Nessuno può uccidere nessuno. Mai. Nemmeno per difendersi.

The Suppressed EU Report on Antisemitism

Below is the 'Antisemitism by Country' section of the Report on Antisemitism in Europe - the one that was suppressed and now has been released following a Financial Times exposé.  The Report was commission by the European Union's European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) and prepared by Centre
of Research on Antisemitism at Technical University in  Berlin.  Elsewhere we have posted the report in full. [1A] However, the section on this page - reporting from 14 countries - includes all the real information. So I would suggest reading it first. That way you will have a sense of what is happening 'on the ground'.

You can read the Financial Times report  on why this Report was initially suppressed plus my comments in a piece called "What do the European Union, George W. Bush and Malaysian ex-PM Mahathir have in common? Could it be they're all pushing the politics of antisemitism?" at http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/eureport.htm

Also there's a follow-up. The first part has been posted: "Jared Israel said Mahathir is an Antisemite. But did he quote Mahathir out of Context?" http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/hay.htm

Within the Belgian population (10.3 million; 55% Flemish, 33% Walloon) Jews represent a minority of some 35,000, most of whom live in Antwerp and Brussels.

In recent years racism has been on the increase, both in terms of discrimination against immigrants in general and against Arabs in particular. The Eurobarometer 2000 compiled by the EUMC [2] came to the conclusion that the attitudes towards ethnic and religious minorities in Belgium show a more negative set of views than the EU average. Although racially motivated attacks from extreme right-wing groups, resurgent since the 1990s, are in the first instance directed against foreigners, running parallel to this is a strong increase in anti-Semitic tendencies. In particular since the beginning of the “al-Aqsa Intifada” in the autumn of 2000, the number of violent actions against Jews and Jewish institutions has increased, with the suspected perpetrators mainly from Muslim and Arab communities, especially from those of Maghreb origin which itself is most vulnerable to xenophobia [3] . But right-wing extremist groups also used the situation for an “anti-Zionist” campaign. [4] In addition, a certain influence was exerted by legal proceedings started in June 2001, based on a law passed in Belgium in 1993 that also enables criminal prosecution of crimes committed in foreign countries. Survivors of the massacre in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in 1982 used this law to undertake legal proceedings against the then Defence Minister of Israel Ariel Sharon for crimes against humanity. An Israeli inquiry had found that Sharon was indirectly responsible, prompting his resignation. The attempted prosecution itself, but also the delaying of a decision over many months, [5] caused an international stir, not the least because Belgium assumed the EU Presidency on 1 July 2001 and had the request seriously examined. [6] On 26 June 2002 the court dismissed the charges. [7]

On 30 May, Reuters reported that a confidential Senate Report, based on evidence from the State Security Service, stated that Belgium is a recruiting ground for Islamic militants. Apparently, the Saudi-backed Salafi Movement has created some sort of religious “state within Belgium.” [8]

1.   Physical acts of violence

According to the current report of the American Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, since 11 September 2001 around 2000 anti-Semitic incidents have taken place, whereby no distinction has been made between violent attacks and other forms. [9] Already on 5December 2001, the Chief Rabbi of Brussels, Albert Gigi, was physically assaulted by a group of youths in Anderlecht (Brussels). After shouting at him and his companion “dirty Jew” in Arab, they followed them into the subway and one of them kicked the Rabbi in the face, breaking his glasses. [10] After the first graffiti appeared on Jewish shops in February 2002, demanding “Death to the Jews”, the synagogue in the Anderlecht district of Brussels was severely damaged by two Molotov cocktails in the night of 31 March / 1 April. In the following weeks the attacks increased: on 17 April unknown persons set fire to a Jewish bookshop in Brussels and on the following day the front window of a kosher restaurant were shattered by an air rifle; during the night of 20 – 21 April 18 shots were fired at the façade of the synagogue in Charleroi. During a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Antwerp on 1 April, which took place near a Jewish area and in which ca. 2000 persons took part, front windows were shattered and an Israeli flag burnt.

