Executive Summary
(Updated December 2003)
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 clichés;
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 Jürgen Graf, Gerd Honsik, Wolfgang Fröhlich 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.
Sources:
C.R.I.F. - Released by the European Jewish Congress |