GENERAL ANALYSIS 2004
overview
The year 2004 was the worst in terms of the
number, frequency and nature of antisemitic expressions and events since the
outbreak of the current wave of antisemitism in October 2000. Each year has
degenerated further, with numbers and severity of manifestations increasing
exponentially. Whereas in 2003 there were 330 major violent incidents (such as
physical attacks and vandalism perpetrated against property and institutes) and
30 major attacks (such as shootings, knifings, arson and use of explosive
devices), in 2004, according to the Institute’s data, 482 major violent
incidents and about 20 major attacks were recorded worldwide.
The decrease in the number
of major attacks from 30 to 20 could be a positive sign, yet it indicates a
negative development. Indeed, there were fewer large-scale acts of violence
organized by groups that sought to hurt as many Jews as possible, but many more
attacks on individual Jews by persons acting spontaneously. Attacks on persons
identified as Jews on the streets and in schools have become the salient characteristic
of antisemitic activity in recent years and especially in 2004, and outnumbered
vandalistic acts against Jewish property, communal institutions, monuments and
cemeteries. According to data gathered by the Institute (see detailed analysis
below), while assaults on Jews are perpetrated typically by young, politically
unaffiliated immigrants, mostly but not only from Muslim countries, vandalism
of Jewish property and communal institutions is generally carried out by
extreme rightists.
Identifying and bringing to
justice the perpetrators behind the attacks has proved to be a difficult task
for the police and local authorities in most countries. This exacerbates the
distress experienced by Jews who find themselves or their children attacked in
public places, and who know that the perpetrators will go unpunished. According
to the Institute’s data, more than 180 people were attacked in 2004, and 40
schools and communal centers, 140 cemeteries and monuments, 60 synagogues and
60 Jewish businesses were vandalized. Many community authorities in Europe especially claim that the numbers are, in fact, significantly higher since many
victims choose not to file complaints which they feel will go answered.
The countries characterized
by a significant rise in antisemitic manifestations in 2004 were: France, where major violent incidents rose from 64 in 2003 to 96 in 2004. According to the SPCY (Service for the Protection of the Jewish Community),
the overall number of antisemitic events increased from 503 in 2003 to 590 in 2004, half of them violent, and among those, a large percentage of physical
assaults on Jewish, or mistakenly Jewish, individuals. In the UK the number of major violent incidents rose from 50 in 2003 to 84 in 2004. The CST (Community Security Trust) tallied a total of 532 antisemitic
events, the highest number since 1984, marking an increase of 42 percent from
2003 to 2004 (compared to 15 percent from 2002 to 2003). Physical aggression
was a leading category, replacing to a certain extent that of arson attacks
against synagogues, which marked the years 2001–2003.
In Canada the number of major violent incidents doubled: from 26 in 2003 to 52 in 2004 (out of an overall total of 857 incidents, according to B’nai Brith League
of Human Rights). As in the UK, escalation was rapid, tripling from 2000 to
2003, and doubling from 2003 to 2004. Cases of physical aggression and
harassment comprised more than half of the incidents in 2004. In Russia the number of major violent incidents increased from 32 to 45; however, unlike
western Europe, most involved vandalism of cemeteries, monuments and property.
It is noteworthy that the increase in numbers of physical acts perpetrated by
local extremists in Russia included attacks against many other groups of
minorities and foreigners, Muslims included. Further, Russia is perhaps the only country where officials openly express antisemitic opinions and slurs at
meetings of state institutions, such as the Duma, and where anti-incitement
laws exist but are not enforced. In Germany the number of major violent
incidents increased from 34 to 50, and, as in Russia, the majority were
directed against cemeteries and monuments. In the US, where the numbers
had been steady for about a decade, an increase of 17 percent was registered by
the ADL. It should be emphasized, however, that the overall number of 1,823 in the US includes mainly cases of verbal abuse and harassment (and 60 of vandalism of
synagogues and community institutes), while very few Jews were physically
attacked.
The data noted above bolster
our claim that Jews tend to be assaulted in countries where groups of young
immigrants, mainly Muslims but others too, are not well integrated and envy the
perceived success of the Jews (such as in France, England and Canada), while
property, communal institutions, monuments and cemeteries are vandalized in
places where the extreme right is active (such as in Russia, Germany and the
US).
During 2004 European
governmental bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as
international organizations, demonstrated heightened awareness of the
possibility that attacks on Jews were not necessarily connected to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict but were European/global in origin. the number of
Muslims in western Europe today is about 15 million and rising at about
half-a-million a year – a very high birth rate compared to aging Europe. Demographers predict that this number will double by the year 2015. Immigrants, both
Muslim and others, come from India and Pakistan (to the UK), from northern and central Africa and the Caribbean Islands (to France and Canada), and from Turkey, mostly to Germany. Muslim immigrants tend to foster a strong group
identity and remain apart from the surrounding society, either because they do
not wish to integrate or because of the host country’s difficulties of absorbing
them and other minorities. The ideal of a multi-cultural society advanced in
Europe since the 1990s, especially by human rights oriented NGOs, which had
relied upon the concept of gradual assimilation, is now being replaced by a
growing awareness that immediate steps should be taken, principally, in the general
education and education-for-democracy systems in order to enhance integration.
Legislation and law enforcement have so far proved inadequate in curbing the
severity of the violence directed against Jews and other ethnic minorities and
the rising rate of crime in general, and the authorities, it seems, are wary of
taking further measures. Improving the socio-economic lot of millions of
immigrants is clearly a mammoth task; thus, the left and NGOs feel greater
guilt regarding the distress of the Muslim newcomers than for that of the Jews
in their midst. Moreover, the European left’s view of the Muslim immigrants as
the new ‘working class’ contributes to its sense of solidarity with them.
Since attacks on Jews
constitute the spearhead of the aforementioned development, violent
antisemitism was deemed to be the first matter to address in order to calm the
frictions. Therefore, a series of seminars and conferences dedicated to the
struggle against antisemitism was initiated by governments and European
organizations in 2003, and especially in 2004, accompanied by public polls and
surveys, research studies and reports. Of special note is the conference held
in Berlin in April 2004, initiated by the 55-member Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and sponsored by the German president and
foreign minister. It was the first conference to adopt operative decisions,
such as appointing overseers, establishing a database and reaching, by
consensus, a clear definition of antisemitism which juridical and law
enforcement authorities would be able to employ.
