FRA Report: Jewish People’s Experiences
and Perceptions of Antisemitism

This report presents results from the third European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey among Jews in the EU on their lived experiences of antisemitism. 

The survey follows FRA’s 2012 and 2018 surveys. The findings presented in this report provide policymakers and other actors in the field with evidence they can draw on to refine existing or devise new courses of action to combat antisemitism, ensure the security of Jewish communities and individuals and foster Jewish life.

Foreword

Worrying about their safety and hiding their Jewish identity is still a reality for many Jewish people today. For far too long, Jews in Europe have had to live with these fears. Faced with prejudice and hostility, most feel unable to live openly Jewish lives.

This survey took place before the Hamas attacks in October 2023 and the war in Gaza. It does not give a full picture of the pain and suffering of all those affected since. But it does show just how difficult the situation was in Europe for Jewish communities, even before the conflict escalated.

In our latest survey, 96% of Jews told us they had faced antisemitism in the last year and 80% feel that it has been getting worse in recent years. Half of the Jewish people who took part in the survey say they worry about their safety and the safety of their family, and over 70% even hide their Jewish identity occasionally. The rapid proliferation of antisemitic content online is another worrying trend.

This is FRA’s third survey on antisemitism since 2012. It points to some small progress and improvements. Some of this can be attributed to the efforts of the EU and its Member States to tackle antisemitism. This includes the adoption of the EU’s first ever strategy on combating antisemitism and the adoption of similar strategies and action plans by Member States.

Yet, the spillover effect of the conflict in the Middle East is eroding this hard-fought-for progress. Time and time again, FRA’s annual update on antisemitism shows how conflicts in the Middle East can lead to peaks in anti-Jewish incidents in the EU. FRA’s consultation with national and European Jewish umbrella organisations in early 2024 shows a dramatic surge in such attacks. Jews are more frightened than ever before.

We need to do more to ensure the safety and security of our Jewish communities. The EU and Member States must remain firm in their commitment to stem the rising tide of antisemitism. They must ready themselves to respond to heightened intensity and threats. To address the proliferation of online antisemitism, platforms should enforce the rules of the EU’s Digital Services Act on removing such content. Member States should collect data to monitor incidents, and those that do not already have strategies to counter antisemitism should immediately adopt such measures. Member States that have not yet appointed a special envoy or coordinator on combating antisemitism should do so.

Our thanks go to the Jewish community organisations that helped throughout this survey and to the Jewish umbrella organisations that provided FRA with insights on the experiences of their communities in recent months.

Around us we are witnessing an already tense and worrying situation deteriorate, affecting not just Jewish populations but also Muslim communities. In incredibly emotionally charged times like these, our findings are a reminder to spread the message of tolerance, respect and fundamental freedoms for all.

Sirpa Rautio
Director

Country codes

AT Austria
BE Belgium
CZ Czechia
DE Germany
DK Denmark
ES Spain
FR France
HU Hungary
IT Italy
NL Netherlands
PL Poland
RO Romania
SE Sweden

Contents

Foreword    1
Why this report?    7
Survey in a nutshell    9
Key findings and FRA opinions    14
1.    MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM    23
1.1.    KEY FINDINGS    23
1.2.    HOW BIG A PROBLEM IS ANTISEMITISM?    24
1.3.    MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM AFFECTING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY    27
1.4.    PREVALENCE AND CONTEXT OF ANTISEMITISM ENCOUNTERED    29
1.5.    ASSESSING THE ANTISEMITIC NATURE OF SELECTED OPINIONS OR ACTIONS OF NON-JEWS    35
2.    ONLINE ANTISEMITIC CONTENT    39
2.1.    KEY FINDINGS    39
2.2.    COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND OFFLINE ANTISEMITISM    40
2.3.    CHARACTERISTICS OF ONLINE ANTISEMITIC CONTENT    43
3.    SAFETY AND SECURITY    53
3.1.    KEY FINDINGS    53
3.2.    SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS    54
3.3.    INFLUENCE OF EVENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ON JEWISH LIFE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION    60
4.    VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS – EXPERIENCES OF HARASSMENT AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE    65
4.1.    KEY FINDINGS    65
4.2.    EXPERIENCES OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT    68
4.3.    EXPERIENCES OF ANTISEMITIC PHYSICAL VIOLENCE    75
5.    EXPERIENCES OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF BEING JEWISH    77
5.1.    KEY FINDINGS    77
5.2.    DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCES    77
6.    REPORTING ANTISEMITISM    83
6.1.    KEY FINDINGS    83
6.2.    REPORTING RATES    84
6.3.    REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS    85
7.    LIMITATIONS ON JEWISH LIFE    89
7.1.    KEY FINDINGS    89
7.2.    LIMITATIONS ON TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES    90
7.3.    RESPONSES TO LIMITATIONS – ACTIONS TAKEN OR CONSIDERED    94
7.4.    ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS    96
8.    ANNEX    99

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1:    Perceived change in antisemitism over the past 5 years, by Member State (%)    26
Figure 2:    Perceived change in antisemitism and anti-Muslim intolerance over the past 5 years, 11-country
average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    27
Figure 3:    Assessment of manifestations of antisemitism as problematic, 11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    29
Figure 4:    Manifestations of antisemitism encountered in the 12 months before the survey, 13-country
average (%)    31
Figure 5:    Encounters of any manifestation of antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey, by Member
State (%)    32
Figure 6:    Context where respondents encountered offline antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey,
13-country average (%)    34
Figure 7:    Context where respondents encountered offline antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey,
11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    35
Figure 8:    Assessment of certain opinions or actions of non-Jews as being ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’
antisemitic, 11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    37
Figure 9:    Encountering antisemitism online and offline in the 12 months before the survey, 13-country
average (%)    41
Figure 10: Frequency of encountering antisemitism in the last 12 months among those who experienced antisemitism online and offline, by Member State (%)    42
Figure 11: Platform where respondents encountered the last incident of online antisemitism, by Member
State (%)    45
Figure 12: Respondents reporting the last antisemitic online incident to the platform involved, by platform,
13-country average (%)    48
Figure 13: Impact of online antisemitism, by Member State (%)    50
Figure 14: Worries about becoming a victim of verbal insults, harassment or physical attack in the next
12 months because of being Jewish, by Member State (%)    55
Figure 15: Worries about becoming a victim of verbal insults, harassment or physical attack in the next
12 months because of being Jewish, 11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    56
Figure 16: Respondents avoiding wearing symbols that could make them recognisable in public and not
wearing any because of safety concerns, by Member State (%)    57
Figure 17: Respondents avoiding wearing symbols that could make them recognisable as Jewish in public
and reasons for not wearing symbols, 11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    58
Figure 18: Avoidance of Jewish events and certain places in the neighbourhood because they do not feel
safe as Jews, by Member State (%)    59
Figure 19: Avoidance of places in the neighbourhood or of Jewish events because of safety concerns,
11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    60
Figure 20: Arab–Israeli conflict’s impact on feeling of safety, by Member State (%)    62
Figure 21: Feeling blamed for the Israeli government’s actions, by Member State (%)    63
Figure 22: Experience of antisemitic harassment (one or more times) in the 12 months before the survey,
13-country average (%)    68
Figure 23: Experience of any form of antisemitic harassment (one or more times) online or offline in the
12 months prior to the survey, by Member State (%)    69
Figure 24: Experience of antisemitic harassment (one or more times) in the 12 months before the survey,
11-country average, 2023 and 2018 comparison (%)    70
Figure 25: Experience of antisemitic harassment in the 12 months prior to the survey, overall and by selected characteristic, 13-country average (%)    72
Figure 26: Frequency of antisemitic harassment, by form, 13-country average (%)    74
Figure 27: Experience of antisemitic physical attacks (one or more times) in the 12 months and 5 years prior
to the survey, by Member State (%)    75
Figure 28: Respondents who felt discriminated against because of being Jewish or because of their religious
beliefs in the past 12 months, by Member State (%)    78
Figure 29: Respondents who felt discriminated against because of being Jewish or religious beliefs in the
past 12 months, by situation, 13-country average (%)    79
Figure 30: Specific experiences of respondents who were in paid work or in school/university in the
12 months prior to the survey, 13-country average (%)    80
Figure 31: Organisation that respondents reported antisemitic incident to, by context, 13-country average (%)    87
Figure 32: Respondents who had heard non-Jewish people suggest that circumcision and/or traditional
slaughter should be prohibited in their country of residence, by Member State (%)    91
Figure 33: Respondents for whom prohibition of circumcision or traditional slaughter would be a problem, by Member State (%)    92
Figure 34: Respondents who had heard non-Jewish people suggest that circumcision and/or traditional slaughter be prohibited in their country of residence and respondents for whom prohibition of circumcision or traditional slaughter would be a problem, 11-country average, 2023 and 2018
comparison (%)    93
Figure 35: Respondents who emigrated or considered emigration in the 5 years prior to the survey, by
reason, 13-country average (%)    94
Figure 36: Respondents who emigrated or considered emigration in the 5 years prior to the survey, by
Member State (%)    95

Table 1:    Assessment of whether social and political issues are a problem, by Member State (%)    25
Table 2:    Assessment of certain opinions or actions of non-Jews as being ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’
antisemitic, by Member State (%)    36
Table 3:    Specific experiences of respondents who were in paid work in the 12 months prior to the survey,
by Member State (%)    81
Table 4:    Specific experiences of respondents who were in school/university in the 12 months prior to the
survey, by Member State (%)    81
Table 5:    Reporting of incidents of antisemitism, by context and Member State (%)    85
Table 6:    Satisfaction with governmental actions supporting the Jewish community, by Member State (%)    97
Table 7:    Achieved sample size (unweighted and weighted) and population estimate, by Member State    101
Table 8:    Sociodemographic characteristics, by Member State (%)    103
Table 9:    Characteristics related to Jewish identity and traditions, by Member State (%)    106

Why this report?

This report presents results from the third European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey among Jews in the EU on their lived experiences of antisemitism. The agency pledged to carry out a periodic survey on antisemitism at the 2021 Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism. The survey follows FRA’s 2012 and 2018 surveys.
The findings presented in this report provide policymakers and other actors in the field with evidence they can draw on to refine existing or devise new courses of action to combat antisemitism, ensure the security of Jewish communities and individuals and foster Jewish life.
Nearly 80 years after the horrors of the Holocaust, Jewish communities and individuals across the EU continue to regularly experience antisemitism and face restrictions on their ability to live an openly Jewish life, survey findings show. Antisemitism can manifest itself in different ways, as the survey indicates. These include verbal and physical attacks, threats, harassment, discrimination and unequal treatment; graffiti and damage to property; and abusive speech, text, pictures and audio or video content – increasingly on the internet.
This is despite the strong legal framework in place (1) and the commitment of the EU and its Member States to fighting antisemitism and fostering Jewish life, as expressed in their pledges (2), resolutions (3), declarations (4), conclusions (5), national strategies and action plans (6) and the EU’s own related strategy (7).
The effective implementation of these laws, commitments, strategies and action plans depends on a robust and reliable evidence base. However, this tends to be missing at the EU and Member State levels.
In 2021, the European Commission adopted its first ever EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. The strategy builds strongly on FRA’s 2012 and 2018 survey data. It calls on FRA to ‘support the EU and Member States with evidence, assistance and expertise when monitoring the implementation of this [EU] strategy and national strategies or action plans on combating antisemitism’ and fostering Jewish life.
With this report, FRA provides the EU institutions, national authorities, public bodies and other actors in the field with first-hand, comparable evidence on the experiences and perceptions of antisemitism – including online – among Jews in 13 Member States that together account for about 96 % of the EU’s Jewish population (8).

Legal corner

The European human rights legal framework obliges Member States to combat antisemitism effectively.
At the EU primary law level, this obligation stems from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular its Articles 1 (human dignity), 2 (right to life), 10 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 11 (freedom of expression and information) and 21 (non- discrimination based on any ground, such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation); Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Treaty on European Union; and Article 19(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
These rights are equally firmly embedded in the Council of Europe’s European Convention on Human Rights, in particular the right to life (Article 2), freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Article 9), freedom of expression (Article 10) and prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 and Protocol No 12).
In the context of EU secondary law, a range of instruments address antisemitism. The racial equality directive (Council Directive 2000/43/EC) prohibits discrimination on the grounds
of racial or ethnic origin in employment and in a number of other areas. The employment equality directive (Directive 2000/78/EC) prohibits discrimination in employment on the ground of religion or belief, among other grounds.
Article 13 of the racial equality directive obliges Member States to establish national equality bodies and task them with promoting equal treatment by providing independent assistance to victims of discrimination, conducting independent surveys, publishing independent reports and making recommendations on matters relating to discrimination.
Council Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA of 28 November 2008 on combating certain forms and expressions of racism and xenophobia by means of criminal law obliges Member States to penalise incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of people or a member of such a group defined by race, colour, religion, descent or national or ethnic origin and penalise the public condoning, gross trivialisation or denial of the Holocaust. For other criminal offences, racist and xenophobic motivation is to be considered an aggravating circumstance.
Alternatively, the courts can consider this motivation in the determination of penalties (Article 4). The framework decision provides a strong legal framework to combat antisemitic hate crimes and hate speech, including the public condoning, denial or gross trivialisation of the Holocaust in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred.
The victims’ rights directive (Directive 2012/29/EU) is undergoing legislative revision in 2024. It establishes minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. It refers explicitly to victims of hate crime, their protection and specific needs related to their recognition, respectful treatment, support and access to justice. The victims’ rights directive requires empowering victims and encouraging them to report crimes to the police (recital 63).
At the trial stage, the directive provides victims with the right to participate actively in criminal proceedings, including by providing evidence (Article 10(1)).
Finally, the Digital Services Act (DSA) (Regulation (EU) 2022/2065) is also relevant, as there is much dissemination of antisemitism online. The DSA includes rules for how online service
providers and platforms deal with illegal content, such as illegal hate speech, and other threats to the enjoyment of fundamental rights. It establishes a transparency and accountability framework for online platforms by placing certain obligations on them. These include obligations to provide easy ways to report illegal content, transparency in relation to the use of algorithms and ways to analyse and mitigate systemic risks. Systemic risks include threats to the enjoyment of fundamental rights such as the right to privacy and data protection, non- discrimination and freedom of expression.
The audiovisual media services directive (Directive (EU) 2018/1808) stipulates that Member States must ensure that video-sharing platform providers take appropriate measures
to protect the general public from audiovisual content and commercial communications containing incitement to violence or hatred, including antisemitic content.

Survey in a nutshell

This survey report presents selected findings of FRA’s third survey on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitism, and on living an openly Jewish life in the EU (9). It analyses responses from 7 992 self-identified Jewish people (aged 16 or over) in 13 Member States – Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden. Czechia and Romania were added to the list of countries after the 2018 survey, while the United Kingdom was excluded from the data collection. These Member States are home to about 96 % of the EU’s estimated Jewish population.

Survey data collection period – pre- dating the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023
 
Data collection took place through an online survey from January to June 2023. Therefore, the data do not include the experiences of the EU’s Jewish population after the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 and the kidnappings that followed. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights consultation with Jewish umbrella organisations since the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
The Hamas attacks and their aftermath have had a profound impact on the lives of Jews in the EU. FRA was not in a position to launch another large-scale survey immediately after the Hamas attacks. However, in January and February 2024 the agency consulted the largest national Jewish community organisations across the countries surveyed to understand the impact of the attacks on these communities.
In total, 11 out of 13 national umbrella organisations and one European umbrella organisation provided FRA with insights
on the experiences of their communities following these attacks. The inputs were anonymous and therefore the report provides only generic findings.

HOW WAS THE SURVEY CARRIED OUT?

FRA opted to use open online surveying to enable respondents to complete the survey when and where it was most convenient for them, at their own pace and in their national languages. FRA chose this method because of the absence of reliable sampling frames (lists or registers of the target population or other sources of information from which to draw a survey sample) and based on experiences with the previous surveys (10). By using the online surveying method, all interested self-identified Jewish people in the 13 Member States had the opportunity to take part and share their experiences. It was also the easiest way of surveying respondents from all the selected Member States under equal conditions.

A comprehensive awareness-raising campaign distributed the open online survey link via Jewish community organisations, alongside personal referrals, social media advertisements and newspaper advertisements. The project contractor, FRA and the European Commission contacted over 300 regional, national and international Jewish organisations and communities across all affiliations, as well as influential people across the EU with outreach to the Jewish community such as community leaders, rabbis, social media influencers and active members of communities. They were asked to send out multiple emails, newsletters, instant messages and social media advertisements to invite their constituents to participate in the survey.
This method does not deliver a random probability sample fulfilling the statistical criteria for representativeness. However, the survey findings are reliable and robust and provide comprehensive, comparable data on experiences of antisemitism in the EU.

WHO TOOK PART IN THE SURVEY?

The survey was open to individuals aged 16 or over who consider themselves Jewish – based on religion, culture, upbringing, ethnicity, parentage or any other reason – and who, at the time of the survey, were living in one of the survey countries.
The largest sample sizes were provided by the three Member States with the largest estimated Jewish populations (see Table 7 in the Annex): France (890 respondents), Germany (892 respondents) and Hungary (1 338 respondents). Belgium and Sweden each accounted for around 700 respondents. The sample size in the remaining eight Member States ranged from 305 to 631 respondents. In total, the results are based on the responses of 7 992 respondents.
The 13-country average is adjusted using a statistical ‘weight’ that takes into account the differences in the sizes of the countries’ Jewish populations. The calculations are based on the midpoint of the core and extended Jewish population estimates in the countries selected. DellaPergola provides these estimates (11). The Annex further explains the weighting.

WHAT DID THE SURVEY ASK?

The survey asked respondents about their perceptions of trends in antisemitism; antisemitism as a problem in everyday life; experiences of antisemitic incidents, violence and online and offline harassment; and worries about becoming a victim of an antisemitic attack.
The survey collected data on the effects of antisemitism on respondents’ daily behaviour, their feelings of safety and security and any actions they take owing to fears for their safety and security. The survey asked questions about individual experiences of specific forms of antisemitism, including harassment and physical violence. It followed up with questions concerning the details of these incidents, including their frequency, the number and characteristics of the perpetrators and the reporting of the incidents to any organisation or institution. The survey also collected data on individual experiences of feeling discriminated against on different grounds and in various areas of everyday life – for example, at work or school or when using specific services.
The survey also collected detailed information on Jewish people’s experiences of online antisemitic content. This included questions related to the forms of antisemitism encountered and the platforms used, the formats of the antisemitic content, the perpetrators’ characteristics, the reporting of online antisemitism and the impact of online antisemitism.
 
PRESENTATION OF THE SURVEY RESULTS

The report presents an analysis of selected survey findings, summarising the rich and complex survey data in the form of text, tables and figures. The data are weighted based on available population data and based on a non- response model taking into account characteristics such as the size of each country’s Jewish population, age, sex/gender, geographical origin (living in the capital or outside the capital) and affiliation with a Jewish community organisation. Respondents are considered affiliated with a Jewish community organisation if they consider themselves an active member or volunteer, are in regular contact with the organisation, follow the organisation’s activities or support them financially. Not affiliated respondents are those who indicated that they are ‘not actively involved’.
This weighting aims to balance out any biases that could have occurred through the opt-in, open nature of the survey design – for example, the under-representation of particular groups due to limited outreach. It adjusts the composition of the country samples to the estimates available for the countries’ Jewish populations, making the results more robust. This means that under-represented groups with fewer respondents than expected get a higher weight that is proportionate to their estimated size in the overall country results.
Some parts of the report analyse specific subgroups within the Jewish population separately to take into account an intersectional perspective. The analysis compares the situation between Member States but also includes some data on sociodemographic characteristics such as sex/gender, age and health limitations. The analysis by subgroups also includes the experiences and perceptions of respondents split by characteristics related to being Jewish. These include communal affiliation to a Jewish organisation, displaying or wearing symbols that would make one recognisable as Jewish in public and self-assigned Jewish identity (‘just Jewish’, ‘progressive’, ‘conservative’, ‘Orthodox’, ‘strictly Orthodox’, ‘secular’, ‘mixed’ or ‘none of these’). The distribution of these and other characteristics within the survey sample is described in the Annex.
The report includes findings from the consultation of the largest national Jewish umbrella organisations in the countries surveyed and with one European umbrella organisation on the profound impact that the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks had on Jewish communities (see box ‘Survey data collection period – pre-dating the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023’). This input helps to contextualise the survey findings in the aftermath of the attacks. In this respect, it must be acknowledged that the survey findings may not fully reflect the experiences of antisemitism and the feeling of safety and security among Jewish communities since October 2023. Still, these findings provide a baseline that shows the extent to which the EU’s Jewish communities say that they experience antisemitism and face barriers to living an openly Jewish life.

