DIFFERENT ANTISEMITISMS : ON THREE DISTINCT FORMS OF ANTISEMITISM IN CONTEMPORARY EUROPE – WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON SWEDEN

Executive Summary This article studies eight European countries, investigating how the level of antisemitism as registered in national populations relates to the perception of antisemitism by the Jewish population in the same country. Furthermore, the article empirically identifies distinct aspects of antisemitism, deconstructing the concept of antisemitism and breaking it up into three kinds of empirically differently based and composed antisemitisms (Note the plural!): classic antisemitism, Israel-derived antisemitism and Enlightenment-based antisemitism. The article also elaborates on some more general implications for the understanding of the character of antisemitism in contemporary Europe, and based on that, presents some perspectives on the development of the three distinct antisemitisms in contemporary Europe. 1

The countries included in the article are Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom, but a special focus is placed on Sweden 2 because the situation in Sweden concerning antisemitism and the Jewish population's reactions to perceived antisemitism is particularly illustrative of some of the main points we can make based on our investigations.

The two survey studies
In this article, we combine and compare results from two major, but differently focused crossnational surveys on antisemitism. On the one hand, we have data from the European Union Agency For Fundamental Rights' (FRA) survey of Jews' perceptions and experiences of antisemitism in eight EU-member states -Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and United Kingdom. 3 This survey was carried out in the second half of 2012.
On the other hand, we use the results from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey of attitudes towards Jews, with representative samples of each country's population, carried out at the end of 2013. This study covers 102 countries all over the world. 4 In this article we will focus only on the same eight EU-countries that were included in the FRA study. 5 In July 2013 -February 2014, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) carried out a survey of attitudes toward Jews with representative samples in 102 countries around the world. The respondents were presented with the following eleven propositions about Jews and asked to indicate whether they find the suggested proposition "probably true" or "probably false." 1. Jews are more loyal to Israel than to [the country they live in].
2. Jews have too much power in the business world.
3. Jews have too much power in international financial markets 4. Jews don't care about what happens to anyone but their own kind 5. Jews have too much control over global affairs.
6. People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave. 7. Jews think they are better than other people. 2 Both of the present authors are Swedes. Lars Dencik was part of the international research team that designed and carried out the FRA-survey, and also responsible for the study in Sweden. 3 FRA -European Union for Fundamental Rights. (2013). Discrimination and hate crime against Jews in EU Member States: experiences and perceptions of antisemitism. Vienna: FRA. 4 ADL -Anti-Defamation League. (2014). ADL Global 100. An Index Anti-Semitism. http://global100.adl.org. 5 The countries were selected by FRA among EU member states. Originally 9 countries were selected for a webbased survey among Jewish residents in the respective countries. Romania however had to be excluded from the analysis because data from there were too weak for statistical analysis. 8. Jews have too much control over the United States government. 9. Jews have too much control over the global media.
10. Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust. 11. Jews are responsible for most of the world's wars.
An index was constructed implying that respondents who answered that at least 6 out of the 11 statements are "probably true" are defined to harbour antisemitic attitudes.
It should be noted that we find the criteria according to the ADL-survey for judging a respondent as antisemitic to be quite crude. On the one hand, you may of course be antisemitic even if you just find 5 or even one of the statements being probably true, and on the other hand, there might be other reasons than antisemitism than to find it "probably true" that, e.g. "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust." We also note that at least nine of the eleven items the respondents are asked to take a stand on are part of what could be labelled classic antisemitic stereotypes.
In any case, results of the ADL-survey give some kind of indication on how the general population in a given country regards Jews. According to the index used, the level of antisemitism in each of eight European countries we are studying is distributed as in Figure 1: As can be seen, Hungary and France harbour the largest segment of what in the sequel will be labelled classic antisemites, whereas UK and Sweden have the smallest relative number of this kind of antisemites. In fact, Sweden ranks number 100 out of the 102 investigated countries all over the worldonly in Laos and the Philippines are there smaller proportions of the population in the country harbouring classic antisemitic stereotypes than in Sweden, according to this ADL-survey.
Unlike the ADL-survey, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights' (FRA) survey is directed exclusively to persons in eight EU-member states who regard themselves being in some sense Jewish. Those who do are asked several different questions about their experiences of antisemitism in their country of residence and about how they as Jews perceive antisemitism.
On the question of how big a problem they consider antisemitism to be in their country of residence, these Jewish respondents answered as shown in Figure 2: We can note that more than ¾ of the Jews in three of the countries, Hungary, France and Belgium, find antisemitism in their country to be a big or a fairly big problem. The Jews in UK and Latvia do so to a lesser extent. It is, however, noteworthy that as many as 20% of the Jewish respondents in Sweden perceive antisemitism to be a very big problem.
In this context, we should bear in mind that the city of Malmö, the third largest Swedish city, harbouring one of Sweden's three Jewish communities, has become infamous worldwide for an extraordinary number of antisemitic incidents in the years preceding the present study.
In further analysis, we have found that the perception of antisemitism as a very big problem in the Jewish respondents in Sweden reside.