The progress made toward
implementing those decisions will be examined at an upcoming conference
initiated by Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, this year’s president
of the OSCE, to be held in Cordoba in early June. Expert input and opinion have
been called for in order to elaborate on and perhaps even approve the definition
of antisemitism discussed by OSCE organs.
Therefore, it may be stated
that in parallel to the severe increase in antisemitic expressions and
violence, there has been an awakening and a growing awareness on the part of
governments and organizations that this problem must be dealt with, and that it
originates in intensifying tensions, especially in western Europe and Canada, between immigrants and local societies. The prevailing notion that the Middle East
dispute was the main root of the problem (see ASW 2002/3 and 2003/4),
is now being re-examined: a substantial proportion of the immigrants flowing
into Europe come from countries unconnected to Middle East problems; the rise
and fall of antisemitic violence does not necessarily correlate to the eruption
of violence between Israelis and Palestinians; and since the death of
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasir Arafat in early November 2004, a process of rapprochement between the two sides has been launched, bringing with it cautious
hopes for an agreement in the future. Nevertheless, there has been no sign of a
decrease in antisemitic violence since the end of 2004. This may be attributed
to today’s reality in which immigration and absorption, alongside globalization
and privatization lead to unemployment and frustration; in which tensions
between multiculturalism and the attempt to preserve national cultures generates
stormy discussions in democracies; and in which industrialized, rich, aging
societies badly need working hands from the poor countries in the southern
hemisphere but are still unwilling to pay the full price of genuine
integration. Rather than contradict factors noted in previous reports, such as
anti-Americanism and anti-Israel feeling which inflame violence indirectly, the
ones discussed above serve to augment them.
Between increasing violence and organizational and governmental responses
The year 2004 was marked by two parallel
developments. On the one hand, there was a continued intensification of antisemitic
manifestations, culminating in the highest number of violent incidents recorded
– mostly in Europe – since the end of
the World War II. On the other hand, there were clear signs that in contrast to
the first years of the current wave that began in autumn 2000, some European
countries are much more
determined today to combat antisemitism. There appears to be growing
awareness among them of the impact of this antisemitic upsurge on the well-being
and safety of the Jews and their relationship with their governments and fellow
citizens, and no less importantly, on public order in the streets.
This analysis is divided
into two parts. The first part examines the characteristics of the continuing
wave of antisemitic manifestations. In regard to acts of violence and
vandalism, there will be an attempt, albeit a cautious one, to relate to a
difficult and controversial question: the identification of the perpetrators and
their motives.
The second part will be
devoted to national and international activities initiated to combat antisemitism.
Here a comparison will be made between various reactions to antisemitism around
the world. Special attention will be given to the new phenomenon of international,
particularly pan-European, cooperation in the struggle against antisemitism, characterized
in 2004 by international conventions.
PART i
Jews as Victims of Intimidation and Violence
Three locations – western Europe (especially
the UK, France and Belgium), Canada and Russia – stand out, in particular, in
2004 in terms of their levels of violence and vandalism directed against Jewish
individuals and Jewish sites and institutions.
Western Europe
On 25 June 2004 a 16-year-old yeshiva student, Noach Schmal, was stabbed in the back and seriously injured in Antwerp. This attack, which left him hospitalized with a damaged lung, represents only one
of an unprecedented number of such incidents with clear intention to kill or harm
the victim severely that took place in 2004 throughout the world and especially
in western Europe.
The testimonies given regarding
this particular attack resembled those that followed many other brutal
incidents that took place in 2004, although the majority did not end in such serious
injury. For the most part, the victim was a ‘visible’ Jew wearing a skullcap
and in many cases traditional Jewish clothing. He was attacked by one or more
perpetrators, without any
provocation on his part. In Britain, for example, six young thugs
attacked a Jewish family on their way home from synagogue in Chigwell, Essex, on 9 April.
Frequently, antisemitic
slogans were shouted during the attack. On 29 June, two secondary school pupils
were on their way home from school on Flandres Street in the 19th arrondissement
in Paris when a car blocked their way and several people brandishing sticks
with metal points got out. They caught one of the boys, pushed him against a
wall and beat him unconscious. The attackers shouted “Dirty Jew” during the
attack. The other child escaped.
Until
recently, the phenomenon of Jews suffering physical attacks accompanied by
antisemitic verbal abuse had been unthinkable in postwar Europe. Today Jews are
threatened with gassing, cremation or murder near their homes and synagogues and
on the streets of their hometowns. Moreover, the victims of antisemitic
violence are Jews of all ages, including the elderly and the sick. In Copenhagen, Denmark, a man of Middle Eastern appearance threw shoes at an 80-year-old
Jewish woman on 26 April; in Boulogne, France, an 81-year-old Jewish man was
attacked in his building on 26 November; and in Paris, a handicapped Jewish
woman was cursed and shaken in the street on 8 October.
The main
targets, however, tended to be ‘visibly Jewish’, mainly religious, children and
young adults. They were harassed by fellow pupils, spat on and insulted on
their way to school and beaten up on their way to or from synagogue. They were
also hounded during soccer games and on public transport, and received e-mails
and SMS messages with threats and insults. Fear of violence and abuse has
caused Jewish pupils to leave the public schools and register at Jewish
schools. According to Patrick Petit-Ohayon, coordinator for Jewish schools at
the Fonds Social Juif Unifié, the number of students in Jewish schools in
France rose from a total of 1,500 students in 1980 to more than 30,000 in
2003.
Numerous
Jewish sites were desecrated throughout Europe in 2004. Holocaust memorials and
Jewish prayer houses and neighborhoods were smeared with Nazi slogans and
antisemitic graffiti. Some were severely vandalized, such as a synagogue in Toulon, France, by a Molotov cocktail attack on the night of 22–23 March, and the offices of the Orthodox outreach
organization Esh Hatorah in London, which were destroyed by fire on 24 June 2004.