COMPARABILITY WITH PREVIOUS EUROPEAN UNION AGENCY FOR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SURVEYS

The 2023 survey included several questions that were also in the 2012 and 2018 surveys. However, the coverage of countries has changed over the years. The 2018 and 2023 surveys covered 11 of the same Member States, with Czechia and Romania added in 2023 and the United Kingdom no longer covered. Only six countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden) remained the same from 2012 to 2023. This is why the report’s overall comparison is between 2018 and 2023.
FRA applied the same weighting approach to the 2018 and 2023 surveys to make their data comparable. The 2018 results could therefore differ slightly from the results in the 2018 FRA main report and the published 2018 dataset, as these did not use weighted data. The report compares selected results from the 2018 and 2023 surveys for the 11 countries that both surveys cover.
In 2018, the survey covered the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. The 2023 survey did not cover Latvia and the United Kingdom, and the 2018 survey did not cover Czechia and Romania. Therefore, comparisons between the surveys exclude these countries.
FRA makes comparisons with the 2018 survey with caution owing to the open, opt-in, nature of the online survey. Several factors affect the comparisons. Examples are the countries included in each round of the survey; sample sizes and their sample quality; and changes to the questionnaire, such as adding items or slightly changing the wording to address problems in question comprehension or to ensure comparability with other FRA surveys.
 
CONCEPTS USED THROUGHOUT THE REPORT

Examples of antisemitism drawn from the working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
The European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission endorsed the non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). All but one Member State are IHRA members. The IHRA says that ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’
FRA has integrated some of the illustrative examples accompanying the IHRA working definition into sections of the survey, following the lead of the EU institutions and the Member States’ commitment to endorse the working definition. By using these examples, the survey gives an indication of what Jewish respondents themselves perceive to be antisemitic.
As a result, the survey is consistent with the human-rights-based approach to data that the United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner has put forward. One of the key principles of this approach is to ‘Ensure that the views of vulnerable or marginalized groups, and groups who are at risk of discrimination, are represented’ (12). This also implies taking into account the ‘concerns expressed by the target population groups themselves’ (13).
In this respect, it should be noted that the Council of Europe’s European Commission against Racism and Intolerance stressed that the working definition must not be used to ‘stifle, or stigmatise as antisemitic, legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies, in particular towards the Palestinian people and in the context of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories’ (14).

Time references in the survey questionnaire
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
The survey questionnaire asked respondents to report their perceptions and experiences for different periods – ‘in the last 5 years’ and ‘in the last 12 months’. The point of reference for both time frames is the moment the respondent answered the question. The period referred to is therefore 5 years or 12 months prior to when they answered the survey.

Description of single antisemitic incidents
The survey asked respondents to refer to the latest or ‘last’ incident of antisemitism they encountered online, and antisemitic harassment, violence and discrimination they personally experienced, to enable further analysis of the nature of the incidents. This means that the respondent is asked to recall – for each category – one distinct incident. They can then refer to this incident when the survey asks them to provide details.

Key findings and FRA opinions

FRA drew on the survey findings to formulate the following opinions to support EU and national policymakers in developing and implementing measures to prevent and counter antisemitism, ensure the security of Jewish communities and individuals and foster Jewish life. These opinions supplement those FRA formulated in the reports on its first two surveys on antisemitism, published in 2013 and 2018. These opinions remain valid due to the continued prevalence of antisemitism in our societies and online and will not be repeated here.
Furthermore, the opinions included in this report supplement the FRA opinions in the agency’s existing body of work on anti-racism, non-discrimination, hate crime, victims’ rights and online content moderation, and its Fundamental Rights Report 2023. Again, these opinions will not be repeated here.

Antisemitism remains omnipresent in our societies

Jewish people across the EU continue to experience and encounter antisemitism on an almost continous basis, including online, findings show. Antisemitism continues to pervade the public sphere, reproducing and ingraining negative stereotypes about Jews. This severely restricts their ability to live an openly Jewish life, has a chilling effect on their participation in society and has a negative impact on their psychological well-being.
Being Jewish increases people’s likelihood of being faced with a sustained stream of antisemitism and abuse expressed in different forms, online and offline.
Overall, 8 in 10 (80 %) respondents in the 2023 survey (carried out before the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023) feel that antisemitism increased in their country in the 5 years before the survey. This represents only a slight reduction since 2018 (88 %). In the first half of 2023, more than 8 in 10 (84 %) respondents considered antisemitism to be a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem in their country. Similarly to 2018, they perceive the most problematic manifestations of antisemitism to be ‘antisemitic content on the internet and on social media’ (91 %), followed by ‘antisemitism in public spaces’ (78 %), ‘the desecration of Jewish cemeteries’, ‘vandalism of Jewish buildings or institutions’ and ‘antisemitism in the media’ (all 76 %), ‘antisemitic graffiti’ (75 %) and ‘antisemitism in political life’ (73 %).
Almost all respondents (96 %) reported having encountered antisemitism online or offline in the 12 months before the survey. The most common antisemitic manifestations they encountered – among those the questionnaire covered – include ‘negative stereotypes accusing Jews of holding power and control over finance, media, politics or economy’ (85 %), ‘denying Israel the right to exist as a state’ (79 %) and ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of Israel’, ‘Holocaust denial/trivialisation or distortion of historical facts’ and ‘comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy’ (all 78 %).
Respondents encounter antisemitism online (90 %) more commonly than they do offline (77 %). However, the overlap of these manifestations is considerable: 74 % of respondents have encountered antisemitism online and offline. Offline, around half of the respondents reported having encountered antisemitism in social interactions with friends/colleagues/acquaintances (56 %), in public spaces (52 %), in the media (other than the internet) (51 %) or at a political event such as a demonstration (49 %).

The share of respondents who experienced antisemitic harassment in the 12 months prior to the survey has increased since 2018 (31 % v 37 %), especially offline (26 % v 32 %): 4 % of respondents in 2023 said they had experienced antisemitic physical attacks in the 12 months prior to the survey, compared with 2 % in 2018. More than half of the antisemitic incidents of harassment and violence happened in public – on the street or in a shop.
A large share of the respondents are not (at all) satisfied with their national governments’ efforts to combat antisemitism and to raise awareness of Jewish traditions: 60 % and 59 %, respectively.
Effectively combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life require the EU and its Member States to take decisive action, as the survey findings and the lack of improvement in / evidence of a worsening of antisemitism across Europe show. The dedicated strategies and action plans that the EU and its Member States have increasingly been adopting may prove to be key tools in this respect, if they are properly implemented, monitored and adequately resourced.
In this context, it is encouraging that the Council of the European Union invited all Member States ‘to adopt and implement a holistic strategy to prevent and fight all forms of antisemitism as part of their strategies on preventing racism, xenophobia, radicalisation and violent extremism’ in its 2018 declaration on combating antisemitism. In October 2021, the EU adopted its first ever strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. This encouraged Member States to ‘[d]evelop national strategies by end 2022 on combating antisemitism, or include measures in their national action plans against racism.’
 
Almost all Jews surveyed say they faced antisemitism in the past year and 8 in 10 Jews say antisemitism has increased in recent years.

Overall, 14 Member States had adopted a national strategy on combating antisemitism at the time of writing, according to European Commission data. Furthermore, 17 Member States, and the European Commission, had appointed a special envoy or coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. Some of the envoys/coordinators are responsible for ensuring the implementation of these strategies or action plans.
The work of these envoys and coordinators remains, however, relatively unknown among Jewish communities, the survey findings suggest. This is despite them meeting regularly, whether in the context of the European Commission’s Working Group on Combating Antisemitism, under the banner of the European Conference on Antisemitism convened by the Austrian Federal Chancellery or in the dedicated forum hosted by the World Jewish Congress.

Most Jewish people worry for their own and their family’s safety and security.

Safety and security

More than half of the respondents to the 2023 survey continue to worry for their own (53 %) and their family’s (60 %) safety and security. Many experience verbal abuse and harassment (37 %) and some experience antisemitic physical attacks (4 %). For this reason, many hide their Jewish identity (at least occasionally: 76 %), and one third avoid visiting Jewish events or sites (34 %) because they do not feel safe there as Jews. This result for 2023 (prior to 7 October) does not show a notable change since 2018.
Almost 6 in 10 respondents who were in employment or in education indicated that they are rarely or never open about being Jewish at work (57 %) or school (59 %). A similar number of respondents have emigrated or are considering emigration because they do not feel safe as Jews in the countries where they live in 2023, as in 2018 (41 % v 45 %). In sum, a large share of Jewish people across Europe feel unsafe, are subject to abuse and feel they need to hide that they are Jewish.
Such sustained encounters with antisemitism severely limit Jewish people’s enjoyment of their fundamental  rights,  including  the  protection of their human dignity, the right to respect for their private and family life and their freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Furthermore, the near-permanent deployment of special security measures – including heavily armed guards – at schools, synagogues and community centres to ensure the safety of Jewish communities points to a persistent threat.
  
Jewish community organisations must often fund or operate such security measures themselves. This diverts resources they could otherwise use to support their communities and foster Jewish life. Jewish community organisations have started to feel these constraints even more acutely since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel, after which they had to put additional security precautions and protection measures in place. Respondents’ average level of satisfaction with national governments’ actions to respond to the security needs of Jewish communities is low (32 % on average across the Member States surveyed).

Tackling online antisemitic content through the Digital Services Act

The DSA identifies four categories of systemic risk, three of which relate to antisemitic content online. The first category relates to the dissemination of illegal hate speech. The second category concerns the impact of digital services on fundamental rights, including human dignity, freedom of expression and information, and non-discrimination. A third category of risks ‘concerns the actual or foreseeable negative effects on democratic processes [and] civic discourse’ (recital 82 to the DSA).
The fourth category concerns the design, operation and use of very large online platforms and very large online search engines. Providers of these services are obliged to carry out systemic risk assessments under the terms of the DSA (Article 34). They are also obliged to put in place mitigation measures to address systemic risks (Article 35).
The framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia requires Member States to criminalise incitement to violence and hatred against Jews, and public denial, distortion and trivialisation of the Holocaust (Article 1). Member States must also ‘take the necessary measures to ensure that investigations into or prosecution[s] of’ such crimes are not ‘dependent on a report or an accusation made by a victim’ (Article 8). In addition, the victims’ rights directive states that Member States must ensure that victims of hate crimes receive an ‘individual assessment … to identify [their] specific protection needs’ (Article 22) and must facilitate referrals to victim support services (Article 8).
These legislative provisions are still relevant and important, the survey findings show. Jewish people regularly come across antisemitic content online, including on social media platforms. Overall, 90 % of respondents experienced antisemitism online in the 12 months before the survey.
Encountering antisemitic content online has a chilling effect, which is detrimental to democratic processes and civic discourse. Nearly one quarter (24 %) of respondents said that they had started avoiding posting content that would identify them as Jewish, while 23 % of respondents said that they limit their participation in online discussions and 16 % have reduced their use of certain platforms, websites or services.
In terms of the psychological impact of online antisemitic content, more than half of the respondents (57 %) who had encountered online antisemitism indicated that this makes them angry, and 15 % said that it negatively affects their mental health. Nearly 1 in 10 (9 %) said that it caused stress, headaches or trouble sleeping.

Antisemitism is very prevalent online, and nearly all Jews came across antisemitic content using the
internet or social media.

Only around one in five respondents (19 %) who had encountered antisemitic content online reported it to the platform where it was posted. Respondents’ degree of dissatisfaction with the way the platforms handled their complaints is high: 60 % of those who reported their last encounter of antisemitic content online to a platform were very dissatisfied with how the platform handled the complaint. The respondents had very rarely reported the content to other bodies (e.g. the police (1 %), community representatives (3 %)). When antisemitic content is not reported or is reported without a satisfying outcome, victims can be left without protection, support or opportunities for redress.

Very few victims report antisemitic incidents believing that nothing will change. This leaves them unsupported and perpetrators unpunished.

Obstacles remain to reporting experiences of antisemitism
The framework decision on racism and xenophobia and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights oblige Member States to investigate, unmask and punish the bias motivation underlying antisemitic hate crime. The victims’ rights directive requires Member States to empower victims and to encourage them to report hate crimes to the police (recital 63).
Very few victims report antisemitic incidents to any relevant authority or body, survey findings show. They report 26 % of online antisemitism encountered, 28 % of incidents of antisemitic harassment, 49 % of incidents of antisemitic violence and 11 % of antisemitic discrimination. Unreported antisemitic incidents and, by extension, criminal offences cannot be recorded, investigated or prosecuted, and thus perpetrators cannot be sentenced. This leaves victims without support or redress and leaves perpetrators unpunished.
Reporting rates fluctuate greatly. For example, while 11 % of victims of antisemitic discrimination report incidents, almost 50 % of victims of antisemitic physical violence do so: 30 % to the police and around 20 % to Jewish community representatives. In the case of online antisemitism and antisemitic harassment, around three quarters (74 % and 72 %, respectively) of incidents go unreported, while 26 % and 28 %, respectively, are reported.
The main reason respondents do not report antisemitic incidents is that they feel that nothing would happen or change as a result: 48 % of those who did not report online antisemitism, 52 % of those who did not report antisemitic harassment, 61 % of those who did not report antisemitic violence and 39 % of those who did not report antisemitic discrimination gave this as the reason.
Other common reasons respondents gave for not reporting discrimination are that discrimination ‘happens all the time’ (27 %), they had no proof (25 %) and they did not consider the incident serious enough (24 %).

The apparent normalisation of discrimination among respondents may partly explain why a mere 1 % of them report incidents of discrimination to national equality bodies. Very low reporting rates contribute to discrimination against Jewish people remaining largely invisible, despite the racial and employment equality directives having been in force for nearly 25 years. These directives require Member States to ensure that their provisions are communicated to those concerned through all appropriate means and throughout the territory of each country.
Most respondents who reported an incident to the police were dissatisfied with how the police handled their complaint: 78 % of respondents who reported antisemitic violence to the police and 68 % of those who reported antisemitic harassment to the police were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ dissatisfied, while 59 % of respondents who reported online antisemitism to the police were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ dissatisfied. Complaints that are not handled properly erode people’s trust in authorities’ ability to address antisemitism effectively.

FRA OPINION 1
Ensure effective monitoring and appropriate funding of strategies and actions plans

In line with commitments they have made as members of the Council of the European Union, Member States are encouraged to adopt national strategies or action plans to combat antisemitism and foster Jewish life without delay, if they have not done so already. When developing these, Member States could draw on the Common guiding principles for national action plans against racism and racial discrimination, which the European Commission’s Subgroup on the national implementation of the EU anti- racism action plan 2020–2025 developed with guidance from FRA.
Member States are encouraged to develop and populate indicators that will enable them to monitor the implementation and the effect of their strategies or action plans, and to devise corrective courses of action where needed. In doing so, Member States could apply the human rights indicators of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. When developing indicators, Member States need to involve Jewish communities, in line with the human-rights-based approach to data.
To help populate these indicators and track trends, Member States are encouraged to conduct their own periodic national surveys on antisemitism, drawing on robust and reliable survey methodologies on hard- to-reach population groups, such as FRA’s methodology.
Member States should ensure that appropriate human, financial and technical resources are made available to ensure the effective implementation of their national strategies or action plans, in line with the EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. This includes appropriately resourcing the offices of special envoys and coordinators on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life. Member States that have not yet done so are encouraged to appoint such envoys or coordinators.

FRA OPINION 2
Ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities

Member States are encouraged to meet and fund the security and protection needs of Jewish communities, including their schools, synagogues and community centres. In doing so, Member States should cooperate actively and systematically with Jewish communities to properly assess their needs. They should also implement dynamic measures that respond to situations of heightened tension and threat.
Member States are encouraged to exchange information about measures and policies they have put in place to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities. This includes focusing on devising measures that would be the least obtrusive for these communities. Such exchanges of information and practices should include and draw on the experiences of organisations that specialise in ensuring the security of Jewish communities, including those operating outside the EU.

FRA OPINION 3
Address online antisemitic content through the Digital Services Act

When enforcing the DSA, the European Commission should pay attention to how platforms assess and mitigate the systemic risks inherent to online antisemitic content, following their obligations under Article 34 and Article 35 of the DSA. Platforms should also assess whether antisemitic content can slip through their moderation systems; the extent to which their algorithmic systems promote such content; and which measures they could implement to effectively counter and reduce such content.
Platforms must actively seek to mitigate the system risks inherent to online antisemitic content, not least its chilling effect on many Jewish people. Platforms should also be required to provide data and performance indicators to monitor the extent to which their services host and take down online antisemitic content – alongside other hate speech. Such data and indicators should include, among others, the shares of content flagged or reported as antisemitic and eventually taken down. The revised EU Code of Conduct on Countering Illegal Hate Speech Online can also support the provision of such monitoring efforts.
When implementing the DSA, the European Commission and responsible bodies in Member States are encouraged to pay particular attention to how online platforms conduct notice and action procedures and handle complaints in practice.
Member States should help put measures in place to strengthen the capacity and ability of law enforcement and judicial authorities to detect, investigate and prosecute illegal online antisemitic content, in line with the High Level Group on Combating Hate Speech and Hate Crime Guidance note on the practical application of Council framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia. They could achieve this through favouring the development of dedicated training modules. Member States must also ensure that victims of illegal online antisemitic content receive adequate protection, support and redress, as set out in the victims’ rights directive.

FRA OPINION 4
Facilitate reporting of experiences of antisemitism

Member States should step up their efforts to implement their positive and statutory obligations towards encouraging victims and witnesses to report antisemitic incidents and criminal offences. To achieve this, Member States should put in place new or improve existing structures that will facilitate the reporting of antisemitic incidents and criminal offences. Initiatives that have proved effective in this respect include using third-party and anonymous reporting, improving national recording and data collection systems and investing in standardising referrals to and from third parties, FRA evidence suggests.
To facilitate the reporting of antisemitic incidents and criminal offences, Member States can draw on the High Level Group on Combating Hate Speech and Hate Crime Key guiding principles on encouraging reporting of hate crime and Key guiding principles on cooperation between law enforcement authorities and civil society organisations. In addition, Member States can draw on the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights guide Understanding anti- semitic hate crimes and addressing the security needs of Jewish communities.
In line with Article 10 of the racial equality directive and Article 12 of the employment equality directive, Member States should step up their efforts to raise Jewish people’s awareness of their rights with respect to non-discrimination and of redress mechanisms they could avail themselves of. This includes awareness of equality bodies. National authorities and public bodies competent in the field of fundamental rights are encouraged to work closely with Jewish community organisations to identify and develop practical tools that could increase community members’ awareness of rights and remedies.

Endnotes

(1)    See the Annex.
(2)    See, for example, Government Offices of Sweden (2021), Outcome Document – Pledges presented at the Malmö International Forum on Holocaust Remembrance and Combating Antisemitism.
(3)    See, for example, European Parliament (2017), European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2017 on combating anti-Semitism, Brussels.
(4)    See, for example, Council of the European Union (2018), Council declaration on the fight against antisemitism and the development of a common security approach to better protect Jewish communities and institutions in Europe, Brussels; and Council of the European Union (2020), Council declaration on mainstreaming the fight against antisemitism across policy areas, Brussels.
(5)    See, for example, European Council (2018), European Council meeting (13 and 14 December 2018) – Conclusions, Brussels; European Council (2021), European Council meeting (21 and 22 October 2021) – Conclusions, Brussels; and Council of the European Union (2022), Conclusions on combating racism and antisemitism, Brussels.
(6)    See, for example, FRA (2023), Antisemitism in 2022 – Overview of antisemitic incidents recorded in the EU, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, pp. 24–26.
(7)    European Commission (2021), Commission communication – EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021–2030)
(COM(2021) 615 final).
(8)    DellaPergola, S. (2020), ‘World Jewish population 2020’, in Dashefsky, A. and Sheskin, I. M. (eds), The American Jewish Year Book, 2020, Volume 120, Springer, Cham, pp. 273–370.
(9)    For more details on the topics in this section, see the Annex.
(10)    FRA (2014), Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: Experiences and perceptions of antisemitism, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg; FRA (2018), Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism – Second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
(11)    DellaPergola, S. (2020), ‘World Jewish population 2020’, in Dashefsky, A. and Sheskin, I. M. (eds), The American Jewish Year Book, 2020, Volume 120, Springer, Cham, pp. 273–370.
(12)    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2018), A Human Rights-based Approach to Data – Leaving no one behind in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Geneva, p. 3.
(13)    United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (2018), A Human Rights-based Approach to Data – Leaving no one behind in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Geneva, p. 5.
(14)    European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (2020), ‘ECRI’s opinion on the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (adopted at ECRI’s 84th plenary meeting on 2 December 2020)’.

1 MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM

This chapter discusses respondents’ perceptions of antisemitism as a societal problem, including its manifestations and changes over time. In addition, it examines respondents’ assessments of non-Jewish people’s acts and statements targeting Jewish individuals and communities.

