United StateS department of State

United StateS department of State 

Contemporary Global anti-SemitiSm: 

a report provided to the United States Congress 


Pdf – many pictures


Cover photo: 

ap images, courtesy of the 

bUreaU of pUbliC affairS

Tom Lantos 


In memory of Tom Lantos, Chairman of the Committee 

on Foreign Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives, 

a leader of moral force and a champion of human rights.  

As the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, he 

attested with uncommon eloquence to a truth based on 

unspeakable experience:  promoting tolerance is essential 

to building a world of freedom and peace. 

May every conscience remember that anti-Semitism is 

always wrong and is always dangerous, may every voice 

speak out against anti-Semitism, and may all of us have the 

civic courage to take action against anti-Semitism and other 

forms of intolerance whenever and wherever they arise.

“The Jewish people have seen, over the years and over 

the centuries, that hate prepares the way for violence.  

The refusal to expose and confront intolerance can lead 

to crimes beyond imagining.  So we have a duty to ex- 

pose and confront anti-Semitism, wherever it is found.” 

President George W. Bush 

May 18, 2004 

Washington, D.C. 

“Gathered in this place we are reminded that such im- 

mense cruelty did not happen in a far-away, uncivilized 

corner of the world, but rather in the very heart of the 

civilized world.…The story of the [concentration] camps 

reminds us that evil is real, and must be called by its 

name, and must be confronted.  We are reminded that 

anti-Semitism may begin with words, but rarely stops 

with words…and the message of intolerance and hatred 

must be opposed before it turns into acts of horror.” 

Vice President Richard B. Cheney 

January 27, 2005 

Krakow, Poland

Contemporary Global Anti-Semitism Report 

Released by the Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor and 

Combat Anti-Semitism, 

U.S. Department of State 


Dear Reader: 

Anti-Semitism is one of the oldest forms of malicious intolerance 

and violates the precepts of human dignity and equality that are 

fundamental to a free and peaceful society. 

History has shown that wherever anti-Semitism has gone 

unchecked, the persecution of others has been present or not far 


Defeating anti-Semitism must be a cause of great importance not 

only for Jews, but for all people who value humanity and justice 

and want to live in a more tolerant, peaceful world.  Together, we 

must continue our efforts to monitor and combat anti-Semitism in 

all of its forms wherever and whenever it occurs. 


Gregg J. Rickman, 

Special Envoy to Monitor and 

Combat Anti-Semitism


Background 1 

Legislation 1 

Purpose of This Report 1 

How This Report Was Prepared 1 

Overview 2 

What This Report Comprises 2 

An Upsurge in Anti-Semitism 3 

Contemporary Forms of Anti-Semitism 4 

Defining Anti-Semitism 6 



Chapter One – Anti-Semitic Incidents 10 

Terrorism 13 

Physical Attacks 14 

Abuse/Intimidation 15 

Property Damage 16 

Cemetery Desecration 17 

Chapter Two – Anti-Semitic Discourse  18 

Conspiracy Theories 19 

Holocaust Denial and Trivialization 22 

Anti-Zionism 26 

Dual Loyalty 27 

Blood Libel 28 

Chapter Three – Traditional and New Anti-Semitism 30 

Traditional Anti-Semitism 31 

New Anti-Semitism 32 


Chapter Four – Government-Sponsored Anti-Semitism 38 

Actions by Heads of State and Other Government Officials 39 

Religious Discrimination and Freedom Issues 41 

State-Sponsored Media 41 






Chapter Five – Anti-Semitism in the United Nations System 46 

Chapter Six – Anti-Semitism in Private Media 54 

Publishing and Broadcasting 55 

The Internet 58 


Chapter Seven – Government Responses 62 

Government Efforts 63 

International Organizations 66 

Other International Efforts 69 

Chapter Eight – Responses by Private Groups and Individuals 71 

Private Groups 71 

Religious and Interfaith Efforts 71 

Individuals 73 


Appendix One – Examples of Anti-Semitic Incidents 77 

Violence 77 

Abuse/Intimidation 77 

Property Damage 78 

Cemetery Desecrations 78 

Appendix Two – European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia 

Working Definition of Anti-Semitism 81 









In response to rising anti-Semitism worldwide, including in some of the strongest democracies, the U.S. 

Congress passed the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004.  On October 16, 2004, President George 

W. Bush signed the legislation into law (Public Law 108-332). 

The Act requires the U.S. Department of State to document and combat acts of anti-Semitism globally.  

To advance these goals, the Act mandated a one-time report on anti-Semitic acts, which the U.S. Depart- 

ment of State submitted to the U.S. Congress in January 2005. 

The Act also established within the U.S. Department of State an Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor 

and Combat Anti-Semitism.  On May 22, 2006, Gregg Rickman was sworn in by U.S. Secretary of State 

Condoleezza Rice as the first Special Envoy. 

Purpose of This Report 

The U.S. Department of State’s January 2005 Report on Global Anti-Semitism surveyed anti-Semitic 

incidents throughout the world.  The annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and the annual 

Report on International Religious Freedom include country-by-country assessments of the nature and 

extent of acts of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incitement.  The Office of the Special Envoy to Monitor 

and Combat Anti-Semitism contributes to the anti-Semitism sections of these annual surveys, pursuant 

to the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act.  Both reports have revealed that incidents of anti-Semitism have 

become more frequent in recent years. 

Consistent with the U.S. Department of State’s commitment to assess and counter anti-Semitism, this 

report is provided to the U.S. Congress to further assess contemporary anti-Semitism by exploring anti- 

Semitic themes and practices.  

This report is meant to be used as a resource for increasing understanding of and informing public 

discourse about contemporary forms of anti-Semitism and for shaping policies to combat anti-Semitism 


How This Report Was Prepared 

The U.S. Department of State prepared this report using information from U.S. embassies, foreign gov- 

ernment officials, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), Jewish and other 

religious leaders, journalists, roundtable discussions, published reports, Jewish communities, and victims 

of anti-Semitic crime. 


The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Public Affairs provided editorial review. 



What This Report Comprises 

This report focuses on the following three areas: 

Forms of Anti-Semitism 

, including anti-Semitic incidents, discourse, and trends. 

Vehicles for Anti-Semitism 

, including national governments, the United Nations system, and 

societal groups. 

Methods for Combating Anti-Semitism 

, including actions by governments, international bodies, 

private groups, and individuals. 

While the report describes many measures that foreign governments have adopted to combat anti-Sem- 

itism, it does not endorse any such measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the 

U.S. Constitution. 


Because the mandate of the U.S. Department of State pertains to foreign countries, this report does not 

include a review of anti-Semitism within the United States, where anti-Semitism also remains a problem. 

This report is not intended to be an exhaustive compendium of all global anti-Semitic incidents.  Rather, 

illustrative examples are used to shed light on the adaptive phenomenon of contemporary anti-Semitism. 




An Upsurge in Anti-Semitism 

Over the last decade, U.S. embassies and consulates have reported an upsurge in anti-Semitism.  This 

rise in anti-Semitism has been documented in the U.S. Department of State’s annual Country Reports on 

Human Rights Practices and its annual Report on International Religious Freedom. 

This same trend has been reported with concern by other governments, multilateral institutions, and 

world leaders.  For example: 

Since 2003, the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has convened 

six major forums addressing anti-Semitism, at which national leaders underscored their commitment to 

combat anti-Semitism at home and abroad.  The OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism held in Berlin in 

April 2004 culminated in the issuance of a declaration (“The Berlin Declaration”)1 that, “Recogniz[es] 

that anti-Semitism…has assumed new forms and expressions, which, along with other forms of intol- 

erance, pose a threat to democracy, the values of civilization and, therefore, to overall security.”  The 

Declaration also states, “unambiguously that international developments or political issues, including 

those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism.” 

The OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) notes in its 2006 annual report Hate 

Crimes in the OSCE Region: Incidents and Responses, “Anti-Semitic incidents and crimes continued to threaten 

stability and security in the OSCE region, remaining at high levels in terms of both frequency and intensity.” 

In December 2006, The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)2 published a 

Summary Overview of the Situation in the European Union 2001-2005, which documents an increase 

in anti-Semitism. 

In the United Kingdom, an All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism launched an investiga- 

tion into anti-Semitism.  The Inquiry produced a September 2006 report, which states, “It is clear that 

violence, desecration of property, and intimidation directed towards Jews is on the rise.” 


In June 2007, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe issued Resolution 1563, which notes, “The 

persistence and escalation of anti-Semitic phenomena…[and that] far from having been eliminated, anti-Semi- 

tism is today on the rise in Europe.  It appears in a variety of forms and is becoming relatively commonplace.” 

This report is intended to provide a broad overview of the state of anti-Semitism globally.  However, it 

is important to note the challenge of collecting this information, particularly in closed societies, as we 

must rely on reported anti-Semitic incidents.  Thus, available statistics tend to reflect anti-Semitic inci- 

dents that occur in open, democratic countries that allow transparent monitoring of societal conditions 

such as anti-Semitism.  In contrast, information about anti-Semitic incidents in closed societies is largely 

unavailable, particularly because nongovernmental groups and scholars reporting from closed societies 

risk persecution.  Indeed, a major challenge in eradicating anti-Semitism is directly linked to that of pro- 

moting transparency and accountability in countries that are less than fully free.  Finally, since statistics 

focus on actual attacks against Jews and facilities used by Jews, they do not capture more generalized 

anti-Semitic attitudes or restrictions, such as those reflected by anti-Semitic political cartoons, or anti- 

Semitic behavior in countries where there is not a significant Jewish population. 

Finally, we note that the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and 

International Religious Freedom Report (both of which are available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl) provide the 

most current, specific, country-by-country examples of reported anti-Semitic incidents. 


Excerpts from the Berlin Declaration can be found in Chapter 7.  

The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia became the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights on March 1, 2007.


Contemporary Forms of Anti-Semitism 

Contemporary anti-Semitism manifests itself in overt and subtle ways, both in places where size- 

able Jewish communities are located and where few Jews live.  Anti-Semitic crimes range from acts 

of violence, including terrorist attacks against Jews, to the desecration and destruction of Jewish 

property such as synagogues and cemeteries.  Anti-Semitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories, and other 

propaganda circulate widely and rapidly by satellite television, radio, and the Internet.  

Traditional forms of anti-Semitism persist and can be found across the globe.  Classic anti-Semitic 

screeds, such as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf, remain common- 

place.  Jews continue to be accused of blood libel, dual loyalty, and undue influence on government 

policy and the media, and the symbols and images associated with age-old forms of anti-Semitism 

endure.  These blatant forms of anti-Semitism, often linked with Nazism and fascism, are considered 

unacceptable by the mainstream in the democratic nations of Western Europe, North America, and 

beyond, but they are embraced and employed by the extreme fringe.  

Anti-Semitism has proven to be an adaptive phenomenon.  New forms of anti-Semitism have 

evolved.  They often incorporate elements of traditional anti-Semitism.  However, the distinguishing 

feature of the new anti-Semitism is criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy that—whether intentionally 

or unintentionally—has the effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and 

Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character. 

This new anti-Semitism is common throughout the Middle East and in Muslim communities in 

Europe, but it is not confined to these populations.  For example, various United Nations bodies are 

asked each year on multiple occasions to commission investigations of what often are sensational- 

ized reports of alleged atrocities and other violations of human rights by Israel.  Various bodies have 

been set up within the UN system with the sole purpose of reporting on what is assumed to be on- 

going, abusive Israeli behavior.  The motive for such actions may be to defuse an immediate crisis, to 

show others in the Middle East that there are credible means of addressing their concerns other than 

resorting to violence, or to pursue other legitimate ends.  But the collective effect of unremitting 

criticism of Israel, coupled with a failure to pay attention to regimes that are demonstrably guilty of 

grave violations, has the effect of reinforcing the notion that the Jewish state is one of the sources, 

if not the greatest source, of abuse of the rights of others, and thus intentionally or not encourages 


Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace.  Anti- 

Semitism couched as criticism of Zionism or Israel often escapes condemnation since it can be more 

subtle than traditional forms of anti-Semitism, and promoting anti-Semitic attitudes may not be the 

conscious intent of the purveyor.  Israel’s policies and practices must be subject to responsible criti- 

cism and scrutiny to the same degree as those of any other country.  At the same time, those criticiz- 

ing Israel have a responsibility to consider the effect their actions may have in prompting hatred of 

Jews.  At times hostility toward Israel has translated into physical violence directed at Jews in gener- 

al.  There was, for example, a sharp upsurge in anti-Semitic incidents worldwide during the conflict 

between Hizballah and Israel in the summer of 2006.3 

This upsurge was documented in the U.S. Department of State’s 2006 annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, as well as its annual Report on 

International Religious Freedom.  These reports can be found at http://www.state.gov/g/drl. 



Governments are increasingly recognized as having a responsibility to work against societal anti- 

Semitism.  But instead of taking action to fight the fires of anti-Semitism, some irresponsible leaders 

and governments fan the flames of anti-Semitic hatred within their own societies and even beyond 

their borders.  Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has actively promoted Holocaust denial, 

Iran’s Jewish population faces official discrimination, and the official media outlets regularly pro- 

duce anti-Semitic propaganda.  The Syrian government routinely demonizes Jews through public 

statements and official propaganda.  In Belarus, state enterprises freely produce and distribute 

anti-Semitic material.  And in Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has publicly demonized Israel and 

utilized stereotypes about Jewish financial influence and control, while Venezuela’s government- 

sponsored mass media have become vehicles for anti-Semitic discourse, as have government news 

media in Saudi Arabia and Egypt

Elsewhere, despite official condemnation and efforts to combat the problem, societal anti-Semitism 

continues to exist.  In Poland, the conservative Catholic radio station Radio Maryja is one of Eu- 

rope’s most blatantly anti-Semitic media venues.  The Interregional Academy of Personnel Manage- 

ment, a private institution in Ukraine commonly known by the acronym MAUP, is one of the most 

persistent anti-Semitic institutions in Eastern Europe.  In Russia and other countries where xenopho- 

bia is widespread, such as some in Central and Eastern Europe, traditional anti-Semitism remains a 

problem.  In France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, anti-Semitic violence remains 

a significant concern.  Recent increases in anti-Semitic incidents have been documented in Argen- 

tina, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and beyond. 

Today, more than 60 years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is not just a fact of history, it is a 

current event.  Around the globe, responsible governments, intergovernmental organizations, non- 

governmental groups, religious leaders, other respected figures, and ordinary men and women are 

working to reverse the disturbing trends documented in this report.  Much more remains to be done 

in key areas of education, tolerance promotion, legislation, and law enforcement before anti-Semi- 

tism, in all its ugly forms, finally is consigned to the past. 



Defining Anti-Semitism 

A widely accepted definition of anti-Semitism can be useful in setting the parameters of the issue.  Such 

a definition also helps to identify the statistics that are needed and focuses attention on issues that policy 

initiatives should address. 

The definition of anti-Semitism has been the focus of innumerable discussions and studies.  The definition 

has evolved over the centuries depending upon the time, the place, and the circumstances. 

According to the current edition of Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, which continues to use an 1882 defi- 

nition, anti-Semitism is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial 

group.”  While the basic elements of this definition remain applicable, anti-Semitism is an adaptive phe- 

nomenon and continues to take on new forms.  Efforts have been underway this past decade to determine 

an approach for collecting data on anti-Semitism that corresponds to its contemporary manifestations. 

The European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)—in close collaboration with the Or- 

ganization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 

international experts on anti-Semitism, and civil society organizations—began discussing a common ap- 

proach to data collection on anti-Semitism.  This effort led to the drafting of a Working Definition of Anti- 

Semitism.  The EUMC’s working definition provides a useful framework for identifying and understanding 

the problem and is adopted for the purposes of this report: 

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.  Rhe- 

torical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish indi- 

viduals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 

Because the working definition is broad, the EUMC provides explanatory text that discusses the kinds of 

acts that could be considered anti-Semitic: 

“Such manifestations [of anti-Semitism] could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish 

collectivity.  Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often 

used to blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’  It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and ac- 

tion, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits. 

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the 

religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: 

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or 


an extremist view of religion. 

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such 


or the power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a 

world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal 


Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a 


single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. 

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of 


the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices 

during World War II (the Holocaust). 



Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 


Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews 


worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into 

account the overall context could include: 

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.… 


Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other 


democratic nation. 

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing 


Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. 


Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. 


The EUMC makes clear, however, that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country 

cannot be regarded in itself as anti-Semitic.4 

This definition is adapted from the EUMC “Working Definition of Anti-Semitism” document, which can be found in its entirety in Appendix Two.










My name is Daniel Pearl. 

I am a Jewish American from Encino, California. 

My father is Jewish.  My mother is Jewish.  I am Jewish. 

     – Daniel Pearl, February 2002, 

     moments before he was 

     beheaded by terrorists in 

     Karachi, Pakistan.





Over much of the past decade, U.S. embassies world- 

wide have noted an increase in anti-Semitic incidents, 

such as attacks on Jewish people, property, community 

institutions, and religious facilities.  Other govern- 

ments, international institutions, and nongovernmental 

groups have documented similar trends, including the 

United Kingdom Parliament, the European Monitor- 

ing Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), the 

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s 

Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 

(ODIHR), and the NGO Human Rights First.5 

Reinforcing these findings, in 2006 Tel Aviv University’s 

Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary 

Anti-Semitism and Racism, which produces the most 

comprehensive, global statistical analysis of anti-Semitic 

incidents, saw the highest number of physical, verbal, 

and visual manifestations of reported anti-Semitism 

since 2000.  There were 593 cases of major anti-Semitic 

incidents registered worldwide (compared to 406 in 

2005).  The sharp increase included major attacks per- 

petrated with a weapon and intent to kill (19 compared 

to 15 in 2005) and serious incidents of violence and 

vandalism aimed at Jewish persons, property, and insti- 

tutions (574 compared to 391 in 2005). 

The Roth Institute’s statistics reflect anti-Semitic inci- 

dents chiefly against Jews and facilities used by Jews 

where they generally are allowed the freedom to live 

and express themselves—it does not capture more 

generalized anti-Semitic attitudes or restrictions.  This 

explains why the Middle East is not listed.6  These 

statistics also need to be seen in the proper context.  

The Roth Institute receives information from a variety of 

reporting sources, including multinational and national 

NGOs, governmental organizations, and research insti- 

tutes.  Because open, democratic governments tend to 

allow NGOs to gather information freely about societal 

conditions and also are apt to report such information 

themselves, global statistics about anti-Semitic inci- 

dents are disproportionately skewed against Western 

democratic countries.  Statistical analysis also is com- 

plicated by the fact that some countries record attacks 

against Jews as “hooliganism” or ordinary criminal 

attacks, without recording the anti-Semitic nature of 

a crime; thus, such attacks often are not reflected in 

national statistics.   In addition, countries’ differing data 

collection methodologies complicate efforts to make 

accurate cross-country comparisons on anti-Semitic 



The NGO Human Rights First documented an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in its June 2007 report, Anti-Semitism: 2007 Hate Crime Survey. 

In the Middle East, Jews do not constitute a significant portion of the population in most countries; the largest Jewish population outside of Israel is found 

in Iran, where roughly 25,000 to 30,000 Jews remain.  Information about anti-Semitic incidents—as opposed to statements—in Iran largely is unavail- 

able, particularly because NGOs and scholars reporting from Iran face intimidation. 

Eastern Europe    10 

Latin America    11 

Africa     15 

Oceania     50 

CIS and Baltic States   80 

North America    103 

Western Europe    324 


Geographic Breakdown of 593 Major Anti-Semitic Incidents Against Jewish 

Individuals and Facilities in 2006 (Based on Roth Institute Statistics):


According to the Roth Institute data, of the 593 major 

incidents (against Jews, schools, community cen- 

ters, cemeteries, memorials, synagogues, and private 

property), the year 2006 also saw a sharp increase in 

the number of reported physical attacks on Jews—277 

compared to 133 in 2005.  Such assaults mostly took 

place in schools, at the workplace, and in streets near 

Jewish institutions, and usually were unplanned and 

opportunistic.  While reports of desecration of cem- 

eteries and memorials remained roughly on the same 

level as in 2005, 50% more schools and community 

centers were reported to be attacked, and 105 syna- 

gogues were reported damaged, compared to 64 in 



Increases in Major and Non-Major Anti-Semitic Incidents in 2006 7 

Increases in reported anti-Semitic incidents and expressions of anti-Semitism in 2006 took place in the 

following countries: 


Argentina, 586 reported anti-Semitic incidents, a 35% increase over 2005.  (Source: 

Delegation of Argentine Israelite Associations) 


Australia, 440 reported anti-Semitic incidents (October 1, 2005-September 30, 2006), a 

32.5% increase over the previous year.  From October 1, 2006-September 30, 2007, there were 

630 reported anti-Semitic incidents.  (Source: Executive Council of Australian Jewry) 


Belgium, 66 reported incidents, the largest number of acts since 2001, the first year 

anti-Semitic incidents were recorded as such.  (Source: Bureau Executif de Surveillance 



Canada, 935 reported incidents, a 12.8% increase over the previous year.  (Source: B’nai 



France, 371 reported anti-Semitic episodes, a 24% increase over 2005, including 112 

physical attacks, a 45% increase over 2005.  However, statistics for the first half of 2007 reveal a 

28% decrease in overall incidents compared to 2006.  (Source: Service for the Protection of the 

Jewish Community) 


New Zealand, the Jewish community reported 32 incidents of anti-Semitism, an increase 

of 88% over 2005, although only 11 complaints of anti-Semitism were formally reported to 

the national Human Rights Commission.  (Sources: Jewish Council of New Zealand and New 

Zealand Human Rights Commission) 


South Africa, 76 reported anti-Semitic incidents, the highest number since detailed record- 

keeping was initiated two decades ago.  (Source: Stephen Roth Institute) 


Switzerland, 140 reported anti-Semitic incidents: 73 in the German-speaking region, double 

the number from the previous year; and 67 in the French-speaking region, a decline from 75 in 

2005.  (Source: Intercommunity Center for Coordination against Anti-Semitism and Defamation) 

In the 

United Kingdom, 594 reported anti-Semitic incidents, a 31% increase over 2005.  This 

number of reported incidents is more than any other year since 1984, when statistics began to 

be kept.  (Source: Community Security Trust) 

Since “Major and Non-Major Incidents” includes reports of all kinds, this is a much broader category of incidents than the Roth Institute statistics cited 

on page nine.



