Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism in the European Union, 2018: A New Structural Look. 6

A Note on Antisemitism and Jewish Identity

Besides its inherent interest as an endemic topic in the long-term history of the Jews, antisemitism requires attention as a component within the broader array of Jewish identificational perceptions and choices. In reference to, among other things, my initial considerations about the early origins of Jewish peoplehood identity, a corporate Jewish identity and awareness seems essential for antisemitism to be effectively perceived among the target group. It can be argued, indeed, that perceived hostility from the non-Jewish environment toward oneself as a Jewish individual or as a member of a Jewish community is an integral or even a necessary marker of one’s own sense of Jewish identification. Although the study of Jewish identification among Jews in Europe deserves a detailed in-depth study, which is beyond the scope of this paper, here I shall briefly focus on the proximity and distance between different Jewish identification options as they appear from a structural examination of the data collected for the 2018 FRA survey (for a review of the findings of the 2012 FRA study, see Graham 2018).

The FRA 2018 study included a question about the importance of selected modes of expression of Jewish identity: [G08e] How important are the following items to your sense of Jewish identity? The total frequencies of those who answered Very important are reported in Table 3.

Table 3. Frequencies of Jews in 12 EU countries reporting Very important about selected aspects of Jewish identity.

Aspect of Jewish identity	% very important
Remembering the Holocaust	79.0
Combating antisemitism	75.1
Feeling part of the Jewish people	70.4
Sharing Jewish festivals with my family	56.4
Supporting Israel	55.3
Jewish culture, such as Jewish music, literature and art	44.5
Donating funds to charity	35.0
Believing in God	34.4

At the top of the list stands Remembering the Holocaust, closely followed by Combating antisemitism. The Jewish nation-oriented options (Feeling part of Jewish peoplehood, Support for Israel) appear in the middle of the table. Family oriented reunion on the occasion of the main Jewish festivals ranks about at the same level. Jewish culture, community and faith-oriented options appear at the bottom of the scale. Remarkably, Jews in Israel, in the United States, in Latin America, and in the former Soviet Union presented with these lists of Jewish identity options ranked them very similarly (DellaPergola et al. 2019, Bokser Liwerant et al. 2015, Russian Jewish Congress – Levada Center 2018a). The significant feature in the context of the present paper is the very high-ranking position of Combating antisemitism along the entire spectrum of Jewish identity. Antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance emerge as the most widely shared and sensitive issues in Jewish personal identification and in Jewish corporate life.

The same data, when transformed into a SSA map that reflects variation across the 12 EU countries investigated, produce the display shown in Figure 26. The display is again circular-radial with a clear central focus. The peripheral domains, represented here each by one proxy question, imply a more comprehensive contents domain. In clockwise direction, based on much previous research (e.g. DellaPergola et al. 2019), Believing in God can be shown to represent a broader domain of Jewish normative-ritual beliefs and practices. Donating to Jewish charity represents a broader domain of Jewish community affiliation and voluntarism. Holocaust memory and Combating antisemitism are part of a broader domain of historical consciousness and civic ethos. Jewish culture represents a broader involvement with more general and universal cultural interests. Sharing Jewish festivals with the family represents life cycle customs and occasions that naturally lead to closing full circle with Jewish religious tradition.

Figure 26. SSA of selected indicators rated as very important in determining the respondents’ Jewish identity, modulated by countries.

The configuration of Jewish identification in Europe appears to have a dual central focus: Jewish peoplehood and Support for Israel. In previous research (DellaPergola 2010, DellaPergola et al. 2018, DellaPergola et al. 2019), we usually found a general sense of belonging to Jewish peoplehood to be the central and more strongly correlated component of Jewish identification in relation to other components of the identificational cluster. This is confirmed here, along with some perceived proximity of Israel with Antisemitism on the map. The additional and even more visible presence of support for Israel at the center of the configuration calls for further comment.

In previous research, the Israeli component of Jewish identification often appeared as one of the peripheral domains on the map. Evidently, as time goes by, the Jewish public has tended to respond – no matter whether rationally or emotionally – to the stimuli it received from the outside environment. The growing perception of negative public opinion and political build-up against Israel may have caused a significant increase in the perceptional salience of Israel. Some rallying behind the Jewish state may have occurred among Jews in different European countries. This is not necessarily going to be translated into a growing tendency to migrate to Israel or even to be active on the Jewish community scene in pro-Israel initiatives. The present findings, however, unequivocally demonstrate that in the latent perception of the European Jewish public, Israel is tending to become a more central identificational locus of attention and concern. Perceptions of critiques and even more so, delegitimization and sometimes demonization versus Israel may have been interpreted by many Jews as attacks against the core of Jewish identification at large. As such, delegitimization has been perceived not only against Israel as a narrow component of the identificational cluster but against the cluster in its totality. Through these declared or undeclared perceptional links and mutations, Jewish perceptions of anti-Israeli moods have become a close match to and an integral component of Jewish perceptions of antisemitism.

Summary and Concluding Remarks

Among many possible avenues in antisemitism research, this paper focused on perceptions of antisemitic attitudes and experiences among a large representative sample of self-defined Jews in 12 EU countries. The theoretical and technical procedure preferred for data processing and display was the relatively less known and practiced Similarity Structure Analysis – SSA. SSA’s holistic approach aims at uncovering the deeper and sometimes latent conceptual structure of an issue beyond its mere descriptive accountancy. As the foregoing presentation may have appeared too formal and technical, I shall summarize here some of the major results and conclusions in non-technical language.