1.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    Respondents identified antisemitism as the third most important social and political problem facing their country: 84 % deemed it a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem. Only rising prices (93 %) and the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine (85 %) were more often considered problematic than antisemitism.
—    Most respondents (80 % across 13 Member States) think that antisemitism has increased over the past 5 years in Europe.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. In the first half of 2023, fewer respondents than in 2018 felt that antisemitism had increased over the 5 years preceding the survey (81 % v 88 % in the 11 Member States both surveys covered).
—    Almost all respondents (91 %) consider antisemitism on the internet and social media as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem in their country. Almost 8 out of 10 (78 %) Jews perceive expressions of hostility towards Jews in public areas as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem. Most respondents perceive both online and offline manifestations of antisemitism as problems that have increased over the past 5 years.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. The comparison does not show any notable changes between 2018 and 2023.
—    Almost all respondents (96 %) had encountered antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey. Most respondents who had encountered antisemitism (64 %) stated that they encountered it ‘all the time’ in the 12 months before the survey.
—    Most respondents have encountered negative stereotypes accusing Jews of holding global power and control over finance, the media, politics or the economy. Respondents are rarely confronted with only one manifestation of antisemitism. Almost all respondents had encountered more than one manifestation of antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey.
—    Respondents generally mentioned the same experiences, regardless of sociodemographic characteristics or attributes such as sex/gender, education level, Jewish identity, communal affiliation or wearing/displaying Jewish symbols in public.
—    Most respondents (91 %) agree that non-Jews who proclaim that Jews living in the country are not considered country nationals are ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic. Nearly 8 out of 10 respondents (78 %) also consider ‘supporting boycotts of Israel or Israelis’ as ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic. Almost three out of four (73 %) consider statements suggesting that Jews have recognisable features as ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. More respondents than in 2018 agreed that non-Jews who ‘would not marry a Jew’ (65 % v 62 %), ‘always note who is Jewish among their acquaintances’ (65 % v 57 %) or ‘criticise Israel’ (52 % v 39 %) are ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic. Fewer respondents consider non-Jews ‘supporting boycotts of Israel and Israelis’ as ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic (85 % in 2018 v 78 % in 2023).

Selected results of the consultation of Jewish communities after 7 October 2023
 
Challenges for Jewish organisations
FRA consulted 11 national Jewish umbrella organisations in the survey countries and one international Jewish umbrella
organisation. They indicated some broad concerns.
—    Growing antisemitism and high levels of polarisation  within the general population are challenging in terms of ensuring the security and safety of, psychological support for and provision of assistance to the Jewish population.
—    All countries saw a stark surge in antisemitic incidents in the month(s) that followed 7 October 2023. Some organisations report increases of 400 % or more.
—    Online antisemitism and antisemitic incidents in public,
 
schools and universities increased dramatically. They negatively affect how safe Jewish people feel and their ability to be Jewish openly in their day-to-day lives.
—    Organisations are using their valuable human and financial resources to provide increased security and protection measures, complete documentation, handle increased numbers of antisemitic incidents, support victims of antisemitism, fight disinformation and find political support. However, organisations’ funding and resources are limited.
—    Previously established ties and connections to political leaders and other religious groups have often weakened or even disappeared since the Hamas attacks. This has left communities feeling unsupported and isolated.
 

1.2.    HOW BIG A PROBLEM IS ANTISEMITISM?
The survey initially asked respondents to place antisemitism in a broader context, assessing to what extent they consider antisemitism and other social and political issues to be problems in their country today (Table 1). Other issues included rising prices, the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine, the environment, intolerance towards Muslims and immigration.
On average, respondents consider rising prices (93 %), the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine (85 %) and antisemitism (84 %) the most significant concerns (Table 1). In France and Belgium, respondents think that antisemitism is the second most important sociopolitical issue, with 90 % and 84 % of respondents seeing it as ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem, respectively. In Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden, respondents ranked antisemitism the third most concerning problem. In Czechia (27 %) and Denmark (49 %), fewer than half of the respondents identified antisemitism as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem.
 
TABLE 1:    ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES ARE A PROBLEM, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Issue    AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-c0untry average
Rising prices    93    93    88    89    71    96    94    96    94    87    97    93    87    93
Russian war 0f aggressi0n against Ukraine    82    81    93    91    83    80    82    90    92    77    92    84    83    85
Antisemitism    73    84    27    82    49    76    90    65    74    76    75    60    81    84
Envir0nment    74    68    61    75    76    73    81    84    91    74    78    68    69    79
Int0lerance t0wards Muslims    67    60    47    58    65    51    64    49    57    59    59    29    66    60
Immigrati0n    55    70    35    61    40    60    64    24    65    61    39    37    64    59
Source: FRA, 2023.

 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B02. To what extent do you think the following are a problem in [country]?’ Items as listed in the table, with answer options ‘a very
big problem’, ‘a fairly big problem’, ‘not a very big problem’ and ‘not a problem at all’. The table presents the total of answer categories ‘a very big problem’ and ‘a fairly big problem’. The items are
listed in descending order according to the 13-country average. For each country, blue shading indicates the issues respondents assessed as the three most serious problems.
 
Women are more likely than men (87 % v 80 %) to perceive antisemitism to be a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem. The differences by age are less pronounced: younger Jews (under 40) are only slightly more likely than older Jews (60 or older) to consider antisemitism a problem (86 % v 82 %).
Large disparities can be observed across respondents’ indicated Jewish identities and strengths of Jewish identity (1). More Jews identifying as conservative (89 %), Orthodox (88 %) or progressive (86 %) consider antisemitism a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem than Jews identifying as ‘strictly Orthodox’ (82 %), ‘just Jewish’ (83 %), ‘mixed’ (80 %), ‘secular’ (78 %) or something else.
The survey asked respondents to assess the strength of their Jewish identity on a scale from 1 (very low strength) to 10 (very high strength). Levels 1–3 are categorised as ‘low strength’, levels 4–7 as ‘medium strength’ and levels 8–10 as ‘high strength’. More Jews who rate their Jewish identity as high (regardless of their self-selected Jewish identity) see antisemitism as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem in their country of residence than those who rate the strength of their Jewish identity as low (86 % v 70 %). However, the share is high in both groups.
The survey also asked about respondents’ perceptions of changes in antisemitism (Figure 1). In total, 8 out of 10 respondents across all countries feel that antisemitism ‘increased a lot’ or ‘increased a little’ in the 5 years prior to the survey. These proportions are the highest in Germany, the Netherlands, France and Belgium and the lowest in Czechia, Romania and Hungary.
 
FIGURE 1:    PERCEIVED CHANGE IN ANTISEMITISM OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 
Increased
 
Stayed the same
 
Decreased
 

 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Sorted from highest to lowest percentage of ‘increased a lot’ / ‘increased a little’. Question: ‘B03. Over the past five years, have the following increased, stayed the same or decreased in [country]?’ Answer: ‘B. Antisemitism.’ The results under ‘increased’ cover answer categories ‘increased a lot’ and ‘increased a little’ and those under ‘decreased’ cover ‘decreased a little’ and ‘decreased a lot’. Some bars do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.
 
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and
2018 survey data
 
In 2023, fewer respondents feel that antisemitism increased in the 5 years preceding the survey than in 2018 (81 % v 88 %; Figure 2). More respondents feel that the problem stayed the same than in 2018 (17 % v 9 %).
Similarly, in 2023 fewer respondents feel that anti-Muslim intolerance increased than in 2018 (59% v 71%). More respondents think that the level stayed the same than in 2018 (32 % v 20 %).

FIGURE 2: PERCEIVED CHANGE IN ANTISEMITISM AND ANTI-MUSLIM INTOLERANCE OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)
 

Increased

Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
 
Stayed the same

Decreased
 
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 196; 2018, n = 11 664). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B03. Over the past five years, have the following increased, stayed the same or decreased in [country]?’ Answers: ‘B. Antisemitism’ and ‘C. Anti-Muslim intolerance’. The
results under ‘increased’ cover answer categories ‘increased a lot’ and ‘increased a little’ and those under ‘decreased’ cover ‘decreased a little’ and ‘decreased a lot’. Some bars do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.

1.3.    MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM AFFECTING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
Antisemitic acts can take different forms and involve many areas of life. The survey examined respondents’ perceptions of seven manifestations of antisemitism:
—    antisemitic graffiti,
—    desecration of Jewish cemeteries,
—    vandalism of Jewish buildings or institutions,
—    expressions of hostility towards Jews in the street and other public places,
—    antisemitism in the media,
—    antisemitism in political life,
—    antisemitism on the internet, including social media.
 
The large majority (91%) of respondents identified antisemitism on the internet and social media as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem in their country. Almost 8 out of 10 (78 %) respondents perceive expressions of hostility towards Jews in public areas as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem, and almost the same number (76 %) view the desecration of Jewish cemeteries, the vandalism of Jewish institutions and antisemitism in the media as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem. Most also deem antisemitic graffiti (75 %) and antisemitism in political life (73 %) to be problematic.
In all countries except Hungary, the manifestation of antisemitism most frequently perceived as a problem is antisemitism on the internet and social media. Shares range from 96 % of respondents in France to 72 % in Romania. In Hungary, antisemitism in political life is more likely to be perceived as a problem (71 %), followed by online antisemitism (70 %). In Belgium, France and Spain, around 80 % see antisemitism in political life as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem.
The shares of respondents who deem expressions of hostility towards Jews in the streets or other public areas as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem are highest in France (88 %), Belgium (80 %), Germany (77 %) and the Netherlands (72 %). Around two out of three respondents in Austria (65 %), Italy (65 %), Spain (63 %) and Sweden (62 %) see expressions of hostility towards Jews in public as a problem in their country. The shares in Czechia (13 %), Poland (35 %), Denmark (40 %), Romania (40 %) and Hungary (46 %) are much lower.
 
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and
2018 survey data

Changes over time are mostly small, comparison of the 2023 and 2018 survey findings in 11 countries shows (Figure 3). However, the shares of respondents who identify the
desecration of Jewish cemeteries and antisemitism in political life as problematic increased by, respectively, 7 and 9 percentage points from 2018 to 2023.

FIGURE 3:    ASSESSMENT OF MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM AS PROBLEMATIC, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)
 
Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 196; 2018, n = 11 664). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B02. To what extent do you think the following are a problem in [country]?’ Items as listed in the figure, with answer options ‘a very big problem’, ‘a fairly big problem’, ‘not a very big problem’ and ‘not a problem at all’. The figure presents the total of answer categories ‘a very big problem’ and ‘a fairly big problem’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 2023 11-country average.

1.4.    PREVALENCE AND CONTEXT OF ANTISEMITISM ENCOUNTERED
Guided by illustrative examples included under the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (see section ‘Examples 0f antisemitism drawn fr0m the w0rking definiti0n 0f the Internati0nal H0l0caust Remembrance Alliance’), the questionnaire asked the respondents whether they encountered any of the following forms of antisemitism online or offline in their country of residence in the 12 months prior to the survey:
—    incitement to violence against Jews,
—    conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for unrelated events they have not caused or done (e.g. COVID-19, 9/11, war, blood libel accusation),
—    negative stereotypes, such as accusing Jews of holding global power and control over finance, the media, politics or economy,
—    negative stereotypes regarding alleged physical attributes of Jews,
—    Holocaust denial/trivialisation or distortion of historical facts (e.g. minimising or blaming Jews for the Holocaust),
—    accusation that Jews are exploiting Holocaust 'victimhood',
—    questioning the loyalty of Jewish citizens towards [country of residence],
—    denying Israel the right to exist as a state,
—    holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel,
—    comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy,
—    applying double standards to Israel’s government when comparing it with other democratic states,
—    other forms of antisemitism (e.g. antisemitic insults and expressions, other stereotyping of Jewish people).
Overall, 96 % of respondents reported encountering at least one of these manifestations of antisemitism in the 12 months prior to the survey (Figure 4).
Most respondents had encountered ‘negative stereotypes accusing Jews of holding global power and control over finance, media, politics or the economy’ (85 %), followed by ‘denying Israel the right to exist as a state’ (79 %), ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel’ (78 %), ‘Holocaust denial/trivialisation or distortions of historical facts’ (78 %) and ‘comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy’ (78 %). More than three quarters (76 %) had encountered ‘applying double standards when comparing Israel’s government with other democratic states’ and ‘conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for unrelated events they have not caused or done’.
More than two thirds (71 %) of respondents had encountered ‘accusations of Jews exploiting Holocaust “victimhood”’. Just over 6 out of 10 Jews had encountered ‘incitement to violence against Jews’ in the 12 months preceding the survey. 58 % had encountered ‘negative stereotypes regarding alleged physical attributes of Jews’ and 45 % had encountered ‘questioning the loyalty of Jewish citizens towards their country of residence’.
 
FIGURE 4:    MANIFESTATIONS OF ANTISEMITISM ENCOUNTERED IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.

 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘AS01. In the past 12 months, did you encounter any of the following forms of antisemitism online or in person in [country]?’ Items as listed in the figure. Figure covers answers ‘yes, online’ and ‘yes, in person’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average, except for ‘other forms of antisemitism’.

Regarding the frequency of encountering antisemitism, almost two thirds (64 %) of respondents who had encountered antisemitism in the 12 months preceding the survey stated that they are confronted with antisemitism ‘all the time’, while 21 % had encountered it ‘6 or more times’ and 15 % had encountered it less frequently in the 12 months preceding the survey .
Respondents said that they are rarely confronted with only one manifestation of antisemitism. Over 95 % of those who had encountered antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey had encountered at least two manifestations.
There is little variation in the shares of respondents who experienced any manifestation of antisemitism across countries, ranging from 89 % in Romania to 99 % in Sweden (Figure 5).

FIGURE 5:    ENCOUNTERS OF ANY MANIFESTATION OF ANTISEMITISM IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Encountered at least one manifestation of antisemitism

Source: FRA, 2023.
 
About 9 out of 10 respondents in Italy (94 %), the Netherlands (90 %), Spain (91 %) and Sweden (92 %) reported having encountered ‘negative stereotypes accusing Jews of holding global power and control over finance, the media, politics or economy’. Jews in these countries and Belgium and France reported the highest rates of experiencing manifestations such as ‘denying Israel the right to exist as a state’ (more than 80 %), ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel’ (more than 84 %) and ‘comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy’ (more than 84 %).
The shares of respondents who have encountered antisemitic ‘conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for unrelated events they have not caused or done’ are also particularly high in Austria (82 %) and Germany (81 %).
The shares of respondents who have encountered ‘incitement to violence against Jews’ are highest in Belgium (70 %), Spain (69 %), Italy (68 %), the Netherlands (68 %) and France (65 %).
 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Sorted from highest to lowest percentage. Question: ‘AS01. In the past 12 months, did you encounter any of the following forms
of antisemitism online or in person in [country]?’ Items as listed in Figure 4. Figure covers answers ‘yes, online’ and ‘yes, in person’.
 
The shares of respondents who had encountered ‘questioning of the loyalty of Jewish citizens towards their country of residence’ in the 12 months before the survey are particularly high in Poland (72 %) and Hungary (54 %) and lowest in Czechia (19 %) and Denmark (25 %). In Poland, 82 % of respondents had also encountered ‘accusations that Jews are exploiting the Holocaust “victimhood”’ (13-country average, 71 %).
When looking at age, sex/gender, disability and Jewish identity, the survey results show the following.
—    The prevalence rate of encountering antisemitism is higher among younger respondents than older respondents: 98 % of respondents under the age of 40 have encountered antisemitism, but only 93 % of respondents aged 60 or older have.
—    Men and women show similar prevalence rates of encountering antisemitism.
—    Different levels of education have a limited impact on the prevalence rate of encountering antisemitism. Respondents with and without tertiary education have the same likelihood of encountering antisemitism.
—    The share of respondents who encountered antisemitism in the 12 months prior to the survey does not differ much among Jews who identify as secular, progressive, conservative, Orthodox or strictly Orthodox (between 96 and 99 %). It is slightly lower among those who identify as ‘just Jewish’ (93 %) or ‘mixed’ (90 %) or who do not identify with any of the groups listed in the survey (92 %).
—    Affiliation to a Jewish community does not seem to influence the prevalence rate of encountering antisemitism. ‘Affiliation’ covers being a member, maintaining regular contact, following activities or making financial contributions.
—    The prevalence rate of encountering antisemitism among Jews who wear and display symbols that make them recognisable as Jewish in public is similar to the rate among those who do not.
—    Slightly more respondents who indicated that they are strongly attached to Israel had encountered antisemitism than those who feel no strong attachment to Israel.
—    Jews who identify as part of a religious minority are more likely to encounter antisemitism than Jews who do not see themselves as part of a religious minority (97 % v 88 %).
—    Jews with limitations in their daily activities due to a disability or a long- standing illness encounter antisemitism offline more often than those without limitations (81 % v 72 %).
Overall, Jewish Europeans are perceiving and experiencing antisemitism at extremely high levels, regardless of identity, visibility and religiosity. It is a common experience across all subgroups of Jewish respondents.

1.4.1.    C0ntext 0f 0ffline antisemitism
Around half of the respondents who reported having experienced antisemitism offline encountered it in social interactions with friends/colleagues/ acquaintances (56 %), in public spaces (52 %), in the media (other than the internet) (51 %) or at a political event such as a demonstration (49 %) (Figure 6).
Antisemitism encountered offline has several particularities, survey data show. For example, respondents in Austria are most likely to have encountered offline antisemitism at political events such as demonstrations (59 % v 49 % on average). In Germany and Sweden, offline antisemitism is most likely
 
to be experienced at cultural events (41 % and 36 %, respectively, v 18 % on average). In other countries, antisemitism at sports events is a greater problem (Hungary and Italy both 43 %, Poland 31 % and the Netherlands 25 %, compared with 18 % on average).

FIGURE 6: CONTEXT WHERE RESPONDENTS ENCOUNTERED OFFLINE ANTISEMITISM IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.

 Notes:
Out of all respondents who encountered offline antisemitism (n = 6 154). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B16a. For the forms of antisemitism encountered in person in the last 12 months in [country], where did you hear or see these?’ Items as listed in the figure. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.
  
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and
2018 survey data
 
Comparisons of where antisemitism was encountered in 2023 and 2018 show mostly similar patterns (Figure 7). However, more respondents in 2023 than in 2018 encountered antisemitic statements in political speeches or discussions (42 % v 36 %) and at sports events (18 % v 11 %).

FIGURE 7:    CONTEXT WHERE RESPONDENTS ENCOUNTERED OFFLINE ANTISEMITISM IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)
 
In an (social) interaction with friends/colleagues/acquaintances
In a public space (e.g. street, public transport)

Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who experienced antisemitism offline in the 12 months prior to the survey (2023, n = 5 435) and all respondents who had heard/seen a non-Jewish person suggesting any antisemitic statements (2018, n = 10 978). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. 2023 question: ‘B16a. For the forms of antisemitism encountered in person in the last 12 months in [country],
where did you hear or see these? Items as listed in the figure. 2018 question: ‘B16a. In the last 12 months, where did you personally hear or see these comments?’ Items as listed in the figure. Items ‘at work’ and ‘at school/university’ were not separate in 2018. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.

1.5.    ASSESSING THE ANTISEMITIC NATURE OF SELECTED OPINIONS OR ACTIONS OF NON-JEWS
The survey explored to what extent respondents consider certain behaviours and statements of non-Jewish people antisemitic (Table 2). Most respondents (91 %) agree that non-Jews proclaiming that Jews living in the country are not considered country nationals are ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic. Around 8 out of 10 respondents (78 %) also consider supporting boycotts of Israel ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic. Around three out of four (73 %) consider statements that suggest that Jews have recognisable features to be at least ‘probably’ antisemitic.
Respondents assessed statements regarding marrying a Jewish person, noting who is Jewish among acquaintances and criticism of Israel more variably. Around two thirds of respondents see it as ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic if non-Jews will not marry a Jewish person (65 %) or if they always comment on who is Jewish among their acquaintances (64 %). Just over half of respondents (52 %) would consider a non-Jewish person ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic if they criticised Israel.

High shares of respondents in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands indicated that it is ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic for a non-Jewish person to think that Jews have recognisable features. The shares range from 65 % to 82 % across the 13 countries. Respondents in Czechia, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden consider a non-Jewish person being unwilling to marry a Jew ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic. The shares range between 69 % and 77 % across the 13 countries.

TABLE 2:    ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN OPINIONS OR ACTIONS OF NON-JEWS AS BEING ‘DEFINITELY’ OR ‘PROBABLY’ ANTISEMITIC, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Opini0n/acti0n    AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-c0untry average
N0t c0nsidering Jews living in (c0untry) t0 be (c0untry nati0nal)    89    90    78    88    89    81    94    82    87    89    92    76    86    91
Supp0rting b0yc0tts 0f Israel 0r Israelis (e.g. g00ds, pr0ducts, university lecturers)    83    82    72    84    63    70    80    60    77    71    68    77    73    78
Thinking that Jews have rec0gnisable features    82    66    59    81    57    66    74    58    71    65    62    61    67    73
W0uld n0t marry a Jew    72    48    69    72    75    72    62    77    67    57    72    67    77    65
Always n0ting wh0 is Jewish am0ng their acquaintances    50    55    54    54    44    59    71    62    55    53    53    53    56    64
Criticising Israel    45    50    42    47    28    62    58    36    47    34    36    62    44    52
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B17. Would you consider a non- Jewish person to be antisemitic if he or she: [items as listed in the table]?’ Table covers answers ‘yes, definitely’ and ‘yes, probably’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average. For each country, blue shading indicates the three opinions/actions that the highest shares of respondents consider antisemitic.
  
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and
2018 survey data
 
Fewer respondents in 2023 than in 2018 consider non-Jews who are ‘supporting boycotts of Israel and Israelis’ as ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic (78 % v 85 %). Similarly, the share of respondents who consider non-Jews who ‘think that Jews have recognisable features’ antisemitic dropped slightly, from 78 % in 2018 to 73 % in 2023 (Figure 8). The results for the statements ‘does not consider Jews in country to be country nationals’ and ‘would not marry a Jew’ are similar in 2023 and in 2018. The shares of respondents who agree that
non-Jews who ‘always note who is Jewish among their acquaintances’ and ‘criticise Israel’ are ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ antisemitic has increased since 2018 (64 % v 57 % and 52 % v 39 %, respectively).