In addition to increases in major incidents, such as 

serious violent attacks and cases of actual damage 

to property, a number of countries also experienced 

increases in overall anti-Semitic incidents, including 

non-violent incidents such as graffiti and verbal as- 


Descriptions of some of the major contemporary anti- 

Semitic incidents follow, including of terrorist attacks, 

violence, abuse, property damage, and cemetery 

desecration.  The examples cited illustrate the wide- 

ranging and geographically diverse nature of some of 

the most easily identifiable acts of anti-Semitism. 


Terrorist attacks and threats aimed at Jewish commu- 

nities worldwide have been linked to Islamist terror- 

ist groups, which, in the name of global jihad, have 

declared their intentions to attack Jews and Jewish 

targets.  Some of the attacks also have been linked 

to state sponsors of terrorism.  Significant incidents 



Buenos Aires, Argentina, on July 18, 1994, 

the most lethal anti-Semitic attack since 

World War II occurred when terrorists struck 

the Argentina Jewish Mutual Association 

(AMIA), which housed the Argentine Jewish 

Federation, killing 85 people and injuring 

more than 150 others.  On October 25, 2006, 

an Argentine Federal Special Prosecuting Unit 

investigating the bombing concluded that it 

was planned and financed by the government 

of Iran and carried out with operational 

assistance from Hizballah and local Iranian 

diplomats.  On November 9, 2006, an 

Argentine judge issued arrest warrants for 

all nine individuals listed in the prosecutor’s 

indictments.  On March 15, 2007, the 

Interpol Executive Committee recommended 

by consensus the issuance of international 

capture notices for six suspects wanted for 

the AMIA bombing.  The Government of 

Iran appealed the decision.  On November 

7, 2007, the INTERPOL General Assembly 

voted to uphold the INTERPOL Executive 

Committee’s decision to issue Red Notices for 

five current and former Iranian officials and 

one Lebanese national. 


Istanbul, Turkey, on November 15, 2003, two 

car-bomb attacks were carried out simultaneously 

at the Beth Israel and Neve Shalom synagogues.  

The synagogues were full of Sabbath congregants 

when the blasts went off; 29 people were killed, 

and hundreds more were wounded.  A local 

organization influenced by, and under the aegis 

of, Al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. 

Buenos Aires, July 18, 2006.  Thousands of friends and relatives 

of the 85 victims of the bombing of the AMIA Jewish com- 

munity center gather to commemorate the 12th anniversary of 

the most lethal contemporary anti-Semitic terrorist attack. (AP 


Relatives of Murat Sahin, a Turkish man who was killed during 

the Neve Shalom Synagogue bombing, carry photographs of him 

during a ceremony near the synagogue in Istanbul, Turkey, No- 

vember, 15, 2006.  Relatives and friends gathered to commemo- 

rate the 2003 suicide attack on the synagogue.  (AP Images)




Casablanca, Morocco, on May 16, 

2003, local adherents of the Salafiya 

Jihadiya movement (with links to Al- 

Qaeda and other terrorist movements) 

carried out four explosive attacks aimed 

at Jewish community institutions, killing 

42 people—including several of the 

bombers—and wounding approximately 

100 others.  


Djerba, Tunisia, on April 11, 2002, 

a suicide bomber detonated a truck 

loaded with propane gas outside of one 

of the world’s oldest and most historic 

synagogues, killing over 20 people and 

injuring many more.  The Islamic Army for 

the Liberation of the Holy Sites claimed 


Even prior to these terrorist attacks, the Moroccan, 

Tunisian, and Turkish governments took very seri- 

ously their responsibilities to protect non-Muslim 

communities and have offered security and/or 

warnings of possible attacks to those communities.  

Since the attacks, they have increased their protec- 

tive measures even further.  Similarly, Argentina 

takes special steps to protect its Jewish community 

from attack. 

Yet, despite security efforts by governments, there 

continue to be on-going reports of large-scale 

attacks planned against the Jewish community 

worldwide.  In 2006, there were reports of a 

potential attack against a synagogue and other 

targets in Oslo, Norway and reports of an explo- 

sive device found outside a synagogue in Bastia, 

on the island of Corsica, France.  These and other 

terrorist plots against Jewish entities were dis- 

rupted, but the fear of a terrorist attack is com- 

monplace among Jewish populations around the 

world.  Many Jewish communities, schools, muse- 

ums, and synagogues have instituted high levels of 


Physical Attacks 

Worldwide anti-Semitic incidents include direct and 

violent attacks on Jews, sometimes leading to serious 

injury or death.  In all of the following examples, the 

Jewishness of the victim was the reason for the attack.8 


Zhytomyr, Ukraine, on September 27, 2007, 

an attacker sprayed a noxious gas into the face 

of Rabbi Menakhem Mendel Lichstein.  On 

August 6, 2007, Rabbi Nahum Tamrin and his 

wife Tzipora were attacked near the Zhytomyr 

synagogue; they required medical treatment 

for bruises and broken teeth.  On July 9, 2007, 

three youths attempted to attack Zhytomyr’s 

Chief Rabbi Shlomo Wilhelm. 


Melbourne, Australia, on August 18, 2007, 

a 17-year-old yeshiva student walking home 

from a kosher restaurant was assaulted by two 

men with baseball bats.  The men yelled, “Jew, 

you deserve to die” as they beat him. 


Moscow, Russia, on January 11, 2006, 

a man entered a synagogue shouting anti- 

Semitic epithets and attacked worshippers 

with a knife during evening prayer, injuring 

nine people before being subdued.9 

Rabbi Yitzak Kogan stands in the Chabad Bronnaya synagogue 

in downtown Moscow, the morning of January 12, 2006, the 

day after a man attacked congregants with a knife.  Both Rus- 

sian President Vladimir Putin and the Foreign Ministry publicly 

condemned the attack.  (AP Images) 

Additional illustrative examples of recent violent anti-Semitic incidents can be found in Appendix One. 

The assailant was convicted of attempted murder and initially sentenced to 13 years in prison.  The prosecutor successfully appealed the court’s neglect to con- 

sider the anti-Semitic motive of the crime, and the sentence was extended to 16 years in prison.




Paris, France, in January 2006, Ilan Halimi, 

a French Jew, was kidnapped by a gang of 

African immigrants who mutilated him, while 

negotiating with his parents by phone for 

a ransom.  A month later, they left him in 

a field, naked and burned.  He died on the 

way to the hospital.  When extradited back 

to France from Cote d’Ivoire, the gang leader 

admitted that they targeted Halimi because he 

was Jewish and, “All Jews have money.” 


Verbal anti-Semitic abuse and intimidation of both 

Jewish individuals and institutions continues to be 

a societal problem in countries around the globe.  

While such abuse does not involve physical harm, 

it raises the level of anxiety within Jewish commu- 

nities and frequently includes the threat of physi- 

cal attack.  The following are illustrative examples 

of such anti-Semitic acts.10 


Buenos Aires, Argentina, on October 

6, 2007, an Orthodox Jewish woman was 

walking near the Shoppin Abasto shopping 

center when a skinhead raised his hand in 

the Nazi salute and shouted, “You Jewish 

[expletive]!  They should have done all of 

you in!” 


Amstelveen, The Netherlands, on 

August 15, 2007, a Jewish family received 

an envelope containing a picture of 

a stereotyped Jew standing behind 

Holocaust-era barbed wire fences and a 

note reading, “Hurray to the Nazi SS.” 


Sao Paulo, Brazil, in July 2006, possibly 

in retaliation for the conflict between 

Hizballah and Israel at the time, a Jewish 

community leader received threats on his 

life, and his synagogue was damaged when 

a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the front 



Saada, Yemen, in January 2007, al- 

Houthi extremists threatened to kill all 

the members of the historic community 

of 45 Jews living in Yemen’s northern 

governorate of Saada unless they left their 

village immediately; the Saada Jews fled 

to the capital Sana’a, where the Yemeni 

government provided them with shelter 

while battling the al-Houthis in Saada. 

Ruth Halimi displays a photo of her son Ilan on February 23, 

2006, a week after he was killed in an incident that revived 

concerns of anti-Semitism in France.  (AP Images) 


Additional illustrative examples of recent anti-Semitic abuse and intimidation can be found in Appendix One.  None of the examples of abuse and 

intimidation in this section or in Appendix One reflect official support for or tolerance of anti-Semitism, as political leaders of the countries men- 

tioned frequently speak out against anti-Semitic abuse and intimidation, and many governmental efforts to combat anti-Semitism are underway 

(see Chapter 7).



Property Damage 

Vandalism, which often is severe and premeditated, 

is another manifestation of anti-Semitism.  With the 

exception of cases of anti-Semitic graffiti and minor 

vandalism, the governments concerned condemned 

and investigated all of the following acts.11 


Kyiv, Ukraine, on October 31, 2007, the 

Simcha school, a Chabad institution, was 

damaged by arson.  Four classrooms had 

serious damage but classes resumed within 

two days of the fire. 


Geneva, Switzerland, on May 24, 2007, 

the Hekhal Hanes synagogue was seriously 

damaged in a fire that police later ruled as 



Montreal, Canada, on April 3, 2007, the 

Ben Weider Jewish Community Center was 

firebombed on the second night of Passover. 


Berlin, Germany, on February 25, 2007, a 

Jewish kindergarten was defaced with swastikas 

Members of a Swiss fire brigade work at the Hekhal Hanes 

synagogue in Geneva, Switzerland, May 24, 2007.  More than 

40 firefighters were needed to extinguish the blaze, which was 

caused by arson.  (AP Images) 

“Soccer Anti-Semitism” 

While anti-Jewish discrimination in professional 

sports has become increasingly rare, incidents of 

anti-Semitic shouts, chants, and songs at soccer 

events continue to be reported over a wide geo- 

graphic area.  

In the United Kingdom, in late September 2007, 

Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck claimed that Chelsea 

fans were making anti-Semitic comments about the 

team’s new Jewish manager, Avraham Grant.   

In Prague, Czech Republic, on August 17, 2007, 

Sparta Prague fans seeking to insult the opposing 

team chanted “Jude” (the German word for Jew) at 

its Champions League qualifying match against the 

Arsenal team from the United Kingdom.  

In Poland, soccer fans of opposing teams have been 

known to call each other “Jew” as a term of abuse.  

In Paris, France, on November 26, 2006, a mob of 

up to 300 men chased a French fan of the Tel Aviv 

soccer team after a game, shouting “dirty Jew” and 

“fat Jew,” while making Nazi salutes and other ges- 

tures; an undercover police officer shot and killed 

one of the assailants while protecting the fan.  

In Pamplona, Spain, on November 25, 2006, De- 

portivo La Coruna fans yelled anti-Jewish slurs at the 

team’s Israeli goalkeeper Dudu Awate.  

In Argentina, on November 21, 2006, during a 

soccer match, Defensores de Belgrano fans chanted 

anti-Semitic songs against Atlanta fans and players.  

In Berlin, Germany, on September 26, 2006, VSG 

Altglienicke fans chanted, “Gas the Jews” and 

“Auschwitz is back” at Jewish soccer team TuS Mak- 

kabi Berlin.  

In Italy, on July 11, 2006, neo-Nazis celebrating 

Italy’s World Cup victory in the Jewish quarter of 

Rome vandalized walls, doors, and vehicles with 

swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti. 



Additional illustrative examples of recent anti-Semitic property damage can be found in Appendix One.


and other Nazi symbols and slogans.  The 

perpetrators also threw a smoke bomb into the 

kindergarten, which did not ignite. 


Minsk, Belarus, on November 12, 2006, 

vandals damaged a World War II monument 

to Jews from the German city of Bremen who 

died in the Minsk ghetto. 

Cemetery Desecration 

While it sometimes is difficult to distinguish random 

vandalism from vandalism that has a distinct anti- 

Semitic intent, cemetery desecration is a specific form 

of property damage often targeted at the Jewish com- 



Wellington, New Zealand, on October 30, 

2007, in the Karori Cemetery six graves were 

defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti, including 

“Hitler RIP,” “Rot you filth,” and “Juden 

[Jewish] swine.”  Three years before, more than 

100 Jewish graves at two other cemeteries in 

Wellington were desecrated. 


Ihringen, Germany, on August 12, 2007, 

more than 70 gravestones were knocked over 

in the Jewish cemetery.  The cemetery also was 

vandalized twice in the 1990s. 


Czestochowa, Poland, on August 5, 2007, 

vandals desecrated about 100 gravestones at one 

of the country’s largest Jewish cemeteries.  The 

letters “SS,” swastikas, and the slogan “Jews Out” 

were spray-painted on the gravestones. 


Lille, France, in early April 2007, some 50 

Jewish gravestones were desecrated on the eve 

of Passover. 


Odesa, Ukraine, on February 19, 2007, 

vandals desecrated a local Holocaust 

memorial, as well as over 300 Jewish graves, 

stenciling them with red swastikas and 

the inscription, “Congratulations on the 

Holocaust.”  The Holocaust memorial marks 

the site where Nazis killed thousands of 

Jews from 1941-1944.  The same Holocaust 

memorial was similarly vandalized in April 

2006; swastikas and anti-Semitic epithets were 

scrawled in paint. 

An Italian carabinieri paramilitary police officer looks at one of 

the tombs damaged in a Jewish cemetery in Milan, Italy, May 16, 

2006.  About 40 tombstones in Milan’s Jewish cemetery were 

knocked over the prior evening.  (AP Images) 

A Jewish community leader is about to enter the swastika- 

smeared door of the Vladivostok synagogue as the chief rabbi of 

Vladivostok and the Far Eastern Primorsky region points, March 

2, 2007.  (AP Images) 



Additional illustrative examples of recent anti-Semitic cemetery desecration can be found in Appendix One.


“The crimes with which the Jews have been charged 

in the course of history—crimes which were used to 

justify the atrocities perpetrated against them—have 

changed in rapid succession.  They were supposed to 

have poisoned wells.  They were said to have murdered 

children for ritual purposes.  They were falsely charged 

with a systematic attempt at the economic domination 

and exploitation of all mankind.  Pseudo-scientific books 

were written to brand them an inferior, dangerous race.  

They were reputed to foment wars and revolutions for 

their own selfish purposes.  They were presented at once 

as dangerous innovators and as enemies of true progress.  

They were charged with falsifying the culture of nations 

by penetrating the national life under the guise of 

becoming assimilated.  In the same breath they were 

accused of being so inflexible that it was impossible for 

them to fit into any society.” 

Albert Einstein in Collier’s 

Magazine, November 1938, 

immediately following 

Kristallnacht, the “night of 

broken glass.”





Conspiracy Theories 

As noted in the EUMC Working Definition of Anti- 

Semitism, “anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with 

conspiring to harm humanity, and it often is used to 

blame Jews for ‘why things go wrong.’”  The EUMC 

includes as contemporary examples of anti-Semitism, 

“Making mendacious, dehumanizing, or stereotypical 

allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as 

a collective—such as…the myth about a world Jewish 

conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, 

government or other societal institutions.”  

Anti-Semitism is at the root of numerous contemporary 

conspiracy theories, including the following examples 

of false claims. 

Four thousand Jews were falsely accused of not 


reporting to work at the World Trade Center on 

September 11, 2001, supposedly because they 

had been warned not to do so by those who 

had advance knowledge of the attack. 

The October 2002 terrorist bombing of a 


nightclub in Bali, Indonesia was falsely 

rumored to have been caused by an Israeli 

“mini-nuclear weapon.” 

The December 2004 South and Southeast 


Asian tsunami, caused by an earthquake, was 

falsely rumored to have been caused by a joint 

U.S.-Israeli underground nuclear test. 

The United States and Israel are falsely accused 


of having created an “American Quran”—a 

document that does not exist. 

U.S. founding father Benjamin Franklin is 


falsely alleged to have said that Jews were a 

“great danger” to the United States and should 

be “excluded by the Constitution.” 

Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories play to widespread ha- 

treds and suspicions.  The examples above did not arise 

spontaneously.  In many cases, they had been deliber- 

ately concocted.  An examination of each follows: 

The first known appearance of the spurious claim that 

“4,000 Jews” or “4,000 Israelis” knew about the Sep- 

tember 11, 2001 attacks beforehand was on Hizballah’s 

Al-Manar television on September 17, 2001.  The com- 

mentator claimed that 4,000 Israelis who worked at the 

World Trade Center, “Remarkably, did not show up in 

their jobs” on September 11. 

The 4,000 figure apparently came from an article entitled 

“Hundreds of Israelis missing in World Trade Center at- 

tack,” which appeared in the September 12 Internet edi- 

tion of the Jerusalem Post.  It stated, “The Foreign Ministry 

in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israe- 

lis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade 

Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks”—in 

other words, in New York City and Washington, D.C. 

This tentative estimate that 4,000 Israelis had been in 

two of the largest metropolitan areas of the United States 

in early September 2001 was then transformed into the 

false claim that 4,000 Israelis or Jews did not report for 

work at the World Trade Center on September 11.  A fur- 

ther elaboration of this falsehood claims that Jews who 

worked at the World Trade Center had been warned by 

the Israeli foreign intelligence service, Mossad, not to go 

to work that day.  A related false claim is that, two days 

before the attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon 

supposedly cancelled a trip to New York City. 


“Syria has documented proof of the Zionist 

regime’s involvement in the September 11 terror 

attacks on the United States …[That] 4,000 Jews 

employed at the World Trade Center did not show 

up for work before the attack clearly attests to 

Zionist involvement in these attacks.”  

– The Syrian ambassador to Iran,Turki 

Muhammad Saqr, at a conference held 

at the Iranian Foreign Ministry on 

October 24, 2001



The false belief that Israel and Jews were behind the 

September 11 attacks also was spread visually. 

In the above cartoon, which appeared on June 23, 

2002 in Al-Watan13 Arabic daily newspaper in Qatar, 

Ariel Sharon is shown watching on the sidelines as 

an Israeli plane crashes into the World Trade Center, 

which spells the words “the peace.” 

The World Trade Center claim has been widely be- 

lieved.  An October 13, 2001 story in The Washington 

Post reported: 

13% of Pakistanis questioned about the story of 

4,000 Jewish survivors described it as a “rumor,” 

71% thought it was a “possible fact,” and only 

16% thought it was “baseless.” 

The fact is, there was no mass absence of any group 

of people at the World Trade Center on September 11.  

An estimated 10 to 15% of the 2,071 occupants of the 

World Trade Center who died were Jewish, as attested 

to by the numerous funerals of World Trade Center 

victims at synagogues and temples. 

The false claim that the October 2002 Bali bombing 

was caused by an Israeli “mini-nuke” was invented 

by Joe Vialls, an anti-Semitic Australian conspiracy 

theorist and self-proclaimed “private investigator” 

who died in 2005.  Vialls had a penchant for elabo- 

rate, bizarre conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated 

claims.  The “mini-nuke” claim did not spread widely, 

although it was reported in the Indonesian press. 

One week after the South and Southeast Asian tsu- 

nami in December 2004, a January 1, 2005 article by 

Mahmud Bakri in the sensationalist, nominally inde- 

pendent Egyptian newspaper Al-Usbu suggested that 

the tsunami had been caused by underwater U.S.-Is- 

raeli-Indian nuclear tests.  The false claim was repeat- 

ed in the press in Indonesia, Turkey, and elsewhere. 

In the December 6, 2004 issue of Al-Usbu, Mustafa 

Bakri, Mahmud’s brother and the editor of Al-Usbu

falsely claimed that the United States and Israel had se- 

cretly collaborated to write and publish a book called 

The True Quran, which altered some Quranic verses.  

In fact, a book titled The True Furqan (Furqan is an- 

other name for Quran) has been written by evangelical 

Arab Christians in an attempt to convert Muslims to 

Christianity.  The book’s translator, Dr. Anis Shorroush, 

states emphatically that none of the book’s authors has 

any connection with the U.S. Government or Israel. 