In 2003,
25 out of 34 incidents of anti-Jewish violence and vandalism perpetrated in Germany were directed against cemeteries and memorials; in 2004 there were 35 such
incidents out of a total of 50. On 24 June, for example, swastikas and other
Nazi symbols were smeared on more than 40 graves in the Jewish cemetery in Düsseldorf
and on 10 April 2004, a Holocaust memorial in Shönberg was defaced by
swastikas and SS symbols.
Canada
Since the onset of the
autumn 2000 wave of antisemitism, Canada has become one of the major scenes of anti-Jewish
violence and vandalism. This trend reached a peak in 2004, with an increase of
100 percent over 2003. The most serious incident took place on 5 April 2004
when an arson attack destroyed the library of the St. Laurant branch of the
United Talmud Torah elementary school in Montreal. There was a three-fold
increase in cases of cemetery desecration. For instance, at the oldest Jewish
cemetery in Montreal, Nazi symbols, including swastikas, SS signs and “Heil
Hitler,” were sprayed on tombstones on 30 April 2004. Of particular concern was
the 60 percent increase from 2003 in targeting of Jewish private property. On
the night of 21 March 2004, for example, thirteen Jewish homes in Vaughn, a Toronto suburb, were defaced with antisemitic graffiti. Swastikas and racist messages were
painted on garage doors, cars and front doors. A week previously, houses and
cars in a Jewish neighborhood were similarly damaged in the Toronto suburb of
Thornhill.
Russia
Russia was another major scene of anti-Jewish
violence and vandalism in 2004. The 52 serious violent incidents recorded represent
an increase of 40 percent over 2003. Attempting to kill Jews and severely
damaging Jewish institutions were the hallmarks of antisemitic violence in Russia. On 4 February 2004, for example, three Molotov cocktails were thrown at the Chelyabinsk synagogue, igniting a fire in the library, while on 5 March 2004, a bomb of about 200 kg exploded near the Institute for the Study of Judaism in the
center of Moscow. The attack, which took place on the eve of the Purim holiday,
caused no injuries.
As in Germany, cemeteries and memorials constitute prime targets. On 14 February 2004 vandals broke 50 gravestones at the St. Petersburg Jewish cemetery, painted swastikas on some
of them and left antisemitic leaflets nearby, while on 17 December 2004
swastikas and antisemitic slogans were daubed on 40 Jewish gravestones in the
Preobrazhenskii cemetery in St. Petersburg.
The Perpetrators
Since the
wave of antisemitic manifestations broke out in late 2000 and its continued
rise, identification of the perpetrators has become a central but controversial
issue in fighting this phenomenon. Its importance is clear: the task of
analyzing the reasons for the upsurge in antisemitism as well as efforts to counter
it might reach a deadlock if the identity of the perpetrators is not first
clarified. When facing hate crimes, especially when they occur with such
frequency, the researcher needs to determine whether the offenses were carried
out by organized groups or by individuals, and whether intentionally or
spontaneously. In addition, it is important to examine the motive, or possibly
motives, for the crime (ideological, sociological, psychological). This task
has proved difficult in the UK, for example, since the perpetrators almost
invariably attacked at night and from behind, and many of the victims were
elderly and/or ultra-Orthodox Jews who were unable to provide many details. In France, according to Interior Minister Dominique de Villepin,
the motive behind 80 percent of antisemitic incidents was unclear as the
perpetrators had not been caught. In Canada, too, the report of the League of
Human Rights states that “one of the hallmarks of a hate crime is that the
perpetrator strikes out anonymously. Therefore, most cases of hate-motivated
activity rarely result in any criminal investigation because no perpetrator can
be identified.”
Western Europe
The
debate over the identification of the perpetrators intensified in the wake of
the controversy over the findings of the Center for Research on Antisemitism at
the Technische Universität Berlin (Werner Bergmann and Julianne Wetzel,
“Manifestations of Antisemitism in the European Union,” March 2003). The report
was commissioned by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
(EUMC) of the European Commission, and covered only the first half of 2002. The
authors came to the conclusion that while desecration of synagogues,
cemeteries, swastika graffiti, and threatening and insulting mail during this
period could be attributed to the far right, more extreme attacks on Jewish
sites as well as physical assaults on Jews were committed mainly by young
Muslims, mostly of Arab descent. Bergman and Wetzel pointed to the growing
tensions between Israelis and Palestinians which had culminated in the outbreak
of the second intifada, as a principal factor mobilizing the majority of
antisemitic perpetrators, namely young Muslims. In this context they emphasized
that “antisemitic statements came from the pro-Palestinian left as well
as politicians and citizens from the political mainstream.”
At the
beginning of 2004, the EUMC published a second report on antisemitism in 15 European
Union (EU) member states in the years 2002–3.
(Alexander Pollak and Alexander Joskowicz, “Manifestations of Antisemitism in
EU 2002-2003”). Concerning the perpetrators, the report was more equivocal,
claiming that while in some countries such as France and Denmark the centrality of “young Muslim males” was more evident, this was less certain in regard to
all other countries, among them the Netherlands and even the UK. According to the authors, the fact that in many cases the bulk of the evidence was from the
victim’s ‘description’, which could not always be substantiated, was a
principal reason for caution.
The lack
of clarity concerning the identification of the perpetrators, namely the role
played by youths of Arabic/Islamic origin compared to that of extreme
rightists, described in the EUMC report as “young white males,” contradicted three
major findings repeated in reports sent to us from various EU member states.
One was that according to the testimonies of victims of violent antisemitic
attacks, not only in France and Denmark but all over Europe, the perpetrators,
when identified by their victims, often belonged to ethnic minorities −
‘young Muslims’, ‘young Asians’ or ‘young North Africans’. While under attack, the
victim may not have been able to distinguish between North Africans, Arabs from
Middle East countries or persons from other countries in Africa, it is unlikely
that s/he would confuse them with ‘young white males’.
Secondly,
data gathered worldwide by the Institute for over a decade about the targets of
antisemitic activities and the modus operandi of the perpetrators indicate that
the percentage of physical assaults against Jewish individuals has increased
dramatically compared to incidents of cemetery and synagogue desecration.
