Baruch, thank you for the recommendation! I started reading as well and as cruel and horrifying the content and topic is, it is a valuable source, especially for people like me who don't know much about the history of anti-semitism before 1930. For example, I did not even know about that chmelnitsky massacre. It is painful to read, but necessary to know.
As promised, here is my impression of the talk and discussion on anti-semitism in a post-migrant society I attended on Monday. The talk aimed to shed some light on the question if the recent influx of refugees, but also if the growing part of migrants with a muslim background is responsible for a growing antisemitism. It also adressed the question what actions could be undertaken to counter anti-semitic beliefs. Guests were a researcher working at the centre for antisemitism research, an associate of a movement trying to offer integration help and the head of the local centre for political education.
The researcher pointed out that there are currently two columns of anti-semitism, one stemming from the far-right and Neonazis, the other from predominantly arab-identifying migrants and/or refugees.
She conducted a study with n = 25, asking recent refugees (maximum of two years after entering the country) about their attitude towards Jews and Israel. She wanted to find out the sources of those prejudices (school, religion, family) and if the interviewees had a consistent antisemitic attitude or a fragmentary one. Out of the 25 participants, only one had the consistent attitude (a palestinian woman), whereas others had more mixed conviction, meaning they held antisemitic beliefs in certain topics, but not in others. Such as, for example, believing that Jews control the media and have too much influence, while not hating Jews (and being indifferent instead). The one person with a consistent attitude was cited to have said "I hate all the Jews. I don't know any, but I just hate them".
Sources for anti-semitism were identified as family or school (for example, in certain countries, the Protocols of Zion are taught as historic fact), but not as religion. The participants uniformly stated that they were not subjected to any anti-semitic teachings by religious institutions. The researcher therefore classified that kind of anti-semitism as "mainly non-religious antisemitism".
Some participants also reported that they were anti-semitic once, but aren't anymore. Some said that they had learned more about political conflicts, shifting from a belief of Jews and Israel as main enemy (which they were taught in school) to understanding that it was in fact Hisbollah that was their enemy, not Israel. Some also stated that getting to know some Jews, for example during their language classes, helped them reduce their antisemitism.
As counter-measures, she emphasized how important it is to offer possibilities to talk about attitudes, especially in a non-judgmental manner. She talked about a high need of talk groups in refugee camps, where freshly arrived people are offered the option to enter a "fear-free room for discussion", where ressentiments and attitudes are allowed to be discussed without fear of moral judgement (which should not be omitted, just held back at that time, to be discussed later).
Another thesis she introduced was that of potential alliances, in which anti-semitism is the connecting factor, allowing for example different streaks of far-right politicians to collaborate with other groups in which anti-semitism is prevalent. The far-left is also likely to hold anti-semitic beliefs, less focused on religion and more on the denial of Israel's right of existance.
The talk concluded with "yes, there is antisemitism, it is on the rise, the held attitudes are mainly fragmented and open to change if given the chance, and religious teachings are not likely to have influenced the beliefs, so islamic antisemitism doesn't play a substantial role in the rising numbers of attacks of Jews (physical or verbal/other)".
The following discussion was more about current youth work and the potential of integration classes.
However, there had been some criticism and it was basically ignored:
- one teacher, working in integration classes agitatedly pointed out that the findings of the study were fundamentally different from her daily experience. She said that she was old enough to have a frame of reference regarding the attitudes and proneness to violence in her pupils over the last few decades and stated that the current situation is no where near comparable to the previous years. In her experience, the amount of open hatred has skyrocketed, not only for Jews, but especially for them, the bullying in schools has increased drastically, 'f-ing Jew' is a slur again and it is not safe for children to display their Jewishness openly.
- she also said that the number of more far left-leaning teachers is especially high in integration classes and comparable institutions. With that, the likelihood of Israel-based anti-semitism is higher in those teachers, while at the same time the awareness of what constitutes as anti-semitism is low. She said that those teachers are less likely to criticize open anti-semitism if it is aimed towards Israel, thus establishing that a display of such attitudes is acceptable.
