Pascal L.
2 december 2003, 17:02
Het rapport van het onderzoeksteam van het Berlin Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism, dat in opdracht het onderzoek verricht heeft en het desbetreffende rapport ook heeft opgesteld en ingeleverd wordt gehekeld door het het European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), de opdrachtgever
Nu te lezen op:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070259994583
Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union
What follows is an as yet unpublished EU report on anti-Semitism in Europe. This report was leaked to The Jerusalem Post by the CRIF, the umbrella body representing the French Jewish organized community and by the European Jewish Congress, an affiliate of the WJC.
Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union
Synthesis Report on behalf of the EUMC [European Monitoring Centre] on Racism and Xenophobia
by Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel
Zentrum fur Antisemitismusforschung / Center for Research on Antisemitism Technische Universiteit Berlin.
Vienna, March 2003
Preface
Although we know – and opinion polls show - that anti-Semitism is permanently present in Europe in a more or less hidden way, many of us have hoped that manifest forms of anti-Semitism will not see any revival in Europe again. At present, Jews are rather well integrated economically, socially and culturally in the Member States of the European Union (EU). But the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 and the conflict in the Middle East have contributed to an atmosphere in Europe, which gives latent anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a new strength and power of seduction. Even rumours that Israel was responsible for 11 September 2001, for the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and that Jews bring about a situation in their interest in order to put the blame on somebody else, found a receptive audience in some places. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are spreading over the Internet, which provides a cheap vehicle for the distribution of hate.
Immediately after 11 September our primary concern was increased Islamophobia in the European Union. Right away the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia implemented a monitoring process in the Member States. The country-by-country results and a synthesis report have already been published. But early in 2002 there was additional concern about open anti-Semitic incidents in several Member States. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia found it necessary to carry out a more detailed investigation of the prevalence and kinds of anti-Semitism and to study, how it affects Jewish people living in Europe. It is the first study of this kind. It provides a flashlight on anti-Semitism in each of the 15 Member States.
The EUMC, through its RAXEN Information Network of National Focal Points in the EU Member States, received reports on anti-Semitism in the 15 Member States. The Center for Research on Anti-Semitism (CRA), Berlin, supplemented the country reports and brought them into a European perspective.
The report shows clearly an increase of anti-Semitic activities since the escalation of the Middle East conflict in 2000 with a peak in early spring 2002. But it reveals also positive developments. By 2003 the legal basis to fight against any discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds will be implemented in each of the EU Member States; all the governments and leading statesmen condemned anti-Semitic events and attitudes; many leaders of religious communities, political parties and NGOs are currently cooperating in the fight against anti-Semitism.
On the other hand, the EUMC is aware that more than only short-term measures have to be done. There is a need to implement activities on a continuous, long-term basis. For that end the report offers examples and recommendations to various groups of society on how to proceed and succeed in the struggle against the shadows of the European past.
Bob Purkiss, Beate Winkler
Chair of the EUMC, Director of the EUMC
Executive Summary
Alerted early in 2002 by worrying news on anti-Semitic incidents in some Member States the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) decided to commission a report on "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the EU" covering the first half of 2002. The report is based partly on short-term information provided to the authors by National Focal Points (NFPs) of the EUMC, giving special emphasis to the period between May 15 and June 15. The NFPs are the contact points to national networks in the Member States reporting regularly to the EUMC within its European Information Network RAXEN.
In their reports the National Focal Points were asked to cover the following issues:
–Physical acts of violence towards Jews, their communities, organisations or their
property;
–Verbal aggression/hate speech and other, subtler forms of discrimination towards Jews;
–Research studies reporting anti-Semitic violence or opinion polls on changed attitudes towards Jews;
–Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression by NGOs;
–Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders including initiatives to reduce polarization and counteract negative national trends.
The situation in the EU Member States
The reports and our own investigations show that in spring 2002 many EU Member States experienced a wave of anti-Semitic incidents. They were tied to public discussion on the dividing line between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and anti-Semitic argumentation. This wave of anti-Semitism started with the "Al-Aqsa-Intifada" in October 2000 and was fuelled by the conflict in the Middle East and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11September 2001 , which triggered off a fierce debate on the causes of radical Islamic terrorism.
During the first half of 2002 the rise of anti-Semitism reached a climax in the period between the end of March and mid-May, running parallel to the escalation of the Middle East conflict, whereas factors which usually determine the frequency of anti-Semitic incidents in the respective countries, such as the strength and the degree of mobilisation extremist far-right parties and groups can generate, have not played the decisive role.
In the months following the monitoring period the sometimes heated discussions about the Middle East conflict in the public sphere and the media died down and the number of incidents decreased. In countries like Denmark, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland there are only a few or no incidents known for the period after July 2002. In some Member States like Belgium, France and Sweden anti-Semitic incidents, including violent attacks and threatening phone calls, increased again in September and October, but not that much as in the period monitored. Anti-Semitic leaflets, hate mail and phone calls were also reported for Germany and the United Kingdom.
This leads to the conclusion that the increase in anti-Semitic attacks was in this case set off by the events in the Middle East, a foreign event that however exerted a varying impact on the individual Member States. An exact quantitative comparison is not possible because of:
1)the difficult and varied classification of anti-Semitic incidents;
2)the difficulty of differentiating between criticism of Israeli governmental policy and anti-Semitism; and
3)the differences in systematically collating information about anti-Semitic incidents in the EU Member States.
While there is no common pattern of incidents for all countries, some similarities occur. But it must be underlined that some countries (such as Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) have a very effective data and monitoring system, and this is not the case elsewhere .
There are a number of EU Member States, namely Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland, where the Jewish communities are rather small and anti-Semitic incidents in general seldom occur. This was true during the monitoring period. At most, threatening letters were sent to the Israeli consulate or to local Jews. Portugal and Finland each also suffered one attack on a synagogue.
On the other hand, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK witnessed rather serious anti-Semitic incidents (see the respective country reports) such as numerous physical attacks and insults directed against Jews and the vandalism of Jewish institutions (synagogues, shops, cemeteries). Fewer anti-Semitic attacks were reported from Denmark and Sweden.
Other countries also experienced incidents of anti-Semitism. Greece suffered desecrations of cemeteries and memorials by the far-right . Anti-Semitic statements and sentiments often linked to Israeli government policy were found in the mass media and were also expressed by some politicians and opinion leaders. Spain, where the traditionally strong presence of neo-Nazi groups was evident suffered a series of attacks by people with a radical Islamist background . Italy showed a certain similarity with Germany; although no physical attacks were evident, there were threatening telephone calls, insulting letters, slogans and graffiti. From Austria no physical attacks were reported; and few verbal threats and insults. Anti-Semitic stereotypes in relation to Israel were to be found essentially in right-wing newspapers and amongst far-right groups.
In the public domain in Spain, France, Italy and Sweden, sections of the political left and Arab-Muslim groups unified to stage pro-Palestinian demonstrations. While the right to demonstrate is of course a civil right, and these demonstrations are not intrinsically anti-Semitic, at some of these anti-Semitic slogans could be heard and placards seen; and some demonstrations resulted in attacks upon Jews or Jewish institutions. In the Netherlands pro-Palestine demonstrators of Moroccan origin used anti-Semitic symbols and slogans. In Finland however, pro-Palestinian demonstrations passed without any anti-Semitic incidents.
In Germany, and less so in Austria, public political discourse was dominated by a debate on the link between Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism, a debate in which the cultural and political elite were involved. In Germany and the United Kingdom the critical reporting of the media was also a topic for controversy. In other countries such as Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Finland there was no such heated public discussion on the theme of criticism of Israel/anti-Semitism (see country reports).
Perpetrators and kinds of anti-Semitic activities
For many anti-Semitic incidents, especially for violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open.
Nevertheless, from the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be concluded that the anti-Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism ; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from pro-Palestinian groups (see country report Italy: public discourse) as well as from politicians (see country reports Germany, Greece, Finland, Austria) and citizens from the political mainstream (see anti-Semitic letters, e-mails and phone calls in Germany as well as in other countries).
The following forms of anti-Semitic activities have been experienced:
–Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme, particularly on the Internet. These are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right.
–Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts often committed by young Muslim perpetrators in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred either during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, radical Islamist circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and in Arab-language media.
–Anti-Semitism on the streets also appears to be expressed by young people without any specific anti-Semitic prejudices, so that "many incidents are committed just for fun". Other cases where young people were the perpetrators could be classified as "thrill hate crimes", a well-known type of xenophobic attack.
–In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the "Zionist lobby", and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalisation from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.
–More difficult to record and to evaluate in its scale than the "street-level violence" against Jews is "salon anti-Semitism" as it is manifested "in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes".
–In the heated public debate on Israeli politics and the boundary between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, individuals who are not politically active and do not belong to one of the ideological camps mentioned above become motivated to voice their latent anti-Semitic attitudes (mostly in the form of telephone calls and insulting letters). Opinion polls prove that in some European countries a large percentage of the population harbours anti-Semitic attitudes and views, but that these usually remain latent.
Media
Some commentators discuss the possible influence of the mass media on an escalation of anti-Semitic incidents. The question at issue is whether this escalation was merely an agenda setting effect of the daily media coverage of the violence in the Middle East or whether the reporting itself had an anti-Semitic bias.
–The Jewish communities regarded the one-sidedness, the aggressive tone of the reporting on Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and references to old Christian anti-Jewish sentiments as problematic.
–The country reports (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) list some cases of anti-Semitic arguments or stereotypes (cartoons) in the quality press, but only very few systematic media analyses are available. Anti-Semitic reporting can mainly be found in the far-right spectrum of the European press.
–One study of the German quality press (see country report on Germany) concludes that the reporting concentrated greatly on the violent events and the conflicts and was not free of anti-Semitic clich s; at the same time this negative view also applies to the description of the Palestinian actors. The report on Austria identified anti-Semitic allusions in the far right press.
–Observers point to an "increasingly blatant anti-Semitic Arab and Muslim media", including audiotapes and sermons, in which the call is not only made to join the struggle against Israel but also against Jews across the world. Although leading Muslim organisations express their opposition to this propaganda, observers assume that calling for the use of violence may influence readers and listeners.
Internet
The Internet reflects a development observable since 2000, namely the networking of the extreme right via links with sections of radical Islamists, some sites from anti-globalisation campaigners and from the anti-American far left. Since the end of the 1990s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homepages present on the web from far-right groups and parties, which quite often also have ties to radical Islamic fundamentalists. In addition, the Internet provides easy access to music from the far right, which glorifies violence and is often anti-Semitic. Sales and distribution centres for such music are mainly located in Scandinavia. Up till now, state organs have paid too little attention to the Arab language publications which spread anti-Semitic propaganda in European countries, whether through newspapers, audiotapes or the Internet .
Prevalent anti-Semitic prejudices
As almost all reports emphasise, Jews in the EU Member States are well integrated socially, economically and culturally, and as such the typical motives of xenophobia (fear of competition for jobs, housing and social welfare, linguistic and cultural otherness of migrants, external appearance) are hardly of consequence. Instead, the Jews are basically imagined to be a nationally and internationally influential group, allegedly controlling politics and the economy. Hence, anti-Semitism has other motives and a different structure from racism.
–The dominating assumption of contemporary anti-Semitism is still that of a Jewish world conspiracy, i.e. the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA, but also on European countries.