Although the number of cases in which the police succeeded in establishing the
identification of the perpetrators of physical attacks is significantly small
(in France, according to the interior minister, only 20 percent), the involvement
of Arabs, Muslims or members of other ethnic minorities in those acts was much
higher than that of members of the extreme right. Therefore, one can point to the central
role of young people from families of immigrants in antisemitic activities, and
particularly in physical violence against Jews.
Thirdly,
over the last few years, and even during the 1990s, there have been clear
indications of a link between tensions in the Middle East and the rise in
antisemitic manifestations in western Europe. In 2003, for example, some
European countries witnessed two waves of antisemitic incidents, first in March
when the war in Iraq began, and later in October–November,
following the suicide bombing at a Haifa restaurant and the Israeli retaliation
in Syria (see ASW 2003/4). The impact of events in the Middle East on
the level of antisemitic manifestations in Europe was noticeable again in 2004
when the assassination of Hamas leader Shaykh Ahmad Yasin resulted in a
significant increase in hate crimes directed against Jews in the UK. A similar trend was noted in Canada, too (see below)
Nevertheless,
the link between events in the Middle East and the rise in antisemitic
incidents should be analyzed very carefully. It certainly can not serve as the
sole and probably not even as the main explanation for the continuous rise of
antisemitic incidents. While Middle East events may have prompted the eruption of
antisemitic incidents, socio-economic and psychological disaffection of
immigrants in Europe today should be examined as the wider background for
antisemitic activities. In the UK, for instance, events in the Middle East may explain the increase in some cases, but in many others the motive is unclear.
There was no obvious reason, for example, for the relatively high number of
incidents that occurred in the UK in June 2004, including two serious attacks,
or for the monthly peaks of February and May in France.
Socio-economic
dislocation as the principal condition for the perpetration of hate crimes was
stressed in one of the latest studies published in Europe on racism and
antisemitism. Composed by Jean-Christophe Rufin, president of Action against
Hunger, at the request of the French interior minister, it states that the
so-called new antisemitism “appears to be more heterogeneous than believed by
those who see it as a problem specifically among people of Maghreb (North
African) origin and as a natural consequence of events in the Middle East.”
Moreover, based on various sources, among them the French police and the
gendarmerie, he concluded that only a “relatively low number of the
perpetrators were of North African origin.” Many were immigrants from countries
without any connection to the Arab-Israeli issue, such as African and Caribbean states. His basic thesis is that in the three “statistical categories of
perpetrators of antisemitic violence [immigrants, extreme right and unspecified]
the common trait seems to be found more in a sense of uprootedness, a loss of
reference points and an identity crisis.”
The main
reason for violence seems therefore to be mainly social frustration, and those
who belong to disaffected groups appear to be more ready to adopt extreme means
against those perceived as belonging to a successful group. This may be seen
clearly today, in districts such as Kreuzberg, in Berlin, where most of the
population are immigrants from Muslim countries especially Turkey, but also Jewish immigrants from the former CIS countries. In the UK, a mixed Afro-Caribbean/Arab group carried out a series of attacks in Stamford Hill against
ultra-Orthodox Jews in December. In this context, too, it is crucial to stress
the role of extreme anti-Israel propaganda –
which frequently includes antisemitic motifs, and particularly the
dehumanization of Israel – not only in
extreme left and extreme right publications but also in the mainstream media,
in inciting those who initially were not part of the antisemitic milieu, or did
not belong to any extremist religious movement, to participate in antisemitic
activities.
This
conclusion correlates with our observation that antisemitism in Europe is not
imported from the Middle East, as clamed by many –
although events in the Middle East have served as a trigger for the wave of
anti-Jewish violence that began in autumn 2000. It is first and foremost a
European problem: “Nothing can be gained in the fight against antisemitism
without tackling the issue of social marginalization,” states Rufin.
North America
In regard to the
identification of perpetrators and their impact on the level of violent
antisemitic incidents, the situation in the US and Canada is quite different. In the US, overall data on antisemitic manifestations collected by the
ADL show an increase of 17 percent over 2003, including a marked rise of 27
percent in the harassment category and a small increase of 3 percent in
vandalism. Nevertheless, the number of assaults on Jewish individuals was quite
low, no
more than a handful. The majority of antisemitic events were verbal insults,
including slurs and mockery. In addition, the number of extreme violent acts,
such as arson against communal or private property was relatively low as well. In Canada, on the other hand, there was a 100 percent increase in violent incidents.
The difference
levels of violence between the two neighbors may lie in the greater role played
by young immigrants, mainly from Muslim countries, in antisemitic incidents in Canada. Although as in western Europe, the perpetrators in most cases are not identified, the
ADL did not find evidence of significant involvement of Arabs/Muslims in
antisemitic activities in the US and its findings point to the role of the extreme
right in incidents of harassment and especially in the distribution of
propaganda. In Canada, however, despite difficulties in establishing the
identification of the perpetrators, the League for Human Rights stated: “In
2004, as in 2003, the single most active group in carrying out antisemitic
incidents was found to be made up of persons who identified themselves as Arab.
In fact, the number in this category more than doubled from 36 in 2003 to 80 in 2004.”
As in the UK, the highest monthly total – 156 incidents – occurred in March, representing close to one-fifth of the
entire year’s total, probably in response to the assassination of Shaykh Ahmad
Yasin.
It is reasonable to assume that in Canada the significant involvement of Arabs/Muslims in antisemitic activities affected the nature of
the incidents, which was much more violent than in the US. Although as shown in the past, a ‘lone wolf’ from the extreme right in the US can bring about
death and destruction, extreme rightists there have been less frequently involved
in physical violence against Jews than have Arabs/Muslims in Canada.
