Abstract: n this article, we argue that Labour’s antisemitism crisis has been misunderstood. We suggest that a more accurate and sophisticated understanding of antisemitism offers a way forward. There are three elements to this claim. First, by drawing on existing data on attitudes towards Jews, we criticise the widespread focus on individual ‘antisemites’, rather than on the broader problem of antisemitism. In turn, we conceive of antisemitism not as a virus or poison, as in so many formulations, but rather, as a reservoir of readily available images and ideas that subsist in our political culture. Second, following on from this understanding, we offer five ways forward. Finally, we set this analysis in the context of a historical parting of the ways between anti‐racism and opposition to antisemitism. An anti‐racism defined solely by conceptions of whiteness and power, we argue, has proven unable to fully acknowledge and account for anti‐Jewish racism.
Abstract: Since 1995, Surveys on antisemitism using national representative samples have been regularly carried out in Hungary. In this article, we used data from the 2011 and 2017 surveys to explore the relationship between three types of antisemitism, namely religious, secular, and emotional. Moreover, we scrutinized how different religiosity indicators can be used as explanatory variables for the different types of antisemitism. We found a slight increase in religious and secular antisemitism between 2011 and 2017, while emotional antisemitism remained almost the same. Religious anti-Judaism significantly correlated with both secular and emotional antisemitism, however, its relationship was much stronger with the former. When analyzing the relationship between different types of antisemitism and religiosity indicators, we found that while in 2011, all the indicators were connected to religious, and most of them to secular and emotional antisemitism, in 2017, only the variables measuring subjective self-classification remained significant. The results show that the relationship between religion and antisemitism underwent some substantial changes between 2011 and 2017. While in 2011, personal religiosity was a significant predictor of the strength of antisemitism, in 2017, religion serving as a cultural identity marker took over this function. The hypothetical explanatory factor for the change is the rebirth of the “Christian-national” idea appearing as the foundational element of the new Hungarian constitution, according to which Christian culture is the ultimate unifying force of the nation, giving the inner essence and meaning of the state. In this discourse, being Christian is equated with being Hungarian. Self-declared and self-defined Christian religiosity plays the role of a symbolic marker for accepting the national-conservative identity discourse and belonging to the “Christian-national” cultural-political camp where antisemitic prejudices occur more frequently than in other segments of the society
Abstract: CST recorded 1,805 antisemitic incidents in the UK in 2019, the highest total that CST has ever recorded in a single calendar year. This is seven per cent higher than the 1,690 antisemitic incidents reported to CST in 2018, making 2019 the fourth consecutive year in which the annual record has been broken.
This record total, following on from those registered in 2016, 2017 and 2018, perpetuates a sustained pattern of historically high antisemitic incident figures. Furthermore, CST recorded over 100 antisemitic incidents in every calendar month for the second year in a row and the second year ever. Since April 2016, more than 100
incidents have been reported in all but two months. This is unprecedented: by way of comparison, CST only recorded monthly totals exceeding 100 incidents on six occasions in the decade prior, from 2006 to 2015.
The record totals in 2019 and the preceding three years were due to consistently high monthly totals, at a time when Jews, antisemitism and the Labour Party were the repeated subjects of national controversy. Debate surrounding Brexit also made this a politically contentious time during which recorded hate crime rose more generally, affecting many communities. These relatively lengthy contexts differ from the pre-2015 antisemitic incident highs, which were largely caused by temporary ‘spikes’ and sudden ‘trigger’ events.
Abstract: Kolektivní monografie o podobách antisemitismu v Čechách a na Slovensku analyzuje diskursivní a vizuální formy obrazu Žida v české a slovenské většinové společnosti. Příspěvky se zabývají otázkou, jak se v průběhu 20. a 21. století utvářel pojem „Žid“ nebo „židovský“ a jak se v souvislosti s tímto „cizím“ obrazem utvářel obraz „nás“ samotných. Autoři jednotlivých studií se ve svých analýzách tematicky obrací k otázce kontinuity a transformace těchto zrcadlových obrazů a zároveň zkoumají vztah identity a (politické) moci. Badatelé na příkladu Protektorátu Čechy a Morava, válečného slovenského státu, komunistického Československa, ale také soudobých reálií přesvědčivě ukazují, že antisemitismus není vázaný na skutečného nebo domnělého nepřítele, nýbrž na (sebe)legitimizační konstrukty. Předkládaná kniha je založena na využití dobového tisku, orálněhistorických životopisných rozhovorů, pamětí a archivních dokumentů. Také proto je publikace určena nejenom akademické obci a učitelské veřejnosti, ale všem zájemcům o fenomén antisemitismu, jeho projevy a vývoj ve 20. století a v současnosti.