This basic assumption is applied to explain very different phenomena. The Holocaust denial assumes a central role in European right-wing extremism. It is purported that the Holocaust has never taken place and that the Jewish side, exploiting their victim status, use the "Auschwitz lie" to apply moral pressure on mainly European governments (restitution, support for Israeli policies), but also to influence US policy towards Israel. Furthermore, the thesis of the "Auschwitz lie" naturally also negates the assertion that the foundation of the state of Israel was historically necessary in order to create a secure homeland for the survivors of the Holocaust and Jews in general. Precisely at this point, extreme right-wing propaganda becomes employable ideologically for radical Islamist groups in their struggle against Israel, for the victim status and Israel's right to exist are challenged by the "Auschwitz lie".
Here a learning process has taken place in which "revisionist" thought has been adopted by some people in the Arab world. The influence of these ideas is supported by a number of Western Holocaust deniers like J rgen Graf, Gerd Honsik, Wolfgang Fr hlich who fled prosecution in their homelands and found asylum in Arab countries, and last but not least by Roger Garaudy who was hailed as a hero throughout the Middle East when he faced prosecution by the French government for inciting racial hatred. Via Arab-language media (newspapers, satellite TV and internet) in Europe these notions reach a small section of the Arab speaking population in European countries.
–Following September 11, 2001, some hold that Islamist terrorism is a natural consequence of the unsolved Middle East conflict, for which Israel alone is held responsible. They ascribe to Jews a major influence over the USA's allegedly biased pro-Israel policies. This is where anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes could converge and conspiracy theories over "Jewish world domination" might flare up again.
–The assumption of close ties between the US and Israel gives rise to a further motive for an anti-Semitic attitude. Amongst the political left, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are very closely tied together. Due to its occupation policy, sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation as well as some Third World countries view Israel as aggressive, imperialistic and colonialist. Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists like the Holocaust.
In the form of anti-Semitism it could be said that the tradition of demonising Jews in the past is now being transferred to the state of Israel. In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could become part of the political mainstream.
–Israeli policies toward the Palestinians provide a reason to denounce Jews generally as perpetrators, thereby questioning their moral status as victims that they had assumed as a consequence of the Holocaust. The connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment lies in this opportunity for a perpetrator-victim role reversal. In particular there is an attempt by the right-wing to compare Israeli policies with the crimes perpetrated against Jews throughout history in order to minimize or even deny the guilt and responsibility of their own nations.
–The fact that the Middle East conflict is taking place in the Holy Land of the Christians has led in a number of countries to a revitalisation of anti-Judaist motives by church leaders, and confessional and some liberal newspapers.
Recommendations
The upsurge of anti-Semitic criminal offences and verbal assaults against Jewish citizens and institutions, but also against Muslims, indicates that joint action has to be initiated. This action should not be restricted to one area of society, but has to deal with a multitude of combined activities. Actions on the political level should be backed by sound data and information about the phenomena in question. The civil society has to be mobilized to establish dialogues, the press, TV and the Internet has to be addressed to report about ethnic and cultural groups in a responsible way. Also for large-scale sporting events, preventive measures fighting racist attacks have to be implemented.
We recommend that the EUMC requests state authorities to acknowledge at the highest level the extraordinary dangers posed by anti-Semitic violence in the European context.
Legal
The EUMC should propose to the Member States to adopt the proposed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (COM 2001/664) as soon as possible and call on the Council of Ministers to ensure that it is amended to be as effective as possible to deal with reported incidents of anti-Semitism.
The EUMC should propose to the European Commission and to the Member States that they consider a decision for police cooperation according to Article 34 of the Treaty of European Union, which shall bind all Member States to collect and disseminate data on anti-Semitic offences. This decision should also involve EUROPOL and EUROJUST.
To achieve effective regulation of the Internet concerning racist propaganda, it is essential to extend the jurisdiction of European courts to include detailed provisions on the responsibility of Internet service providers.
Registering anti-Semitic incidents
State institutions must assume responsibility for monitoring anti-Semitism in the individual EU Member States. These institutions should work in accordance with well-defined categories enabling them to recognise an anti-Semitic element within any politically motivated criminal offences they register, and to then incorporate them into their statistics.
In some Member States racist attacks are not identified separately in crime statistics while others have at their disposal state-sponsored instruments which monitor and pursue anti-Semitic incidents. We recommend joint strategies for action to be developed, whereby those countries possessing years of experience in this regard should pass this on to the other Member States.
In those countries in which racist and anti-Semitic incidents are already registered by the security authorities, a swifter processing and publication of the results must be ensured and not first presented – as in current practice – in the middle of the following year.
There is a need to distinguish clearly in reporting between acts of violence, threatening behaviour, and offensive speech, and to make transparent government norms and procedures for registering and acting upon crimes and offences motivated by anti-Semitism. Only in this way can a genuinely comparative basis for incidents be attained for European countries.
Education and sport
We recommend that the governments of the EU Member States still absent should undertake initiatives to become members of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research, whose purpose is to mobilise the support of political and social leaders to foster Holocaust education, remembrance and research.
We recommend that NGOs engage in initiatives of intercultural and inter-religious exchange and inter-religious dialogue, and cooperate in educational information campaigns against racism and anti-Semitism.
National ministries of education should organise round tables and seminars on mutual respect and tolerance; all teachers in the EU should be required to learn about different religions and faiths, cultures and traditions; history books used in schools around Europe should be examined for prejudice, or one-sidedness.
In the area of European football a whole series of initiatives have been started in the last few years, which combat racism and anti-Semitism in the stadiums. We recommend that these activities be encouraged and extended.
Research
We recommend that research studies should be carried out on anti-Semitic incidents in specific fields – e.g. sport, entertainment, public services - and placed in an overall European context in order to establish a comparative perspective on their occurrence.
Across all Member States there should be implemented a coordinated programme of victim studies to overcome the problem of underreporting with regard to incidents of anti-Semitism.
To date there has been no well-founded media analysis on how the European press exploits and perpetuates anti-Semitic stereotypes. We recommend the implementation of research studies to fill this gap.
Internet
State authorities, academics and research institutions engaged with racism and anti-Semitism should establish joint committees at national and international levels to monitor anti-Semitism on the Internet. Through mutual exchange these committees should establish a basis for an improved recording and combating of racist and anti-Semitic developments on the Internet.
Recent developments have shown that partly impeded or completely obstructed access to some homepages at least hinders the possibility of placing racist propaganda on the Internet. Thus private and state organisations should exert continuing pressure on large Internet providers to remove racist and anti-Semitic content from the net.
The enormous potential of the Internet for educational purposes has not yet been recognised and utilised. We recommend that projects are developed to utilise the Internet far more in order to combat anti-Semitic and racist content with serious counter-information.
Contents
Executive Summary5
1. Introduction15
2. Analysis19
Forms of anti-Semitic prejudice21
Perpetrators and kinds of anti-Semitic activities24
The situation in the EU Member States25
The mass media27
Internet as an international action base28
3. Recommendations30
1. Introduction
Alerted during early 2002 by news on anti-Semitic incidents in some Member States and also by information given to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) by the European Jewish Congress, the EUMC asked its RAXEN network of 15 National Focal Points (NFPs) to report on anti-Semitism and to monitor the anti-Semitic aggression, violence and attitudes in the Member States with a special focus on a one-month period (from 15th May – 15th June 2002). The EUMC also asked for examples of good practices implemented to prevent and reduce anti-Semitism.
The National Focal Points were asked to cover the following issues:
1. Physical acts of violence towards Jews, their communities, organisations or their property (cemeteries, synagogues, religious symbols etc) and also any measures seen as retaliation to other vulnerable groups, or ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities, or new types of victims:
Have any physical attacks (harassment, verbal abuse, violent acts, etc.) against Jews (or other people related to them) been reported (in the media, by Jewish organisations, by human rights/anti-discrimination NGOs, by the police etc.)? Please use the following categories as headlines: Arson; throwing objects and/or tear gas; physical aggression; theft and burglary; vandalism and disparagement; threatening intrusion; physical threat.
2. Verbal aggression/hate speech and other, subtler forms of discrimination towards Jews:
Have there been any verbal attacks against Jews in the media, in the public discourse, in politics? Are there any cases of incitement to hatred? Are there court cases to be reported? What about hate speech on the Internet? Please use the following categories as headlines: direct verbal threat; threats by telephone; insults; graffiti and anti-Semitic inscriptions; publicly distributed leaflets.
3. Research Studies reporting anti-Semitic violence or Opinion Polls on changed attitudes towards Jews:
Are there any new or recent reports done on anti-Semitic aggression or attitudes?
4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression:
Can you report of any good practice that has been successful in avoiding the increase of prejudice and violence towards Jewish people and other groups?
5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders including initiatives to reduce polarization and counteract negative national trends:
How has the government reacted to increased anti-Semitic violence? What have been the reactions of the politicians and other opinion leaders? Are there any institutionalized proposals and implementations to be observed?
Political Background
The reports of the National Focal Points and our own investigations show that in early 2002 several EU Member States experienced an increased number of anti-Semitic incidents. The wave of anti-Semitism reached a climax in the period between end of March and mid-May. But further examination shows that the increase of anti-Semitism had already started with the "Al-Aqsa-Intifada" in October 2000 and was fuelled by the conflict in the Middle East and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 , which triggered off a fierce debate on the causes for radical Islamic terrorism.
Into the summer of 2000 negotiations for obtaining a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict seemed to be taking a promising course. The failure of Camp David II and the "second Intifada" (al-Aqsa Intifada) beginning in late September 2000 marked however a turning-point. Reports on anti-Semitism from the year 2000 show a clear increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the final months of the year.
Besides the continuing media interest in the violent conflict in the Middle East, in 2001 the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Tolerance, which was held in Durban, South Africa between 31 August and 7 September encouraged anti-Semitism in an unexpected way. The Member States of the United Nations adopted a Declaration and Action Programme, which included demands for the recognition of a Palestinian state and the right of security for Israel, as well as the demand for the end of violence in the Middle East that would allow Israel and the Palestinians to continue the peace process. But at the same conference vehement anti-Semitic outbreaks took place, in particular at some meetings held between NGOs, which were directed against representatives of Jewish groups. "These attacks were fuelled by the heated debates at the meeting concerning the Israeli government's practices in West Bank and Gaza Strip."
A few days later the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon triggered off a fierce debate on the causes of radical Islamic terrorism, seen by many to lie primarily in the occupation policy pursued by the Israeli government and the pro-Sharon stance taken by the US. For the Stephen Roth Institute on Anti-Semitism and Racism, Tel Aviv, the events of September 11 also enhanced the wave of anti-Semitic manifestations and violence.
In our opinion one cannot deny that there exists a close link between the increase of anti-Semitism and the escalation of the Middle East conflict, whereas factors which usually determine the frequency of anti-Semitic incidents in the respective countries, such as the strength and the degree of mobilisation extremist far-right parties and groups can generate, have not played the decisive role in the reporting period.
Defining anti-Semitism
Many of the National Focal Points mention that in their countries the dividing line between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government was a controversial issue. The various political groups often have different opinions on the threshold where justified criticism ends and anti-Semitic argumentation begins.. In such a delicate situation it is advisable to study the results of social research and to look for appropriate definitions of anti-Semitism accepted by the research community. This also assures a sound level of impartiality. After a detailed review of existing literature we recommend the definition of anti-Semitism given by the well-known Holocaust researcher Helen Fein:
Anti-Semitism is "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews."