Between 15 May and 15 June 2002 the following attacks or violent acts against Jews have been recorded. Compared with the attacks the month before, the number of incidents was relatively low.

19 May: a group of Jewish youngsters aged 13 were threatened by a group of Arab youths at the City Park. One of them menaced the Jewish youngsters with a mock rifle. The police intervened and arrested the youth. [11]

25 May: a group of adolescent immigrants (around the age of 13) vandalized the restaurant of the Maccabi Soccer Club belonging to the Jewish community of Antwerp. They spread anti-Jewish slogans across the club walls, destroyed doors, windows and furniture. The youngsters were caught by the police. After interrogation and an interview with their parents, they were released.

28 May: a shop on the Frankrijklei, a major avenue in Antwerp, was smeared with the following slogans: “Kill the juif. Laat ze lijden (let them suffer), fuck Belgium”. [12]

The Antwerp police have also gathered evidence of damage to bus stops, shops or public buildings. In most cases these were graffiti of the SS insignia, the swastika and the Star of David.

2. Verbal aggression/hate speech

Newspapers reported the following incidents:

·        On 19 April unknown persons smeared a Jewish shop in Brussels with slogans such as “Dirty Jew” and “We will burn you”.

·        In the second half of May an anonymous letter of anti-Semitic and revisionist character was sent to a survivor of the concentration camps after this person had published an article in a widely circulated public newsletter.

·        In the second half of May 2002 an article of highly anti-Semitic nature was published in a free journal published in the Charleroi region.

·        On 3 June an anti-Semitic letter, originating in France, was sent to an individual in Belgium.

·        Racist and anti-Semitic slogans continue to belong to the repertoire of many football fans.

Internet

Websites of Belgian origin with racist and anti-Semitic texts have increasingly gone online in recent times. The Centre for Equal Opportunity and Combating Racism was able to identify 82 Belgian sites, which spread such material. On 6 June a complaint about racism was introduced at the CEOOR against Dyab Abou Jahjah, President of the Arabian European League (AEL). His Internet site encourages hatred, discrimination and violence towards the Jewish community. The complaint concerns a press statement in which the AEL urged people to join a demonstration in Antwerp to be held on 8 June 2002. According to the League, this demonstration has to take place in Antwerp since “the power (there) is in the hands of a Zionist lobby and extreme right racists” and, furthermore, because “Antwerp represents the bastion of Zionism in Europe” and is a city “where pro-Sharon gangs of Zionists are dictating the rules”. Instead, Antwerp needs to become the “Mecca of pro-Palestinian action”. [13]

On 17 January the far left anti-globalisation website Indymedia Belgium relayed photographs of three corpses of children who should have fallen victim of the supposed Israeli practice to use bodies of Palestinians for organ theft. [14]

MediaJoel Kotek, professor at the Free University of Brussels refers to the one sided reports on Israel in the Belgium media: ”Israel is portrayed by the Belgian media, notably “Le Soir”, the most widely circulated French-language newspaper in Belgium, as well as by “Vif l’Express”, its weekly supplement, as solely responsible for the violence which has shaken the Middle East for almost two years. Frequently, in their forum pages and in letters to the editor, Israelis are equated with Nazis and in more extreme publications anti-Semitic motifs appear in anti-Israel propaganda.” [15]

3. Research studies

The survey commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in ten [16] European countries has collected information on “European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israel Conflict” between 16 May and 4 June respectively between 9 and 29 September. [17]

European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israel Conflict 

Percent responding “probably true” to each statement / 500 respondents in each country

Taylor Nelson Sofres, margin of error +/-4.4% at 95% level of confidence

For Belgium a clear agreement emerged with anti-Semitic stereotypes. From the four stereotypical statements presented, 39% of respondents agreed to at least two, 21% with at least three and 6% with all four.  Fifty per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country”, a rate somewhat below the EU-average of 51%, and 38% agreed with the statement “Jews still talk too much about the Holocaust” (EU-average: 42%).