FIGURE 8: ASSESSMENT OF CERTAIN OPINIONS OR ACTIONS OF NON-JEWS AS BEING ‘DEFINITELY’ OR ‘PROBABLY’ ANTISEMITIC, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)
 
Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 992; 2018, n = 11 003 – excluding item non-response). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B17. Would you consider a non-Jewish person to be antisemitic if he or she: [items as listed in the figure]?’ Figure covers answers ‘yes, definitely’ and ‘yes, probably’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 2023 11-country average.
 
Endn0te
(1)    See the Annex for information on the measurement of religiosity and Jewish identity levels.

2 ONLINE ANTISEMITIC CONTENT

This chapter looks at the details of online antisemitism. It first discusses the differences between online and offline antisemitism (Section 2.2). Then it analyses the characteristics of online antisemitic content (Section 2.3).

2.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    The frequency of encountering antisemitic content online is much higher than for offline. Almost half (49 %) of respondents who had encountered any manifestation of antisemitism offline reported that this happens ‘all the time’, compared with 61 % of respondents who reported having encountered antisemitism online.
—    With the caveat that these percentages are influenced by the number of people using those online platforms, one in four (25 %) respondents who reported having encountered antisemitism online encountered the last manifestation on Facebook. The next most common places for encountering antisemitism online are online news and media outlets (20 %). Almost as many respondents (19 %) reported that they last encountered antisemitic content online on X (formerly Twitter).
—    Most antisemitic content encountered online is expressed in written text (76 %), according to the survey respondents. Visual content – such as images, videos, memes or gifs – is the second most prevalent form (23 %).
—    Most perpetrators of online antisemitic content are users, profiles or accounts that include personal information, according to respondents. However, in many cases, the respondents do not know these perpetrators (37 %). Other perpetrators include anonymous users and accounts (29 %).
—    Fewer than one in five respondents (19 %) who had come across antisemitic content online reported it to the platform. Moreover, the degree of satisfaction with the way the platforms handled respondents’ complaints is low: 60 % of respondents who reported antisemitic incidents to platforms were very dissatisfied with the handling of the complaints.
—    Online antisemitism has a negative impact on many fundamental rights. Encountering antisemitism makes most respondents angry (57 %), but it also leads to avoidance strategies and fears. Around a quarter of the respondents now avoid posting content online that would identify them as Jewish (24 %), and a similar share are worried about their physical safety (24 %). Moreover, online antisemitism negatively affects the freedom of expression, with 23 % of respondents limiting their participation in online discussions and 16 % reducing the use of certain platforms, websites or services.

2.2.    COMPARISON OF ONLINE AND OFFLINE ANTISEMITISM
More respondents encountered manifestations of antisemitism online than offline in all countries (Figure 9). However, these forms of antisemitism coexist, and their impacts on the victims are equally important.
Of the 96 % of respondents who had encountered any manifestation of antisemitism, most (74 %) encountered antisemitism both online and offline. Only 6 % of the respondents had encountered manifestations of antisemitism exclusively offline. One in five (20 %) had encountered manifestations of antisemitism exclusively online. The share of those experiencing antisemitism exclusively online is comparatively higher in Romania (35 %), Hungary (34 %) and Czechia (32 %).
Respondents had rarely encountered only one manifestation of antisemitism – either online or offline. Almost all Jews who had encountered antisemitism online or offline indicated encountering more than one manifestation of antisemitism in the 12 months preceding the survey. On average, Jews had encountered 9 out of the 12 manifestations of antisemitism asked about in the survey. On average, they encountered eight of the manifestations of antisemitism listed in Figure 9 online, and six of the manifestations of antisemitism offline.
More respondents had encountered antisemitic content online than offline across all manifestations. However, the differences between the shares of respondents who had encountered manifestations of antisemitism online and offline are particularly pronounced for ‘incitement to violence against Jews’ (55 % online v 22 % offline) and ‘conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for unrelated events they have not caused or done (e.g. COVID-19, 9/11, war, blood libel accusation)’ (68 % v 30 %). The differences are also stark for ‘comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy’, ‘Holocaust denial/ trivialisation or distortion of historical facts (e.g. minimising or blaming the Jews for the Holocaust)’, ‘questioning the loyalty of Jewish citizens towards [country] and ‘accusation of Jews exploiting the Holocaust “victimhood”’.

FIGURE 9: ENCOUNTERING ANTISEMITISM ONLINE AND OFFLINE IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 
Online
 
Offline
 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question:
‘AS01. In the past 12 months, did you encounter any of the following forms of antisemitism online or in person in [country]?’ Items as listed in the figure.
The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average for antisemitism online.
 
The extent to which respondents encounter antisemitism online is relatively stable across demographic groups and does not show the same variation as encounters offline. The share experiencing antisemitism online also remains much higher.
For example, respondents living outside a country’s capital are slightly more likely than those living in the capital to encounter antisemitism offline (80 % v 73 %). However, the rate of respondents who encounter antisemitism online is virtually the same among respondents who live in the capital and those who do not (90 % v 89 %). Women appear to experience slightly higher levels of antisemitism offline than men (79 % v 74 %). Nevertheless, the prevalence rate of encountering antisemitism online is virtually the same among men and women (89 % v 90 %).
More Jews who are affiliated with a community / Jewish organisations experience offline antisemitism (80 % v 72 %) than those who are not. However, both groups show similar prevalence rates for encountering antisemitism online (90 % v 89 %). Only Jews who identify as strictly Orthodox show a higher prevalence rate of encountering antisemitism offline than online (92 % v 86 %).
The frequency of encountering antisemitism online is much higher than that of encountering it offline (Figure 10). Almost half (49 %) of those experiencing offline antisemitism note this happens ‘all the time’; this is the case for 61 % of those experiencing online encounters.
In all Member States surveyed, online antisemitism is more likely than offline antisemitism to be experienced ‘all the time’. The rate of experiencing online antisemitism ‘all the time’ is particularly high in Spain (72 %) and Italy (70 %), but is also high in Belgium, Germany, France, Sweden and Austria.

FIGURE 10: FREQUENCY OF ENCOUNTERING ANTISEMITISM IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS AMONG THOSE WHO EXPERIENCED ANTISEMITISM ONLINE AND OFFLINE, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Online    Offline    Online    Offline    Online    Offline Czechia
Online    Offline    Online    Offline    Online    Offline
Online    Offline    Online    Offline    Online    Offline                                    
Online    Offline    Online    Offline    Online    Offline
Online    Offline    Online    Offline

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who experienced offline or online antisemitism at least once (online, n = 7 162; offline, n = 5 874). Country results are weighted, 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘AS02/OH01. In the last 12 months, how many times have you encountered/seen the following forms of antisemitism in person / online?’ The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average. Some totals do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.
 

2.3.    CHARACTERISTICS OF ONLINE ANTISEMITIC CONTENT
The results laid out in Section 2.2 show that the prevalence of manifestations of antisemitism differs online and offline. Online platforms have been developing steadily over the past two decades, which makes it easier for people to express and disseminate content. This has had positive effects on societies, such as more opportunities to engage politically and keep contacts. However, this has also created new ways to express and disseminate online hate including antisemitism.
The EU has updated its laws governing online platforms, most notably through the DSA, in reaction to this changed landscape of online communication. The DSA regulates online intermediaries and platforms such as marketplaces, social networks, content-sharing platforms, app stores and online travel and accommodation platforms. The DSA requires very large online platforms and search engines to assess the systemic risks of their conduct on an annual basis and suggest mitigation measures. This covers risks to fundamental rights such as the rights to privacy and data protection, non-discrimination and freedom of expression.
FRA’s 2023 report on online content moderation (1) shows high levels of hate online, which includes antisemitism. Detecting online antisemitism is challenging. A variety of measures are needed to tackle online hate, particularly because it is a fast-developing area. Online antisemitism often occurs as a reaction to events reported in the media, most recently after the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 (2).
The steady increase in and magnitude of online antisemitism is a systemic risk that clearly needs to be addressed. The rest of this chapter provides insights into characteristics of online antisemitism. These can help to understand where and how measures may need to be taken to identify, fight and mitigate antisemitism. For example, information on where, how often and what form of antisemitism is encountered, experiences and practices of reporting antisemitism and antisemitism’s impact can help in designing more targeted measures to address it.
The survey asked the 90 % of respondents who had encountered online antisemitic content to consider the last incident of antisemitism they encountered online. This gave respondents a single point of reference for detailed questions. The manifestation most often cited was negative stereotyping, such as accusing Jews of holding global power and control over finance, the media, politics or the economy (17 %), followed by manifestations of antisemitism such as denying Israel the right to exist as a state (15 %), comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy (13 %) and applying double standards to Israel’s government when comparing it with other democratic states (12 %).
The most common manifestation varies somewhat by country. The stereotype of Jews holding too much power was most often the last incident encountered in 5 of the 13 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Sweden). In other countries, the last incident encountered online was most often related to denying Israel the right to exist as a state (Belgium, Denmark, France and Spain), comparing Israel’s policy to the Nazi policy (Italy), applying double standards to Israel’s government when comparing it with other democratic states (Germany and the Netherlands) and conspiracy theories about Jews being responsible for events they have not caused or done (Austria).

2.3.1.    Platforms and online services
The number of respondents using a platform influences the distribution of antisemitic content online across platforms. The rates will naturally be higher for platforms that are used more often. For example, if very few respondents use a certain platform or online service, only a few respondents can encounter antisemitism on those platforms.
The survey did not ask a general question about platform usage. Therefore, the data on the platforms where respondents encountered the last incident of online antisemitism merely describe the online antisemitic content encountered. They are not an indicator of how widespread antisemitism is on those platforms.
Figure 11 shows the platforms where respondents encountered the last incident of online antisemitism. One in four (25 %) respondents who experienced online antisemitism last encountered it on Facebook. The next most common places are online news and media outlets (20 %), then X (19 %). Other commonly named online platforms include Instagram (12 %), internet forums (7 %), TikTok (6 %) and YouTube (4 %). Again, these numbers reflect respondents’ usage of the online platforms and are not accurate representations of the volume of antisemitic content on each platform.
Facebook accounts for the highest share of respondents’ last encounters of online antisemitism in 9 of the 13 countries covered. In the Netherlands, most respondents encountered the last incident of online antisemitism on online news or media outlets (25 %). In Germany, the last incident of antisemitism was as likely to be encountered in online news and media outlets as on Facebook (both at 23 %). In France and Spain, X was the most cited platform for the last incident of online antisemitism (27 % and 24 %, respectively).
Analysis by sex/gender shows no major differences in where the last incident took place. Similar shares of women and men encountered their last incident of online antisemitism on Facebook (25 % for both), online news (18 % and 22 %, respectively) or X (17 % and 21 %, respectively). However, women more often than men encounter antisemitism on Instagram (16 % v 7 %) and TikTok (7 % v 4 %).
Age analysis shows different practices in platform use. Most younger respondents (16–39) encountered their last incident of online antisemitism on Instagram (27 %) or X (27 %), followed by Facebook (15 %) and TikTok (12 %). Most respondents aged 40–59 years encountered the last incident of online antisemitism on Facebook (37 %), followed by online news (19 %) and X (18 %). Most respondents aged 60 or older encountered the last incident of online antisemitism when using online news sites (35 %), followed by Facebook (25 %) and X (11 %).
 
FIGURE 11: PLATFORM WHERE RESPONDENTS ENCOUNTERED THE LAST INCIDENT OF ONLINE ANTISEMITISM, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Facebook Online news or media outlet 
X Instagram Internet forums, message boards and online communities
TikTok YouTube Other WhatsApp LinkedIn Telegram

Facebook Online news or media outlet
X
Instagram Internet forums, message boards and online communities
TikTok YouTube Other WhatsApp LinkedIn Telegram

Facebook Online news or media outlet
X
Instagram Internet forums, message boards and online communities
TikTok YouTube Other WhatsApp LinkedIn Telegram

Facebook Online news or media outlet
X
Instagram Internet forums, message boards and online communities
TikTok YouTube Other WhatsApp LinkedIn Telegram

Facebook Online news or media outlet
X
Instagram Internet forums, message boards and online communities
TikTok YouTube Other WhatsApp LinkedIn Telegram
 
Czechia                              

Germany                         

Netherlands                             

Spain

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who experienced online antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey and provided information about the last incident (n = 7 066). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘OH03. Thinking about the last incident online, where did you encounter it?’ Items as listed in the figure. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average. The numbers of respondents using each platform strongly influence the shares in the graph. These shares will naturally be higher for platforms that are used more often.

2.3.2.    Format of online antisemitic content and the use of symbols The last incident of online antisemitic content was most often in text form (76 %), respondents report. This is despite the increase in other forms of online communication, such as video and audio. The share ranges from 68 % text in the Netherlands to 81 % in Poland.
Around one quarter of incidents (23 %) involved the use of visual content, such as images, videos, memes or gifs. Visual content is most prevalent in Belgium (30 %) and least in Czechia (16 %). While there are no noteworthy country differences for audio content (most commonly used in Austria, Germany and Poland and least often used in Denmark), hashtags are most often encountered in Spain (10 %). In Austria, the last incident of online antisemitism respondents encountered most often was the use of symbols (5 %).
This variety is strongly related to the use of platforms geared towards different formats and audiences. However, text remains the most common format for antisemitic content encountered on all platforms covered, ranging from 62 % of last antisemitic incidents encountered on YouTube (comments) to 87 % on X and LinkedIn.
Visual content is most prevalent on Telegram (43 %), TikTok (39 %), Instagram (37 %) and WhatsApp (32 %). Audio is more often encountered on YouTube (28 %) and TikTok (19 %). Hashtags are most common on X (13 %), YouTube (12 %), TikTok and Instagram (both 10 %). On X, Telegram and TikTok, 14 % of antisemitic incidents involve antisemitic usernames and avatars.
Text remains the most common format for all manifestations of antisemitism, with the exception of negative stereotypes regarding alleged physical attributes of Jews. This is most often depicted in visual content (70 %; 54 % in written text). Hashtags are used relatively often when it comes to questioning the loyalty of Jewish citizens to their country of residence (20 %; 65 % in written text).
 
Antisemitic symbols
 
The survey asked all respondents who had encountered antisemitism online about the format (written text, visual content, etc.) of
the last incident of online antisemitism. Those who had last encountered antisemitism in the form of symbols described these symbols in an open text field. Overall, 180 respondents provided some information about the kind of symbols that are used when expressing antisemitism online.
Most often, respondents come across swastikas (22 %). In addition, numbers that insiders know stand for antisemitic expressions are used frequently. Most often, this is the number 88, which stands for the
 
initial letters of Heil Hitler. Respondents also frequently reported coming across other Nazi symbols.
Respondents reported coming across denigrations of the Star of David, Palestinian flags used in antisemitic contexts, other images, caricatures and the use of triple parentheses.
Triple parentheses are a symbol used to highlight the names of individuals thought to be Jews or organisations thought to be Jewish owned.
Respondents in Hungary (12 mentions) and Italy (nine mentions) encounter swastikas most often. They are also common in Sweden (six mentions), Denmark, Spain and France (five mentions in each).
 
2.3.3.    Perpetrators of online antisemitism
Most often, online content that respondents perceive as antisemitic comes from users, profiles or accounts that include personal information. However, respondents often do not know these individuals. This is the case for 37 % of the last incidents of antisemitism encountered online. The second most common type of perpetrator is anonymous users and accounts (i.e. those with no personal information; 29 %).
Around one in five respondents (21 %) indicated that the last incident of antisemitism encountered online originated from news and media outlets. In more than 1 in 10 cases (13 %), the perceived perpetrator was identified as a politician or member of a political party. In more than 1 in 10 cases (11 %), a celebrity or influencer expressed content that the respondents considered antisemitic.
Respondents less often identified or recognised automated programs, such as bots, as perpetrators of the last incident of online antisemitism. Respondents identified the incident as someone posting through an automated program in only 2 % of cases.
Users with personal information but who are not known to the respondents are the most commonly identified group of perpetrators of online antisemitism in all countries except Austria. In Austria, anonymous users (40 %) are most often the perpetrators of the last incidents of online antisemitism, followed by users with personal information (34 %). Politicians expressing content seen as antisemitic are relatively frequent in Spain (23 %) and Hungary (20 %).
Anonymous users are found relatively often on LinkedIn (51 %) and Telegram (45 %). Respondents also often face anonymous perpetrators on internet forums (39 %) and TikTok (40 %). Perpetrators who share their personal information but who are unknown to the respondent are most often encountered on TikTok (59 %), Facebook (53 %) and Instagram (50 %).
Users who provide personal information (e.g. their names) are the most commonly identified perpetrators for most manifestations of antisemitism online, with two important exceptions. Respondents most often described perpetrators of ‘incitement to violence against Jews’ as users who do not provide any personal information (41 %). In addition, antisemitic content in the form of ‘negative stereotyping regarding alleged physical attributes of Jews’ (38 %) and ‘applying double standards to Israel’s government when comparing it with other democratic states’ (37 %) was most commonly attributed to online news and media outlets.

2.3.4.    Reporting to platforms and level of satisfaction
The DSA fully entered into force on 17 February 2024 and obliges platforms to provide ways to easily report illegal content, including antisemitism. Platforms must react swiftly to these reports. Articles 16 and 22 of the DSA require platforms to implement notice mechanisms.
Platforms must prioritise the reporting of content coming from ‘trusted flaggers’. These are organisations that are deemed to be reliable when they provide information on potentially illegal content. These may also include organisations that specialise in addressing antisemitic content.
Article 3(h) of the DSA defines ‘illegal content’. It states that ‘any information that, in itself or in relation to an activity, including the sale of products or the provision of services, is not in compliance with Union law or the law of any Member State which is in compliance with Union law, irrespective of the precise subject matter or nature of that law’ is considered illegal. However, this is not a precise definition of ‘illegal content’. Nevertheless, content may be against platforms’ terms and conditions, and be removed for that reason, even if it is not deemed illegal.
 
Platforms’ terms and conditions need to take due account of their users’ fundamental rights according to Article 14(4) of the DSA. Providers of very large online platforms and very large online search engines must analyse, assess and mitigate any systemic risk in view of platforms’ and engines’ conduct (Articles 34 and 35 of the DSA). Antisemitic content could be considered a systemic risk in this context, as it hinders the enjoyment of fundamental rights and has a chilling effect on Jewish people, and Jewish respondents often encounter it online.
Overall, slightly fewer than one in five respondents who encountered online antisemitism reported the last incident to the platform involved (Figure 12). Most often, the last incident was reported to TikTok (32 %), X (30 %) or Instagram (29 %). Incidents encountered on online news or media outlets, Telegram, LinkedIn, WhatsApp and other online services were rarely reported (6 % or fewer).
Note that the DSA does not cover all services equally. The obligations are linked to the size of the platform and how it can be used. For instance, private communication is not covered.

FIGURE 12: RESPONDENTS REPORTING THE LAST ANTISEMITIC ONLINE INCIDENT TO THE PLATFORM INVOLVED, BY PLATFORM, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
(*) Results based on 20–50 respondents; less reliable.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who experienced online antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey and provided information about the platform where the last incident occurred (n = 7 097). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘OH07. Thinking about the last incident online, did you report or make a complaint about it? If yes, who did you report or make a complaint about the incidents?’ Items as listed in the figure. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.
 
Overall, respondents’ degree of satisfaction with the way the platforms handled their complaints was low: 60 % of respondents who reported the last antisemitic incident to the platform were very dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint, and a further 21 % were somewhat dissatisfied. Only 15 % were somewhat satisfied and only 4 % very satisfied.
The reporting rates for TikTok and Instagram were somewhat higher than those of most other platforms, but with low satisfaction. Only 1 in 10 of those who reported the last incident to TikTok or Instagram were somewhat or very satisfied (10 %). The shares of those very or somewhat satisfied were slightly higher, but still only around one in five, among those who reported incidents to online news outlets (19 %), Facebook (19 %), internet forums (20 %) or X (22 %). Although the number of incidents reported to YouTube was relatively low, half of those who reported incidents were satisfied (49 %).

2.3.5.    Impact of online antisemitism
Online antisemitism has a strong negative impact on society and, particularly, on Jewish people who encounter it. Most respondents said that it makes them angry (57 %), Figure 13 shows. In addition, almost one in four respondents said that encountering online antisemitism in the past 12 months had made them avoid posting content online that would identify them as Jewish (24 %). Almost one in four respondents reported being worried about their physical safety (24 %).
Online antisemitism has a clear negative effect on the freedom of expression, with 23 % of respondents limiting their participation in online discussions because of it, and 16 % reducing their use of a certain platform, website or service.
Online antisemitism also has an impact on respondents’ health – 15 % indicated that it negatively affected their mental health, and almost 1 in 10 (9 %) respondents who had encountered online antisemitism mentioned that it had negatively affected their physical well-being, causing stress, headaches or trouble sleeping. Some respondents (13 %) reported that encountering online antisemitism had made them more active on platforms to counter such incidents. Only 12 % of respondents said that online antisemitism had no effect on them.
Swedish respondents were the most likely to report avoiding being identified as Jewish because of online antisemitism (32 %). Most likely to be worried about their physical safety were respondents from France (31 %). Limiting participation in online discussions happened most often in Poland (31 %), Denmark (30 %) and Sweden (28 %). Respondents in the Netherlands (23 %) and Germany (21 %) were the most likely to report a negative impact on their mental health. The reduced use of certain services was relatively equally spread across countries (ranging from 10 % to 16 %).