A conspiracy theory from the 1930s, which still 

circulates, claims that U.S. founding father Benjamin 

Franklin warned that Jews are a “great danger” to the 

United States and should be “excluded by the Consti- 

tution.”  The so-called “Franklin Prophecy” is a forgery 

that first appeared in 1934 in a pro-Nazi magazine in 

the United States.  The distinguished historian Charles 

Beard debunked the forgery in 1935, noting: 

“The phraseology of the alleged Prophecy is not 

that of the 18th century; nor is the language that of 

Franklin.  It contains certain words that belong to 

contemporary [Nazi] Germany rather than America 

of Franklin’s period.  For example, the word ‘home- 

land’ was not employed by Jews in Franklin’s time.” 


Cartoonist unknown, Al-Watan (Qatar), June 23, 2002 

Hundreds of female members of Jamat-e-Islami, a Sunni political 

and religious party, march October 6, 2001 in Islamabad, Paki- 

stan.  In the above photo, demonstrators carry a placard reading 

“Zionist=Terrorist.”  The group condemned the terrorist attacks 

in the United States but blamed the action on Zionist terrorists 

rather than associates of Osama bin Laden.  (AP Images) 


With an estimated daily circulation of 20,000-30,000 copies, Al Watan is one of three Arabic dailies in Qatar.  The six daily newspapers (three English/three 

Arabic) in Qatar are independently-owned, although their owners or board members are either high-level government officials or have strong government ties.  

Since the time of publication of this cartoon, the Qatari press has reduced in frequency and severity its publication of anti-Semitic cartoons.


The canards reviewed above appear to be 20th and 21st 

century variations on the classic conspiracy myth of The 

Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which asserts that 

Jews are inherently evil, manipulate world events for their 

own purposes, and dominate the world.  This century-old 

Czarist forgery was exposed in 1921 as a fabrication, but 

it continues to be widely popular and influential around 

the world, including in bookstores throughout the Middle 

East, parts of Europe, and beyond.14 

In fact, long passages of the Protocols were plagiarized, 

word-for-word, from a book published in 1864 titled, 

Dialogues in Hell between Machiavelli and Montes- 

quieu, a work of political satire that did not have an 

anti-Semitic theme but was written to discredit Emperor 

Napoleon III of France. 


An image of an English- 

language edition of The 

Protocols of the Learned 

Elders of Zion.  Published 

by the Islamic Propagation 

Organization in Tehran, 

Iran, 1985.  (AP Images) 

South Korean Comic Book Echoed Jewish 

Conspiracy Theories 

In March 2007, a South Korean publisher agreed 

to pull a best-selling children’s book from stores 

after an international outcry about the anti-Semitic 

nature of many of the cartoons.  The controver- 

sial book, written by a South Korean university 

professor, was one in a series designed to teach 

youngsters about other countries in comic book 

format.  The series, “Distant Countries and Neigh- 

boring Countries,” sold more than 10 million 

Korean-language copies.  The book on the United 

States recycles various Jewish conspiracy theories, 

such as Jewish control of the media, Jews profit- 

ing from war, and Jews causing the September 11, 

2001 World Trade Center attacks.  For example, 

one comic strip shows a newspaper, a magazine, 

a television, and a radio and is captioned, “In 

a word, American public debate belongs to the 

Jews, and it’s no exaggeration to say that [U.S. 

media] are the voices of the Jews.” 

Another strip shows a man climbing a hill and then 

facing a brick wall inscribed with a Star of David 

and a STOP sign.  The caption reads, “The final ob- 

stacle [to success] is always a fortress called Jews.”  

The author later acknowledged his mistake and 

pledged to write, “in a more responsible way.” 

This edition of The Proto- 

cols of the Learned Elders 

of Zion claims that the ter- 

rorist attacks of September 

11, 2001 were orchestrat- 

ed by a Zionist conspiracy.  

The final chapter predicts 

the eventual destruction of 

the state of Israel.  Autho- 

rized by the Syrian Ministry 

of Information and pub- 

lished in Damascus, Syria, 

2005.  (AP Images) 

“Jewish Control of the Media”,   “Wall of the Jews” 

Cartoonist Lee Won Bok. Series Distant Countries and 

Neighboring Countries. Gimm-Young Publishers, Korea. 


The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been a recent best seller in Turkey and Syria and once was a best seller in Lebanon.  There are at least nine 

different Arabic translations of the Protocols and more editions in Arabic than in any other language.  Arabic translations are prominently displayed in 

bookstores throughout North Africa and the Middle East, as well as Arabic-language bookstores in Western Europe.  The Protocols also have been promi- 

nently displayed at international book fairs (e.g., by the government of Iran at the 2005 Frankfurt International Book Fair).  In addition, the Protocols are so 

popular that they have inspired television broadcasts in Egypt, Syria, and other Arab states.  In the past, Saudi textbooks reprinted sections and presented 

them as facts.  Hamas and Hizballah also teach the Protocols as fact.  Since 2003, new editions of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion have been 

printed in English, Ukrainian, Indonesian, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Russian, and Serbian.



Conspiracy theories about alleged predominant Jew- 

ish power can have tremendous influence. 

Survey data about perceptions of Jewish power in the busi- 

ness world only are available for Europe; they are not avail- 

able for the Middle East, where such attitudes are reflected 

in the government-sponsored media (see Chapter 4). 

Holocaust Denial and Trivialization 

According to the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semi- 

tism, contemporary examples of anti-Semitism include: 

“Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas 


chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the 

Jewish people at the hands of Nationalist Socialist 

Germany and its supporters and accomplices 

during World War II (the Holocaust).” 

“Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a 


state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.” 

In addition, according to the EUMC, an example of 

how anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the 

state of Israel includes: 


Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli 

policy to that of the Nazis.” 

Efforts to deny or minimize the Nazi genocide 

against the Jews have become one of the most 

prevalent forms of anti-Semitic discourse.  At 

its core, Holocaust denial relies upon—and fur- 

thers—the traditional anti-Semitic myth of a world 

Jewish conspiracy. 

Holocaust deniers explicitly or implicitly reject 

that the Nazi government and its allies had a 

systematic policy of exterminating the Jews, kill- 

ing between five and seven million Jews, and that 

genocide was carried out at extermination camps 

using tools of mass murder such as gas chambers.  

The Nazis themselves were the first Holocaust 

deniers.  Hitler and the bureaucrats in charge of 

implementing his plans for a “final solution to the 

Jewish question” went to great lengths to obscure 

their involvement and to destroy evidence of their 

crimes.  Nevertheless, ample documentation, 

extensive survivor and eyewitness testimony, and 

other forms of evidence survived the Nazis’ at- 

tempts to cover up the Holocaust.  

Holocaust deniers often allege inconsistencies in 

the historic data and dispute the number of vic- 

tims.  For example, deniers note different recol- 

lections about the amount of time it took to kill 

people, claiming that the gas chambers and cre- 

matoria were incapable of processing the volume 

of victims in the alleged time frame of the atroci- 


Initially, Holocaust deniers primarily were neo- 

Nazis interested in rehabilitating fascism and 

restoring the image of Nazi Germany; for such 

groups, Holocaust denial has an obvious appeal.  

The neo-Nazis then were joined by other right- 

wing groups, such as white supremacists, who 

were drawn to both fascism and anti-Semitism.  

The neo-Nazis and white supremacists share a be- 

lief that Jews invented the Holocaust for financial 

gain (reparations) and spread this “myth” of the 

Holocaust via their alleged control of the media. 

In addition to outright Holocaust deniers, others 

trivialize the Holocaust and accuse the Jewish 

people of exaggerating it as justification for the 

May and July 2007 Anti-Defamation League Polls 

Believe “Jews have 

too much power in 

the business world.” 

Believe “Jews have 

too much power 

in international 

fi nancial markets.” 



Austria 37% 43% 

Belgium 36% 40% 

France 28% 28% 

Germany 21% 25% 

Hungary 60% 61% 

Italy 42% 42% 

Poland 49% 54% 

Spain 53% 68% 

Switzerland 41% 40% 



creation of the state of Israel.  The terms “Holo- 

caust industry” and “Shoah business” have come 

into vogue among those who allege Jewish leaders 

use the Holocaust for financial and political gain. 

For example, in the above image, a Jew is holding a 

gun labeled “the Holocaust” to a man’s head that is 

shaped like a globe.  Another cartoon caption reads, 


A number of deniers have published articles or 

books trying to discredit well documented facts, 

historical research, and eye-witness accounts, all 

the while casting themselves as martyrs standing 

up to public opprobrium and censorship.  

Denying the Holocaust is a crime in a number 

of European countries.  For instance, Holocaust 

denial is illegal in Austria, Belgium, Czech Re- 

public, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Lithu- 

ania, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 

Spain, and Switzerland.  Such conduct cannot 

be criminalized in the United States.  The U.S. 

Constitution protects freedom of expression and, 

generally, the government may not restrict expres- 

sion based on its content regardless of the offen- 

siveness of the underlying message.  

British citizen David Irving, one of the most 

infamous deniers, was sentenced to three years 

in jail for remarks he made in Austria in 1989.  

At his 2006 trial, however, he admitted that the 

Nazis did use gas chambers.  He said, “I made a 

mistake by saying there were no gas chambers…I 

am absolutely without doubt that the Holocaust 

took place.”  However, he later indicated that he 

no longer felt remorse for his Holocaust views.  

Irving is not the only person to have been pros- 

ecuted for Holocaust denial; Austria, Belgium, 

Germany, and France have prosecuted other 


While Holocaust denial began in the 20th cen- 

tury with neo-Nazis and white supremacists in 

Europe and the United States, in the 21st century 

it also is found in the Middle East.  The potent 

anti-Semitic assumptions upon which Holocaust 

denial is founded—primarily the myth of a world 

Jewish conspiracy—make it an attractive weapon 

for those seeking to demonize Jews and de-legiti- 

mize a major basis for the founding of the state of 


Holocaust denial in the Middle East is a relatively 

new phenomenon.  In the decades that followed 

the Nazi genocide, the accepted attitude toward the 

Holocaust in the Middle East had been to acknowl- 

edge its occurrence, but to assert that it did not 

justify the creation of Israel.  This attitude appears to 

have changed.  In July 1990, the Palestinian Libera- 

tion Organization-affiliated Palestinian Red Crescent 

published an article in its magazine Balsam claim- 

ing that Jews concocted, “The lie concerning the 

gas chambers.”  Gradually, throughout the 1990s, 

Holocaust denial became commonplace in popular 

media in the Middle East, particularly in the Pales- 

tinian Authority.  The Middle East Media Research 

Institute documents how Syrian, Iranian, and Hamas 

officials have, since 2000, all made Holocaust deni- 

al statements.  In 2002, the Zayed Center for Coor- 

dination and Follow-up, an Arab League think tank 

whose Chairman, Sultan Bin Zayed Al Nahayan, 

served as Deputy Prime Minister of the United Arab 

Emirates, hosted a Holocaust denial symposium in 

Abu Dhabi.  

In recent years, some Western Holocaust deniers 

have turned to Muslim countries for help when fac- 

ing prosecution at home, including Austrian Wolf- 

gang Frohlich and Swiss citizen Jurgen Graf, who 

both have sought and were given refuge in Iran. 

Cartoonist Imad Hajaj, Al-Ittihad (Saudi Arabia), January 24, 2006 




Under the leadership of President Mahmoud Ah- 

madinejad, Iran has promoted Holocaust denial 

more than any other country.  In a December 2005 

declaration on live Iranian television, Ahmadinejad 

said that the Holocaust was a “fairy tale” promoted 

to justify Israel, “They have created a myth today that 

they call the massacre of Jews and they consider it a 

principle above God, religions and the prophets.”  

In a conference on December 11-12, 2006, spon- 

sored by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, a group of de- 

niers suggested that the Holocaust was “a myth” and 

that its victims died from disease (see Chapter 4).  

Participants included several well known Holocaust 

deniers and revisionists, as well as leading West- 

ern white supremacists, but not a single Holocaust 

survivor nor any of the world’s recognized Holocaust 

experts.  As Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr 

Mottaki said at the conference, “If the official version 

of the Holocaust is thrown into doubt, then the iden- 

tity and nature of Israel will be thrown into doubt.” 

Participants agreed to establish a World Founda- 

tion for Holocaust Studies in Tehran and appointed 

Mohammad-Ali Ramin, a political analyst and advi- 

sor to President Ahmadinejad, as the organization’s 

first secretary general.  Participants also selected five 

Holocaust deniers and revisionists to form a central 

council to assist the secretary general. 

In Their Own Words: 

Expressions of Holocaust Denial or Trivialization 

in Major Arabic and Persian Media 

“I want to make it clear to the West and to the 

German people, which is still being blackmailed 

because of what Nazism did to the Zionists, or to 

the Jews.  I say that what Israel did to the Pales- 

tinian people is many times worse than what Na- 

zism did to the Jews, and there is exaggeration, 

which has become obsolete, regarding the issue 

of the Holocaust.  We do not deny the facts, but 

we will not give in to extortion by exaggeration.” 

– Hamas leader Khaled Mash’al, 

Al-Jazeera Television, July 16, 2007 

“The Holocaust is the biggest institution of 

investment and trade in history…. The Jews suf- 

fered a Holocaust in Germany, and then they 

start a Holocaust for the Arabs as a compensation 

for what happened in Germany….” 

– Qatari journalist Raja An-Naqash, 

Al-Watan, March 6, 2006 

“I agree wholeheartedly with [Iranian] President 

Ahmadinejad.  There was no such a [sic] thing 

as the ‘Holocaust.’  The so-called ‘Holocaust’ is 

nothing but Jewish/Zionist propaganda.  There 

is no proof whatsoever that any living Jew was 

ever gassed or burned in Nazi Germany or in any 

of the territories that Nazi Germany occupied 

during World War II.  The Holocaust propaganda 

was started by the Zionist Jews in order to ac- 

quire worldwide sympathy for the creation of 

Israel after World War II.” 

– Saudi professor Dr. Abdullah Muhammad 

Sindi, interview with the Iranian Mehr 

News Agency, December 26, 2005 

“First of all, this figure [six million Jews killed 

during the Holocaust] is greatly exaggerated.… 

The Zionist lobby and the Jewish Agency use this 

issue as a club with which they beat and extort 

the West.” 

– Iranian columnist for Tehran Times Dr. 

Hasan Hanizadeh, interview with Iranian 

Jaam-e Jam 2 TV, December 20, 2005 


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad adjusts his headset 

during a government-sponsored conference on the Holocaust, 

Tehran, Iran, December 12, 2006.  The participants questioned 

whether the Holocaust took place.  (AP Images)


The Iranian Foreign Ministry sponsored the Holocaust 

denial conference despite UN General Assembly 

Resolution 60/7 (November 2005), which designates 

January 27 as an annual International Day of Com- 

memoration of the victims of the Holocaust.  UNGA 

Resolution 60/7 also rejects any denial of the Holo- 

caust as an historic event, either in full or in part.  

Many European and other world leaders condemned 

the Iranian government for holding the conference 

and for denying the Holocaust.  The UN General 

Assembly also responded by passing resolution 

A/61/255 (January 2007), condemning denial of the 

Holocaust and urging UN member states to reject 

any and all denial of the Holocaust (see Chapter 

7).  German NGO groups organized a counter-con- 

ference at the same time as Iran’s Holocaust denial 


Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy 

to that of the Nazis is increasingly commonplace, 

as illustrated by the frequent media images of Israel 

as a “Nazi-state” during the July-August 2006 con- 

flict between Hizballah and Israel.  For instance, 

in Greece on August 16, 2006, Eleftherotypia, the 

second-largest daily newspaper, published a cartoon 

depicting an Israeli soldier praying with a rifle emit- 

ting a swastika-shaped cloud of smoke. 

Also in Greece, the LAOS political party’s weekly 

newspaper in 2006 accused the Israelis of genocide 

against the Lebanese people, and a July 15, 2006 

editorial stated that if “the Jews continue this way, 

they will beat Hitler’s number of victims.”  

In Syria, on April 26, 2007, the government-owned 

newspaper Teshreen, with the second-largest distri- 

bution in the country, published a cartoon depicting 

an Israeli telling a Nazi, “We are the same.” 


An Egyptian cyclist rides 

past graffiti on an Alexan- 

dria street that declares: 

‘Israel is like a cancer that 

should be cut out,’ June 12, 

2002.  The Jewish Star of 

David is linked to the Nazi 

swastika in the graffiti.  (AP 


A Palestinian boy plays by graffiti on a wall equating the Nazi 

swastika with the Star of David in the northern West Bank refu- 

gee camp of Balata, adjacent to the city of Nablus, March 29, 

2004.  (AP Images) 

Cartoonist Stathis Stavropoulos, Eleftherotypia (Greece), August 

16, 2006.  Caption reads “Fear and misery in the Fourth Reich” 

Cartoonist Yassin Khalil, Teshreen (Syria), April 26, 2007.  

Caption reads “We are the same”



In the United Kingdom in July 2006, Sir Peter Tap- 

sell, a Tory Member of Parliament (MP), told the 

House of Commons that Israel’s actions against 

Hizballah in Lebanon were, “A war crime gravely 

reminiscent of the Nazi atrocity on the Jewish quar- 

ter of Warsaw.”  In reply, Foreign Secretary Margaret 

Beckett rejected his allegations entirely.  In October 

2006, another Tory MP, Andrew Turner, suggested to 

the House of Commons that Israel’s actions in “at- 

tacking civilians from the air…were the tactics of the 

Nazis in 1939 and 1940…”  In response to criticism, 

including from his fellow MPs, Turner later apolo- 

gized for his comments. 

In addition to outright comparisons between Jews 

and Nazis, Holocaust terminology and symbols 

frequently are invoked for commercial purposes, 

diminishing the gravity of their meaning.  In India

in October 2007, a new line of bedspreads called 

“The Nazi Collection” was promoted; the collec- 

tion featured swastika decorations.  The swastika 

had been a symbol of good luck in India well be- 

fore the Nazis adopted it.  However, the title of the 

collection revealed that the intent was to be pro- 

vocative.  On October 2, 2007, in response to pro- 

tests from Jewish groups, the manufacturer agreed 

to recall the bedspreads and sent a written apology 

to the Indian Jewish Federation.  In Croatia, in Feb- 

ruary 2007, a sugar company in Pozega produced 

and locally distributed sugar packets bearing an 

image of Adolf Hitler and containing jokes about 

Holocaust victims in concentration camps.  

The use of the Nazi label to tar Jews in general and 

Israelis in particular trivializes the crimes commit- 

ted against the Jews during the Holocaust. 

Public survey data about whether, “Jews still talk too 

much about…the Holocaust” only is available for 

Europe; it is not available for the Middle East, where 

such attitudes are reflected in the government-spon- 

sored media (see Chapter 4). 


“Anti-Zionism” in its most basic sense is opposition 

to “Zionism,” a worldwide Jewish movement that 

resulted in the establishment and development of 

the state of Israel.  However, the term “anti-Zion- 

ism” now has many different meanings and often is 

used as a synonym for anti-Semitism. 

In contemporary discourse, those who use the 

terms “Zionism” or “Zionists” as a pejorative of- 

ten assert that they have no problem with Jewish 

people; rather, it is the “Zionists” with whom they 



“It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies 

of the state of Israel, but the line is crossed 

when Israel or its leaders are demonized 

or vilified, for example, by the use of Nazi 

symbols and racist caricatures.” 

– Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, 

April 28, 2004, OSCE Conference on 

Anti-Semitism, Berlin, Germany 

2007 Anti-Defamation League Poll Results 

on the Holocaust 

When asked whether “Jews 

still talk too much about 

what happened to them in 

the Holocaust,” the following 

percent responded “probably 



Austria 54% 

Belgium 43% 

France 40% 

Germany 45% 

Hungary 58% 

Italy 46% 

The Netherlands 31% 

Poland 58% 

Spain 46% 

Switzerland 45% 

United Kingdom 28%


Frequently, no distinction is made between “Zi- 

onists” and “Jews,” regardless of whether or not 

the Jews are Israelis or whether or not the Jews 

support the policy of Israel.  The two terms of- 

ten are used interchangeably.  Such “anti-Zionist 

discourse” often employs classic, demonic stereo- 

types of Jews. Dual Loyalty 

According to the EUMC Working Definition of Anti- 

Semitism, contemporary examples of anti-Semitism 

include accusing Jewish citizens of being more 

loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews 

worldwide, than to the interests of their own coun- 


Throughout history, anti-Semitic detractors have 

accused Jews of dual loyalty.  One of the earliest 

examples was the suspicion in parts of medieval 

Christian Europe (especially Iberia) that Jews were 

in league with some Muslim powers.  Another 

example is the Dreyfus Affair, a scandal in France at 

the end of the nineteenth century involving a Jewish 

army officer who was falsely convicted of betraying 

French military secrets to Jewish interests.  

According to Anti-Defamation League polls re- 

leased in May and July 2007, many Europeans 

continue to question the loyalty of their Jewish fel- 

low citizens.  Approximately half of those surveyed 

believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to 

their own country. 