The CIS
In the CIS those responsible for xenophobic
and antisemitic manifestations may be classified into two categories. The first
consists of public figures and officials, such as members of parliament,
ministers, election candidates and members of the security forces. During a
speech in the Russian Duma in May 2004, for example, Nikolaii Pavlov, a member
of the nationalist Motherland Bloc blamed Jews working in national television
for the violence, sadism, perversion and russophobia that he alleged were
constantly being broadcast. Moreover, on 1 July, speaking at a conference in Beirut, Russian Senator Nikolai Kondratenko, (Communist Party of Russian Federation – KPRF)
accused the Zionists of genocide against the Russian people. In Ukraine, during a debate on Ukrainian television Channel UT-1 screened on 20 October 2004,
Vladimir Nechiporuk, an independent candidate in the 2004 presidential
elections, told his opponent Piotr Simonenko (Communist Party) that
“kike-masons” were culpable for the liquidation of the Ukrainian people under
Soviet rule. He also said that if he won the election he would deport all
“Jewish oligarchs” from Ukraine. Similarly, on 9 July 2004, while announcing
his candidacy for the Ukrainian presidential elections, Bogdan Boyko, chairman
of the National Movement of Ukraine for Unity (NRU), claimed that the Jews were
a “fifth column” in Ukraine (see also under ‘Responses’ below). In Belarus, when the Union of Belarus Jewish Communities protested against the intention to disband the
International Humanitarian Institute which included the only school of Judaism in the country, Belarus MP Sergii Kostyan remarked that Belarus was not a Zionist country.
Members of the second category
are adults and youths from the ranks of those not necessarily affiliated to
organized racist or skinhead groups such as the RNE (Russian National Unity),
the neo-Nazi Schultz-88 in Russia, or the National Salvation Front in Ukraine
which was responsible for the circulation of leaflets accusing the Jews of
murdering Jesus and called for their deportation.
Contrary to the situation in
western Europe, the great majority of antisemitic acts in the CIS are not
carried out by Muslims. In fact, in the non-Muslim states and in Russia in particular, Muslims and their holy places are often the target of racist
harassment and attacks. For example, in May 2004, 11 tombstones were desecrated
in the Muslim cemetery of Obninsk, Kaluga region (Russia).
It seems that particularly
in Russia antisemitism must be examined in the wider context of xenophobia. In
2004 there was a significant increase in violence against foreigners, including
murders. Most of the attacks took place in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but also
in other cities around the country. Among the victims were Russian citizens of
Caucasian origin and foreigners from Afghanistan, Vietnam, Jordan, China, Korea and Syria, among others. On 8 December 2004 Viktor Papsuev, section head in the
criminal police department of the Ministry of Interior, reported that as of the
beginning of 2004 there had been 283 crimes committed against foreign students
in Russia, nearly one-third of which had occurred in the St. Petersburg area. A
nine-year-old girl of Tajik origin was murdered in St. Petersburg on 9
February, and on 5 March, School no. 288 in the same city was set alight, presumably by skinheads. Most of the pupils there are of Azerbaijani origin. In
2004 an increase was also recorded in damage to cultural and holy sites of
practically all religions. In early 2004 a Pravoslav chapel in Kirov was painted with swastikas and the words “We are back.” On 4 June 2004 unknown persons set fire to an Armenian cultural center in Irkutsk. In August an explosive
devise was thrown into the Evangelical prayer house in Izhevsk. In November an
Adventist prayer house in Nizhnii Novgorod was damaged by local RNE members
Latin America
In Latin America, and particularly in Venezuela, politicians and high ranking officials openly express antisemitic views. A
blatant example of anti-Jewish attitudes under the populist administration of Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez (see ASW 2003/4), occurred in November–December 2004. On 29 November the
intelligence forces of the Venezuelan police raided a Jewish elementary and
high school in the Hebraica Cultural and Sports Club, allegedly in search of
arms. Some 1,500 children were arriving at school at that time in the morning.
Judge Michel Moreno had ordered the raid in an attempt to link the Jewish
community to terrorism following the murder of Federal Prosecutor Danilo
Anderson. The Jewish umbrella organization CAIV publicly repudiated the crime,
but the state Venezuela Television had been reporting for days that the Mossad
was behind the assassination. Another serious incident demonstrating the
antisemitic atmosphere in Venezuela occurred on 7 May 2004, when Venezuelan state radio accused Venezuelan born and bred Jews of trying to influence
officials of the US administration in opposing Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez. The broadcast claimed that Jews were disloyal to Venezuela. On 15 August 2004 the words “No to Jews and defectives” were sprayed on the Or Hatorah
synagogue in Caracas.
The unprecedented police
raid on a Jewish school provoked anger among Jewish communities and
organizations abroad. The American Jewish Committee expressed outrage at “this
unprecedented and unwarranted raid on a Jewish institution by local police
which traumatized the children and their families.” Both the Argentinean DAIA
and the Jewish community of Spain conveyed their indignation and their solidarity
with the Venezuelan community.
Cemetery desecration,
vandalism, particularly graffiti, and threat letters to community leaders are
the most common activities against Jews and Jewish property in Latin America. As elsewhere, the perpetrators are seldom caught; nevertheless, Nazi symbols
and slogans such as those left at the entrance to the Ciudadela Jewish cemetery
in Buenos Aires on 14 November, or a day later near the Maimonides School in
that city, reveal that they are mostly right-wing extremists. The Jewish cemetery of Liniers near Buenos Aires was desecrated four times during 2004 with swastikas and
other Nazi symbols, once on the night of 8–9
November, the anniversary of Kristallnacht. Further, at the beginning of
November, three Jewish institutions received bomb threats: the Hebraica Jewish
Club, Paso Temple and the Sephardic Congregation. The leading Argentinean Jewish
organization DAIA reported a rise in antisemitic incidents in 2004.
In Brazil, the Beth Jacob Synagogue, Campinas, was defaced with antisemitic graffiti and swastikas on
11–12 October, and in Chile, “Jews get out” was scrawled, on 11 November, on a wall near a Jewish community building in Viña del Mar. In Uruguay, too, graffiti, consisting of a swastika saying “Happy
Birthday, Adolf Hitler,” “Heil Hitler,” and “Death to all the Masonic Jews” and
signed by the “Waffen SS,” was found near the Sephardi Community Synagogue in Montevideo. The extreme right is mainly responsible for hate messages against Jews on the
Internet as well.