FIGURE 13: IMPACT OF ONLINE ANTISEMITISM, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who experienced online antisemitism in the 12 months before the survey (n = 7 218). Country results are weighted;
13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘OH11. Thinking of all your experiences of antisemitism online in the last 12 months, has any of them affected you in any of the following ways?’ The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.

Among respondents whose last encounter with online antisemitism involved ‘incitement to violence against Jews’, most indicated that this made them angry (67 %). This manifestation of antisemitism also led many respondents to be worried about their physical safety (42 %). Encountering negative stereotypes regarding alleged physical attributes of Jews most often led to mental health issues (26 %).
 
Endnotes
(1)    FRA (2023), Online Content Moderation – Current challenges in detecting hate speech, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
(2)    See, for example, Becker, M. J., Ascone, L., Bolton, M., Bundzíková, V., Chapelan, A., Haupeltshofer, P., Krugel, A., Kurjan, I., Mihaljević, H., Munnes, S., Placzynta, K., Pustet, M., Salhi, M., Scheiber, M. and Tschiskale, V. (2024), Decoding Antisemitism: An AI-driven study on hate speech and imagery online, Discourse Report 6, Centre for Research on Antisemitism, Technical University Berlin, Berlin.

3 SAFETY AND SECURITY

This chapter looks at respondents’ assessments of the influence of events in the Middle East, safety and security concerns and prohibition of traditional religious practices. Furthermore, the chapter sheds light on respondents’ intentions to emigrate because of security concerns and limitations on Jewish life in the EU and their assessments of governmental actions to protect and foster Jewish life in the EU.

3.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    Around half of the survey respondents are very or fairly worried that they will be a victim of antisemitic verbal insults or harassment (53 %) when they are in the street or in any other public space in the next 12 months. Slightly fewer, but still over 4 out of 10 (44 %), are worried that they will be the victim of a physical attack because of being Jewish. In addition, 60 % worry that a family member or a person close to them will be a
victim of harassment because they are Jewish, while 53 % worry that their family members and friends could be physically attacked in their country of residence.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. These shares are very similar to those in 2018 (Figure 15).
—    Avoidance strategies are common: 76 % indicated that they at least on occasion avoid wearing, displaying or carrying things that would make them recognisable as Jews. Among those who do not wear any symbols that would make them recognisable as Jewish, around half do so because they are concerned for their safety. A third of the respondents (34 %) said that they at least occasionally avoid visiting Jewish events, and 40 % avoid certain places or locations because they do not feel safe there as Jews.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. These shares are very similar to those in 2018.
Apart from experiences of antisemitism, harassment, vandalism and violent incidents, several other factors limit the ability of Jews in the EU to live openly Jewish lives.
 
Results of the consultation of Jewish communities after 7 October 2023
 
Impact on safety and security
FRA consulted 11 national Jewish umbrella organisations in the survey countries and one international Jewish umbrella organisation. The organisations
expressed a number of concerns related to the protection of Jewish institutions and people. These include the following.
— Security concerns and the physical protection of Jews and Jewish institutions and buildings were already problems before the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023. However, they became urgent after the
 
attacks, with increased reports of threats against Jewish schools, synagogues and institutions.
—    In all countries, either the govern ment or J ewish communities increased security measures following the attacks. Some countries reported good cooperation with government authorities. Others are attempting to gain more suitable support.
—    Government funds cover the monetary costs of providing physical protection to varying degrees. Jewish organisations often have to pay for the protection themselves.
 
3.2.    SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS

3.2.1.    Worrying about becoming a victim of harassment and violence
Around half of the spring 2023 survey respondents are very or fairly worried that they will be a victim of antisemitic verbal insults or harassment (53 %) when they are in the street or in any other public space in the next 12 months (Figure 14). Slightly fewer, but still over 4 out of 10 (44 %), are worried that they will be victims of a physical attack because of being Jewish. In addition, 60 % worry that a family member or a person close to them will be a victim of harassment because they are Jewish, while 53 % worry that their family members and friends could be physically attacked in their country of residence. These shares are very similar to the shares in 2018.
Belgium, Germany and France have the highest shares of respondents who worry about themselves or their family members. Czechia, Hungary, Denmark and Romania have the lowest.
More respondents aged between 16 and 39 years and female respondents are worried that they or their family members will be victims of harassment or violence in the next 12 months than respondents aged 40–59, those aged 60 or over and male respondents. Conservative, Orthodox and strictly Orthodox Jews are more likely than Jews who identify as progressive, secular, just Jewish or other to be worried about verbal or physical attacks. The former groups are also more ‘visible’ as members of the Jewish community, as Jews who identify as (strictly) Orthodox or conservative are more likely than Jews who identify in other ways to wear or display in public symbols that make them identifiably Jewish.

FIGURE 14: WORRIES ABOUT BECOMING A VICTIM OF VERBAL INSULTS, HARASSMENT OR PHYSICAL ATTACK IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS BECAUSE OF BEING JEWISH, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source:
 
(Very) worried about harassment for themselves (Very) worried about harassment for family/friends
FRA, 2023.
 
(Very) worried about physical attacks for themselves (Very) worried about physical attacks for family/friends
 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘B06. How worried are you that you will be a victim of the following when you are in the street or in any other public place in [country] in the next 12 months because you are Jewish?’ Answers: ‘A. Verbal insults or harassment’ and ‘B. Physical attack’; ‘B10. How worried are you that in the next 12 months, a family member or a person close to you [info button – such as your parents, children, your partner, other close relative, or close friend] will be a victim of the following incidents in a public place in [country], because they are Jewish?’ Figure covers answers ‘very worried’ and ‘fairly worried’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average of the respondents who answered ‘(very) worried for themselves’.
 
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and 2018 survey data
 
Respondents’ feelings of security did not change much between 2018 and 2023.

FIGURE 15: WORRIES ABOUT BECOMING A VICTIM OF VERBAL INSULTS, HARASSMENT OR PHYSICAL ATTACK IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS BECAUSE OF BEING JEWISH, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)
 
Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 196; 2018, n = 11 664). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘B06. How worried are you that you will be a victim of the following when you are in the street or in any other public place in [country] in the next 12 months because you are Jewish?’ Answers: ‘A. Verbal insults or harassment’ and ‘B. Physical attack’; ‘B10. How worried are you that in the next 12 months, a family member or a person close to you [info button – such as your parents, children, your partner, other close relative, or close friend] will be a victim of the following incidents in a public place in [country], because they are Jewish?’ Figure covers answers ‘very worried’ and ‘fairly worried’.

3.2.2.    Av0idance strategies
Half of the respondents across all countries at least sometimes wear, carry or display things that might help people recognise them as Jewish in public. Examples are wearing a kippa/skullcap, Magen David / Star of David or specific clothing, or displaying a mezuzah (religious piece of parchment fixed to the main doorpost of a Jewish home). Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Spain have the highest shares (more than 65 %). France has the lowest (42 %).
Almost 90 % of Jews who identify as strictly Orthodox and 75 % who identify as Orthodox wear or display things that make them recognisable as Jewish. In addition, 36 % of secular Jews indicated that they at least sometimes wear recognisable symbols in public. The shares among men and women and across age groups are similar.
About three quarters (76 %) of respondents indicated that they at least occasionally avoid wearing symbols. Czechia (54 %), Hungary (52 %) and Romania (52 %) have the lowest shares (Figure 16). In Germany, France, Sweden and Denmark, however, more than 80 % occasionally avoid displaying Jewish symbols in public.
 
Around half (48 %) of those who do not wear any such symbols refrain from doing so because they are concerned about their safety. This particularly applies in Germany (59 %), Denmark (53 %), Sweden (53 %) and Belgium (51 %).
Around one third of respondents indicated that they do not wear any symbols because the symbols do not have any particular meaning to them. This is quite often the case in Austria, Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Romania. Across all countries, 20 % of respondents report other reasons for not displaying any Jewish symbols. In Czechia and Italy, the share is over 30 %.

FIGURE 16: RESPONDENTS AVOIDING WEARING SYMBOLS THAT COULD MAKE THEM RECOGNISABLE IN PUBLIC AND NOT WEARING ANY BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONCERNS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Avoiding wearing symbols at least occasionally

Source: FRA, 2023.

 Notes:
Not wearing symbols because of safety concerns
 
Out of all respondents who wear symbols that make them recognisable (n = 4 948) and those who do not wear any symbols (n = 3 044). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘F08. Do you ever avoid wearing, carrying or displaying things that might help people recognise you as a Jew in public?’; ‘F08a. Could you please indicate why you never wear, carry or display things that might help people recognise you as a Jew in public?’ Figure reports F08 answers ‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’ and ‘all the time’ and F08a answer ‘I am concerned about my safety’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average of the share of respondents who answered ‘avoiding wearing symbols at least occasionally’.
 
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and
2018 survey data
 
The share of those who indicated that they at least on occasion avoid wearing symbols that would make them recognisable as Jews did not change between 2018 and 2023 (76 % v
77 %; Figure 17).
Similarly, the reasons for not wearing any symbols that make respondents recognisable as Jewish in public have not changed since the last survey.

FIGURE 17: RESPONDENTS AVOIDING WEARING SYMBOLS THAT COULD MAKE THEM RECOGNISABLE AS JEWISH IN PUBLIC AND REASONS FOR NOT WEARING SYMBOLS, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)

Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who wear or display symbols that make them recognisable as Jewish (2023,
n = 4 948; 2018, n = 5 665) and those who do not (2023, n = 3 044; 2018, n = 5 999). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘F08. Do you ever avoid wearing, carrying or displaying things that might help people recognise you as a Jew in public?’; ‘F08a. Could you please indicate why you never wear, carry or display things that might help people recognise you as a Jew in public?’ Figure reports F08 answers ‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’ and ‘all the time’ and F08a answer ‘I am concerned about my safety’. Some bars do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.

A third of respondents (34 %) indicated that they ‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’ or ‘all the time’ avoid visiting Jewish events, while 40 % avoid certain places or locations because they do not feel safe there as Jews (Figure 18). In Belgium, more than half of respondents (54 %) avoid certain neighbourhoods and local areas because they ‘do not feel safe there as a Jew’. Shares are also high in Sweden (44 %), France (43 %), the Netherlands (42 %), Germany (41 %), Poland (38 %) and Denmark (37 %). Around 40 % of Jews in Belgium and France at least occasionally avoid Jewish events because they ‘do not feel safe as a Jew there or on the way there’. Shares of respondents who avoid places or events are lowest in Czechia (17 %), Romania (19 %), Italy (21 %) and Hungary (25 %).
Younger Jews are more often worried about their safety and more often avoid Jewish events and locations in their neighbourhood than older Jews. Women also avoid events or places more often than men. As many as 84 % and 68 % of strictly Orthodox and Orthodox Jews, respectively, at least occasionally use avoidance strategies, compared with 50 % across all respondents. Almost one in three Jews who identify as strictly Orthodox indicated that they avoid Jewish events or places in their local area ‘all the time’ because they fear for their safety or security.

FIGURE 18: AVOIDANCE OF JEWISH EVENTS AND CERTAIN PLACES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD BECAUSE THEY DO NOT FEEL SAFE AS JEWS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
 
Avoidance of Jewish events
 
Avoidance of certain places in neighbourhood
 
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘B24. Do you ever avoid visiting Jewish events or sites because you do not feel safe as a Jew there or on the way there?’; ‘B25. Do you ever avoid certain places or locations in your local area or neighbourhood because you don’t feel safe there as a Jew?’ Figure reports B24 and B25 answers ‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’ and ‘all the time’. The countries are listed in descending order according to the share of respondents who answered ‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’ or ‘all the time’ avoiding Jewish events.
 
C0mparis0n 0f 2023 and 2018 survey data
 
The shares of respondents who reported that they avoid places in the neighbourhood or Jewish events are similar in 2023 and 2018 (Figure 19).

FIGURE 19: AVOIDANCE OF PLACES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OR OF JEWISH EVENTS BECAUSE OF SAFETY CONCERNS, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)

Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 196; 2018, n = 11 664). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘B24. Do you ever avoid visiting Jewish events or sites because you do not feel safe as a Jew there or on the way there?’; ‘B25. Do you ever avoid certain places or locations in your local area or neighbourhood because you don’t feel safe there as a Jew?’ Figure reports B24 and B25 answers ‘occasionally’, ‘frequently’ and ‘all the time’.

3.3.    INFLUENCE OF EVENTS IN THE MIDDLE EAST ON JEWISH LIFE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION
One quarter of victims of antisemitic harassment and 17 % of victims of antisemitic acts of violence reported that the last incident they experienced happened during a time of tension/conflict in Israel (see Chapter 4 and Secti0n 4.3). The numbers of officially recorded antisemitic incidents in Member States increase in times of conflict in the Middle East, FRA annual overviews on antisemitism show (1).
The aftermath of the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 demonstrated this correlation very clearly and with unprecedented intensity.
 

Results 0f the c0nsultati0n 0f Jewish c0mmunities after 7 Oct0ber 2023
 
Impact 0f antisemitism 0n Jewish p0pulati0n
FRA consulted 11 national Jewish umbrella organisations in the survey countries and one international Jewish umbrella organisation. Feelings of safety
and security among communities’ constituents have decreased, they all note. Communities are scared and anxious following the surge of antisemitism after 7 October 2023, especially when in public or openly
 
showing their Jewish identity in daily life, they indicated.
For example, many stopped wearing Jewish symbols, removed mezuzahs from doors, stayed home from school or university
or even changed or left out Jewish last names when ordering a meal out of fear of attacks or harassment.
The consequences of cancelled community events, reduced community activity and limited participation in active Jewish and public life are still unassessed.
 
Almost two thirds (62 %) of the survey respondents across all countries saw the Arab–Israeli conflict as affecting their feeling of safety ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’ before the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 (Figure 20). In Belgium and France, this share is as high as 78 % and 75 %, respectively; in both Germany and Spain, the share is 57 %. Most respondents in Hungary, Romania, Czechia and Poland, however, feel that the Arab–Israeli conflict affects their feeling of safety in their country ‘a little’ or ‘not at all’.
Overall, younger Jews more often than older Jews see events in the Middle East as affecting their feelings of safety. Women are slightly more likely than men to report that they are affected. Conflicts in the Middle East affect the feeling of security of Jews identifying as conservative, Orthodox or strictly Orthodox more often than those of secular and progressive Jews or Jews who identify as ‘just Jewish’.

FIGURE 20: ARAB–ISRAELI CONFLICT’S IMPACT ON FEELING OF SAFETY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)                                         

Source: FRA, 2023.
 
A great deal
 
A fair amount
 
A little
 
Not at all
 
Three out of four respondents (75 %) at least occasionally feel that people in their country accuse them of or blame them for the Israeli government’s actions because they are Jewish (Figure 21): 14 % feel this ‘all the time’, 25 % ‘frequently’ and 35 % ‘occasionally’. Only 25 % of respondents report never having this feeling.
Belgium, France, Germany and Italy have the highest shares of respondents who feel that society holds them responsible for these actions either all the time, frequently or occasionally (80 % or higher). Again, Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Romania have the lowest shares. This is consistent with Jews in Czechia, Hungary, Poland and Romania least often reporting encountering (offline or online) antisemitism manifesting as ‘holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of Israel’ in the last 12 months.
The share of respondents who feel at least occasionally blamed for the Israeli government’s actions decreases with age. Younger Jews (under 40) more often report being held responsible for the Israeli government’s actions than Jews aged 60 or over (79 % v 67 %). The differences by sex/gender are minimal.
Orthodox and strictly Orthodox Jews have the highest shares of feeling blamed for the Israeli government’s actions (both 89 %). Jews who identify as mixed, secular or an identity not listed in the survey have the lowest shares (under 67 %). Jews who wear or display Jewish symbols in public more often feel that they are held responsible than those who do not (77 % v 72 %).
 

 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Sorted from highest to lowest percentage of those who indicated a ‘great deal’. Question: ‘B13. Does the Arab–Israeli conflict impact at all on how safe you
feel as a Jewish person in [country]?’ The countries are listed in descending order according to the share of respondents who answered ‘a great deal’. Some bars do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.
 
FIGURE 21: FEELING BLAMED FOR THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT’S ACTIONS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)                              

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
 
All the time
 
Frequently
 
Occasionally
 
Never
 
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B14. Do you ever feel that people in [country] accuse or blame you for anything done by the Israeli government because you are Jewish?’ The countries are listed in descending order according to the share of respondents who answered ‘all the time’. Some bars do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.

Endn0te
(1)    See, for example, FRA (2023), Antisemitism in 2022 – Overview of antisemitic incidents recorded in the EU, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

4 VIOLENCE AGAINST JEWS – EXPERIENCES OF HARASSMENT AND PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

This chapter discusses Jewish people's experiences of different forms of antisemitic harassment and antisemitic violence 12 months and 5 years before the survey. It analyses the characteristics of the incidents and details of the perpetrators.

4.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    More than one third (37 %) of Jews have experienced online or offline antisemitic harassment targeting them personally.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. Overall, antisemitic harassment has increased since 2018 (from 31 % to 37 %). Online harassment has only slightly increased across the 11 countries that both surveys cover (from 15 % to 17 %). Offline harassment has increased considerably (from 26 % to 32 %).
—    Almost 9 out of 10 respondents who experienced antisemitic harassment in the 12 months before the survey experienced multiple instances.
—    A smaller share of respondents have encountered antisemitic harassment online than offline. However, each of these respondents was exposed to more instances of harassment than those encountering offline harassment.
—    A small number (5 %) of respondents experienced one or more physical attacks (e.g. hitting, pushing, kicking or grabbing) because they are Jewish in the 5 years prior to the survey, while 4 % experienced this in the 12 months prior to the survey.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. In 2018, the shares of respondents experiencing one or more antisemitic physical attacks were 4 % in the 5 years before the survey and 2 % in the 12 months preceding the survey.
—    Antisemitic harassment and violence mostly take place in public, such as on streets or in parks or shops. Incidents are rare in private settings.
—    Revealing their Jewish identity puts respondents at greater risk. Wearing or displaying symbols that make them recognisable as Jewish increases the risk they will experience antisemitic harassment or violence. More than half of the respondents said perpetrators recognised them as Jewish during the attacks.
 
Most respondents who reported having experienced antisemitic harassment or violence did not know the perpetrators of the latest incident. Most attacks involved more than one perpetrator, respondents reported. Perpetrators’ motivations are difficult to assess. However, Islamic, left-wing or right-wing extremist views often motivate their actions, the findings suggest.
 
Results of the consultation of Jewish communities after 7 October 2023
 
Antisemitic harassment and violence
FRA completed desk research and collected responses from the
Jewish community organisations in January and February 2024. These show that the number of reported antisemitic attacks – including personal harassment, intimidation and violence – increased dramatically across all survey countries.
Austria. Antisemitic incidents increased by more than 400 % in October–December 2023 compared with the same period in 2022 (720 v 169), according to the Jewish Community of Vienna’s annual report.
Belgium. The Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism received 91 reports of antisemitic incidents between 7 October 2023 and
15 January 2024, according to its website. This is 10 times more reports than during the same period over 2022–2023.
Czechia. In 2023, the number of incidents almost doubled compared with 2022, the Federation of Jewish Communities indicates.
Denmark. The Danish Jewish Community reports 121 antisemitic incidents in 2023. This is a
1 200 % increase since 2022 (nine antisemitic incidents).
France. Reported antisemitic incidents increased from 436 in 2022 to 1 676 in 2023, the Service for the Protection of the Jewish Community shows.
Germany. In total, 994 antisemitic incidents took place between
7 October and 9 November 2023, the Federal Association of
 
Departments for Research and Information on Antisemitism reports. This amounts to 29 incidents per day in Germany during this period. In 2022, the average was seven incidents recorded per day.
Italy. Reported incidents increased from 241 in 2022 to
454 in 2023 (+ 188 %), the Jewish Contemporary Documentation Center Foundation’s Observatory on antisemitism shows.
Netherlands. The Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israel recorded 107 antisemitic incidents in October 2023 alone. In comparison, the total was 155 recorded incidents in 2022. The number for 2023 is therefore expected to be much higher than that for 2022.
Poland. The number of antisemitic incidents in Poland increased
by 800 % in October 2023 in comparison with previous months in 2023, the Czulent Jewish Association’s report shows.
Spain. The Observatory of Antisemitism recorded over 70 antisemitic incidents in 2023, compared with 14 in 2022.
Sweden. The number of police reports of hate crimes with antisemitic motives increased by more than 400 % between
7 October and 31 December 2023 in comparison with the same period in 2022 (110 v 24 reports), a Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention report shows. The Central Council of Jews conducted a survey on how Swedish Jews perceive the situation after
the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October. Jews in Sweden feel increasingly insecure, it shows.
 
