Search results

Your search found 24 items
Sort: Relevance | Topics | Title | Author | Publication Year
Home  / Search Results
Date: 2018
Abstract: В настоящем исследовании была использована значительная часть вопросов общеевропейского
опроса, проводившимся Агентством Европейского Союза по основным правам (АОП) в восьми
странах Европейского Союза в 2012 году1
, направленного на мониторинг антисемитизма, личного
опыта опрошенных с подобными проявлениями, среди еврейского населения 8 европейских
стран.2
Использование одних и тех же вопросов дает возможность сравнить мнения и оценки
российских евреев с такими же оценками среди евреев из других стран, то есть оценивать современный масштаб антисемитизма в России в общеевропейском контексте. Отметим, что методика
европейского опроса иная, в отличие от российского опроса, проводившегося методом интервью face-to-face, европейское исследование – опрос онлайн. Это означает, что респонденты самостоятельно принимали решение отвечать на анкету. Несмотря на эти методические расхождения, мы считаем возможным сравнение полученных нами данных с европейскими, поскольку
они указывают на общие тенденции.
Все приводимые в настоящем отчете данные представляют собой распределение ответов (процент ответов к числу всех опрошенных, равное 517 человек, старше 16 лет, если не указано иное).
Отправной точкой для проведения настоящего исследование служит представление, что в последние многие годы мы не наблюдаем явного роста антисемитизма, основанное на результатах предыдущих массовых общероссийских исследований, проведенных по заказу РЕК. На фоне
весьма высокого уровня ксенофобии, нараставшего с середины 1990-х гг. по отношению к представителям различных этнонациональных общностей, прежде всего – к приезжим из кавказских
и среднеазиатских республик бывшего СССР, массовый негативизм по отношению к евреям выражен достаточно слабо. Но таковы были зафиксированные в социологических опросах массовые
установки всего населения России. Общенациональная репрезентативная выборка не позволяла
при этом сколько-нибудь определенно судить о том, а как смотрят на те же самые проблемы сами
российские евреи, насколько они обеспокоены угрозой агрессивного национализма, расизма и
антисемитизма в России. Потребность ответить на эти вопросы обусловила проведение настоящего социологического исследования.
Date: 2018
Abstract: Настоящий отчет в основном описывает результаты качественных исследований 2018 г . Это была вторая волна фокус-групп и интервью, во многом продолжавшая и развивавшая исследование, первая волна которого прошла в 2015 г . и которая описана в соответствующем Отчете . Сведения об объеме и географии проведенных фокус-групп представлены в Приложении №1
Наряду с этим настоящее качественное исследование имеет целью дополнить и поддержать значительное по масштабам количественное исследование, проводимое одновременно Левада-центром в тех же городах (и ряде других) . Описываемые фокус-группы и интервью проводили модераторы Левада-центра А .Левинсон и С .Королева .
Приглашение респондентов из числа евреев осуществлялось через еврейские организации на местах . Контакты с этими организациями были установлены с помощью сотрудников Российского Еврейского Конгресса, за что мы им приносим свою благодарность . Приглашение других респондентов происходило силами местных маркетинговых и социологических агентств, сотрудничающих с Левада-центром .
Выборка для качественного исследования 2018 г . была построена так, чтобы в каждом из четырех городов провести встречи с местным еврейством и с представителями тех групп, которые образуют контекст или часть контекста для существования евреев . Поэтому в городах Дербент и Казань проводились фокус-группы с представителями мусульманского большинства, в городах Томск и Калининград – с представителями русского населения городов .
Исследователи полагали необходимым проверить гипотезу о том, что религиозность, т .е . включенность в жизнь религиозной общины и в соответствующее вероучение, влияет на восприятие проблемы антисемитизма . Поэтому были запланированы фокус-группы с евреями религиозными и с теми, кто себя к религиозным не относит . Такие же различия должны были быть в группах русских (относящие и не относящие себя к православным) и в группах мусульман, которые были разделены на «практикующих» (в Дербенте) и «этнических» (в Казани) . Мы не имели в виду обращаться к «истово-верующим» этих трех конфессий, поскольку это относительно узкие группы среди вообще «верующих»/ «практикующих»/ «религиозных» . Гипотеза нашла лишь частичное подтверждение . Среди евреев этот статус не влиял на их представление о наличии/отсутствии антисемитизма . Среди «практикующих» мусульман и православных было отмечен особый тип претензий к евреям и/или иудеям, не встречавшийся у тех, кто не причисляет себя к верующим . Претензии состояли в том, что иудеи считают себя выше нас – мусульман или православных . В остальном позиции людей более и менее вовлеченных в религию – в отношении обсуждаемых вопросов – не различались .
Author(s): Staetsky, L. Daniel
Date: 2019
Abstract: Is criticism of Israel antisemitic? Do anti-Israel views and attitudes constitute a “new antisemitism”? These questions have occupied the minds of many academics and pubic intellectuals – both Jewish and non-Jewish – since the beginning of the twenty-first century. So far, no consensus has emerged. The definitions of antisemitism are many but all have been contested to varying degrees. This paper offers a brief survey of the definitions of antisemitism and the way in which these definitions accommodate anti-Israel and/or anti-Zionist views and attitudes. This is done, however, by way of introduction and without any assessment of the quality of the definitions in scientific terms, or their acceptability in political terms. The overview simply provides the background and the motivation for the main subject of the paper. The Jewish public’s perception of the link between antisemitism and anti-Israel/anti-Zionist attitudes forms the main focus of this paper. This is, to my knowledge, the first time that this subject has been treated in a strictly empirical, quantitative manner using large datasets.

