Anti-Semitism in the EU

According to a study commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), anti-Semitic manifestations increased in five European countries in the years 2002 and 2003. Igal Avidan talks with EUMC director Beate Winkler about the study’s findings and recommendations.

In April 2002, shortly after the Israeli military operation in the refugee camp Jenin, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) recorded a strong upswing in anti-Semitic violence in France and commissioned its coordination offices in the then-15 EU member states to start collecting data. Published at the end of March, the new study, the most extensive to date, uses standardized criteria to systematically record anti-Semitism in EU member states in the years 2002 and 2003. It also recommends political strategies and gathers reactions from members of the Jewish community. Igal Avidan talks with Beate Winkler, EUMC director, on the periphery of the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin, at which she presented the new study.

Your study has recorded a rise in anti-Semitism among the 15 EU member states right before the EU enlargement.

Beate Winkler: Anti-Semitic incidents have increased in five countries—Belgium, Germany, France, the Netherlands and Great Britain. In four countries, we detected a disturbing anti-Semitic discourse, but no acts of violence—in Austria, Italy, Spain and Greece. In Denmark and Sweden, the number of anti-Semitic criminal acts has remained constant over the past few years. In four countries, we recorded no significant anti-Semitic violence or rhetoric against Jews—in Ireland, Finland, Portugal and Luxemburg. We also discovered that the systems for data collection are very inadequate in many countries. We need this data if we are to counter anti-Semitism with political measures.

Who are these anti-Semitic perpetrators?

Winkler: They are white, radical right-wing youths and increasingly young Arab Muslims in countries such as France and Belgium.

Where does criticism of the Israeli government become anti-Semitic?

Winkler: Criticism of Israeli politics is not per se anti-Semitic, but it can be, for instance, when Israel’s right to exist is called into question, or when Sharon is compared to Hitler, or when conspiracy theories about the terror attacks of September 11 appear claiming that “Jews” were involved. There are unbelievable ideas circulating out there. At the same time, we are observing many infringements against Muslims.

And who are the perpetrators in this case?

Winkler: They don’t only come from the right. The perpetrator profile is quite broad.

What role does the Arabic media play—particularly TV stations and preachers in mosques—in this rising anti-Semitism? Can’t the development also be attributed to the emotional depiction of violence in the Near East by the Arabic media as well as to the incitement of a few preachers against Israelis and Jews?

Winkler: The Arabic media is definitely a big issue, the anti-Semitism of some preachers as well, although it’s important here not to generalize. That’s why we should do all we can to encourage a dialog between religions. We must avoid polarizations and take people’s fears and anxieties seriously. But at the same time we need to take clear legal action against fundamentalists and strengthen the positions of liberal Moslems.

What actions can you take against such TV stations and preachers?

Winkler: Only foreign policymakers can do that. We are not involved in foreign policy. Our mandate is very limited. Besides, we are a very small institute that only started this work six years ago. We have 31 employees for 15 member states. What is taking place in some Arabic media is extremely disquieting and must be confronted. When a sermon held in a mosque attacks the basic principles of democracy, we must take legal action. Also, we need to conduct a dialog with those who are interested but undecided. A positive development has emerged in France, for example. When the government resolutely implemented the recommended strategies, the number of anti-Semitic criminal acts declined by 35 per cent in the following year.

The EUMC study describes anti-Semitic perpetrators as male, between 15 and 24 years old, with a low level of education and often with a criminal background. In your view, what other "characteristics" apply?

Winkler: They have an unstable personality and feel excluded. And they are afraid of falling further down the social ladder. Muslims in France also identify with the Palestinians.

Do you see a competition arising between Moslems and Jews for the role of victim? Are Moslems, who have been increasingly discriminated against since the attacks of September 11, trying to appropriate this role which so far has been given to Jews because of the Holocaust?

Winkler: Mainstream society has retreated even further since September 11, and its yearning for homogeneity has intensified. The result is xenophobia and exclusion of the other.

The Center for Anti-Semitic Research at the Technical University in Berlin accuses you of holding back the first study on anti-Semitism in the EU, which the Center had been commissioned to prepare—possibly because the report does not identify young Muslims as anti-Semitic perpetrators and the EUMC has devoted itself for years to strategies against "Islamophobia". What were the reasons behind your actions?

Winkler: For one, the study contains a number of insupportable and harmful generalizations: “the Muslims,” for instance. Yet it only deals with a few Muslims. Second, the study’s conclusions could not be supported by the short time frame of one to two months. We wanted to quickly assess the situation and to initiate a public discourse. We wanted to make people aware of this new phenomenon. The administrative council of the EUMC found the data insufficient. Therefore we decided to pursue it further—in more depth and more systematically. The result is this new, comprehensive 344-page report.

Did the conflict with the Center for Anti-Semitism Research after EU Parliamentary Member Daniel Cohn-Bendit went public with the first report do any harm?

Winkler: His words caught me by surprise. The news broke in November 2003, right at the time when we were practically finished with the other report, which reached similar conclusions.

What will you take home with you from the OSCE conference?

Winkler: I’ll leave with the desire to implement the recommended actions from this conference as quickly and effectively as possible. Berlin is a good place to start. We will find out who is responsible for implementing them in the 15 member states and directly contact them to make sure that these recommendations are implemented. Only responsible and sensitive "agitation" can get things moving. This report agitates with its thoroughness and clarity. We will also be setting up coordination offices in all the new EU member states in order to collect data on anti-Semitism in those countries as well.

Translation from German: Nancy Joyce