To specify the basic content of these hostile beliefs we refer to a summary given by Dietz Bering:
Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature
-Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective.
-Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies.
-Jews bring disaster on their "host societies" or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character.
With the help of the above definition the distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government policy can be made in an easier way. From there allusions to or comparisons with Israel's actions with the behaviour of the Nazi regime have to be viewed as anti-Semitic. Those who identify Israel and Nazi-Germany or see Israeli behaviour as the cause of anti-Semitism use these arguments for their own ideological interests.
Also to be evaluated as a form of anti-Semitism are anti-Semitic stereotypes when applied to Israeli policy: for example: the accusation that there is a secret, world-encompassing Zionist conspiracy, the isolation of Israel as a state that is fundamentally negatively distinct from all others, which therefore has no right to exist, and negative historical recourses to ancient Jewish history, which is to point to an immutable negative Jewish character. All cases in which the Jews are made collectively responsible for the policy of the Israeli government represent a form of anti-Semitism. That means, the moment when criticism on Israel turns into criticism of Jews in general or Jews living in other countries has at least an anti-Semitic connotation.
This report analyses the current manifestations of anti-Semitism as far as it is possible so close to the time period under observation. It does not try to chart its history or analyse its historical roots in the countries concerned.
2. Analysis
According to some observers, a new wave of anti-Semitism is sweeping across Europe; many are even speaking of the worst anti-Semitic wave since 1945. The latter claim is historically inaccurate. Above all directly after the war, in 1946, and in the course of the Stalinist "purges" in the early 1950s there were far more violent anti-Semitic excesses, persecution and discrimination.
Antony Lerman, former Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London, has correctly stressed, "that it is wrong to think that increases in incidents must mean an overall worsening of the anti-Semitic climate". Indeed, since 1945 there have been repeated waves of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe (such as the graffiti wave of 1959/60, waves between 1990 and 1992 as well as waves tied to the periodic flare-ups in the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1967, 1973 and, above all, 1982), whereby concrete causes could not be given for these outbreaks in every case, nor had they resulted in a long-term increase in anti-Semitism.
If, apart from incidents, further indicators are selected, such as anti-Jewish attitudes, the electoral success of far-right extremist parties espousing anti-Semitism, the membership numbers of right-wing extremist organisations, social and legal discrimination of Jews etc., the picture becomes far more differentiated – one that does not indicate a general increase in anti-Semitism and, furthermore, turns out to be different across the EU Member States. If we speak of a wave of anti-Semitism, we primarily mean incidents for which, on the basis of contagion effects, such a wave-like and cyclical course is typical.
The fact that a rise in anti-Semitic activities is clearly observable in most of the EU Member States since the beginning of the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada, which increased in frequency and the intensity of their violence parallel to the escalation in the Middle East conflict in April/May 2002, points to a connection between events in the Middle East with criticism of Israel's politics on the one hand and mobilisation of anti-Semitism on the other.
According to an Anti-Defamation League survey, almost two-thirds of Europeans (62%) believe "that the recent outbreak of violence against Jews in Europe is a result of anti-Israel sentiment and not traditional anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish feelings."
The international dimension of the problem was clearly evident as Shimon Peres, Israel's Foreign Minister, told EU colleagues in Valencia in April 2002 that he saw a link between the growing anti-Semitism in Europe and the Union's tilt towards the Palestinians. He added: "The issue is very sensitive in Israel (...). We ask for memory." The Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Piqu rejected this criticism: "Please don't confuse anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of policies of the current Israeli government." Peres' critical remark and the reply given by the European Foreign Ministers indicates that the core issue in this public conflict was the political question as to when does anti-Israeli criticism assume anti-Semitic characteristics and whether reproaches of anti-Semitism are being used as part of an attempt to silence criticism of Israeli policies.
All NFP Reports point to this problem, one that was also discussed publicly in all countries and was an essential point of dispute in discussions; namely how to draw a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government's policies towards the Palestinians – even if it is extremely sharp.
While it is certainly correct to view anti-Semitism as part of racism, at the same time it possesses very specific traits. As almost all of the reports emphasise, Jews in the European Union are well integrated socially, economically and culturally. Thus, the typical motives of xenophobia are hardly of consequence for the Jews (fear of competition for jobs, linguistic and cultural differences of migrants, external appearance). Instead, Jews are imagined to be a national and international influential group who allegedly exert a bad influence on or even steer politics, the economy and the media, which is a way of expressing the old anti-Semitic prejudice of hidden Jewish power.
Furthermore, from within the culture of the Christian West, traditional historical anti-Judaist and anti-Semitic prejudices are again and again liable to be reactivated. On the level of accusations levelled against Jews, traditional motives prevail (see below). Perception of the Jews as victims of National Socialism is very strong, making them a preferred target for all "revisionist/deniers/negationists" and right-wing extremists. Anti-Semitic offenders make use of National Socialist symbols; but also the German language itself is used in non-German speaking countries (expressions such as "Juden raus!") so as to refer affirmatively to the National Socialist persecution of the Jews.
A further aspect that needs to be noted is that the local Jewish population is closely associated with the state of Israel and its politics. It can be said that the native Jews have been made "hostages" of Israeli politics. Here anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist motives are mixed together. What is certainly quite new is the particular connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism made in the Arab and Muslim world, so that anti-Semitism, due to its connection with a concrete political conflict, varies greatly with its escalation and de-escalation.
That anti-Semitic offenders in some cases are drawn from Muslim minorities in Europe – whether they be radical Islamist groups or young males of North African descent – is certainly a new development for most Member States, one that offers reason for concern for European governments and also the great majority of its citizens. As members of the Arab-Muslim minorities in Europe are themselves target of racist and Islamophobic attitudes, there arises the precarious situation of a conflict that is primarily motivated by foreign affairs but played out on the domestic front, a conflict in which the members of one minority discriminate against another minority group.
Forms of anti-Semitic prejudice
Let us first of all look at the anti-Semitic prejudices and the groups expressing them. The range of motives stretches from racist to conspiratorial-oriented and religious prejudices; but anti-Zionist notions, often coupled with anti-American patterns, were also activated. Anti-Zionism here is to be seen as a form of anti-Semitism, because Zionism is described by the extreme right, the extreme left and also by parts of Arab-Muslim circles as the evil of the world and therefore can be used easily as a wanted scapegoat. This implies the fight against the existence of Israel.
1)The dominating motive of contemporary anti-Semitism is still that of a Jewish world conspiracy, i.e. the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA, but also on European countries. This basic assumption is applied to explain very different phenomena.
Here the Holocaust denial assumes a central role in European right-wing extremism. It is purported that the Holocaust has never taken place and that the Jewish side, exploiting their victim status, use the "Auschwitz lie" to apply moral pressure on mainly European governments (restitution, support for Israeli policies), but also to influence US policy towards Israel.
Furthermore, the thesis of the "Auschwitz lie" naturally also negates the assertion that the foundation of the state of Israel was historically necessary in order to create a secure homeland for the survivors of the Holocaust and Jews in general.
Precisely at this point, extreme right-wing propaganda becomes employable ideologically for radical Islamist groups in their struggle against Israel, for the victim status and Israel's right to exist are challenged by the "Auschwitz lie". Here a learning process has taken place in which "revisionist" thought, that was propagated very early and very prominently by French intellectuals (lastly by Roger Garaudy), was adopted by some people in the Arab world.
The influence of these ideas is supported by a number of Western Holocaust deniers like J rgen Graf, Gerd Honsik, Wolfgang Fr hlich, who fled persecution in their homelands and found asylum in Arab countries, and last but not least by Roger Garaudy who was hailed as a hero throughout the Middle East when he faced persecution by the French government for inciting racial hatred. Via Arab-language media (newspapers and satellite TV)in Europe these notions reach in turn a small section of the Muslim population in European countries.
2) Reception of another European source has also influenced their conception of the world, namely the infamous anti-Semitic fake the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", which describes how a group of Jews apparently hold the thread of world politics in their hands. With help of this conspiracy theory explanations are found for why the politics of the United States and most of the European countries display a pro-Israeli bias in the Middle East conflict.
A current example of this conspiratorial thought is offered by the attacks of 11 September 2001, which in some Arab newspapers (e.g. in Jordan, Egypt and Syria, but also in the London and Saudi-Arabian editions of Al-Hayat ) is presented as an action initiated by the Israeli secret service or even the Israeli Government itself, who were seeking to prevent the establishment of closer ties between the US and the Arab world so as to gain a free hand for their aggressive plans against the Palestinians. This rumour has also spread through Europe, where it found great resonance above all in Greece.
3) Following 11 September 2001, some hold that Islamist terrorism is a natural consequence of the unresolved Middle East conflict, for which Israel alone is held responsible. They ascribe to Jews a major influence over America's allegedly biased pro-Israel policies. This is where anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes converge and conspiracy theories over "Jewish world domination" flare up again.
4) The supposed close ties between the US and Israel give rise to a further motive for an anti-Semitic attitude, one that is also to be found amongst the far left. Due to its occupation policy, sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation as well as some Third World countries – as the World Conference on Racism in Durban 2001 had shown – view Israel as aggressive, imperialistic and colonialist. Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists – apartheid, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, genocide.
In the form of anti-Zionism it could be said that the historical demonising of the Jews is transferred to the state of Israel (striving for world power, the vindictiveness and cruelty of "an eye for an eye", the greed of capitalism and colonialism). In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could extend more and more into the political mainstream. Thus, the issue at stake in judging statements critical of Israel is whether a double standard is being set, i.e. Israel is evaluated differently from other states, whether false historical parallels are drawn (comparison with the National Socialists), and whether anti-Semitic myths and stereotypes are used to characterise Israeli politics.
5) The United States of America is also faced with sharp attacks from sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation and some Third World countries as well as from sections of the extreme right as a world power categorised as imperialistic and as the protector of Israel. For example, especially in German speaking countries various political extremists use the word "East coast" ("Ostk ste") as synonymous to a supposed total Jewish influence on the United States and their policy. Sympathisers to these extremists immediately understand the meaning of this word without having to get any background information. Therefore they may use it without being afraid of any state persecution according to anti-discrimination laws. This makes clear how anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are sometimes very closely tied together.
6) While the historical victim status of Jews continues to be acknowledged, for many Europeans it no longer transfers to support of Israel. Israeli policies toward the Palestinians provide a reason to denounce Jews as perpetrators, thereby qualifying their moral status as victims that they had assumed as a consequence of the Holocaust. The connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment lies in this opportunity for a perpetrator-victim role reversal.
7) The fact that the Middle East conflict is taking place in the Holy Land of the Christians has lead in various countries to a revitalisation of anti-Judaist motives by church leaders and confessional as well as some liberal newspapers. This takes the form of current events (the conflict over the Church of Nativity, children and youths as the victims of military action) being brought into connection with events in the New Testament, which historically have clear anti-Jewish connotations (Massacre of the Innocents, crucifixion of Christ). Such phenomena are particularly virulent in Italy, but are also present in Protestant countries such as Denmark or the United Kingdom.