Attitudes of antisemitism vs the perception of antisemitism
Is there a correspondence between the Jews' experiences and perceptions of antisemitism and the proportion of antisemites in the population of the country where they live?
Comparing the two measures we have presented so far, viz. the level of (classic) antisemitism in the general population and the degree to which the Jews in the same country perceive antisemitism as a problem in their country, we achieve the picture presented in Most remarkable in this picture are the large discrepancies in the UK and Sweden, between the proportion of the population harbouring classic antisemitic attitudes and the Jews' perception of antisemitism as a problem in the country. In the two most antisemitic countries, according to the ADL-measure, Hungary and France, the Jews perceive antisemitism as a problem by about factor 2 as compared to the level of antisemitism registered in the general population of the country, whereas the Jews in UK do so by approximately factor 6 and the Jews in Sweden, the country harbouring the smallest amount of classic antisemites, do so by factor 15. This may be further illustrated in Figure 4. To find out about that, we ask whether there are any differences in the extent to which the Jews of the countries have heard a non-Jewish person in the country utter what they perceive as an antisemitic comment? If there are no significant differences between the countries in this respect, this might indicate that there are statements other than the classic antisemitic ones that are perceived as "antisemitism" by the Jews in the country. Figure 5 is a picture of the percentage of Jewish respondents in the eight investigated countries who personally within the last 12 months have heard a non-Jewish person utter an antisemitic comment.

