How to fight hate
Drastic measures are needed to combat the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and the US
FROM Paris to Pittsburgh, Jews are under siege as the scourge of violent antiSemitism reaches depths not seen since World War II. Just last week, new FBI Hate Crime data showed that Jewish Americans were subject to 60 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes in 2017, despite being just 2 percent of the US population, a 37 percent increase over 2016.
For the last 12 months we have been on a mission to assess the depth, manifestation and trajectory of antiSemitism in key European counties as well as the physical security of the Jewish diaspora, personally commissioned by Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress.
We were in Kiev, on Oct. 27, when the deadly attack against Pittsburgh’s long-standing Jewish community erased some of our notions about the differences between Paris and Pittsburgh.
As part of our fact-finding mission, we have met with scores of government policy makers and diplomats, police and intelligence officials, rabbis and students, as well as academics and leaders of the myriad Jewish organizations in Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Austria, Hungary and Ukraine. And we’ve walked in the footsteps of martyred Jews in Dachau, Babi Yar and the Paris Hypercacher kosher market, among others.
We have also analyzed country-specific survey data and statistics and met with leadership of US-based watchdog groups like the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress. What have we learned? 1. In Europe the threat of physical violence against Jews is the highest it has been since the demise of Nazi Germany, more than 70 years ago. Last week, new statistics on anti-Semitism in France from January through September 2018 were released. The number of anti-Semitic “actions” (attack or attempted attack, homicide or attempted homicide, violence, arson, defacing or vandalism) increased by 71 percent over the same time period in 2017.
2. Anti-Semitism manifests itself in Europe in three primary ways. Two of these, polar opposites, have triggered only limited physical violence. Extreme left-wing progressive anti-Zionism that at a practical level often bleeds into anti-Semitism (see the UK’s potential next prime minister, Jeremy Corbyn). And farright white nationalism/neo-Nazism, relatively dormant since the end of WWII, is on the rise in Germany (see the Alternative for Deutschland [AfD] party) and Central Europe. The third stream, which has been deadly, emanates from diaspora Muslim populations in Western Europe, both second and third generation citizens and new asylum seekers — all poorly assimilated due to a combination of ineffective government policies and real socioeconomic grievances as well as their own resistance to more secular integration into European societies. This threat, which has proven deadly over the last few years in Brussels, Co- penhagen and Paris to name a few, has some overlap with a phenomenon that we are quite familiar with — a terrorism threat driven by those radicalized in the West.
3. The atrocity in Pittsburgh demonstrates that lone actors can be spontaneously mobilized to violence against Jews anywhere, including here, at home. And this event should be a clarion call to action. So what can be done? First, every Jewish institution needs to develop a comprehensive security plan, including active-shooter drills, functioning alarm systems and the use of CCTV cameras. In Europe, virtually all of the Jewish institutions we visited had installed a “double door” system, where visitors can’t enter until they’re cleared and the door behind them had locked. Trained armed guards can be helpful, but they are no panacea and not a viable option for most institutions, given the cost. One individual should be designated as the point of contact for law enforcement and responsible for the security mission.
Second, we cannot overemphasize the necessity of developing a close relationship with local law enforcement. Given the heightened threat level, the police have a special obligation to provide unique attention to Jewish institutions, especially at high-traffic times like Friday-night and Saturday-morning services.
The NYPD for years has provided patrol resources that serve as protection and deterrent to synagogues and other houses of worship as well, depending on the evolving threat. The police can be helpful in developing a security plan.
Third, one strategy that is quite common in the United Kingdom and France and is worth considering implementing in the US is the use of trained volunteers from within the Jewish community to provide yet another layer of protection for institutions. These volunteers, who undergo training on how to recognize surveillance as well as basic personal defense, are valuable and a cost-effective force multiplier that institutions and communities can organize on their own. These volunteers serve a key role in a layered defense, between police and the institution.
Lastly, national governments have a role to play. In 2005, the US Department of Homeland Security created the Nonprofit Security Grant Program to assist institutions with providing funding to invest in protecting themselves. This should be continued and potentially augmented in the US and needs to be significantly boosted in countries like France.
The rise of social media, lingering angst over the financial meltdown of 2008 and the spread of intolerant ideologies have all been identified as root causes of the rising tide of anti-Semitism. Regardless of its root cause(s) and despite the best intentions of many, the vile phenomenon of violent anti-Semitism is unfortunately here to stay and thus, appropriate protective measures must be taken.
Raymond W. Kelly is the former police commissioner for the city of New York. Mitchell D. Silber is the former director of intelligence analysis at the New York City Police Department. David Cohen is the former deputy commissioner of intelligence at the NYPD.