Cartoonist Ahmed Toghan, Al-Gomhouriyya (Egypt), March 6, 

2007.  The figure is labeled “Zionism.”  The flag equates the Star 

of David with the swastika. 



“Zionists have triggered this crisis.  They’ve taken 

over the country and are now trying to arrange a 

salt crisis like they did before perestroika, when 

there were shortages of tobacco and washing 

powder.  They do it all deliberately.” 

– A comment by an interviewee on the 

February 26, 2006 radio report on “panic- 

buying of salt in Moscow,” according to the 

transcript from Correspondents’ Report on 

Australia’s ABC radio station. 

“Out of the country Zionist assassin Jews, you 

only encourage hate and resentment.  Get out 

Marxists of Argentine faculties.” 

– Graffiti found on September 29, 2006, 

in nearly all of the men’s bathrooms of the 

Faculty of the Social Sciences at the University 

of Buenos Aires, Argentina. 

“Jew Dogs” and “Zionists Get Out” 

– Graffiti found on August 6, 2006 in the 

Caracas neighborhood of Los Chorros, which 

houses the main Jewish Day School and the 

Jewish Community Center.  The graffiti were 

signed by the Venezuelan Communist Party. 

“In addition to distortion of history, the Zion- 

ist Warner Company is also pursuing cultural 

and political objectives by producing such a 

film which has a very shallow script.  From the 

cultural point of view, the Zionists and the ele- 

ments affiliated to the U.S. have tried to launch a 

propaganda front against ancient and historical 

roots of Iranians.” 

– Iranian commentary on Time-Warner 

Brother’s release of the Hollywood film “300,” 

as aired on March 13, 2007 by the IRINN 

television program.  The film stirred negative 

reaction from the Government of Iran and 

Iranian media.



Those who believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel 

than to their own country tend to believe that Jew- 

ish lobbying groups and individual Jews in influential 

positions in national governments seek to bend policy 

toward Israel’s interests. 

The Blood Libel 

According to the EUMC Working Definition of Anti- 

Semitism, examples of the ways in which anti-Semi- 

tism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel 

include using the symbols and images associated 

with classic anti-Semitism, such as blood libel, to 

characterize Israel or Israelis. 

Perhaps the oldest-surviving anti-Semitic conspiracy 

theory is that of “blood libel,” or the allegation that 

Jews perform murders to gather blood for religious 

purposes.  According to this myth, Jews needed 

Christian blood for the production of matzoh (un- 

leavened bread consumed during the Jewish holi- 

day of Passover). 

Blood libel accusations against Jews date back to 

the ancient Greek author Apion.  But it was in the 

Middle Ages that such accusations became com- 

mon.  The blood libel charge recurred throughout 

Europe in succeeding centuries, leading to substan- 

tial attacks against Jews.  Blood libel charges now 

are fairly uncommon in Europe, but still occur: 

In Russia, in January 2005, some 500 persons, 

including 20 State Duma members, publicly made 

a blood libel charge in a letter that accused Jews of 

participating in ritual murder of Christians.  The let- 

ter was widely condemned by Russian Government 

and public leaders. 

Today, the blood libel myth is common in the 

Middle East, where it often is spread via Arabic- 

language and Iranian newspapers, television, radio, 

websites, and books. 

In Syria in 2003, a show entitled Al-Shattat, or 

Diaspora, was produced and shown on Hizballah’s 

Al Manar television station.  In Al-Shattat, actors 

graphically depict a Christian child being ritually 

murdered for his blood by Jews who discuss using 

the blood to make matzoh. 

In Iran, a modern-day variation of this age-old 

blood libel accuses Israelis of stealing the body 

parts of Palestinian children, an idea popularized by 

a television series called Zahra’s Blue Eyes that first 

aired in December 2004 (see Chapter 4). 

2007 ADL Poll Results on Perceptions of Jewish 

Loyalty to their Country 

When asked whether “Jews 

are more loyal to Israel than 

to this country,” the following 

percentage of respondents 

answered, “probably true”: 


Austria 54% 

Belgium 54% 

France 39% 

Germany 51% 

Hungary 50% 

Italy 48% 

The Netherlands 46% 

Poland 59% 

Spain 60% 

Switzerland 44% 

United Kingdom 50% 

On February 8, 1991, at the UN Human Rights 

Commission, Syrian delegate Nabila Chaalan 

said, “We should like to urge all members of this 

Commission to read this very important work 

that demonstrates unequivocally the historical re- 

ality of Zionist racism.”  The Syrian delegate held 

up the book The Matzah of Zion and quoted from 

the preface by then Syrian Minister of Defense 

Major-General Mustapha Tlass, which reads, “The 

Jew can…kill you and take your blood in order to 

make his Zionist bread….I hope that I have done 

my duty in presenting the practices of the enemy 

of our historic nation.  Allah aid this project.” 



In Bahrain in June 2002, the independent news- 

paper Al-Wasat15 published a cartoon depicting a 

Jewish man impaling a swaddled infant on a spear, 

furthering the anti-Semitic blood libel that Jews kill 


Cartoonist Ali Khalil, Al-Wasat (Bahrain), June 2002 



With an estimated daily circulation of 34,000, Al-Wasat has the second largest circulation in Bahrain.


“Growing up as a child in Saudi Arabia, I remember 

my teachers, my mom and our neighbors telling us 

practically on a daily basis that Jews were evil, the sworn 

enemies of Muslims whose only goal was to destroy 

Islam.  We were never informed about the Holocaust. 

Later in Kenya, as a teenager, when Saudi and other Gulf 

philanthropy reached us in Africa, I remember that the 

building of mosques and donations to hospitals and the 

poor went hand in hand with the cursing of Jews.  Jews 

were said to be responsible for the deaths of babies, 

epidemics like AIDS, for the cause of wars.  They were 

greedy and would do absolutely anything to kill us 

Muslims.  And if we ever wanted to know peace and 

stability we would have to destroy them before they 

would wipe us out.  For those of us who were not in a 

position to take arms against the Jews it was enough for 

us to cup our hands, raise our eyes heavenward and pray 

to Allah to destroy them.” 

Somalia-born former Dutch 

Member of Parliament, 

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, “Confronting 

Holocaust Denial,” International 

Herald Tribune

December 15, 2006 



Traditional Anti-Semitism 

Traditional anti-Semitism—the overt demonization or 

degradation of Jews—continues to influence fringe 

extremist groups in Western Europe, North America, 

Australia, and other democratic societies.  Nazi ideas 

of racial purity and segregation of different cultures, 

religions, and races still resonate among such groups.  

Such groups also have adopted anti-Zionist references 

and increasingly are exploiting modern technology, 

notably the Internet, to disseminate messages, build 

networks, and recruit new adherents (see Chapter 6).  

Traditional anti-Semitism also is prevalent in parts of 

Central and Eastern Europe and Russia, where xeno- 

phobic attitudes persist. 

According to a June 2007 report by Human Rights 

First entitled, Anti-Semitism: 2007 Hate Crime Sur- 

vey, in Eastern Europe and the Russian Federation, 

extreme nationalist political groups have adopted the 

language of nineteenth century anti-Semitism: “Sec- 

tors of the dominant Orthodox churches of the region, 

and certain Roman Catholic institutions, notably in 

Poland,16 have encouraged anti-Semitism and reli- 

gious and ethnic chauvinism.”  According to Human 

Rights First, a similar situation prevails in Ukraine and 

other neighboring states, such as Hungary. 

The tactics of many anti-Semitic groups include the 

propagation of conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, 

and the attribution to Jews of a satanic and “cosmic” 

evil.  Traditional conspiracy theories claiming Jewish 

control of global financial systems, the media, the 

U.S. government, or Hollywood remain widespread.  

May and July 2007 Anti-Defamation League polls 

found that 39% of Polish respondents and 26% of 

Hungarian respondents, respectively, agrees that the 

Jews are responsible for the death of Christ. 

Traditional anti-Semitism also has been subsumed by 

increasing xenophobia of a more general nature.  For 

example, in Russia, where xenophobic, racial, and 

ethnic attacks are widespread and on the rise, the 

primary targets of skinheads are foreigners and indi- 

viduals from the North Caucasus; however, skinheads 

often express anti-Semitic sentiments as well.  This 

broader attitude of intolerance within such xenopho- 

bic movements often can provide a haven for anti- 

Semitic views and activists. 







Members of the new extreme-right Magyar Garda (Hungarian 

Guard) during their swearing-in ceremony in Budapest, Hun- 

gary, August 25, 2007.  Magyar Garda members wear uniforms 

bearing a variation on the red-and-white Arpad Stripes associ- 

ated with Hungary’s Nazi-aligned Arrow Cross party in power 

during World War II.  (AP Images) 


For a discussion about anti-Semitism associated with Poland’s conservative Catholic radio station, Radio Maryja, see Chapter 5.



New Anti-Semitism 

“The most worrying discovery of this inquiry is that 

anti-Jewish sentiment is entering the mainstream, 

appearing in everyday conversations of people who 

consider themselves neither racist nor prejudiced.” 

Labour MP Denis MacShane, Chair of the 

2006 U.K. All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into 

Anti-Semitism, as quoted by The Guardian on 

September 7, 2006 


While traditional anti-Semitism remains prevalent 

among extremist fringe groups and populations where 

xenophobic attitudes persist, “new anti-Semitism” 

commonly manifests itself in the guise of opposition 

to Zionism and the existence and/or policies of the 

state of Israel.  

Traditional anti-Semitism, with its historic linkage to 

Nazism and fascism, tends to be overt and is con- 

sidered unacceptable and illegitimate by much of 

the mainstream in Western Europe, North America, 

and beyond.  In contrast, new anti-Semitism, char- 

acterized by anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism 

that is anti-Semitic in its effect—whether or not in its 

intent—is more subtle and thus frequently escapes 


According to the EUMC definition, regardless of the 

motive, anti-Zionist and anti-Israel criticism become 

anti-Semitic when they entail: 

Denying the Jewish people their right to self- 



Applying double standards to Israel; 


Using the symbols and images associated with 


classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or 


Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli 


policy to that of the Nazis; or 

Holding Jews collectively responsible for 


actions of the state of Israel. 

Motives for criticizing Israel may stem from legitimate 

concerns over policy, or from illegitimate prejudices.  

Traditional Anti-Semitism in Ukraine: 

A Case Study on MAUP 

The Interregional Academy of Personnel Man- 

agement, a private institution in Ukraine com- 

monly known by the acronym MAUP, is one of 

the most persistent anti-Semitic institutions in 

Eastern Europe.  MAUP, which receives signifi- 

cant funding from overseas, is a vocational col- 

lege that claims to have more than 50,000 stu- 

dents enrolled at campuses in various branches 

throughout Ukraine and in Eastern Europe.  It 

publishes a monthly journal, Personnel, and a 

weekly newspaper, Personnel Plus, which are 

the subjects of an ongoing criminal investiga- 

tion by the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s 

Office.  In 2007, MAUP accounted for nearly 

90% of all anti-Semitic material published in 


In an effort to clamp down on MAUP’s extrem- 

ist activities, in March 2006 the Government 

of Ukraine closed 7 affiliated schools out of 

approximately 50 across Ukraine, because of 

“unspecified licensing violations;” the Govern- 

ment of Ukraine closed down 30 more schools 

before the September 27, 2006 commemora- 

tion of the Babyn Yar massacre (the site of the 

death of 33,171 Jews at the hands of the Na- 

zis in September 1941).  In November 2006, 

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko issued 

a presidential order to the Security Service of 

Ukraine and Ministry of Science and Education 

to investigate manifestations of xenophobia at 

MAUP.  In February 2007, following MAUP’s 

successful appeal to the Kyiv Commercial 

Court, the Ministry of Education was ordered 

to restore the licenses of 26 regional branches.  

In May 2007, the mayor of Kyiv responded 

to the opening of a MAUP bookstand selling 

anti-Semitic literature near the Babyn Yar mas- 

sacre memorial site by closing it and promising 

to close other MAUP bookstands in the city.  

MAUP filed a lawsuit against the mayor for his 

order to remove the bookstand.  At the end of 

2007, this lawsuit still was pending. 



This report does not purport to ascribe motive to the 

various critics of Israel.  However, disproportionate 

criticism of the Jewish State and/or Israelis and demon- 

izing them as barbaric, unprincipled, selfish, inhu- 

mane, etc. is anti-Semitic and has the effect of  caus- 

ing global audiences to associate those bad attributes 

with Jews in general.  Similar to the way that constant 

news coverage associating Muslims with terrorism, or 

blacks with crime, can have the effect of promoting 

anti-Muslim or anti-black prejudice, respectively, con- 

stant and disproportionate criticism of Israel can have 

the effect of promoting anti-Jewish prejudice. 

Throughout the Middle East and in many Muslim com- 

munities in Western Europe and beyond, anti-Zionist 

rhetoric finds frequent and powerful expression espe- 

cially in Arabic-language newspapers and magazines, 

on the radio, on television, via the Internet (see Chap- 

ters 4 and 6), and in sermons delivered in mosques. 

While the distinguishing features of new anti-Semitism 

are anti-Zionist rhetoric and opposition to Israel, it 

often incorporates some classic elements of traditional 

anti-Semitism, such as drawing on the age-old anti-Jew- 

ish theory of blood libel (see Chapter 2) by depicting 

Israelis as bloodthirsty, or perpetuating the traditional 

conspiracy theory of undue and unseen Jewish influ- 

ence (see Chapter 2), for example, by attributing U.S. 

policy to the influence of the “Zionist Lobby,” “Jewish- 

Lobby,” or “Pro-Israel Lobby”—terms that tend to be 

used interchangeably and to imply a Jewish conspiracy 

or disloyalty to their country.  The adaptive nature of 

traditional anti-Semitism into new settings is reflected in 

the infusion into some Muslim communities of trans- 

lated classic anti-Semitic works, such as The Protocols 

of the Learned Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf.17 

According to the EUMC’s Summary overview of the 

situation in the European Union 2001-2005:18 

“There has been some evidence to support 

the view that there is some link between the 

number of reported anti-Semitic incidents and 

the political situation in the Middle East… 

Moreover, some of the data indicate that 

there have been changes in the profile of the 

perpetrators.  It is no longer the extreme right 

which is seen as solely responsible for hostility 

towards Jewish individuals or property (or 

public property with a symbolic relation to 

the Holocaust or to Jews)—especially during 

the periods when registered incidents reached 

a peak.  Instead, victims identified ‘young 

Muslims,’ ‘people of North African origin,’ or 

‘immigrants’ as perpetrators.” 

The EUMC concludes that in Europe: “Anti-Semitic 

activity after 2000 is increasingly attributed to a ‘new 

anti-Semitism,’ characterized primarily by the vilifica- 

tion of Israel as the ‘Jewish collective’ and perpetrated 

primarily by members of Europe’s Muslim population.” 

Lebanese protestors in Aukar northeast of Beirut, Lebanon, 

March 30, 2005, carry their national flag and a banner reading, 

‘Zionist Governs the U.S. But Not Us.’  (AP Images) 

A copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf is prominently displayed by 

a book vendor at Istanbul’s main train station, March 18, 2005.  

According to The Guardian, in March 2005 the book was a 

best seller in Turkey, reportedly selling over 100,000 copies in 2 

months.  (AP Images) 



The popularity of Mein Kampf within the Arabic-speaking world is illustrated by the fact that over 11 different publishers are selling it, with new Arabic 

editions appearing all the time. 


As updated in December 2006.


Contemporary anti-Semitism is not unique to Mus- 

lims.  It occurs across the globe and also within the 

UN system (see Chapter 5).  A frequent manifesta- 

tion occurs when anti-Israel rallies feature placards 

reading, “Death to the Jews—Death to Israel” and 

Stars of David emblazoned with swastikas.  Such 

placards are commonplace at anti-Israel rallies 

on every continent.  Anti-Semitism also emanates 

from unprecedented coalitions, uniting groups that 

otherwise have little common cause.  Activists at- 

tending a November 16-19, 2006 conference in 

Beirut organized by Hizballah and the Communist 

Party of Lebanon agreed in their final statement “to 

establish a worldwide network against the Amer- 

ican-Zionist project which…target[s]…humanity.”  

According to the Brussels Tribunal, an international 

coalition of activists, the conference was attended 


In many Muslim countries, polling data is not always 

available.  Information on sensitive societal attitudes 

is easier to collect in open, transparent societies, as 

reflected by the regular public opinion surveys on 

attitudes toward Jews in Western Europe (see Chap- 

ter 2).  However, in the last several years, the Pew 

Global Attitudes Project has begun collecting data 

on attitudes toward Jews in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, 

Pakistan, and Turkey.  Similar polling information 

does not exist for other Muslim countries, hindering 

our ability to compare data and make conclusions.19 

While each country is unique, available poll- 

ing data also reveals that Muslims in Europe 

hold more unfavorable opinions of Jews than the 

general population.  According to a spring 2006 

survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project: 

2005 to 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Project 

Poll on Anti-Semitic Attitudes in Selected 

Muslim Countries 

Percent of People 

Polled with a 

Favorable View of 


Percent of People 

Polled with an 

Unfavorable View 

of Jews. 

COUNTRY 2005 2006 2005 2006 

Egypt NA 2% NA 97% 

Indonesia 13% 17% 76% 72% 

Jordan 0% 1% 100% 98% 

Pakistan 5% 6% 74% 71% 

Turkey 18% 15% 60% 65% 

2006 Pew Global Attitudes Project Poll on 

Attitudes of European-Muslim 

Communities Toward Jews 


Percentage of People 

Polled with an  

Unfavorable View of Jews. 

British Muslims 47% 

British General Public 7% 

French Muslims 28% 

French General Public 13% 

German Muslims 44% 

German General Public 22% 

Spanish Muslims 60% 

Spanish General Public 39% 

Indonesian Muslims participate in an anti-Israel rally in Solo, 

Central Java, Indonesia, April 27, 2007.  Some demonstrators 

held placards demonizing Israel, such as the one in the photo 

that equates Israel with the Devil.  (AP Images) 

Attitudes toward Jews in Selected Muslim Countries and Communities 


2005 data for Egypt is unavailable.


by 400 people “from all over the world [represent- 

ing] trade unions, anti-globalization, anti-war and 

anti-imperialist movements.” 

In May 2007, the United Kingdom-based University 

and College Union offered two separate resolutions 

which would require its membership to support a 

Palestinian call for a boycott and endorse restrictions 

on collaborative research with Israeli scholars.  The 

debate over the proposed academic boycott featured 

anti-Semitic demonization of Israel, such as Nazi 

analogies and suggestions that Israel is “a fascist 

state.”  The call for a boycott later was called off.  In 

May 2006, in Ontario, Canada, the Canadian Union 

of Public Employees (CUPE) voted unanimously to 

pass a resolution to support the “international cam- 

paign of boycott, divestment and sanctions against 

Israel until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to 

self-determination.”  The resolution repeatedly made 

references to “Israeli Apartheid.” 

In the United Kingdom a July 19, 2006 cartoon, that 

appeared in the widely-circulated newspaper The 

Guardian, depicts Stars of David being used as a 

knuckle duster on a bloody fist to both punch a young 

boy and crush U.S. President George Bush. 

A July 26, 2006 caricature in Norway’s largest daily 

Verdens Gang shows Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, 

while shaving, looking in the mirror and seeing Hiz- 

ballah leader Hasan Nasrallah; Olmert’s feet are those 

of a clawed animal, expressing the classic anti-Semit- 

ic motif of the Jew as a subhuman. 


Cartoonist Martin Rowson, The Guardian (UK), July 19, 2006  

Reproduced by Tom Gross Media 

Verdens Gang 


July 26, 2006 

“The left in particular sees itself as immune from 

anti-Semitism, which it considers the exclusive 

province of the xenophobic right….  Commitment 

to Palestinian independence comes not from anti- 

Jewish prejudice but from a sense of justice and the 

need to redress grievances in what is increasingly 

seen as unfinished post-colonial business….  Many 

on the left are firm in their condemnation of racism 

and would almost certainly not accept that they 

were guilty of anti-Semitic discourse.” 

From the 2006 United Kingdom Report 

of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry 

into Anti-Semitism 

Contemporary Anti-Semitism in France 

With about 600,000 Jews, France has the largest 

Jewish community living in Europe.  Traditional anti- 

Semitism (as explicitly represented by Jean-Marie Le 

Pen’s National Front Party) has receded but has not 

disappeared.  A new anti-Semitism, attributing al- 

leged abuses by Israel to Jews in general, to which 

some immigrants of Muslim background are particu- 

larly susceptible, appears to be the generator of most 

anti-Semitic incidents, as evidenced by the clear 

spike in anti-Semitic incidents whenever conflict in 

the Middle East flares up.  According to the EUMC 

Summary overview of the situation in the European 

Union 2001-2005, in France there is evidence of a 

shift away from extreme right-wing perpetrators of 

physical attacks on Jews and Jewish property toward 

young Muslim males.  The early 2006 kidnapping and 

brutal murder of the French Jew Ilan Halimi by a gang 

of African Muslim immigrants heightened anxiety 

throughout most French Jewish communities.