Earlier in this paper, based on the 2013 ADL and 2018 Eurobarometer studies (ADL 2014, European Commission 2019), I found an inverse correlation between the amount of antisemitism in a country as perceived by its inhabitants and as independently assessed in the same country. The finding that the more antisemitism is diffused in a given society, the less that same society perceives antisemitism as a problem is, perhaps, obvious but not trivial. In an antisemitic environment, the perceived problem is not about antisemitism, it is about the Jews. At the same time, perceptions of antisemitism by Jews are considerably higher than perceptions by non-Jews. It may be impossible to adjudicate which of these contrasting perceptions is truer, but from the point of view of research about antisemitism, greater attention should be paid to what the victims, not the potential perpetrators, report. By studying Jewish perceptions of antisemitism, this paper actually dealt with Jewish perceptions of non-Jewish perceptions of Jews.

The essence of antisemitism, and of racism and xenophobia, consists of denying a person’s right to belong in the normal mainstream of society and of coercing him/her into a situation of otherness. Paraphrasing Brian Klug (2013), a broad definition of the syndrome may be turning a subject into an other subject. Looking more closely at Jewish perceptions of the contents of antisemitism, anti-Jewish concepts currently in use sequentially emerged at different stages along history. The empirically verified expressions of contemporary European antisemitic prejudice, indeed, reflect the multiple influences of different doctrines, rhetoric and hatred – whether pagan, Christian, Islamic, nationalist, racist, Nazi-fascist, Marxist, anarchist, Liberal-humanist, or a synergic combination of these. Each different version of anti-Jewish prejudice emerged in totally different contexts at different junctures of history, was then adopted by contemporaries, and was carried forward unchanged by generations of followers. As all possible antisemitic schools of thought have coexisted at all times until the present, it looks as if history had stopped at each particular point in time when each new type of antisemitism emerged. This is why I defined locked modernizations as the feature of different individuals or entire sectors of society that today cling to a variety of concepts that were developed independently in different historical epochs.

Reviewing the findings in somewhat reverse order, it is important to acknowledge that perceptions of antisemitism constitute a fundamental component of the broader complex of contemporary, and, arguably, earlier Jewish identity. This has been demonstrated not only in the present study of Jews in Europe but also in multiple other cases transnationally (DellaPergola 2018, Cohen 2018). Whether or not antisemitism perceptions are really based on facts or only express excessive sensitivity by the target population does not alter the powerful and influential impact of those perceptions. It is difficult to dispute the validity of Benedict Anderson’s portrayal of the construction of imagined communities formed through perceived and sometimes biased ideas about shared collective histories and identities (Anderson 1991). One cannot deny, however, the staying power of those identities and communities, their all-encompassing attraction to people who feel the imagined as real, and sometimes their aggressive role in world affairs cannot be denied either. As far as the Jewish collective is concerned, these perceptions deeply affected Jewish attitudes towards society and civic life at large, stimulated the creation of personal and institutional self-defense mechanisms, and, in some cases, generated pro-active or even militant reactions.

Two aspects are particularly significant in this respect: one is the very high percentage of Jews who said that the fight against antisemitism is essential in defining their Jewish identity; the other is the perceptional proximity between this measure of Jewish identity and a measure representing concern for the State of Israel. As a result of the strong correlation and implicit affinity that exists between these two different identification perceptions, an attack or offense against one of these often reverberated powerfully on the other. The notable and growing centrality of Israel in Jewish identification perceptions went hand in hand with a diminishing distance between perceptions of legitimate criticism of Israel – let alone defamation or boycott – and perceptions of antisemitism. In turn, this strong connection and the perception of growing antisemitism, clearly documented in the foregoing presentation, probably pushed concern for Israel to a more central and shared position within the whole Jewish identificational space.

The issue of whether it is legitimate to criticize Israel without being accused of antisemitism arose after the June 1967 war and has been reinforced through repeated oscillations that reflect periodical contingencies in the Middle East over the years. The various answers in the FRA study on whether criticizing or boycotting Israel was perceived as antisemitic clearly testifies to the need to apply careful distinctions in this respect. Affirmative answers were given by 38% and 82%, respectively, of the Jewish respondents. The difference is striking and points to the unimpaired ability of the Jewish public at large to render considered judgment when expressing opinions about Israel. Perceptions of policies enacted by Israel’s governments in different areas are not the same as perceptions about the legitimacy of Israel’s existence. Nonetheless, the two different statements ultimately struck the same perceptional domain (in this case, cognitive) in the broader perceptional space. Large sections of the Jewish public may have lost the subtler distinctions among a general self-perception of anti-Jewish harassment.

The role of Israel perceptions within the whole antisemitism paradigm calls for further clarification in the light of its increased prominence in Jewish and general perceptions. Nowadays, people and institutions are frequently heard uttering statements such as: “It is not our intention to commit an antisemitic act when we support Israel-oriented BDS. Supporting BDS is not antisemitism.“ The question is whether judgment about what constitutes an offense and who is an offender should be left primarily to the potential perpetrators or to the potentially offended. An offense may have been manifest or latent, true or not true, intended or not intended. Nonetheless, if deemed relevant by the offended, it was an offense. Within these limits, the topic of Israel has become unprecedentedly prominent in Jewish perceptions of antisemitic attitudes. How does this relate to other domains of antisemitism perception?

This study reveals that up to a point, the different contents-wise paradigms were perceived as separate and distinct by Jewish respondents. In the 2012 FRA study, classic antisemitism of the Protocols of the Elders brand (attributing to the Jews distinctive physical markers, foreignness, and a conspiratorial and exploitative nature) occupied a perceptional space distinct from Holocaust denial and from anti-Israel hostility (DellaPergola 2018). In the 2018 FRA study, a definite convergence and fusion appears to have occurred between perceptions of classic antisemitism and Shoah-oriented negationism. Israel-oriented statements to some extent are still understood as a matter separate from classic antisemitism and occupy a distinct perceptional space, but the boundary with the other domains tends to become increasingly blurred and mixed up. I found, for example, that anti-Israeli expressions and the contention of physical recognizability of the Jews – one of the classic items of historical racism – ended up in the same domain on the perceptional map. Such convergence points to the gradual coalescence of anti-Israeli positions and antisemitism into one integrated conceptual complex. Following this logic, Israel’s evil is a byproduct of the Jews’ evil.

