Digital Library
Antisemitism and its Impact on Jewish Identity
Topic:
Antisemitism & Antizionism, Israel & Regional Politics, Jewish Diaspora & Interfaith Relations
Principal Investigators:
Dr. Shlomo Fischer and Dr. John Ruskay
Study Date:
2020
Source:
Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI)
Key Findings:
JPPI’s seventh annual Jewish World Dialogue was namely informed by three questions: Does antisemitism cause Jews to play down or hide their Jewish identity, or does it actually strengthen ties to the symbols and practices of Judaism and Jewishness? Is it appropriate to base identity on rejection or an increase in hatred? Which coalitions should be appointed to assist in combatting antisemitism on the right and left?
Virtually all participants perceived an increase in antisemitic views and acts over the past decade. Most participants had not directly experienced antisemitic behavior themselves.
More than half of the participants said that recent antisemitic incidents had shaken their confidence in the idea that “America is different,” that in America Jews do not experience the kind of antisemitism Jews have experienced in Europe.
Less than a third of participants indicated that the increase in antisemitism had led them to consider spending more time in Israel.
Most participants attributed the increase of antisemitic views and acts to the increase of racism broadly and pointed to the growing role of social media.
Most attributed the increase in antisemitism to white nationalist groups while noting that Jewish organizational leadership heavily links growing antisemitism with anti-Zionist/anti-Israel/BDS groups.
About a third of the participants believed that increased antisemitism had led some Jews in North America to be more cautious in their public Jewish expressions; most did not. About a fifth thought that it caused Jews to be more assertive in expressing their Jewish identity.
Although most participants recognized that antisemitism has potential to strengthen Jewish identification, most discussants (highly identified and engaged Jews) did not believe this to be desirous or positive. A significant number of participants thought that the best response to antisemitism is to increase Jewish commitment.
Overall, two-thirds of the Dialogue participants thought the increase in antisemitism is related to an increase in racism in general. Only one-third thought the increase stems from antisemitism’s unique sources.
Most believe the Jewish community should develop coalitions with other racial and ethnic groups to combat racism broadly — even with groups that hold views on Israel and other issues (such as abortion) that vary from consensus views of North American Jewry. Despite the fact that in the Dialogue sessions in general, participants mentioned left-wing antisemitism and were aware of Muslim and (non-Jewish) Black antisemitism, they did not raise this in connection with coalition building.
Israel is believed to have a role in both augmenting and mitigating antisemitism on multiple fronts. This should be brought to the attention of policymakers. Israel and Diaspora leadership should try to clarify the definitional content of terms such as “antisemitic,” “anti-Zionist,” and “anti-Israel.”
Serious research should be undertaken by a university or academic consortium to identify what has been demonstratively effective in mitigating hate, racism, and antisemitism.
Methodology:
Participants in JPPI’s Jewish World dialogue are a self-selected group, mainly of highly engaged and identified North American Jews. This sample, despite enabling high quality engagement, is not claimed to be fully representative of North American Jewry.
Eleven focus group-like dialogue sessions were conducted — nine in North American Jewish communities and two in Israel — with 154 participants. The data referred to in the Dialogue sessions were pulled from the short questionnaire that participants completed.
Most Dialogue sessions were convened by Federations in communities that ranged from among the largest Jewish communities (New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Washington) to two far smaller ones in Vancouver and Nova Scotia. One session comprised students from the Hillel chapter at Hunter College (NYC). Another involved emissaries (shlichim) of the Jewish Agency for Israel.
Because university campuses are prime loci of anti-Israel activity, this year, the leaders of the Dialogue made a special effort to include young people. Thus, 65 percent of participants were between 20 and 40, with the 20-30 age group constituting around 25 percent.