4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression

Following the multi-religious meetings organised since 11 September 2001, the CEOOR proposed an action plan, the implementation of which is still in the preparatory phase. However, it has already been decided to create a website containing a list of associations which subscribe to diversity and mutual respect and a set of pedagogical tools to improve and foster interculturalism. There will also be a section on how to make a complaint about racism to the CEOOR. Finally, there will be an index of key words and concepts, which will be elaborated and explained in a language understandable by the general public.

5.   Reactions by politicians and other opinion makers

Within the Belgian legal framework there are two laws dealing with the fight against anti-Semitism, notably the general anti-racism law of 1981 and the law of the denial of the Holocaust of March 1995.

·        Immediately after the assault on the Brussels Chief Rabbi was made public in January 2002 and the debate in the Parliament, moderate forces within the Jewish community in Brussels organised a meeting with Muslim leaders. [18]

·        On 5 April 2002 a Round Table Conference was held on the initiative of the Belgian Government with representatives from the social partners, the Jewish and the Muslim communities, the Ligue des droits de l'Homme (League of Human Rights) and the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism. After the attacks on a few synagogues in Antwerp and Brussels different communities requested the Round Table Conference. A common declaration was signed and commitments were made by the different actors to undertake concrete measures in the near future.

·        On 19 April 2002 the Belgian Interior Minister, Antoine Duquesne, made a joint declaration with his colleagues from France, Spain, Germany and Great Britain on “Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism”. Given the background of international tension, in particular in the Middle East, they characterised the racist and xenophobic violence as an offence against freedom, democracy and human rights and pronounced European-wide preventive measures and a coordination of the responsible agencies and offices. [19] At the Interministerial Conference for the Equal Opportunities Policy, which took place on 17 May 2002, a concrete action plan was introduced and approved by the Government.

Denmark [20]

The Jewish population (ca. 7000) in Denmark (total population: 5.3 million) is well integrated socially and anti-Semitism is hardly visible, though the activities of right-wing extremist groups and the election campaign, which focused on immigration policy in 2001, have reinforced xenophobic attitudes. [21] With the al-Aqsa Intifada violent anti-Israeli demonstrations and heated debates broke out from October 2000, “which included anti-Semitic manifestations”. [22] These initiatives come from extreme leftist groups and militant Islamist activists. As in most of the other EU Member States, the climax of the public debate lay prior to the monitored period in March-April 2002, while the monitored period itself was calmer for the Jewish community in Denmark. It appears that there have been very few (if any) physical attacks and few reported incidents of direct verbal abuse.

1.      Physical acts of violence

PET has no reports of anti-Semitic attacks in the monitoring period, neither of a physical or verbal nature, nor of incidents of graffiti, vandalism, etc. in the monitoring period. However in August the Copenhagen synagogue was vandalized and anti-Semitic graffiti sprayed on its walls. [23] The Jewish Community in Denmark, which systematically registers all anti-Semitic incidents in Denmark, reported the following incidents: two Arabs harassed the President of the Jewish Community. During the period in question the Jewish Community received at least 8 reports from members who had been spat upon or otherwise harassed on the street by Moslems. A mother, who wished to remain anonymous, reported that Palestinians who knew her son from school had beaten him on the street. The boy required medical attention at the local hospital. On 21 April 2002, a Danish Jewish shop owner in the “Nørrebro” district of Copenhagen was attacked by a gang of Palestinian youths near his shop. The gang beat him and stabbed him with a knife. [24] On 13 June 2002, a member of the Jewish Community’s Board reported the eighth incident of malicious damage to his automobile.

2. Verbal aggression/hate speech

Direct threats/abuse

Rabbi Yitzchok Lowenthal, director of Chabad Denmark, reports that between 15 May and 15 June 2002 he was shouted at 5-6 times by young men with Arab background. Similarly, a few friends of the Rabbi were verbally assaulted on the street. A student at the Jewish school (Carolineskolen) was afraid to go home after being repeatedly threatened by young men of Arab background at the bus stop. A Jewish man on a bus reported that a gang of young people of presumable Arab descent yelled at him and told him what they would do to “the Jews”.