Abstract: [Edited from press release]
Le bureau français de l’American Jewish Committee (AJC) a publié aujourd’hui sa première « radiographie » de l’antisémitisme en France ; une enquête sur les perceptions des Français et des Français de confession ou de culture juive sur la question de l’antisémitisme.
L’étude a été réalisée par l’institut de sondage IFOP, en partenariat avec la Fondation pour l’innovation politique (Fondapol). Un échantillon de 505 Français juifs et de 1027 Français a été interrogé selon un questionnaire commun.
« Les statistiques publiées chaque année par le ministère de l’Intérieur, bien qu’essentielles, ne reflètent pas les différentes facettes du problème que représente l’antisémitisme dans notre pays. Les données existantes s’appuient principalement sur les plaintes déposées, mais elles ne tiennent pas compte de la perception du problème et de son impact sur la vie des citoyens français » explique Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache, directrice de l’AJC Paris.
Selon l’enquête, la majorité des Français comme des Français d’origine juive considère qu’il y a beaucoup d’antisémitisme en France et que le phénomène est en augmentation.
70% des Juifs français déclarent avoir été victimes d’au moins un incident antisémite au cours de leur vie (84% pour les Français juifs de moins de 25 ans). Un tiers des Français juifs se sentent menacés en raison de leur appartenance religieuse ; le sentiment de menace est beaucoup plus fort chez les Juifs pratiquants et les jeunes Juifs (moins de 35 ans). Les deux principaux lieux où des incidents antisémites se produisent sont la rue (54%) et l’école (55%). Pour 26 % des Français ayant subi une agression physique, cela s’est produit à l’école ou dans un contexte scolaire. Pour échapper à l’antisémitisme, les Français juifs évitent certains territoires (44%) et s’abstiennent d’afficher des symboles exprimant leur judaïsme (37%). Un quart des Français juifs ont déclaré avoir déjà évité de révéler leur appartenance à la communauté juive sur leur lieu de travail.
« Il est très inquiétant de constater que l’antisémitisme a un impact sur la vie et le mode de vie de la majorité des Français juifs. Nous remarquons amèrement que ces derniers n’ont pas de répit face à l’antisémitisme. Cela doit cesser » a déclaré Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache.
Un Français sur cinq déclare avoir déjà entendu une personne de son entourage dire du mal des Juifs. 16% des Français disent avoir déjà assisté à une agression verbale antisémite. La grande majorité des Français (73%) et des Français juifs (72%) considèrent que l’antisémitisme concerne la société française toute entière.
« L’antisémitisme fait partie de la vie quotidienne des Français dans leur ensemble. C’est un phénomène qu’ils perçoivent et qui les touche. C’est désormais une préoccupation pour toute la société française, et non plus seulement pour les Français d’origine juive. C’est donc la note finale encourageante et positive de cette enquête : nous ne sommes plus aussi seuls, pour combattre ce fléau, que nous avons pu l’être – ou avons eu le sentiment de l’être – par le passé. Cela doit se refléter dans les actions politiques ; la lutte contre l’antisémitisme doit être une priorité nationale disposant de moyens adéquats pour couvrir l’ensemble du territoire français. » conclut Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache.
Abstract: [Edited from press release]
The AJC Paris study was conducted by IFOP, a leading polling firm, in partnership with Fondapol, a major French think tank. They polled 505 French Jews and 1027 French people between October 14 and November 19, 2019.
As antisemitism in France continues to spiral, Jews and the general population in France agree on the magnitude of the problem, according to the American Jewish Committee (AJC) Paris survey of perceptions of and experiences with antisemitism in France.
But alignment on the antisemitism threat to French society, and the government’s weak responsiveness, does not mitigate the fears of Jews about their safety and future in France.
Nearly three-quarters, 73%, of the French public, and 72% of Jews, consider antisemitism a problem that affects all of French society. 47% of the general public and 67% of the Jewish respondents say the level of antisemitism in France is high, while 27% and 22%, respectively, say it is low.
While 53% of the general public say antisemitism has been increasing, and 18% decreasing, in recent years, 77% of Jews say it has increased and 12% decreased.
