur zum Thema bieten. Denn insbesondere in der Zeit nach 1990 ist eine Vielzahl von relevanten Studien und ernsthaften Debattenbeiträgen erschienen, die eine gute Grundlage bieten für die fundierte und kritische Auseinandersetzung mit spezifischen Traditionen, ideologischen Erbschaften, Prägungen und grundlegenden Ambivalenzen linker Politik in Hinblick auf den Nahostkonflikt. Im Folgenden werden die wichtigsten dieser Beiträge in Form von kurzen Inhaltsangaben und Kommentierungen vorgestellt. Als Sammlung von Basistexten ist diese Broschüre vor allem für die Nutzung in der politischen Bildungsarbeit gedacht. Doch auch Studierende, Wissenschaftler/innen und alle anderen Interessierten werden sich mit ihrer Hilfe schnell einen Überblick zum aktuellen Stand der Forschung verschaffen können.

In die Darstellung wurden vor allem Bücher aufgenommen, die Grundlegendes zum Verständnis linker Kontroversen zum Thema in einer bestimmten Epoche leisten (zum Beispiel zur Zionismus- Debatte in der Arbeiter/innenbewegung des 19. Jahrhunderts) oder die wesentliche Begriffe beziehungsweise theoretische Perspektiven in die Diskussion eingeführt haben (beispielsweise «antiimperialistischer Antizionismus»). Neben recht bekannten, weitverbreiteten und häufig zitierten Publikationen sind auch solche berücksichtigt, die hierzulande bisher weniger rezipiert wurden – sei es, weil sie nicht in deutscher Sprache veröffentlicht wurden oder weil die Texte aus anderen Gründen nicht leicht zugänglich sind. Soweit Zitate vom Englischen ins Deutsche übertragen wurden, stammen die Übersetzungen vom Autor. Nicht alle besprochenen Bücher werden im gleichen Umfang behandelt. Dahinter steht durchaus die Absicht, eine Gewichtung vorzunehmen und unnötige Wiederholungen zu vermeiden. Stattdessen wird die jeweilige Bedeutung der Texte für die Gesamtdebatte herausgestellt. Wo immer es möglich ist, werden die Leser/ innen bei Monografien auch auf kürzere Texte der entsprechenden Autor/ innen (die für Seminare und Lesekreise geeignet sind) oder Online-Ressourcen hingewiesen. Die in fünf Abschnitte unterteilte Darstellung beschränkt sich im Wesentlichen auf wissenschaftliche Beiträge
Translated Title: On a new antisemitic moment
Author(s): Birnbaum, Pierre
Date: 2015
Author(s): Knobel, Marc
Date: 2013
Abstract: La France n’est pas un pays raciste ou antisémite. Il n’y existe plus d’antisémitisme institutionnalisé comme cela fut le cas dans les années 40. Il faut donc éviter de dresser des comparaisons obscènes avec l’Occupation et la Shoah, mais on ne peut que constater que les violences, allant jusqu’à l’assassinat, et les menaces contre les juifs et leurs institutions, ont considérablement augmenté depuis l’année 2000.

Marc Knobel explique pourquoi les choses se sont envenimées à ce point, quelquefois dans l’indifférence des politiques et des médias. Il ne convient pas de faire de l’angélisme et d’ignorer la réalité. L’hostilité à l’endroit des juifs s’est largement développée chez les jeunes qui vivent dans des quartiers dits sensibles et qui, souvent discriminés ou victimisés, sont en quête d’identité et s’identifient aux Palestiniens.

Ils glissent très vite de l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme, d’Israël à Juifs. Le conflit israélo-palestinien joue donc ici un rôle majeur. Notons que ce conflit sert aussi d’alibi à l’expression de l’antisémitisme dans des milieux plus privilégiés culturellement et socialement. De plus, les islamistes font des banlieues défavorisées le lieu préféré de diffusion de leurs idées. Dans les prêches ou à travers Internet, ils présentent une vision d’un Islam qui serait assiégé, menacé par les Américains, les Européens et les juifs.