On 21 May 2002, the mother of a student at Byens Skole in the Valby district of Copenhagen went to the police because Muslim students from the neighbouring Vigerslev Allé Skole had threatened her son. A teacher at the boy’s school had to smuggle him out the back door on 17 May when a gang of Arabs showed up to beat him. [25]

Indirect threats

In April the Islamic political organisation, Hizb-ut-tahrir, distributed flyers on the street containing material from their homepage, “And kill them, wherever you find them, and expel them from where they expel you”. [26] The incident has been continuously debated in public (see section 5). [27]

On 21 May 2002, graffiti was seen and photographed on traffic signs around Fælledparken: “No Juden”.

On 11 June 2002, graffiti was seen and photographed at Blågårdsplads: “No Jews”. [28] A Lutheran bishop delivered a sermon in Copenhagen Cathedral comparing Sharon’s policies toward the Palestinians to those of the biblical King Herod, who ordered the slaughter of all male children in Bethlehem under the age of two – prior to the incident at the Church of Nativity (2 April) – in the same Bethlehem under siege by the Israelis today. [29]

Insults

A person with connections to the Progressive Jewish Forum describes how various insinuating comments have been passed at work. For example, when entering her office, a colleague said, “you’ve occupied there (her chair) very well, haven’t you – ha, ha”, and “you have nothing against there being pig’s blood in the wine, have you?” When she enquired whether the wine was Italian, the colleague answered: “It is in any case not from Israel. If it was I would definitely not drink it!”

Media

No examples of anti-Semitic newspaper articles in the daily press are known. However in August the widely circulated newspaper Jytland Posten carried a radical Islamist’s offer of a reward of $35,000 for the murder of prominent Jews. [30] The head of the Danish Jewish community subsequently reported receiving threatening telephone calls. There has also been a debate about the situation in Israel in the daily press, where some critics of Israel’s policies feel as if they are being accused of being anti-Semitic, whereas certain members of the Jewish community feel that the newspaper reports are one-sided.

Internet

Hizb-ut-tahrir’s homepage contains anti-Semitic material, such as “Jews are a slanderous people” and openly calls on Muslims “kill all Jews (. . .) wherever you find them." [31]

3. Research studies

Between 16 May and 4 June and between 9 and 29 September, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) based in New York commissioned two surveys “European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict” that were conducted in ten European countries, including Denmark. [32] Compared with most of the other EU member states, the agreement expressed in Denmark to four anti-Semitic stereotypes was clearly below the EU-average (see Table: Report on Belgium). Also with the statement “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country” the Danes (45%) remained below the European average (51%)  

4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence and aggression

See below.

5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders

On the same day as Hizb-ut-tahrir began distributing its flyers the Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, invited several leading figures from the Jewish Community in Denmark to discuss the incident. Immediately afterwards the Prime Minister publicly condemned the flyers and everything they stood for. The author of the flyer has been reported to the police in connection with §266 b, the so-called racism paragraph, and the Public Prosecutor is presently investigating whether Hizb-ut-tahrir should be prohibited in accordance with §78 of the Danish constitution, an act which prohibits violent organisations or organisations which incite violence. A majority in the Danish Parliament supports both of these actions.

Several commentators have, however, stated that the quote has been taken out of context and is in fact not an actual call for Muslims to kill Jews in Denmark. Several leading figures with Muslim background have publicly condemned Hizb-ut-tahrir, their methods and their viewpoints. The Member of Parliament, Naser Khader, together with the Chairman of the Integration Council in Copenhagen, Hanna Ziadeh and historian Mahmoud Issa, who are all Danish-Palestinians, wrote a long open letter in the daily broadsheet newspaper Politiken (24.5.02) appealing to all Danish-Palestinians living in Denmark not to let their “justified criticism of the Israeli government turn into hatred for all Jews”. They emphasized, “our battle is political and not about religion and ethnicity”. The article was printed in both Danish and Arab.

