The presentation will provide a regional summary on antisemitism in the Czech Republic in the aftermath of October 7th. Using the up-to-date statistics and incident case studies, the presentation will analyze the regional characteristics face of Czech antisemitism, where the „Red-Green Alliance“, attempts to enter a playfield, typically dominated by the Far-Right, Esoteric and pro-Russian Conspiracism. National debates and court cases concerning the use of „From the River to the Sea“ will be used to highlight some of the more sinister patterns, behind the otherwise disciplined pro-Palestine protests in Prague. The presentation will be based in primary data, including author’s own field observations and photographs as well as statistics and sources that are available only in the Czech language, thus bridging the linguistic gap for audiences, who are not familiar with the Central European region, yet may be interested in comparative data.

I would like to present the findings of a recent (May 2024) on the prevalence of antisemitic prejudice in Belgium. My institut surveyed 1,000 Belgians from the country’s three regions. In addition to their geographic distribution, we also inquired about their political and religious affiliations. In Brussels, Belgian muslims represent around 30% of the total population).

Our initial findings reveals three distinct, yet interconnected, forms of antisemitism prevalent in contemporary society, particularly in Belgium. First, there is primary antisemitism (historical, political, religious) which accuses Jews of heinous crimes or traits. There is here clearly an “Islam effect.” 39% of Muslim respondents feel that Jews are an unassimilable race. Alongside these entrenched prejudices, a second form emerges: secondary antisemitism. This form, arises not despite the Holocaust, but because of it, At its core is a sense of guilt related to nazi collaboration. 43% of Flemish assert that “Jews use the Holocaust to defend their own interests“.

Through this survey, I will attempt to explain why Belgium is currently one of the most anti-Semitic countries in Europe, particularly through a concept I have developed: tertiary anti-Semitism, or anti-Semitism as a tool of electoral calculation. This is what I recently described in an op-ed as “The Palestinianization of Belgian political life.”

In a research project, the Tikvah Institut examines reporting on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in German media. One trope is regularely repeated in the articles: the assertion of a taboo on criticism of Israel. It is claimed that German media allegedly do not dare to criticize Israel, that criticism of Israel is generally impossible in Germany or is defamed as antisemitic. According to the allegations, the accusation of antisemitism is also supposedly used in an inflationary manner and instrumentalized to prevent criticism of Israel. People who defy the supposed taboo and are criticized for antisemitic statements are often portrayed as courageous taboo-breakers or victims. However, empirical research on reporting on Israel clearly refutes the assertion of a criticism taboo: Israel is criticized in the German media daily, sometimes very harshly or even defamatory. Nonetheless, the trope does not seem to be losing its appeal, but is – ironically – repeatedly published in influential media that regularly criticize Israeli policy. The paper will explain the trope of the taboo on criticism using text examples from various German print and online media and discuss what function it could have. It will also be shown that the trope is not a new phenomenon, but rather an updated version of the classic antisemitic stereotype that Jews control the press and public opinion.