Turning to the perception of who the perpetrators of antisemitism are, this study outlined a wide range of perpetrators and manifestly associated each different perpetrator type to specific expressions of anti-Jewish hatred and discrimination. The European Jewish public perceives an association between the political Left with more sophisticated, educated, and influential cultural circles and individuals, namely the printed and broadcasted media, and academia. Those circles and ideas, in turn, are perceived as associated with a narrative that may range from simple criticism of the State of Israel to actively boycotting it and asserting that the world would be better without Israel’s existence. The active role played in promoting such a syndrome by actors in the fields of the media, culture, and academia is a main finding of this study and a cause for serious concern. These people generally perceive themselves among the more knowledgeable and enlightened sectors of society and actually often function themselves as analysts of contemporary antisemitism.

On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the political Right is associated with forms of expression that are more improvised, spontaneous, uneducated, and populist in nature delivered through the social media, graffiti, in social situations, in the public space, at sports events, and so forth. The contents associated with these transmission channels typically refer to classic negative characterizations of Jews as powerful, greedy, selfish, foreign, and hypocritical. Accusations of simulation and exploitation of the Holocaust have become an integral part of this populist/reactionary discourse. Regarding the identification of perceived perpetrators with major religious groups, Christian perpetrators are seen as associated with the Right, Muslim perpetrators with the Left.

In my analysis of the combined nature of contents and channels of transmission of antisemitism, I detected a four-fold typology articulated in the following domains: Practical, Populist, Narrative, and Political antisemitism. One intriguing finding is the perceived position of the Political antisemitism domain in between the Populist and Practical antisemitism domains. Issues such as perceptions of racism and xenophobia as a societal issue and sanction against ritual animal slaughtering but also occasionally the perception of Jews as not nationals of their countries of residence all pertain to actual recent political discourse in European societies. The perception of Practical antisemitism – the subject matter of much recent documentation and research – appears to bear a non-trivial affinity with general societal issues such as crime levels and unemployment but also feared sanction against circumcision. The perception of Muslims as antisemitic perpetrators is revealingly close to the perceived Practical antisemitism domain although it generally converges with the Narrative antisemitism domain and its left-oriented undertones. Teenager perpetrators are perceived as closely associated with Muslims.

The analysis presented here reveals European Jews’ remarkable dual perception of the status of Muslims in Europe: on the one hand, as victims of intolerance mainly from Christian and Right-wing sources, on the other hand, as potentially dangerous perpetrators of antisemitic acts. Significantly, the Muslim issue in Europe is also perceived as distinct from the issue of immigration. Such complex perceptions on the Jewish side, in a highly tense, conflictual, increasingly nationalist and intolerant context ripe with ethnic and racial prejudice, seem to differentiate Jews from the mainstream of emotionally charged political discourse in contemporary European society. This fact may carry ethical advantages but also practical disadvantages.

The foundational breaking point in the perceived anti-Jewish societal challenge is antisemitism cum internet. Unlike preceding major breaking points and conceptual innovations in the antisemitism paradigm, this may appear to be merely a technical incremental step within the available gamut of social, cultural, and political tools and ideas. The consequences, however, are far-reaching for society at large and for the relationship between society and the Jewish collective in particular. The peculiarity of this new stage is a more perfect and efficient fusion between all of the conceptual and executive elements listed thus far. In theory, the medium is not supposed to create new contents but only powerfully to enhance the existing ones. In practice, by efficiently helping to blend and circulate those contents, the medium actually generates a product that may appear as objectively new and considerably more harmful. In the era of the digital, the worldwide web, and social media, the transnational character and circulation of the antisemitic ideological package is greatly enhanced, thus connecting different actors in proximate and distant alliances. One of the main findings of the present analysis, indeed, is that the contents of antisemitism and its transmission channels tend to coalesce into one indistinguishable complex. At the central focal point of Jewish perceptions, nearly overlapping one with another, we find antisemitism as the societal issue of highest concern and the Internet as the principal conveyor. The contents and the tool have become one.

One explanation may help to bridge the gap lying at the basis of the apparent confusion between perceptions of antisemitic contents and of transmission tools that might logically pertain to separate domains. Antisemitism perceptions reflect, in fact, the multiplier of the number of perpetrators of a given act or expression by the number of people exposed to it. The absolute number or relative percentage of perpetrators within a given population may have actually remained very constant – as several studies, indeed, suggest. As a result of the more effective communication of those involved, however, the public impact of antisemitism actually may have increased. By the same token on the receiving side, in the past, the perceptional impact of antisemitism could derive primarily from items experienced personally, whereas nowadays, it becomes the cumulative impact of experiences shared by all those who are interconnected through the web. Here one probably finds the solution to the noted inconsistency between a relatively static perception of antisemitism as unveiled by repeated surveys of the total population and the pressing perceptions of growing antisemitism as expressed by the overwhelming majority of European Jews in 2012 and confirmed in 2018.

One innovative finding of this study concerns the regional differentials in Jewish perceptions, which seem to follow deeply rooted and well-established cultural and socio-economic divisions within the European continent. The 2018 FRA study allows for distinguishing four major geocultural areas: the European northwestern countries, with mainly Protestant societies and medium levels of perceived antisemitism; the mainly Francophone Western countries with high levels of Muslim immigration, and, recently, the theater of murderous anti-Jewish terrorist acts – characterized by high levels of perceived antisemitism; the Mediterranean coast countries, the target of large scale, though partly transient, refugee, and also predominantly Muslim immigration from the Middle East and North Africa – with intermediate levels of perceived antisemitism; and the Central-Eastern European countries of the Visegrad group, characterized by strongly nationalist governments – hence potentially higher perceptions of antisemitism – but also relatively low levels of immigration from other countries. The latter countries, at times, had governments among those more friendly toward the State of Israel.

