Abstract: Scholars have drawn attention to the prevalence of antizionist campaigning on campus, but previous studies have found lower levels of antisemitism among graduates. In this cross-sectional study, levels of antisemitism were measured among members of a large, demographically representative sample of UK residents (N = 1725), using the Generalised Antisemitism (GeAs) scale. Overall scores, as well as scores for the two subscales of this scale (that is, Judeophobic Antisemitism, JpAs, and Antizionist Antisemitism, AzAs) were measured, with comparisons being made according to educational level (degree-educated vs non-degree educated) and subject area (among degree holders only, classified using the JACS 3.0 principal subject area codes). Degree holders were found to have significantly lower scores than non-degree holders for Generalised Antisemitism and Judeophobic Antisemitism, while scores for Antizionist Antisemitism were effectively identical. Among degree holders, graduates from subjects under the JACS 3.0 umbrella category of Historical and Philosophical Studies exhibited significantly lower scores for Generalised Antisemitism and Judeophobic Antisemitism, and lower scores for Antizionist Antisemitism, although the latter association fell short of significance following application of the Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons (unsurprisingly, given the large number of hypotheses and the small absolute number of respondents in this category, N = 65). Exploratory analysis of the dataset suggests possible further negative associations with antisemitism for graduates of economics, psychology, and counselling, which may have been concealed by the system of categories employed. These associations may have intuitive theoretical explanations. However, further research will be necessary to test whether they are statistically robust. The article concludes with a discussion of possible theoretical explanations for observed patterns, and some suggestions for further research
Abstract: Quelques jours après l’attaque du Hamas en Israël, l’IFOP a réalisé pour le Journal du Dimanche, un sondage destiné à comprendre quelles étaient les représentations des Français à l’égard du conflit et de son impact sur une éventuelle importation de violences antisémites en France.
Premier enseignement de cette étude, le conflit au Proche-Orient apparaît comme particulièrement anxiogène. 86% des Français indiquent être inquiets (36% « tout à fait inquiets »), soit un niveau d’inquiétude proche de celui mesuré au début du conflit russo-ukrainien. Le sentiment d’inquiétude atteint son acmé dans certains segments de la population traditionnellement plus favorables à l’Etat Hébreu : les plus de 65 ans (44% de tout à fait inquiets parmi les plus de 65 ans contre 25% parmi les 18-24 ans) ou encore les électeurs de Valérie Pécresse (50% de « tout à fait inquiets »).
Deuxième enseignement de cette étude : les Français établissent clairement un lien entre les évènements au Proche-Orient et l’importation de violences antisémites en France. 48% des sondés estiment ainsi que les Français de confession juive sont plus en danger et 79% se déclarent inquiets que le conflit se traduise par une augmentation des actes antisémites.
Plus globalement, les Français identifient bien les « nouvelles formes d’antisémitisme » comme étant des causes à ce phénomène : 77% citent le rejet et la haine d’Israël, 76% les idées islamistes, soit des niveaux supérieurs à ceux mesurés pour les idées d’extrême droite (66%).
Dernier point, les pouvoirs publics bénéficient d’une certaine mansuétude dans l’opinion : 60% des Français estiment leur faire confiance pour assurer la sécurité des Français de confession juive. Jean-Luc Mélenchon suscite en revanche la défiance sur ce sujet : il apparait comme la personnalité politique qui suscite le moins de confiance pour lutter contre l’antisémitisme (17%), loin derrière Edouard Philippe (46%), Gerald Darmanin (42%), Marine Le Pen (42%) ou encore Emmanuel Macron (41%).
Abstract: A kommunista rendszer bukása után Magyarországon is megjelent a nyílt antiszemitizmus. Voltak, akik úgy vélték, hogy mindez csak a szólásszabadság intézményesítésének kellemetlen következménye: most nyíltabban jutnak kifejezésre a korábban is meglévő, de lappangó antiszemita nézetek és ideológiák. Mások viszont megdöbbenéssel fogadtak a fejleményeket: attól tartottak, hogy a rendszerváltozás okozta megrázkódtatások újra életre keltették, felerősítették a korábbi évtizedek során halványulni látszott zsidóellenes előítéleteket.Valóban sok minden hangzik el ma az utcán, jelenik meg a házfalakon, újságokban, ami félelmet kelthet és kelt. De jogosak-e ezek a félelmek? Riasztó mértékű-e máris a zsidóellenesség a mai Magyarországon? Ebben a könyvben a magyarországi zsidóellenes előítéletek alakulását vizsgáltuk meg az elmúlt másfél évtizedben végzett szociológiai kutatások adatainak alapján. Az elemzés képet rajzol a zsidóellenes előítéletek gyakoriságáról, intenzitásáról, tartalmáról, kiváltó okairól és az előítéletes csoportokról. A különböző időpontokban keletkezett adatsorok összevetése során mindenekelőtt arra a kérdésre keresünk választ, hogy az előítéletesség változásai mögött kirajzolódnak-e az antiszemitizmus politizálódásának tendenciái, és azonosítható-e egy olyan számottevő csoport a mai magyar társadalomban, amely fogékony a politikai antiszemitizmus ideológiájára.
