Abstract: Angesichts globaler und regionaler Entwicklungen der vergangenen Jahrzehnte steht die Gesellschaft vor erheblichen Herausforderungen wie politischer Instabilität, verschärften Konflikten, Migration, Rassismus, Diskriminierung sowie der Verbreitung von Fake News und Verschwörungserzählungen. Dabei gewinnen Extremismus, Antisemitismus, islamistische Radikalisierung und Rassismus an Bedeutung. In der Phase intensiver Persönlichkeitsentwicklung sind junge Menschen, geprägt von Unsicherheit, besonders anfällig für extremistische Überzeugungen und Handlungen. Der Drang, die eigene Identität zu formen, kombiniert mit der Suche nach einem Sinn im Leben, macht sie besonders empfänglich für Einflüsse aus ihrer sozialen Umgebung. Fehlender Zugang zu staatlichen, zivilgesellschaftlichen und familiären Unterstützungsmaßnahmen erhöht das Risiko einer Radikalisierungsspirale. Diese wird durch die Verbreitung radikaler Versprechungen über Soziale Medien und gezielte Rekrutierung in der sozialen Umgebung begünstigt. Insbesondere die Bedürfnisse und Emotionen junger Menschen werden dabei zum Ziel extremistischer Propaganda. Die Ergebnisse der Studie „IU-Kompass Extremismus“ zu antisemitischen Einstellungen bei jungen Menschen in Deutschland verdeutlichen weitverbreitete Ausprägungen dieses Phänomens. Es gilt, das Bewusstsein für menschenverachtende Ideologien zu schärfen und Jugendliche mit den nötigen Werkzeugen auszustatten, um diese Phänomene zu erkennen, zu benennen und aktiv dagegen vorzugehen.
Abstract: Mit dem vorliegenden Bericht erfüllt der Bundesrat das Postulat von Ständerat Paul Rechsteiner 19.3942 «Antisemitismus-Definition der International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)» vom 21. Juni 2019, das einen Bericht fordert, der sich mit der Arbeitsdefinition zu Antisemitismus der IHRA auseinandersetzt und ihren Nutzen in der Sensibilisierungs-, Beratungs- und Interventions-, Forschungs- und Justizarbeit darlegt. Der Bundesrat hat das Postulat zur Annahme empfohlen und ausgeführt, dass der Bericht zusätzlich die Möglichkeit bietet, die Politik gegen Antisemitismus in der Schweiz zu analysieren und gegebenenfalls weiterführende Massnahmen zu empfehlen. Der Bericht des Bundesrates fasst die Ergebnisse zweier Studien zusammen: Eine juristische Analyse der Arbeitsdefinition der IHRA und eine Evaluation der Massnahmen gegen Antisemitismus auf Bundes-, Kantons- und Gemeindeebene. Im ersten Teil geht der Bericht auf die Entstehungsgeschichte der Arbeitsdefinition ein und legt dar, wie die Arbeitsdefinition durch andere Staaten und internationale Organisationen angenommen und verwendet wird. Die einzelnen Elemente der Arbeitsdefinition werden analysiert, um diese zu konkretisieren, Unklarheiten zu beseitigen und Lücken zu identifizieren. Der Bundesrat folgert, dass er den Wert und die praktische Relevanz der rechtlich nicht bindenden Arbeitsdefinition der IHRA als Leitfaden für die Identifikation antisemitischer Vorfälle anerkenne. Insbesondere könne sie Ausgangspunkt für die Formulierung spezifischer, auf den jeweiligen Anwendungsbereich und Anwendungszweck ausgerichteter Definitionen sein, wobei diese mit den nötigen Vorbehalten zum Schutz der Meinungsfreiheit zu versehen seien. Eine explizite Bestätigung eines nicht bindenden internationalen Textes durch die Schweizer Behörden sei dagegen ungewöhnlich und vom Gesetzgeber nicht vorgesehen. Im zweiten Teil geht der Bericht auf die Massnahmen gegen Antisemitismus auf nationaler und internationaler Ebene ein und würdigt den Einsatz als breit und vielfältig. Konkret schätzt er das Ausmass des Antisemitismus, der Akzeptanz und der Bedrohungslage der Jüdinnen und Juden in der Schweiz ein, gibt einen kursorischen, aber repräsentativen Überblick über die Massnahmen auf Bundes-, Kantons- und Gemeindeebene und schliesst mit einer Reihe von Empfehlungen für einen umfassenderen und konsequenteren Einsatz gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus in der Schweiz. Konkret könne mit einer besseren Koordination auf Bundes-, Kantons- und Gemeindeebene die Rollen, Aufgaben und Verantwortlichkeiten bei der Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Antisemitismus geklärt, der Austausch gestärkt und eine gemeinsame strategische Planung gefördert werden. Diese Vorschläge werden auf Bundesebene von der Fachstelle für Rassismusbekämpfung (FRB) und der Eidgenössischen Kommission gegen Rassismus (EKR) im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenzen umgesetzt werden. Im Rahmen ihrer Koordinationsaufgaben werden sie vermehrt dazu beitragen, dass gesamtschweizerisch Synergien genutzt und eine landesweite Strategie gegen Rassismus und Antisemitismus weiterentwickelt werden kann.