The basic conceptual elements of antisemitism perceptions are not supposed to differ significantly across cultural areas. However, deeply rooted and different political and social histories in the various countries and regions, along with the different institutional arrangements of Jewish communities that prevail locally, may have determined the observed variation in Jewish sensitivities and emphases. A more in-depth analysis of the structure of antisemitic perceptions within each of the main countries investigated ought to be conducted in the future.

Ultimately, perhaps the most consistent and important finding of this study is the distinction between cognitive and experiential perceptions of antisemitism. In each instance verified in this study, there was a clear separation between the cognitive and experiential perceptional domains. Part of this cleavage reflected the very different frequencies reported for each type of perception – significantly higher for the cognitive than for the experiential. Within each of these two main perceptional modes, however, the typology of contents and transmission channels and of perceived national societal issues and sanction/discrimination was regularly the same. As a perceptional construct, antisemitism appears to be structured into highly coherent, consistent, and stable categories.

Two important implications for future research and policies emerged from this analysis. First, discourse about antisemitism requires clearer articulation that always specifies whether the point of reference is the cognitive or the experiential level. Second, the entire antisemitic syndrome should be treated by acknowledging the distinct domain typologies that I have documented regarding contents, transmission channels, and types of perpetrators, without censorship or mutilations. Partial reading of the whole picture has plagued much of the existing literature about antisemitism.

A third implication for future research emerges from this study. Evidently, any study can report only on the issues it selectively covered. The 2018 FRA survey, but also the previous 2012 survey, and nearly all other recent studies, along with attention to the cognitive and experiential aspects, for the most part, omitted the third main domain of affective perceptions. This omission precludes developing a truly definitive mapping of the latent and explicit connections that are determined in the human mind by the occurrence and/or perception of antisemitic offenses. No plausible and convincing work on antisemitism should ignore the manifold and significant personal emotions that antisemitism arouses in the target individuals and the interrelations of emotional and other perceptional aspects.

The insights provided by the foregoing structural analysis of Jewish perceptions of antisemitism aimed at providing a fresher, more systematic and consistent conceptualization and categorization of the relevant subject matter. In the final analysis, I would suggest a compact reconceptualization of the main gist of contemporary antisemitism as three-fold anti-Jewish negationism. Antisemitism denies the entitlement of the Jew:

–as an individual, to enjoy civil, social, cultural, and political rights equal to other individuals in society;

–as a potential victim and a survivor of planned extermination, to preserve and transmit memory of the destruction of his own people – the Shoah;

–as a member of a national collective, to exert corporate national sovereignty through an independent state – Israel.

Several of these conclusions will not surprise many a reader. The contribution of this paper is to introduce a holistic view of a multiple-variable subject matter, whereas much of the existing literature on antisemitism has addressed only one aspect at a time. An effort was deployed to develop a more precise conceptual typology of antisemitic contents and manifestations, to better appreciate the connection between perceptions of antisemitism and Jewish identity, and to evaluate the intra-European regional variation of the perceived antisemitism phenomenology. The vexed question of the pertinence of anti-Zionist and anti-Israeli expressions as an integral component of Jewish perceptions of antisemitism was addressed, and a clearly positive answer was suggested.

Further important insights on perceptions of antisemitism will be gained once separate and more detailed analyses can be conducted comparing across different segments within the total Jewish population, by gender, age groups, socio-economic status, and cultural characteristics including religiosity. Comparisons between anti-Jewish prejudice and similar attitudes against other ethnic, religious, and cultural groups may also provide valuable insights. In spite of its avowed limits, the present study will hopefully mark a step forward on the long and still partially uncharted path of documenting, understanding, and combating antisemitism.

Bibliography

ADL – Anti Defamation League. 2014. ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-semitism. New York: ADL.

ADL – Anti Defamation League. 2015. ADL Global 100: An Index of Anti-semitism. 2015 Update in 19 Countries. New York: ADL.

Adorno, Theodore, W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.

Almog, Shmuel, ed. 1988. Antisemitism through the Ages. Oxford-New York-Beijing-Frankfurt-São Paulo-Sydney-Tokyo-Toronto: Pergamon Press.

Amar, Reuven, and Shlomit Levy. 2014. “SSA-Similarity Structure Analysis.” In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Wellbeing Research, edited by A.C. Michalos, 6306-6313. Dordrecht: Springer.

Amar, Reuven, and Shlomo Toledano. 2001. Hudap Manual. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Computing Authority.

Arendt, Hannah. 1951. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken.

Arendt, Hannah. 1963. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Viking Press.

Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. London and New York: Verso.

Barna, Ildikó, and Anikó Félix. 2017. Modern Antisemitism in the Visegrád Countries. Budapest: Tom Lantos Institute.

Bauer, Yehuda, ed. 1988. Present-Day Antisemitism. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, The Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism.

Bauer, Yehuda. 2002. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven-London: Yale University Press.

Baum, Steven K., Neil J. Kressel, Florette Cohen-Abady, and Steven Leonard Jacobs, eds. 2016. Antisemitism in North America. New World Old Hate. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Bauman, Zygmunt. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Malden, Massachusetts: Polity Press.

Ben-Itto, Hadassa. 2005. The Lie that Wouldn’t Die: The Protocols of The Elders of Zion. London: Vallentine Mitchell.

Ben-Rafael, Eliezer. 2014. Confronting Allosemitism in Europe: The Case of Belgian Jews. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Bokser Liwerant, Judit. 2017. “Expansion and Interconnectedness of Jewish Life in Times (and Spaces) of Transnationalism: New Realities, New Analytical Perspectives.” In Jews and Jewish Identities in Latin America: Historical, Cultural, and Literary Perspectives, edited by M. Bejarano, Y. Harel, M.F. Topel, and M. Yosifon. New York: Academic Studies Press.