What does the Jewish public, as opposed to the intellectual elite, think about the link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? This question has so far remained unexplored, and in this paper I attempt to answer it utilising a newly created dataset. In summer 2012, a survey of experiences and perceptions of antisemitism among Jews took place in selected European countries.

Using advanced statistical techniques, it is possible to explore the extent to which the Jewish public makes a distinction between classic antisemitic and anti-Israel/anti-Zionist statements. Are anti-Israel/anti-Zionist statements perceived as antisemitic by Jews? Are they perceived to be antisemitic to the same extent as other, more classic, antisemitic statements? The paper addresses these questions focusing on the British and French samples of Jews, and comparing and contrasting insights produced by these two contexts.
Date: 2018
Abstract: This article analyses the results of a study conducted for the Russian Jewish Congress in 2018. 517 people over the age of 16, living in 21 towns in the Russian Federation and identifying as Jews were interviewed. The goal of the study was to establish the scale of modern day anti-Semitism in Russia and to put it into all-European context. With this goal in mind the scientists used a considerable part of the questions from the all-European survey conducted
by the European Union agency for Fundamental Rights in 8 EU countries in 2012. The use of the same questions allowed to compare the views and evaluations of Russian Jews with those of Jews from other countries, that is to evaluate the modern scale of anti-Semitism in Russia in a European context. Anti-Semitism in Europe and in Russia is similar in several ways. It’s most often demonstrated in the form of offences, threats and publishing
of anti-Semite materials in the media. The main platform for expression of anti-Semite views today
is the Internet. Nevertheless, Russia differs from European countries in several important aspects.

Firstly, the origins and nature of anti-Semitism are different. In Russia anti-Semitism is built into xenophobia and is most often expressed on a mundane level. Its carriers are average citizens and not members of certain (neo-nazi) organizations. Xenophobia in Russia is, in turn, oriented against the “ethnically different” and not Jews who are
after all considered ‘insiders”. Secondly, there’s no anti-Zionist component in Russian anti-Semitism,
unlike European countries, where waves of antiSemitism are closely tied with Israel’s policies in the
Middle East.
Date: 2016
Abstract: Le dispositif d’enquête dont les principaux enseignements sont présentés ci-après a été conduit par l’Institut Ipsos à la demande de la Fondation du Judaïsme Français. Ce dispositif d’études s’articule autour de trois volets.

Le premier volet concerne l’ensemble de la population française : nous avons interrogé 1005 personnes constituant un échantillon représentatif de la population française âgée de 18 ans et plus (méthode des quotas). L’enquête a été réalisée par internet du 15 au 24 juillet 2014.

Le second concerne les personnes se considérant comme juives : après avoir réalisé 45 entretiens qualitatifs d’environ 2h auprès de juifs (45) dont des responsables communautaires (15) en région parisienne, à Toulouse et Strasbourg, Ipsos a réalisé une étude quantitative auprès de 313 personnes.
Il n’existe pas de définition satisfaisante de qui est juif et qui ne l’est pas. Il n’existe pas non plus de statistiques permettant d’appliquer des quotas. La méthode utilisée a été celle de l’autodéfinition par les personnes elles-mêmes. Est juif celui ou celle qui se considère comme tel. A partir de plusieurs dizaines de milliers de panélistes interrogés, on a ainsi pu extraire un échantillon de 313 personnes se déclarant comme juif ou juive, auquel le questionnaire a été administré du 24 février au 8 juin 2015. Cette méthode a l’avantage de limiter les biais que l’on rencontre lors de recrutement « dans la rue » ou à proximité de lieux de culte