“What totalitarian regimes do is to—and this is what 

makes them extremely devastating—is they look at you 

and say, ‘You are not.’  Or, ‘You are something else.’  Or, 

‘This event didn’t exist.’  This power, that is only God’s 

power.  If a regime, or some people, think they are God, 

they can have the right to make you animals or human.  

They can create you or kill you.  And this is unbearable.  

So the only thing you can do—and the most subversive 

thing you can do—is to tell the truth.  This is devastating 

because each time you come back with the truth, you 

deny their prerogative of creating a fictitious world 

where they can say whatever they want.” 

Iranian exile Ladan Boroumand, 

June 7, 2007, speaking to the 

U.S. Holocaust Museum as part 

of “Voices on Anti-Semitism,” 

a podcast series


Government-sponsored anti-Semitism appears in 

various forms, including in government publications, 

speeches by leaders, government-controlled media, 

and discriminatory laws and practices.  Government- 

sponsored anti-Semitism may also be revealed when 

governments take no effective action to condemn or 

combat anti-Semitism in the face of egregious anti- 

Semitic actions on their territory. 

Actions by Heads of State and other 

Government Officials 

State-sponsored anti-Semitism currently is most 

prevalent in, but not restricted to, parts of the Mus- 

lim world. 

In Iran since August 2005, President Ahmadinejad 

has pursued a virulent anti-Israel campaign, includ- 

ing anti-Semitic propaganda and discrimination 

(see Chapter 2).  At the October 2005 The World 

without Zionism conference held in Tehran, Iranian 

President Ahmadinejad resurrected Ayatollah Ruhol- 

lah Khomeini’s statement, “Israel must be wiped off 

the map.”  Ahmadinejad’s comments were the first 

public call in recent years for Israel’s destruction by 

a high-ranking government official.  The Supreme 

Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who wields the 

greater governing power in Iran, did not repudiate 

Ahmadinejad’s remarks. 

The Iranian regime hosted a Holocaust denial con- 

ference in Tehran on December 11-12, 2006.  Partic- 

ipants, including prominent anti-Semitic authors and 

Holocaust deniers, argued that the Holocaust did 

not occur or was an exaggeration used by Jews for 

political and financial gain.  They also called for the 

elimination or delegitimization of the state of Israel.  

Addressing the conference, President Ahmadinejad 

questioned the history of the Holocaust and as- 

serted that Israel would “soon be wiped out.”  While 

President Ahmadinejad provides the most egregious 

recent example of anti-Semitic incitement by a head 

of state, other heads of state also have made anti- 

Semitic statements. 





Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during a con- 

ference in Tehran entitled The World without Zionism, October 

26, 2005.  (AP Images) 

Backdropped by an enormous painting of the Star of David and 

American flag being stomped on, Iranian female paramilitary 

militias (Basiji) parade in front of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali 

Khamenei, unseen, in Tehran, Iran, October 26, 2005.  (AP Im- 




In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez has publicly 

demonized Israel and utilized stereotypes about Jew- 

ish financial influence and control.  For example, in 

the context of the 2006 conflict between Hizballah 

and Israel, on August 25, 2006 in Beijing, and again 

in Doha three days later, President Chavez compared 

Israeli behavior to that of the Nazis.20  On August 6, 

2006, on the program, Alo, Presidente, on Venezolana 

de Television, President Chavez accused Israelis of 

“applying to the Lebanese people and to the Palestin- 

ian people the same treatment they have so criticized 

about the Holocaust.”  On July 28, 2006, in an inter- 

view broadcast domestically in Venezuela and on Al- 

Jazeera television, President Chavez said that Israel’s 

actions regarding the Palestinians and Lebanon were 

“perpetrated in the fascist manner of Hitler…they are 

doing what Hitler did to the Jews.”21 

In Belarus, on October 12, 2007, President Aleksand- 

er Lukashenko called the Belarusian city Bobruisk “a 

Jewish city” and said that it was a “pigsty.”  He also 

urged all Belarusian Jews who had emigrated to Israel 

to, “Come back with money!” 

Senior government officials and political leaders 

around the world have made recent anti-Semitic com- 

ments as well. 

In Syria, on July 21, 2006, on national television, Dep- 

uty Minister of Religious Endowment Muhammad ‘Abd 

Al-Sattar proclaimed that Jews are cursed.  The Quran, 

he argued, paints the people of Israel as “sinister and 

dark.”  He called Jews the “descendents of apes and 

pigs,” claiming that “terms that are closer to animals 

than humans” are more appropriate in describing them. 

In Russia, 20 members of the State Duma and hun- 

dreds of others in a January 24, 2005 letter urged the 

Prosecutor General to investigate Jewish organiza- 

tions for misconduct and initiate proceedings to ban 

them (see Chapter 2).  The Russian Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs condemned the letter on January 25, as did 

President Putin in remarks delivered in Krakow, Po- 

land on January 27.  On February 4, the State Duma 

passed a resolution condemning the January 24 letter.  

The Russian Orthodox Church and the Council of 

Muftis also condemned the letter.  President Putin has 

been outspoken in his criticism of anti-Semitism and 

in June 2007 publicly donated one month’s salary to 

the Museum of Tolerance being built by the Russian 

Federation of Jewish Communities. 

In Iraq, in July 2006, the Speaker of Parliament 

Mahmoud al-Mashhadani accused Jews of financing 

violent activity in the country to promote a Zionist 

sectarian agenda. 

In Sudan, in September 2006, the State Minister for 

Foreign Affairs Ali Ahmed Karti asserted that the idea 

of sending African Union forces to Darfur under the 

umbrella of the United Nations was, “All part of a 

Zionist colonialist plot to take over Darfur and exploit 

its natural resources.” 

In Kuwait, in the summer of 2006, in the context of 

the Hizballah-Israel conflict, a Member of Parliament 

publicly launched an attack on Jews in which he cited 

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. 

In Bulgaria, Dimitar Stoyanov, a member of the ex- 

tremist political party Ataka22 and a Member of the 

European Parliament as of January 1, 2007, said in a 

media interview that he opposed the “Jewish establish- 

ment” and, “There are a lot of powerful Jews, with a lot 

of money, who are paying the media to form the social 

awareness of the people.  They are also playing with 

economic crises in countries like Bulgaria and getting 

rich.”  Ataka’s newspaper (launched in October 2006), 

website, and cable television mouth-piece Skat, also 

promulgated strong anti-Semitic material, as did Ataka 

media statements in 2005 and 2006.  The European 

Parliament did not officially condemn Stoyanov’s 

anti-Semitic statement, though several Members of the 

European Parliament did criticize his remarks. 

In Poland, on February 15, 2007, European Parlia- 

ment Deputy and former head of the Political Party 

League of Polish Families Maciej Giertych published a 

booklet without authorization bearing the EU Parlia- 

ment logo suggesting that Jews were unethical and a 

“tragic community” because they did not accept Jesus 

as the Messiah.  The 32-page brochure asserted that 

Jews “create their own ghettos” because they like to 

separate themselves from others.  The European Parlia- 

ment officially censured Giertych. 



The EUMC definition states that anti-Semitism manifests itself when comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis (see Chapter 2). 


Venezuelan Jewish leaders have expressed concern over the Chavez government’s close relationship with Iran, whose President called for the annihilation of 

Israel.  In what largely was perceived as an effort to smooth over relations between President Chavez and the Venezuelan Jewish community, Argentina’s then 

First Lady, Senator, and Presidential candidate Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner traveled to Venezuela in March 2007 to meet with Venezuela’s Jewish community. 


Ataka is a nationalistic party established in Bulgaria in April 2005 that espouses xenophobic, racist, and anti-Semitic views.


Religious Discrimination and Freedom 


Though most countries around the world do not have 

laws that explicitly discriminate against Jews, some 

non-democratic governments enshrine anti-Semitism 

in their laws and regulations. 

In Syria, the government cited tense relations with Is- 

rael as the reason for barring Jewish citizens from em- 

ployment in the civil service or serving in the armed 

forces and for exempting them from military service 

obligations.  Jews are the only religious minority 

group whose passports and identity cards note their 

religion.  Syrian Jews also face extra scrutiny from the 

government when applying for licenses, deeds, or 

other government papers. 

In Iran, the government recognizes Judaism as a 

minority religion; however, Iranian Jews face frequent 

official discrimination, as do other non-Shiite Muslim 

religious minorities.  Iranian Jews, along with other 

religious minorities, are prevented from serving in the 

judiciary and security services and from becoming 

public school principals or career military officers.  

Applicants for public sector jobs—the main source of 

employment in Iran—are screened for their adherence 

to and knowledge of Islam, and those who do not 

observe Islam’s principles are subject to penalties. 

In addition, while not exclusively motivated by anti- 

Semitism, restrictions on religious freedom in some 

countries negatively impact Jews.  For instance, in 

Saudi Arabia, religious freedom does not exist in gen- 

eral.  Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and 

the tenets of that religion are enforced by law.  Mem- 

bers of religions other than Islam, including Jews, are 

not permitted to practice their religion in public in 

The Kingdom. 

Additional country-specific information about reli- 

gious discrimination and freedom issues can be found 

in the U.S. Department of State’s annual Country Re- 

ports on Human Rights Practices, as well as its annual 

Report on International Religious Freedom (see www. 

state.gov/g/drl).  Both reports include detailed sections 

on anti-Semitism. 

State-Sponsored Media 

Anti-Semitism is pervasive in state-sponsored Arabic- 

language media and in state-sponsored media in Iran.  

In many Middle Eastern countries, there is limited or no 

freedom of the press, and governments own or heavily 

influence the content of newspapers, television, and 

radio programs.  Government stations host programs 

where anti-Semitic statements and ideas raised by guests 

or Imams go unchallenged.  Such programs are beamed 

through satellite television stations to millions of living 

rooms throughout the broader Middle East and Europe. 

In Saudi Arabia, where news organizations generally 

are either government-controlled or owned by mem- 

bers of the royal family, all media outlets operate under 

unspoken “red lines.”  Anti-Semitic comments have ap- 

peared in the print and electronic media.  These com- 

ments generally are focused on the Israeli-Palestinian 

conflict.  Terminology such as “Jews,” “Zionists,” and 

“Israelis” at times are used interchangeably, and criti- 

cism of Israel often extends to all Jews.23  For example, 

a December 1, 2005 cartoon that appeared in Saudi 

Arabia’s Al-Yawm newspaper featured a Star of David 

with the words “Born to Kill.” 

References to the idea of “Jewish control over the 

world”24 and supporting The Protocols of the Learned 

Elders of Zion appeared in the newspaper Ar-Riyadh on 

March 6, 2006.  On January 13, 2006, an anti-Semitic 

cartoon in the Al-Yawm newspaper depicted Jews as 

thieves, calling them “God’s Cheater People,” a pun in 

Arabic on the expression “God’s Chosen People.” 

Cartoonist Imad Hajaj, Al-Yawm (Saudi Arabia), December 1, 




According to the EUMC, holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel is anti-Semitic. 


According to the EUMC, making stereotypical allegations about Jews such as the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy is an example of anti-Semitism.



Cartoons in Saudi Arabia typically use classic anti- 

Semitic imagery directed against Israel and make 

comparisons between the actions of the government 

of Israel and those of the Nazis.  On April 24, 2006, 

a cartoon in the Al-Medina newspaper depicted the 

treads of an Israel Defense Forces tank forming a 

swastika.  A June 6, 2006 article in the Al-Hayat news- 

paper compared Israeli government actions toward 

Palestinians to “the Nazi manner of killing, starvation, 

and racial segregation….” 

In Saudi Arabia, Holocaust denial25 is a common 

theme.  A July 27, 2006 article in Ar-Riyadh described 

“many doubts regarding the Nazi Holocaust” and 

enumerated supposed similarities between Zionism 

and the Nazi regime.  A September 8, 2006 cartoon 

in Al-Watan depicted blood pouring out of an upside- 

down menorah. 

Government-owned and -sponsored media in Saudi 

Arabia also published pieces alleging that the Septem- 

ber 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by Jews, Zion- 

ists, or Israelis (see Chapter 2).  In Saudi Arabia, such 

writings generally were opinion or editorial pieces. 

In Syria, the government-owned Al-Thawra newspa- 

per published an article in January 31, 2006 accusing 

the government of Israel of genetically engineering 

the avian flu virus in order to damage “genes carried 

only by Arabs” and thus, “to realize the Zionist goal 

of harming the Arabs.”  A March 7, 2007 cartoon in 

the Syrian state-owned newspaper, Teshreen, with the 

second largest distribution in the country, depicts an 

Israeli soldier reading The Protocols of the Learned 

Elders of Zion while stabbing an Arab. 

In Egypt, editorial cartoons depict demonic im- 

ages of Jews and Israeli leaders, stereotypical 

images of Jews along with Jewish symbols, and 

comparisons of Israeli leaders to Hitler and the 

Nazis.26  Anti-Semitic articles and cartoons occur 

in the government-sponsored daily newspapers 

Al-Gumhuriyya, Akhbar Al-Yawm, and Al-Ahram.  

For example, on August 7, 2006, in Al-Ahram, the 

Grand Mufti Ali Gom’a criticized Israel’s military 

action in Lebanon, claiming that Israel’s “lies have 

exposed the true and hideous face of the blood 

suckers who…planned [to make] a matzo using 

human blood.” 

On September 13, 2006, Egyptian state-run daily 

Al-Ahram published an opinion column titled, 

“Who is the Nazi Now?”27 which says, “The war 

that Hitler led against the Jews was an excuse 

through which the Zionists justified their colo- 

nizing of Palestine…. But the Jews, who escaped 

from oppression, oppressed the Palestinians…and 

thus, the victims of the old Nazis became the new 


On March 17, 2007, the Egyptian government 

newspaper Al-Gumhuriyya published a cartoon de- 

picting Uncle Sam (symbolizing the United States) 

being strangled by a Jewish serpent.28  In historic 

European anti-Semitic imagery, the snake often was 

used to portray Jews. 

Cartoonist Yassin Khalil, Teshreen (Syria), March 7, 2007 Cartoonist Ahmed Toghan, Al-Gumhuriyya (Egypt), March 17, 




According to the EUMC, denying the fact, scope, mechanisms, or intentionality of the Holocaust are examples of anti-Semitism (see Chapter 2). 


According to the EUMC, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is an example of anti-Semitism. 




According to the EUMC, making demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews controlling the government is an example of anti-Semitism.


A notice in the prominent Iranian newspaper Hamshahri solicits entries to a Holocaust cartoon contest, February 12, 

2006.  The advertisement was displayed in English and Arabic.  (AP Images) 




In Iran, similar anti-Semitic images are found in the na- 

tional press.  On October 20, 2006, Iranian Channel 1 

aired The Land of Wishes, an Iranian science fiction film 

featuring an evil queen, adorned with a large Star of 

David, sitting on a throne in the “Black House” (which 

also is marked with a Star of David).  The queen is 

depicted as enslaving the masses.  In December 2004, 

Iranian national television began broadcasting a series 

called Zahra’s Blue Eyes in which characters portraying 

Israelis are shown kidnapping Palestinian children to 

harvest their body parts for transplant, a variation on the 

age-old blood libel (see Chapter 2). 

In fall 2006, the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, which 

receives subsidies from the Iranian government, co-spon- 

sored a Holocaust cartoon contest.  The paper solicited 

submissions from around the world.  After receiving 

submissions from 204 participants, it awarded a $12,000 

prize to a Moroccan cartoonist who drew a picture of an 

Israeli crane erecting a wall of concrete blocks around the 

Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Islam’s third holiest site.  

The blocks bear sections of a photograph of the Nazi ex- 

termination camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau.29  (This incident 

was a contrived “response” to a Danish newspaper having 

published cartoons that were offensive to many Muslims.) 

In the United Arab Emirates, on May 14, 2007, the 

semi-official Al-Ittihad carried a cartoon of “the Zionist 

Lobby” which was depicted as a stereotypical Jew with 

a hooked nose, wearing a yarmulke.  

Blatant anti-Semitism in the state-sponsored media is not 

just a Middle Eastern phenomenon.  

In Venezuela, government-affiliated mass media have 

accused Israel, the Mossad, and the Jewish community in 

Venezuela of involvement in the 2002 coup d’etat against 

President Chavez.  The Marciano op-ed in the October 

29, 2007 edition of the pro-government Diaro Vea ac- 

cuses rabbis and Mossad agents of engaging in a conspir- 

acy against President Chavez.  Specifically, the column 

claims that rabbis “stimulated the aggressive action of 

fascist groups in the streets” during the October 23, 2007 

university student march on the National Assembly.  The 

op-ed also asserts without evidence that Mossad agents 

encouraged the students to try to break through police 

cordons and to seek “contacts with military officers.”  

During the October 26, 2007 airing of the pro-Chavez 

talk show La Hojilla on the official Venezuelan televi- 

sion station (Venezolana de Television), host Mario Silva 

asserted without evidence that “Jewish businessmen” are 

financing student demonstrations against Chavez’s pro- 

posed constitutional reforms.  Silva claimed that Jewish 

community leaders played a key role in the short-lived 

April 2002 coup against Chavez and once again are 

conspiring to “destabilize” the Chavez government.  On 

January 5, 2006, an interviewee on Venezolana de Televi- 

sion appeared on La Hojilla and said, “Since we ask for 

respect for all minorities, we ask the Jewish community to 

be loyal to Venezuela and that their members stop doing 

what they are doing against Venezuela.”30  In addition, 

anti-Semitic political cartoons in the Venezuelan govern- 

ment media were quite common in the summer of 2006.  

The following examples appeared in the government’s 

daily newspaper, Diaro Vea (daily circulation of 85,000), 

and the pro-government weekly, Temas Venezuela: 


Ruben, Diaro 

Vea (Venezuela),  

August 7, 2006.  

The caption reads, 

“Enough!” (The 

image is of a Star 

of David impaling 



Rukleman Soto, 

Temas Venezuela, 

June 30, 2006.  The 

caption reads, 

“Where is our 

soldier? Confess” 

(An Israeli tank 

with a Star of David 

and swastikas is 

targeting a woman 

dressed in Muslim 




According to the EUMC, drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is an example of anti-Semitism. 


According to the EUMC, accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their 

own nations, is an example of anti-Semitism.


A Plena Voz, a monthly magazine published by the 

Minister of Culture (which appears as an insert in 

Diaro Vea), carried several articles on the Hizballah- 

Israel conflict in August 2006 comparing Israel and 

its leadership to Hitler and Nazism.31  Huge red 

headlines in the pro-Chavez publication Docencia 

Participativa proclaimed in August: “Nazis in the XXth 

Century, Jews in the XXIst Century;” a Star of David 

filled with swastikas appeared on the back page of the 


In Belarus, the government allowed state enterprises 

to freely print and distribute anti-Semitic material.  

The book Demons on the Russian Land: Globalism 

as a Product of Evil, by Belarusian National Academy 

of Sciences (BNAS) researcher Valeriy Zelenevskiy, 

published in Minsk at the end of 2006, contained 

numerous anti-Semitic statements, such as “The Jews 

still adhere to pro-slavery views.”  Because the state- 

run BNAS approved the publication of the book, Jew- 

ish leaders and human rights activists considered the 

book to reflect the views of certain segments of the 




Ruben, Diario 

Vea (Venezuela), 

May 7, 2006.  The 

boy’s caption says, 

“Grandpa, so the 

real terrorists are 

the Zionists!” 


is reading a 

newspaper entitled, 

“Israel Massacres 

the People of 



According to the EUMC, comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is an example of anti-Semitism.


“The United Nations’ record on anti-Semitism has at 

times fallen short of our ideals.” 

Then-Secretary General 

Kofi Annan, June 2004, 

UN-sponsored Department of 

Public Information Seminar on 



According to the EUMC definition, anti-Semitism mani- 

fests itself with regard to the state of Israel when double 

standards are applied by requiring of Israel a behavior 

not expected or demanded of other nations.  

Motives for criticizing Israel in the UN may stem from 

legitimate concerns over policy or from illegitimate 

prejudices.  This report does not purport to ascribe mo- 

tive to the various critics of Israel within the UN.  How- 

ever, regardless of the intent, disproportionate criticism 

of Israel as barbaric and unprincipled, and correspond- 

ing discriminatory measures adopted in the UN against 

Israel, have the effect of causing audiences to associate 

negative attributes with Jews in general, thus fueling 

anti-Semitism (see Chapter 3).  

In 1975, the UN General Assembly adopted by majority 

vote Resolution 3379 that “determine[d] that Zionism is 

a form of racism and racial discrimination.”  The resolu- 

tion passed by a vote of 72 to 35, with 32 abstentions.  

One of the most vocal proponents of the “Zionism is 

Racism” resolution was the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin 

Dada.  Speaking to the UN General Assembly, Amin 

called for Israel’s expulsion from the UN and its exter- 

mination.  After strenuous efforts by the United States 

and other democratic nations, the “Zionism is Racism” 

resolution was revoked by Resolution 46/86 on Decem- 

ber 16, 1991 by a vote of 111-25, with 13 abstentions. 

Today, the distinction between legitimate criticism of the 

policies and practices of the state of Israel and anti-Sem- 

itism can become blurred in the UN context.  

