There is a lack of tolerance towards other opinions, according to nearly three quarters of Swiss people

An SRG poll, conducted between April and May 2023, shows that almost three quarters (72%) of Swiss people feel there is a lack of tolerance for differing points of view in the country.

In Switzerland, 72% of people believe that their fellow citizens should be more tolerant of differing opinions. These are the findings of the major national survey entitled "Wie geht's, Schweiz?", conducted by the gfs.bern polling institute on behalf of the Swiss Broadcasting Corporation (SRG) in the spring of 2023.

The survey, which covered more than 300 questions, gathered the opinions of some 57,000 people. Within this broad panel, respondents were not obliged to complete the full questionnaire, but to complete thematic blocks. A total of 8820 respondents answered the thematic block on certain "values" of living together.

While 72% of Swiss people find their fellow citizens intolerant of other points of view in debates, 84% in Ticino think so, well above the national average.

What's more, if we divide the respondents into two groups, with vegetarians and people who limit their meat consumption on one side, and the rest of the population on the other, 77% and 76% respectively of the former express a desire for greater tolerance of other opinions, while the rest of the population - "non-vegetarians" and "non-flexitarians" - express such a desire in only 63% of cases.

Foreigners living in Switzerland also perceive this problem significantly more. 78% think there is a lack of tolerance in Switzerland. People with dual Swiss and foreign citizenship are 73% to think the same, and Swiss 71%.

Finally, in terms of political affiliation, SVP supporters are the only category - among all the socio-economic or cultural categories taken together and retained by gfs.bern analysts - where this position of regretting the lack of tolerance obtains only a relative majority (48%).

Is the invisibilization of societal problems a German phenomenon?

To the statement: "In Switzerland, we don't generally talk about societal problems", 66% of Swiss people answered "rather true" (44%) or "quite true" (22%), believing that these problems are too often ignored.

This percentage decreases as household income rises, from 75% positive responses for those earning up to 3,000 francs to 58% positive responses for those earning over 9,000 francs. The importance given to societal issues decreases with membership of more privileged socio-economic classes.

More surprisingly, the French-speaking Swiss clearly stand out from the other language regions on this issue. Only 44% think that societal issues are too often ignored. On the other hand, in the Italian and German-speaking parts of Switzerland, a large majority of respondents (62% in Ticino and 72% in German-speaking Switzerland respectively) think that societal issues are generally not discussed. However, the raw survey data do not explain these regional differences.

Safety should sometimes take precedence over freedom

A majority of 63% of respondents think that, for security reasons, freedoms sometimes have to be restricted, with 50% "fairly true" and 13% "absolutely true". However, a third of the population still disagrees with such restrictions. More generally, it's a divisive issue, particularly along linguistic, income and political lines.

Thus, at 70%, the Italian Swiss are the most willing to accept restrictions on freedoms to guarantee security, followed by 64% of the German Swiss, while the French, with 55% of affirmative responses, are the most divided.

People with lower salaries are less inclined to accept these restrictions than others. Only 57% of people earning less than 3,000 francs are in favor of restricting their freedom for security reasons. Only 52% of people earning between 3,000 and 5,000 francs are in favor. The higher salary categories oscillate between 64% and 69% acceptance of these possible restrictions on freedom.

Another category, people with no political affiliation, show a relative majority of acceptance (49% "for"/46% "against"). SVP supporters (54%) are much less supportive of these measures than supporters of the other parties (from 65% to 75%).

A majority of 59% of respondents believe that most Swiss people feel easily insulted, against 32% who hold the opposite opinion, and 9% who do not.

There is little difference from the national average in the various analytical categories, except between language regions.

The German-speaking Swiss are the most critical. 64% find it "fairly" or "completely true" that their fellow citizens are too easily insulted. The Italian Swiss are 57% in this situation. Only 42% of the French-speaking population support this assertion.

The right to offend: a political, linguistic and gender divide

The public is divided over whether it's okay to say what you want, even if it offends others. A narrow majority are opposed (52%), with a significant proportion of the population in favor (46%).

The question divides the sexes sharply: women are opposed (61%), a higher proportion than the national average, while men are mostly in favor (56%).

Opinion also varies between language regions: a majority of German-speaking Swiss are opposed (54%), Italian-speaking Swiss are divided, with 47% for and against and 6% undecided, while French-speaking Swiss are in favor (54%).

Among SVP supporters, there's a strong majority in favor of the freedom to say what you want, those with no political affiliation are divided, while supporters of other parties are mostly opposed.

Less than a third (31%) of the population often avoids talking about their political opinions, and 68% see no problem in expressing them.

This proportion is found in almost all categories, except among foreigners, who are much more likely (50% of respondents) to avoid talking about it.