4.2.    EXPERIENCES OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT
This section focuses on experiences of five forms of harassment that the survey covers:
—    offensive or threatening comments made in person, such as insults or name-calling,
—    threats of violence in person,
—    offensive gestures or staring inappropriately,
—    emails or text messages (SMSs or instant messages in Messenger, WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram or similar) that are offensive or threatening,
—    offensive comments on the internet – for example, on Facebook, Instagram, X, WhatsApp or TikTok.
More than one in three (37 %) Jews in the EU experienced antisemitic harassment at least once in the 12 months preceding the survey (Figure 22).
Offline antisemitic harassment includes offensive gestures / inappropriate stares in person (24 %), offensive comments in person (22 %) and threats of violence in person (9 %). Overall, it is more common than online antisemitic harassment, such as offensive comments posted online (14 %) or offensive/ threatening emails or text messages (9 %).
Almost 9 out of 10 respondents (86 %) who experienced antisemitic harassment in the 12 months before the survey experienced multiple instances. They either experienced one form repeatedly or endured various forms (once or multiple times).

FIGURE 22: EXPERIENCE OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT (ONE OR MORE TIMES) IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)                         

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘VHc01. And how many times have these incidents happened in the past 12 months because you are Jewish [items as listed in the figure]?’ Figure covers answers ‘once’, ‘twice’, ‘3–5 times, ‘6 or more times’ and ‘all the time’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.
 
Belgium (49 %), Germany (43 %) and Poland (40 %) have the highest shares of Jews who have experienced any form of antisemitic harassment in the past 12 months. Czechia (21 %), Denmark (24 %), Hungary (27 %) and Romania (27 %) have the lowest (Figure 23). The picture across countries remains similar when looking at harassment offline and harassment online (for further analysis, see box ‘Specific analysis of online antisemitic harassment’).

FIGURE 23: EXPERIENCE OF ANY FORM OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT (ONE OR MORE TIMES) ONLINE OR OFFLINE IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Experience of any form of antisemitic harassment Experience of any form of antisemitic harassment offline Experience of any form of antisemitic harassment online
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘VHc01. And how many times have these incidents happened in the past 12 months because you are Jewish?’ Figure covers the share of respondents who experienced at least one form of antisemitic harassment listed in Figure 22 ‘once’, ‘twice’, ‘3–5 times, ‘6 or more times’ or ‘all the time’. The countries are listed in descending order according to proportion experiencing any form of antisemitic harassment.
 
Comparison of 2023 and 2018 survey data
 
Rates of harassment have increased over time, data from four questions about antisemitic harassment indicate. Figure 24 shows the overall change in antisemitic harassment between the FRA surveys on antisemitism in 2018 and 2023 for the 11 countries that both surveys cover. For comparability, the analysis includes only two items for offline harassment and the two items for online harassment (a).
The overall prevalence of antisemitic harassment increased from 31 % in 2018 to 37 % in 2023. Harassment offline increased considerably, from 26 % in 2018 to 32 % in 2023, across the 11 countries. This significant increase holds true when multivariate statistical analysis accounts for other factors – such as country, geographical location (living in or outside the capital), age and sex/gender. Offline harassment has increased particularly in Austria (from 24 % to 33 %), Belgium (from 34 % to 45 %), France (from 25 % to 32 %), Germany (from 31 % to 36 %), Hungary (from 19 % to 24 %) and Spain (from 23 % to 30 %).
Online harassment has also increased, but not as strongly: from 15 % in 2018 to 17 % in 2023. Importantly, neither offline nor online harassment statistically significantly decreased in any of the Member States from 2018 to 2023 (b).
(a)    Only four out of the five situations are comparable between surveys. Therefore, the comparison looks at respondents who experienced someone making offensive or threatening comments to them in person, making offensive gestures to them or staring at them inappropriately, sending them offensive/threatening emails or text messages or posting offensive comments about them on the internet. The overall rates for 2018 and 2023 remain the same even when excluding the non- comparable item.
(b)    This result is based on statistical analysis (multivariate logistic regression) that accounts for respondents’ sex/gender, age and place of living (capital or not). Tests of the statistical significance of the differences show that differences cannot be attributed to chance. They are statistically important.

FIGURE 24: EXPERIENCE OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT (ONE OR MORE TIMES) IN THE 12 MONTHS BEFORE THE SURVEY, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)

Somebody posted offensive comments about you on the internet, for example on Facebook, Instagram,
Twitter/X, WhatsApp or TikTok
Somebody sent you emails or text messages (SMSs, instant messages in Messenger, WhatsApp,
Signal, Telegram or similar) that were offensive or threatening

Experienced any form of antisemitic harassment

Experienced any form of antisemitic harassment offline

Experienced any form of antisemitic harassment online

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 196; 2018, n = 11 664). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘VHc01. And how many times have these incidents happened in the past 12 months because you are Jewish?’; ‘C04a. You said somebody [items in top part of figure] – Did this happen because you are Jewish?’ Figure covers the share of respondents who experienced any form of antisemitic harassment listed in the figure ‘once’, ‘twice’, ‘3–5 times, ‘6 or more times’ or ‘all the time’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 2023 13-country average.
 
4.2.1.    Analysis of the exposure to antisemitic harassment by selected characteristics
A combination of characteristics point to higher rates of experiencing antisemitic harassment (Figure 25).
—    Respondents under the age of 40 substantially more often report experiencing antisemitic harassment than respondents aged 60 or over (49 % v 26 %).
—    Respondents who wear, carry or display symbols that might make them recognisable as Jewish in public are substantially more often subject to antisemitic harassment than those who do not (44 % v 31 %).
—    Respondents who identify as strictly Orthodox (77 %) or Orthodox (61 %) (who predominantly wear symbols that make them recognisable as Jewish in public) are harassed more often than respondents indicating other Jewish identities (37 % overall).
—    Being Jewish and having a limiting health problem increases the risk of experiencing antisemitic harassment: 49 % of respondents who are severely limited and 41 % with non-severe limitations report experiencing harassment. Only 34 % of respondents without any limitation in daily activities do.
 
FIGURE 25: EXPERIENCE OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, OVERALL AND BY SELECTED CHARACTERISTIC, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘VHc01. And how many times have these incidents happened in the past 12 months because you are Jewish?’ Figure covers the share of respondents who experienced any form of antisemitic harassment ‘once’, ‘twice’, ‘3–5 times, ‘6 or more times’ or ‘all the time’.
 
4.2.2.    Characteristics of antisemitic harassment
Almost half of the victims (47 %) indicated that the last incident of harassment involved the use of antisemitic language. Half said the perpetrator identified or recognised them as Jewish (51 %) during the last incident of antisemitic harassment.
Before the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023, one in four of those who experienced harassment reported that the last incident happened in a period of tension/conflict in Israel. Fewer than 10 % indicated that the harassment happened on a Jewish holiday, occurred near a Jewish site/event or included antisemitic symbols (all 8 %). In 7 % of cases, the victims of harassment reported that the offender in the last incident had a reputation for committing similar acts. A small number (3 %) stated that the last incident happened on a date significant to the offender.
Respondents who encountered antisemitic harassment offline more often indicated that the perpetrator of the latest act recognised them as Jewish than those who encountered harassment online (54 % v 45 %). However, respondents more frequently characterise acts of online harassment as ‘antisemitic language being used’ or ‘happened in a period of tension in Israel’ than they do for offline harassment.
The last incidents of antisemitic harassment most often happened in public – such as in the street, a square, park or car park or a shop, cafe, restaurant, pub or club (55 %). Around one in five respondents experienced the last incident of harassment either at work (11 %) or at school/university (8 %), while 11 % experienced it in their own home or someone else's home and 15 % somewhere else.
Just under half of the respondents reported a single perpetrator (44 %), while 56 % reported two or more offenders. In cases of online harassment, perpetrators more often act alone (49 %). Harassment offline more often involves multiple perpetrators.
In around 8 out of 10 cases, the last incident of (online or offline) antisemitic harassment involved men (57 % only men, 21 % men and women). Around a third of the last incidents of harassment involved one or more women, respondents reported.
Fewer than half of the victims of antisemitic harassment in the past 12 months knew the perpetrator of the last incident of harassment (44 %). Victims of online harassment more often than victims of harassment offline do not know the people harassing them (62 % v 53 %).
One in five victims of harassment identified the perpetrator of the last incident as someone at work (11 %) or school (9 %); 14 % identified a group of teenagers and 12 % an acquaintance or friend. Respondents rarely (5 % or fewer) identified the perpetrators as police officers, public officials, healthcare professionals, neighbours or family members.
Perpetrators’ motivations are difficult to assess. Around one third of the victims of antisemitic harassment are unable to tell whether the offender in the last incident had an extremist view. Around one in five respondents reported that the perpetrator had right-wing extremist views and a similar proportion said that the perpetrator had left-wing extremist views, while 30 % said that the perpetrators had Islamist extremist views. Fewer than 10 % reported that the perpetrators had Christian extremist views, other extremist views or no extremist views.
Note that members of the public who do not (or do not appear to) have a particular political orientation can also carry out acts of antisemitic harassment.
 
Comparison of 2023 and 2018 survey data
 
The comparative analysis of antisemitic harassment shows the following details about the incidents.
—    The share of respondents who experienced antisemitic harassment and indicated that antisemitic language was used during the incident decreased from 67 % in 2018 to 47 % in 2023. Fewer respondents indicated that perpetrators recognised them as Jewish during the incident (62 % in 2018 v 51 % in 2023) or that the incident happened during a period of tension/conflict in Israel (34 % in 2018 and 25 % in 2023).
—    Many incidents still happen in public spaces or in a shop, cafe, restaurant, pub or club.
—    Around half of respondents said one perpetrator acted alone (44 % in 2023 and 49 % in 2018).
 
Specific analysis of online antisemitic harassment
 
More than one in three respondents experienced antisemitic harassment in the 12 months before the survey (37 %); 17 % of all respondents experienced harassment online. This means perpetrators posted offensive comments about respondents on the internet or sent offensive/threatening emails or text messages.
Slightly more women reported experiencing offline harassment (34 %) than men (30 %). However, men more often mentioned online harassment (19 %) than women (14 %). Respondents aged 16–39 experienced
 
higher levels of targeted online harassment than respondents aged 60 or older. However, the differences between younger and older respondents are similar for online and offline harassment.
Respondents experienced online harassment much more frequently than offline harassment (Figure 26). Around a quarter of respondents (24–25 %) reported experiencing harassment offline six or more times in the 12 months before the survey. This share is 31–38 % for respondents who experienced online harassment.
 
FIGURE 26: FREQUENCY OF ANTISEMITIC HARASSMENT, BY FORM, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Offensive or threatening comments–offline
Threatening with violence–offline
Offensive gestures or staring inappropriately–offline
Emails or text messages that were offensive or threatening–online 
Posting offensive comments on the internet–online
 
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who experienced antisemitic harassment in the past 12 months at least once (n = 1 665). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘OH11. Thinking of all your experiences of antisemitism online in the last 12 months, has any of them affected you in any of the following ways?’
 
4.3.    EXPERIENCES OF ANTISEMITIC PHYSICAL VIOLENCE
Some respondents (5 %) experienced one or more physical attacks (e.g. being hit, pushed, kicked or grabbed) because they are Jewish in the 5 years prior to the survey and 4 % experienced this in the 12 months prior to the survey (Figure 27).
There are few victims of physical violence. Therefore, the numbers in the sample do not allow for reliable analysis by country.

FIGURE 27: EXPERIENCE OF ANTISEMITIC PHYSICAL ATTACKS (ONE OR MORE TIMES) IN THE 12 MONTHS AND 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.

 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Sorted from highest to lowest percentage. Questions: ‘VV02. Did this ever happen to you, in your opinion, because you are Jewish?’; ‘VV03. And
has this happened in the past 12 months because you are Jewish?’

Respondents under the age of 40, strictly Orthodox and Orthodox Jews and those who can be recognised as Jewish in public due to the items they wear, carry or display have a higher risk of experiencing an antisemitic physical attack. Jews who live in neighbourhoods with a high share of Jewish people also have above-average chances of experiencing antisemitic physical attacks.
Perpetrators in almost two thirds of antisemitic violent attacks (62 %) identified or recognised respondents as Jewish, respondents reported. More than half of the victims of antisemitic violence in the 12 months prior to the survey (54 %) indicated that the incident involved antisemitic language. Among respondents who experienced a physical attack, 17 % reported that it happened in a period of tension/conflict in Israel and 12 % that it happened on a Jewish holiday.
More than half of the victims of antisemitic violence did not know the perpetrator, similarly to antisemitic harassment. However, 8 % reported that the perpetrator was someone at school, 7 % a neighbour, 6 % an acquaintance or friend and 5 % a public official.
Almost half (45 %) of victims reported that the offender acted alone, with the remainder (i.e. 55 %) reporting more than one perpetrator. In around 90 % of cases, the act of violence involved one or more men (67 % only men, 22 % women and men).
Around 50 % of victims of antisemitic physical attacks reported that the perpetrators had Islamist extremist views, 22 % left-wing extremist views and 17 % right-wing extremist views. Around a quarter of respondents could not identify the perpetrators’ political views.

Comparison of 2023 and 2018 survey data
 
The share of respondents who experienced acts of antisemitic violence prior to the survey in 2023 remained similar to that in 2018. In 2023, 5 % (v 4 % in 2018) experienced violence because of being Jewish in the 5 years before the survey. The share of respondents who experienced violence in the 12 months before the survey rose from 2 % in 2018 to 4 % in 2023.
 

5 EXPERIENCES OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF BEING JEWISH

This chapter looks at the experiences of Jewish people with discrimination in the 12 months before the survey. This includes discrimination because of the respondent’s skin colour; ethnic origin or immigrant background; sex; age; disability; sexual orientation; gender identity; religion or religious beliefs, being Jewish; or ‘other reasons’.

5.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    Overall, 20 % of respondents said that they felt discriminated against for being Jewish in the 12 months before the survey in one or more of the areas listed in the survey. These are employment; health; housing; education or contact with staff at a child’s school/university; contact with administrative offices or public services; and a nightclub, bar, shop, restaurant or hotel or public transport.
—    Across all countries, respondents most often experience discrimination because of their Jewish identity or religion in educational settings, while looking for work or while at work.
—    Around 4 out of 10 respondents are ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ open about being Jewish at work or school, and 33 % and 41 % even went so far as to say that they frequently hide their Jewish identity at work and school, respectively.

5.2.    DISCRIMINATION EXPERIENCES
The survey asked respondents if they felt discriminated against on one or more grounds (skin colour; ethnic origin or immigrant background; religion or religious beliefs, specifically being Jewish; sex/gender; age; disability; sexual orientation; gender identity; ‘other’) in key areas of life. This covers situations in employment; health; housing; education or contact with staff at a child’s school/university; contact with administrative offices or public services; a nightclub, bar, shop, restaurant or hotel or public transport.
In all countries apart from Czechia, being Jewish is the most prevalent ground for experiencing discrimination. One in five respondents who had been in any of the situations in the 12 months before the survey experienced discrimination because of being Jewish (20 %).
Other Jewish respondents reported discrimination because of age (15 %) or sex/gender (13 %). These are the second and third most prevalent grounds for discrimination across all countries, apart from Germany and Spain. In these two countries, respondents show high shares of perceived discrimination because of their ethnic background.
Figure 28 shows that discrimination because of being Jewish is most prevalent among respondents in Belgium (33 %), Germany and Poland (both 28 %), the Netherlands (27 %) and Spain (25 %). Respondents in Romania and Czechia rarely report experiencing discrimination because of their Jewish identity or religion (11 % and 6 %, respectively).
More Jews aged 39 or younger experience discrimination than Jews aged 60 or older. However, being Jewish remains the main ground for discrimination across all age categories. Men and women do not have significantly different experiences when it comes to discrimination because of being Jewish (18 % and 22 %, respectively).

FIGURE 28: RESPONDENTS WHO FELT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF BEING JEWISH OR BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who in the 12 months before the survey were in any of the situations the survey covers (n = 7 924). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘DX3_A-G. When [in situations named in the survey] in the past 12 months in [country], have you ever felt discriminated against for any of the following reasons?’ Figure covers answers ‘yes, because of being Jewish’ and ‘yes, because of religion / religious beliefs’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.
 
‘Strictly Orthodox’ and ‘Orthodox’ Jews more often said that they experience discrimination because they are Jewish than Jews who identify in other ways. Similarly, Jews who visit the synagogue at least weekly or who wear symbols that make them recognisable as Jewish in public were more likely than those who do not to say that they face discrimination because of being Jewish.
Most respondents experienced antisemitic discrimination when in contact with educational institutions and at work. Fewer respondents (6 %) said that they had experienced discrimination when using healthcare services or when entering a nightclub/bar/restaurant/hotel/shop or using public transport (Figure 29).

FIGURE 29: RESPONDENTS WHO FELT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE OF BEING JEWISH OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, BY SITUATION, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who in the 12 months before the survey were in any situation the survey covers (overall, n = 7 924; looking for work, n = 1 724;
at work, n = 5 285; in contact with an educational institution, n = 3 478; used any healthcare service, n = 7 337; tried to rent or buy an apartment or a
house, n = 1 713; been in contact with administrative offices or public services, n = 6 027; tried to enter a nightclub, a bar, a restaurant or a hotel, used public transport, been in a shop or tried to enter a shop,
n = 7 017). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘DX3_A-G. When
[in situations named in the survey] in the past 12 months in [country], have you ever felt discriminated against for any of the following reasons?’ Figure covers answers ‘yes, because of being Jewish’ and ‘yes, because of religion / religious beliefs’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.

The survey asked respondents about specific experiences in the past 12 months when at work or school (Figure 30). More than half of the respondents who were in employment or in education indicated that they are ‘often’ or ‘always’ open about being Jewish at work (57 %) or at school (59 %). This means that around 4 out of 10 respondents are ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ open about being Jewish at work or school, with 33 % and 41 % even going so far to say that they frequently hide their Jewish identity at work and school, respectively.
Some respondents (16 %) have experienced a general negative attitude against people at work because they are Jewish. One fifth (20 %) of respondents have experienced a general negative attitude at school/university because a schoolmate/peer was perceived to be Jewish. Around one in five respondents often experience negative comments or conduct at school/university because they are Jewish. At work, it is almost 1 in 12.
 
Other respondents reported not being allowed time off from work (12 %) or school (25 %) for religious holidays/services/ceremonies. Around 13 % of students and 8 % of respondents in paid work reported often or always not being allowed to express or carry out religious practices and customs.
Table 3 and Table 4 break down the information for respondents who were in paid work and in school/university, respectively, in the 12 months before the survey.

FIGURE 30: SPECIFIC EXPERIENCES OF RESPONDENTS WHO WERE IN PAID WORK OR IN SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who were in paid work or school/university in the 12 months before the survey (paid work, n = 5 285; school, n = 1 061). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘F20. During your employment in the last 12 months in [country], have you [items listed in the figure]?’; ‘F12b. When at school or university in the last 12 months in [country], have you [items listed in the figure]?’ Figure covers answers ‘often’ and ‘always’. The items are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average.

TABLE 3:    SPECIFIC EXPERIENCES OF RESPONDENTS WHO WERE IN PAID WORK IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Experience    AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-country average
Been open about your being Jewish to people you meet at work    68    63    53    59    60    63    55    42    67    64    46    70    62    57
Hidden or disguised that you are Jewish from people you meet at work    18    29    16    30    26    26    38    22    18    28    28    13    32    33
Experienced negative comments or conduct at work because of your being Jewish    6    10    3    9    6    11    8    3    5    9    9    8    6    8
Experienced a general negative attitude at work against people because they are Jewish    7    15    6    13    7    15    20    7    9    12    25    6    9    16
Not been allowed to take time
off for an important religious holiday/ service/ceremony    18    9    6    16    11    19    11    4    9    10    7    15    8    12
Been prevented from expressing or carrying out religious practices and customs    2    6    3    9    3    9    10    3    4    4    4    10    6    8
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents who were in paid work in the 12 months before the survey (n = 5 285). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘F20. During your employment in the last 12 months in [country], have you [items listed in table]?’ Table covers answers ‘often’ and ‘always’.

TABLE 4:    SPECIFIC EXPERIENCES OF RESPONDENTS WHO WERE IN SCHOOL/UNIVERSITY IN THE 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Experience    AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-country average
Been open about you being Jewish to people you meet in school/university    62    68    58 (*)    52    58    53    61    53    56    56    48 (*)    46 (*)    68    59
Hidden or disguised that you are Jewish from people you meet at in school/university    22    29    17 (*)    41    27    40    44    22    29    46    24 (*)    26 (*)    41    41
Experienced negative comments or conduct at school/university because of you being Jewish    9    20    13 (*)    21    11    11    20    8    5    23    21 (*)    14 (*)    18    19
Experienced a general negative attitude at school/university against people because they are Jewish    6    26    7 (*)    19    8    18    23    8    6    18    16 (*)    8 (*)    11    20
Not been allowed to take time off for an important religious holiday/ service/ceremony    16    14    26 (*)    24    22    20    29    8    12    29    23 (*)    13 (*)    12    25
Been prevented from expressing or carrying out religious practices and customs    5    18    2 (*)    13    4    9    15    6    8    8    15 (*)    10 (*)    6    13
Source: FRA, 2023.
(*) Results based on 20–50 respondents; less reliable.

 Notes:
Out of all respondents who were in school/university in the 12 months before the survey (n = 1 061). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘F12b. When at school or university in the last 12 months in [country], have you [items listed in table]?’ Table covers answers ‘often’ and ‘always’.