The AJC Paris survey found that 70 percent of French Jews say they have been victims of at least one antisemitic incident in their lifetime, 64% have suffered anti-Semitic verbal abuse at least once, and 23% have been targets of physical violence on at least one occasion, with 10 percent saying they were attacked several times.
The continued spiraling of antisemitism in France has led significant percentages of the Jewish population to take protective actions. More than one-third, 37%, refrain from using visible Jewish symbols, 25% avoid revealing their Jewish identity in the workplace, and 52% have considered leaving France.
Overall, 44% of the Jewish sample say the situation for French Jews is worse than a year ago, only 11% say it is better and 42% no better or worse.
The youngest Jews, ages 18-24, are on the “front line” more than older cohorts in confronting antisemitism. 84% of them have suffered at last one antisemitic act, compared with 70% of all respondents; 79 percent had suffered verbal abuse, compared with 64% of all respondents, and 39% faced an act of physical aggression, compared with 23% of the full Jewish sample.
Visibly religious French Jews feel the most vulnerable, with 74% of them saying they had been a victim of at least one act of verbal abuse, compared with 64% of the full Jewish sample.
The main locations where antisemitic incidents occur the most are in the street and school. 55% said they had been insulted or threatened on the street, and 59% said they had suffered physical abuse in the school.
54% were victims of verbal abuse, and 26% had been victims of antisemitic violence in schools.
But equally disturbing is the finding that 46% said they had suffered anti-Semitic verbal abuse in the workplace.
Regarding the responsiveness of elected officials, Jews and the general public agree. Only 47% of Jews and 48% of the general public have confidence in the President of France tackling antisemitism, 46% of Jews and 41% of the public in the French government, and 58% of Jews and 56% of the public in local elected officials
Abstract: This article analyzes contemporary antisemitism and Holocaust distortion in Eastern Europe. The main argument is that Brown and Red, Nazism and Communism, respectively are not at all equal. In Eastern Europe, in particular, antisemitic ideology is grounded on the rehabilitation of anticommunist national “heroes.” The history of the Holocaust is thereby distorted. Based on Maurice Halbwachs’s theory of “social frameworks,” the author shows how “competitive martyrdom,” the “Double Genocide” ideology, and “Holocaust obfuscation” are intertwined. Empirically, the paper examines these concepts in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary, Serbia and Croatia, and Romania.
Topics: Antisemitism, Antisemitism: Education against, Antisemitism: Far right, Antisemitism: Left-Wing, Antisemitism: Muslim, Antisemitism: New Antisemitism, Antisemitism: Monitoring, Antisemitism: Discourse, Main Topic: Antisemitism, Terrorism, European Union, Integration
Abstract: In this article the term 'resentment', as used by Friedrich Nietzsche and then redefined by Max Scheler, is employed to explain anti-Semitic attitudes in Poland. The resentful attitude is based on the emotion of jealousy, which leads to a desire to degrade anyone with whom comparisons are made, in order to increase feelings of self-worth. This characteristic of the term was used to description of the group's attitudes. In this article, modern anti-Semitism is portrayed as an inseparable element of a wider Catholic-nationalist ideology, which creates the image of (symbolic) Jews as morally inferior and unfairly competing with (symbolic) Poles. In research conducted between 1992 and 2012 the author finds correlations between strong nationalist feelings and attitudes of jealousy and a desire to degrade Jewish people. The image produced by the empirical data is one in which the Jews are the enemy, directed by their own national (sic!) interests, and desiring to take advantage of the Poles, who are honest and idealistic, driving by theirs declarations and values, even against their own, actual interests.The author hopes the article can be a starting point for discussing the idea of resentment as a theoretical tool in research devoted not only to anti-Semitism, but also to xenophobia and attitudes to other groups in the democracy.