In Venezuela and Brazil, the extreme left spreads virulently anti-Zionist propaganda that verges on
antisemitism. The journal Humanus, for example, compared Zionism to Nazism
and ran a photomontage of Einstein/Hitler. In another example linking
antisemitism and anti-Zionism, a poster, decorated with anti-Zionist slogans,
showed a man tossing a Star of David into the garbage.
part II
Worldwide Response to Antisemitism
Europe
The resolution combined the
various strands and political decisions of recent years, including those on
racism, xenophobia and antisemitism, EUMC reports, the Berlin OSCE Declaration
(see below) and the January 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International
Forum on the Holocaust, which called for improved education on the Holocaust.
The text noted the heightened sense of insecurity of European Jews resulting
from the rise in attacks on their communities and members and the increasing
dissemination of antisemitic propaganda via the Internet, and called on member
states and the EC to strengthen the fight against antisemitism and racism by
various means.
A landmark in the fight
against the spread of hatred in Europe was the stand taken by France against the Hizballah station al-Manar. In an attempt to curb the level of incitement to
antisemitism through the media, the Committee for Audio and Visual Media
banned, in early February 2004, the television series al-Shatat (The Diaspora),
based on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and screened by al-Manar.
On 23 November al-Manar accused Israel of spreading AIDS to Arab countries and
referred to suicide bombers as ‘martyrs’. After protests by the Jewish
community, Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin described al-Manar’s programs as
“incompatible with our values,” and on 13 December al-Manar transmissions were prohibited
by the highest French court.
Internationally, the French
government’s ban on al-Manar prompted an examination of the station’s
operations in the United States. In early 2005 the US government added the
station to the Terrorism Exclusion List, thus proscribing employees of the
organization from entering or doing business within the United States.
Hate spread on the Internet
is a central issue in combating antisemitism today. In June 2004 a special conference in the framework of the OSCE was held in Paris, on “Antisemitic Propaganda
on the Internet.” Likewise, this meeting resulted in a declaration by the
Permanent and Ministerial Councils in December, which asked all 55 states to take
action to ensure that the Internet remained an open and public forum for
freedom of opinion and expression, but also to investigate and, where
applicable, prosecute violence and criminal threats of violence, motivated by
racist, xenophobic, antisemitic or other related bias. It called on states to
train law enforcement agents and prosecutors in addressing crimes instigated by
these motives on the Internet, and to share information on successful training
programs.
The initiatives taken in
Europe, with the support and sometimes pressure of the US (see below), as well as the prominent involvement of Jewish organizations, had some impact. In Latin
America the presidents and governments of Argentina and Brazil responded to the call of the World Jewish Congress and expressed their full support for the
international campaign against antisemitism. The preface of the declaration of
the Argentinean Senate against antisemitism mentions the OSCE resolutions, the
Berlin Declaration and the support of the American Senate for the president’s
decision to monitor antisemitism worldwide. Numerous national organizations and
institutions in Argentina endorsed the declaration of their own Senate.
The US
The Administration: The year
2004 saw groundbreaking work by the US government in focusing on, acknowledging
– and most importantly – pledging to
deal with antisemitism and attacks against Jews throughout the world. The US government Global Antisemitism Review Act was signed into law by President George W.
Bush on 16 October 2004. The State Department issued instructions to US
embassies around the world to explicitly report acts of violence against Jews
and Jewish property and the measures governments were taking against them. In
the first report for 2004 commissioned by the US Department of State, Special
Envoy for Holocaust Issues Ambassador Edward B. O’Donnell declared that there
had been an “increasing frequency and severity of antisemitic incidents since
the start of the 21st century, particularly in Europe,” and that “in recent
years, incidents have been more targeted in nature with perpetrators appearing
to have the specific intent to attack Jews and Judaism.”
Moreover, the report
emphasized a major aspect of antisemitism today, the linkage between
antisemitism and anti-Americanism, namely, that both on the left and the right
there is a confluence between antisemitic ideas and anti-Americanism, hinging
specifically on America's support for and efforts to safeguard Israel, and more
generally on criticism of America's war in Iraq and of overall foreign policy
(see ASW 2003/4). The report stated that outspoken attacks by militants
of the far right and the far left, as well as by representatives of the Islamic
community in Europe, against the policies and leaders of Israel and the US were seen as a factor in the targeting of individual Jews or Jewish institutions.
Recognizing the significance
of antisemitism and its linkage to international developments, in which the US
plays a major role, the US administration has been a leading actor in
organizing international conferences to discuss the increase of antisemitism and ways to combat it, particularly the June 2003 OSCE meeting in Vienna, followed
by the historic April 2004 conference in Berlin (see above). While the OSCE was
the most far-reaching and effective multilateral instrument for investigating
and working on the issue of antisemitism in 2004, a historic conference was
held in June 2004 at the United Nations in New York, where it was discussed for
the first time by the UN General Assembly. Further action by the UN included a
November 2004 resolution that denounced all forms of religious intolerance, and
which specifically included antisemitism.
Right Wing Extremists and Holocaust
Deniers: The response of right-wing extremists in the US to the increase of antisemitic manifestations in Europe and measures to contain it has been
muted, in part, because their groups are in turmoil and undergoing transition
due to deaths, imprisonment and instability among the leadership. This holds,
in particular, for several of the major groups, such as Aryan Nations, National
Alliance and the Creativity Movement, which have consequently lost members and
influence. Nevertheless, some familiar themes have been expressed by extremist
groups in response to America's call for formal anti-hate legislation and
official steps to curb antisemitism worldwide. Far right publications have
combined repeated criticism of what they perceive as increasing government
interference and infringement of personal freedoms with diatribes against Jews,
who are seen as the originators of the new legislation in both the United States and Europe. As ever, there are classic allegations of Jewish totalitarian power and of
Jews striving to manipulate and control the world scene for their own benefit.