Bokser Liwerant, Judit. 2019. “Sinopias and Pentimenti: Conceptual Approaches and Changing Paths of Antisemitism in Latin America.” Jerusalem, The Hebrew University, The Vidal Sassoon Center for the Study of Antisemitism, The Third Annual Robert Wistrich Memorial Lecture and Award Ceremony.

Bokser Liwerant, Judit, Sergio DellaPergola, Leo Senkman, and Yosi Goldstein. 2015. El educador judío latinoamericano en un mundo transnacional. Vol. 1, Informe de investigación. Vol. 2, Síntesis, conclusiones y recomendaciones del informe de investigación. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Centro Liwerant para el estudio de América Latina, España, Portugal y suyas Comunidades Judías; Mexico: Universidad Hebraica; Buenos Aires: AMIA.

Bokser Liwerant, Judit, and Yael Siman. 2016. “Antisemitism in Mexico and Latin America: Recurrences and Changes.” In Antisemitism in North America. New World Old Hate, edited by S.K. Baum, et al. Leiden-Boston: Brill, 121-189.

Brown, Michael, ed. 1994. Approaches to Antisemitism: Context and Curriculum. New York-Jerusalem: The American Jewish Committee and the International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization.

Browning, Christopher R. 2004. The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 – March 1942 (With contributions by Jürgen Matthäus). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Brubaker, Rogers. 2005. “The ‘diaspora’ diaspora.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28 (1): 1-19.

Cattaneo, Carlo. 1837. Interdizioni israelitiche. Torino: Einaudi, new ed., 1962.

Cohen, Erik. 2012. “The French Case Study: Towards a multi-dimensional analysis. Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in selected EU Member States.” Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University (unpublished paper).

Cohen, Erik. 2013. “France.” In Staetsky et al., Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in selected EU Member States. London: JPR Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Ipsos MORI, 91-93.

Cohen, Jeffrey E. 2018. “Generalized Discrimination Perceptions and American Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism.” Contemporary Jewry 38 (3): 404-433.

Cohen, Robin. 1997. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Coleman, James S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology. 94, Supplement: Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure, S95-S120.

Consonni, Manuela. 2015. “Split at the Root: Italian Jewish Identity between Anti-Zionism and Philo-Semitism.” In Research in Jewish Demography and Identity, edited by E. Lederhendler and U. Rebhun, 98-122. Boston: Academic Studies Press.

Cotler, Irving. 2009. “Global Antisemitism: Assault on Human Rights.” New York: ISGAP, Working paper series. https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ISGAP-Working-Papers-Booklet-Cotler-09-copy.pdf

DellaPergola, Sergio. 2010. “Distancing, yet One.” Contemporary Jewry, 30 (2-3): 183-190.

DellaPergola, Sergio. 2015. “Antisemitism in Italy.” International Journal of Global Diaspora Studies 1 (1): 41-61.

DellaPergola, Sergio. 2018. “Antisemitism: National or Transnational Constellation?” Paper presented at Conference on End to Antisemitism, Vienna, Vienna University, 2018, and at ISA – International Sociological Association, XIX ISA World Congress of Sociology – RC22 Sociology of Religion, Toronto, 2018. Forthcoming in: An End to Antisemitism!, edited by A. Lange, K. Davidowicz, A. Muzicant, D. Porat, and L. Schiffman. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020.

DellaPergola, Sergio. 2019. “World Jewish Population 2018.” In American Jewish Year Book 2018, edited by A. Dashefsky and I. Sheskin. Cham: Springer, 361-449.

DellaPergola, Sergio, Ariela Keysar, and Shlomit Levy. 2019. “Jewish Identification Differentials in Israel and in the United States: Similarity Structure Analysis.” Contemporary Jewry 37 (1): 53-90.

DellaPergola, Sergio, Shlomit Levy, Uzi Rebhun, and Dalia Sagi. 2018. “The Structure of Jewish Identification in the United States: 2001 Revisited.” In Jewish Population and Identity: Concept and Reality, edited by Sergio DellaPergola and Uzi Rebhun, 43-71. Cham: Springer (Studies of Jews in Society 1).

DellaPergola, Sergio, and L. Daniel Staetsky. 2015. From Old and New Directions: Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in Italy. London: Jewish Policy Research Institute – JPR.

Dencik, Lars, and Karl Marosi. 2017. Different Antisemitisms. Perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in Sweden and across Europe. London: Jewish Policy Research Institute – JPR.

Dencik, Lars, and Karl Marosi. 2018. “On Three Distinct Forms of Antisemitism in Contemporary Europe, with a Special Focus on Sweden.” In Anti-Semitism Today and Tomorrow. Global Perspectives on the Many Faces of Contemporary Antisemitism, edited by M. Shainkman. Brighton, Massachusetts: Academic Studies Press, 1-33.

De Michelis, Cesare G. 2004. The Non-existent Manuscript: a Study of the Protocols of the Sages of Zion. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press.

Eddy, Melissa. 2014. “Anti-Semitism Rises in Europe Amid Israel-Gaza Conflict.” The New York Times, Aug. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/02/world/europe/anger-in-europe-over-the-israeli-gaza-conflict-reverberates-as-anti-semitism.html.

Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 1992. Jewish Civilization: The Jewish Historical Experience. Albany: State of New York University Press.

Engel, David. 2009. “Away from a Definition of Antisemitism: an Essay in the Semantics of Historical Description.” In Rethinking European Jewish History, edited by J. Cohen and M. Rosman, 30-53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Epstein, Simha. 1993. “Cyclical Patterns in Antisemitism: the Dynamics of Anti-Jewish Violence in Western Countries since the 1950s.” Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism/ACTA, no 2.

Ettinger, Shmuel. 1978. Modern Anti-Semitism. Tel Aviv: Moreshet (Hebrew).

EUMC – European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. 2004. Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU, 2002-2003. Vienna: European Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.

European Commission, Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. 2019. “Perceptions of antisemitism. Report.” Special Eurobarometer, 484. Brussels: Kantar Public.