The daily newspaper Kristeligt Dagblad published (10 May 2002) an interview with Tariq Ramadan, whom the paper describes as Europe’s best-known Islamic thinker, in which he explains that “hate for the Jews is not Islamic”. In the article he says, “nothing in Islam legitimizes the anti-Semitism that certain Muslim organisations are expounding”. 

Germany [33]  

Since 1989 the Jewish community has more than doubled and now numbers about 100,000 in a total population of 82 million. Since the early 1990s waves of racist violence were frequently directed against migrant minorities among which the Turks form the majority group (2 million; total Muslim population: 3,2 million). The number of anti-Semitic incidents since the early 1990s also clearly exceeds those of earlier decades. This is mainly due to an active far-right scene. After a fall in the number of incidents between 1996 and 1999, there has been an increase since 2000, when it tripled in the last three months of the year. This dramatic increase is “due in large part to the al-Aqsa Intifada which inspired radical Islamists to anti-Jewish acts and served as a catalyst for extreme right-wing anti-Semites”. [34] In 2001 anti-Semitic incidents, numbering 1,629 cases, reached an historical high, although the great majority were propaganda offences.

Like other EU countries, Germany suffered anti-Semitic incidents in early 2002. During the first three months 127 cases were registered: 77 of which were incitement of hatred; 26 were propaganda and five were violent offences; in addition, there were four cases of damage to property, three cases of desecration of graves, and twelve other offences. [35] But the main problem in Germany is not an increase in physical attacks on Jews or their organisations, but a more subtle form of anti-Semitism, which is mainly expressed in anti-Jewish attitudes and statements. From the beginning, the debate about anti-Semitism was closely linked to the question of how far criticism of Israeli policy in the Middle East conflict can go. Leading representatives of the Jewish community continuously expressed their view that criticising Israel has never been a taboo subject, but allusions to or comparisons with the behaviour of the Nazi regime would be unacceptable and unjustified. Nevertheless, the basic question, regarding what kind of criticism is justifiable without running the risk of being called anti-Semitic, remains unanswered.

Since the escalation of the Middle East conflict and the increase of anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Germany, the Jewish communities have been expressing growing concern. Anti-Semitism became one of the main topics in the German media from mid May till the end of June – mainly because of two interconnected incidents: the Karsli and the Möllemann cases (see below)

1.         Physical acts of violence

No incident of physical violence was reported between 15 May and 15June in Germany. In the previous month (April) four cases were registered:

14 April: in Berlin two Jewish women wearing a Star of David necklace were attacked. 15 April: graffiti was found on the synagogue in Herford reading: “Six million is not enough.”

20 April: in Dachau the monument near the site of the concentration camp was desecrated and gravestones in the nearby Jewish cemetery were damaged. [36]

28 April: in Berlin a bottle with flammable liquids was thrown at the synagogue on the Kreuzberger Fraenkelufer without causing any damage.

Physical threat

There was one case of a bomb scare that was possibly committed for anti-Semitic reasons. On 28 May, an unidentified man called the Hessischen Rundfunk (Hessian Broadcasting Corporation) in Frankfurt and asked whether the live programme “Achtung Friedman!” (showmaster Michel Friedman, vice-chairman of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, was currently in the news because of a heated argument with Jürgen Möllemann, see below) was to be broadcast that evening. After a corporation employee confirmed this, the man said that a bomb would blow up the main tower, the building where the talk show takes place. Police evacuated the building, the search was called off without any results, and the talk show took place with a 45-minute delay.