6 REPORTING ANTISEMITISM

This chapter gives an overview on reporting different manifestations of antisemitism. The analysis also includes the reasons for non-reporting, the organisations to which respondents report to and their satisfaction with reporting to the police or the online platforms.

6.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    Shares of respondents reporting antisemitism to relevant organisations, including the police, remain very low. However, reporting rates vary according to the form and context of the antisemitism.
—    Respondents most often reported the incidents of antisemitic violence: almost every second respondent (49 %) reported the (last) incident. Slightly more than one in four respondents reported the last incident of (online or offline) antisemitic harassment (28 %). Respondents reported about one in four cases (26 %) of online antisemitism; the survey did not cover reporting rates of offline antisemitism. Reporting rates for discrimination are very low (11 %).
—    In the context of online antisemitism and antisemitic harassment, those experiencing online antisemitism most often reported the last incident to platforms. Respondents do not frequently report online antisemitism to other organisations.
—    Respondents most often reported the last incident of antisemitic violence to the police (30 %). In addition, respondents commonly report violence to Jewish authority figures (11 %) and Jewish communities (10 %).
—    Most of those who reported online antisemitism (59 %), antisemitic harassment (68 %) or antisemitic violence (78 %) to the police were somewhat or very dissatisfied with how the police handled the complaint.
—    Only around 1 % of those experiencing discrimination because of being Jewish, online antisemitism or antisemitic harassment turned to an equality body or national human rights institution. And only 3 % of victims of antisemitic violence did so.
—    The main reason for not reporting incidents of antisemitic discrimination (39 %), online antisemitism (48 %), antisemitic violence (61 %) and antisemitic harassment (52 %) is feeling that nothing will happen or change.

6.2.    REPORTING RATES
The survey asked respondents who encountered antisemitism or experienced antisemitic harassment or violence if they reported the incident. If they did not, the survey asked them to indicate why. If they did, questions asked about their satisfaction with the handling of their complaints.
In all countries, victims can report incidents to various institutions, including the police, Jewish organisations, equality bodies, human rights institutions, victim support services and legal services. The survey asked respondents about reporting in the context of online antisemitism, antisemitic harassment, antisemitic violence and antisemitic discrimination.
Table 5 shows the percentages of respondents who reported these manifestations of antisemitism to any organisation, by country.
Respondents most often reported incidents of antisemitic violence. Almost every second respondent (49 %) who experienced violence because of being Jewish reported the incident.
Slightly more than one in four respondents reported the last incident of (online or offline) harassment because of being Jewish (28 %). Poland (36 %), Czechia, Germany and the Netherlands (all 35 %), Italy (34 %) and Austria and Spain (both 33 %) have higher reporting rates.
Victims reported online antisemitism in about one in four cases (26 %). Spain (36 %), Austria (31 %) and Poland (30 %) have higher rates. Denmark (14 %) and Sweden (20 %) have the lowest. The survey did not cover reporting of offline antisemitism in an effort to shorten the questionnaire.
The reporting rate for incidents of discrimination based on being Jewish or one’s religion is low, with just over 1 in 10 respondents (11 %) reporting any of the incidents experienced in the past 12 months. However, this was one in four (25 %) in Sweden and one in five (20 %) in the Netherlands and Romania. In France, only 7 % of respondents reported the incident. Fewer than 1 % of those experiencing discrimination reported it to an equality body or national human rights institution in their country.

TABLE 5:    REPORTING OF INCIDENTS OF ANTISEMITISM, BY CONTEXT AND MEMBER STATE (%)

Member State    Reported the last incident of online antisemitism    the last incident of antisemitic harassment (online or offline)    the last incident of targeted antisemitic violence    any incident of discrimination based on being Jewish or religious beliefs
AT    31    33    58 (*)    17
BE    25    25    42    13
CZ    22    35    n.a.    11 (*)
DE    26    35    51    16
DK    14    29    60 (*)    11
ES    36    33    n.a.    13
FR    25    24    46 (*)    7
HU    24    24    41 (*)    12
IT    29    34    n.a.    9
NL    27    35    52 (*)    20
PL    30    36    n.a.    13
RO    29    29    n.a.    20 (*)
SE    20    32    60 (*)    25
13-country average    26    28    49    11
Source: FRA, 2023.
(*) Results based on 20–50 respondents; less reliable.

  Notes:
n.a., not available (results based on fewer than 20 respondents). Out of all respondents who have encountered online antisemitism (n = 7 097), targeted antisemitic harassment (online or offline) (n = 2 801), targeted antisemitic violence (n = 396) or any incident of being discriminated against because of being Jewish (n = 3 142). Country results are
weighted; 13-country average is weighted.
Questions: ‘DONX21. You mentioned that in the past 12 months you have felt discriminated against. Did you report or make a complaint about any of these incidents?’; ‘OH07/VH05/VV06. Thinking about the last incident, did you report or make a complaint about it? If yes, who
did you report or make a complaint about the incident?’ Table covers answers of any reporting option the survey covers.
 
Men tend to report the antisemitic incidents experienced more often than women. This is particularly the case in the context of harassment: every third man who experienced any form of harassment (33 %) reported it but only around every fourth woman (23 %) did so. Men also report discrimination incidents more often than women (15 % v 9 %). Antisemitic incidents that involve physical violence are an exception: women report more often than men (53 % v 45 %).
Of those who experienced online antisemitism, younger respondents reported the incidents considerably more often than older respondents: 35 % of those aged 16–39, 27 % of those aged 40–59 and 16 % of those aged 60 or older who experienced online antisemitism reported the incident.

6.3.    REASONS FOR NOT REPORTING ANTISEMITIC INCIDENTS IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
Respondents most often do not report online antisemitism because they feel that nothing will happen or change (48 %). Other reasons include respondents feeling the incident was not serious enough to report (18 %), respondents not knowing how or where to report (11 %) or reporting being inconvenient (11 %). Overall, 6 % of respondents did not report incidents because they do not trust the police. This proportion is highest in Germany (11 %).
Reporting antisemitic harassment follows the same pattern. The most common reason was thinking nothing would happen if they were to report an incident (52 %), followed by the incident not being serious enough (27 %) or reporting being inconvenient or too much trouble (15 %). More than 1 in 10 respondents (12 %) indicated that not trusting the police was another reason. Germany shows the highest levels of distrust in the police (19 %).

For antisemitic violence, as many as 61 % of respondents who experienced violence but did not report it to any authority said that this was because they did not expect anything to happen as a result of reporting. Only 16 % indicated that incidents were not serious enough to report, which is much lower than shares for other antisemitism contexts. Around one in four respondents (26 %) not reporting their experience of violence thought that no one would believe them or take them seriously. More than one fifth (21 %) did not report violent incidents because they do not trust the police and 15 % did not report because they feared the offender or reprisal.
Regarding reporting discrimination, various factors explain why so many respondents who experienced discrimination because of being Jewish did not report it. Here, too, the most common reason for not reporting it anywhere was that victims expected nothing would happen if they were to report it (39 %). However, this share is smaller than those for other manifestations of antisemitism. Other reasons for not reporting include that it was not considered serious enough (24 %), ‘it happens all the time’ (27 %) or they had no proof (25 %).

6.4.    ORGANISATIONS TO WHICH RESPONDENTS REPORT INCIDENTS AND SATISFACTION WITH THEIR RESPONSES
Respondents report to different organisations depending on the type and context of the antisemitic incident. Figure 31 shows the rates of reporting by organisation and context.
Respondents most often report online antisemitism to the platform involved. Almost every fifth respondent (19 %) who encountered online antisemitism reported it to the platform where it occurred. Only 3 % reported the last incident of online antisemitism to Jewish community organisations. Only 1 % reported the incident to the police.
Regarding online antisemitism, most people were dissatisfied with how the platform handled their complaints, as Section 2.3.4 notes: 21 % were somewhat dissatisfied and 60 % were very dissatisfied. Italy (89 % very or somewhat dissatisfied), Belgium (88 %) and Germany (88 %) have the highest levels of dissatisfaction. The Netherlands (31 % somewhat or very satisfied), Romania (28 %) and Spain (28 %) have higher satisfaction levels, but it remains the case that satisfied respondents are a minority.
Overall, respondents are less dissatisfied with how the police handle their complaints of online antisemitism than they are with the platforms. Nevertheless, most respondents who did report an incident to the police were somewhat or very dissatisfied (59 %) with the response. A breakdown of satisfaction level by country is not possible owing to the low number of respondents reporting to the police.
When subjected to antisemitic harassment, respondents most often report this to platforms: 11 % of respondents who experienced at least one form of online antisemitic harassment reported it to a platform, while 6 % of victims of harassment reported the last incident to the police and 5 % to a Jewish community organisation. Most respondents who reported their harassment experience to the police were somewhat dissatisfied (21 %) or very dissatisfied (47 %) with the response.
Respondents most often report antisemitic violence to the police: 30 % of respondents who had experienced violence in the past 5 years reported it to the police. Respondents also commonly report violence to Jewish authority figures, such as leaders of Jewish organisations (11 %) and Jewish community organisations (10 %). Respondents’ average level of dissatisfaction with how the police handled their complaints was very high: 25 % were somewhat dissatisfied and 54 % were very dissatisfied.
 
In the case of discrimination, only very few respondents report incidents (11 %). Most often, but still very rarely, respondents who experience antisemitic discrimination report this to the police (4 %). Few turn to a Jewish authority figure (3 %) or to the institution or place where the incident happened (school, university, hospital, medical centre, nightclub, etc.) (3 %). Fewer than 1 % of those experiencing discrimination because of being Jewish turn to an equality body or national human rights institution.

FIGURE 31: ORGANISATION THAT RESPONDENTS REPORTED ANTISEMITIC INCIDENT TO, BY CONTEXT, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.

 Notes:
n.a., not available (answer option not available). Out of all respondents who encountered online antisemitism (n = 7 097), antisemitic harassment (online or offline) (n = 2 801), antisemitic violence (n = 396) or antisemitic discrimination (n = 1 624) in the 12 months before the survey.
Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘OH07/VH05/VV06. Thinking about the last incident, did you report or make a complaint about it? If yes, who did you report or make a complaint about the incident [items as listed in the figure]’; ‘DON22. Who did you report the incident(s) or make the complaint(s) to? Please select all that apply [items as listed in the figure].’

 7 LIMITATIONS ON JEWISH LIFE

This chapter looks at respondents’ assessments of prohibition of traditional religious practices, respondents’ intentions to emigrate because of security concerns and limitations on Jewish life in the EU, and their assessment of governmental actions to protect and foster Jewish life in the EU.

7.1.    KEY FINDINGS
The data collection for this report took place between January and June 2023. That is, the results pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.
—    Most respondents across countries indicated that prohibition of circumcision (79 %) or traditional slaughter (68 %) would be a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem for them.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. The shares of respondents who had heard non-Jews in their country suggest prohibition of circumcision or traditional slaughter decreased between 2018 and 2023 (circumcision, 45 % in 2018 v 31 % in 2023; traditional slaughter, 45 % in 2018 v 35 % in 2023) (see Figure 34). The shares of respondents who would consider prohibition of these traditions problematic stayed roughly the same (circumcision, 80 % in both years; traditional slaughter, 67 % in 2018 v 68 % in 2023).
—    Almost half of the respondents (45 %) had at least considered emigrating (for any reason) in the 5 years prior to the survey. The shares vary from 58 % in Germany to 29 % in Czechia.
➔    2018 and 2023 survey comparison. The share of respondents considering emigration because of security concerns was similar (41 % in 2023 v 45 % in 2018).
—    Respondents are least satisfied with governmental efforts to ‘raise awareness of Jewish traditions’ (17 %), ‘combat antisemitism’ (18 %) and ‘promote Jewish life’ (23 %). They are most satisfied with the government’s ‘public commemoration of the Holocaust’ (47 %), ‘response to security needs of the Jewish community’ (32 %) and ‘inclusion of the topic of the Holocaust in education’ and ‘celebration of Jewish culture and heritage’ (both 28 %).

7.2.    LIMITATIONS ON TRADITIONAL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES
Debates about traditional slaughter (shechita) are ongoing in some Member States. For example, Slovenia banned traditional slaughter in 2012. Sweden banned traditional slaughter in 1937 and now requires pre-cut stunning (Animal Welfare Ordinance 1988:539, Article 30). However, Jewish people can import traditionally slaughtered meat into Sweden.
A third of respondents had heard non-Jewish people in the 12 months prior to the survey suggest that traditional slaughter should be prohibited in their country of residence. Shares range from almost 60 % in Belgium and almost 50 % in Austria, Poland and Sweden to below 20 % in Czechia, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Spain (Figure 32).
Circumcision (brit mila) is under scrutiny in some countries. Overall, around 30 % of respondents had heard non-Jewish people in the 12 months prior to the survey suggest that circumcision should be banned in their country of residence. Denmark still has the highest share across all countries, 9 out of 10 respondents (98 % in 2018).
In Sweden, almost two thirds (62 %) of respondents had heard non-Jews suggest prohibition of circumcision. In Austria, Belgium and Germany, the share amounted to around 40 % of respondents. Czechia (7 %), Romania (8 %), Hungary (11 %) and Poland (16 %) have the lowest shares.
 
FIGURE 32: RESPONDENTS WHO HAD HEARD NON-JEWISH PEOPLE SUGGEST THAT CIRCUMCISION AND/OR TRADITIONAL SLAUGHTER SHOULD BE PROHIBITED IN THEIR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source:
 
Heard about prohibition of circumcision (brit mila) FRA, 2023.
 
Heard about prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita)
 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘F10. In the last
12 months, have you personally heard or seen non-Jewish people suggest that circumcision and traditional slaughter (shechita), should not be allowed to take place in [country]?’ Answer ‘heard about prohibition of circumcision (brit mila)
covers ‘yes, about circumcision (brit mila)’ and ‘yes, about both circumcision (brit mila) and traditional slaughter (shechita)’. Answer ‘heard about prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita) covers ‘yes, about traditional slaughter (shechita)’ and ‘yes, about both circumcision (brit mila) and traditional slaughter (shechita)’. The items are listed in descending order according to the share of respondents who had ‘heard about prohibition of circumcision (brit mila)’.
 
Most respondents across countries indicated that prohibition of circumcision (79 %) or traditional slaughter (68 %) would be a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem for them (Figure 33).
More than 8 out of 10 respondents in Belgium (85 %), France (87 %) and Italy (85 %) consider prohibition of circumcision a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem for them. Around three quarters of respondents in those countries see prohibition of religious slaughter as problematic for them.
The shares of Jews who see prohibition of the two Jewish traditions as a ‘very big’ or ‘fairly big’ problem are lowest in Czechia (circumcision, 55 %; traditional slaughter, 50 %), Hungary (circumcision, 52 %; traditional slaughter, 53 %) and Poland (circumcision, 42 %; traditional slaughter, 36 %).
Age and sex/gender analyses do not show clear patterns or trends. Almost all conservative, Orthodox and strictly Orthodox Jews would find prohibition of either circumcision or traditional slaughter problematic. Most respondents who identify as progressive or ‘just Jewish’ also indicate that they would struggle with prohibition of circumcision (70% and 66%, respectively) or traditional slaughter (83 % and 85 %, respectively) in their country.

FIGURE 33: RESPONDENTS FOR WHOM PROHIBITION OF CIRCUMCISION OR TRADITIONAL SLAUGHTER WOULD BE A PROBLEM, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Prohibition of circumcision (brit mila) would be problematic Prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita) would be problematic
Source: FRA, 2023.

 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘F11. How big a problem, if at all, would the following be for you as a Jew? “A prohibition of circumcision (brit mila)” and “a prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita)”’. Figure covers answers ‘a very big problem’ and ‘a fairly big problem’. The items are listed in descending order according to the share of respondents who answered ‘prohibition of circumcision (brit mila) would be problematic’.
 
Comparison of 2023 and 2018 survey data
 
The shares of respondents who had heard non-Jews in their country suggest prohibition of circumcision or traditional slaughter decreased between 2018 and 2023 (circumcision,
45 % in 2018 v 31 % in 2023; traditional slaughter, 45 % in 2018 v 35 % in 2023) (Figure 34). The shares of respondents who would consider prohibition of these traditions problematic stayed roughly the same (circumcision, 80 % in both years; traditional slaughter, 67 % in 2018 v 68 % in 2023).

FIGURE 34: RESPONDENTS WHO HAD HEARD NON-JEWISH PEOPLE SUGGEST THAT CIRCUMCISION AND/OR TRADITIONAL SLAUGHTER BE PROHIBITED IN THEIR COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE AND RESPONDENTS FOR WHOM PROHIBITION OF CIRCUMCISION OR TRADITIONAL SLAUGHTER WOULD BE A PROBLEM, 11-COUNTRY AVERAGE, 2023 AND 2018 COMPARISON (%)
 
Heard about prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita brit mila) would be problematic
 
Prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita) would be problematic

Sources: FRA, 2023; FRA, 2018.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (2023, n = 7 196; 2018, n = 11 664). Country results are weighted; 11-country average is weighted. Questions: ‘F10. In the last 12 months, have you personally heard or seen non-Jewish people suggest that circumcision and traditional slaughter (shechita) should not be allowed to take place
in [country]?’; ‘F11. How big a problem, if at all, would the following be for you as a Jew? “A prohibition of circumcision (brit mila)” and “A prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita)”’. For question F10, answer ‘heard about prohibition of circumcision (brit mila)’ covers ‘yes, about circumcision (brit mila)’ and ‘yes, about both circumcision (brit mila) and traditional slaughter (shechita)’. Answer ‘heard about prohibition of traditional slaughter (shechita)’ covers ‘yes, about traditional slaughter (shechita)’ and ‘yes, about both
circumcision (brit mila) and traditional slaughter (shechita)’. Figure covers F11 answers ‘a very big problem’ and ‘a fairly big problem’.
 
7.3.    RESPONSES TO LIMITATIONS – ACTIONS TAKEN OR CONSIDERED
All efforts to protect and foster Jewish life in the EU, as laid out in the EU strategy, will be less effective if Jewish populations continue to decline owing to emigration. Jews leave or consider leaving their country or the EU because of, for example, increases in antisemitism, fear due to a decreased feeling of safety and security, limitations on living an openly Jewish life or obstacles to practising one’s religion.
More than half (51 %) of respondents had either emigrated or considered emigration in the 5 years prior to the survey: 46 % considered emigration and 6 % emigrated and then returned. Almost half (49 %) did not emigrate or consider emigration in the 5 years prior to the survey (Figure 35).
Overall, 41 % of all respondents had emigrated or considered emigration in the 5 years prior to the survey because they do not feel safe living in their country of residence as Jews, 32 % because of being unable to live an openly Jewish life and 20 % because they felt unable to practise their religion. In addition, 42 % had at least considered emigration for other reasons.
However, respondents’ wishes or plans to emigrate have multifaceted motives. Most respondents (80 %) who emigrated or considered emigration gave multiple reasons. Only 12 % of respondents considered emigration exclusively for ‘other’ reasons that are not related to safety and security, living an openly Jewish life or practising religion; 17 % did so exclusively for one or more reasons related to Jewish life. Many respondents (70 %) indicated a combination of other and Jewish-life-related reasons.

FIGURE 35: RESPONDENTS WHO EMIGRATED OR CONSIDERED EMIGRATION IN THE 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, BY REASON, 13-COUNTRY AVERAGE (%)

You don’t feel safe living there as a Jew

You are/were not able to live an openly Jewish life

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B26. In the past five years, have you considered emigrating from [country] because … “you don’t feel safe living there as a Jew”, “you were not able to practise your religion (e.g. traditional slaughter (shechita) or circumcision (brit mila)”, “you are/were not able to live an openly Jewish life”, and “for other reasons”?’ Figure covers answers ‘I did emigrate but have returned’ and ‘I have considered emigrating, but I have not yet done this’.
 
Jews most often emigrated or considered emigration from Poland (60 %), Hungary (58 %), Germany (58 %), Belgium (53 %), France (51 %) and Sweden (49 %) (Figure 36). However, their reasons are different.
Higher proportions of Jews in Germany (51 %), Belgium (47 %), France (47 %) and Sweden (45 %) considered emigration for reasons related to Jewish life, while respondents in Poland (60 %) and Hungary (58 %) most often named ‘other reasons’. Germany, France and Sweden show the highest shares of Jews considering emigration because of fears for safety and security (46 %, 44 %, and 39 %, respectively) and limitations on living an openly Jewish life (39 %, 34 %, and 34 %, respectively). A significantly larger share of Jews in Belgium than in other Member States reported considering moving because they feel they cannot practise their religious traditions in their country (38 % v 20 % on average). Jews from Czechia (18 %), Denmark (26 %) and Italy (27 %) rarely consider emigration for reasons related to their being Jewish.

FIGURE 36: RESPONDENTS WHO EMIGRATED OR CONSIDERED EMIGRATION IN THE 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE SURVEY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Source: FRA, 2023.
 
Emigrated or considered emigration for any reason related to being Jewish Emigrated or considered emigration for any reason
 
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B26. In the past five years, have you considered emigrating from [country] because … “you don’t feel safe living there as a Jew”, “you were not able to practise your religion (e.g. traditional slaughter (shechita) or
circumcision (brit mila)”, “you are/were not
able to live an openly Jewish life” or “for other reasons”’? Figure covers answers ‘I did emigrate but have returned’ and ‘I have considered emigrating, but I have
not yet done this’. The countries are listed in descending order according to the share of respondents who had emigrated or considered emigration for any reason related to being Jewish.
 