Abstract: In den Jahren 1985 und 1986 wurde die Öffentlichkeit durch eine Häu fung antisemitischer Vorfälle in der Bundesrepublik und in Österreich aufgeschreckt. Besonders die heftige Auseinandersetzung um die Präsi dentschaftswahl in Österreich machte in Polemiken und Leserbriefen sichtbar, daß antijüdische Ressentiments vorhanden und mobilisierbar sind. Da die Größe dieses Potentials unbekannt war, entsprechende Umfragen lagen mehr als ein Jahrzehnt zurück, nahm die Anti-Defa mation League (ADL), New York, mit österreichischen und deutschen Forschungseinrichtungen Kontakt auf, um Antworten auf diese Frage zu erhalten. Die ADL-Direktoren Abraham H. Foxman und Theodore Freedman traten 1986 mit der Bitte an Professor Dr. Herbert A. Strauss, den Lei ter des Zentrums für Antisemitismusforschung der Technischen Uni versität Berlin, heran, die wissenschaftliche Konzeption für eine Re präsentativbefragung zum gegenwärtigen Antisemitismus in der Bun desrepublik Deutschland auszuarbeiten. Ohne die Initiative und die Finanzierung der ADL, für die wir hiermit danken, wäre es dem Zen trum für Antisemitismusforschung nicht möglich gewesen, ein derartig umfangreiches und teures Forschungsprojekt in Angriff zu nehmen. Das Recht, die Daten der Umfrage einer eigenen Auswertung zu unter ziehen, verschaffte dem Zentrum die empirische Basis, seine Forschun gen zum Antisemitismus erstmals auch auf die Gegenwart auszudeh nen.
Abstract: Demonstrationen zum Nahostkonflikt, Übergriffe von Geflüchteten auf Jüdinnen und Juden – bei solchen Ereignissen steht oft die Frage im Mittelpunkt: Ist Antisemitismus unter Muslim*innen oder unter Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund besonders stark verbreitet? Gibt es einen „importierten Antisemitismus“?
In der gesamten Gesellschaft ist Antisemitismus weit verbreitet – dazu liegen zahlreiche wissenschaftliche Studien vor. Weniger Forschungsergebnisse gibt es hingegen zur Frage, wie verbreitet Antisemitismus unter der Bevölkerung mit Migrationshintergrund ist. Das Gleiche gilt für die über fünf Millionen Muslim*innen in Deutschland.
In einer MEDIENDIENST-Expertise stellt die Antisemitismusforscherin Dr. Sina Arnold die wichtigsten wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse zum Thema vor und leitet daraus Handlungsempfehlungen für Journalist*innen ab.
Antisemitische Einstellungen: Gemischte Ergebnisse aus der Forschung
Die Forschung kommt insgesamt zu einem gemischten Ergebnis: Je nachdem, um welche Ausprägungen des Antisemitismus es geht, weisen Personen mit Migrationshintergrund und Muslim*innen höhere oder geringere antisemitische Einstellungen auf als Personen ohne Migrationshintergrund und Nicht-Muslim*innen:
Beim klassischen Antisemitismus ist die Forschungslage bezüglich Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund widersprüchlich: Manche Studien finden höhere, manche niedrigere und manche gleiche Werte im Vergleich zu Menschen ohne Migrationshintergrund. Unter Muslim*innen ist die Forschungslage klarer: Sie weisen allgemein höhere Zustimmungswerte zu klassischem Antisemitismus auf als Nicht-Muslim*innen.
Sekundärer Antisemitismus ist unter Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund weniger weit verbreitet als unter Menschen ohne Migrationshintergrund. Zwischen Muslim*innen und Nicht-Muslim*innen gibt es kaum Unterschiede.
Israelbezogener Antisemitismus ist unter Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund und Muslim*innen weiter verbreitet als unter Menschen ohne Migrationshintergrund. Dasselbe gilt für Muslim*innen im Vergleich zu Nicht-Muslim*innen.
Die Forschung zeigt außerdem: Die Kategorie "Migrationshintergrund" ist nur bedingt aussagekräftig. Ein wichtiger Faktor für antisemitische Einstellungen ist die Aufenthaltsdauer: Die Zustimmung zu antisemitischen Aussagen schwindet, je länger Personen in Deutschland leben. Laut Arnold erlernen sie eine "soziale Norm gegen Antisemitismus" und kommen an Schulen mit der Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus in Kontakt, was sie möglicherweise für das Thema sensibilisiere. Eine weitere Rolle spielt, ob Personen eingebürgert wurden und aus welchem Herkunftsland und welcher Region sie kommen.
