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: 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: The article analyzes the newest survey results on antisemitic prejudices, antisemitic political discourses, and political antisemitism in present-day Hungary. According to the research findings, during the first decade and a half after the fall of communism, 10%-15% of the Hungarian adult population held a strong antisemitic prejudice. Surveys conducted after 2006 show not only an increase in the absolute percentage of antisemites, but also an increase in the proportion of antisemites who embed their antisemitism in the political context. This phenomenon is linked with the appearance on the political scene of Jobbik, a more or less openly antisemitic party. When examining the causes of antisemitism, the most interesting finding was that the strength of antisemitic feelings is regionally different and that these differences correlate with the strength of Jobbik’s support in the various regions. Accordingly, we hypothesized that support for a far-right party is not a consequence of antisemitism, but conversely should be regarded as a factor that mobilizes attitudes leading to antisemitism. Thus, antisemitism is—at least in large part—a consequence of an attraction to the far right rather than an explanation for it. While analyzing antisemitic discourse, we found that the primary function of the discourse is not to formulate anti-Jewish political demands but
to establish a common identity for groups that, for various reasons and motives, have turned against the liberal parliamentary system that replaced communism.
Abstract: The present study examines Jewish politics in Communist Hungary. As it is widely known, politicians of Jewish origin played an important role in the political life of post-war Hungary as leaders of the Communist party or as officials in the Communist governments. Their activity had a considerable effect, both directly and indirectly, on the life of Hungarian Jews. "Judeo-Bolshevic" rule is still a favorite topic of contemporary antisemitic publiciations. No doubt, the question of whether the Jewish origin of these politicians had an impact on their decisions, and if so, to what extent, could be a relevant subject for historical study. However, this essay deals with a different topic. It is concerned only with those politicians in post-war Hungary who identified themselves publicly as Jews or openly
represented Jewish causes. How did these politicians, who viewed Jews as a collectivity and sought to defend the Jews’ collective interests, act in the troublesome post-war decades?
Abstract: After the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the Jewish community within Yugoslavia was also split up, and now various Jewish communities exist in the seven post-Yugoslav countries. Although all of these communities are relatively small, their size, influence, and activity vary. The political and legal status of Jewish communities, normatively speaking, differs across the former Yugoslav republics. Sometimes Jews or Jewish communities are mentioned in constitutions, signed agreements with governments, or are recognized in laws that regulate religious communities. Despite normative differences, they share most of the same problems – a slow process of return of property, diminishing numbers due to emigration and assimilation, and, although on a much lower scale than in many other countries, creeping anti-Semitism. They also share the same opportunities – a push for more minority rights as part of ‘Europeanization’ and the perception of Jewish communities as a link to influential investors and politicians from the Jewish diaspora and Israel.
Abstract: Представленная книга документированных исследований А. Бураковского исторически охватывает 30-летний период развития социально-политической жизни Украины начиная с распада СССР и до 2016 года включительно. Книга содержит 10 глав и соответствуещее теме книги вступительное слово профессора истории Ивана Химки (John-Paul Himka). События в ней разворачиваются на фоне всех «майданов», начиная от первого — НРУ, и заканчивая «евромайданом», при президентах Л. Кравчуке, Л. Кучме, В. Ющенко, В. Януковиче — вплоть до революционного перехода власти в независимой Украине к ее 5-му президенту П.Порошенко. Все события в книге разворачиваются на фоне эволюции развития как украинского, так и еврейского возрождения, и их жесткого взаимовлияния. При этом автор, будучи долгое время в центре тех и других событий, большое внимание уделяет трансформации еврейско-украинских отношений, главным образом, уже в независимой Украине.
Abstract: Over the course of the ongoing war in Ukraine, the identity of the global Russian-speaking Jewish community was put to the test. The conflict in Ukraine marked the first time in the history of Russian-speaking Jews that every expression, blog or Twitter post, and opinion article were recorded on the World Wide Web. This readily available data enables us to reconstruct the information climate that surrounded Russian-speaking Jews. The present article explores the sway of this climate on the political discourse of Jewish elites in Ukraine, Russia, and Jewish Russian-speaking diasporas between 2014 and 2015. Our findings suggest that identities of these groups are multilayered, but not hierarchical. Moreover, the elites’ common ethno-cultural Jewish identity coexists with distinct political affiliations. The allegiance of minorities to host societies is a well-known phenomenon. However, its mechanisms have yet to command sufficient research interest. Is it fear, prudence, genuine attachment to the country of residence, or other factors that stand behind the minorities’ commitment? This paper fuses thematic maps with content analysis to show that the “infosphere” is a key to understanding the position of Jews toward host regimes and their co-ethnics in other nation-states.
Abstract: Israel is increasingly the epicentre of Jewish peoplehood, shaping the lives of diaspora Jews as both an engine driving interconnectedness and a source of division. ‘Israelization’ impacts diaspora Jews differently according to country of domicile. This article examines British Jewry, providing historical context and drawing on interviews to explore the community’s shifting identity and culture. It argues that Britain represents a unique model between America and France. In America, where security is greater, Jewish ethnic ties are loosening, whereas in France, doubts over the Jewish community’s future increase their focus on Israel. While British Jews experience hostility, they feel safer than in France. Flourishing British Jewish culture reflects commitment to multi-ethnic Britain, alongside loyalty to Israel. The dynamics of those loyalties are changing, however, with dissent against Israeli policies increasingly legitimised. We conclude that the Israelization of British Jewry is all encompassing, even while allowing for a thriving diaspora community.
Abstract: Elections were held in 181 local authorities
in England, Scotland and Wales on 3 May 2012, for
the London Assembly and for the mayoralties of
London, Liverpool and Salford. Ten other cities held
a referendum to decide whether to adopt the
system of an elected mayor, while one, Doncaster,
voted on whether to abolish theirs.
The British National Party (BNP) stood 137
candidates in the local elections, as well as standing
for the mayors of London, Salford and Liverpool,
and for the party list section of the London
Assembly. This compares poorly with the 323 BNP
candidates who stood in the local elections in 2011,
and with the 611 BNP candidates who stood the last
time these seats were up for election, in 2008. This
fall in candidate numbers continued the BNP’s
gradual decline in membership numbers, financial
resources and popular support over the past three
years.
Partly as a result of the BNP’s problems, this
election saw an increased presence from other
far right parties. The National Front (NF) stood
38 candidates, more than it has managed
to muster for several years, and stood for mayor
of Liverpool and the party list section of the London
Assembly. Other, tiny far right groups, such as the
British Freedom Party and the Democratic
Nationalists, stood candidates in single figures.
The English Democrats (ED), although not itself
a far right party, has absorbed large numbers
of former BNP members in recent years without
requiring any of them to publicly renounce their
views. In this election the ED stood 87 candidates
in the local elections, well over a third of whom
were former BNP activists, candidates or councillors.
It also stood for the mayor of Liverpool and for the
party list section of the London Assembly.
The elections took place against the backdrop
of recession and public service cuts, which might
be expected to benefit extremist parties. The
question of candidates’ attitudes to the Jewish
community became a significant theme in the
London mayoral election, particularly regarding
statements allegedly made by the Labour
candidate, Ken Livingstone