Intolerance of other opinions

Have we forgotten how to talk to each other?

Even for extreme points of view, there are groups in which one's own opinion can be further reinforced. Social media seems to cultivate such echo chambers. How can a constructive discourse still succeed? A conversation with the author Laura de Weck and the philosopher Romy Jaster.

steady-plum-mockingbird

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/steady-plum-mockingbird_de_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

The tone in debates is getting rougher

boring-pear-tick

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/boring-pear-tick_fr_SPEECHMATICS.srt

Whether it's the unmounting of statues or calls to boycott celebrities on social networks, there are many examples of the term "cancel culture" being used, giving the impression of a catch-all expression. Let's decipher this term from the United States.

The term "cancel culture" was first used by detractors of certain social movements who criticized their excesses. Among them, former US President Donald Trump.

While the expression has been widely publicized with the advent of the #MeToo movement on social networks, the act of impugning public figures has been around for longer. "In the 1970s, the Women's Liberation Movement in Geneva circulated a list of gynecologists to boycott," reports Sarah Kiani, a historian of social movements and researcher at the University of Neuchâtel and the Marc Bloch Center in Berlin.

When you think of the Matzneff or Duhamel cases, they brought #MeToo to the forefront of the debate.

What's disturbing is the attack on freedom of expression, a form of censorship that makes debate impossible. Press cartoonist Patrick Chappatte, for example, deplores this. "When you start trying to silence or demand apologies, that's when it goes too far." For Sarah Kiani, on the contrary, some cases have raised debate. "When you think of the Matzneff or Duhamel cases, they brought #MeToo to bear on the debate," she concludes.

What is "cancel culture"?

Can we still say what we think?

Insults and threats against elected officials, now a frequent phenomenon

Agnes Wuthrich

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/interesting-navy-capybara_fr_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

Mathilde Marendaz, Vaud National Councillor for Ensemble à Gauche, received a disturbing anonymous letter before the elections. It was addressed to her private home and clearly contained death threats. Such threats have been repeatedly made against politicians nationwide in recent years.  

The content is exceptionally violent, and it sends shivers down your spine. In the anonymous letter that Mathilde Marendaz received at her private address, her death is wished for. “You will burn like Jeanne d’Arc”, it says.  

The perpetrator or perpetrators also threatened to "ram a 20-centimetre-long blade" into her spine. "No, we're not going to kill you, we're going to cripple you for life, you filthy h**," it continued.

The anonymous letter was shared on Instagram by the politician from Ensemble à Gauche. She said she was deeply affected by the threats and announced that she would be filing a criminal complaint.



Mathilde Marendaz is not the only elected representative who has been threatened. In Switzerland, there are numerous politicians at all political levels who have reported insults and threats.



As in the case of the parliamentarian from Vaud, the threats can sometimes be very severe. They are expressed in the form of letters, emails or packages, but also on social media or even directly on the street. It is no longer unusual for elected officials to be under police protection during public appearances.  

Claire Micallef

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/psychiatric-blush-fish_fr_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

Exact figures are available for people who are under the protection of the federal police, i.e., for Federal Councillors, parliamentarians, and federal employees. Last year, the Federal Office of Police (Fedpol) recorded 528 threats, 68 of which led to criminal proceedings being initiated.  

However, the overall phenomenon is still difficult to quantify. According to the federal police, these data represent only the tip of the iceberg, as not all threats are systematically reported.



In 2021, at the height of the pandemic, the number of reported threats against federal officials literally exploded to 1,215. Since then, the climate has somewhat calmed down, but the number of reports remains high. According to Fedpol, “the tone remains very violent and the content of the threats very worrying”.  

The federal police particularly point to social media, where debates on polarising topics are conducted without restraint and with a certain sense of impunity.  

Politicians targeted during elections and votes

Especially during election campaigns, like the one this autumn, politicians experience a period of intense media attention. In addition to insults and threats, it is common for posters to be torn down or smeared.



For example, in the canton of Fribourg, posters from the Radical-Liberal Party were defaced with the inscription “don’t vote for Nazis”. In Zurich, an election poster of Andri Silberschmidt (Radical-Liberal Party) was smeared with symbols intended to associate the National Councillor with Adolf Hitler and National Socialism.  