Perpetrators and kinds of anti-Semitic activities
For many anti-Semitic incidents, above all naturally for the violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open. Nevertheless, looking at the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be said that the anti-Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all by right-wing extremists and radical Islamists or young Muslims; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from the pro-Palestinian left as well as politicians and citizens from the political mainstream.
Specific forms of action can be assigned to each of these sections.
–Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme networking various groupings, particularly in the Internet – these are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right spectrum.
–Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts mainly committed by young Muslim perpetrators mostly of an Arab descent in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, Islamic circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda in the Internet and in Arab-language media.
–Anti-Semitism on the streets also appears to be expressed by young culprits without any specific anti-Semitic prejudices, so that "many incidents are committed just for the fun of it". In the view of the sociologist Paul Iganski, in many cases – at least in the UK – represent a type of "thrill hate crimes", "likely to be committed by a group of young offenders, outside their neighbourhood", a type of action we are familiar with in racist attacks in other European countries and which Iganski views as "part of the repertoire of routine incivilities and antisocial behaviour prevalent in the street, shopping malls, cinemas, (...) and other public space".
–In the left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and commentaries critical of Israel in the respective media during the monitoring period.
–More difficult to record and to evaluate than the "street-level violence" against Jews is the elite or salon anti-Semitism as it is manifested "in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes". The development in some EU countries suggests that today it appears legitimate, sometimes even en vogue to take an anti-Israeli stance.
While such a standpoint is legitimate politically, in many cases a boundary is transgressed in the direction of anti-Semitic prejudices, for example when a politician in Germany used the concept "war of extermination" to characterise the actions of the Israeli army, thus equating it with the war of extermination undertaken by the German army against the Soviet Union and European Jewry. In this way anti-Semitic modes of thought can increasingly creep into public and private discourses and are seldom picked out and criticised by society, politicians and the press.
–During a wave of anti-Semitism like the one we could observe in April and May 2002, in which a heated public debate took place on Israeli politics and the boundary between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, persons become motivated to voice their latent anti-Semitic attitudes (mostly in the form of telephone calls and insulting letters) who are not politically active and do not belong to one of the ideological camps sketched above. Opinion polls prove that in some European countries a large percentage of the population harbours anti-Semitic attitudes and views, but that these usually remain latent.
The situation in the EU Member States
The difficulty in classifying anti-Semitic incidents makes it impossible to provide a quantitative comparison of the anti-Semitic manifestations in the EU Member States. The difficulty is further compounded by the fact that in some countries incidents are systematically recorded by state organs, while others reveal a high level of monitoring by NGOs, or indeed in a third group the collation of information proved to be extremely difficult. We thus have to assume that some EU Member States, due to their history and the significance anti-Semitism had and still has in their country, pay far greater attention to monitoring anti-Semitic incidents as others.
The extent and kind of anti-Semitic incidents vary from country to country. While a constant pattern valid for all countries is not recognisable, some constellations are evident. Due to the plurality of the actors and motives, the distribution of anti-Semitic manifestations only partially corresponds to the distribution employed in the annual "Anti-Semitism Reports" from the 1990s. They thus show hardly any connection with the spread of anti-Semitic attitudes and views in the population as a whole.
A rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents has been noticeable for almost all of the fifteen Member States since the start of the "Al-Aqsa-Intifada". In the monitoring period this rise reached a climax in the period between the end of March and mid-May, running parallel to the escalation in the Middle East conflict. This leads to the conclusion that the occasion for anti-Semitic attacks was in this case triggered by a foreign event, one that however exerted a varying impact in the individual Member States.
There are a number of EU Member States, namely Ireland and Luxembourg, where anti-Semitic incidents in general seldom occur and were hardly evident in the monitoring period. At most threatening letters were sent to the Israeli consulate or to local Jews. The same applies to Portugal and Finland, where such threatening letters and telephone calls were evident and where there was one attack each on a synagogue, respectively.
On the other hand, a group of countries was identified with rather severe anti-Semitic incidents. Here, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK have to be mentioned. They witnessed numerous physical attacks and insults directed against Jews and vandalism of Jewish institutions (synagogues, shops, cemeteries). In these countries the violent attacks on Jews and/or synagogues were reported to be committed often by members of the Muslim-Arab minority, frequently youths (see reports on these countries). The observers agree that these are disaffected young men who themselves are frequently targets of racist attacks, i.e. here the social problems of these migrant minorities are obviously an essential factor for their propensity to violence and susceptibility to anti-Semitism.
Far fewer anti-Semitic attacks committed by members of this group were evident in countries like Sweden and Denmark, where attacks – similarly to the Netherlands – were only seldom evident in the 1990s given general populations in which, according to polls, anti-Semitic attitudes are not widespread.
Other countries show a very specific expression of anti-Semitism. In Greece we find a series of cemetery and memorial desecrations, which point to a far-right background. Anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist statements and sentiments were found in the mass media and were also expressed by some politicians and opinion leaders. Here the Greek foreign policy position perhaps plays a role; since the Second World War Greece has opposed Israel because of its alliance with Turkey. Spain offered a mixed picture where the traditional strong presence of neo-Nazi groups was evident alongside a series of attacks, with an Islamist background.
In Germany, where a large number of anti-Semitic offences have been registered annually since the 1990s, persons of Arab descent committed some of the few attacks on Jews in the monitoring period. Anti-Semitism manifested itself less in a higher number of attacks (between May-June there were no physical attacks) but more in the form of a flood of anti-Semitic letters to the Jewish Communities and prominent Jews sent by German citizens who by no means all belong politically to the far right. This was in part a reaction to a hefty political controversy (see the country report on Germany). The explosiveness in this controversy lay in how a well-known German politician and the Central Council of Jews stood opposed face to face, so that in the end all the political partners took a clear position against the FDP politician J rgen M llemann.
Italy showed a certain similarity with Germany; although no physical attacks were evident, there were threatening telephone calls, insulting letters, slogans and graffiti, whereby the perpetrators did not come from the Muslim population. However, particularly pronounced in Italy is a pro-Palestinian mobilisation within left-wing parties, organisations and newspapers, which in connection with public rallies partially took an anti-Semitic turn. From Austria no physical attacks were reported; verbal threats and insults were seldom. Anti-Semitic stereotypes in relation to Israel were found essentially in right-wing newspapers and amongst far-right groupings.
The countries can also be grouped together in another constellation when focus is switched to those actors who are present in the public discourse. In Italy, France, Spain and Sweden sections of the far left and Muslim groups unified to stage pro-Palestinian demonstrations. At some of these demonstrations anti-Semitic slogans and placards were to be seen and heard and some even resulted in attacks upon Jews or Jewish institutions. A similar trend was observed in the Netherlands, though without any great participation from the political left.
In Finland, pro-Palestinian demonstrations passed without any anti-Semitic incidents. In Germany, and also less so in Austria, public political discourse was dominated by a debate on the link between Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism, a debate in which the cultural and political elite were involved, whereas the mobilisation of the extreme left remained low-key. In Germany the critical reporting of the media was also a topic for controversy, as it was also in the United Kingdom, where left-liberal papers (The Guardian and The Independent) were heavily criticised by Jewish representatives. In other countries such as Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Denmark and Finland there was obvious no prominent public discussion on this subject.
The mass media
Some commentators discuss the possible influence of the mass media on an escalation of the number of anti-Semitic incidents. There is a connection seen between the sharp increase in anti-Semitic attacks in April 2002 and the events in Jenin at the end of March and in Bethlehem in April. Here the question at issue is whether this escalation was merely the result of the daily news reports on the violence in the Middle East, in the sense of an agenda-setting effect, or whether the reporting itself reveals an anti-Semitic bias.
Judgement upon this is dependent on partisanship in the Middle East conflict. The Jewish communities regarded the one-sidedness, the aggressive tone of the reporting on Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and references to old Christian anti-Jewish sentiments as problematic. The country reports (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) list some cases of anti-Semitic argument or stereotypes (cartoons) in the quality press, but as of yet no systematic media analyses are available. One study of the German quality press (see Germany) comes to the conclusion that the reporting concentrated greatly on the violent events and the conflicts and was not free of anti-Semitic clich s; at the same time though this negative view also applies to the description of the Palestinian actors.
The report on Austria identified anti-Semitic allusions in the right-wing press. Here there is a need for further empirical studies. One study on the impact of the very critical reporting on the wave of right-wing extremist violence in Germany in the early 1990s concluded that the daily news coverage through television and the press had a "contagion effect" and contributed to a further escalation in violence; this though could not be said to be the case of the commentary-oriented background reports in the daily press.
This means that the impact is not generated by the content of the reporting, which naturally evaluates the violence negatively, but rather from the massiveness and consonance of the overall media coverage. The intensive and consonant focus on events thus has a clear effect on the climate of opinion. In fact, those Europeans who followed media coverage of the events in the Middle East the closest were more likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian case.
Openly anti-Semitic reporting is rather seldom in the European press, with the exception of the far-right spectrum. However, observers point to an "increasingly blatantly anti-Semitic Arab and Muslim media", including audio tapes and sermons, in which the call is not only made to join the struggle against Israel but also against Jews across the world. Although leading Muslim organisations express their opposition to this propaganda, observers assume that its calling for the use of violence may exert a certain influence on readers and listeners.
Internet as an international action base
The Internet is named in almost all of the country reports as an important medium for anti-Semitic propaganda, precisely because it is suited to the international dissemination of anti-Semitism due to the difficulty in identifying the perpetrators. As the Internet represents an international medium, only those homepages have been included in the individual country reports, which have a direct relationship to the nationalist – mostly then far-right – spectrum.
The international character of the medium itself allows only a trans-national assessment and so, correspondingly, a joint strategy in formulating and implementing counter measures.
In addition, the dissemination of anti-Semitic thought via the Internet cannot be circumscribed to fit a specific period, for this worldwide transference of data is fast-moving, meaning that much of the information is accessible only for a short time or the relevant homepages are switched on and then off. Inherent to the
Nu te lezen op:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070259994583
Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union
What follows is an as yet unpublished EU report on anti-Semitism in Europe. This report was leaked to The Jerusalem Post by the CRIF, the umbrella body representing the French Jewish organized community and by the European Jewish Congress, an affiliate of the WJC.
Manifestations of anti-Semitism in the European Union
Synthesis Report on behalf of the EUMC [European Monitoring Centre] on Racism and Xenophobia
by Werner Bergmann and Juliane Wetzel
Zentrum fur Antisemitismusforschung / Center for Research on Antisemitism Technische Universiteit Berlin.
Vienna, March 2003
Preface
Although we know – and opinion polls show - that anti-Semitism is permanently present in Europe in a more or less hidden way, many of us have hoped that manifest forms of anti-Semitism will not see any revival in Europe again. At present, Jews are rather well integrated economically, socially and culturally in the Member States of the European Union (EU). But the attacks in New York and Washington on September 11 and the conflict in the Middle East have contributed to an atmosphere in Europe, which gives latent anti-Semitism and hate and incitement a new strength and power of seduction. Even rumours that Israel was responsible for 11 September 2001, for the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, and that Jews bring about a situation in their interest in order to put the blame on somebody else, found a receptive audience in some places. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are spreading over the Internet, which provides a cheap vehicle for the distribution of hate.