Cette vision complotiste du monde est d’autant plus grave que de jeunes déshérités entendent et lisent régulièrement leur propagande, s’en nourrissent en pensant y trouver l’explication de leur désarroi dans une société qui n’a pas su les intégrer. Les antisémites pensent que les juifs sont protégés, ils imaginent qu’ils sont tous riches et puissants. Les vieux stéréotypes sont là. L’antisémitisme, tout comme toute autre forme de racisme, est inacceptable.

Il est une injure à la République et ses effets peuvent se révéler dramatiquement, car ceux qui utilisent et manient l’antisémitisme s’illustrent par leurs appels incessants à la haine, à la violence et au meurtre.
Author(s): Elman, R Amy
Date: 2015
Author(s): Allington, Daniel
Date: 2018
Abstract: Existing research suggests that, in contemporary liberal democracies, complaints of racism are routinely rejected and prejudice may be both expressed and disavowed in the same breath. Surveys and historical research have established that – both in democratic states and in those of the Soviet Bloc (while it existed) – antisemitism has long been related to or expressed in the form of statements about Israel or ‘Zionist’, permitting anti-Jewish attitudes to circulate under cover of political critique. This article looks at how the findings of a survey of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli attitudes were rejected by users of three Facebook pages associated with the British Left. Through thematic discourse analysis, three recurrent repertoires are identified: firstly, what David Hirsh calls the ‘Livingstone Formulation’ (i.e. the argument that complaints of antisemitism are made in bad faith to protect Israel and/or attack the Left), secondly, accusations of flawed methodology similar to those with which UK Labour Party supporters routinely dismiss the findings of unfavourable opinion polls, and thirdly, the argument that, because certain classically antisemitic beliefs pertain to a supposed Jewish or ‘Zionist’ elite and not to Jews in general, they are not antisemitic. In one case, the latter repertoire facilitates virtually unopposed apologism for Adolf Hitler. Contextual evidence suggests that the dominance of such repertoires within one very large UK Labour Party-aligned group may be the result of action on the part of certain ‘admins’ or moderators. It is argued that awareness of the repertoires used to express and defend antisemitic attitudes should inform the design of quantitative research into the latter, and be taken account of in the formulation of policy measures aiming to restrict or counter hate speech (in social media and elsewhere).
Editor(s): Shainkman, Mikael
Date: 2018
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

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
Author(s): Reiter, Margit
Date: 2001
Date: 2011
Translated Title: The New Judeophobia
Date: 2007
Abstract: Il serait dramatique, et éminemment regrettable, qu'aucune voix ne s'élève aujourd'hui pour dénoncer « l'antisémitisme », dont les manifestations spectaculaires se sont multipliées au cours des deux dernières années - sans que les médias ne leur accordent la moindre place, à quelques exceptions près, - au moment même où se produit une très forte résurgence. Pierre-André Taguieff nous alerte sur cette seconde vague, post-nazie, ayant pris une forme tout à fait nouvelle : héritière des arguments traditionnels de l'antisémitisme, elle allie antisionisme et processus d'islamisation. Il la nomme nouvelle judéophobie. Ses expressions les plus récentes : en France, la multiplication des actes déliquants contre des synagogues, mais aussi les insultes et menaces adressées à des familles juives installées en banlieue, et tout récemment, un certain match de football France-Algérie ; au niveau international, la conférence de Durban, à la fin du mois d'août 2001, au cours de laquelle se jouèrent des pressions énormes pour stigmatiser et exclure les organisations israéliennes et juives ; et puis, les déclarations d'Oussama ben Laden depuis le 11 septembre. Dans le nouveau contexte géopolitique qui s'est brutalement dessiné, les intellectuels et la presse français restent curieusement muets, comme pétrifiés. Ils sont pris entre les thématiques de la victimisation sociologique des jeunes de banlieue et la dénonciation du fanatisme islamique. Pourtant, il est urgent de refuser intolérance et fanatisme, de décrire une évolution inquiétante très précisément, et de dénoncer toute pensée « amalgamante ». Le livre est né d'une communication donnée par l'auteur au Sénat lors du colloque « Les nouveaux visages de l'antisémitisme », le 14 octobre 2001.