Antisemitischen Handlungen: Meistens rechte oder rechtsextreme Tatmotivation
Antisemitismus zeigt sich nicht nur in Einstellungen, sondern findet auch Ausdruck in Handlungen, etwa in Angriffen auf Juden und Jüdinnen oder jüdische Einrichtungen. Die Polizeiliche Kriminalstatistik (PKS) unterschiedet bei der Erfassung antisemitischer Straftaten grundsätzlich nicht nach Migrationshintergrund oder Glaubenszugehörigkeit, sondern nur nach der politischen Einstellung. Die Polizei geht dabei zum Großteil von rechtsextremen Täter*innen aus – bei den rund 3.000 erfassten antisemitischen Straftaten 2021 von rund 84,3 Prozent rechtsextremen Täter*innen. An der Einordnung gibt es aber Kritik. Bei 4,2 Prozent der Vorfälle wird "ausländische Ideologie" als Motiv vermutet. Rund 1,9 Prozent der Vorfälle werden dem Bereich "religiöse Ideologie" zugeordnet, was vor allem auf „islamistisch motivierten Terrorismus/Extremismus“ verweist.Quelle
Zudem gibt es die Jahresübersicht des Bundesverbands der Recherche- und Informationsstellen Antisemitismus (RIAS e.V.). Sie sammelt antisemitische Vorfälle unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze. Sie enthält zwar nicht die Staatsbürgerschaft möglicher Täter*innen, aber wenn möglich deren politisch-weltanschaulichen Hintergrund. Von den 2.738 im Jahr 2021 registrierten Fällen wurden 17 Prozent als "rechtsextrem/rechtspopulistisch" eingestuft, 16 Prozent als "verschwörungsideologisch", 9 Prozent der Fälle dem antiisraelischen Aktivismus zugeordnet und 1 Prozent dem "islamisch/islamistischen" Milieu.Quelle
Auch die Wahrnehmung der Betroffenen, also Juden und Jüdinnen in Deutschland, kann einen Hinweis darauf geben, von wem antisemitische Handlungen ausgehen.
In einer Umfrage der Agentur der Europäischen Union für Grundrechte von 2018 nahmen in Deutschland 41 Prozent der befragten Juden und Jüdinnen, die persönliche Diskriminierungserfahrungen gemacht hatten, bei Täter*innen einen "extremist Muslim view" an. Unklar ist hier, aufgrund welcher Eigenschaften diese Einordnung vorgenommen wurde, und ob Stereotype eine Rolle gespielt haben könnten.Quelle
Eine weitere Umfrage unter 553 Jüdinnen und Juden in Deutschland zeigte 2017, dass 70 Prozent Sorge hatten, "dass der Antisemitismus in Deutschland zunehmen wird, weil viele Flüchtlinge antisemitisch eingestellt sind". 58 Prozent fühlen sich "in Deutschland als jüdische Person zunehmend unsicher aufgrund der derzeitigen Zuwanderung nach Deutschland". Stärkere Sorgen bereiten rechtspopulistische Strömungen (75 Prozent) und der Alltagsantisemitismus. 84 Prozent der Befragten finden, dass "der Antisemitismus auch ohne Flüchtlinge ein Problem in Deutschland ist."Quelle
Abstract: Im Jahr 2021 wurden in Deutschland 3.028 antisemitische Straftaten erfasst. Dies ist der höchste jemals gemessene Wert seit Beginn der Erfassung in der polizeilichen Kriminalstatistik im Jahr 2001. Allerdings handelt es sich bei dieser Zahl nur um einen Ausschnitt, da sich das Problem des Antisemitismus in der deutschen Gesellschaft nicht allein auf Straftaten reduzieren lässt. So wichtig es natürlich ist, dass jede antisemitische Straftat entschlossen und mit allen rechtsstaatlichen Möglichkeiten verfolgt wird, muss der Kampf gegen Judenhass in einem breiten Kontext verstanden und adressiert werden. Denn die antisemitischen Vorfälle sind Ausdruck und Ergebnis eines gesamtgesellschaftlichen Klimas, in welchem antisemitische Stereotype und Ressentiments weit verbreitet und akzeptiert sind. Neben den Straftaten kommt eine große Zahl antisemitischer Vorfälle unterhalb der Strafbarkeitsgrenze hinzu, wie sie der Bundesverband der Recherche- und Informationsstelle Antisemitismus (RIAS) jährlich in seinem Bericht dokumentiert. Zudem gilt es zu bedenken, dass sowohl die Straftaten als auch die von RIAS dokumentierten Vorfälle nur jene sind, die zur Anzeige gebracht beziehungsweise gemeldet wurden. Die European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) kam im Jahr 2018 im Rahmen einer Befragung von Jüdinnen und Juden in zwölf europäischen Ländern zu dem Ergebnis, dass überhaupt nur 20 Prozent der Betroffenen antisemitische Straftaten zur Anzeige bringen oder anderweitig melden. Es ist also davon auszugehen, dass die Dunkelziffer nochmals erheblich höher ist.
Aufgrund dieser Erkenntnisse hat das American Jewish Committee (AJC) das Institut für Demoskopie Allensbach (IFD) mit der vorliegenden repräsentativen Umfrage beauftragt.