Abstract: At the beginning of the twenty-first century, antisemitism still constitutes a significant problem in many parts of the world, including in Britain. Although many historical, social and political aspects of anti-Jewish prejudice have been studied extensively, something that has received only scant attention is whether and how key institutions and actors have attempted to counteract it. This thesis contributes towards filling this gap in the scholarly literature by examining governmental and non-governmental responses to contemporary antisemitism in Britain, which it conceptualises as a multi-dimensional and contested social problem. Analysing government documents, parliamentary records and other publications, the thesis compares how state and civil society actors have discursively framed antisemitism, and what practical measures – if any – they have adopted to counter it. This analysis shows that the state has traditionally tended to neglect anti-Jewish prejudice, or to address it only indirectly in the context of much larger categories of issues, such as racism or inequality. While this universalistic approach is not entirely dismissed, the thesis problematizes the underlying assumption that contemporary antisemitism should simply be subsumed under the larger umbrella of racism. The limitations of such an approach become especially apparent in the context of Holocaust remembrance and Holocaust education, to which the thesis devotes a separate chapter. On the other hand, while the thesis does not propose a simple dichotomy of universalistic state responses and particularistic civil society responses, it argues that the work of groups such as the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism and the Community Security Trust highlights the potential of civil society to make significant contributions to the fight against contemporary antisemitism by engaging with it as a particular issue. However, an examination of British Israel advocacy organisations in the final chapter demonstrates that this inherent potential is not always realised in practice. Overall, the thesis argues that a multi-level framework for addressing anti-Jewish prejudice that includes different governmental as well as non-governmental actors is most likely to be effective in countering antisemitism in all its complexity.
Abstract: Despite efforts by clubs, fans, and officials to combat discrimination and hate speech, antisemitism in German football and fan cultures still persists today. Antisemitism is expressed by supporters, players, coaches, club and league officials, security personal, and others. In most cases, no Jews need to be present to stimulate antisemitic behaviour. This chapter argues that contemporary antisemitism in and around German football is manifest in five different forms, which are explained with illustrative examples: far-right antisemitism; classical antisemitism; secondary antisemitism; antisemitism against Jewish Makkabi clubs; and antisemitic ressentiment-communication. This chapter also questions who does what against antisemitism in German football. By looking at each actor individually – football’s governing bodies; professional clubs; social pedagogical fan projects; stadium security and police; third sector organisations; and fans – it is evident that neither a common nor a long-term strategy exists, although a broad range of activities and actions take place, often initiated by, or implemented after, the pressure of fan groups.
Abstract: This chapter outlines the character, causes and extent of antisemitism within English football. This has included several high-profile incidents within English men’s football involving professional players, coaches, officials, and especially supporters. The chapter begins with a short historical background to the presence of Jews and antisemitism in England before moving onto the current situation and then considering how antisemitism is manifest within English football. The chapter expounds why Tottenham historically developed a quasi-Jewish identity that serves as a catalyst for antisemitic abuse from rival supporters. In doing so, the chapter examines the different subcultural meanings and intentions behind the controversial uses of the word ‘Yid’ within the context of English football supporter culture, which has been re-appropriated by Tottenham fans. Finally, the chapter critically reviews the responses to antisemitism in English football by governing bodies within the sport, Jewish community organisations, campaign groups, the criminal justice system, and professional football clubs.
Abstract: The article engages with institutionalized German anti-anti-Semitism in recent debates about the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To elucidate Germany's raison d’état, current silencing of political dissent and drawing on Stuart Hall's notion of “conjuncture,” the first step is to sketch the dynamics of memory politics after the Holocaust: the silence of the postwar period, the student movement's struggle against bystanders and perpetrators, subsequent debates of representation, memorialization, trauma and finally the provincialization and nascent globalized memory (Conjunctures and the Politics of Memory). Articulating the aporias of current German (memory) politics between history and event, historical antecedents and singularity, particularity and universalism, in a second step the tensions between German raison d'état, anti-anti-Semitism and postcolonial perspectives are addressed that delimit the frameworks of negotiating anti-Semitism in the public sphere (Conjunctures and Aporias). In this sense, the remarks contribute to the critical debate on anti-anti-Semitism.