Feder, Shira. 2019. “Where Kosher and Halal Meat Production Are now Forbidden.” Forward, January 7. https://forward.com/food/416983/all-the-european-countries-where-kosher-and-halal-meat-production-are-now/.

Feldman, David. 2018. Toward a History of the Term “Anti-Semitism.” The American Historical Review 123 (4): 1139-1150.

Feldman, David, and Ben Gidley. 2018. Antisemitism and Immigration in Western Europe Today: Is there a connection? The case of the United Kingdom. Berlin: Foundation ‘Remembrance, Responsibility and Future’ (EVZ), and London: The Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, University of London.

Feldt, Jakob E. 2016. Transnationalism and the Jews. Culture History and Prophecy. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

Finkelstein, Norman. 2005. Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Finzi, Roberto. 2006. “Tre scritti postbellici sugli ebrei di Benedetto Croce, Cesare Merzagora, Adolfo Omodeo.” Studi Storici, 47, 1, 81-108.

FRA – European Union Fundamental Rights Agency. 2013. Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism. Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2018a. Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism – Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2018b. Antisemitism: Overview of data available in the European Union 2007-2017. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2018c. Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism – Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU. Questionnaire. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Gerstenfeld, Manfred. 2005. “The Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism in European Society.” Jewish Political Studies Review 17 (1-2). https://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-gerstenfeld-s05.htm

Glock, Charles Y., and Rodney Stark. 1966. Christian Beliefs and Anti-Semitism. New York-Evanston-London: Harper Torchbooks.

Glöckner, Olaf. 2013. “Germany.” In Staetsky et al., Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in selected EU Member States, 98-100. London: JPR Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Ipsos MORI.

Graham, David. 2018. European Jewish identity: Mosaic or monolith? An empirical assessment of eight European countries. London: Jewish Policy Research Institute JPR.

Greene, Richard A. 2018. “CNN poll reveals depth of anti-Semitism in Europe.” https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/11/europe/antisemitism-poll-2018-intl/.

Grégoire, Henri J.B. 1788. Essai sur la régénération physique, morale et politique des Juifs. Paris: Flammarion, new ed., 1988.

Gudkov, Lev, and Alex Levinson. 1992. Attitudes toward Jews in the Soviet Union. Public Opinion in Ten Republics. New York: The American Jewish Committee.

Guetta, Betty. 2013. Immagine degli ebrei – Rapporto indagine qualitative Focus Group. Milano: CDEC – Centro di Documentazione Ebraica Contemporanea.

Guttman, Louis. 1968. “A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points.” Psychometrika 33 (4): 469-506.

Helmreich, William B. 1996. Holocaust Survivors and the Successful Lives They Made in America. New Brunswick: Transaction.

Hertz, Joseph H., ed. 1956 [1936]. The Pentateuch and Haftoras, Hebrew Text, English Translations and Commentary. London: Soncino Press.

IHRA – International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. 2016. “Working definition of antisemitism.” Bucharest: IHRA 2016 Romanian Chairmanship.

ISGAP – Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and Policy. 2018. “Measuring Antisemitism – An Expert Research Report in Progress.” Jerusalem: ISGAP – Ministry of Diaspora Affairs – JPPI The Jewish People Policy Institute.

Jewish Voice for Peace. 2017. On Antisemitism. Struggle for Justice in the Jewish World, with a preface by Judith Butler. Chicago: Haymarket Books.

Jikeli, Günther. 2015. “A Framework for Assessing Antisemitism. Three Case Studies (Dieudonné, Erdoğan, and Hamas).” In Deciphering the New Antisemitism, edited by A.H. Rosenfeld, 43-76. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Jickeli, Günther, and Joëlle Allouche-Benayoun. 2013. Perceptions of the Holocaust in Europe and Muslim Communities. Sources, Comparisons and Educational Challenges. Dordrecht: Springer.

Jodice, David A. 1991. United Germany and Jewish Concerns: Attitudes Toward Jews, Israel and the Holocaust. New York: The American Jewish Committee, Working Papers on Contemporary Anti-Semitism.

Judaken, Judah. 2018. “AHR Roundtable Rethinking Anti-Semitism. Introduction.” American Historical Review, 1122-1138.

Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry. 2018. “Antisemitism Worldwide 2017 – General Analysis. Draft.” Tel Aviv: Moshe Kantor Database for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism.

Karmasin, Fritz. 1992. Austrian Attitudes toward Jews, Israel and the Holocaust. New York: The American Jewish Committee, Working Papers on Contemporary Anti-Semitism.

Klug, Brian. 2013. “Interrogating ‘New Anti-Semitism.’” Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 (3): 468-482.

Knobel, Marc. 2013. Haine et violence antisémites. Une rétrospective 2000-2013. Paris: Berg International.

Kovács, András. 2013a. “Hungary.” In Staetsky, et al., Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in selected EU Member States, 97-98. London: JPR Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Ipsos MORI.

Kovács, András. 2013b. “Latvia.” In Staetsky, et al., Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in selected EU Member States, 105-106. London: JPR Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Ipsos MORI.

Kovács, András. 2014. “Antisemitic Prejudices and Dynamics of Antisemitism in Post-Communist Hungary.” Proceedings of the International Conference Antisemitism in Europe Today: the Phenomena, the Conflicts, 8-9 November 2013. Berlin: Jüdisches Museum Berlin, Foundation “Remembrance, Responsibility and Future” and Center for Research on Antisemitism.

Küntzel, Matthias. 2013. “The Roots of Antisemitism in the Middle East. New Debates.” In Resurgent Antisemitism. Global Perspectives, edited by A.H. Rosenfeld, 382–401. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Levi, Primo. 1976. Se questo è un uomo. Appendix. Torino: Einaudi.

Levitt, Peggy, and Mary C. Waters, eds. 2002. The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lewis, Bernard. 1999. Semites and Anti-Semites. An enquiry into conflict and prejudice. New York-London: Norton.