Immediately after 11 September our primary concern was increased Islamophobia in the European Union. Right away the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia implemented a monitoring process in the Member States. The country-by-country results and a synthesis report have already been published. But early in 2002 there was additional concern about open anti-Semitic incidents in several Member States. The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia found it necessary to carry out a more detailed investigation of the prevalence and kinds of anti-Semitism and to study, how it affects Jewish people living in Europe. It is the first study of this kind. It provides a flashlight on anti-Semitism in each of the 15 Member States.
The EUMC, through its RAXEN Information Network of National Focal Points in the EU Member States, received reports on anti-Semitism in the 15 Member States. The Center for Research on Anti-Semitism (CRA), Berlin, supplemented the country reports and brought them into a European perspective.
The report shows clearly an increase of anti-Semitic activities since the escalation of the Middle East conflict in 2000 with a peak in early spring 2002. But it reveals also positive developments. By 2003 the legal basis to fight against any discrimination on ethnic or religious grounds will be implemented in each of the EU Member States; all the governments and leading statesmen condemned anti-Semitic events and attitudes; many leaders of religious communities, political parties and NGOs are currently cooperating in the fight against anti-Semitism.
On the other hand, the EUMC is aware that more than only short-term measures have to be done. There is a need to implement activities on a continuous, long-term basis. For that end the report offers examples and recommendations to various groups of society on how to proceed and succeed in the struggle against the shadows of the European past.
Bob Purkiss, Beate Winkler
Chair of the EUMC, Director of the EUMC
Executive Summary
Alerted early in 2002 by worrying news on anti-Semitic incidents in some Member States the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) decided to commission a report on "Manifestations of Anti-Semitism in the EU" covering the first half of 2002. The report is based partly on short-term information provided to the authors by National Focal Points (NFPs) of the EUMC, giving special emphasis to the period between May 15 and June 15. The NFPs are the contact points to national networks in the Member States reporting regularly to the EUMC within its European Information Network RAXEN.
In their reports the National Focal Points were asked to cover the following issues:
–Physical acts of violence towards Jews, their communities, organisations or their
property;
–Verbal aggression/hate speech and other, subtler forms of discrimination towards Jews;
–Research studies reporting anti-Semitic violence or opinion polls on changed attitudes towards Jews;
–Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression by NGOs;
–Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders including initiatives to reduce polarization and counteract negative national trends.
The situation in the EU Member States
The reports and our own investigations show that in spring 2002 many EU Member States experienced a wave of anti-Semitic incidents. They were tied to public discussion on the dividing line between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and anti-Semitic argumentation. This wave of anti-Semitism started with the "Al-Aqsa-Intifada" in October 2000 and was fuelled by the conflict in the Middle East and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11September 2001 , which triggered off a fierce debate on the causes of radical Islamic terrorism.
During the first half of 2002 the rise of anti-Semitism reached a climax in the period between the end of March and mid-May, running parallel to the escalation of the Middle East conflict, whereas factors which usually determine the frequency of anti-Semitic incidents in the respective countries, such as the strength and the degree of mobilisation extremist far-right parties and groups can generate, have not played the decisive role.
In the months following the monitoring period the sometimes heated discussions about the Middle East conflict in the public sphere and the media died down and the number of incidents decreased. In countries like Denmark, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland there are only a few or no incidents known for the period after July 2002. In some Member States like Belgium, France and Sweden anti-Semitic incidents, including violent attacks and threatening phone calls, increased again in September and October, but not that much as in the period monitored. Anti-Semitic leaflets, hate mail and phone calls were also reported for Germany and the United Kingdom.
This leads to the conclusion that the increase in anti-Semitic attacks was in this case set off by the events in the Middle East, a foreign event that however exerted a varying impact on the individual Member States. An exact quantitative comparison is not possible because of:
1)the difficult and varied classification of anti-Semitic incidents;
2)the difficulty of differentiating between criticism of Israeli governmental policy and anti-Semitism; and
3)the differences in systematically collating information about anti-Semitic incidents in the EU Member States.
While there is no common pattern of incidents for all countries, some similarities occur. But it must be underlined that some countries (such as Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom) have a very effective data and monitoring system, and this is not the case elsewhere .
There are a number of EU Member States, namely Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Finland, where the Jewish communities are rather small and anti-Semitic incidents in general seldom occur. This was true during the monitoring period. At most, threatening letters were sent to the Israeli consulate or to local Jews. Portugal and Finland each also suffered one attack on a synagogue.
On the other hand, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK witnessed rather serious anti-Semitic incidents (see the respective country reports) such as numerous physical attacks and insults directed against Jews and the vandalism of Jewish institutions (synagogues, shops, cemeteries). Fewer anti-Semitic attacks were reported from Denmark and Sweden.
Other countries also experienced incidents of anti-Semitism. Greece suffered desecrations of cemeteries and memorials by the far-right . Anti-Semitic statements and sentiments often linked to Israeli government policy were found in the mass media and were also expressed by some politicians and opinion leaders. Spain, where the traditionally strong presence of neo-Nazi groups was evident suffered a series of attacks by people with a radical Islamist background . Italy showed a certain similarity with Germany; although no physical attacks were evident, there were threatening telephone calls, insulting letters, slogans and graffiti. From Austria no physical attacks were reported; and few verbal threats and insults. Anti-Semitic stereotypes in relation to Israel were to be found essentially in right-wing newspapers and amongst far-right groups.
In the public domain in Spain, France, Italy and Sweden, sections of the political left and Arab-Muslim groups unified to stage pro-Palestinian demonstrations. While the right to demonstrate is of course a civil right, and these demonstrations are not intrinsically anti-Semitic, at some of these anti-Semitic slogans could be heard and placards seen; and some demonstrations resulted in attacks upon Jews or Jewish institutions. In the Netherlands pro-Palestine demonstrators of Moroccan origin used anti-Semitic symbols and slogans. In Finland however, pro-Palestinian demonstrations passed without any anti-Semitic incidents.
In Germany, and less so in Austria, public political discourse was dominated by a debate on the link between Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism, a debate in which the cultural and political elite were involved. In Germany and the United Kingdom the critical reporting of the media was also a topic for controversy. In other countries such as Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Finland there was no such heated public discussion on the theme of criticism of Israel/anti-Semitism (see country reports).
Perpetrators and kinds of anti-Semitic activities
For many anti-Semitic incidents, especially for violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open.
Nevertheless, from the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be concluded that the anti-Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all either by right-wing extremists or radical Islamists or young Muslims mostly of Arab descent, who are often themselves potential victims of exclusion and racism ; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from pro-Palestinian groups (see country report Italy: public discourse) as well as from politicians (see country reports Germany, Greece, Finland, Austria) and citizens from the political mainstream (see anti-Semitic letters, e-mails and phone calls in Germany as well as in other countries).
The following forms of anti-Semitic activities have been experienced:
–Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme, particularly on the Internet. These are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right.
–Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts often committed by young Muslim perpetrators in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred either during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, radical Islamist circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda on the Internet and in Arab-language media.
–Anti-Semitism on the streets also appears to be expressed by young people without any specific anti-Semitic prejudices, so that "many incidents are committed just for fun". Other cases where young people were the perpetrators could be classified as "thrill hate crimes", a well-known type of xenophobic attack.
–In the extreme left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and in newspaper articles using anti-Semitic stereotypes in their criticism of Israel. Often this generated a combination of anti-Zionist and anti-American views that formed an important element in the emergence of an anti-Semitic mood in Europe. Israel, seen as a capitalistic, imperialistic power, the "Zionist lobby", and the United States are depicted as the evildoers in the Middle East conflict as well as exerting negative influence on global affairs. The convergence of these motives served both critics of colonialism and globalisation from the extreme left and the traditional anti-Semitic right-wing extremism as well as parts of the radical Islamists in some European countries.
–More difficult to record and to evaluate in its scale than the "street-level violence" against Jews is "salon anti-Semitism" as it is manifested "in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes".
–In the heated public debate on Israeli politics and the boundary between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, individuals who are not politically active and do not belong to one of the ideological camps mentioned above become motivated to voice their latent anti-Semitic attitudes (mostly in the form of telephone calls and insulting letters). Opinion polls prove that in some European countries a large percentage of the population harbours anti-Semitic attitudes and views, but that these usually remain latent.
Media
Some commentators discuss the possible influence of the mass media on an escalation of anti-Semitic incidents. The question at issue is whether this escalation was merely an agenda setting effect of the daily media coverage of the violence in the Middle East or whether the reporting itself had an anti-Semitic bias.
–The Jewish communities regarded the one-sidedness, the aggressive tone of the reporting on Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and references to old Christian anti-Jewish sentiments as problematic.
–The country reports (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) list some cases of anti-Semitic arguments or stereotypes (cartoons) in the quality press, but only very few systematic media analyses are available. Anti-Semitic reporting can mainly be found in the far-right spectrum of the European press.
–One study of the German quality press (see country report on Germany) concludes that the reporting concentrated greatly on the violent events and the conflicts and was not free of anti-Semitic clich s; at the same time this negative view also applies to the description of the Palestinian actors. The report on Austria identified anti-Semitic allusions in the far right press.
–Observers point to an "increasingly blatant anti-Semitic Arab and Muslim media", including audiotapes and sermons, in which the call is not only made to join the struggle against Israel but also against Jews across the world. Although leading Muslim organisations express their opposition to this propaganda, observers assume that calling for the use of violence may influence readers and listeners.
Internet
The Internet reflects a development observable since 2000, namely the networking of the extreme right via links with sections of radical Islamists, some sites from anti-globalisation campaigners and from the anti-American far left. Since the end of the 1990s there has been a dramatic increase in the number of homepages present on the web from far-right groups and parties, which quite often also have ties to radical Islamic fundamentalists. In addition, the Internet provides easy access to music from the far right, which glorifies violence and is often anti-Semitic. Sales and distribution centres for such music are mainly located in Scandinavia. Up till now, state organs have paid too little attention to the Arab language publications which spread anti-Semitic propaganda in European countries, whether through newspapers, audiotapes or the Internet .
Prevalent anti-Semitic prejudices
As almost all reports emphasise, Jews in the EU Member States are well integrated socially, economically and culturally, and as such the typical motives of xenophobia (fear of competition for jobs, housing and social welfare, linguistic and cultural otherness of migrants, external appearance) are hardly of consequence. Instead, the Jews are basically imagined to be a nationally and internationally influential group, allegedly controlling politics and the economy. Hence, anti-Semitism has other motives and a different structure from racism.
–The dominating assumption of contemporary anti-Semitism is still that of a Jewish world conspiracy, i.e. the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA, but also on European countries.
This basic assumption is applied to explain very different phenomena. The Holocaust denial assumes a central role in European right-wing extremism. It is purported that the Holocaust has never taken place and that the Jewish side, exploiting their victim status, use the "Auschwitz lie" to apply moral pressure on mainly European governments (restitution, support for Israeli policies), but also to influence US policy towards Israel. Furthermore, the thesis of the "Auschwitz lie" naturally also negates the assertion that the foundation of the state of Israel was historically necessary in order to create a secure homeland for the survivors of the Holocaust and Jews in general. Precisely at this point, extreme right-wing propaganda becomes employable ideologically for radical Islamist groups in their struggle against Israel, for the victim status and Israel's right to exist are challenged by the "Auschwitz lie".