Und die Ergebnisse sind erneut ein Grund zur Sorge. Zwar zeigen die Daten nicht, dass antisemitische Einstellungen in der Bevölkerung stark zugenommen haben, dennoch bestätigen sie, dass ein beachtlicher Teil der deutschen Bevölkerung antisemitische Stereotype und Ressentiments teilen, wie es seit Jahren konstant in anderen Umfragen nachgewiesen wurde. Dabei haben wir auch untersuchen lassen, wie verbreitet diese Einstellungen unter den Wählerinnen und Wählern der sechs im Bundestag vertretenen Parteien sind. Die Ergebnisse verdeutlichen abermals, dass Antisemitismus nicht allein ein Problem der politischen Ränder ist, sondern in der Mitte der Gesellschaft tief verankert ist. Hier sind deshalb ausnahmslos alle demokratischen Parteien gefordert, diese Realität anzuerkennen und entsprechend zu handeln. Auch deswegen können wir nur davor warnen, dass das Thema Antisemitismus als Gegenstand parteipolitischer Auseinandersetzungen genutzt wird. Die demokratischen Parteien sollten es vielmehr als ihre Aufgabe begreifen, über sonstige politische Differenzen hinaus zusammenzustehen und Antisemitismus gemeinsam entschlossen zu bekämpfen.
Im Gegensatz zu vielen bisherigen Studien haben wir im Rahmen dieser Untersuchung auch die Einstellungen von Musliminnen und Muslimen in Deutschland abgefragt. Ausschlaggebend waren hierbei nicht zuletzt die antisemitischen Ausschreitungen hierzulande im Mai 2021 während der israelischen Selbstverteidigungsmaßnahmen gegen den Raketenbeschuss der islamistischen Terrororganisation Hamas. Wenngleich es in der Vergangenheit immer wieder zu antisemitischen Ausschreitungen vor dem Hintergrund derartiger Auseinandersetzungen gekommen ist, so waren jene im vergangenen Jahr nicht nur erheblich gewalttätiger, sondern es zogen zum ersten Mal anti-israelische Demonstrationen in verschiedenen Städten gezielt vor Synagogen. Nur das Eingreifen der Polizei, wenn auch zum Teil verspätet, konnte Schlimmeres verhindern. Im Zuge dieser Proteste kam es zu zahlreichen antisemitischen Vorfällen, Bedrohungen und körperlichen Angriffen. Allerdings hat sich die quantitative Sozialforschung, zumindest in Deutschland, diesem Phänomen bisher nur unzureichend gewidmet. Dies ist umso überraschender, da in der bereits erwähnten Studie der FRA befragte Jüdinnen und Juden in Deutschland auf die Frage, welchem Spektrum sie den schlimmsten antisemitischen Vorfall, der ihnen in den letzten 5 Jahren widerfahren ist, zuordnen, mit 41 Prozent die Täterinnen und Täter als „Someone with a Muslim extremist view“ angaben. Unter den zwölf befragten Ländern war dies der höchste Wert in dieser Kategorie. Und die Ergebnisse der vorliegenden Umfrage bestätigen, dass antisemitische Stereotype und Ressentiments in dieser Bevölkerungsgruppe durchgängig deutlich stärker vertreten sind als im Bevölkerungsdurchschnitt. Wie die Umfrage aber auch belegt, bedeutet dies selbstredend nicht, dass Antisemitismus allein ein Problem der muslimischen Community ist. Allerdings kann dieses immense Problem auch nicht ausgeblendet werden, wenn der Kampf gegen Antisemitismus erfolgreich sein soll.
Abstract: Campaigning organisation Avaaz commissioned ICM Unlimited to conduct a nationally representative poll to look into attitudes of the British public towards Jews and Muslims.
Some of the key findings include:
Overall, just under half of British adults say that they have a positive view of Jews (47%), while 7% say that they have a negative view. When it comes to Muslims, the British public’s attitudes are more unfavourable. A quarter say that they have a negative view of Muslims (26%), while a third say that they have a positive view (32%).
2017 Conservative voters are more likely than those who voted Labour to have a negative view of Muslims. Just under four in ten of those who voted Conservative in 2017 say that they have a negative view of Muslims (37%), more than double the proportion of those who voted Labour who have a negative view (16%).
A greater proportion of people agree than disagree for four of the five statements about Muslims/Islam that Avaaz tested. That is, more people agree than disagree that: Islam threatens the British way of life (45% agree vs. 31% disagree), Islamophobia in Britain is a response to the everyday behaviour of Muslims (36% vs. 34%), parts of the UK are under Sharia law (33% vs. 28%), and that there should be a reduction in the number of Muslims entering Britain (41% vs. 25%). The only statement with which more people disagree than agree is: ‘Islamic terrorism reflects the views of the Muslim community in Britain’ (26% agree vs. 49% disagree).
Six in ten 2017 Conservative voters agree that ‘Islam threatens the British way of life’ (62%), compared to 35% of 2017 Labour voters.
When it comes to attitudes towards Jews, just over one in seven of people agree that ‘Jews have disproportionate influence in politics’ (15%). Among 2017 Labour voters, this figure rises to one in five (20%), compared to one in seven 2017 Conservative voters (14%).
Abstract: From Foreword:
The events of 2021 have left their mark on Britain’s Jews.
For several weeks in May and June, during the conflict between Hamas and Israel thousands of miles away, antisemitism surged on British streets and campuses, online, in workplaces, schools and hospitals and in other institutions. Reported incidents broke records, with some making national headlines and prompting intervention by the Prime Minister.
Among the incidents were demonstrations that featured antisemitic speakers, chants and banners — some of which were endorsed, promoted and addressed by politicians, trade unionists and other luminaires — and convoys that saw allegations of the most despicable antisemitic incitement and violence in Jewish neighbourhoods.