Some Member States have led efforts to combat anti- 

Semitism, while at the same time, other governments, in 

particular members of the Organization of the Islamic 

Conference (OIC), have used the United Nations system 

as a venue to engage in polemics against Israel that go 

beyond legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies and in- 

stead demonize Israelis and, implicitly, Jews generally. 








Israel’s Foreign Minister David Levy, left, embraces Israel’s UN 

Ambassador Yoram Aridor after the UN General Assembly voted 

to repeal its 1975 resolution equating Zionism with racism, New 

York City, December 16, 1991.  (AP Images) 

“What a tragic paradox, that the Jewish people, 

with its ideal of Zion, the greatest victim of 

racism and racial persecution throughout 

history, is now, by virtue of a draft resolution 

of the ‘petro-majority,’ a racist people and 


– Reverend Benjamin Nunez, 

UN delegate from Costa Rica, 

November 6, 1975, referring 

to passage of the “Zionism is 

Racism” resolution



United Nations Security Council 

The Security Council has criticized specific Israeli 

policies and also has addressed Israel’s security needs, 

for example in UNSC resolution 1701 (2006), which 

ended the hostilities between Hizballah and Israel in 

southern Lebanon in August 2006.  

The United States vetoed two proposed UN Security 

Council resolutions in 2006-07 addressing Israeli- 

Palestinian issues for their singling out of Israeli actions 

for criticism while failing to address similar behavior 

by others, and for their failure to appropriately address 

Palestinian obligations.32  It is unclear at this point if 

these resolutions are indicative of a larger trend or are 

an anomaly reflective of a particularly tense period in 


Israel’s Membership in Regional Groups 

There has been significant progress in recent years in 

increasing Israel’s participation in regional groupings— 

although the situation remains far from ideal.  Israel 

should be a member of the Asia Group based on 

geography, or the Western European and Others Group 

(WEOG) based on form of government, as well as its 

informal sub-grouping JUSCANZ (Japan, United States, 

Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) that consists of 

many non-EU members of WEOG.  However, the Arab/ 

Islamic States block Israel’s membership in the Asian 

Group, and certain WEOG countries block Israel from 

joining WEOG and JUSCANZ.  A compromise has 

been achieved, in that Israel is accorded status as a 

WEOG member in one respect, namely for purposes of 

running as a WEOG member in elections held at UN 

Headquarters in New York City.  In the past few years, 

Israel has become eligible to compete for election to 

UN limited membership bodies for vacant seats allo- 

cated to the WEOG; it has been elected to all bodies 

for which it has sought membership, including: 

The General Assembly Special Session on 


Disarmament (2003), 

The Commission on Narcotic Drugs (term 



The UN Environmental Program Governing 


Council (term 2004-2007), 

The UN Human Settlement Program (UN 


Habitat) (term 2004-2007), 

The 58 

th General Assembly (Sixth) Committee 

Vice Chair (2003-2004), 

The UN Disarmament Commission (rapporteur 


for 2004), 

The 59 

th General Assembly First Committee 

(Disarmament), Vice Chair (2004-2005), 

The UN Commission on International Trade 


Law (UNCITRAL) (term 2004-2009), and 

The UN Commission on Sustainable 


Development (2006-2008). 

In June 2005, Israel was elected for the first time to 

serve as one of 21 Vice Presidents of the 60th General 


That said, Israel is the only UN Member State not al- 

lowed formal and active membership in any of the five 

regional groupings within the UN system—this status 

has the effect of legitimizing the patently false assertion 

that the Jewish State has engaged in behavior that vio- 

lates the rights of others far more than any other state. 

United Nations General Assembly 


In recent years, there has been a significant trend 

in the General Assembly  to adopt resolutions 

condemning traditional forms of anti-Semitism, 

including Holocaust denial (see Chapters 2 and 

7).  However, in contrast to these positive efforts, 

the UN General Assembly, led by some countries, 

mainly from the G-77 and non-aligned move- 

ment, has established bureaucracies with the sole 

mandate of singling out Israel as a violator of the 

human rights of others: The Division for Palestin- 

ian Rights (established in 1981); the Committee 

on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the 

Palestinian People (1975); and the Special Com- 

mittee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the 

Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other 

Arabs of the Occupied Territories (1968).  These 

bodies and their staffs receive funding from within 



Specifically, on July 16, 2006, the United States vetoed a Qatari-proposed resolution condemning Israeli military actions in Gaza, and, on November 

11, 2006, the United States vetoed a resolution addressing an event at Beit Hanoun.  The resolutions criticized Israel for collateral damage to civilian 

areas while ignoring deliberate targeting of civilians by the other side.




These committees consist of the UNGA plenary, UNGA First Committee, UNGA Second Committee, UNGA Third Committee, UNGA Fourth Commit- 

tee and ECOSOC.  The UN Commission on Human Rights and UN Human Rights Council are covered elsewhere in this chapter. 

bodies and their staffs receive funding from within 

the regular UN budget assessed against all Mem- 

ber States.  No other Member State is singled out 

in this fashion. 

Between 2001 and September 2006, UNGA’s 

plenary and main committees (not including the 

former Commission on Human Rights or Hu- 

man Rights Council)33 together adopted over 

120 human rights-related resolutions focused on 

Israel, with more anticipated by the end of the 

2007-2008 UNGA.  During that same period, 

only ten resolutions were adopted by these same 

bodies regarding the situations in North Korea, 

Burma, and Sudan. 

In fall 2006, UNGA adopted two resolutions on 

the Palestinian people that solely blamed Israel 

for the then current conflict (with no mention of 

Hamas shelling Israeli civilians or Hamas and 

Hizballah having kidnapped Israeli soldiers).  The 

votes in the General Assembly were overwhelm- 

ingly in favor of both resolutions.  Resolution 

61/152, “The Right of the Palestinian People to 

Self-Determination,” was adopted by a vote of 

176 in favor, 5 against, and 5 abstentions.  Reso- 

lution 61/154, “The Human Rights Situation Aris- 

ing from the recent Israeli Military Operations in 

Lebanon,” was adopted by a vote of 112 in favor, 

7 against, and 64 abstentions.  Meanwhile, the 

dire situation in Sudan in which hundreds of thou- 

sands of civilians have been deliberately targeted 

did not merit a single focused resolution (although 

one resolution on assistance to refugees in Africa 

did pass).  

The United Nations General Assembly has held 

a total of 10 Emergency Special Sessions since 

1956.  Six of these sessions have been about 


United Nations Commission on Human Rights 

Between 2001 and when it was disbanded in 

2006, the UN Commission on Human Rights 

passed 26 resolutions and one decision that were 

critical of Israel.  The situations in North Korea, 

Burma, and Sudan warranted a combined total 

of 11 resolutions and decisions during the same 


For many years before its abolition, the Commis- 

sion on Human Rights had a separate agenda 

item focusing solely on alleged violations of 

Israel—namely, Item 8, “Question of the viola- 

tion of human rights in the occupied Arab territo- 

ries, including Palestine.”  This allowed multiple 

resolutions against Israel, while no other country 

could have more than one resolution run against 

it each year.  No other country beside Israel had 

an agenda item exclusively scrutinizing it.  This 

tradition has been continued by the new UN Hu- 

man Rights Council (see below).  Several impor- 

tant countries, including established democracies, 

follow a policy of voting “on principle” against all 

resolutions that criticize a specific country regard- 

less of the merits—unless that country is Israel, in 

which case they consistently vote in favor of criti- 

cal resolutions. 

United Nations Human Rights Council 

In 2006, the Commission on Human Rights, 

which had lost legitimacy due to the inclusion in 

its leadership and membership of Member States 

that are serious, serial human rights violators, was 

replaced with a new body, the UN Human Rights 

Council (UNHRC).  The UNHRC was established 

as a subsidiary body of the UN General Assembly 

over the opposition of the United States, which 

subsequently chose not to run for a seat.  (The 

United States voted against the resolution estab- 

lishing the UNHRC due to concerns that it con- 

tained insufficient safeguards to ensure that states 

that are gross violators of human rights could not 

become members.)  The new body has proven to 

be even more prone to protect serious violators of 

human rights and more prolific in its criticism of 

Israel than its predecessor.  The UNHRC adopted 

15 anti-Israel resolutions or decisions in its first 


16 months (ending September 30, 2007).  In June 

2007, it established the “human rights situation 

in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories” 

as a permanent agenda item—the only single- 

country item on the permanent agenda.  In addi- 

tion, in its first six months, the UNHRC held three 

special sessions against Israel.  The UNHRC has 

taken little significant action against other coun- 

tries, including the world’s most notorious human 

rights violators, with the exceptions of Sudan (one 

resolution, one decision, and one special session 

resulting in one decision) and Burma (one special 

session resulting in one resolution).  Instead, the 

Council decided to end the scrutiny of notori- 

ous violators of human rights such as Belarus and 

Cuba given by the predecessor Commission, while 

expanding its scrutiny of Israel. 

“[Taking a] discriminatory and one-sided 

approach has become not the exception but 

the norm… [Israel is] systematically singled 

out [as] a member state for selective and 

discriminatory treatment, while granting 

the violators exculpatory immunity… The 

tragedy…is that all of this is taking place 

under the protective cover of the UN, 

undermining thereby the cause of the UN, 

international law and human rights.” 

– Irwin Cotler, Canadian Member of 

Parliament and former Justice Minister and 

Attorney General, June 13, 2007, in an 

address to the UNHRC in Geneva 

Resolutions with Negative Country-Specific References (2001-2007)


Resolutions Criticizing Countries’ Human Rights Records (2001-2007)



The one-sided World Health Organization resolution blamed Israel for a wide-range of health-related concerns such as the shortage of drugs and medical 

supplies in Gaza, as well as food insecurity due to Israel’s withholding of Palestinian customs revenues.  The resolution demanded, among other things, 

that Israel pay the Palestinian Authority regularly and without delay, and halt all practices and policies that affect the health conditions of civilians under 

occupation.  There was no acknowledgement that the Palestinian Authority could have some responsibility for the situation in Gaza. 

Other UN Bodies 

Other UN fora display a similar penchant for sin- 

gling out Israel for scrutiny or criticism to which 

other states are not subjected.  In 2006, in the wake 

of the conflict between Hizballah and Israel, po- 

lemical resolutions or statements critical of Israel 

were introduced in a number of UN fora includ- 

ing the International Telecommunications Union 

(ITU), the World Health Organization (WHO), the 

International Labor Organization (ILO), and the UN 

Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 

(UNESCO).  Each of these resolutions was one-sid- 

ed (not even mentioning the other party involved in 

the conflict) and outside the mandate of the respec- 

tive organization. 

Israel is the object of far more investigative commit- 

tees, special representatives, and rapporteurs than 

any other state in the UN system. 

A special representative of the Director General 

of UNESCO has visited Israel 51 times during 27 

years of activity.  At its annual assembly in Geneva 

in 2007, the World Health Organization passed a 

resolution by vote (106 in favor, 7 against, and 12 

abstentions) on the health conditions of Palestin- 

ians, which was extreme in its criticism of Israel.34 

Likewise, the UN’s lead agency responsible for the 

global promotion and protection of women’s rights, 

the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), 

ended its 51st session on March 9, 2007 by criticiz- 

ing only one state—Israel.  The resolution’s blame 

of Israel for the mistreatment of Palestinian women 

ignored the repression that Palestinian women en- 

dure in their own communities.  The same session 

of the CSW saw fit to pass no resolutions at all on 

the international problem of honor crimes, female 

genital mutilation, rape as a weapon of war, and 

other serious abuses against women. 

World Conference Against Racism 

At the September 2001 World Conference Against 

Racism (WCAR) held in Durban, South Africa under 

UN auspices, anti-Israel rhetoric was pervasive 

enough to undermine the conference.  South Afri- 

ca’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Aziz Pahad, acknowl- 

Demonstrators march through the streets during the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa, August 31, 2001.  Many 

protestors held placards demonizing Israel, including signs equating Zionism with racism, accusing Israel of genocide, and comparing 

Israel to Apartheid.  (AP Images)


edged that the nongovernmental parallel segment 

of the conference had been “hijacked and used by 

some with an anti-Israel agenda to turn it into an 

anti-Semitic event.” 

The event had three parts: a youth summit, a meet- 

ing of NGOs, and the conference itself.  To the 

exclusion of most other issues involving racism 

around the world, speakers and panel moderators 

at the opening of the NGO Forum issued strongly 

worded anti-Israel accusations and equated Israel’s 

treatment of Palestinians to apartheid in South Af- 

rica.  The only panel on the 4-day NGO forum pro- 

gram that dealt with anti-Semitism was disrupted by 

anti-Semites.  Arab activists joined each subgroup 

of the drafting session arguing that the Holocaust 

be equated with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians35 

and that anti-Semitism be re-labeled as “anti-Arab 

sentiment” since Arabs are Semites.  NGO Forum 

attendees also used Holocaust terminology to refer 

to Israel. 

The conference’s NGO Forum was followed by the 

main conference, comprised of delegates from UN 

Member States.  The conference culminated in the 

Durban Declaration in which Israel was the only 

country singled out for criticism.  The resolution re- 

ceived the support of most participants.  However, 

the United States and many other Western countries 

decried the effort to single out the state of Israel, 

and eventually the United States delegation walked 

out of the main conference.36 

Special Rapporteurs 

The suggestion that apartheid exists in Israel was 

first asserted at the WCAR.  Within the UN context, 

this is a variation on the anti-Semitic “Zionism is 

Racism” resolution.  In a report released in February 

2007, John Dugard, the UN’s “Special Rapporteur 

on the situation of human rights in the Palestin- 

ian territories occupied since 1967,” announced 

that “Israel’s policies resemble those of Apartheid.”  

According to the report, “It is difficult to resist the 

conclusion that many of Israel’s laws and practices 

violate the 1966 Convention on the Elimination of 

all forms of Racial Discrimination.” 

Referring to Israel’s actions in the occupied West 

Bank, Dugard wrote: 

“Can it seriously be denied that the purpose… 

is to establish and maintain domination by 

one racial group (Jews) over another racial 

group (Palestinians) and systematically op- 

pressing [sic] them?  Israel denies that this is 

its intention or purpose.  But such an intention 

or purpose may be inferred from the actions 

described in this report.” 

Dugard’s reports consistently and deliberately omit- 

ted any word about Palestinian terrorism or incite- 

ment that would provide an explanation for Israeli 

actions other than that of racial prejudice.37 

In July 2005, Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rappor- 

teur on the Right to Food, told a crowd of anti-Israel 

demonstrators in Geneva that Gaza was “an im- 

mense concentration camp,” adding that it was a 

good thing that the “guards” were about to leave.38 

“When people criticize Zionists, 

they mean Jews.  You are talking 


– The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., 

during a 1968 appearance at Harvard 

University, as recounted by Seymour 

Martin Lipset in Encounter magazine, 

December 1969 



According to the EUMC, comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is an example of anti-Semitism. 


The Government of Israel also walked out of the conference.  In addition, the Government of Canada disassociated itself from consensus. 


According to the EUMC, making demonizing statements about Jews and applying double-standards to the state of Israel are examples of anti-Semitism. 


According to the EUMC, comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis is an example of anti-Semitism.


“…Morality means concern for the other, not for 

oneself—the other. 

In order to feel empathy and compassion for and with a 

person who is alone, suffering, in desperation, it’s only 

because we remember others who were alone, suffering, 

and in despair.  It happens that not only one person, 

but the group, may forget.  Forgetting means the end of 

civilization, the end of culture, the end of generosity, the 

end of compassion, the end of humanity.  And therefore 

I celebrate memory, and I try to strengthen it.  And I 

believe—I still do, in spite of everything—that memory 

is a shield.  If we remember what people can do to each 

other, then we can help those who tomorrow may be 

threatened by the same enemy.” 

Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor 

and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, 

May 24, 2007 



Societal anti-Semitism manifests itself through a num- 

ber of avenues discussed below. 

Publishing and Broadcasting 

Private radio, television stations, and print media are 

among the most widely used vehicles for dissemina- 

tion of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and rhetoric.  

In many Middle Eastern countries, governments own 

or heavily influence the media, therefore most ex- 

amples of anti-Semitism in Arab and Persian media 

are covered in this report’s chapter on state-spon- 

sored anti-Semitism.  Some private media exist in the 

Middle East, and anti-Semitism is prevalent in them. 

In Qatar, the television satellite network Al-Jazeera

privately operated though funded by officials in the 

Qatari government, is unique in the pan-Arab media 

by regularly hosting Israeli guests and commentators.  

However, the station also regularly hosts guests who 

viciously attack Israel and Jews alike, referring to 

traditional conspiracy theories, such as The Protocols 

of the Learned Elders of Zion, as unchallenged facts.  

In Algeria, anti-Semitic articles appear occasion- 

ally in the independent press, especially in Arabic- 

language newspapers.  One newspaper, El Fadjr

published throughout 2006 and 2007 a number of 

anti-Semitic political cartoons that highlighted close 

U.S.-Israeli ties.  

In the United Arab Emirates, anti-Semitic articles 

and cartoons sometimes are published.  On August 

2, 2006, Al-Bayan, one of the country’s largest news- 

papers,39 published an Op-Ed contrasting “Zionism 

and Arabism,” which included derogatory statements 

and asked, “Are they [Zionists] part of humanity?”  

On July 16 and 17, 2006, Al-Bayan carried editorial 

articles comparing Israelis to Nazis.  A December 

22, 2005 Al-Bayan cartoon depicted a Jew play- 

ing with the globe, a reference to the anti-Semitic 

conspiracy theory that Jews control the world (see 

Chapter 2). 

In Tunisia, privately-owned newspapers publish 

cartoons, on occasion, that use derogatory carica- 

tures of Jews to portray the state of Israel and Israeli 

interests.  These cartoons all tend to be drawn by 

cartoonists outside the country. 







Cartoonist Khaldun Gharaibeh, Al-Bayan (United Arab Emir- 

ates), December 22, 2005 


Al-Bayan is an independent Arabic daily out of Dubai with a circulation of about 85,000.  In contrast, the U.A.E.’s semi-official Al-Ittihad only has a 

circulation of 60,000 and Gulf News (English) has the largest circulation (100,000) in the U.A.E.




Lebanese Hizballah has made many anti-Israeli statements.  Its original 1985 Charter includes statements on the “necessity for the destruction of Israel.”  How- 

ever, the group has omitted the Charter’s paragraph on Israel from its website and apparently never refers to it.  It instead refers to more recent declarations. 

In the West Bank and Gaza, in early 2007, Hamas 

produced a children’s television program featuring 

Farfour, a Mickey Mouse look-alike that encouraged 

violent attacks, including suicide bombings, against 

Israel and preached Islamic domination over Jews 

and others.  The show’s final episode, “Tomorrow’s 

Pioneers,” which aired on Al-Aqsa television on June 

29, 2007, featured Jewish agents beating the Mickey 

Mouse character to death. 

In Lebanon, the Hizballah-controlled television 

station Al-Manar has broadcast anti-Semitic pro- 

gramming.  In 2003, Al-Manar aired a 26-part 

Syrian-produced drama series, The Diaspora, that 

quoted heavily from The Protocols of the Learned 

Elders of Zion and accused Jews of blood libel 

(see Chapter 2).40 

Private media in countries beyond the Middle East 

also print anti-Semitic articles and cartoons.  

In Pakistan, some independent newspapers fre- 

quently publish articles that contain derogatory 

references to Jews (and other religious minorities).  

In Indonesia, Sabili, a widely read Islamic maga- 

zine, often publishes articles with anti-Semitic 

statements and themes, suggesting, for example, 

the existence of conspiratorial “Zionist” activities in 


In Turkey, Jewish community members report a sig- 

nificant rise in anti-Semitic language in newspapers 

and websites since the July 2006 Hizballah conflict 

with Israel. 

In Poland, conservative Catholic radio station 

Radio Maryja, founded in Torun in 1991, is one 

of Europe’s most blatantly anti-Semitic media 

venues.  Radio Maryja is owned by the Congrega- 

tion of the Most Holy Redeemer, and is financed 

through donations from its audience.  Directed by 

Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, Radio Maryja reportedly 

attracts more than 10 percent of adults in Poland.  

The radio has criticized Jews in Poland and else- 

where in Central and Eastern Europe suggesting 

they are part of a worldwide “Holocaust Indus- 

try.”  In July 2007, Father Rydzyk was recorded 

making a number of anti-Semitic slurs.  He said 

Jews were pushing the Polish government to pay 

exorbitant private property restitution claims, 

and that Poland’s President was “in the pocket 

of the Jewish lobby.”  His statements were aimed 

at encouraging legislators and popular opinion 

against support for a compensation bill.  Several 

members of the Polish Catholic leadership have 

criticized Father Rydzyk and Radio Maryja for the 


An image from Al-Aqsa television, a station run by Hamas, 

shows a Mickey Mouse look-alike Farfour.  (AP Images) 

Palestinian children watching a show featuring Farfour on Al- 

Aqsa television at their home in Gaza City, May 11, 2007.  (AP 



In Russia, a number of small, radical-nationalist news- 

papers print anti-Semitic (as well as anti-Muslim and 

xenophobic) articles.  The estimated number of xeno- 

phobic publications exceed 100, many sponsored by 

the local chapters of the National Power Party.  Anti-Se- 

mitic articles have appeared in regional papers such as 

Stenogramma in the Komi Republic and the Orthodox 

Simbirsk in Ulyanovsk. 