Figure 5:
It is noteworthy here that a vast majority in all of the eight countries, more than 9 out of ten of the Jewish respondents, have heard an antisemitic comment within the last 12 month. This is true also for Sweden and the UK, even if the figure in these two countries is slightly lower than in the other countries. The slight difference between the eight countries with respect to having heard an antisemitic comment is, however, very far from the vast difference between the UK and Sweden on the one hand, and the other countries investigated in this study on the other, when it comes to the proportion of antisemites in the country (cf. Figure 1). There are two possible reasons for this: the criteria for qualifying as an "antisemite" according to the ADL-survey is to agree to at least six of the eleven statements listed above. Thus, the criteria overshadows the fact that people who score below that level, e.g. by agreeing to five or four of the eleven statements may also have uttered this, and hence caused the Jews around them to hear an antisemitic statement.
Another, and in a way more challenging, reason is that something other than classic antisemitism can also be perceived as antisemitism by the Jews in the eight countries. This may particularly be the case in the UK and especially Sweden. This is illustrated in Figure 6. We have noted remarkable discrepancies between the registered level of classic antisemitism in the general population and the degree to which Jews in the same country perceive or experience "something antisemitic".
Are there also similar discrepancies between particular antisemitic attitudes in the general population and the degree to which the Jews of the country have actually been confronted with such attitudes?
We will investigate this by scrutinizing the relation between the registered frequency in the population of some of the singular components of classic antisemitism and the degree to which the Jews in the country report that they have actually experienced them.
Thus, we compare how often a Jew has heard that "Jews have too much power in the country" with the degree to which people in the general population of the country find such a statement to be "probably true". This is shown in Figure 7. The most striking element of this picture is the discrepancy when it comes to Sweden and the UK between the degree to which this stereotype is present in the population, on the one hand, and on the other, how often the Jews in the country have heard someone utter such a statement.
The same tendency also appears when it comes to the proposition that "Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes." Comparing how often a Jew has heard that "Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes" with the degree to which people in the general population of the country find it "probably true" that "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust" the picture as shown in Figure 8 emerges. Again we can notice a striking discrepancy with respect to the two columns when it comes to Sweden and the UK.
One might suspect that there is a consistent pattern with respect to this. To find out about that, we examine one of the classic antisemitic items, viz. that "Jews are responsible for the current economic crisis". This is shown in Figure 9: Comparing the Jews' subjective perceptions with the measure of the frequency of people in the general population in the respective countries who think it is probably true that "Jews have too much power in the business world", the same pattern of discrepancy emerges, albeit less drastically. In this connection, we may also note that there is a correlation between the extent to which the general population in a country harbours the viewpoint that, "Jews have too much power in the business world" and the proportion of Jews in the country who have heard that "Jews are responsible for the current economic crises". And again Sweden diverges from this general pattern by a somewhat larger discrepancy between the two measures, mainly consisting of a considerably lower presence of this stereotype in their population (9%). Still, 4 out of 10 among Jews in Sweden claim to have come across such an attitude within the last 12 months.
Do Jews in Sweden consistently confront antisemitic statements to a lesser extent than Jews in other European countries? With respect to the suggestion that "the Holocaust is a myth"it seems so. See Figure 10: This also holds true when it comes to the proposition that "the interests of Jews in our country are very different from the interests of the rest of the population". See Figure 11. And even more so when the suggestion is that "Jews are not capable of integration into your society". See Figure 12: What may explain this pattern? In order to find out, we need to investigate to what degree the Jews in the respective countries feel that they belong to the country they live in.
In doing so we find an opposite pattern to what we have found so far. Jews in Sweden, the UK and France, feel strong ties to the country they live in, whereas Jews in Germany and Latvia do so to a much lesser extent. The last observation is readily explainable by the fact that a large number of Jews in these two countries, Germany and Latvia, are fairly recent immigrants from Russia. But in Sweden, many of the Jews living there are Holocaust or post-Holocaust immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe and Sweden is actually the only European country where there are considerably more Jews today than before the Holocaust.
How is it that Jews in Sweden feel stronger ties to the country they live in than Jews in any of the other European countries?
When we take into account whether the respondents were born in the country they live in. the picture becomes even clearer. These relations are shown in Figure 13: Almost 1/3 of the Jewish respondents in Sweden were not born in the country; still, almost 85% of them say they feel that a strong sense of belonging to the country. The same holds for France. There are, however, differing backgrounds for the immigrated Jews' sense of belonging to France and Sweden respectively. The majority of Jewish immigrants to France come from the former French colonies in French-speaking Maghreb. Most of them had already identified as "French" while they were there, which of course facilitated their feeling of belonging to France when actually moving there. The Swedish case is radically different.
Most Jewish immigrants to Sweden come from Eastern and Central Europe, they didn't speak Swedish and had no previous identification with anything Swedish. Many were survivors of the Holocaust; others came a little later from communist-dominated Eastern and Central European countries. To many in both of these groups, being accepted and being given living opportunities in the well-developed Swedish welfare state became somewhat like having landed in the Promised Land. Many of them did well in Sweden and approved of identifying as Swedes.
In Hungary the relation is reversed: there, almost all the Jews, 95% of them, were born in the country, but only a little over 70% feel they belong to the country. Latvia is also a special casewhile over 70% of the Jews there were born in the country, only 40% of them feel they belong to contemporary Latvia.
If people do not feel they belong to their country of residence, it may depend on their being in some sense regarded as "strangers" by the other inhabitants of the country. By combining three measures, viz. the extent to which people in the country hold the opinion that "Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the country they live in", that "The interests of the Jews are very different from the interests in the rest of the population" and that "Jews are not capable of integration into the country" we may achieve a picture of the degree to which Jews are perceived as strangers in the country they live in. The picture looks like in Figure 14: We note that Hungary and Sweden are radical opposites in this respect. On all of the three measures we have included as indicators of "strangeness"whether Jews are seen as capable of integration into the country, whether they are regarded as having different interests than the general population of the country, and whether they are more loyal to Israel than to the country they live inthe population in Hungary scores higher than in any of the other European countries, and on all of them the population in Sweden scores lower than in any of the other countries. Thus in Hungary, where almost all Jews living there were born there, Jews are still seen as "strangers" by approximately 2/3 of the population, whereas in Sweden, where a large portion of the Jews are immigrants or children of immigrants, the Jews are regarded as a "strange" element in the Swedish society by "only" around ¼ of the Swedish population.
In this connection we may also note a correlation implying that in countries where less of the population holds the view that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the country they live in, the Jews living there feel a stronger sense of belonging.