Abstract: The article presents the results of surveys done on anti-Semitism in Poland in 1992, which in part were compared to results from a 1996 survey. The group, under the author's direction researched anti-Semitism in the context of Poles' attitudes towards other nations, as well as in terms of their own national identity. Two types of anti-Semitic attitudes were observed: traditional, religiously grounded anti-Semitism, and anti-Semitism rooted in anti-Semitic political ideology, of the type that has developed since in the French Revolution. Traditional anti-Semitism occurs only among older people who are not well educated and live in rural areas; increased education results in the disappearance of this type of anti-Semitism. Modern anti-Semitism, on the other hand occurs among both the lowest and most highly educated groups in society. Moreover, from 1992 to 1996, the percentage of the respondents declaring anti-Semitic views increased. At the same time, however, there was also a larger increase in the number of respondents declaring anti-anti-Semitic views, which has meant that there has been a clear polarization of attitudes. Having a university education makes a person more likely to be ill-disposed toward anti-Semitism. Nevertheless, the attitude of Poles toward Jews cannot be described simply on the basis of anti-Semitic attitudes. The researchers noted that there was also an attitude of "not liking Jews", which was less engaged than the anti-Semitic views, and to a large extent a result of the content comprising Polish national identity. The model of Polishness assumes a Romantic-Messianic image of the Polish nation. According to this model, Poles see themselves as being distinguished by their noble fulfillment of obligations, even when it is to their own detriment, particularly with respect to symbolic Jews and Germans. Researchers also assumed that there was a particular kind of competition between Poles and Jews with respect to the moral superiority of their respective nations. The results from 1992 in part confirmed this hypothesis.
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).
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: Denne rapport beskriver og analyserer antallet af registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark i 2018. Rapporten er udarbejdet på grundlag af anmeldelser til AKVAH, der udgør en del af Det Jødiske Samfunds sikkerhedsorganisation.
AKVAH har i 2018 registreret 45 antisemitiske hændelser i Danmark fordelt på følgende kategorier: 1) Overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, 2) trusler, 3) hærværk, 4) antisemitiske ytringer, 5) diskrimination og 6) anden chikane. Hændelserne fordeler sig på fire tilfælde af overfaldssituationer og fysisk chikane, et tilfælde af trusler, tre tilfælde af hærværk, 35 tilfælde af antisemitiske ytringer, et tilfælde af diskrimination og et tilfælde af anden chikane. Ud af de 45 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser er der tre hændelser, hvor det er vurderet, at de alene kan betegnes som potentielt antisemitiske.
De 45 registrerede antisemitiske hændelser i 2018 er 15 hændelser flere end antallet af registrerede
hændelser i 2017, der var på 30.
Abstract: This report, produced by Professor P. Weller and Dr. I. Foster of the University of Derby, United Kingdom, is based on two phases of research conducted in six OSCE participating States—Belgium, Germany, Greece, Moldova, Poland and the United States of America—between December 2016 and May 2018. The research took various forms, including focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, observations, as well as desk research based on published literature. A detailed bibliography of works consulted is provided in an appendix to the report. The report provides background information about the history of anti-Semitism in each of the countries studied, along with recent statistics concerning reported anti-Semitic incidents in each country. The report does not compare how significant an issue anti-Semitism is in these participating States; rather, it presents an overall pattern of evidence to identify a range of key challenges with at least some relevance for teaching about and addressing anti-Semitism in classroom contexts across the OSCE region as a whole, and thus provides the basis for recommendations that could inform the development of teacher resources to meet those challenges in any OSCE participating State, not just the ones studied for this report. The research has made clear that, while the incidence, frequency and forms of anti-Semitism may vary over time, it remains a reality in OSCE participating States. However, there is relatively little published research on anti-Semitism among young people as such, and even less that is specifically focused on teaching about anti-Semitism and/or addressing it in classroom contexts. Therefore, the primary research that informs this report makes a clear contribution to understanding anti-Semitism as it currently exists in a number of OSCE countries, albeit subject to certain limitations in terms of methodology, which are noted in the report’s appendices.
Abstract: Mit der im Jahr 2016 von der International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) anerkannten «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» liegt ein Instrument für die notwendige Erfassung und Bekämpfung von Antisemitismus vor, das weite Verbreitung gefunden hat. In einem Handlungsfeld, das durch hochgradige begriffliche Verunsicherung gekennzeichnet ist, verspricht die Definition als praktische Arbeitsgrundlage begriffliche Orientierung. Tatsächlich stellt die «Arbeitsdefinition» mit ihrer konkreten, ohne Fachterminologie auskommenden Sprache sowie mit anschaulichen Beispielen, die den Begriff Antisemitismus anhand typischer, immer wieder auftretender Phänomene verdeutlichen, inzwischen eine Grundlage für die Arbeit verschiedener Nutzer*innengruppen dar. Zudem erfolgte mit der Aufnahme bis dato nur wenig beleuchteter (israelbezogener) Aspekte von Antisemitismus eine zum Zeitpunkt der Formulierung der Definition (Anfang der 2000er Jahre) notwendige Aktualisierung der Diskussion.