2. Verbal aggression/hate speech

Indirect threats

Since early April the Jewish communities and the Central Council of the Jews in Germany have received a huge amount of anti-Semitic letters, e-mails and phone calls with an increasingly aggressive tone. Representatives of the organisations, e.g. the chairman of the Jewish Community in Berlin, Alexander Brenner, noted that the writers of these agitation letters no longer even shy away from signing the letters with their complete name and address. In Brenner’s opinion many writers disguise their anti-Jewish aggression as criticism of Israel. [37] The weekly Jewish newspaper Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung released a sample of these letters. [38] On 3 June 2002, the offices of the Munich Jewish Community received, for the third time, a letter with threats of murder involving the heads of the umbrella organisation of the Jewish communities in Germany and against the President of the Jewish Community in Munich. The letter contained a specific threat to plant an explosive charge near a kosher butcher shop in Munich. [39]

On 21 May the German branch of the anti-globalisation organisation “attac” invited to an anti-Bush demonstration in Berlin. The leaflet for the demonstration used the well-known picture of “Uncle Sam” but with a Stürmer-style portrait with a “typical Jewish nose”. This implied the supposed Jewish world conspiracy because on the forefinger of “Uncle Sam” hangs the world on a thread. Portraying “Uncle Sam” as Jewish refers to the supposed Jewish influence on the United States policy and connects anti-Jewish and anti-American feelings. ^[40]

Politics

The former member of the Green Party (Bündnis90/Die Grünen) Jamal Karsli, a German with an immigrant background (Syria) who applied for admission in the liberal-democratic party FDP on 30 April, launched a public debate about criticizing Israel’s policy and anti-Semitism with an interview given to the weekly right-wing newspaper Junge Freiheit on 3 May. Karsli said that the “very big Zionistic lobby” was controlling the major part of worldwide media and, therefore, would be capable of “getting down on every person no matter how important”. Michel Friedman, vice-chairman of the Central Council of the Jews in Germany, indirectly accused Karsli of being an “anti-Semite, [41] and Paul Spiegel, chairman of the Central Council, demanded that the FDP should refuse Karsli’s admission to the party. The deputy-chairman of the FDP and party leader in North Rhine-Westphalia, Jürgen Möllemann, rejected this demand, although other leading FDP politicians, including chairman Westerwelle, supported it. [42] Nearly all public opinion leaders distanced themselves from Karsli’s statements, except Möllemann. [43] On 22 May, Karsli withdrew his application for admission to the FDP due to “public hounding”. Möllemann launched another debate closely linked to the “Karsli case” in early April, when he commented on the Palestinian suicidal attacks on Israelis with the words: “I would also defend myself, (...) and I would also do it in the land of the aggressor”. Expressing understanding or even sympathy with the Palestinian people was interpreted by German media and politicians as legitimising suicidal attacks [44] and brought him the reproach of anti-Semitism from, amongst others, Michel Friedman. In the course of the debate about Karsli’s statements, Möllemann accused Friedman of himself being partly responsible for anti-Semitism in Germany. He said that he feared that hardly anyone else would make anti-Semitism more popular than Prime Minister Sharon in Israel and Michel Friedman “with his intolerant and spiteful way” in Germany. [45] A few days later Möllemann called Friedman “obviously megalomaniac” [46] and renewed his accusation that Friedman would provoke “anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic resentments” with his “unbearable, aggressive, arrogant way of treating” people who criticise Sharon. [47] Möllemann said that he had received more than 11,000 approving letters. [48]

The discussion about Möllemann’s statements in particular and the attitude of the FDP in general dominated the media for weeks. Politicians of all democratic parties in Germany blamed Möllemann for using this debate to get more votes for the Liberal Party in the federal election in September, [49] and Westerwelle, leader of the FDP, even admitted that he is seeking to win votes from people who had voted for right-wing parties in the previous federal election. [50] After Karsli had left the parliamentary group of the FDP in North Rhine-Westfalia, [51] Möllemann declared publicly: “If I have hurt the feelings of Jewish people, I want to apologise to them”. However, he renewed his attacks on Friedman and excluded him deliberately from his apology. [52] A few days before the Federal election (22 September) Möllemann spread a flyer repeating the accusation against Sharon and Friedman. The chairman of the FDP forced him to resign as a vice chairman a few days later, arguing that his playing with anti-Semitism has caused a considerable loss of votes for the FDP. Finally on 20 October Möllemann resigned also as party leader in North Rhine-Westfalia. [53]