Lindert, Jutta, and Armen T. Marsoobian, eds. 2018. Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Genocide and Memory. Cham: Springer.

Lipstadt, Deborah. 2019. Antisemitism: Here and Now. New York: Schocken.

Lustick, Ian. 2017. “The Holocaust in Israeli Political Culture: Four Constructions and Their Consequences.” Contemporary Jewry 37 (1): 125-170.

Marcus, Kenneth L. 2015. The Definition of Anti-Semitism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marr, Wilhelm. 1879. Statuten des Vereins “Antisemiten-Liga.” Berlin: Hentze.

Marx, Karl. 1976 [1844]. “Zur Judenfrage, Deutsch–Französische Jahrbücher.” In Karl Marx/Friedrich Engels – Werke, 1: 347-377. Berlin: Dietz Verlag.

Meierhenrich, Jens. 2014. Genocide: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press.

Michman, Dan. 2003. Holocaust Historiography: A Jewish Perspective. Conceptualizations, Terminology, Approaches and Fundamental Issues. London: Vallentine Mitchell.

Michman, Dan. 2014. “The Jewish Dimension of the Holocaust in Dire Straits? Current Challenges of Interpretation and Scope.” In Jewish Histories of the Holocaust. New Transnational Approaches, edited by N. Goda, 17-38. New York: Berghahn.

Mignolo, Walter. 2009. “Dispensable and Bare Lives: Coloniality and the Hidden Political/Economic Agenda of Modernity.” Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-knowledge 7 (2): 69-87.

Nirenberg, David. 2013. Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition. New York-London: Norton.

OSCE – ODIHR. 2016. “Hate Crime Reporting. Anti-Semitism 2016.” http://hatecrime.osce.org/what-hate-crime/anti-semitism.

Partington, Alan S. 2012. ”The Changing Discourses on Antisemitism in the UK Press from 1993 to 2009.” Journal of Language and Politics 11 (1): 51-76.

Paxton, Robert O. 2004. The anatomy of fascism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Petrenko, V.F., and O.V. Mitina. 1997. Psikhosemanticheskii analiz dinamiki obshchestvennogo soznaniya. Na materiale politicheskogo mentaliteta. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.

Pew Research Center. 2015/16. Religious Belief and National Belonging in Eastern Europe. Washington: Pew Research Center, Religion and Public Life Project.

Pew Research Center. 2017. Being Christian in Western Europe. Washington: Pew Research Center, Religion and Public Life Project.

Pinto, Diana. 1996. A New Jewish Identity for Post-1989 Europe. London: Jewish Policy Research Institute JPR, Policy Paper 1.

Poliakov, Leon. 2003. The History of Anti-Semitism. Vol. 2, From Mohammed to the Marranos; Vol. 3, From Voltaire to Wagner. Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press, 4 vols.

Popper, Steven. 2018. Toward a Comprehensive Approach for Assessing Antisemitism: Roadmap for Action. Jerusalem: 6th Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism.

Porat, Dina. 2018. “The Struggle over the International Working Definition of Antisemitism.” In Anti-Semitism Today and Tomorrow. Global Perspectives on the Many Faces of Contemporary Antisemitism, edited by M. Shainkman, 86-100. Brighton, Massachusetts: Academic Studies Press.

Premier.gov.pl. 2018. https://www.premier.gov.pl/en/news/news/joint-declaration-of-prime-ministers-of-the-state-of-israel-and-the-republic-of-poland.html.

Rebhun, Uzi. 2014. “Correlates of Experiences and Perceptions of Anti-Semitism among Jews in the United States. Social Science Research 47: 44-60.

Rein, Raanan, and Martina Weisz. 2011. “Ghosts of the Past, Challenges of the Present: New and Old ’Others’ in Contemporary Spain.” In A Road to Nowhere? Jewish Experiences in Unifying Europe, edited by J.H. Schoeps and O.Glöckner, 103-120. Leiden-Boston: Brill.

Romano, Sergio. 1997. Lettera a un amico ebreo. Milano: Longanesi.

Rosenfeld, Alvin. 2019. Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: The Dynamics of Delegitimization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Rudling, Per A. 2006. “Organized Anti-Semitism in Contemporary Ukraine: Structure, Influence and Ideology.” Canadian Slavonic Papers/Revue canadienne des slavistes, 48 (1-2): 83-119.

Russian Jewish Congress – Levada Center. 2018a. Antisemitism as Perceived by the Jewish Population of Russia. Moscow: Russian Jewish Congress – Levada Center.

Russian Jewish Congress – Levada Center. 2018b. The Issue of Antisemitism as Perceived by the Jews and other Russian Urban Populations. Moscow: Russian Jewish Congress – Levada Center.

Sand, Shlomo. 2009. The Invention of the Jewish People. New York: Verso.

Sartre, Jean Paul. 1946. Réflexions sur la question juive. Paris: Gallimard.

Schiller Glick, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton. 1992. “Transnationalism: A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 645 (1):1–24.

Schwarz-Friesel, Monica, and Jehuda Reinharz. 2017. Inside the Antisemitic Mind: The Language of Jew-Hatred in Contemporary Germany. Boston: University Press of New England.

Segel, Binjamin W., and Richard S. Levy. 1995. A Lie and a Libel: The History of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Snyder, Timothy. 2010. Bloodlands. Europe between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books.

Staetsky, L. Daniel. 2017. Antisemitism in Contemporary Great Britain. A Study of Attitudes toward Jews and Israel. London: Jewish Policy Research Institute – JPR.

Staetsky, L. Daniel. 2019a. “Can Convenience Samples be Trusted? Lessons from the Survey of Jews in Europe, 2012.” Contemporary Jewry 39 (1): 117-153.

Staetsky, L. Daniel. 2019b. “Global Levels, Trends, and Correlates of Antisemitic Attitudes through the Prism of Modernization Theory: Insights from the Pew Research Center and World Values Surveys.” Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism 2 (1): 48-63.