Bei einer näheren Untersuchung offenbaren sich jedoch auch gravierende Mängel. Insbesondere ist die «Arbeitsdefinition» inkonsistent, widersprüchlich und ausgesprochen vage formuliert; mithin erfüllt sie nicht die Anforderungen guten Definierens. Die Kerndefinition des Antisemitismus ist zudem reduktionistisch. Sie hebt einige antisemitische Phänomene und Analyseebenen hervor, spart aber andere, wesentliche, sehr weitgehend aus. Dies gilt insbesondere für ideologische und diskursive Aspekte, beispielsweise den Antisemitismus als verschwörungstheoretisches Weltbild. Ebenso fehlt eine Erwähnung organisationssoziologischer Aspekte der Mobilisierung in Bewegungen und Parteien sowie deren Niederschlag in diskriminierenden institutionellen Regelungen und Praxen. Zudem können manche israelbezogenen Beispiele, die der Kerndefinition hinzugefügt sind, nur mithilfe weiterer Informationen über den Kontext als antisemitisch klassifiziert werden, da das Beschriebene mehrdeutig ist. Es tritt in komplexen, sich überlagernden Konfliktkonstellationen auf, bei denen eine Zuordnung zu einem spezifischen Problemkreis wie Antisemitismus oft nicht einfach möglich ist. Ein Beispiel sind die sogenannten doppelten Standards. Sie sind kein hinreichendes Kriterium, um eine antisemitische Fokussierung auf Israel von einer solchen zu unterscheiden, die mit den Spezifika israelischer Politik und ihrer weltpolitischen Bedeutung zusammenhängen.
In der Folge begünstigt die «Arbeitsdefinition» eine widersprüchliche und fehleranfällige Anwendungs praxis und führt zu Einschätzungen von Vorfällen oder Sachverhalten, die nicht auf klaren Kriterien basieren, sondern eher auf Vorverständnissen derer, die sie anwenden, oder auf unreflektiert übernommenen verbreiteten Deutungen. Die Anwendung der «Arbeitsdefinition» produziert die Fiktion eines kriteriengeleiteten, objektiven Beurteilens. Die Definition stellt prozedurale Legitimität für Entscheidungen zur Verfügung, die faktisch auf der Grundlage anderer, implizit bleibender Kriterien getroffen werden, welche weder in der Definition noch in den Beispielen festgelegt sind.
Die Schwächen der «Arbeitsdefinition» sind das Einfallstor für ihre politische Instrumentalisierung, etwa um gegnerische Positionen im Nahostkonflikt durch den Vorwurf des Antisemitismus moralisch zu diskreditieren. Dies hat relevante grundrechtliche Implikationen. Die zunehmende Implementierung der «Arbeitsdefinition» als quasi-rechtliche Grundlage von Verwaltungshandeln suggeriert Orientierung. Stattdessen ist sie faktisch ein zu Willkür geradezu einladendes Instrument. Dieses kann genutzt werden, um Grundrechte, insbesondere die Meinungsfreiheit, in Bezug auf missliebige israelbezogene Positionen zu beschneiden. Anders als die Bezeichnung «Arbeitsdefinition» suggeriert, findet auch keine Weiterentwicklung der Definition statt, um diese Schwächen zu beheben.
Fazit: Der Versuch, Probleme allgemeiner begrifflicher Klärung und universeller praktischer Einsetzbarkeit mithilfe der «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» zu lösen, muss insgesamt als gescheitert angesehen werden. Vor allem aufgrund ihrer handwerklichen Schwächen, ihrer defizitären Anwendungspraxis, ihres trotzdem teilweise verbindlichen rechtlichen Status und ihrer politischen Instrumentalisierbarkeit mit problematischen Implikationen für die Meinungsfreiheit kann die Verwendung der «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» nicht empfohlen werden. Eine mögliche Ausnahme könnten lediglich eng umgrenzte pädagogische Kontexte darstellen.
Wie die Entstehungsgeschichte der «Arbeitsdefinition Antisemitismus» und ihre weite Verbreitung deutlich machen, gibt es – auch angesichts einer weiter bestehenden Bedrohung durch gegenwärtigen Antisemitismus – einen großen Bedarf vonseiten verschiedener Institutionen nach in der Praxis anwendbaren Kriterien zur Identifikation antisemitischer Phänomene. Folglich ist die Entwicklung von klaren und kontextspezifischen Instrumenten für die Praxis dringend zu empfehlen.