In Belarus, anti-Semitic and Russian ultranationalist 

newspapers and literature, DVDs, and videocassettes 

continue to be sold at Pravoslavnaya Kniga, an Ortho- 

dox bookstore, which sells Orthodox literature and re- 

ligious paraphernalia.  The store is part of the Khristian- 

skaya Initsiativa company, the general director of which 

writes xenophobic articles.  The store distributes the 

anti-Semitic and xenophobic newspaper Russkiy Vestnik 

despite a 2003 order by the Prosecutor General and the 

Ministry of Information to remove copies from the store.  

In Romania, anti-Semitic social elements republish 

inflammatory books from the interwar period.  In ad- 

dition, one-sided anti-Semitic views and attitudes are 

expressed during Romanian talk shows broadcast by 

private television stations. 

In Serbia, translations of anti-Semitic foreign literature, 

most notably The Protocols of the Learned Elders of 

Zion, are reprinted—often without the permission of 

the originals’ authors or publishers—and sell well in 

mainstream bookstores, despite the Serbian govern- 

ment’s ban on most of these titles.  Neo-Nazi groups, 

such as Stormfront, circulate their own anti-Semitic 

literature in Serbian.  

In Norway, articles, reports, and political cartoons that 

vilify and demean the Jewish people and community 

while minimizing the Holocaust have appeared in the 

mainstream media.  In summer 2006, Jostein Gaarder, 

a prominent Norwegian author, published an article in 

one of the major daily newspapers Aftenposten en- 

titled, “God’s Chosen People,” that many within and 

outside the country considered anti-Semitic for its tone 

and biblical interpretations.  A July 2006 caricature in 

Norway’s largest daily Verdens Gang depicted Prime 

Minister Ehud Olmert as a clawed subhuman (see 

Chapter 3).  Another caricature which appeared in the 

major Oslo newspaper Dagbladet in summer 2006 

depicted Olmert as a Nazi death camp commander.  

While anti-Semitic depictions of Israel were especially 

common in Norway during the Hizballah-Israel con- 

flict in summer 2006, such images also predate it. 

Cartoonist Finn Graff, Dagbladet (Norway), 10 July 2006 


The headquarters of the Catholic radio station Radio Maryja in 

Torun, Poland, May 9, 2006.  The sign over the door reads: “Radio 

Maryja in the service of God, Church and Country.” (AP Images)



In Spain, on July 17, 2006, Jorge Berlanga wrote 

an article entitled “Judiadas,” a slang term that 

the Spanish Royal Academy defines as “a bad act, 

prejudicially considered to be worthy of Jews,” that 

appeared in the conservative Spanish newspaper La 

Razon.  The article included a broad attack on Jews 

and said, among other things, that the Jews have “a 

blood oath which impedes any form of generosity 

with other races.” 

In Greece, in 2006 and 2007, there were several 

instances of anti-Semitic articles or cartoons in the 

media (see Chapter 2). 

The Internet 

The United States strongly supports the free flow 

of information and ideas on the Internet,41 which 

holds enormous potential to promote freedom, tol- 

erance, and human dignity.  At the same time, the 

Internet also is a haven for anti-Semites and others 

who espouse hatred and intolerance.  

Generally, the Internet is an unrestricted and unreg- 

ulated domain.  Items can be posted anonymously 

and ideas can spread quickly.  The Internet also 

provides a convenient means for networking among 

individuals with extreme views who, in the past, 

might never have had the chance to communicate. 

Anti-Semitic websites are increasingly common.  

For instance, in Russia as of 2007 there were at 

least 80 websites disseminating anti-Semitic mate- 

rial.  In Poland, there were more than 50042 racist 

and xenophobic websites (targeting Jews and other 

minorities), according to Never Again, an anti-rac- 

ism organization based in Poland. 

Hate-filled messages sent by email or posted in chat 

rooms are becoming  common worldwide.  They 

can originate anywhere and be received anywhere.  

Anti-Semites share messages among themselves.  

They also interject such messages into chat rooms 

or email sites specifically devoted to inter-religious 

dialogue, Jewish issues, or other civil discourse.  

For instance, in Austria, in summer 2006, a flurry of 

Anti-Semitic Video Games on the Internet 

Anti-Semitic video games, most of which can 

be downloaded on the Internet, are increasingly 

common and turn racist violence into entertain- 

ment.  Patterned after popular mainstream video 

games, such games can reach a wide, computer- 

savvy, young audience.  For example: 

Day of Defeat features battlefields decorated 

with swastikas and Nazi posters; in some 

games, a battle is signaled with a rousing call 

to arms broadcast in German. 

Ethnic Cleansing features a white suprema- 

cist who proceeds through 10 levels full of 

racist posters and symbols, gunning down 

caricatured Jews and other minorities.  The 

game proclaims, “White revolution is the 

only solution.”  The premise of Ethnic Cleans- 

ing is that a city—clearly New York City—has 

been destroyed by gangs of “sub-humans” 

controlled by Jews.  Plans for world domina- 

tion are seen in the subway and elsewhere.  

The player roams the streets and subways 

murdering “predatory sub-humans” and their 

“Jewish masters,” thereby “saving” the white 

world.  During the game, “Oy vey!” rings 

out when Jewish characters are killed.  At the 

end, the player confronts the “End Boss,” a 

rocket launcher-wielding Ariel Sharon. 

Under Ash involves the mass killing of Israe- 

lis and Jews. 

Kz Manager allows players to manage a con- 

centration camp. 

Kz Rattenjagd allows players to, “Kill the 

Jewish rats with a gun!” 

Other anti-Semitic video game titles include 

Aryan 3, Doom Nazi ver, Return to Castle 

Wolfenstein, and Ghetto Blaster. 



For example, see the U.S. Secretary of State’s Global Internet Freedom Task Force (GIFT) Strategy at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/78340.htm. 


There are approximately 386,000 websites in Poland.


postings and emails demanded that Jewish citizens 

apologize for the death of an Austrian peacekeeper 

killed during the 2006 conflict in Lebanon.  On 

August 10, 2006, the European Union of Jewish 

Students’ website was hacked and infected with a 

computer virus that caused its computer screen to 

display the statement, “Israel Go to Hell.” 

The Internet sometimes has been used as a vehicle 

to target specific Jews.  For example, in Denmark 

the Copenhagen Post reported that in February 

2005 a neo-Nazi website posted pictures, names, 

phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of Jews and 

foreigners living in Denmark labeling each indi- 

vidual “Jew” next to the picture.  The site claimed 

that the Jews were conspiring to control the world.  

Similarly, in Poland, on March 4, 2007, Gazeta 

Wyborcza reported that the skinhead website 

“Redwatch” posted photos and names of teachers 

and students in Zabrze and called them “traitors to 

their race” for cleaning and maintaining a Jewish 










“Today there is still denial about the universal ideology 

of the new anti-Semitism.  It has power and reach, and it 

enters into the soft underbelly of the Western mind-set 

that does not like Jews or what Israel does to defend its 

right to exist. 

A counterattack is being organized…..  We are at the 

beginning of a long intellectual and ideological struggle.  

It is not about Jews or Israel.  It is about everything 

democrats have long fought for: the truth without fear, 

no matter one’s religion or political beliefs.  The new 

anti-Semitism threatens all of humanity.  The Jew-haters 

must not pass.” 

Dennis MacShane, U.K. 

Member of Parliament and Chair 

of the All-Party Parliamentary 

Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

September 4, 2007 



Government Efforts 

While a small number of governments have been 

inciting anti-Semitism, and others have failed to take 

action against it, many governmental efforts to com- 

bat anti-Semitism are underway.   

Governments combat anti-Semitism through a variety 

of means, including: 

Publicly condemning all forms of anti- 


Semitism and intolerance whenever they 


Meeting with victims of anti-Semitic crime; 


Monitoring anti-Semitic actions and 


maintaining public statistics; 

Promoting tolerance in primary and secondary 


schools, and in society at large; 

Devoting significant resources to investigating 


incidents and prosecuting perpetrators of anti- 

Semitic crimes (as hate crimes); 

Combating hate crimes, including through 


training police; 

Promoting Holocaust awareness and 



Supporting interfaith understanding and 



Providing security protection to threatened 


synagogues and other Jewish institutions; and 

Collaborating with affected communities, 


NGOs, and international bodies to counter 


Specific country examples of government efforts 

to combat anti-Semitism are well documented in 

the U.S. Department of State’s annual Country Re- 

ports on Human Rights Practices, as well as in its 

annual Report on International Religious Freedom 

(both available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl).  There 

also is comprehensive information on government 

legislation aimed at combating anti-Semitism col- 

lected by the OSCE (www.osce.org/odihr) and in 

Legislating Against Discrimination, An International 

Survey of Anti-Discrimination Norms (Nina Osin 

and Dina Porat, editors. Leiden:  Martinus Nijhoff 

Publishers, 2005). 

Some countries have appointed special envoys 

and special representatives to the Jewish commu- 

nity, including Jacques Huntzinger in France and 

Benedikt Haller in Germany.  Several countries 

have established rapporteurs that focus on domes- 

tic efforts to curb anti-Semitism.  

A number of governments also have fostered inter- 

faith dialogues (see Chapter 8). 

Fighting Anti-Semitism through Law 

Laws can be among the most powerful tools for 

fighting anti-Semitism.  Examples include: 

Creation of minority rights and legal protections 

that prevent discrimination; increased sentences 

for hate-motivated crimes; legally established 

commissions and agencies to counter racism, pro- 

tect human rights, or fight discrimination, includ- 

ing against Jews; ombudsmen to address ethnic 

and minority issues; and strong laws against 

crimes linked to anti-Semitism, such as cemetery 







Countries vary widely in their legal approaches to combating anti-Semitism.  For instance, some 

countries enact prohibitions and impose criminal penalties on certain forms of anti-Semitic 

expression (e.g., denial of the Holocaust and broadcasting racist remarks).  In other countries, 

including the United States, such measures would conflict with legal protections of the freedom of 

expression.  Although there are significant country variations, a common approach to combating 

anti-Semitism is the prohibition of governmental and certain forms of private discrimination on the 

grounds of nationality, race, religion, and other factors.43 

Visitors attend an exhibition about anti-Semitism at the Foreign Ministry in Berlin, 

Germany, August 1, 2007.  Germany has been a leader in supporting Holocaust 

Remembrance.  (AP Images) 



While this report describes the range of measures that various governments have adopted to combat anti-Semitism, it does not endorse any such 

measures that prohibit conduct that would be protected under the U.S. Constitution.  Most notably, U.S. constitutional protection of the freedom of 

speech generally prohibits the government from restricting expression based on its content, regardless of the offensiveness of the underlying message.  

The United States takes the view that governments should whenever possible refrain from imposing restrictions or limitations on the freedom of 





“My grandfather once declared that there were 

no Jewish citizens, but only Moroccan ones.  Mo- 

rocco is built on tolerance.” 

– Morocco’s King Mohammed VI, June 20, 


“Anti-Semitism is a shameful disease of the mind.  

It is a perversion.  The Holocaust is the worst 

crime against humanity throughout history.” 

– Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip 

Erdogan, June 10, 2005 

“Today, sadly, we are witnessing the rise of new 

signs of anti-Semitism… How can we fail to see in 

this a reason for concern and vigilance?” 

Germany, Pope Benedict XVI, August 19, 2005 

“I can confirm to you my determination to fight 

more than ever against any form of racism, anti- 

Semitism, exclusion and intolerance.” 

France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, September 

11, 2007 

“The Holocaust and Babyn Yar killings wounded 

our nations.  Babyn Yar should be that injection 

preventing aggressive bloody xenophobia.” 

– Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko on 

September 26, 2006 at a ceremony at the 

Babyn Yar ravine, where some 33,000 Jews 

were killed between September 29 and 30, 


“I clearly and straightforwardly promise that 

there will never be ethnic intolerance and reli- 

gious hatred in Ukraine.  Like all Ukrainians, I 

refuse to accept and tolerate the slightest mani- 

festation of xenophobia and anti-Semitism.” 

– President Yushchenko speaking the 

following day at a conference to mark the 

65th anniversary of the Babyn Yar massacre 

“You can be sure that all and each one of us 

who have institutional responsibilities will raise 

not only our voice but will take concrete action 

against any sign of anti-Semitism.” 

– Argentina’s President Cristina Fernandez 

de Kirchner, March 26, 2007, Statement 

made while she was Senator and First Lady 

“Every attack on a Jewish institution is an assault 

on our democracy.” 

– Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, in a 

letter to Rabbi Yehuda Teichtal of the Gan- 

Israel Jewish school, after a February 25, 

2007 attack on the kindergarten 

“No to anti-Semitism, even when it masquerades 

as anti-Zionism.” 

– Italy’s President Giorgio Napolitano, 

January 25, 2007, Rome, on Memorial Day 

“In the 21st century we cannot accept the denial 

of the Holocaust as a historical fact…nor can we 

accept those who deny that six million Jews were 


– Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da 

Silva, February 3, 2007, at a Holocaust 

Remembrance ceremony in Sao Paulo, Brazil 

“[It’s] essential that the Shoa be remembered, not 

only because of the Nazis’ torture of the victims 

of the Holocaust, but also because of the world’s 

indifference and silence.  Knowledge of history 

and education are the best instruments to prevent 

violence, which still is present in many parts of 

the world.” 

– Manuel Marin, President of the Spanish 

Congress, January 26, 2007, Statement 

during a Holocaust commemoration 




International Organizations 

“This scourge [of anti-Semitism] strikes against the 

foundations of democracy and the way our coun- 

tries respond to anti-Semitism is critical for the 

credibility of democracy.” 

– Solomon Passy, OSCE Chairman-in-Office 

and Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, April 2004, 

OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, Berlin 

International organizations have played a critical 

role in fighting anti-Semitism and other forms of 


The Organization for Security and Cooperation in 


The Organization for Security and Cooperation in 

Europe (OSCE) has been a global forerunner in ef- 

forts to combat anti-Semitism in the European and 

Eurasian region.  At the 1990 OSCE Conference on 

the Human Dimension in Copenhagen, and again, 

at the 1991 OSCE Meeting of Experts on National 

Minorities in Geneva, the OSCE member states 

agreed to clearly and unequivocally condemn anti- 

Semitism and to take effective measures against 


The OSCE’s efforts to fight anti-Semitism have 

included further declarations condemning anti- 

Semitism, conferences where governments and 

NGOs meet to discuss the problem, and programs 

aiding participating States to more effectively fight 

anti-Semitism and promote tolerance.  The OSCE’s 

more in-depth focus on anti-Semitism grew out of 

the activities of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly 

(PA).  At the July 2002 OSCE Parliamentary Assem- 

bly annual meeting in Berlin, the U.S. and German 

delegations, led by Representative Christopher H. 

Smith and Bundestag Member Gert Weisskirchen, 

respectively, convened a special forum to highlight 

an increase in anti-Semitic violence.  In addition, 

the U.S. and German delegation heads cospon- 

sored the first PA resolution condemning the rise in 

anti-Semitic violence and calling for increased gov- 

ernmental and OSCE engagement.  It passed unani- 

mously.  Later that year, the OSCE responded in 

kind when the participating States at the December 

2002 OSCE Ministerial meeting issued a decision 

condemning the increase of anti-Semitic violence 

and calling for a special OSCE event to address the 

recurring problem. 

The first OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism was 

held in Vienna in June 2003.  The conference re- 

sulted in the 2003 OSCE Ministerial meeting again 

addressing the problem by recommending that 

participating States actively collect data on hate 

crimes, including crimes motivated by anti-Semi- 

tism.  Additionally, the Ministerial decision tasked 

the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and 

Human Rights (ODIHR) with collecting this infor- 

mation and regularly reporting its findings.  Based 

in Warsaw, ODIHR has a mandate to support elec- 

tion observation, democratic development, hu- 

man rights, tolerance and non-discrimination, and 

the rule of law throughout the OSCE region.  The 

Ministerial expanded ODIHR’s work to also collect 

and disseminate best practices for “preventing and 

responding to anti-Semitism,” as well as to assist 

States in their efforts to respond effectively.  The 

OSCE also hosted a Meeting on the Relationship 

Between Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Semitic Pro- 

paganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes in Paris 

in June 2003. 

The second OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism 

was held in Berlin in April 2004 and led to the 

“Berlin Declaration.”  U.S. Secretary of State Colin 

Powell and other high government officials from 

the participating states addressed the conference.  

The Berlin Declaration is considered a landmark in 

international efforts to combat anti-Semitism, as it 

recognized anti-Semitism has “assumed new forms 

and expressions” that threaten regional security.  

The Declaration also stated “unambiguously that 

international developments or political issues, 

including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle 

East, never justify anti-Semitism.” 

The text of the Declaration was endorsed by all 

participating States at the 2004 OSCE Ministerial 





Berlin Declaration 


…OSCE participating states, 

Reaffirming the Universal Declaration 


on Human Rights, which proclaims 

that everyone is entitled to all the rights 

and freedoms set forth therein, without 

distinction of any kind, such as race, 

religion or other status, 

Recalling that Article 18 of the Universal 


Declaration on Human Rights and Article 

18 of the International Covenant on Civil 

and Political Rights state that everyone 

has the right to freedom of thought, 

conscience and religion, 

…Committing ourselves to intensify 


efforts to combat anti-Semitism in 

all its manifestations and to promote 

and strengthen tolerance and non- 


Recognizing that anti-Semitism, following 


its most devastating manifestation during 

the Holocaust, has assumed new forms 

and expressions, which, along with other 

forms of intolerance, pose a threat to 

democracy, the values of civilization and, 

therefore, to overall security in the OSCE 

region and beyond, 

Concerned in particular that this 


hostility toward Jews—as individuals 

or collectively—on racial, social, and/ 

or religious grounds, has manifested 

itself in verbal and physical attacks and 

in the desecration of synagogues and 


Condemn without reserve all 


manifestations of anti-Semitism, and all 

other acts of intolerance, incitement, 

harassment or violence against persons 

or communities based on ethnic origin or 

religious belief, wherever they occur; 

Also condemn all attacks motivated by 


anti-Semitism or by any other forms of 

religious or racial hatred or intolerance, 

including attacks against synagogues and 

other religious places, sites and shrines; 

Declare unambiguously that international 


developments or political issues, including 

those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle 

East, never justify anti-Semitism 

The OSCE participating States: 

— Strive to ensure that their legal systems foster 

a safe environment free from anti-Semitic harass- 

ment, violence or discrimination in all fields of 


— Promote, as appropriate, educational pro- 

grammes for combating anti-Semitism; 

— Promote remembrance of and, as appropriate, 

education about the tragedy of the Holocaust, and 

the importance of respect for all ethnic and reli- 

gious groups; 

— Combat hate crimes, which can be fuelled by 

racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic propaganda in 

the media and on the Internet; 

— Encourage and support international organiza- 

tion and NGO efforts in these areas; 

— Collect and maintain reliable information and 

statistics about anti-Semitic crimes, and other hate 

crimes, committed within their territory, report 

such information periodically to the OSCE Office 

for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights 

(ODIHR), and make this information available to 

the public;… 

— Encourage development of informal exchanges 

among experts in appropriate fora on best practic- 

es and experience in law enforcement and educa- 




Other relevant OSCE events followed, including 

the Brussels Conference on Tolerance and the Fight 

Against Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination 

(2004), the Cordoba Conference on Anti-Semitism and 

Other Forms of Intolerance (2005), and a follow-up 

Berlin Experts Meeting on Best Practices in Combat- 

ing Anti-Semitism (2006).  All reinforced the need for 

participating States to take steps to combat anti-Semi- 

tism and related intolerance.  In June 2007, the OSCE 

held another conference in Bucharest, Romania as a 

Follow-up to the Cordoba Conference on Anti-Semi- 

tism and Other Forms of Intolerance, to reinforce the 

importance of participating States fully implementing 

their OSCE commitments.  

As part of these ongoing efforts, the OSCE also es- 

tablished a special position to combat anti-Semitism.  

In December 2004, the OSCE Chair-in-Office (then 

Bulgaria) appointed three “Personal Representatives” 

to promote tolerance and combat racism, xenopho- 

bia, and discrimination in the OSCE region.  German 

Bundestag Member Gert Weisskirchen was appointed 

the Personal Representative on Combating anti- 

Semitism.44  Each Chair-in-Office has reappointed the 

Personal Representatives, and they are responsible 

for coordinating efforts among participating States 

to ensure full implementation of tolerance-related 

decisions, in addition to providing the OSCE Chair-in- 

Office with quarterly reports on related activity.  The 

Personal Representative on Combating anti-Semitism 

serves an important liaison role, communicating 

reports of anti-Semitic incidents to political leaders, 

while maintaining a dialogue about anti-Semitism 

with OSCE governments. 