The term ‘Zionism’ is equated both with Jews and with Israel. American Free Press in December saw “the expanding influence of international
Zionism” in attempts to recognize and legislate against all manifestations of antisemitism. Also in December, The Crusader, a Ku Klux Klan publication, wrote that
“while antisemitism is viewed by many to include everything from actual
violence to merely questioning the actions of the state of Israel.... [c]ount yourself worthy to be hated by those who hate Jesus Christ.” The entire September
issue of the David Duke Report, a publication of former Ku Klux Klan
leader David Duke, consisted of a long antisemitic tirade, focusing on freedom
of speech: “The most powerful special interest groups in the Western world are
those supporting the agendas of Jewish supremacism.... lawmakers, at the behest
of Jewish supremacist groups... [are] passing legislation that increases
penalties for crimes if the offending person uttered the wrong speech or even
had the wrong thoughts.”
The effort to quash
antisemitic manifestations is seen by extremists as an ominous conspiracy to
destroy Christian and non-Jewish society, and to assert Jewish hegemony. WR
Newsletter, a publication of the neo-Nazi White Revolution, wrote in
February that “international, organized, and Zionist Jewry have long had a plan
and have continually engaged in efforts to essentially destroy all homogenous
White societies along their way to world domination.” The CDL Report, a
Christian ‘Identity’ publication complained in December: “Hate laws are drafted
by Jewry for their benefit. These laws oppress American citizens and are used
selectively against Christians and European Americans.”
While racist anti-Arab
comments continued to dominate American extremist rhetoric, in 2004 some on the
far right expressed support for Muslims and the Palestinian cause. There were
discussions of possible alliances with Muslims, such as a posting in the
neo-Nazi Aryan Nations website forum in November which considered the idea of
“a possible liaison between Muslims and National Socialists in a common fight
against the Jew.” Approval of aspects of Islam surfaced more frequently,
especially with regard to issues that harmonized with conservative
Christianity. The First Freedom, a Southern heritage publication,
published an article in its August issue by Michael Hoffman II, a Holocaust
revisionist, which appeared to support Muslim and Muslim rights in western
countries, in general, and Muslim women covering their heads in Europe, in particular. He wrote: “Who is to blame for the demise of Europe – the healthy,
fertile Muslims or the anemic, self-extinguishing denizens of the House of
Usher... Now crusader George W. Bush is on a campaign to “free Muslim women”
from standards of propriety and modesty not so different – at least in spirit –
from what prevailed universally in the West as recently as four decades ago.”
Alongside customary
invective against Judaism as a religion, and in particular against the Talmud,
there emerged positive statements about Islam vis-à-vis Christianity. In
September David Duke claimed that Muslims have “easily verifiable sentiments of
respect and veneration… toward Christ and those who follow him... including a
shared belief in Christ as the Messiah.” In particular, however, some on the
far right emphasized the convergence of Muslim and far-right extremist
interests regarding the Jewish people. Writing in March about the film The
Passion, the white supremacist WAR publication (White Aryan
Resistance) stated: “It is more than likely that Gibson's film can lead towards
a wide realization of the role of the Palestinian people, the new Christ, in
redeeming the world from the current evil, whether this evil is the Israeli State, the Zionist identity...” A posting in the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations website
forum in November read: “We applaud those of the Islamic faith who wage jihad
against that global pest who terrorizes all the other races of the world under
their six-pointed star. We applaud those of our race who covertly aid the jihad
against Zionist occupational regimes across the globe.”
The CIS
Despite their participation in the OSCE
conferences against antisemitism the major CIS states – Russia, Ukraine and Belarus –
have not demonstrated their clear determination to fight antisemitism on
the domestic front. As in previous years, the response to xenophobic and
antisemitic manifestations in Russia in 2004 was mixed. On the one hand, the
authorities issued several declarations stating their intention to combat
antisemitism and racism and uttered strong words of condemnation both within
the country and at international anti-racism conferences. In March 2004, for
example, then Russian Minister for Nationalities Vladimir Zorin asserted that
antisemitism and xenophobia were major threats to the country. He called for
stricter enforcement of the existing laws outlawing extremism and antisemitism
and the promotion of tolerance education programs. On 2 February 2004 Interior Minister Rashid Nurgaliev became the first high-ranking official to
acknowledge the existence of right-wing extremist youth groups in the country.
He promised that the struggle against extremism was one of the priority tasks
of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Security Service.
On the other hand, the
authorities preferred to label the perpetrators terrorists or hooligans without
reference to racist or antisemitic motivation. Therefore, most hate crimes
remain unsolved, including assaults, synagogue bombings, arson attacks against
Jewish sites and desecration of Jewish cemeteries. On 18 February 2004 the Russian Jewish Congress issued a statement accusing the government of covering
up hate crimes and even collaborating with hate groups. It should be noted,
too, that on 9 July 2004 the Duma rejected a proposed law that would have
prohibited the public display of Nazi symbols
As a result of government
disregard, the activities of NGOs have come to play an important part in
combating antisemitism and racism. On 15 December 2004 an international conference on “Antisemitism in the Former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation” was held in Moscow, on the initiative of the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights.
Bureau director Alexander Brod stated that antisemitism was one of the most
serious problems in Russia. Further, Russian NGOs have initiated numerous
educational projects, conferences, round tables and seminars in many cities.
The Youth Human Rights Movement and the UNITED for Intercultural Action (a
“European network against nationalism, racism, fascism and in support of
migrants and refugees”) launched an all-Russian week against antisemitism and
racism in over 20 regions. During the year pupils and students took part in
campaigns to erase antisemitic graffiti in many cities. However, the NGOs’
scope for action against radical nationalism is limited due to lack of
cooperation on the part of the authorities and the latter’s refusal to
recognize the seriousness of the level of xenophobia and antisemitism.
In October 2004, for
example, Vladimir Kabanov, head of the Security Services of Oriol, told local
law enforcement officials that there were no extremists, terrorists or
inter-ethnic conflicts in the region. However, on 1 November 2004 the local
human rights NGO United Europe informed the press that they had evidence of the
distribution of neo-Nazi music and literature, skinhead attacks on foreigners,
a threat against an NGO member and a trial, under Article 282 (prohibiting
incitement of national, racist or religious hatred, or establishment of an
extremist group), of neo-Nazis, members of an illegal RNE group from Oriol.