Abstract: Antisemitisme.be recense, depuis l’année 2001, les actes antisémites commis sur l’ensemble du territoire belge et, chaque année, publie un rapport sur l’antisémitisme en Belgique.Dans ce document, vous découvrirez la liste de tous les incidents recensés, notre méthodologie de travail, ainsi qu’une analyse de l’année écoulée.
Les incidents recensés et analysés dans ce rapport sont ceux qui nous ont été communiqués ou qui ont fait l’objet d’une plainte pour racisme. Les chiffres repris dans cette analyse reflètent bien sûr une tendance et non une photographie exacte dans l’antisémitisme en Belgique.
Tant que les membres de la Communauté juive se sentiront, à juste titre, en insécurité, tant que les institutions juives auront besoin d’être protégées, tant qu’ils ne pourront pas circuler comme tout citoyen belge en toute sécurité lorsqu’il arbore un signe apparent de judaïté (kippa, étoile de David…), l’antisémitisme devra être combattu et les autorités politiques devront y mettre tous les moyens.
Abstract: Der Schweizerische Israelitische Gemeindebund SIG hat im Jahr 2018 42 antisemitische Vorfälle (exklusive Online) registriert. Darunter waren 1 Tätlichkeit, 11 Beschimpfungen und 5 Schmierereien und keine Sachbeschädigungen. Online, also in den sozialen Medien und den Kommentarspalten von Zeitungen, wurden 535 Vorfälle registriert. Überdies kommt noch eine Dunkelziffer an nicht gemeldeten Vorfällen hinzu.
Inhaltlich wurden vier verschiedene Kategorien unterschieden: Antisemitismus allgemein (148 Vorfälle), Schoahleugnung/-banalisierung (37), israelbezogener Antisemitismus (170) und zeitgenössische antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien (222). Gerade antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien haben in der heutigen Zeit
weiterhin enorm Konjunktur. Dabei werden die verschiedensten und absurdesten Theorien verknüpft, diese
weisen letztlich aber alle auf eine angebliche «jüdische Weltverschwörung» hin (vgl. Kapitel 2.1).
Über 90 Prozent der erfassten Online-Vorfälle stammen von den Social-Media-Plattformen Facebook und
Twitter. Diese Tendenz deckt sich auch mit den allgemeinen Feststellungen zu «Hate Speech» auf den
sozialen Medien. Weit weniger antisemitische Beiträge gibt es in den Kommentarspalten auf den Webseiten der
Schweizer Zeitungen. Dies liegt sicherlich auch daran, dass diese Kommentare vor der Veröffentlichung meist
kontrolliert werden (vgl. Kapitel 2.2).
Sogenannte «Trigger», Anlässe oder Ereignisse, die für einen begrenzten Zeitraum eine massiv höhere Anzahl an antisemitischen Vorfällen zur Folge haben, spielen bei der Verteilung der antisemitischen Vorfälle eine zentrale Rolle. Insbesondere im Internet werden viele der antisemitischen Kommentare durch ein bestimmtes Ereignis bzw. die Berichterstattung darüber ausgelöst. International sind dies vor allem Ereignisse im Nahen Osten. In der Schweiz waren besonders die Berichterstattungen über den Prozess gegen den Rechtsextremisten Kevin G., ein Blick-Artikel über muslimischen Antisemitismus, der Angriff eines mit einem Messer bewaffneten Mannes auf eine Gruppe Juden sowie die Diskussion um jüdisch-orthodoxe Feriengäste Auslöser für überdurchschnittlich viele antisemitische Kommentare und Posts (vgl. Kapitel 2.4)
La Fédération suisse des communautés israélites FSCI a recensé un total de 42 incidents antisémites (occurrences en ligne non comprises), dont 1 cas de voie de fait, 11 cas d’insultes et 5 de graffitis, mais pas de déprédations. En ligne, c’est-à-dire dans les médias sociaux et les colonnes de commentaires des journaux en ligne, 535 incidents ont été enregistrés. Ceci sans compter les cas n’ayant fait l’objet ni d’un signalement ni d’un recensement.
Quatre catégories d’incidents différentes ont été déterminées en fonction de leur teneur : antisémitisme général (148 incidents), négation et banalisation de la Shoah (37), antisémitisme en rapport avec Israël (170) et
théories du complot antisémites contemporaines (222). Cette dernière catégorie des théories complotistes antisémites connaît une croissance importante à l’heure actuelle. Les théories les plus diverses et les plus
absurdes se combinent pour, en fin de compte, toutes aboutir à une prétendue « conspiration mondiale juive »
(voir chapitre 2.1).