Here a learning process has taken place in which "revisionist" thought has been adopted by some people in the Arab world. The influence of these ideas is supported by a number of Western Holocaust deniers like J rgen Graf, Gerd Honsik, Wolfgang Fr hlich who fled prosecution in their homelands and found asylum in Arab countries, and last but not least by Roger Garaudy who was hailed as a hero throughout the Middle East when he faced prosecution by the French government for inciting racial hatred. Via Arab-language media (newspapers, satellite TV and internet) in Europe these notions reach a small section of the Arab speaking population in European countries.
–Following September 11, 2001, some hold that Islamist terrorism is a natural consequence of the unsolved Middle East conflict, for which Israel alone is held responsible. They ascribe to Jews a major influence over the USA's allegedly biased pro-Israel policies. This is where anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes could converge and conspiracy theories over "Jewish world domination" might flare up again.
–The assumption of close ties between the US and Israel gives rise to a further motive for an anti-Semitic attitude. Amongst the political left, anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism are very closely tied together. Due to its occupation policy, sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation as well as some Third World countries view Israel as aggressive, imperialistic and colonialist. Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists like the Holocaust.
In the form of anti-Semitism it could be said that the tradition of demonising Jews in the past is now being transferred to the state of Israel. In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could become part of the political mainstream.
–Israeli policies toward the Palestinians provide a reason to denounce Jews generally as perpetrators, thereby questioning their moral status as victims that they had assumed as a consequence of the Holocaust. The connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment lies in this opportunity for a perpetrator-victim role reversal. In particular there is an attempt by the right-wing to compare Israeli policies with the crimes perpetrated against Jews throughout history in order to minimize or even deny the guilt and responsibility of their own nations.
–The fact that the Middle East conflict is taking place in the Holy Land of the Christians has led in a number of countries to a revitalisation of anti-Judaist motives by church leaders, and confessional and some liberal newspapers.
Recommendations
The upsurge of anti-Semitic criminal offences and verbal assaults against Jewish citizens and institutions, but also against Muslims, indicates that joint action has to be initiated. This action should not be restricted to one area of society, but has to deal with a multitude of combined activities. Actions on the political level should be backed by sound data and information about the phenomena in question. The civil society has to be mobilized to establish dialogues, the press, TV and the Internet has to be addressed to report about ethnic and cultural groups in a responsible way. Also for large-scale sporting events, preventive measures fighting racist attacks have to be implemented.
We recommend that the EUMC requests state authorities to acknowledge at the highest level the extraordinary dangers posed by anti-Semitic violence in the European context.
Legal
The EUMC should propose to the Member States to adopt the proposed framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia (COM 2001/664) as soon as possible and call on the Council of Ministers to ensure that it is amended to be as effective as possible to deal with reported incidents of anti-Semitism.
The EUMC should propose to the European Commission and to the Member States that they consider a decision for police cooperation according to Article 34 of the Treaty of European Union, which shall bind all Member States to collect and disseminate data on anti-Semitic offences. This decision should also involve EUROPOL and EUROJUST.
To achieve effective regulation of the Internet concerning racist propaganda, it is essential to extend the jurisdiction of European courts to include detailed provisions on the responsibility of Internet service providers.
Registering anti-Semitic incidents
State institutions must assume responsibility for monitoring anti-Semitism in the individual EU Member States. These institutions should work in accordance with well-defined categories enabling them to recognise an anti-Semitic element within any politically motivated criminal offences they register, and to then incorporate them into their statistics.
In some Member States racist attacks are not identified separately in crime statistics while others have at their disposal state-sponsored instruments which monitor and pursue anti-Semitic incidents. We recommend joint strategies for action to be developed, whereby those countries possessing years of experience in this regard should pass this on to the other Member States.
In those countries in which racist and anti-Semitic incidents are already registered by the security authorities, a swifter processing and publication of the results must be ensured and not first presented – as in current practice – in the middle of the following year.
There is a need to distinguish clearly in reporting between acts of violence, threatening behaviour, and offensive speech, and to make transparent government norms and procedures for registering and acting upon crimes and offences motivated by anti-Semitism. Only in this way can a genuinely comparative basis for incidents be attained for European countries.
Education and sport
We recommend that the governments of the EU Member States still absent should undertake initiatives to become members of the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research, whose purpose is to mobilise the support of political and social leaders to foster Holocaust education, remembrance and research.
We recommend that NGOs engage in initiatives of intercultural and inter-religious exchange and inter-religious dialogue, and cooperate in educational information campaigns against racism and anti-Semitism.
National ministries of education should organise round tables and seminars on mutual respect and tolerance; all teachers in the EU should be required to learn about different religions and faiths, cultures and traditions; history books used in schools around Europe should be examined for prejudice, or one-sidedness.
In the area of European football a whole series of initiatives have been started in the last few years, which combat racism and anti-Semitism in the stadiums. We recommend that these activities be encouraged and extended.
Research
We recommend that research studies should be carried out on anti-Semitic incidents in specific fields – e.g. sport, entertainment, public services - and placed in an overall European context in order to establish a comparative perspective on their occurrence.
Across all Member States there should be implemented a coordinated programme of victim studies to overcome the problem of underreporting with regard to incidents of anti-Semitism.
To date there has been no well-founded media analysis on how the European press exploits and perpetuates anti-Semitic stereotypes. We recommend the implementation of research studies to fill this gap.
Internet
State authorities, academics and research institutions engaged with racism and anti-Semitism should establish joint committees at national and international levels to monitor anti-Semitism on the Internet. Through mutual exchange these committees should establish a basis for an improved recording and combating of racist and anti-Semitic developments on the Internet.
Recent developments have shown that partly impeded or completely obstructed access to some homepages at least hinders the possibility of placing racist propaganda on the Internet. Thus private and state organisations should exert continuing pressure on large Internet providers to remove racist and anti-Semitic content from the net.
The enormous potential of the Internet for educational purposes has not yet been recognised and utilised. We recommend that projects are developed to utilise the Internet far more in order to combat anti-Semitic and racist content with serious counter-information.
Contents
Executive Summary5
1. Introduction15
2. Analysis19
Forms of anti-Semitic prejudice21
Perpetrators and kinds of anti-Semitic activities24
The situation in the EU Member States25
The mass media27
Internet as an international action base28
3. Recommendations30
1. Introduction
Alerted during early 2002 by news on anti-Semitic incidents in some Member States and also by information given to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) by the European Jewish Congress, the EUMC asked its RAXEN network of 15 National Focal Points (NFPs) to report on anti-Semitism and to monitor the anti-Semitic aggression, violence and attitudes in the Member States with a special focus on a one-month period (from 15th May – 15th June 2002). The EUMC also asked for examples of good practices implemented to prevent and reduce anti-Semitism.
The National Focal Points were asked to cover the following issues:
1. Physical acts of violence towards Jews, their communities, organisations or their property (cemeteries, synagogues, religious symbols etc) and also any measures seen as retaliation to other vulnerable groups, or ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities, or new types of victims:
Have any physical attacks (harassment, verbal abuse, violent acts, etc.) against Jews (or other people related to them) been reported (in the media, by Jewish organisations, by human rights/anti-discrimination NGOs, by the police etc.)? Please use the following categories as headlines: Arson; throwing objects and/or tear gas; physical aggression; theft and burglary; vandalism and disparagement; threatening intrusion; physical threat.
2. Verbal aggression/hate speech and other, subtler forms of discrimination towards Jews:
Have there been any verbal attacks against Jews in the media, in the public discourse, in politics? Are there any cases of incitement to hatred? Are there court cases to be reported? What about hate speech on the Internet? Please use the following categories as headlines: direct verbal threat; threats by telephone; insults; graffiti and anti-Semitic inscriptions; publicly distributed leaflets.
3. Research Studies reporting anti-Semitic violence or Opinion Polls on changed attitudes towards Jews:
Are there any new or recent reports done on anti-Semitic aggression or attitudes?
4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression:
Can you report of any good practice that has been successful in avoiding the increase of prejudice and violence towards Jewish people and other groups?
5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders including initiatives to reduce polarization and counteract negative national trends:
How has the government reacted to increased anti-Semitic violence? What have been the reactions of the politicians and other opinion leaders? Are there any institutionalized proposals and implementations to be observed?
Political Background
The reports of the National Focal Points and our own investigations show that in early 2002 several EU Member States experienced an increased number of anti-Semitic incidents. The wave of anti-Semitism reached a climax in the period between end of March and mid-May. But further examination shows that the increase of anti-Semitism had already started with the "Al-Aqsa-Intifada" in October 2000 and was fuelled by the conflict in the Middle East and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 , which triggered off a fierce debate on the causes for radical Islamic terrorism.
Into the summer of 2000 negotiations for obtaining a peaceful settlement of the Middle East conflict seemed to be taking a promising course. The failure of Camp David II and the "second Intifada" (al-Aqsa Intifada) beginning in late September 2000 marked however a turning-point. Reports on anti-Semitism from the year 2000 show a clear increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the final months of the year.
Besides the continuing media interest in the violent conflict in the Middle East, in 2001 the World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Tolerance, which was held in Durban, South Africa between 31 August and 7 September encouraged anti-Semitism in an unexpected way. The Member States of the United Nations adopted a Declaration and Action Programme, which included demands for the recognition of a Palestinian state and the right of security for Israel, as well as the demand for the end of violence in the Middle East that would allow Israel and the Palestinians to continue the peace process. But at the same conference vehement anti-Semitic outbreaks took place, in particular at some meetings held between NGOs, which were directed against representatives of Jewish groups. "These attacks were fuelled by the heated debates at the meeting concerning the Israeli government's practices in West Bank and Gaza Strip."
A few days later the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon triggered off a fierce debate on the causes of radical Islamic terrorism, seen by many to lie primarily in the occupation policy pursued by the Israeli government and the pro-Sharon stance taken by the US. For the Stephen Roth Institute on Anti-Semitism and Racism, Tel Aviv, the events of September 11 also enhanced the wave of anti-Semitic manifestations and violence.
In our opinion one cannot deny that there exists a close link between the increase of anti-Semitism and the escalation of the Middle East conflict, whereas factors which usually determine the frequency of anti-Semitic incidents in the respective countries, such as the strength and the degree of mobilisation extremist far-right parties and groups can generate, have not played the decisive role in the reporting period.
Defining anti-Semitism
Many of the National Focal Points mention that in their countries the dividing line between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government was a controversial issue. The various political groups often have different opinions on the threshold where justified criticism ends and anti-Semitic argumentation begins.. In such a delicate situation it is advisable to study the results of social research and to look for appropriate definitions of anti-Semitism accepted by the research community. This also assures a sound level of impartiality. After a detailed review of existing literature we recommend the definition of anti-Semitism given by the well-known Holocaust researcher Helen Fein:
Anti-Semitism is "a persisting latent structure of hostile beliefs towards Jews as a collective manifested in individuals as attitudes, and in culture as myth, ideology, folklore and imagery, and in actions – social or legal discrimination, political mobilisation against the Jews, and collective or state violence – which results in and/or is designed to distance, displace, or destroy Jews as Jews."
To specify the basic content of these hostile beliefs we refer to a summary given by Dietz Bering:
Jews are not only partially but totally bad by nature, that is, their bad traits are incorrigible. Because of this bad nature
-Jews have to be seen not as individuals but as a collective.
