Leaders from the Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities, including its President Aron Verständig, penned an op-ed about the increasing antisemitism after October 7th in Sweden and around the world.
“As the anniversary of the massacre on 7 October approaches, we Jews reflect on a year of grim realisations in the face of the unrelenting Jew-hatred we increasingly encounter in our everyday lives. The gap between politicians’ stated commitment to combating antisemitism and civil society’s indifference is abysmal.
While we appreciate the government’s budget investment in securing Jewish life, we are concerned about an increasingly polarised political climate characterised by one-dimensional narratives that are divisive at a time when society is subjected to continuous stress tests. Extremist political movements spread misinformation and conspiracy theories that undermine faith in democracy and trust between people.
However, even in the space between the poles of extremism, there is polarisation, with temptations toward simple solutions based on black-and-white narratives that pit groups and individuals against each other. The debate about antisemitism also falls within this context.
Of course, it should be permissible to scrutinise, question, and criticise the Israeli government, as well as to express sadness and anger at the suffering of civilians in Gaza. Despite significant media attention, political overtures, educational initiatives, and action programmes to combat antisemitism, it persists. Why? Although boundaries have been pushed and blurred this year, many are asking: where is the line between political criticism and antisemitism? The answer is all too often that the limits of what is acceptable are pushed further.
The complexity of the conflict must be reflected upon so that the Gaza war is not used as a vent and cover for antisemitic conspiracy theories and tropes about Jewish power and Jewish “white colonialism.”
This has created a dangerous and ominous precedent, pushing standards far beyond all grey areas. These notions were strong enough driving forces for the massacre, rapes, and kidnappings on 7 October to be celebrated by flag-waving car caravans in Swedish cities that evening, long before the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza. Just over three months after the massacre, demonstrators found it acceptable to shout “child killer” at Jewish synagogue visitors, including Holocaust survivors, on Holocaust Remembrance Day in Stockholm. This occurred without penalty, setting a dangerous and ominous precedent that pushes standards far beyond all grey areas.
We observe how simplistic and one-dimensional depictions of the Gaza war curb and legitimise antisemitic expressions through the absence or discrediting of Jewish and Israeli perspectives. This is especially evident in social media, which is now overshadowed by posts depicting the war using imagery and rhetoric borrowed from the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer.
Politicisation and polarisation divert attention from objective considerations, erode trust between groups, and reduce Jews and antisemitism to tools in the debate against immigrants or Muslims as a collective. At the same time, we see how the vagueness of generally held plans against racism seems to leave space for the invisibility of the specific nature of antisemitism, where the vulnerability of the Jewish minority becomes a projection surface for political agendas that are not primarily about combating antisemitism. Politicisation and polarisation divert attention from objective considerations, erode trust between groups, and reduce Jews and antisemitism to tools in the debate against immigrants or Muslims as a collective.
When politicians throw stones at the glass house of antisemitism, the shards fall on us Jews. This occurs whether it concerns leftists, whose anti-racist self-image blinds them when fellow party members express antisemitic sentiments, or when the Sweden Democrats are repeatedly caught making antisemitic statements yet are presented as role models because some compromised party members have been excluded. In both cases, there is a shift in norms toward increased tolerance for and legitimisation of antisemitism.
Given the increasing politicisation of antisemitism, we increasingly see the need for cross-party agreements that can restore focus on the issue without it being exploited or obscured by ideology or party politics. Commonly agreed denominators could form the framework for a national strategy against antisemitism, focusing on evidence-based measures.
We believe a targeted strategy is a fundamental prerequisite for objectively and effectively decoding and combating antisemitic threats and hatred. Generic plans without clear outlines risk becoming a projection surface for blaming minorities or political opponents.
A targeted strategy can contribute to the visibility of antisemitism that occurs within anti-racist contexts, where the focus is on racism rooted in a power system linked to ethnicity and whiteness norms. This perspective is crucial to highlight, but it is not comprehensive. Central to antisemitism is a distorted analysis of power, characterised by conspiracy theories about Jewish power as an explanatory model for contemporary social problems.
Alternatively, let us set aside definitions that risk being politicised. A targeted strategy could promote consensus on criteria for decoding antisemitism, benefiting legal certainty. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, adopted by the government, has yet to make an impact in reality. The meaning of the definition still needs to be analysed, discussed, and anchored, at the level of examples, so as not to be reduced to mere signalling politics.
Let us put aside definitions that risk being politicised and start from researchers’ descriptions of antisemitism. Whatever is necessary to ensure that next year, on 27 January, we are not confronted by chanting groups who, without resistance, are allowed to express Jew-hatred disguised as a freedom struggle on Holocaust Remembrance Day outside our synagogues.
Politicisation and polarisation divert attention from objective considerations, erode trust between groups, and reduce Jews and antisemitism to tools in the debate against immigrants or Muslims as a collective.”