Reaction and public debate about Möllemann and Karsli

The “Karsli case” and the argument between Möllemann and Friedman have evoked anti-Semitic and hate reactions in Germany. On the Internet website of the FDP parliamentary group ( the discussion forum “Speaker’s corner” has been used to for all kinds of anti-Semitic statements, such as: Germany has to free itself from “the chains of bondage of Israel”; [54] “The Jews themselves propagate the so-called ‘anti-Semitism’ in order to punish everyone who contradicts them”. [55] Statements which praised Möllemann for his comments about Israel and Friedman can be found on several discussion for a of the Liberal Party. [56] Countless racial and anti-Semitic statements were also sent to Möllemann’s own website before it had to be shut down because of a hacker attack. [57] The online discussion forum of the weekly magazine Der Spiegel ( was also used for anti-Semitic hate speech. [58]

Public discourse

The broad discussion about a novel by Martin Walser, which had not yet been published, led to a further escalation in the anti-Semitism debate. The author Walser, who was accused of serving anti-Semitic tendencies by the former chairman of the Central Council of the Jews, Ignatz Bubis, four years ago, because he described Auschwitz as a “moral cudgel” in Germany, was attacked by parts of the media. The editor of the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), Frank Schirrmacher, said that his latest novel Tod eines Kritikers (“Death of a Critic”) would serve anti-Semitic resentments. He thus refused the planned pre-release serial publication in his newspaper. Walser himself rejected any accusations of being anti-Semitic. He claimed that the novel is about “power in the world of culture”, not about Jewry. This statement was doubted in parts of the media, but even assuming that Walser had not intended to play with anti-Semitic resentments, he should have been able to anticipate how his novel might be (mis)read and interpreted by others. [59] The argument between Walser and Schirrmacher was linked to the heated debate about anti-Semitism in Möllemann’s statements and was dealt with in numerous articles in German newspapers.

Internet

On 31 March the radical Muslim organisation “Hizb-ut-tahrir” (Liberation Party) published a leaflet on its German homepage containing the following statements: “The Jews are a people of slander. They are a treacherous people who violate oaths and covenants (…). Allah has forbidden us from allying ourselves with them. (…) Indeed, that you should destroy the monstrous Jewish entity. (…) Kill all Jews (…) wherever you find them.” [60] The organisation has been observed for a longer time by the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Verfassungsschutz) but did not receive public attention before they organised a public lecture on “The Iraq – e new war and its consequences” at the Berlin Technical University in October 2002 where also representatives of the German extreme right-wing party NPD (National Democratic Party) participated. [61]

3. Research studies

On 31 May, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) released a study in Berlin about how the German print media reported four major incidents in the Middle East during the second Intifada between September 2000 and August 2001. [62] The study, conducted by the Linguistic and Social Research Institute in Duisburg (Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung), came to the conclusion that the reporting of the Middle East conflict in the newspapers and magazines examined was biased and showed anti-Semitic elements which would often be liable to (re)produce existing anti-Semitic and racial prejudice. The reporting also used terms to describe the behaviour of the Israeli troops, which make the reader associate their actions with genocide and suggest similarities to fascism (e.g. “massacre”). [63] Generally speaking, the media was criticised for its anti-Semitic allusions and stereotypes. According to the study, there are deeply latent anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist prejudices in the German public, usually hidden behind “concealed” and “vague allusions”. [64] The study was criticised by the weekly newspaper Die Zeit because it refused to provide proof as to whether and how the way of reporting affects reception in Germany. [65] Another study on reporting of the Middle East conflict showed that, in comparison to some other countries (USA, South Africa, the UK), TV reporting in Germany encompassed a broader spectrum of neutral presentations of events. [66]  