-Jews remain essentially alien in the surrounding societies.
-Jews bring disaster on their "host societies" or on the whole world, they are doing it secretly, therefore the anti-Semites feel obliged to unmask the conspiratorial, bad Jewish character.
With the help of the above definition the distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government policy can be made in an easier way. From there allusions to or comparisons with Israel's actions with the behaviour of the Nazi regime have to be viewed as anti-Semitic. Those who identify Israel and Nazi-Germany or see Israeli behaviour as the cause of anti-Semitism use these arguments for their own ideological interests.
Also to be evaluated as a form of anti-Semitism are anti-Semitic stereotypes when applied to Israeli policy: for example: the accusation that there is a secret, world-encompassing Zionist conspiracy, the isolation of Israel as a state that is fundamentally negatively distinct from all others, which therefore has no right to exist, and negative historical recourses to ancient Jewish history, which is to point to an immutable negative Jewish character. All cases in which the Jews are made collectively responsible for the policy of the Israeli government represent a form of anti-Semitism. That means, the moment when criticism on Israel turns into criticism of Jews in general or Jews living in other countries has at least an anti-Semitic connotation.
This report analyses the current manifestations of anti-Semitism as far as it is possible so close to the time period under observation. It does not try to chart its history or analyse its historical roots in the countries concerned.
2. Analysis
According to some observers, a new wave of anti-Semitism is sweeping across Europe; many are even speaking of the worst anti-Semitic wave since 1945. The latter claim is historically inaccurate. Above all directly after the war, in 1946, and in the course of the Stalinist "purges" in the early 1950s there were far more violent anti-Semitic excesses, persecution and discrimination.
Antony Lerman, former Executive Director of the Institute for Jewish Policy Research in London, has correctly stressed, "that it is wrong to think that increases in incidents must mean an overall worsening of the anti-Semitic climate". Indeed, since 1945 there have been repeated waves of anti-Semitic incidents in Europe (such as the graffiti wave of 1959/60, waves between 1990 and 1992 as well as waves tied to the periodic flare-ups in the Arab-Israeli conflict in 1967, 1973 and, above all, 1982), whereby concrete causes could not be given for these outbreaks in every case, nor had they resulted in a long-term increase in anti-Semitism.
If, apart from incidents, further indicators are selected, such as anti-Jewish attitudes, the electoral success of far-right extremist parties espousing anti-Semitism, the membership numbers of right-wing extremist organisations, social and legal discrimination of Jews etc., the picture becomes far more differentiated – one that does not indicate a general increase in anti-Semitism and, furthermore, turns out to be different across the EU Member States. If we speak of a wave of anti-Semitism, we primarily mean incidents for which, on the basis of contagion effects, such a wave-like and cyclical course is typical.
The fact that a rise in anti-Semitic activities is clearly observable in most of the EU Member States since the beginning of the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada, which increased in frequency and the intensity of their violence parallel to the escalation in the Middle East conflict in April/May 2002, points to a connection between events in the Middle East with criticism of Israel's politics on the one hand and mobilisation of anti-Semitism on the other.
According to an Anti-Defamation League survey, almost two-thirds of Europeans (62%) believe "that the recent outbreak of violence against Jews in Europe is a result of anti-Israel sentiment and not traditional anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish feelings."
The international dimension of the problem was clearly evident as Shimon Peres, Israel's Foreign Minister, told EU colleagues in Valencia in April 2002 that he saw a link between the growing anti-Semitism in Europe and the Union's tilt towards the Palestinians. He added: "The issue is very sensitive in Israel (...). We ask for memory." The Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Piqu rejected this criticism: "Please don't confuse anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of policies of the current Israeli government." Peres' critical remark and the reply given by the European Foreign Ministers indicates that the core issue in this public conflict was the political question as to when does anti-Israeli criticism assume anti-Semitic characteristics and whether reproaches of anti-Semitism are being used as part of an attempt to silence criticism of Israeli policies.
All NFP Reports point to this problem, one that was also discussed publicly in all countries and was an essential point of dispute in discussions; namely how to draw a clear distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israeli government's policies towards the Palestinians – even if it is extremely sharp.
While it is certainly correct to view anti-Semitism as part of racism, at the same time it possesses very specific traits. As almost all of the reports emphasise, Jews in the European Union are well integrated socially, economically and culturally. Thus, the typical motives of xenophobia are hardly of consequence for the Jews (fear of competition for jobs, linguistic and cultural differences of migrants, external appearance). Instead, Jews are imagined to be a national and international influential group who allegedly exert a bad influence on or even steer politics, the economy and the media, which is a way of expressing the old anti-Semitic prejudice of hidden Jewish power.
Furthermore, from within the culture of the Christian West, traditional historical anti-Judaist and anti-Semitic prejudices are again and again liable to be reactivated. On the level of accusations levelled against Jews, traditional motives prevail (see below). Perception of the Jews as victims of National Socialism is very strong, making them a preferred target for all "revisionist/deniers/negationists" and right-wing extremists. Anti-Semitic offenders make use of National Socialist symbols; but also the German language itself is used in non-German speaking countries (expressions such as "Juden raus!") so as to refer affirmatively to the National Socialist persecution of the Jews.
A further aspect that needs to be noted is that the local Jewish population is closely associated with the state of Israel and its politics. It can be said that the native Jews have been made "hostages" of Israeli politics. Here anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist motives are mixed together. What is certainly quite new is the particular connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism made in the Arab and Muslim world, so that anti-Semitism, due to its connection with a concrete political conflict, varies greatly with its escalation and de-escalation.
That anti-Semitic offenders in some cases are drawn from Muslim minorities in Europe – whether they be radical Islamist groups or young males of North African descent – is certainly a new development for most Member States, one that offers reason for concern for European governments and also the great majority of its citizens. As members of the Arab-Muslim minorities in Europe are themselves target of racist and Islamophobic attitudes, there arises the precarious situation of a conflict that is primarily motivated by foreign affairs but played out on the domestic front, a conflict in which the members of one minority discriminate against another minority group.
Forms of anti-Semitic prejudice
Let us first of all look at the anti-Semitic prejudices and the groups expressing them. The range of motives stretches from racist to conspiratorial-oriented and religious prejudices; but anti-Zionist notions, often coupled with anti-American patterns, were also activated. Anti-Zionism here is to be seen as a form of anti-Semitism, because Zionism is described by the extreme right, the extreme left and also by parts of Arab-Muslim circles as the evil of the world and therefore can be used easily as a wanted scapegoat. This implies the fight against the existence of Israel.
1)The dominating motive of contemporary anti-Semitism is still that of a Jewish world conspiracy, i.e. the assumption that Jews are in control of what happens in the world, whether it be through financial or media power, whether it be the concealed political influence mainly exerted on the USA, but also on European countries. This basic assumption is applied to explain very different phenomena.
Here the Holocaust denial assumes a central role in European right-wing extremism. It is purported that the Holocaust has never taken place and that the Jewish side, exploiting their victim status, use the "Auschwitz lie" to apply moral pressure on mainly European governments (restitution, support for Israeli policies), but also to influence US policy towards Israel.
Furthermore, the thesis of the "Auschwitz lie" naturally also negates the assertion that the foundation of the state of Israel was historically necessary in order to create a secure homeland for the survivors of the Holocaust and Jews in general.
Precisely at this point, extreme right-wing propaganda becomes employable ideologically for radical Islamist groups in their struggle against Israel, for the victim status and Israel's right to exist are challenged by the "Auschwitz lie". Here a learning process has taken place in which "revisionist" thought, that was propagated very early and very prominently by French intellectuals (lastly by Roger Garaudy), was adopted by some people in the Arab world.
The influence of these ideas is supported by a number of Western Holocaust deniers like J rgen Graf, Gerd Honsik, Wolfgang Fr hlich, who fled persecution in their homelands and found asylum in Arab countries, and last but not least by Roger Garaudy who was hailed as a hero throughout the Middle East when he faced persecution by the French government for inciting racial hatred. Via Arab-language media (newspapers and satellite TV)in Europe these notions reach in turn a small section of the Muslim population in European countries.
2) Reception of another European source has also influenced their conception of the world, namely the infamous anti-Semitic fake the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", which describes how a group of Jews apparently hold the thread of world politics in their hands. With help of this conspiracy theory explanations are found for why the politics of the United States and most of the European countries display a pro-Israeli bias in the Middle East conflict.
A current example of this conspiratorial thought is offered by the attacks of 11 September 2001, which in some Arab newspapers (e.g. in Jordan, Egypt and Syria, but also in the London and Saudi-Arabian editions of Al-Hayat ) is presented as an action initiated by the Israeli secret service or even the Israeli Government itself, who were seeking to prevent the establishment of closer ties between the US and the Arab world so as to gain a free hand for their aggressive plans against the Palestinians. This rumour has also spread through Europe, where it found great resonance above all in Greece.
3) Following 11 September 2001, some hold that Islamist terrorism is a natural consequence of the unresolved Middle East conflict, for which Israel alone is held responsible. They ascribe to Jews a major influence over America's allegedly biased pro-Israel policies. This is where anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes converge and conspiracy theories over "Jewish world domination" flare up again.
4) The supposed close ties between the US and Israel give rise to a further motive for an anti-Semitic attitude, one that is also to be found amongst the far left. Due to its occupation policy, sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation as well as some Third World countries – as the World Conference on Racism in Durban 2001 had shown – view Israel as aggressive, imperialistic and colonialist. Taken on its own terms this is naturally not to be viewed as anti-Semitic; and yet there are exaggerated formulations which witness a turn from criticism into anti-Semitism, for example when Israel and the Jews are reproached for replicating the most horrific crimes of the National Socialists – apartheid, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, genocide.
In the form of anti-Zionism it could be said that the historical demonising of the Jews is transferred to the state of Israel (striving for world power, the vindictiveness and cruelty of "an eye for an eye", the greed of capitalism and colonialism). In this way traditional anti-Semitism is translated into a new form, less deprived of legitimacy, whose employment today in Europe could extend more and more into the political mainstream. Thus, the issue at stake in judging statements critical of Israel is whether a double standard is being set, i.e. Israel is evaluated differently from other states, whether false historical parallels are drawn (comparison with the National Socialists), and whether anti-Semitic myths and stereotypes are used to characterise Israeli politics.
5) The United States of America is also faced with sharp attacks from sections of the peace movement, opponents of globalisation and some Third World countries as well as from sections of the extreme right as a world power categorised as imperialistic and as the protector of Israel. For example, especially in German speaking countries various political extremists use the word "East coast" ("Ostk ste") as synonymous to a supposed total Jewish influence on the United States and their policy. Sympathisers to these extremists immediately understand the meaning of this word without having to get any background information. Therefore they may use it without being afraid of any state persecution according to anti-discrimination laws. This makes clear how anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are sometimes very closely tied together.
6) While the historical victim status of Jews continues to be acknowledged, for many Europeans it no longer transfers to support of Israel. Israeli policies toward the Palestinians provide a reason to denounce Jews as perpetrators, thereby qualifying their moral status as victims that they had assumed as a consequence of the Holocaust. The connection between anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment lies in this opportunity for a perpetrator-victim role reversal.