- she told about how she visited a memorial with one of her integration classes. Those with the highest display of antisemitism simply did not come that day. Others showed subtle disrespect, such as demonstratively and elaborately throwing paper tissues on the ground there.
- another teacher was fired because she toured her pupils through a quarter with strong Jewish history, also passing a synagogue. Her pupils and their parents complained. They did not want to be subjected to the sight of a synagogue. The school bowed to the parents. The teacher was fired because her pupil's parents deemed it unacceptable that she showed their children a synagogue.
There was no reaction from the speakers ("we let that stand as it is") and the discussion round was closed thereafter.
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the whole event.
I think that the study is a good attempt to get a first glimpse on the attitudes of recent refugees ( with 25 participants, a study cannot be more than that), but this is only a small part of our society and one should not leave out the fact that many refugees are fleeing precisely because they are a marginalized group themselves (homosexuals, atheists, non-muslim religious believers etc). The main risk group (besides the neonazis) are not the young refugees that are or were fleeing IS and often aren't religious themselves, but those turning to nationalism (regarding their historic countries of origin) and fundamentalism.
It came across as downplaying the current increase in hatred. The gist was "we just need to do more, people are approachable and want to talk", but that forgets how the current situation is much more diverse than that- There is also a certain tendency of the open discourse to downplay the threat coming from authoritarian, muslimic institutions and groups (ties to groups inviting radical imams or to IS are sometimes only admitted reluctantly and downplayed, too, with the public turning a blind eye). I had hoped for a more critical discussion, but since the conclusion was basically a "religious movements don't play a role in recent Anti-semitism", this left me a bit sceptical. I am not assuming the opposite, but the lack of criticism, the evidence of journalists pointing out that there are anti-democratic and anti-semitic topics in services in a small subset of mosques, and the lack of a response to that lady pointing out her own, different experiences leave me a bit baffled.
[Edit: I edited out a portion where I wasn't sure if expressed exactly what I wanted to due to English being my second language and I didn't want to leave it in ]
I apologize for the wall of text, but it was a very weird experience, because I feel the root of the problem is ignored or tackled from a wrong angle, and I did not want to omit any details.
As promised, here is my impression of the talk and discussion on anti-semitism in a post-migrant society I attended on Monday. The talk aimed to shed some light on the question if the recent influx of refugees, but also if the growing part of migrants with a muslim background is responsible for a growing antisemitism. It also adressed the question what actions could be undertaken to counter anti-semitic beliefs. Guests were a researcher working at the centre for antisemitism research, an associate of a movement trying to offer integration help and the head of the local centre for political education.
The researcher pointed out that there are currently two columns of anti-semitism, one stemming from the far-right and Neonazis, the other from predominantly arab-identifying migrants and/or refugees.
She conducted a study with n = 25, asking recent refugees (maximum of two years after entering the country) about their attitude towards Jews and Israel. She wanted to find out the sources of those prejudices (school, religion, family) and if the interviewees had a consistent antisemitic attitude or a fragmentary one. Out of the 25 participants, only one had the consistent attitude (a palestinian woman), whereas others had more mixed conviction, meaning they held antisemitic beliefs in certain topics, but not in others. Such as, for example, believing that Jews control the media and have too much influence, while not hating Jews (and being indifferent instead). The one person with a consistent attitude was cited to have said "I hate all the Jews. I don't know any, but I just hate them".
Sources for anti-semitism were identified as family or school (for example, in certain countries, the Protocols of Zion are taught as historic fact), but not as religion. The participants uniformly stated that they were not subjected to any anti-semitic teachings by religious institutions. The researcher therefore classified that kind of anti-semitism as "mainly non-religious antisemitism".
Some participants also reported that they were anti-semitic once, but aren't anymore. Some said that they had learned more about political conflicts, shifting from a belief of Jews and Israel as main enemy (which they were taught in school) to understanding that it was in fact Hisbollah that was their enemy, not Israel. Some also stated that getting to know some Jews, for example during their language classes, helped them reduce their antisemitism.