These events weighed on British Jews, with almost eight in ten disclosing in our research that the various demonstrations, processions and convoys during the conflict caused them to feel intimidated as a Jew.
Consequently, there is a noticeable reversal this year in the optimism reflected in polling a year ago. Fewer British Jews believe that their community has a long-term future in the UK, and a record number — nearing half — have disclosed that they avoid displaying outward signs of their Judaism in public due to antisemitism.
Not only do perpetrators of antisemitism give the Jewish community reason for concern, but so does the criminal justice system. The Crown Prosecution Service has always performed poorly in our polling, but for the first time ever, a majority of British Jews do not believe that the police or the courts do enough to protect them either.
Antisemitism this year has also affected how British Jews view wider society. For the first time ever, a majority do not believe that their non-Jewish neighbours do enough to protect them, with many respondents deeply concerned about apathy towards Jews amongst the British public.
As our polling of the British public shows, there is reason for discomfort: almost one quarter of British adults believe that “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews,” which is antisemitic under the International Definition of Antisemitism, and more than one in ten Britons have entrenched antisemitic views.
There are more specific incubators of antisemitism as well. Over eight in ten British Jews still feel that Labour is too tolerant of racism against Jews, belying Sir Keir Starmer’s claim to have “shut the door” on antisemitism in his Party. Almost all British Jews also believe that antisemitism in British universities and on social media is a problem — the first time these issues have been polled — underlining the need for action.
Britain cannot be content when almost half of a long-established minority community avoids disclosing identifying signs in public, or when a broad majority considers one of the two major political parties to be too tolerant of racism. It is not too late to make the right changes in politics, at universities, online and to criminal justice, but the time for action is now.
Abstract: Od dłuższego czasu próbuję dowieść tezy, że obecnie w Polsce postawy antysemickie, a więc postawy wrogości i niechęci do Żydów, nie występują jako odrębne, niezależne od innych. Jeśli mamy do czynienia z aktywnymi postawami antysemickimi, takimi, które nakazują rozejrzeć się wokół, czy nie ma obok jakiegoś Żyda – a więc także osoby żydowskiego pochodzenia, która udaje nie-Żyda – najczęściej nie występują one w Polsce samodzielnie. Stanowią na ogół część ogólniejszego obrazu świata, zideologizowanego światopoglądu, w którego centrum znajduje się kwestia narodu, jego powołania, jego cech i katolickiego charakteru oraz, rzecz jasna, jego wrogów i przeciwników.
Abstract: Racism and racial prejudice, considered a relic of obsolete and outdated social systems, is emerging in the depths of ultra-modern Western societies with different characteristics from the past but with a surprising and worrying virulence. These waves of prejudice and racism testify to the many fears that fill the horizons of advanced societies, undermining not only their internal reliability, but also just their democratic settings. This paper presents a critical review of Islamophobia as a racial prejudice, showing that two main definitions are at work: Islamophobia as xeno-racism or linked to the so-called clash of civilizations. Then, it presents the outcomes coming from a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview (CATI) survey led among a representative sample of the Italian population (n = 1,523) on Antisemitic and Islamophobic attitudes. The cogency and structure of anti-Muslim public discourse and connected mass attitudes, revealed by our investigation, confirm the emergency of these two relevant dimensions of Islamophobia, which claim for a more accurate definition of Islamophobia. Moreover, the distribution of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attitudes illustrate an interesting overlapping of Islamophobia and Antisemitism which claims that racism is multi-targeted and that there is not so much options between Antisemitism and Islamophobia. Finally, we use three main variables—anomie, ethnocentrism, and authoritarianism—as predictors of Islamophobia and Antisemitism. We tested the strength of these three predictors with the aid of path technique based on multiple regression analysis, which helps to determine the direct and indirect impacts of certain independent variables on dependent variables in a hypothetical causal system.
Abstract: The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference), commissioned Schoen Cooperman Research to conduct a comprehensive national study of Holocaust Knowledge and Awareness in the United Kingdom
(England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). Schoen Cooperman Research conducted 2,000 interviews in the United Kingdom with adults aged 18 and over between September 29 – October 17, 2021. The margin of error is two percent.
The United Kingdom study finds that 89 percent say they have definitely heard about the Holocaust, and three quarters (75 percent) know that the Holocaust refers to the extermination of Jewish people. That being said, there are significant gaps in Holocaust Knowledge and Awareness in the United Kingdom.
The majority of UK respondents surveyed (52 percent) do not know that six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Further, a majority of UK citizens (57 percent) believe that fewer people seem to care about the Holocaust today than they used to, and 56 percent believe that something like the Holocaust could happen again today.
Abstract: The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims Conference) commissioned Schoen Cooperman Research to conduct a comprehensive national study of Holocaust Knowledge and Awareness in the Netherlands.
Schoen Cooperman Research conducted 2,000 interviews across the Netherlands. The margin of error for the study is 2 percent. This memo presents our key research findings and compares these findings with prior Claims Conference studies, which were conducted in five other countries.