Plus de 90 pour cent des incidents en ligne ont pour
origine les plateformes de médias sociaux Facebook et
Twitter. Cette tendance est corroborée par ce que l’on
sait d’une manière générale des propos haineux circulant sur les réseaux sociaux. Beaucoup moins nombreuses sont les entrées antisémites que l’on trouve
dans les colonnes de commentaires des sites des
journaux suisses, ce qui s’explique certainement par le
fait qu’elles sont généralement contrôlées avant d’être
publiées (voir chapitre 2.2).
On appelle « déclencheurs » des circonstances ou des
événements ayant pour effet, durant une période limitée, une augmentation massive du nombre d’incidents
antisémites : ils ont un impact considérable sur l’occurrence et le nombre d’incidents antisémites. Sur Internet
en particulier, nombreux sont les commentaires suscités
par un certain événement ou un reportage. Sur le plan
international, ils ont surtout pour cause des événements
au Proche-Orient. En Suisse, les articles de journaux
portant sur le procès intenté à l’extrémiste de droite Kevin G., un article du Blick sur l’antisémitisme musulman
et l’attaque au couteau d’un homme contre un groupe
de vacanciers juifs orthodoxes ont provoqué un nombre
particulièrement élevé de commentaires et de posts antisémites (voir chapitre 2.4).
Abstract: ON NE PEUT RAISONNABLEMENT PAS PARLER DE BAISSE DE L’ANTISEMITISME
Le nombre d’ACTES antisémites (ACTIONS + MENACES) ayant donné lieu à un dépôt de plainte est passé de 335 en 2016 à 311 en 2017. Soit une baisse de 7%.
‣ Mais ce chiffre est faussement encourageant. Relevons certaines réalités qui doivent être prises en compte dans l’analyse:
Le nombre des ACTIONS antisémites (attentat ou tentative, homicide ou tentative, violence, incendie ou tentative, dégradation ou vandalisme) ayant donné lieu à un dépôt de plainte est passé de 77 en 2016 à 97 en 2017. Soit une hausse de 26%.
Parmi ces violences, notons l’assassinat sauvage de Sarah Halimi (z’l), une femme de 65 ans, à son domicile dans le 11ème arrondissement de Paris.
Le nombre des MENACES antisémites (propos / geste menaçant ou démonstration injurieuse, tract / courrier, inscription) a diminué de 17% en 2017 comparativement à 2016 (214 contre 258).
Précisons que plusieurs facteurs viennent relativiser cette baisse :
✓ La comptabilisation des MENACES n’inclut que quelques faits relevés sur Internet mais pas la pleine activité antisémite sur Internet. Or, la majeure partie des discours et propagandes antisémites a migré vers Internet ces
dernières années.
✓ Le curseur de l’antisémitisme en France est allé tellement loin, jusqu’au terrorisme, assassinant même des enfants, des vieilles dames, que les témoins ou victimes de « l’antisémitisme du quotidien » manifestent une
sorte de résignation et d’habituation. Ils ne déposent plus plainte pour des faits considérés comme « mineurs » comparativement aux violences physiques antisémites. Or ces mêmes actes du quotidien donnaient lieu à
des plaintes il y encore quelques années. Une partie de ces « signaux plus faibles » ne sont plus dénoncés alors que leur gravité et leurs conséquences désastreuses restent entières
De nombreuses victimes d’actes antisémites disent ne pas porter plainte par peur de représailles.
✓ De nombreuses victimes d’actes antisémites sont peu confiantes sur l’aboutissement d’une enquête et sur l’issue d’une procédure pénale.
Le nombre des MENACES antisémites ayant donné lieu à une plainte représente donc un volume très inférieur à la réalité.
En 2017, une augmentation très forte des ACTIONS antisémites (+26%) et une baisse « artificielle » des MENACES (-17%) conduisent à une vraie inquiétude et à la nécessité de plans d’action forts et immédiats en matière d’éducation, de prévention et de sanction.
‣ 1 acte raciste sur 3 commis en France en 2017 est dirigé contre un Juif. Rappelons que les Français juifs représentent moins de 1% de la population et subissent 33% des actes racistes.