As counter-measures, she emphasized how important it is to offer possibilities to talk about attitudes, especially in a non-judgmental manner. She talked about a high need of talk groups in refugee camps, where freshly arrived people are offered the option to enter a "fear-free room for discussion", where ressentiments and attitudes are allowed to be discussed without fear of moral judgement (which should not be omitted, just held back at that time, to be discussed later).
Another thesis she introduced was that of potential alliances, in which anti-semitism is the connecting factor, allowing for example different streaks of far-right politicians to collaborate with other groups in which anti-semitism is prevalent. The far-left is also likely to hold anti-semitic beliefs, less focused on religion and more on the denial of Israel's right of existance.
The talk concluded with "yes, there is antisemitism, it is on the rise, the held attitudes are mainly fragmented and open to change if given the chance, and religious teachings are not likely to have influenced the beliefs, so islamic antisemitism doesn't play a substantial role in the rising numbers of attacks of Jews (physical or verbal/other)".
The following discussion was more about current youth work and the potential of integration classes.
However, there had been some criticism and it was basically ignored:
- one teacher, working in integration classes agitatedly pointed out that the findings of the study were fundamentally different from her daily experience. She said that she was old enough to have a frame of reference regarding the attitudes and proneness to violence in her pupils over the last few decades and stated that the current situation is no where near comparable to the previous years. In her experience, the amount of open hatred has skyrocketed, not only for Jews, but especially for them, the bullying in schools has increased drastically, 'f-ing Jew' is a slur again and it is not safe for children to display their Jewishness openly.
- she also said that the number of more far left-leaning teachers is especially high in integration classes and comparable institutions. With that, the likelihood of Israel-based anti-semitism is higher in those teachers, while at the same time the awareness of what constitutes as anti-semitism is low. She said that those teachers are less likely to criticize open anti-semitism if it is aimed towards Israel, thus establishing that a display of such attitudes is acceptable.
- she told about how she visited a memorial with one of her integration classes. Those with the highest display of antisemitism simply did not come that day. Others showed subtle disrespect, such as demonstratively and elaborately throwing paper tissues on the ground there.
- another teacher was fired because she toured her pupils through a quarter with strong Jewish history, also passing a synagogue. Her pupils and their parents complained. They did not want to be subjected to the sight of a synagogue. The school bowed to the parents. The teacher was fired because her pupil's parents deemed it unacceptable that she showed their children a synagogue.
There was no reaction from the speakers ("we let that stand as it is") and the discussion round was closed thereafter.
To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the whole event.
I think that the study is a good attempt to get a first glimpse on the attitudes of recent refugees ( with 25 participants, a study cannot be more than that), but this is only a small part of our society and one should not leave out the fact that many refugees are fleeing precisely because they are a marginalized group themselves (homosexuals, atheists, non-muslim religious believers etc). The main risk group (besides the neonazis) are not the young refugees that are or were fleeing IS and often aren't religious themselves, but those turning to nationalism (regarding their historic countries of origin) and fundamentalism.
It came across as downplaying the current increase in hatred. The gist was "we just need to do more, people are approachable and want to talk", but that forgets how the current situation is much more diverse than that- There is also a certain tendency of the open discourse to downplay the threat coming from authoritarian, muslimic institutions and groups (ties to groups inviting radical imams or to IS are sometimes only admitted reluctantly and downplayed, too, with the public turning a blind eye). I had hoped for a more critical discussion, but since the conclusion was basically a "religious movements don't play a role in recent Anti-semitism", this left me a bit sceptical. I am not assuming the opposite, but the lack of criticism, the evidence of journalists pointing out that there are anti-democratic and anti-semitic topics in services in a small subset of mosques, and the lack of a response to that lady pointing out her own, different experiences leave me a bit baffled.
[Edit: I edited out a portion where I wasn't sure if expressed exactly what I wanted to due to English being my second language and I didn't want to leave it in ]
I apologize for the wall of text, but it was a very weird experience, because I feel the root of the problem is ignored or tackled from a wrong angle, and I did not want to omit any details.