Plans to emigrate evolve with age. Jews aged under 40 (61 %) or aged 40–59 (57 %) more often at least consider emigration than Jews aged 60 or over (37 %). Women more often consider emigration than men (54 % v 48 %).
Looking at Jewish identity and traditions, Jews who wear symbols that make them recognisable as Jewish in public more often consider leaving their country of residence than Jews who do not (56 % v 47 %). Among Orthodox and strictly Orthodox Jews, as many as three out of four respondents are considering leaving for reasons related to being Jewish. Over half (57 %) of Jews identifying as conservative are considering emigration. The share reaches 29 % among secular Jews and 41 % among those identifying as ‘just Jewish’.
Many (30 %) of those considering emigration have made active preparations. This corresponds to 14 % of all respondents. Extrapolating this to the Jewish population across all countries the survey covers (1 212 000 (1)) means that almost 170 000 Jews have made active preparations to leave their country of residence and around another 388 000 Jews are considering emigration.

Data collection took place prior to the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023. Before 7 October, almost 9 out of 10 respondents with active plans to emigrate planned to leave the EU, 60 % to Israel. These shares match the realised plans of those who emigrated but subsequently returned: 13 % emigrated to another Member State, 56 % to Israel and the rest to another non-EU country. The number of responses does not allow for further detailed analysis.

Comparison of 2023 and 2018 survey data 

The 2018 survey asked respondents only whether they were considering emigration because they did not feel safe as Jews. The share of respondents who had emigrated or considered emigration was 46 % in 2018. It was similar in 2023 (41 %).
The share of respondents who have made active preparations for emigration is similar (28 % in 2018 v 30 % in 2023). Israel remains the most common destination for Jews who have emigrated or considered emigration (59 % in 2023 v 66 % in 2018). Note that these data pre-date the Hamas attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023.

7.4.    ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS
The EU strategy on combating antisemitism builds on the cooperation of Member States and their efforts to prevent and combat all forms of antisemitism. The strategy protects and fosters Jewish life, education, research and Holocaust remembrance and leads the global fight against antisemitism. The Commission encourages Member States to undertake almost 30 actions to effectively combat antisemitism and foster Jewish life.
The survey asked respondents how satisfied they are with their country’s governmental efforts regarding the Jewish community (Table 6).
Among the 13 countries surveyed, efforts to ‘raise awareness of Jewish traditions’ (17 %), ‘combat antisemitism’ (18 %) and ‘promote Jewish life’ (23 %) have the lowest rates for fully or somewhat satisfied. Fewer than a third of respondents are at least somewhat satisfied with the governmental efforts regarding ‘inclusion of the topic of the Holocaust in education’ and ‘celebration of Jewish culture and heritage’ (both 28 %). Around one in three (32 %) respondents are satisfied with the governmental ‘response to security needs of the Jewish community’. Around half (47 %) are at least somewhat satisfied with the governmental actions regarding the public commemoration of the Holocaust.
Respondents’ satisfaction levels with the governmental actions supporting the Jewish communities are generally highest in Austria, Czechia, Denmark, Poland and Romania. The shares of respondents satisfied in each of these countries is among the five highest for almost all governmental actions evaluated. Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and Sweden have the lowest shares of satisfaction in at least four out of the seven areas (Table 6).
In Sweden, respondents’ satisfaction with the governmental efforts to respond to the security needs of the Jewish community is less than half the 13-country average. Only 15 % are at least somewhat satisfied. Two thirds are at least somewhat dissatisfied.

TABLE 6:    SATISFACTION WITH GOVERNMENTAL ACTIONS SUPPORTING THE JEWISH COMMUNITY, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Acti0n    AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-c0untry average
Public c0mmem0rati0n 0f the H0l0caust    53    37    70    47    48    36    48    33    57    52    44    63    57    47
Resp0nse t0 security needs 0f the Jewish c0mmunity    57    34    55    31    69    26    30    32    43    33    59    59    15    32
Inclusi0n 0f the t0pic
0f the H0l0caust in educati0n    32    24    42    30    40    30    28    20    35    22    54    49    33    28
Celebrati0n 0f Jewish culture and heritage    50    23    56    32    42    22    26    30    28    24    55    51    25    28
Pr0m0te Jewish life    44    16    41    34    28    15    19    24    20    18    60    41    20    23
C0mbat antisemitism    27    10    38    16    36    16    18    20    12    15    70    36    13    18
Raise awareness 0f Jewish traditi0ns    33    14    39    22    27    15    14    17    13    14    67    34    15    17
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Question: ‘B28. How satisfied are you with the [nationality] government’s efforts to carry out the following?’ Items as listed in the table. The table presents the total of answer categories ‘fully satisfied’ and ‘somewhat satisfied’. The governmental actions are listed in descending order according to the 13-country average. For each country, blue shading indicates the three governmental actions with which the highest shares of respondents are fully or somewhat satisfied.

Endn0te
(1) Based on DellaPergola’s population estimates: DellaPergola, S. (2020), ‘W0rld Jewish p0pulati0n 2020’, in Dashefsky, A. and Sheskin, I. M. (eds), The American Jewish Year Book, 2020, Volume 120, Springer, Cham, pp. 273–370.

ANNEX

Data collection used an open online survey link because of the absence of reliable sampling frames (lists or registers of the target population or other sources of information from which to draw a survey sample). A comprehensive awareness-raising campaign distributed the link via Jewish community organisations, alongside personal referrals, social media advertisements and newspaper advertisements. During the awareness-raising campaign, the project contractor, FRA, and the European Commission contacted over 300 national and international Jewish organisations and communities across all affiliations, as well as influential people across the EU with outreach to the Jewish community such as community leaders, rabbis, social media influencers and active members of communities.
In close cooperation with the contractor’s project team and FRA, international, national and regional Jewish organisations were asked to send out multiple emails, newsletters, instant messages and social media advertisements to invite their constituents to participate in the survey. The technical report accompanying the survey will provide more information on the outreach and awareness-raising activities.

DATA COLLECTION IMPLEMENTATION
FRA’s third survey on Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitism collected data from 7 992 self-identified Jewish respondents (aged 16 or over). It covered 13 Member States: Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain and Sweden. These 13 Member States account for about 96 % of the EU’s estimated Jewish population (1). The online questionnaire was available in 13 languages: Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish and Swedish.
This survey builds strongly on the experience and methodology FRA developed for its 2012 and 2018 surveys (which covered, respectively, 8 and 12 Member States) and on stakeholder consultations for the current survey that took place in 2022.
The 2018 survey questionnaire went through a review process to incorporate feedback before the 2023 survey. The review tried to reduce the survey length, and thus the burden on respondents, while also aiming to capture different facets of antisemitism (especially online) with the revised questionnaire. This included introducing new questions on encountering antisemitism online and offline, identifying possible questions for deletion and reducing the number of items and answer categories in individual questions. This involved deleting questions, streamlining them to match other FRA surveys, rephrasing them slightly or repositioning questions to improve the questionnaire flow. Nevertheless, comparisons between the 2018 survey and the 2023 survey remain possible, which allows for trend analysis.
The online questionnaire was accessible on various operating systems (e.g. Microsoft Windows, Apple’s iOS, Linux) and types of device (e.g. desktop and laptop computers, tablets, smartphones). All revisions aimed to retain comparability with the 2018 survey to the extent possible.
The survey was open for around 5 months between 25 January and 30 June 2023. The survey was designed to be accessible to all eligible participants: those self- defining as Jews, aged 16 or over and resident in one of the survey countries.
A consortium of Verian (formerly Kantar Public) and the European Union for Progressive Judaism Foundation managed the survey data collection, under FRA’s supervision. Verian and the European Union for Progressive Judaism Foundation collected information on the size and composition of the Jewish population in each country and on communal structures of European Jewish communities; identified ways to make Jewish people in the selected countries aware of the survey; and implemented the communication strategy. Verian ensured the technical set-up of the survey, including the translation of all survey materials, development of the survey website and compliance with the data security, privacy and confidentiality standards.
Throughout the data collection, the consortium monitored and compared the data against the information on the size and composition of the Jewish population in each country using Verian’s online monitoring tool. The tool allowed for the monitoring of response levels across the survey countries and for the checking of distributions of responses by age, sex/gender, geographical location and Jewish affiliation. This helped to assess how well the communication campaign was reaching different segments of the target population. The data collection outcomes showed that the awareness- raising campaign had started slowly, which led to the introduction of several contingency measures (e.g. extended field phase duration, paid advertisement campaigns on social media and intensified stakeholder communication).
The quality-assessed and cleaned final dataset includes 7 992 completed questionnaires across the 13 survey countries. The 2023 survey does not cover the United Kingdom and its large Jewish population, as it took place after Brexit. This has a large impact on the sample size.
The open, opt-in survey method (as in previous surveys) does not deliver a random probability sample fulfilling the statistical criteria for representativeness. However, the survey findings are reliable and robust, and provide comprehensive, comparable data on experiences of antisemitism in the EU.
The average time for survey completion was 33 minutes. The median duration was 27 minutes. Most respondents completed the survey on their laptop (62 %). Almost 3 in 10 (29 %) completed it on a smartphone and 9 % on a tablet.

WEIGHTING
The samples across the 13 survey countries range from 305 respondents in Poland to 1 338 respondents in Hungary. The samples from each country are given several weighting factors to adjust for any under-representation.
—    Random iterative method weight. FRA explored the possibility of weighting the data based on estimates of the sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex/gender, geographical origin) of the target population to adjust for specific respondent characteristics. Even though the Jewish population statistics are in some countries based on estimates, the project team concluded that random iterative method weighting increases the quality and robustness of the results through applying the same standards across countries and survey rounds to balance out any under-representation of groups in particular countries. The weight calculations include only variables that are deemed of sufficient quality. Trimming controls for extremely high or low weighting factors.
—    Non-response weight. A proxy approach based on the probability of repeated participation in FRA surveys on antisemitism helps account for non-response biases. The survey asked respondents about their communal affiliation and the overall weight includes the calculated effect of this on their repeated participation in FRA surveys. Trimming controls for extremely high or low weighting factors.
— Country weight. This weight considers the difference in the size of each country’s Jewish population. It adjusts the proportionality of the achieved sample sizes and their impact on calculating the 13-country average.
The combination of all weighting factors has a limited impact on the results. Yet it improves the understanding of differences across countries and survey rounds. The 2018 survey data follow the same weighting approach for the countries both surveys cover to enable comparisons.

DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS
FRA’s open online survey approach adopted depends on individuals’ willingness to participate in the survey. Consequently, and in view of the interpretation of the results, it is particularly important to consider the composition of the sample and the profile of the respondents represented.

Sample sizes
The largest samples are from the three surveyed countries with the largest estimated Jewish communities: Hungary, Germany and France. France and Germany have larger estimated Jewish populations than Hungary. However, the sample sizes in France and Germany still allow (with weighting) for meaningful analysis when disaggregated by certain subgroups. The sample sizes ranged from 305 to 688 respondents for the other 10 (Table 7).

TABLE 7:    ACHIEVED SAMPLE SIZE (UNWEIGHTED AND WEIGHTED) AND POPULATION ESTIMATE, BY MEMBER STATE

Member State    2023 sample size    Population estimate in absolute and relative terms
    Unweighted    Weighted    Absolute    Relative (%)
AT    363    111    13 650    1
BE    688    279    34 500    3
CZ    471    42    5 200    1
DE    892    1 389    171 500    17
DK    631    60    7 450    1
ES    372    130    16 000    2
FR    890    4 447    549 000    56
HU    1 338    596    73 600    7
IT    472    277    34 150    3
NL    561    335    41 400    4
PL    305    59    7 250    1
RO    325    105    12 950    1
SE    684    162    20 000    2
13-country total    7 992    7 992    986 650    100
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Unweighted and weighted sample sizes after data cleaning. Population estimates are based on the midpoint estimations between the core and enlarged Jewish population (DellaPergola, S. (2020), ‘World Jewish population 2020’, in Dashefsky, A. and Sheskin, I. M. (eds), The American Jewish Year Book, 2020, Volume 120, Springer, Cham, pp. 273–370).
 
Main sociodemographic characteristics
The survey respondents can be characterised based on the information they provided in the survey. Table 8 presents an overview of these characteristics.
Respondents’ average age (weighted) is 48 (median 50): 33 % of respondents are aged 16–39, 30 % aged 40–59 and 36 % aged 60 or over. The under-40 sample population (after weighting) is largest in Belgium (44 %) and Poland (45 %). The share of respondents aged 60 or over is highest in Czechia (59 %), Hungary (46 %) and Romania (57 %).
The share of women is 52 % (after weighting) across all countries surveyed. The share is highest in Czechia (54 %) and Germany (55 %) and below 50 % in Austria, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania.
Overall, around half of the respondents do not live in the capital of their country (48 % unweighted). In Austria, Denmark and Hungary, most respondents live in the country’s capital (over 80 %). In Germany (89 %) and Poland and Spain (both at least 60 %), a disproportionate share of respondents live outside the country’s capital.
Around four out of five respondents have attained tertiary education (short- cycle tertiary education, bachelor’s, master’s or PhD degree, or equivalent). Around one fifth have attained an education level of International Standard Classification of Education 4 (post-secondary non-tertiary degree) or lower. The share of respondents who have attained higher education is highest in France, Spain and Romania, and lowest in Austria, Belgium and Poland.
When looking at limitations in everyday life due to health issues, around 5 % of respondents indicate that they are severely limited and 30 % that they are somewhat limited. Around two thirds of respondents are not limited at all. The shares of respondents with limitations are highest in Czechia, Germany, Netherlands and Romania and lowest in Belgium and Spain.
 
TABLE 8:    SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-country average

13-country
un    t
 
Mean age    47    43    57    48    50    49    48    54    52    49    44    53    49    48
Median age    52    42    64    47    50    51    50    56    55    50    43    60    49    50
 
weighted coun
Age (years)
Sex/gender
Geographical origin
 
16–39    34    44    23    34    34    34    34    26    28    32    45    22    34    33    2 180
40–59    26    27    18    27    30    30    32    29    30    35    36    21    30    30    2 402
60+    40    29    59    39    36    36    34    46    41    33    19    57    36    36    3 410
Woman    49    51    55    54    51    51    52    52    51    49    46    44    51    52    3 991
Man    49    49    45    45    48    48    48    47    48    51    52    54    48    47    3 927
Other    2    1    1    0    1    1    1    1    1    0    2    2    0    1    74
Not in capital    7    55    45    89    10    66    40    17    46    52    60    56    50    48    4 526
Capital    93    45    55    11    90    34    60    83    54    48    40    44    50    52    3 466
 
Educational attainment
 
No higher education (below International Standard Classification of Education 5)
 
31    31    28    28    21    20    17    23    30    24    31    17    26    21    1 954
 
(Health) limitations in activities of daily life

Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
 
Higher education    69    69    72    72    79    80    83    77    70    76    69    83    74    79    6 038
Severely limited    7    4    12    8    4    4    5    2    5    6    7    4    3    5    404
Limited but not severely    26    20    35    31    26    21    31    25    29    32    29    38    29    30    2 320
Not limited at all    66    76    52    61    69    76    64    72    65    61    64    56    68    65    5 247
 
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Some totals do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.
 
Main variables related to Jewish identity and customs
 
Measuring Jewish identity
 
It is not possible to distil the various dimensions of Jewish identity into a single survey question, especially in a survey that covers several countries. As a result, the FRA survey on antisemitism uses a set of items to measure respondents’ Jewish
identity. The following list shows the types of questions in the survey, with some examples of response categories (see survey questionnaire for full list):
—    communal affiliation to a Jewish organisation,
—    displaying or wearing symbols that would make one recognisable as Jewish in public,
—    classification of Jewish identity (e.g. Orthodox, conservative, progressive, strictly Orthodox),
—    self-assessed strength of Jewish identity (on a scale from 1 to 10),
—    self-assessment of the strength of one’s religious beliefs (on a scale from 1 to 10),
—    observing Jewish practices (e.g. eating kosher, attending a synagogue),
—    Jewish background (e.g. Jewish by birth, Jewish by conversion),
—    importance of selected issues to respondent’s Jewish identity (e.g. Jewish culture, remembering the Holocaust, supporting Israel).
 
Around 60 % of the respondents are affiliated with a Jewish community organisation (e.g. are active volunteers or financial contributors, in regular contact with it or follow its activities); 40 % are not involved with a Jewish organisation (Table 9). The share of affiliated respondents is highest in Czechia, Romania, Spain and the Netherlands. In France, Hungary and Poland, around half of the respondents are unaffiliated.
Half of the respondents at least occasionally wear or display symbols or clothes that make them recognisable as Jewish in public. In France, this share is lowest, at 42 %. In all other countries, the share is above 50 %. In Czechia, Spain and Romania, it is around 70 %.
Around 26 % of respondents consider themselves ‘just Jewish’ without further defining their affiliation. This is particularly common in Czechia, Denmark, Italy and Romania. The second largest group of respondents consider themselves secular Jews (22 %). A further 21 % identify as Reform/progressive/liberal. This share is almost three times as high as in the 2018 sample (8 %), so this group is probably over-represented in the sample. Around 17 % of respondents consider themselves conservative.
Around 1 % of the respondents identify as strictly Orthodox – in Belgium, this is 15 %. This means that results for strictly Orthodox Jews mostly reflect the experiences of Jews in Belgium. A further 6 % of respondents identify as Orthodox Jews. Again, the share is highest in Belgium, heavily influencing the results for this group and country.
Most respondents consider the strength of their Jewish identity to be high (65 %). Only 4 % of self-identifying Jews indicate that they do not strongly identify with their Jewish identity.
Most respondents base their Jewish identity on parentage or culture. Around half indicate religion or upbringing as (at least part of) the basis of their Jewish identity.
 
Almost all respondents observe some Jewish practices (94 %). Around two thirds attend Passover Seder and a similar share observe Yom Kippur most or all years. Around half keep (some) Sabbath traditions, engage in actively remembering the Holocaust or study Jewish traditions, texts and history. Around 4 in 10 observe (some) Jewish dietary laws or participate in Jewish community activities. One in five attend a synagogue at least weekly.
 
TABLE 9:    CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO JEWISH IDENTITY AND TRADITIONS, BY MEMBER STATE (%)

Jewish identity
 
        AT    BE    CZ    DE    DK    ES    FR    HU    IT    NL    PL    RO    SE    13-country average
    Attend Passover Seder most or all years    64    80    44    63    75    70    69    39    81    71    36    61    72    66
    Keep (some) Sabbath traditions    48    64    43    52    54    67    52    30    56    57    42    45    52    51
    Attend a synagogue weekly or more often    26    34    15    25    11    29    18    12    16    22    17    24    12    20
    Observe (some) Jewish dietary laws    41    50    30    46    41    45    43    22    55    50    35    22    41    42
Observing Jewish    Participate in Jewish community activities    48    60    54    49    48    56    36    30    47    53    43    60    54    41
practices    Observe Yom Kippur most or all years    66    70    53    60    39    75    67    29    76    55    27    43    41    61
    Engage in active Holocaust remembrance    61    58    59    59    44    62    47    55    58    76    56    49    67    53
    Study Jewish traditions, texts and history    48    63    56    49    33    54    55    46    55    57    59    54    43    53
    Observe other Jewish practices    41    53    28    44    57    48    35    39    42    53    39    46    59    40
    Observe none of these    7    2    6    5    6    5    6    14    4    4    10    6    4    6
Source: FRA, 2023.
 Notes:
Out of all respondents (n = 7 992). Country results are weighted; 13-country average is weighted. Some totals do not add up to 100 %; this is due to rounding of numbers.
 
Endnote
(1) DellaPergola, S. (2020), ‘World Jewish population 2020’, in Dashefsky, A. and Sheskin, I. M. (eds), The American Jewish Year Book, 2020, Volume 120, Springer, Cham, pp. 273–370.
 
Getting in touch with the EU
In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en.

On the phone or in writing
Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(certain operators may charge for these calls),
—    at the following standard number: +32 22999696,
—    via the following form: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en.

Finding information about the EU
Online
Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en.

EU publications
You can view or order EU publications at: op.europa.eu/en/publications.
Multiple copies of free publications can be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local documentation centre
european-union.europa.eu/contact-eu/meet-us_en.

EU law and related documents
For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language versions, go to EUR- Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.

Open data from the EU
The portal data.europa.eu provides access to open datasets from the EU institutions, bodies and agencies. These can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes. The portal also provides access to a wealth of datasets from European countries.
 

JEWISH PEOPLE’S EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF ANTISEMITISM ―

Antisemitism is still a reality for many Jewish people in the EU today. Faced with prejudice and hostility, most feel unable to live openly Jewish lives. This is FRA’s third EU survey of Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitism. It points to some small improvements since 2012. Yet much of this progress has been jeopardised following the recent escalation in the conflict in the Middle East.
This survey took place before the Hamas attacks in October 2023 and the war in Gaza, however, it includes evidence from a consultation with national and European Jewish umbrella organisations on their experiences and a rise in antisemitism since. The data cover 13 Member States that together account for about 96 % of the EU’s Jewish population.

Source: “Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism,” European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), (July 11, 2024).