‣ L'antisionisme et la haine d'Israël prolifèrent de façon décomplexée, voire admise. Ils oeuvrent comme des paravents masquant, voire légitimant l’antisémitisme. Comment mesurer et étudier un phénomène pour le combattre si on lui permet de se dissimuler ? Comment cautionner un délit par un autre délit ?
Abstract: This paper examines the discourses relating to antisemitism in the three leading UK national “quality” newspapers from 1993 to 2009. To this end, three corpora were compiled, each consisting of the complete set of instances in context in these papers where antisemitism is mentioned, the first from 1993 the others from 2005 and 2009. Considerable changes were noted between the discourses in the earlier corpus compared to the later ones. In the first, the majority of discourses were either historical and/or literary-artistic (typically discussing whether a particular writer or artist had been antisemitic) or, if they were related to contemporary society, they were discussions of potential or reported antisemitism outside the UK, especially in Eastern Europe. In the later corpora, however, there is much more discussion about a perceived resurgence of antisemitism in the UK and Western Europe. After an overview of these changing patterns, particularly controversial recent cases of alleged antisemitism in British politics are discussed. The methodology of this research combines corpus-analysis techniques with more traditional close textual analysis, characteristic of corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS: Stubbs 1996, Partington 2008).
Abstract: Examines antisemitism in various aspects of Greek society in the 1980s and early 1990s. Regarding religious antisemitism, the official position of the Orthodox Church recognizes Judaism's contribution to Christianity and condemns antisemitism, but some in the Church exhibit anti-Jewish sentiments, hiding behind opposition to Zionists and Chiliasts (Jehovah's Witnesses). Greeks often confuse the terms Israelis, Zionists, and Jews. Discusses issues such as antisemitic texts in government schoolbooks, legislation against racial discrimination (which has rarely been enforced), political antisemitism expressed on occasion by the socialist PASOK party and by the Communist party, extreme right and terrorist organizations [e.g. ENEK (United Nationalist Movement), Ethniko Metopo (National Front), Chrysi Avghi (Golden Dawn)], antisemitic press and literature, and antisemitic incidents. The most common way of dealing with antisemitism in Greece is denial of its existence.
Abstract: Contemporary expressions of Judeophobia—in Germany, as elsewhere in Europe—contain a potentially explosive mix of traditional and newer forms of antisemitism. Since 9/11, and especially in the wake of the Iraq war, anti-Americanism has been a potent factor in envenoming hostile attitudes to Israel and the Jews—as alleged architects of the war, and “aggressors” in the Middle East. Conspiracy theories, with an antisemitic subtext, have flourished on the Left and in the mainstream media, as well as on the far Right. One-sided representations of the Middle East conflict, downplaying Palestinian terrorism, the threat posed by radical Islam and the genocidal antisemitism rampant in the Muslim and Arab media—while highlighting Israeli counter-violence as gratuitous sadism—have contributed to fostering anti-Jewish feelings. “AntiSharonism” has been widely used as a cover to present Israel as a
“criminal” state in its essence.
Such commentaries reinforce long-standing and widespread antiJewish stereotypes, revealed by surveys of German public opinion over the years—especially those related to Jewish money, power, and exploitative “abuse” of the Holocaust. Much of contemporary German antisemitism can best be understood as a form of ressentiment against constant reminders of the Nazi past and the desire to reverse the roles, to turn Israelis/Jews into “perpetrators”
and Germans into “victims.”
Abstract: Papers delivered at a conference in Jerusalem, October 1990.
Contents:
Kulka, Otto Dov: History and Historical Prognoses (9-11);
Bauer, Yehuda: The Danger of Antisemitism in Today's Central Europe (13-24);
Benz, Wolfgang: Antisemitism in East and West Germany: Will It Increase after Reunification? (25-33);
Stern, Frank: The "Jewish Question" in the "German Question" 1945-1990: Reflections in the Light of November 9th (35- 51);
Deak, Istvan: The Danger of Antisemitism in Hungary (53-61);
Vago, Raphael: Antisemitism in the New Romania (63-74);
Gutman, Yisrael: Polish Antisemitism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: Will Things Ever Change? (75-81);
Nosenko, Vladimir: The Upsurge of Antisemitism in the Soviet Union in the Years of Perestroika: Background and Causes (83-93);
Avineri, Shlomo: The Return to History and Its Consequences for the Jewish Communities in Eastern Europe (95-101);
Bauer, Yehuda: In Conclusion (103-106)