Another example
demonstrating the problematic reaction of the Russian authorities to racist and
antisemitic manifestations was the release of Viktor Korchagin, a well-known
antisemite and head of the Rusich publishing house. On 24 November 2004 a Timiriazovskii district judge placed him on two years probation for incitement of
ethnic hatred, and immediately revoked the punishment under the statute of
limitations of Article 282. However, on 23 December 2004 a Moscow city court cancelled the decision of the district court and transferred the case for
further investigation.
There were only a few cases
in which hatemongers were arrested and judged. In December 2003, for example, Igor
Kolodezenko, publisher of Russkii Sibir (affiliated to the National
Sovereign Party of Russia), was given a two-year suspended sentence after being
convicted of inciting ethnic hatred through antisemitic articles he printed in
the newspaper. On 5 April 2004 a Novosibirsk court decided to close the
newspaper for promoting ethnic and religious hatred.
In November 2004 the Novgorod prosecutor’s office charged a 20-year-old member of RNE with incitement to ethnic,
racist and religious hatred. On 2 and 26 September 2003 he had planted fake
explosives at the Jewish center in Novgorod where the city synagogue is
located, with “Death to the Yids,” a swastika and a Celtic cross written on
them. In December 2004 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment.
In Ukraine, too, those responsible for antisemitic statements were not necessarily tried or
punished. On 17 July 2004, for example, during a campaign rally, Member of
Parliament Oleg Tiagnibok from Our Ukraine, the main opposition bloc in
parliament until the winter 2004 elections, made an antisemitic speech. While
praising the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which fought both the Soviets and the
Germans during World War II, and some of whose soldiers murdered Jews, he said
that the “kikes” and other “filth” wanted to take Ukraine away from the
Ukrainians. In response he was expelled from his party and in early August 2004
was charged by the prosecutor's office of Ivano-Frankovsk with incitement to
ethnic hatred. However, the charges against Tiagnibok were quietly dropped in
early December 2004.
Similarly, on 28 January the
Shevchenskii court in Kiev ordered closure of the newspaper Silski Vesti
on the grounds of incitement to ethnic hatred, in connection with an article
written in 2002 by Prof. Vasil Iaromenko, entitled “Myth about Ukrainian
Antisemitism,” and a September 2003 article, “Jews in Ukraine: Reality without
Myths.” In March 2004 Ivan Boky, a Socialist Party member of the Ukrainian
Parliament, wrote an article in the same newspaper defending it against
accusations of antisemitism. He criticized the Israeli ambassador to Ukraine, Naomi Ben-Ami, and Ukrainian Jewish leaders, referring to them as “bird-brains”
for branding the newspaper a fascist publication. He also called on the
ambassador to leave Ukraine. He praised Iaromenko lavishly, describing him as a
“highly authoritative scientist and a pedagogue.” In November 2004 the Kiev
Appeals Court cancelled the decision to close the newspaper, and publication
was resumed.
In Belarus, there was no action against xenophobia and antisemitism in 2004.
Neither the prosecutor's office nor the Committee for State Security
investigated any extremist groups, which continue to be active throughout the
country. These include skinhead groups, as well as the RNE (previously banned
in Belarus), which operate in Minsk, Grodno, Gomel, Vitebsk, Polotsk and other
cities. In fact, no perpetrators have been fined or jailed in the past 15
years. In May 2003 the prosecutor general and the Ministry of Information
decided to end distribution of the antisemitic and xenophobic newspaper Russkii
Vestnik in Belarus. However, in February 2004 the governmental distribution
agency Belsoiuzpechat' began disseminating it. Sales of similar literature
continued throughout the year at government-owned institutions and in stores,
as well as at events connected to the Belarusian Orthodox Church. The head of
the Church, Metropolitan Filaret, promised to stop sales; however, nothing has
been done.
On 5 April 2004 Leonid
Stonov, head of international bureaus of the Union of Councils for Jews in the
Former Soviet Union (UCSJ), based in the US, accused the government of Belarus
of apathy toward antisemitism and called for international sanctions against
the country. He noted the increase in cemetery desecration and in antisemitic
publications, as well as the law limiting religious freedom and closure of the
only institute for Jewish studies in the country. On 18 August the minister of
foreign affairs notified the local chapter of the UCSJ that it would not be
re-registered because it was late in submitting required documentation. The
UCSJ is one of the primary Jewish human rights organizations in the country.
In late 1999 Pravoslavnaia
Initiativa published 30,000 copies of the 500-page book Voina po zakonam
podlosti (War under Laws of Villainy) – a collection of antisemitic
material, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. However, in the
years that have elapsed neither the president nor the Pravoslav Diocese has
reacted. The Jewish community asked the prosecutor's office to open a criminal
case, but instead the office recognized the book as a ‘scientific publication’.
Pravoslavnaia Initiativa continued to publish antisemitic works: in 2004 it
published four such books. This is the only publishing house that openly issues
antisemitic literature in Belarus. Other publications are imported from Russia.
In contrast to Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, the authorities in the Asian republics have taken more decisive
measures against the spread of antisemitism. In Kazakhstan, many members
of the Islamic Hizb ut-Tahrir organization were prosecuted in 2004 for
distributing leaflets with antisemitic content under Articles 164 (fanning
social, national, tribal, racial or religious enmity) and 337 (creating an
illicit public association and participating in its activities) of the Criminal
Code, after it was recognized as an illegal extremist group. In October the
regional court of Chimkent sentenced Askhat Niyazov to prison after his arrest
in April for distributing antisemitic and anti-Russian leaflets printed by Hizb
ut-Tahrir in the local market.
In Uzbekistan too, antisemitic leaflets printed by the illegal Hizb ut-Tahrir were distributed
throughout the country. On 31 August 2004, nine of its members were sentenced
in Samarkand to 3-14 years imprisonment for incitement to hatred for
distributing anti-Russian and antisemitic material. On 29 July another member
was sentenced to seven years imprisonment by the regional court of Tashkent for
distributing literature calling for jihad against Americans and Jews. The
government has begun teaching tolerance in eleventh grade history textbooks. Moreover,
the standard textbook contains material about the horrors of the Holocaust,
Nazi antisemitism and figures on the number of Jews killed.