Abstract: Current approach to tackling antisemitism not working, our report with the Birkbeck Institute for the Study of Antisemitism shows.
Antisemitism is deeply embedded into our common culture; it exists as a reservoir of racist stereotypes and narratives about Jewish people, which are normalised and widespread. Antisemitic incidents have spiked over the last year, particularly in response to the events of October 7th 2023 and the ongoing violence in Gaza. Yet, discussions around antisemitism have become highly politicised in ways that have been detrimental to Jewish communities’ safety and wellbeing.
Particularly damaging is the fact that these politicised discussions have inhibited the possibility of forging anti-racist solidarities with other communities that have been subject to the rise in far-right violence, and to the mainstreaming of racist rhetoric and policies.
Facing antisemitism highlights that:
Antisemitism is hardwired into UK society;
Current methods of defining, measuring and reacting to it are deeply contested and politicised;
The arguments that anti-Zionism always equates to antisemitism prevents meaningful and productive action to eradicate antisemitism in the UK;
Like other forms of racism, antisemitism in the UK consists of hateful attitudes and individual incidents but also institutional and structural racism;
The UK must move beyond framing and discussing antisemitism in ways that pit communities against one another, prohibit solidarity and encourage division;
Combating antisemitism must be undertaken as part of wider anti-racist initiatives, including building alliances with other racialised minorities.
The Runnymede Trust urgently calls for a different approach to combating antisemitism, including from the government and wider anti-racist organisations.
Abstract: Social media platforms and the interactive web have had a significant impact on political socialisation, creating new pathways of community-building that shifted the focus from real-life, localised networks (such as unions or neighbourhood associations) to vast, diffuse and globalised communities (Finin et al. 2008, Rainie and Wellman 2012, Olson 2014, Miller 2017). Celebrities or influencers are often focal nodes for the spread of information and opinions across these new types of networks in the digital space (see Hutchins and Tindall 2021). Unfortunately, this means that celebrities’ endorsement of extremist discourse or narratives can potently drive the dissemination and normalisation of hate ideologies.
This paper sets out to analyse the reaction of French social media audiences to antisemitism controversies involving pop culture celebrities. I will focus on two such episodes, one with a ‘national’ celebrity at its centre and the other a ‘global’ celebrity: the social media ban of the French-Cameroonian comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala in June–July 2020 and the controversy following US rapper Kanye West’s spate of antisemitic statements in October–November 2022. The empirical corpus comprises over 4,000 user comments on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter (now X). My methodological approach is two-pronged: a preliminary mapping of the text through content analysis is followed by a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis that examines linguistic strategies and discursive constructions employed by social media users to legitimise antisemitic worldviews. We lay particular emphasis on the manner in which memes, dog-whistling or coded language (such as allusions or inside jokes popular within certain communities or fandoms) are used not only to convey antisemitic meaning covertly but also to build a specific form of counter-cultural solidarity. This solidarity expresses itself in the form of “ deviant communities” (see Proust et al. 2020) based on the performative and deliberate transgression of societal taboos and norms.
Abstract: Despite the benefits of the intersectional approach to antisemitism studies, it seems to have been given little attention so far. This chapter compares the online reactions to two UK news stories, both centred around the common theme of cultural boycott of Israel in support of the BDS movement, both with a well-known female figure at the centre of media coverage, only one of which identifies as Jewish. In the case of British television presenter Rachel Riley, a person is attacked for being female as well as Jewish, with misogyny compounding the antisemitic commentary. In the case of the Irish writer Sally Rooney, misogynistic discourse is used to strengthen the message countering antisemitism. The contrastive analysis of the two datasets, with references to similar analyses of media stories centred around well-known men, illuminates the relationships between the two forms of hate, revealing that—even where the antisemitic attitudes overlap— misogynistic insults and disempowering or undermining language are being weaponised on both sides of the debate, with additional characterisation of Riley as a “grifter” and Rooney as “naive”.
More research comparing discourses around Jewish and non-Jewish women is needed to ascertain whether this pattern is consistent; meanwhile, the many analogies in the abuse suffered by both groups can perhaps serve a useful purpose: shared struggles can foster understanding needed to then notice the particularised prejudice. By including more than one hate ideology in the research design, intersectionality offers exciting new approaches to studies of antisemitism and, more broadly, of
hate speech or discrimination.