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw2mKEpKJqa/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw2mKEpKJqa/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">Voir cette publication sur Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Cw2mKEpKJqa/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">Une publication partagée par PLR Fribourg_FDP Freiburg (@plrfribourg)</a></p></div></blockquote> <script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="550" data-lang="fr"><p lang="de" dir="ltr">Heute am Bahnhof Oerlikon. Ist dies die Toleranz der Toleranten? <a href="https://t.co/GifaK3lrzv">pic.twitter.com/GifaK3lrzv</a></p>&mdash; Thomas Aeschi (@thomas_aeschi) <a href="https://twitter.com/thomas_aeschi/status/1699768597382394272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">7 septembre 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>


And yet, election campaigns are usually not as heated as strongly polarising votes. In 2021, during the campaign for the pesticide initiatives, for example, there was a very toxic climate with numerous death threats, insults, and posters that were defaced or set on fire. A Green Party politician even had to be placed under police protection after a television debate.



Hatred against elected officials

When there is a lack of manners in the Grand Council

The last legislative period in the Ticino Parliament was also marked by aggression and disrespect: the reflections of some deputies.  

“Stop playing the fool!” “I understand that you have a greater need to learn the language…” “But do we want to put on this show? I’m leaving, I’m sorry.” This is a small selection of exclamations that echoed in the hall of the Ticino Grand Council during the last days of the previous cantonal legislature. The same ones that lead to some reflection on the fact that it was not a very brilliant legislature, neither in terms of the debate nor in terms of education in the dialectic in the chamber: personal attacks, aggression, rudeness inevitably lead to drifts, to the loss of control and discussion.  

On this topic, we have gathered the thoughts of four parliamentarians who did not stand for election again. Maristella Polli, for example, left the Grand Council after 16 years a little bitter: “When you address State Councillors, you should not address them with ‘You, Vitta!’… You should not address your colleagues in Parliament, saying ‘the political stupidity of you colleagues…’”. The Radical-Liberal deputy also highlights other examples of lack of good manners: “You don’t come to the Parliament to chat while a colleague is giving a speech”, just as “you don’t keep going in and out, or even going to the bar, to drink or smoke a cigarette…”.  

Claudio Franscella, for his part, cites the lack of respect as the reason why “we have experienced very harsh debates that went beyond the acceptable level”. The Centre deputy, who was also the Council President in this legislature, sees another problem in the political fragmentation and the stronger presence of deputies from smaller political forces. For them, “the parliamentary session becomes the only opportunity to make their opinion heard, also in the media, and to increasingly confront”. This has changed everything, he argues, “but also because the way of communication has changed”.



https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/worthy-orange-tortoise_it_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

SEIDISERA of 16.03.2023: Ticino's Grand Council, "Can't debate anymore" / CSR

Michele Foletti, who has also been the President of the Grand Council, observes at the end of his parliamentary career that the deputies “are more interested in having space and visibility on social media than in debating”. The ability to debate has decreased, according to the Lega deputy, “because one shouts their own slogans into the room, without even listening to what someone who does not share the same opinion has to say”.



According to Daniela Pugno Ghirlanda, who is leaving the Grand Council after seven years, the situation has worsened. She sees the reason for this in the “attitude that those who behave badly have understood everything”. This creates the feeling “that there is no possibility of understanding because the terrain is not suitable for it”. Therefore, the Social Democratic representative wishes for the future: “Do few things, but do them thoroughly. And that people listen to those who have expertise in a certain area.”  

Disputes between elected representatives

Find out where you stand

How does one discuss the Middle East conflict?

https://pilot-prod-videos.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/en/marxist-emerald-porcupine_de_DEEPGRAM-WHISPER.vtt

How can society constructively discuss the Middle East conflict? SRF News spoke with two experts from the Zurich Institute for Interreligious Dialogue.

SRF News: How do you perceive the current discussion?

Hannan Salamat: I perceive that there are fewer and fewer spaces where shades of grey are allowed. My observation is that people think that they have to take a clear side in a conflict that has so many dimensions and so many sides, and they have to have a position. And what scares me is that there is less and less room for both/and, it's becoming an either-or.

Diversity of opinion means disagreement, and dialogue plays a crucial role.

The terrible events of October 7th are interpreted completely differently in their cause by some. How does one start a discussion there?

Dina Wyler: With humanity. One does not have to be an expert on the Middle East. The tricky thing is that we want to deny each other our grief. As long as we do that, we cannot talk about the conflict at all. We must acknowledge the great suffering that so many people are currently experiencing. And we can only lay the foundation for a dialogue by showing this radical solidarity for each other.

Hannan Salamat, you visit schools and advise teachers on how to talk about the Middle East conflict. It’s about mediation, how do you do that specifically?

Salamat: Specifically, it’s about the culture of argument. In a plural society, there is no harmony. This means that we have different opinions, our stories have different perspectives. Diversity of opinion means disagreement, and dialogue plays a crucial role. How do we, as a society, argue constructively with each other? Where do we want to go, how do we want to live together?



We think we have to win the argument in a discussion.

Wyler: And if I may add, we need to learn to change perspectives, especially in such an incredibly complex conflict like the one in the Middle East. And above all, we must also acknowledge that multiple perspectives are valid.



Why do many people find it so difficult to discuss nuances?

Wyler: That’s the big question. I believe it’s because we think we have to win an argument, because for many people, especially those affected, there’s a lot at stake. We no longer listen to each other, but speak in complete silos about two narratives, which may both be true to some extent. We need to manage to give space to all these different voices.



One could heretically say that it’s not that important how we in Switzerland discuss the Middle East conflict. What is your response to that?

Wyler: This seemingly heretical question is, I believe, also deceptive because it very much has to do with us here in Switzerland, in Europe. We read about anti-Semitic incidents, which are increasing all over the world. Anti-Muslim racism is on the rise. We are part of this population where these things are happening. Hannan and I are not Middle East experts. But we are part of Swiss society and we have a vision of what this society should look like and how we should and can best interact with each other. And everyone is responsible for that.

The interview was conducted by Sandro Della Torre.

How to discuss the Middle East conflict?

Why anti-Semitism is still alive, "disjointed and more fearsome than before"

Since the attack of Hamas on Israel, all of Europe is on high alert, for fear of a return of anti-Semitism. How justified is this fear? And why is anti-Semitism still so widespread many years after the Holocaust?

We talked about this with Giacomo Jori, an extraordinary professor of Italian Literature at the University of Italian-speaking Switzerland, deputy editor of the “Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa” and co-director of “Lettere Italiane”. Jori coordinates the scientific activities of the “Judaica” center of the Goren Monti Ferrari Foundation.

Professor, let’s start from the beginning. What is anti-Semitism?

Years ago, I dealt with an Italian author, Mario Lattes, who quoted some verses from the Book of Esther to describe anti-Semitism: ‘And there is a people scattered among the other peoples, in all provinces of your kingdom, whose laws are different from those of all other peoples; and they do not adhere to the laws of the king, so it is not expedient for the king to let them live.’ So in the Bible there is already an awareness of the difference of a people that becomes the object of persecution.

Europe has survived the Shoah also thanks to its memory, thanks to the dozens of witnesses who told what had happened, so that this darkness would never repeat itself. Is this memory no longer sufficient?

No, that is no longer enough and it never was, as the blood shed in recent decades shows us; moreover, we have to come to terms with the fact that the number of witnesses is decreasing from generation to generation. The inevitable disappearance of witnesses requires new strategies to immunise people against racist violence and anti-Semitism. Even today, it is crucial to refer to the capital texts of the witnesses. I am thinking in particular of ‘Se questo è un uomo’ by Primo Levi.

In your opinion, how much influence does the very old anti-Jewish prejudice, which is inherent to Christianity, still have today? Luther published the treatise ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’ in 1543. With the Counter-Reformation, the Roman Church then introduced ghettos and the Inquisition. Soon, anti-Jewish thinking was transferred from the religious to the political, until it turned into the contemporary anti-Semitism. Does all this have an influence on the current return of anti-Semitism?

I do not believe that it is a mere inheritance of anti-Semitism that has matured in Christian circles. These do not seem to me to be the right coordinates. The violence that we have to witness today has other reasons.  

But can we speak of a return of anti-Semitism today?

Yes. One only needs to follow the news. Swastikas on synagogues, the destruction of tombstones, and many other forms of violence are anti-Semitic gestures that are frightening, even if no state is behind it, as in Hitler’s times. The scattered anti-Semitism of today is therefore so terrifying because it is unpredictable, unorganised, difficult to combat and recognise. I repeat: behind this new violence there is no recognisable ideology, but a general xenophobia, hatred and frustration that lead to violence. I would say it is an anti-Semitism that arises from hatred of the different and becomes xenophobia and racism.  

Back to today: How do we distinguish protests against the actions of a government, e.g. that of Netanyahu, from anti-Semitism?

This must be done, and it must be done by letting reason prevail and taking into account that Israel does not coincide in every respect with the Jews and their historical and cultural heritage. Since 1948, Israel has been a state on the international stage. Therefore, when considering Israeli actions, one must first apply the categories of reason and politics, not the emotional and affective ones. One should bear in mind that Israel was created as reparation for a genocide, and this history of origin makes it a unique state, about which we must think even more carefully and attentively. But it remains a state, whose behaviour in history is political.  

If anti-Semitism is back, or if it never went away, what are the remedies?

As I mentioned earlier, I would focus on written reports and also on films, but on classics and not on fiction. Art and thought will have to take the place of testimony; they will be our ‘testimony’ as European people and citizens.