7) The fact that the Middle East conflict is taking place in the Holy Land of the Christians has lead in various countries to a revitalisation of anti-Judaist motives by church leaders and confessional as well as some liberal newspapers. This takes the form of current events (the conflict over the Church of Nativity, children and youths as the victims of military action) being brought into connection with events in the New Testament, which historically have clear anti-Jewish connotations (Massacre of the Innocents, crucifixion of Christ). Such phenomena are particularly virulent in Italy, but are also present in Protestant countries such as Denmark or the United Kingdom.
Perpetrators and kinds of anti-Semitic activities
For many anti-Semitic incidents, above all naturally for the violent and other punishable offences, it is typical that the perpetrators attempt to remain anonymous. Thus, in many cases the perpetrators could not be identified, so an assignment to a political or ideological camp must remain open. Nevertheless, looking at the perpetrators identified or at least identifiable with some certainty, it can be said that the anti-Semitic incidents in the monitoring period were committed above all by right-wing extremists and radical Islamists or young Muslims; but also that anti-Semitic statements came from the pro-Palestinian left as well as politicians and citizens from the political mainstream.
Specific forms of action can be assigned to each of these sections.
–Desecration of synagogues, cemeteries, swastika graffiti, threatening and insulting mail as well as the denial of the Holocaust as a theme networking various groupings, particularly in the Internet – these are the forms of action to be primarily assigned to the far-right spectrum.
–Physical attacks on Jews and the desecration and destruction of synagogues were acts mainly committed by young Muslim perpetrators mostly of an Arab descent in the monitoring period. Many of these attacks occurred during or after pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which were also used by radical Islamists for hurling verbal abuse. In addition, Islamic circles were responsible for placing anti-Semitic propaganda in the Internet and in Arab-language media.
–Anti-Semitism on the streets also appears to be expressed by young culprits without any specific anti-Semitic prejudices, so that "many incidents are committed just for the fun of it". In the view of the sociologist Paul Iganski, in many cases – at least in the UK – represent a type of "thrill hate crimes", "likely to be committed by a group of young offenders, outside their neighbourhood", a type of action we are familiar with in racist attacks in other European countries and which Iganski views as "part of the repertoire of routine incivilities and antisocial behaviour prevalent in the street, shopping malls, cinemas, (...) and other public space".
–In the left-wing scene anti-Semitic remarks were to be found mainly in the context of pro-Palestinian and anti-globalisation rallies and commentaries critical of Israel in the respective media during the monitoring period.
–More difficult to record and to evaluate than the "street-level violence" against Jews is the elite or salon anti-Semitism as it is manifested "in the media, university common rooms, and at dinner parties of the chattering classes". The development in some EU countries suggests that today it appears legitimate, sometimes even en vogue to take an anti-Israeli stance.
While such a standpoint is legitimate politically, in many cases a boundary is transgressed in the direction of anti-Semitic prejudices, for example when a politician in Germany used the concept "war of extermination" to characterise the actions of the Israeli army, thus equating it with the war of extermination undertaken by the German army against the Soviet Union and European Jewry. In this way anti-Semitic modes of thought can increasingly creep into public and private discourses and are seldom picked out and criticised by society, politicians and the press.
–During a wave of anti-Semitism like the one we could observe in April and May 2002, in which a heated public debate took place on Israeli politics and the boundary between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, persons become motivated to voice their latent anti-Semitic attitudes (mostly in the form of telephone calls and insulting letters) who are not politically active and do not belong to one of the ideological camps sketched above. Opinion polls prove that in some European countries a large percentage of the population harbours anti-Semitic attitudes and views, but that these usually remain latent.
The situation in the EU Member States
The difficulty in classifying anti-Semitic incidents makes it impossible to provide a quantitative comparison of the anti-Semitic manifestations in the EU Member States. The difficulty is further compounded by the fact that in some countries incidents are systematically recorded by state organs, while others reveal a high level of monitoring by NGOs, or indeed in a third group the collation of information proved to be extremely difficult. We thus have to assume that some EU Member States, due to their history and the significance anti-Semitism had and still has in their country, pay far greater attention to monitoring anti-Semitic incidents as others.
The extent and kind of anti-Semitic incidents vary from country to country. While a constant pattern valid for all countries is not recognisable, some constellations are evident. Due to the plurality of the actors and motives, the distribution of anti-Semitic manifestations only partially corresponds to the distribution employed in the annual "Anti-Semitism Reports" from the 1990s. They thus show hardly any connection with the spread of anti-Semitic attitudes and views in the population as a whole.
A rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents has been noticeable for almost all of the fifteen Member States since the start of the "Al-Aqsa-Intifada". In the monitoring period this rise reached a climax in the period between the end of March and mid-May, running parallel to the escalation in the Middle East conflict. This leads to the conclusion that the occasion for anti-Semitic attacks was in this case triggered by a foreign event, one that however exerted a varying impact in the individual Member States.
There are a number of EU Member States, namely Ireland and Luxembourg, where anti-Semitic incidents in general seldom occur and were hardly evident in the monitoring period. At most threatening letters were sent to the Israeli consulate or to local Jews. The same applies to Portugal and Finland, where such threatening letters and telephone calls were evident and where there was one attack each on a synagogue, respectively.
On the other hand, a group of countries was identified with rather severe anti-Semitic incidents. Here, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK have to be mentioned. They witnessed numerous physical attacks and insults directed against Jews and vandalism of Jewish institutions (synagogues, shops, cemeteries). In these countries the violent attacks on Jews and/or synagogues were reported to be committed often by members of the Muslim-Arab minority, frequently youths (see reports on these countries). The observers agree that these are disaffected young men who themselves are frequently targets of racist attacks, i.e. here the social problems of these migrant minorities are obviously an essential factor for their propensity to violence and susceptibility to anti-Semitism.
Far fewer anti-Semitic attacks committed by members of this group were evident in countries like Sweden and Denmark, where attacks – similarly to the Netherlands – were only seldom evident in the 1990s given general populations in which, according to polls, anti-Semitic attitudes are not widespread.
Other countries show a very specific expression of anti-Semitism. In Greece we find a series of cemetery and memorial desecrations, which point to a far-right background. Anti-Semitic/anti-Zionist statements and sentiments were found in the mass media and were also expressed by some politicians and opinion leaders. Here the Greek foreign policy position perhaps plays a role; since the Second World War Greece has opposed Israel because of its alliance with Turkey. Spain offered a mixed picture where the traditional strong presence of neo-Nazi groups was evident alongside a series of attacks, with an Islamist background.
In Germany, where a large number of anti-Semitic offences have been registered annually since the 1990s, persons of Arab descent committed some of the few attacks on Jews in the monitoring period. Anti-Semitism manifested itself less in a higher number of attacks (between May-June there were no physical attacks) but more in the form of a flood of anti-Semitic letters to the Jewish Communities and prominent Jews sent by German citizens who by no means all belong politically to the far right. This was in part a reaction to a hefty political controversy (see the country report on Germany). The explosiveness in this controversy lay in how a well-known German politician and the Central Council of Jews stood opposed face to face, so that in the end all the political partners took a clear position against the FDP politician J rgen M llemann.
Italy showed a certain similarity with Germany; although no physical attacks were evident, there were threatening telephone calls, insulting letters, slogans and graffiti, whereby the perpetrators did not come from the Muslim population. However, particularly pronounced in Italy is a pro-Palestinian mobilisation within left-wing parties, organisations and newspapers, which in connection with public rallies partially took an anti-Semitic turn. From Austria no physical attacks were reported; verbal threats and insults were seldom. Anti-Semitic stereotypes in relation to Israel were found essentially in right-wing newspapers and amongst far-right groupings.
The countries can also be grouped together in another constellation when focus is switched to those actors who are present in the public discourse. In Italy, France, Spain and Sweden sections of the far left and Muslim groups unified to stage pro-Palestinian demonstrations. At some of these demonstrations anti-Semitic slogans and placards were to be seen and heard and some even resulted in attacks upon Jews or Jewish institutions. A similar trend was observed in the Netherlands, though without any great participation from the political left.
In Finland, pro-Palestinian demonstrations passed without any anti-Semitic incidents. In Germany, and also less so in Austria, public political discourse was dominated by a debate on the link between Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and anti-Semitism, a debate in which the cultural and political elite were involved, whereas the mobilisation of the extreme left remained low-key. In Germany the critical reporting of the media was also a topic for controversy, as it was also in the United Kingdom, where left-liberal papers (The Guardian and The Independent) were heavily criticised by Jewish representatives. In other countries such as Luxembourg, Ireland, Portugal, Denmark and Finland there was obvious no prominent public discussion on this subject.
The mass media
Some commentators discuss the possible influence of the mass media on an escalation of the number of anti-Semitic incidents. There is a connection seen between the sharp increase in anti-Semitic attacks in April 2002 and the events in Jenin at the end of March and in Bethlehem in April. Here the question at issue is whether this escalation was merely the result of the daily news reports on the violence in the Middle East, in the sense of an agenda-setting effect, or whether the reporting itself reveals an anti-Semitic bias.
Judgement upon this is dependent on partisanship in the Middle East conflict. The Jewish communities regarded the one-sidedness, the aggressive tone of the reporting on Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict and references to old Christian anti-Jewish sentiments as problematic. The country reports (Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden) list some cases of anti-Semitic argument or stereotypes (cartoons) in the quality press, but as of yet no systematic media analyses are available. One study of the German quality press (see Germany) comes to the conclusion that the reporting concentrated greatly on the violent events and the conflicts and was not free of anti-Semitic clich s; at the same time though this negative view also applies to the description of the Palestinian actors.
The report on Austria identified anti-Semitic allusions in the right-wing press. Here there is a need for further empirical studies. One study on the impact of the very critical reporting on the wave of right-wing extremist violence in Germany in the early 1990s concluded that the daily news coverage through television and the press had a "contagion effect" and contributed to a further escalation in violence; this though could not be said to be the case of the commentary-oriented background reports in the daily press.
This means that the impact is not generated by the content of the reporting, which naturally evaluates the violence negatively, but rather from the massiveness and consonance of the overall media coverage. The intensive and consonant focus on events thus has a clear effect on the climate of opinion. In fact, those Europeans who followed media coverage of the events in the Middle East the closest were more likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinian case.
Openly anti-Semitic reporting is rather seldom in the European press, with the exception of the far-right spectrum. However, observers point to an "increasingly blatantly anti-Semitic Arab and Muslim media", including audio tapes and sermons, in which the call is not only made to join the struggle against Israel but also against Jews across the world. Although leading Muslim organisations express their opposition to this propaganda, observers assume that its calling for the use of violence may exert a certain influence on readers and listeners.
Internet as an international action base
The Internet is named in almost all of the country reports as an important medium for anti-Semitic propaganda, precisely because it is suited to the international dissemination of anti-Semitism due to the difficulty in identifying the perpetrators. As the Internet represents an international medium, only those homepages have been included in the individual country reports, which have a direct relationship to the nationalist – mostly then far-right – spectrum.
The international character of the medium itself allows only a trans-national assessment and so, correspondingly, a joint strategy in formulating and implementing counter measures.
In addition, the dissemination of anti-Semitic thought via the Internet cannot be circumscribed to fit a specific period, for this worldwide transference of data is fast-moving, meaning that much of the information is accessible only for a short time or the relevant homepages are switched on and then off. Inherent to the