In the monitoring period three surveys were conducted which posed questions concerning anti-Semitism. According to the study “Political Attitudes in Germany”, conducted by the Sigmund-Freud-Institut in Frankfurt in April 2002, anti-Semitic tendencies have increased since 1999. The statement “I can understand well that some people feel unpleasant about Jews” was confirmed by 36% (1999: 20%). [67] The second statement offered by the study, that the Jews are responsible for the problems in the world, showed in contrast a reduction in anti-Semitic attitudes. A further study from April 2002, “Extreme Right Attitudes in Germany”, included three statements on anti-Semitism: “Even today Jews have too much influence”; “The Jews simply have something particular and peculiar about them and are not so suited to us”; “More than others, the Jews use dirty tricks to achieve what they want”. The study showed that in comparison to 1994 and 2000 there was a strong increase in the number of negative answers; surprisingly, however, these came from those questioned from West Germany. [68] This indicates an effect determined by current events: many West Germans reacted to Israeli policy and the heated debate about the bounds of legitimate criticism of this policy, whereas these issues found obviously less resonance amongst East Germans. A poll conducted by NfO Infratest in June had different results: generally speaking, the given answers lead to the conclusion that anti-Semitic resentments have been slightly decreasing in Germany over the past 11 years. In June 2002, 68% of those polled rejected the statement “The Jews are partly responsible for being hated and persecuted”, while 29% confirmed the statement (in 1991 confirmation was 32%). The question “How many Germans have an anti-Jewish attitude?” was answered as follows: 2% believed “most of the Germans”, 13% “a high number of Germans”, 57% “a small number of Germans”, and 26% said “hardly anyone”. Nevertheless, 29% confirmed the statement that “Jews have too much influence on the world”. This number is lower than in the 1991 poll, when it was agreed by 36%. [69] Between 16 May and 4 June respectively between 9 and 29 September surveys commissioned by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in New York, “European Attitudes towards Jews, Israel and the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”, were conducted in ten European countries, including Germany [70] (see Table: Report on Belgium) Here the agreement with anti-Semitic stereotypes was on similar levels as in France and Belgium%). From the four stereotypical statements presented, 19% of respondents agreed to at least three. With 55% the Germans agreed on an average with the statement “Jews are more loyal to Israel than to this country” (average 51%).

4. Good practices for reducing prejudice, violence, and aggression

In the period from 15 May to 15 June, 2002 there were many appeals for solidarity with the Jewish communities and calls for promoting an inter-religious dialogue. Appeals were made by the chairman of the Central Council of the Jews, Paul Spiegel, but also from representatives of the Christian churches, for example by the chairman of the German Conference of Bishops (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz), Karl Lehmann, the Bavarian bishop Dr. Johannes Friedrich or the chairman of the Council of the Protestant Church, Manfred Kock. Beside calls for solidarity with the Jews, there have also been efforts to improve the inter-religious dialogue. The German Coordinating Council of Societies for Christian-Jewish Cooperation (Deutscher Koordinierungsrat der Gesellschaften für Christlich-Jüdische Zusammenarbeit; member of the International Council of Christians and Jews) organised a meeting in June in which the importance of an inter-religious dialogue was discussed. [71]

An inter-religious discussion group was recently also established in the city of Bremen. A few weeks prior, the Muslims had invited the Jewish community in order to foster a dialogue and to promote a peaceful way of living together. This started a process of setting up a discussion group which is presently not only made up of Muslims and Jews, but also of non-Muslim Palestinians, Protestants, Catholics, peace campaigners, politicians and trade unionists. They are attempting to maintain positive inter-cultural relations in Bremen as an example for other towns. [72] In Germany there are some non-governmental programmes and initiatives, which aim to combat anti-Semitism, although no further initiatives were started in the relevant period. The Turkish Association Berlin-Brandenburg, the Turkish Community Association of Germany as well as the Central Council of Muslims all sharply criticised the FDP’s vice-chairman Möllemann at the beginning