Staetsky, L. Daniel, and Jonathan Boyd. 2014. The Exceptional Case? Perceptions and experiences of antisemitism among Jews in the United Kingdom. London: Jewish Policy Research Institute – JPR.

Staetsky, L. Daniel, Jonathan Boyd, Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Erik Cohen, Sergio DellaPergola, Lars Dencik, Olaf Glöckner, and Andras Kovács. 2013. Perceptions and Experiences of Antisemitism among Jews in selected EU Member States. London: JPR Institute for Jewish Policy Research, Ipsos MORI.

Stern, Menachem. 1976. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 1. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Stern, Menachem. 1980. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, vol. 2. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Szakolczai, Arpad. 2016. “The Distinctiveness of the West: Max Weber from Modernity to Antiquity.” Paper published as: “Il carattere distintivo dell’Occidente: Max Weber dalla modernità all’antichità.” Studi di Sociologia 54 (1): 33-48.

The Qur’an. 2004. Translated by M.A.S. Abdel Hadeem. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford World Classics.

Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. 1992. “The Psychological Foundations of Culture.” In The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, edited by J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, and J. Tooby, 19-136. New York: Oxford University Press.

Toynbee, Arnold J. 1947. A Study of History. Abridgment of volumes I-VI by D.C. Somerwell, 135-139. London-New York: Oxford University Press.

Traverso, Enzo. 2016. La fin de la modernité juive. Histoire d’un tournant conservateur. Paris: Editions La Découverte.

Triadafilopoulos, Triadafilos. 2019. “Religious groups, liberal-democratic states and competitive boundary making: The debate over ritual male circumcision in Germany.” Ethnicities 19 (4): 654-673.

UN Watch. 2018. The United Nations and Antisemitism: 2008-2017 Report Card. New York: UN Watch.

Weber, Max. 1904-5. Die Protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus. Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, Bd. XX, 1-54, XXI, 1-110. English translation: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Allen & Unwin, 1976.

Weinfeld, Morton, John J. Sigal, and William W. Eaton. 1981. “Long-term Effects of the Holocaust on Selected Social Attitudes and Behaviors of Survivors: A Cautionary Note.” Social Forces 60 (1): 1-19.

Weisz, Martina L. 2018. Jews and Muslims in Contemporary Spain. Redefining National Boundaries. Berlin: De Gruyter, the Vidal Sassoon Studies in Antisemitism, Racism and Prejudice.

Wieviorka, Michel. 2005. L’antisémitisme. Paris: Balland.

Wistrich, Robert. 2010. A Lethal Obsession: Anti-semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad. New York: Random House.

Yuval, Israel J. 2006. Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Zick, Andreas, Beate Küpper, and Andreas Hövermann. 2011. Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination A European Report. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

Appendix

Sample size in FRA 2012 and 2018 surveys^a

Country	2018	2012	% change 2012-2018	Core Jewish population 31/12/2018	2018 % ratio respondents/ population
Grand total	16,395	5,663	=	1,041,200	1.6
Comparable total	13,083	5,663	131.0	978,800	1.3
Austria	526	=	=	10,000	5.3
Belgium	785	438	79.2	29,100	2.7
Denmark	592	=	=	6,400	9.1
France	3,869	1,162	233.0	450,000	0.9
Germany	1,233	608	102.8	118,000	1.0
Hungary	590	528	11.7	47,300	1.2
Italy	682	649	5.1	27,400	2.5
The Netherlands	1,202	=	=	29,800	4.0
Poland	422	=	=	4,500	9.4
Spain	570	=	=	11,700	4.9
Sweden	1,193	810	47.3	15,000	8.0
United Kingdom	4,731	1,468	222.3	292,000	1.6

a Not including data collected in Romania in 2012 and in Latvia in 2012 and 2018.

Source: FRA 2018a, FRA 2013, DellaPergola 2019.

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research for this paper was undertaken at the Division of Jewish Demography and Statistics of the Institute of Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, headed by Prof. Uzi Rebhun. Many persons and institutions contributed to making the present paper possible. The 2018 study of experiences and perceptions of antisemitism in European Union member countries was directed by Ioannis Dimitrakopoulos, head of Equity’s and Citizens’ Rights Department at FRA – the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. Appreciation is due to Michael O’Flaherty, Director of FRA in Vienna. I benefited from meetings and exchanges with my colleagues in the FRA advisory group to the 2018 survey and the similar 2012 project: Eliezer Ben-Rafael (Tel Aviv University, Israel), Michal Bilewicz (University of Warsaw, Poland), Chantal Bordes-Benayoun (National Centre for Scientific Research, France), Jonathan Boyd (Institute for Jewish Policy Research, United Kingdom), Lars Dencik (Roskilde University, Denmark), Olaf Glöckner (Moses Mendelssohn Zentrum, Germany), Erich Griessler (Institute for Advanced Studies, Austria), András Kovács (Central European University, Hungary), Hannah van Solinge (Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute), Daniel Staetsky (Institute for Jewish Policy Research, United Kingdom), Mark Tolts (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel) and Martina Weisz (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel). Richard Goldstein at JPR in London coordinated contacts with European Jewish communities aimed at enhancing data collection. The late Prof. Erik Cohen (Bar Ilan University, Israel) contributed to the elaboration of the 2012 FRA Survey. I am indebted to several colleagues who offered valuable suggestions to an early draft, among them Yehuda Bauer, Dan Michman, Judit Bokser Liwerant, Manuela Consonni, Daniel Staetsky, and an anonymous reviewer. Stefani Hoffman ably edited the English text. Responsibility for the contents of this paper is the author’s only.

Sergio Della Pergola, demografo

(fine)

(da Jewish Perceptions of Antisemitism in the European Union, 2018: A New Structural Look. Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism. Berlin: De Gruyter, and Jerusalem: SICSA, ACTA, 40, 2, 2020)