Our latest study finds significant gaps in Holocaust knowledge and awareness in the Netherlands, as well as widespread concern that Holocaust denial and Holocaust distortion are problems in the Netherlands today.
We found that 23 percent of Dutch Millennials and Gen Z respondents believe the Holocaust is a myth, or that it occurred but the number of Jews who died has been greatly exaggerated – the highest percentage among Millennials and Gen Z respondents in all six countries the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against
Germany has previously studied.
Further, 29 percent of Dutch respondents, including 37 percent of Dutch Millennials and Gen Z respondents believe that two million or fewer Jews were killed during the Holocaust. Moreover, despite the fact that more than 70 percent of the Netherlands’ Jewish population perished during the Holocaust, a majority of Dutch respondents (53
percent), including 60 percent of Dutch Millennials and Gen Z, do not cite the Netherlands as a country where the Holocaust took place. Finally, 53 percent of Dutch respondents believe that something like the Holocaust
could happen again today.
Abstract: In research on antisemitism related to Germany generally four subdimensions of hatred towards Jews are differentiate: (a) the anti-Judaism related to the Christian religion, (b) the biologically argued racial antisemitism, (c) secondary Antisemitism, and (d) antisemitism presented as antizionism. The central question in relation to the shift in how antisemitic attitudes are articulated in the German population is the dispute over whether this shift consists merely in a change in how a continuing, fundamental antisemitic attitude is articulated, and whether antisemitic attitudes have merely found another avenue of communication. The overall object of the study is to explore the structures, contexts, and dynamics of antisemitism and to focus on aspects of political psychology, hence looking at mainly collective identification, defense, and projection patterns. In terms of methodology the intention is to study the project as part of a qualitative supplementary study, based on the integration concept described by Christian Seipel and Peter Rieker of a sequence of quantitative and qualitative empirical research. The supplementary study will have as its base a sub-sample extracted from the overall results of the GMF Survey 2005. An especially suitable method for this is the Structured Depth Interview since it makes possible revealing non-communicated motives—whether consciously kept quiet or unconsciously suppressed. The main goal here is to penetrate the surface structure of antisemitism, to decipher its political-psychological dynamics, and to elaborate its associative contexts.
Abstract: The ADL Global 100: An Index of AntisemitismTM is the most extensive poll on antisemitic attitudes ever conducted, involving 102 countries and territories. The ADL Global 100: An Index of Antisemitism has provided crucial insights into national and regional attitudes toward Jews around the world, the levels of acceptance of antisemitic stereotypes and knowledge of the Holocaust.
In 2023, ADL released a focused survey that included 10 European countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom.
First conducted in 2014, with follow up surveys in select countries since that time, this data is utilized by policy makers, researchers, Jewish communities, NGOs and journalists around the globe. The findings allow understanding of the magnitude of antisemitic attitudes around the world, and exactly which anti-Jewish beliefs are the most seriously entrenched.
The 2023 survey found that roughly one out of every four residents of the European countries polled for the 2023 survey harbored antisemitic attitudes. This result is consistent with the survey’s 2019 findings, showing that antisemitism continues to be entrenched across Europe. At least one in three respondents in Western European countries believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than the countries they reside in. In Eastern Europe, the most commonly held stereotypes is that of Jewish economic control and the perception of Jews as clannish.
Among the questions asked of respondents, 11 questions measuring general acceptance of various negative Jewish stereotypes were used to compile an index that has served as a benchmark for ADL polling around the world since 1964. Survey respondents who said at least 6 out of the 11 statements are “probably true” are considered to harbor antisemitic attitudes.
The survey was fielded between November 2022 and January 2023 with 500 nationally representative samples in each of the eight European countries and 1,000 nationally representative samples in Russia and Ukraine, respectively.
Abstract: Two cross-sectional studies were carried out in order to identify predictors of antisemitism, measured using the Generalised Antisemitism or GeAs scale. In the first, which used a self-selecting sample of UK-resident adults (n = 809), age, gender, ethnicity, and educational level as well as a wide range of ideological predictors were analysed as bivariate predictors of antisemitism. In the second, which used a representative sample of UK-resident adults (n = 1853), the same demographic predictors plus the non-demographic predictors found to have the strongest bivariate relationships with Generalised Antisemitism in the previous study were used to construct a linear model with multiple predictors. Ethnicity, support for totalitarian government, belief in malevolent global conspiracies, and anti-hierarchical aggression were identified as the strongest predictors of Generalised Antisemitism. However, support for totalitarian government was only found to predict ‘old’ antisemitic attitudes (measured using the Judeophobic Antisemitism or JpAs subscale) and not ‘new’ antisemitic attitudes (measured using the Antizionist Antisemitism or AzAs subscale), whereas ethnicity, anti-hierarchical aggression, and belief in malevolent global conspiracies were found to predict both ‘old’ and ‘new’ antisemitic attitudes. This finding adds nuance to ongoing debates about whether antisemitism is more prevalent on the political right or left, by suggesting that (at least in the UK) it is instead associated with a conspiracist view of the world, a desire to overturn the social order, and a preference for authoritarian forms of government—all of which may exist on the right, the left, and elsewhere. Data from both samples are open, as is the code used in order to carry out the analyses presented here.