ODIHR also has been active beyond its data collec- 

tion responsibilities, sponsoring international confer- 

ences addressing anti-Semitism and broader racism 

and xenophobia issues.  In 2004, it established the 

Tolerance and Non-Discrimination Program, includ- 

ing the position of Advisor on Anti-Semitism Issues.  In 

addition, ODIHR created the Law Enforcement Hate 

Crimes Training Program.  The Program is led by a 

team of former and current law enforcement officials 

from Canada, France, Hungary, Spain, the United 

Kingdom, and the United States.  Upon the invitation 

of a participating State, the team will visit the request- 

ing country and train police trainers on methods for 

indentifying and investigating hate crimes, including 

crimes motivated by anti-Semitism.  

The Agency for Fundamental Rights 

The European Union, with its Agency for Fundamen- 

tal Rights (FRA), also has been active in issuing reports 

and raising awareness.  The FRA is an independent 

body within the European Union that, on March 1, 

2007, superseded the European Monitoring Centre 

on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), the body that 

drafted the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism used 

in this report.  FRA was established to collect reliable, 

objective and comparative data on racism, xenopho- 

bia and anti-Semitism, and provide analysis, assis- 

tance and expertise to the European Union and its 

Member States as they implement EU laws pertaining 

to fundamental rights.  FRA works closely with civil 

society organizations to further its mission.  

In 2000, the EUMC implemented the European Rac- 

ism and Xenophobia Information Network (RAXEN), 

a system that facilitates the collection and analysis 

of coordinated statistical data among the EU Mem- 

ber States.  The publicly available data and resulting 

analysis enable FRA to produce comparative reports 

and studies.  EUMC produced three comparative 

studies of the EU region: Manifestations of Anti-Sem- 

itism in the EU 2002-2003; Anti-Semitism: Summary 

Overview of the Situation in the European Union 

2001-2005; and Perceptions of Anti-Semitism in the 

European Union

Council of Europe 

On June 27, 2007, following a special debate on the 

topic, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of 

Europe issued resolution 1563 (2007) on Combating 

anti-Semitism in Europe, in which the Parliamentary 

Assembly noted that it, “Remains deeply concerned 

about the persistence and escalation of anti-Semitic 

phenomena and notes that no member state is shield- 

ed from, or immune to, this fundamental affront to 

human rights.”  The resolution also spells out ways to 

fight growing anti-Semitism. 



Anastasia Crickley is the Personal Representative on Combating Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination, focusing on Intolerance and Discrimination 

against Christians and Members of Other Religions; Ambassador Omur Orhun is the Personal Representative on Combating Intolerance and Discrimination 

against Muslims.


The United Nations45 

Since 2004, the United Nations has taken important 

measures in the fight against anti-Semitism, including: 

The June 2004 seminar on anti-Semitism 


hosted by Secretary General Kofi Annan; and 

An annual resolution of the UN General 


Assembly, which calls for the elimination of 

all forms of religious intolerance, explicitly 

including anti-Semitism. 

On October 23, 2007, the UNESCO General Confer- 

ence adopted by unanimous vote a resolution calling 

on Member States to promote awareness of Holocaust 

remembrance through education and to combat all 

forms of Holocaust denial. 

The General Assembly passed resolution 60/7 in 

November 2005 that established an annual Holocaust 

Remembrance Day, observed on January 27, the day 

Auschwitz was liberated by Soviet troops and a day 

already recognized by Germany, Italy, and the United 

Kingdom.  The resolution noted that “the General As- 

sembly unequivocally rejects any denial of the Holo- 

caust as an historic event, either in full or in part.” 

In 2005, the UN General Assembly held an unprece- 

dented session to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary 

of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp. 

In response to the Iranian government’s sponsorship 

of an international conference aimed at denying the 

Holocaust as an historical event, the General Assem- 

bly in January 2007 adopted by consensus a resolu- 

tion (61/255) condemning, without reservation, any 

denial of the Holocaust.  The resolution declared that 

to deny the events of the Holocaust—one of the most 

tragic moral catastrophes in history—“was tantamount 

to approval of genocide in all its forms.” 

The Task Force for International Cooperation on 

Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research 

The Task Force for International Cooperation on 

Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research 

consists of representatives of government, as well as 

governmental and nongovernmental organizations.  

Its purpose is to rally leaders’ support behind the need 

for Holocaust education, remembrance, and research 

worldwide.  The Task Force also works with countries 

to create programs that achieve these goals. 

Current Members of the Task Force for International 

Cooperation in Holocaust Education include: Ar- 

gentina, Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, 

Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, 

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, 

Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Sweden, Swit- 

zerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States 

of America. 

Other International Efforts 

Other international bodies also have made positive 

contributions to fighting intolerance, including anti- 


Organization of American States 

The Organization of American States (OAS) is on 

record as being “deeply disturbed by the general 

increase in different parts of the world of cases of in- 

tolerance of, and violence against, members of many 

religious communities, including those motivated 

by…anti-Semitism….”  On May 7, 2006, Jose Miguel 

Insulza of Chile, current Secretary General of the 

OAS, spoke out on the need to be vigilant to the risks 

of anti-Semitism: 

“In the past 15 years, the number of attacks 

on Jewish communities has increased in Latin 

America, as in other parts of the world.  Al- 

though that increase has not been as marked 

in Latin America as in Europe and the Middle 

East, this does not mean that we can lower our 

guard against outbursts of hate crimes against 

Jewish communities and, in general, against 

any manifestation of racism and intolerance in 

the Americas.  The horrific attacks on the Israeli 

embassy and the headquarters of the Argentina 

Jewish Mutual Association (AMIA) in Buenos 

Aires serve as a grim reminder of this fact.” 

In addition, Secretary General Insulza has publicly 

endorsed the OSCE’s Berlin Declaration of 2004 as a 

model for hemispheric action in the Americas. 



For a discussion of anti-Semitism within the UN system, see Chapter 5.



Private Groups 

Private groups and individuals have played a cru- 

cial role in the fight against anti-Semitism. 

NGOs have developed expertise on anti-Semitism 

and have been successful in monitoring the range 

and scope of the problem; educating others, in- 

cluding government agencies, on anti-Semitism 

and ways to address it; and advocating for victims 

and those at risk.  

Local organizations often are best placed to identi- 

fy and record anti-Semitic incidents on the ground.  

Education takes many forms, including develop- 

ment of tolerance education curricula, distribu- 

tion of literature, links to information on NGO 

websites, or hosting conferences on tolerance 

issues.  Organizations actively support Holocaust 

education and other awareness-raising initiatives.  

NGO advocacy in the context of anti-Semitism 

often involves working with like-minded organiza- 

tions and governments to promote minority rights, 

religious freedom, and oppose discrimination in all 

its forms.  

Religious and Interfaith Efforts 

Secular organizations are not the only players out- 

side government in the fight against anti-Semitism.  

Anti-Semitism’s religious roots make involvement 

by religious and interfaith organizations crucial.  

In recent years, the Roman Catholic Church 

has played a central role in efforts to stem anti- 

Semitism and support tolerance across religious 

lines.  Pope John Paul II built on the ecumenical 

developments of Vatican II in reaching out to Jew- 

ish communities.  For instance, the Community of 

Sant’Egidio, a lay Catholic organization based in 

Rome, Italy, has co-sponsored the annual Prayer for 

Peace every year since Pope John Paul II hosted the 

historic first event in Assisi in October 1986.  The 

Prayer for Peace is a successful interfaith gather- 

ing aimed at promoting dialogue and understand- 

ing among a wide array of religions.  Encounters 

have taken place in cities across Europe as well as 

Washington, DC, and Jerusalem. Organizers have 

had to work hard to overcome interfaith tensions, 

including some involving Israel and Judaism, and 

have succeeded in bridging these divides in many 

cases.  John Paul II’s example has been followed 

by Benedict XVI, who invited the Chief Rabbi of 

Rome, Riccardo di Segni, to his installation in 2005 

and reaffirmed a commitment to the fight against 

anti-Semitism and toward an overall betterment of 

relations with the Jewish community.  The Church 

has promoted the acceptance of and respect for 

Judaism, and has recognized that Christians have 

been complicit in anti-Semitic activity in the past. 

Some Protestant churches also have been involved 

in efforts to combat anti-Semitism.  The Archbishop 

of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the two Chief 

Rabbis of Israel, Shlomo Amar and Yonah Metzger, 

signed an historic joint agreement in September 

2006 committing themselves to oppose “The rise of 

anti-semitism in Britain and the rest of Europe, in 

the Middle East and across the world at the pres- 

ent time.”  The statement continues, “At all times 

we will seek to educate the coming generations in 

the history of anti-semitism, recognizing that there 

have been times when the Church has been com- 

plicit in it.”  










In the Muslim community there have been a 

number of admirable efforts to affirm the impor- 

tance of tolerance and respect across religious 

lines.  Soheib Bencheikh, the former Grand 

Mufti of Marseille, France has been a consistent, 

outspoken supporter of a tolerant Islam—de- 

spite strong opposition in Muslim communities 

at home and abroad.  

In June 2007, conferences addressing anti- 

Semitism-related concerns were held in Indone- 

sia and Malaysia.  The first, held in Bali, called 

itself a “Holocaust-affirming” conference, and 

was organized partly in response to the Ho- 

locaust denial conference held by President 

Ahmadinejad in Iran in December 2006.  The 

other, Islam and the West: Bridging the Gap

was held in Malaysia, which then held the rotat- 

ing Chairmanship of the Organization of the 

Islamic Conference. 

Former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wa- 

hid, who chaired the Bali conference, co-found- 

ed the LibforAll Foundation, an organization 

aimed at supporting tolerance among Muslims.  

Rabbis, Muslim leaders, Holocaust survivors, 

and victims of terrorist attacks in Israel and Bali 

were among the participants.  On the day of the 

conference, an article in the international press 

by Wahid and the Chief Rabbi of Israel, Israel 

Lau, noted, “Holocaust denial is…the most vis- 

ible symptom of an underlying disease—partly 

political, partly psychological, but mainly spir- 

itual—which is the inability (or unwillingness) 

to recognize the humanity of others.  In fighting 

this disease, religious leaders have an essential 

role to play.” 

In Morocco, the government organizes the an- 

nual Fez Festival of Sacred Music, incorporating 

music from Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and other 

religious traditions.  During Ramadan in 2006, 

King Mohammed VI hosted a colloquium of re- 

ligious scholars that considered ways to encour- 

age tolerance and respect between Islam and 

other religions.  Morocco also is the only Arab 

nation with a Jewish museum, opened in 1977 

in Casablanca.  The Moroccan government also 

funds the study of Jewish culture and Hebrew at 

universities around the country. 

In Tunisia, the government sponsors regular 

conferences and seminars on religious toler- 

ance.  In January 2007, the “University Chair for 

Dialogue between Civilizations and Religions,” 

funded by the Tunisian government, held a 

seminar that promoted religious tolerance.  The 

government also facilitates and promotes the 

annual Jewish pilgrimage to the El-Ghriba syna- 

gogue on the island of Djerba, celebrated on 

the Jewish holiday of Lag B’Omer. 

In Qatar, the Emir hosted an American Jewish 

Committee (AJC) delegation in Doha on March 

11, 2007.  Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani 

discussed with the AJC Executive Director such 

issues as prospects for Arab-Israeli peace and 

interreligious dialogue.  The Fifth Conference 

of Inter-Faith Dialogue took place in Doha, 

May 7-9, 2007.  Christian, Muslim, and Jewish 

representatives took part.  During the confer- 

ence, the Qatari government announced the 

establishment of the “Doha International Center 

for Inter-Faith Dialogue,” which will be based in 

Qatar.  The center will be financed by the Qa- 

tari government but will function as an indepen- 

dent entity.  Its purpose will be to follow up on 

conference resolutions, papers, and studies, and 

engage local and international research centers 

and universities. 

Argentina has done much to promote interfaith 

dialogue.  In 2007, the Ministry of Foreign Af- 

fairs brought together the Jewish and Muslim 

communities to jointly celebrate the start of 

Ramadan and Yom Kippur.  In July 2006, it also 

brought the Catholic, Muslim, and Jewish com- 

munities together to call for peace in the Middle 





While governments, NGOs, and religious and 

ethnic groups have important roles to play in 

efforts to combat anti-Semitism, individuals also 

actively stand against anti-Semitic bigotry, con- 

fronting hateful comments, challenging anti- 

Semitic myths, and responding to anti-Semitic 


Tens of thousands of demonstrators, including ministers and politicians of all persuasions, march through Paris, France on February 26, 

2006 to show their opposition to anti-Semitism and racism after the brutal killing of Ilan Halimi, a Parisian Jew. (AP Images) 








Chapter One described some of the major reported 

contemporary anti-Semitic incidents against Jews 

and facilities used by Jews.  Additional examples of 

anti-Semitic violence, abuse, property damage, and 

cemetery desecration follow.  This is by no means 

intended to be an exhaustive list, but, rather, an illus- 

trative sampling.  Most examples report on incidents 

that occur in Western democratic countries, which 

allow transparent monitoring of societal conditions.  

Information about anti-Semitic incidents in closed so- 

cieties (e.g., Iran) is largely unavailable; the lack of re- 

ports of anti-Semitic incidents in such societies should 

not be construed as an absence of anti-Semitism. 

More comprehensive information on anti-Semitic in- 

cidents can be found in the U.S. Department of State’s 

annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices

as well as its annual Report on International Religious 

Freedom (both available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl). 



Sevastopol, Ukraine, on September 28, 2007, 

four men in a car approached the chief rabbi, 

exited the vehicle, and shouted anti-Semitic 

insults.  One man punched the rabbi, who 

sustained a concussion and light injuries. 


Ivanovo, Russia, on June 11, 2007, two 

Jewish men were attacked by skinheads.  The 

perpetrators shouted anti-Semitic slogans as they 

beat their victims. 


Berlin, Germany, on May 20, 2007, a teenager 

beat a 16-year-old identifiably Jewish boy as he 

stepped off a train.  Shortly before the incident, 

the assailant and a group of other youths had 

shouted anti-Semitic remarks at the victim. 


Paris, France, on April 19, 2007, a 20-year-old 

man attacked Rabbi Elie Dahan, of Nord-Pas-de- 

Calais, in the Paris North train station.  The man 

cried, “Dirty Jew, you are looking at me, I will 

punch you, Dirty Jew.”  He then punched the 

rabbi, breaking his glasses and causing an eye to 

bleed.  Allegedly, the attacker was showing off to 

his girlfriend. 


London, England, on August 9, 2006, Jasmine 

Kranat, a 13 year old Jewish girl returning home 

from school, was asked by adolescents on a bus 

whether she was “English or Jewish.”  When 

she indicated that she was Jewish, they beat 

her unconscious.  No one on the bus offered 



Antwerp, Belgium, on July 5, 2006, a young 

man yelled anti-Semitic insults while passing two 

Jewish boys outside a yeshiva.  They then beat 

one boy badly; the other escaped injury. 



Manchester, England, on July 19, 2007, a girl 

was alone in the playground of a Jewish school 

when two men shouted, “Look at the Jewy girl!” 

“Change your religion or else!” and “Run off 

before we kill you!”  They then threw stones at 

the girl. 


Bratislava, Slovakia, on January 27, 2007, two 

Slovak men yelled Nazi slogans at the local rabbi 

and his son as they were leaving a synagogue.  


Parey (Saxony-Anhalt), Germany, in October 

2006, several adolescents forced a classmate 

to walk in the schoolyard during lunch recess 









wearing a large sign which read, “In this town 

I’m the biggest swine because of the Jewish 

friends of mine,” a rhyme used during the Nazi 

era to humiliate citizens with Jewish spouses and 



Berlin, Germany, in Summer 2006, the 

Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (the German 

Jewish community organization) received over 

300 hate letters.  

Property Damage 


Izhevsk, Russia, on November 14, 2007, a 

masked youth spray-painted anti-Semitic slogans 

such as “Death to the kikes” on the walls of a 

Jewish community center. 


Cordoba, Argentina, in early October 2007, 

anti-Semitic graffiti appeared several times on 

the façade of the synagogue in the town of Villa 



Oslo, Norway, during the first week of August 

2007, several acts of vandalism were perpetrated 

against the Jewish Museum. 


Zaporizhya, Ukraine, on July 9, 2007, students 

and staff of the ORT Aleph Jewish High School 

discovered a series of anti-Semitic wall-sprayings 

such as “Death to Jews” and “Jews, get out.” 


Buenos Aires, Argentina, on May 12, 2007, 

anti-Semitic graffiti were painted on a wall in the 

largely Jewish neighborhood of Once. The graffiti 

were in the form of the Israeli flag and featured 

a swastika superimposed on a Star of David, 

with the words “Estado Fascista” (Fascist State) 

scrawled across the flag’s blue stripes. 


Teresopolis, Brazil, on May 7, 2007, a 

synagogue and dozens of Jewish homes were 

defaced with anti-Semitic graffiti.  


Brno, Czech Republic, on April 23, 2007, 

vandals sprayed Nazi and racist symbols 

throughout the city.  Swastikas, SS symbols, and 

the German phrase “Juden raus” (Jews out) were 

found on a memorial to victims of World War II, 

storefront windows, roads, and other locations. 


Gagny, France, on November 9, 2006, 

arsonists set fire to a Jewish school.  The fire 

caused little damage, in contrast to an arson 

attack on the same school in 2003 that destroyed 

32,000 square feet. 


Oslo, Norway, on September 17, 2006, the 

synagogue was the target of automatic weapons 

fire, causing minor damage. 


Montreal, Canada, on September 2, 2006, 

a firebomb was hurled at the front door of an 

Orthodox Jewish school.  No one was injured in 

the attack.  


Campinas, Brazil, on August 5, 2006, 

approximately six people threw stones and 

Molotov cocktails at the Beth Jacob Synagogue, 

damaging the main entrance.  


Brussels, Belgium, on the evening of July 

24, 2006, the National Monument for the 

Jewish Martyrs of Anderlecht was vandalized. 

Documents, windows, and the crypt were 

destroyed.  The crypt included an urn containing 

ashes from Auschwitz, which was emptied and 

vandalized.  The same monument had been a 

target before.  

Cemetery Desecrations 


Krasnoyarsk, Russia, on October 8, 2007, 

vandals desecrated 64 gravestones at a Jewish 

cemetery.  The same cemetery also was 

vandalized in 1998 and 2001. 


Lisbon, Portugal, on September 25, 2007, 

approximately 20 graves in the Jewish cemetery 

were defaced with anti-Semitic epithets and 



Bobruysk, Belarus, on October 12, 2007, 15 

graves were vandalized in the Jewish cemetery. 


Pisek, Czech Republic, on July 27, 2007, 

an historic 19th-century Jewish cemetery was 

desecrated.  Vandals overturned 23 tombstones, 

shattering five. 


Bohumin, Czech Republic, on July 16, 

2007, vandals knocked over and destroyed 25 

gravestones in a Jewish cemetery.  The cemetery 



had been renovated and reopened to the public 

only two weeks prior to the desecration. 


Vilnius, Lithuania, on March 11, 2007, 12 

tombstones in a new Jewish cemetery were 



Bucharest, Romania, on February 11, 2007, 

four minors vandalized 22 tombs in a Jewish 



Chernivtsi, Ukraine, on April 12, 2007, 

vandals toppled about 70 tombstones in an 

historic Jewish cemetery.  Three tombstones were 





The purpose of this document is to provide a practical 

guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and sup- 

porting the implementation and enforcement of legisla- 

tion dealing with anti-Semitism. 

Working definition:  “Anti-Semitism is a certain percep- 

tion of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward 

Jews.  Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti- 

Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish indi- 

viduals and/or their property, toward Jewish community 

institutions and religious facilities.” 

In addition, such manifestations could also target the 

state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.  Anti- 

Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to 

harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for 

“why things go wrong.”  It is expressed in speech, writ- 

ing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereo- 

types and negative character traits. 

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, 

the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious 

sphere could, taking into account the overall context, 

include, but are not limited to: 

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming 


of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an 

extremist view of religion. 

Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or 


stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the 

power of Jews as a collective—such as, especially 

but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish 

conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, 

economy, government or other societal institutions. 

Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for 


real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single 

Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed 

by non-Jews. 

Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas 


chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the 

Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist 

Germany and its supporters and accomplices during 

World War II (the Holocaust). 

Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of 


inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to 


Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, 

than to the interests of their own nations. 

Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests 

itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account 

the overall context could include: 

Denying the Jewish people their right to self- 


determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of 

a state of Israel is a racist endeavor. 

Applying double standards by requiring of it a 


behavior not expected or demanded of any other 

democratic nation. 

Using the symbols and images associated with 


classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing 

Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy 


to that of the Nazis. 

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of 


the state of Israel. 

However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled 


against any other country cannot be regarded as 


Anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined 

by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribu- 

tion of anti-Semitic materials in some countries). 

Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the targets of at- 

tacks, whether they are people or property—such as 

buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries— 

are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, 

Jewish or linked to Jews. 

Anti-Semitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of op- 

portunities or services available to others and is illegal in 

many countries. 









This annex provides the EUMC’s Working Definition of Anti-Semitism in its entirety.  The explanatory text also is part of the EUMC Working Definition. 



United StateS department of State 

Released March 2008

Published on March 4, 2009 at 3:17 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jewise.wordpress.com/united-states-department-of-state/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: