|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
In recent years, particularly in the aftermath of the October 7th massacre, Swedish Member of the European Parliament Alice Teodorescu Måwe has emerged as a leading voice defending Israel and speaking out against the proliferation of antisemitism across Europe.
Teodorescu Måwe chairs the European Parliment’s Working Group Against Antisemitism (WGAS), a body established in 2012 as cross-party platform to improve the European Union’s efforts to combat antisemitism in all its contemporary forms.
In the following interview with the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) Executive Director of European Affairs Shannon Seban, Teodorescu Måwe offered her insights on the rise of anti-Zionism as the most prevalent manifestation of antisemitism in Europe today, the ideological forces driving the “perfect storm” of modern-day Jew-hatred, and what must done to safeguard Jewish life on the continent.
Why do you believe anti-Zionism has become one of the most prominent forms of antisemitic hatred in Europe today?
Let me begin by making an important distinction. Criticism of Israel, like criticism of any democratic government, is both legitimate and necessary. Democracies thrive on debate, scrutiny, and accountability. The problem arises when criticism of Israel transforms into something fundamentally different: Holding Israel to standards that no other democratic government is held to, and thus effectively denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination.
Zionism, at its core, is the belief that the Jewish people, like other peoples, have the right to national self-determination. One may disagree with specific Israeli governments, policies, or political leaders. But when the Jewish people alone are denied a right that is routinely granted to every other nation, we have moved beyond political criticism and into discrimination.
What makes contemporary anti-Zionism particularly concerning is that it often provides socially-acceptable language through which old antisemitic attitudes can be expressed, as a recent University of Gothenburg study showed. Open hatred of Jews is, for the most part, widely condemned in Europe today. Yet hostility toward the Jewish collective, embodied in the existence of Israel, is frequently tolerated or even celebrated in environments where traditional antisemitism would be unacceptable.
We increasingly see Israel being judged according to standards applied to no other nation. We see Jewish individuals being held responsible for the actions of a foreign government. We see Jewish students pressured to distance themselves from Israel simply because they are Jewish. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader trend in which anti-Zionism serves as a vehicle for hostility toward Jews.
Europe has witnessed this before. Antisemitism has always adapted to prevailing social norms. It changes its vocabulary while preserving its underlying prejudice. Today, anti-Zionism has become one of the most common ways in which antisemitic attitudes are expressed, normalized, and spread throughout European society.
You have spoken about a “perfect storm” of contemporary antisemitism. What do you mean by that, and how does anti-Zionism fit into this picture?
When I describe contemporary antisemitism as a perfect storm, I mean that several different ideological currents are reinforcing one another simultaneously.
The first source is a form of anti-Zionist antisemitism that emerged largely from the political traditions of the Soviet Union and the communist bloc. During the Cold War, hostility toward Jews was often reframed as hostility toward “Zionists.” Soviet propaganda systematically portrayed Zionism as uniquely evil, colonialist, racist, and conspiratorial. Many of those narratives survived the collapse of the Soviet Union and continue to influence parts of the political left today.
The second source originates in parts of the Middle East, where antisemitic conspiracy theories and hostility toward Jews have often been intertwined with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Through large scale migration, many of these ideas have found their way into Europe.
The third element is Europe’s longstanding tendency to underestimate antisemitism until it becomes impossible to ignore. Time and again, European societies have failed to recognize antisemitic narratives when they appear in new forms. We become accustomed to the language, the imagery, and the rhetoric, and only later realize that something profoundly dangerous has been normalized.
These three forces increasingly reinforce each other. The anti-Zionist rhetoric of certain Western activist movements often mirrors narratives that originated in authoritarian regimes or extremist environments. At the same time, social media allows these ideas to spread at unprecedented speed and scale.
The result is that many Jews today feel that large parts of the public sphere have become hostile territory. This includes universities, political movements and social media platforms. Many Jews no longer feel comfortable expressing even the mildest connection to Israel, not because they fear disagreement, but because they fear intimidation, exclusion, or abuse.
That is why I describe it as a “perfect storm.” The danger does not come from a single source. It comes from multiple ideological streams converging into a broader climate in which anti-Jewish hostility becomes normalized.
Critics often argue that labeling anti-Zionism as antisemitic risks limiting free speech or shutting down debate about the Middle East. How do you respond to that concern?
I believe the opposite is true. Honest democratic debate depends on our ability to define concepts clearly and identify prejudice when it appears.
No serious advocate against antisemitism is suggesting that criticism of Israeli policies should be prohibited. Israelis themselves engage in intense political debates every day. Criticism of governments is normal and healthy. But the important question is where criticism ends and discrimination begins.
A useful guideline can be found in the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted or endorsed by many democratic governments and institutions. The definition makes clear that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country is not antisemitic. However, applying double standards, denying Jewish self-determination, or holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions may indeed cross the line into antisemitism.
Consider a simple example. If someone argues that France, Poland, Sweden, or Palestine has a right to exist, but that the world’s only Jewish state does not, then we are no longer discussing policy. We are discussing a discriminatory standard applied exclusively to Jews.
Similarly, when demonstrators chant slogans calling for the elimination of Israel, this is not criticism of a government. It is opposition to the continued existence of a state inhabited by millions of Jews.
Freedom of expression is essential. But freedom of expression does not exempt ideas from criticism. Identifying antisemitic elements within anti-Zionist rhetoric does not suppress debate. It enriches debate by forcing us to confront uncomfortable realities.
Indeed, if democratic societies become incapable of recognizing antisemitism when it is disguised in politically fashionable language, then we have learned all too little from our history.
What should European leaders, institutions, and citizens do to confront anti-Zionist antisemitism and ensure that Jewish communities can live openly and safely in Europe?
The first step is moral clarity. We must be willing to recognize anti-Zionist antisemitism for what it is when it crosses the line from political criticism into the demonization, delegitimization and exclusion of Jews.
Education is obviously crucial. Despite all our efforts since the Holocaust, many Europeans today lack a basic understanding of both Jewish history and contemporary antisemitism. For instance, many recognize the symbols of 1930s antisemitism, but struggle to identify modern versions of the same prejudice.
There was a striking recent example from Sweden. Last month, a district court considered a case involving social media posts depicting Jews through ancient antisemitic imagery — Jews portrayed as venomous snakes attacking defenseless children. These are among the oldest antisemitic tropes in European history. Yet the court concluded that such imagery could not necessarily be considered common knowledge among the Swedish public today.
That fact alone should concern us deeply. If society no longer recognizes classical antisemitic stereotypes when they appear before our eyes, then our educational efforts have clearly fallen short.
We must help one another to remember what is truly at stake. The question is not only whether Europe’s Jews have a future in Europe. The question is whether Europe remains faithful to its own democratic values. And we have to act with courage, we must all strive do dare to “be a mensch,” even if there is a cost associated with standing with our Jewish brothers and sisters against all the hate.