Abstract: Existing scholarship on contemporary antisemitism tends to sacrifice breadth for depth, typically focusing on a specific dimension of the phenomenon or a single national or ideological context. This myopia threatens to limit our understanding of current antisemitism because separate parts of a complex picture are studied in isolation, and because crucial questions about temporal and cross-national variation remain understudied. To help remedy this situation, this article introduces a more comprehensive conceptual and empirical framework along with a new dataset intended to encourage the study of antisemitism as a multidimensional, cross-national, and dynamic phenomenon. The framework provides a model for studying antisemitism in four core dimensions—attitudes, incidents, cultural imagery, and Jews’ exposure—and specifies relevant variables and indicators, thus facilitating future research and data collection efforts. To supplement the framework, the article introduces a new dataset (DIMA—Dimensions of Antisemitism) featuring publicly available data covering three of the four dimensions: attitudes, incidents, and exposure. Based on patterns emerging from these data, hypotheses for further study are suggested. These contributions are intended to prepare the ground for a new and theoretically more ambitious research agenda in the field of contemporary antisemitism research.
Abstract: The stereotyped content of outgroups denotes intergroup relations. Based on this notion, Susan Fiske and colleagues (2002, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878) created the stereotype content model (SCM), which links two dimensions, warmth and competence, with social structure. The structure of intergroup relations is not stable in time, nor is it shaped instantly. Based on the assumptions of SCM we predict that the history of intergroup relations is in part responsible for stereotypes. In order to test the hypothesis we reanalysed five Polish nationwide, representative surveys (total N = 4834). The studies followed a similar procedure for data collection, and each study asked an open-ended question about the traits of two ethnic groups (Jews and Germans). Answers were listed and coded using competent judges. The averages of the judges’ codes were used as indicators of stereotype content and an analysis of regional differences was conducted. Several significant results were obtained and are interpreted in line with warm – competition and competence – status relations. The results show that several historical situations and events, such as pre-WWII social structure or post-war migrations and territorial changes, can be linked to contemporary stereotypes.
Abstract: On the basis of a new heuristic model of anti-Semitism, researchers are able to distinguish between new and old aspects of anti-Semitic attitudes. The results of two studies suggest that anti-Semitism in Germany contains very different aspects and the data fit the new theoretical model. Both traditional aspects, like "manifest anti-Semitism," as well as new forms of anti-Semitic attitudes, like "latent anti-Semitism," "rejection of responsibility for Jews," "anti-Israeli attitudes," and "anti-Zionism," were found. Furthermore, we identified various anti-Semitic attitudes with different predictive elements. Individuals with extreme anti-Semitic attitudes differ significantly from those without anti-Semitic attitudes with regard to the extent of authoritarianism, readiness for violence, approval of the repetition of National Socialism, and political orientation. The comparison between the two general concepts, authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, demonstrated that authoritarianism has greater utility in explaining separate aspects of old and new anti-Semitic attitudes. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Abstract: The fear and hatred of others who are different has economic consequences because such feelings are likely to translate into discrimination in labor, credit, housing, and other markets. The implications range from earnings inequality to intergenerational mobility. Using German data from 1996 and 2006, we analyze the determinants of racist and xenophobic feelings towards foreigners in general, and against specific groups such as Italians, Turks, and Asylum Seekers. We also analyze racist and anti-Semitic feelings towards German citizens who differ in ethnicity (Aussiedler from Eastern Europe) or in religion (German Jews). Individuals’ perceived (or actual) economic well-being is negatively related to the strength of these feelings. Education, and having contact with foreigners mitigate racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic feelings. People who live in states which had provided above-median support of the Nazi party in the 1928 elections have stronger anti-Semitic feelings today. The results are not gender-driven. They are not an artifact of economic conditions triggering feelings about job priority for German males, and they are not fully driven by fears about foreigners taking away jobs. The results of the paper are consistent with the model of Glaeser (Q J Econ 120(1):45–86, 2005) on hate, and with that of Akerlof and Kranton (Q J Econ 105(3):715–753, 2000; J Econ Perspect 19(1):9–32, 2005) on identity in the utility function.
Abstract: The increase in the number of anti-Semitic acts since the start of the Second Intifada has sparked off a broad debate on the return of anti-Semitism in France. This article focuses on the question whether this anti-Semitism is still based on the alleged superiority of the Aryan race as in the time of Nazism, or if it does represent the birth of a „new Judeophobia“ that is more based on anti-Zionism and the polemical mixing of „Jews“, „Israelis“, and „Zionists“. One supposed effect of this transformation is that anti-Semitism is in the process of changing camps and migrating from the extreme right to the extreme left of the political arena, to the „alter“-globalizers, the communists, and the „neo-Trotskyists“.
Questions that will be answered in this article are: Are anti-Jewish views on the increase in France today? Do these opinions correlate or not with negative opinions of other minorities, notably Maghrebians and Muslims? Do they tend to develop among voters and sympathizers with the extreme right or on the extreme left of the political spectrum? And how are they related to opinions concerning Zionism and the Israelo-Palestinian conflict?