Le troisième concerne les personnes se considérant comme musulmanes. Pour les mêmes raisons, il a été procédé exactement de la même façon que pour les répondants juifs. Un échantillon de 500 personnes se déclarant musulman/musulmane extrait de notre Acces Panel a ainsi été interrogé du 24 février au 9 mars 2015.
Author(s): Kovács, András
Date: 2006
Abstract: [From the introduction to the article]
Between March and November 1999, under the auspices of the Minority Research Institute of the Department of Sociology, Eötvös Loránd University, I conducted a sociological survey of the current situation of the Jewish community in Hungary. In the course of the survey, 2015 respondents were interviewed. The most important demographic and social data were collected for four generations – from respondents’ grandparents to their children. Participants in the survey were asked to respond to questions concerning their relationship towards Jewish traditions and their acceptance or rejection of various forms of Jewish identity. They were also asked for their opinions on assimilation, integration and dissimilation, on Israel, and on the current significance of the Holocaust. Finally, an attempt was made to gauge the opinions of Hungarian Jews on the state of their own community, on their relationships with non-Jews, and on antisemitism in postcommunist Hungary.
My purpose in this article shall be to analyse the data that we collected in this latter area. Firstly, I shall reveal how Jews living in Hungary define antisemitism, and whether – when it comes to classifying particular statements as antisemitic – there are any significant differences between younger and older groups of Jews, between those who are better educated and those with less education, and between those with a stronger and those with a weaker sense of Jewish identity. I shall then explore how the various respondent groups judge the extent, intensity and gravity of anti-Jewish sentiment in the country, examining in particular whether respondents themselves have experienced such sentiment or have been subjected to discrimination. I shall reveal whether respondents think that antisemitism will increase or decrease in the coming years. Finally, I shall touch upon the policies that respondents consider desirable when it comes to tackling antisemitic phenomena. Evidently, the images formed by Jews and non-Jews shall determine in large part the relations between the two groups of one other.
Author(s): Arkin, Kimberly A.
Date: 2018
Author(s): Graham, David
Date: 2018
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."
Author(s): Ben-Rafael, Eliezer
Date: 2017
Abstract: Contemporary works have shown that antisemitism is far from moribund in Europe and it is in this context that in 2012 was conducted extensive research in the EU on current perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in Europe. I present and analyze here results that relate specifically to Belgian Jews (438 subjects out of 6,200 in eight countries). The first objective of this work is to learn about the Jewishness of our sample. Hence, we find that 40% of the respondents identify themselves as secular Jews; 15% consider themselves liberals; more than a quarter say they “observe certain traditions”; one sixth define themselves as Orthodox Jews. The data confirm, at this point, that there is only a limited correlation between religiosity and Jewishness: less religious or even non-religious people tend to express an identification with, and commitment to, Jewishness that were not weaker than the Orthodox’. The various factions are also united by a general feeling that while Belgium cannot be considered as an antisemitic state, it is currently experiencing virulent antisemitism in wide milieus. This antisemitism is bound to a sharp anti-Israelism salient in public life, the media, and the Internet. More than a number of other communities in Europe, Belgian Jews see antisemitism reigning in their environment with a gravity. They testify that the Israel-Palestine conflict weighs on their sense of insecurity; they confess that they have often considered the option of emigrating and they openly accuse Muslim extremists of inciting antisemitism. Belgian Jews also feel more vulnerable to antisemitic attacks and tend to resent a weakening in their position in society. On the other hand, what grants support to the Belgian Jews in these circumstances is that they often belong to the properous segments of the population. Moreover, there is the vitality of the community where one finds multiple forms of expression and activity - magazines, radio, clubs, synagogues, museums, etc.- and above all, exceptional educational infrastructures. These resources allow Belgian Jews, if not to protect themselves against the virus of antisemitism, at least to face it.
Date: 2014
Abstract: Based on data commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and gathered and analysed by JPR's academic team, this is the first in a series of reports looking at the perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in different EU Member States.

This report, focusing on Jews in the UK, demonstrates that Jews feel more secure in the UK than elsewhere, but that Orthodox Jews are measurably more anxious about, and susceptible to antisemitic incidents, than non-Orthodox Jews.

It shows that over half of all Orthodox Jews in Britain are worried about becoming a victim of an antisemitic act, and that they are more than twice as likely as non-Orthodox Jews to have experienced antisemitic harassment or discrimination.

Close to two-thirds of Orthodox Jews believe antisemitism to be a problem in the UK, compared with under half of non-Orthodox Jews, and four in ten of the Orthodox avoid certain places out of fear for their safety as Jews, compared to a quarter of the non-Orthodox.

However, in general, the report shows that levels of antisemitism in the UK are significantly lower than in other Western European countries, and that Jews in Britain feel noticeably less anxious about it than elsewhere on the continent.

Further issues explored in the report include data on how Jews define antisemitism, levels of reporting of different types of antisemitic incidents, and attitudes towards legislation on brit milah (circumcision) and shechita (the methods used under Jewish law to kill animals to produce kosher meat).
Editor(s): Kovács, András
Date: 2004
Date: 2017