Die umstrittene EU-Studie:
Manifestationen des Antisemitismus in der
Europäischen Union
Le CRIF
et le CJE publient en exclusivité le rapport non diffusé à ce jour
de l'Observatoire européen sur le racisme et la xénophobie, consacré
aux "manifestations de l'antisémitisme dans l'Union européenne".
DEUTSCHLAND
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”. 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. 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.
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. The weekly Jewish
newspaper Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung released a sample of
these letters. 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.
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.
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, 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. Nearly all public opinion leaders distanced themselves
from Karsli’s statements, except Möllemann. 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 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. A few
days later Möllemann called Friedman “obviously megalomaniac” 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. Möllemann said that he
had received more than 11,000 approving letters.
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, 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. After
Karsli had left the parliamentary group of the FDP in North
Rhine-Westfalia, 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. 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.
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
(http://www.fdp-fraktion.de) 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”;
“The Jews themselves propagate the so-called ‘anti-Semitism’ in
order to punish everyone who contradicts them”. Statements which
praised Möllemann for his comments about Israel and Friedman can be
found on several discussion for a of the Liberal Party. 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.
The online discussion forum of the weekly magazine Der Spiegel
(www.forum.spiegel.de) was also used for anti-Semitic hate speech.
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. 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.” 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.
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. 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”). 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”. 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. 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.
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%). 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. 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%. 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 (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.
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. 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 of June. “To employ an anti-Semitic
climate for political purposes must be taboo”, declared the
chairmen. The Turkish Association Berlin-Brandenburg called upon its
members to protest together with the Jewish community in front of
the FDP headquarters in Berlin against “playing with anti-Semitism”.
5. Reactions by politicians and other opinion leaders
Almost all public leaders distanced themselves
from Jürgen Möllemann’s statements in relation to the current debate
about anti-Semitism and pronounced (Chancellor Gerhard Schröder)
their fear of negative consequences for Germany’s reputation abroad
which might arise from the ongoing debate. Möllemann’s statements
received positive reactions from some right-wing parties such as
“Die Republikaner”, the NPD (National Democratic Party Germany) and
the DVU. But the vice-chairman also had to face criticism from
within his own party as well. With regard to the parties, the
Liberal Democrats as well as the Social Democrats/the Greens have
submitted separate but identical applications to the German
Bundestag (lower house of the German parliament) demanding that
anti-Semitic tendencies be eradicated and that anti-Semitism may not
be exploited for election campaigns. The Bundespräsident (Head of
State of the Federal Republic of Germany), Johannes Rau, had already
entered into the discussion in May by meeting representatives of the
Central Council of Jews in order to express his solidarity with the
Jewish communities. In an interview with the Jewish newspaper
Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung he remarked on his fear of a
decreasing level of inhibition for making anti-Semitic statements,
although he pointed out that criticism of Israel is not tantamount
to anti-Semitism. Even a trade union reacted directly in relation to
the anti-Semitism debate. The “IG Bauern-Agrar-Umwelt” split from
their member Jürgen Möllemann by “mutual agreement” as a result of
the politician’s statements.
On 19 April the German Interior Minister Otto Schily, together with
his colleagues from France, Belgium, Spain and Great Britain,
presented a joint declaration on “Racism, Xenophobia and
Anti-Semitism” which appealed for preventive measures and a
European-wide coordination of all responsible agencies and offices.
From 29 September 2002 the Jewish Museum in Berlin opened a short
three-week exhibition that showed letters written during the
Möllemann campaign to the Jewish journalist Henryk M. Broder and to
the “Allgemeine Jüdische Wochenzeitung” under the title “Ich bin
kein Antisemit” (I am not an anti-Semite).
In early July a panel Forum on Anti-Semitism as concerted action to
stem escalating violence in conjunction with the 11th annual
Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) was held in Berlin. This session was
followed up on the initiative of German Bundestag Member Gert
Weisskirchen and United States Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman
Christopher H. Smith by a meeting of members of the Commission and a
German Bundestag delegation in Washington DC in December. The Forum
heard experts on Anti-Semitism in Europe and the United States and a
“letter of intent” was signed by Gert Weisskirchen and Christopher
H. Smith.
Die gesamte Studie:
antisemitismus.net/europa/eu-studie.pdf
pdf (Acrobat-Reader)
105 Seiten, vorerst nur englisch...
Frühere Artikel und Kommentare zur EUMC-Studie
Europa und der Antisemitismus:
Warum wurde das Dokument eingezogen?
Prof. Werner Bergmann, Leiter der
Antisemitismus-Forschung an der Berliner TU: "Die EU hat die Studie
begraben, aus Angst vor einem Bürgerkrieg"...
Pro-Palästinensische Entscheidung?
Der
Bericht, den Europa versteckt
Das Buch, das die gespannten Beziehungen zwischen
Israel und Europa beschreibt, erhielt ein neues Kapitel. Es stellt
sich heraus, dass Stellen in der EU beschlossen haben, einen
besonderen Bericht zurückzuhalten, der sich mit dem zunehmenden
Antisemitismus auf dem Kontinent befasst...
Frühere Artikel und Kommentare zur - ebenfalls
erst zurückgehaltenen - Studie der EU-Kommision zur Lage nach dem
Irakkrieg
Eurobarometer Oktober 2003:
Die
Rolle der EU im Nahost-Friedensprozess
Auszüge aus den ursprünglich zurückgehaltenen
EU-Meinungsumfragen...
Israel:
Feind Nummer eins
Eine Studie der EU dokumentiert antiisraelische
Vorurteile. Und sie offenbart die kruden Vorstellungen ihrer
Verfasser...
59% sehen in Israel die Friedensbedrohung No.1:
Alarmierende EU-Umfrageergebnisse zurückgehalten
Rabbi Marvin Hier, Leiter des
Simon-Wiesenthal-Zentrums, Los Angeles, zeigte sich schockiert. Dass
Israel als noch größere Bedrohung empfunden werde als der Iran und
Nordkorea, widerspreche jeglicher Logik und sei Ausdruck
"rassistischer Fantasien"...
Siehe auch:
Zentrale für Antisemitismusforschung
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
hagalil.com
03-12-2003 |