The evaluation of the transformations in French anti-Semitism will rely on two types of data. The first is police and gendarmerie statistics published by the National Consultative Committee on Human Rights (CNCDH), which is charged with presenting the prime minister with an annual report on the struggle against racism and xenophobia in France. The other is data from surveys, notably surveys commissioned by CNCDH for its annual report and surveys conducted at the Center for Political Research (CEVIPOF) at Sciences Po (Paris Institute for Political Research). They show that anti-Semitic opinions follow a different logic from acts, that the social, cultural and political profile of anti-Semites remains very close to that of other types of racists, and that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism do not overlap exactly.
Abstract: Während seiner zweieinhalbjährigen Laufzeit sammelte das Dialogprojekt des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland „Schalom Aleikum“ Stimmen aus der deutschen Gesellschaft zum jüdisch-muslimischen Dialog. Jedes Jahr fanden, in Zusammenarbeit mit forsa. Gesellschaft für Sozialforschung und statistische Analysen mbH, bundesweite Online-Umfragen statt. Die Ergebnisse werden nun als Buch präsentiert. Es sind Zahlen und Statistiken, die nachdenklich stimmen – manche optimistisch, manche ambivalent, einige pessimistisch. Gleichzeitig sollen sie als essenzieller Impulsgeber für Politik und Gesellschaft fungieren.
„Ich hoffe, dass das Buch hilft, ein realitätstreues Bild von der deutschen Gesellschaft im Hier und Jetzt zu erhalten – in all seinen positiven, wie auch negativen Facetten. Meine Hoffnung ist auch, dass in Zukunft die Menschen offen, respektvoll und voller Neugierde miteinander umgehen und aufeinander zugehen.“ Josef Schuster, Präsident des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland
Abstract: This article validates the Generalised Antisemitism (GeAs) scale, which provides a measure of antisemitism consistent with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism (generally known as the IHRA Definition). The GeAs scale is comprised of two 6-item subscales, each containing a balance of reverse-coded items: the Judeophobic Antisemitism (JpAs) subscale, comprised of antisemitic statements about Jews as Jews, and the Antizionist Antisemitism (AzAs) subscale, comprised of antisemitic statements about Israel and its supporters. Pre-registered tests of convergent-discriminant validity are carried out using a quota sample (n= 602), which is also used to test the pre-registered hypothesis of positive correlation between subscales. The latter is supported and shown to be robust to outliers, as well as to hold both among male and female respondents and among younger and older respondents. Test-retest reliability is measured using re-invitees from the first sample (n= 428). Data from larger samples of UK-resident adults (a quota sample balanced for age and gender, n= 809, and a representative random sample from a recruited panel, n= 1853) are used in a confirmatory factor analysis and in tests of measurement invariance. The findings provide further evidence that the GeAs scale is reliable and valid. The finding that improved fit is achieved by bifactor models featuring two group factors and a general factor is consistent with the view that statements characteristic of ‘old’ and ‘new’ antisemitism express a single underlying trait.
Abstract: Belief in conspiracy theories about Jews is a prototypical example of how a naïve theory can serve as a universal explanation of “all the bad things happening in society.” Such a theory often arises in times of political unrest that tend to breed feelings of uncertainty in politics and a lack of control over politics. As both uncertainty (a sense-making deficit) and lack of control (an agency deficit) can relate to conspiracy-based antisemitism, this research examines which of the two processes plays a pivotal role in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. Specifically, we hypothesize that political uncontrollability, rather than political uncertainty, is a critical factor in triggering conspiracy theories about groups. In Study 1 (N = 812) we found that lack of control, but not uncertainty, in the political domain predicted belief in Jewish conspiracy, and subsequently led to increased discriminatory attitudes toward Jews. The results of longitudinal Study 2 (N = 476) revealed that only political uncontrollability led to an increase in conspiracy-related stereotypes of Jews. In Study 3 (N = 172) we found that experimental induction of political uncontrollability increased belief in Jewish, German, and Russian conspiracy, whereas induction of political uncertainty did not. Finally, Study 4 (N = 370) replicated this pattern in another cultural context with more general measures of uncontrollability and uncertainty. It was lack of personal control, rather than uncertainty, that increased belief in Jewish conspiracy—and indirectly predicted other conspiracy theories. Our findings consistently support the critical role of political uncontrollability, not uncertainty, in triggering a conspiracy theory of Jews.
Abstract: For more than a decade, there has been a discussion about the scope and character of a “Muslim antisemitism” in Europe, spurred on by anti-Jewish harassment and terrorist attacks by Muslims in some European countries.* However, there are only a few major studies on the attitudes of Muslims towards Jews in Europe, while larger studies on the attitude of Jews towards Muslims have so far been missing completely. Based on the data from the 2017 survey, “Attitudes towards Jews and Muslims in Norway. Population Survey and Minority Study” (CHM), it is now possible to investigate how Jews and Muslims in Norway perceive each other, whether they see opportunities for cooperation as minorities and have common experiences of discrimination, what their positioning in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict looks like, and whether it influences their mutual perception. While the focus is on the relationship between Muslims and Jews, in some cases the results for the general Norwegian population are included as a tertium comparationis, since Jews and Muslims form part of Norwegian society.