Harassment and fear
Jewish respondents in the countries were also asked whether, in the last 12 months, they personally have been verbally insulted or harassed, or been physically attacked because they are Jewish.
As shown in Figure 15, we surprisingly found that more Jews in Sweden and France, than in any other of the investigated European countries, claim to have been physically attacked because they are Jews. As displayed in Figure 16 this picture also holds when we ask these Jewish respondents whether they personally have witnessed anyone being attacked physically or verbally because he/she is Jewish: These findings are remarkable in light of the fact that Sweden and France are among the countries where Jews have a stronger sense of belonging than in other countries (cf. Figure   13).
How is it that there is a seemingly positive correlation between the Jews' feeling of belonging to the country and experiences of physical attacks on Jews? One possible reason might be that although they are relatively well integrated in society, they are still regarded by some as a rather alien element in society, which is perceived as an ambiguity among those who seek "clarity" and "pure lines". The phenomenon of "intolerance of ambiguity" is well known in social psychology 6 and it has been scientifically established that the perception of ambiguity triggers aggression among those for whom it is too much of a psychological challenge to harbour ambiguities. 7 The fact that a majority of Jews in Germany were well integrated, not to say even assimilated, into the German society up to the Nazi Machtübernahme in 1933 did, as we know, not prevent them from being targets of harassment at first, and then extermination. Perhaps rather the opposite is true.
A relevant question, following the observation that Jews, particularly in Sweden and France, are attacked because they are Jews, is how this impacts them mentally? Will they be afraid? Will they manifest that fear by, for instance, hiding the fact that they are Jewish? And perhaps also by avoiding visiting Jewish sites more than Jews do in the other investigated countries?
We asked the Jewish respondents in the investigated countries if they ever avoid wearing, carrying or displaying items in public that might help people recognize them as Jews? The extent to which Jews in the eight countries do so is presented in Figure 17: Corresponding with the findings concerning experience of physical attacks, we find that particularly in Sweden and France, more Jews avoid wearing, carrying or displaying things that might help people recognize them as Jews in public than in the other countries.
We also asked the Jewish respondents "How often do you avoid visiting Jewish events or sites because you do not feel safe as a Jew there, or on the way there?" The answers are presented in Figure 18.

Assimilation and integration
In this context we should also note that Jews in the UK, where, like Sweden and France, Jews also feel that they strongly belong, display a completely different pattern when it comes to manifesting fear.
Striking is the contrasting pattern between Sweden and the UK. The Swedish data suggest that Swedish Jews both feel that they belong to their country of residence more than Jews do in any of the investigated countriesand still avoid displaying their Jewish identity more than Jews do in any of the other countries.
The Jews in the UK also feel that they strongly belong to the country they live in, almost to the same extent as the Jews in Sweden. But in contrast to Jews in Sweden, they do not avoid wearing things that might help people recognize them as Jews, nor do they avoid visiting Jewish sites and events because they do not feel safe as Jews there. At the same time, they report having been physically attacked or having witnessed others being physically attacked because of their Jewishness to a lesser extent than in most of the other countries in Europe. Why these differences? Perhaps an explanation can be found in the fact that Sweden until quite recently has been, culturally and religiously, a very homogeneous society, whereas the UK has long been a multicultural society where different minorities live in accordance with their own customs and traditions.
The different patterns concerning Jews in Sweden and the UK might be interpreted as expressions of assimilation, as opposed to integration. The Swedish data convey a picture that indicates that Jews in Sweden are subjected to a situation that triggers assimilation, whereas the British data show a picture that might be interpreted as indicating that the Jewish population there benefits from a condition that allows for integration.

The impact of the Israel -Arab conflict: Israel-derived antisemitism.
A puzzling question is the high level of avoiding displaying one's Jewish identity among Jews in Sweden, where classic antisemitic attitudes are almost absent in the general population, as compared to the relatively lower level of avoidance in Hungary, where antisemitic stereotypes are much more frequent than anywhere else in the investigated EU-countries.
If the prevalence of classic antisemitic attitudes in the population cannot account for these differences, then one needs to ask what else could explain it? Could it for instance have anything to do with the impact of the Israel-Arab conflict in their respective countries? Thus we ask our Jewish respondents to what extent the Israeli-Arab conflict impacts on how safe they feel as a Jew in the country they live in. The answers are presented in Figure 19: and France to a considerably larger extent than in the other countries, we should note that more than 1/3 of the Jewish respondents in Sweden state that the Israeli-Arab conflict affects their sense of security "a great deal"the third highest level after Belgium and Francewhereas the figure in Hungary is considerably lower, just over 12%.
As shown below in Figure 20 this discrepancy becomes even more marked when we focus on the tendency to blame Jews in European countries for anything done by the Israeli government.
In this context, the relatively recent concept "New antisemitism" comes to mind. This is a concept that attempts to capture a new form of antisemitism that has developed in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. we need a more precise concepta concept that does not include criticism of Israel or of Zionism as such.
We will call this particular kind of antisemitism Israel-derived antisemitism. For instance, Jews differ to some degree, between the countries, when the question is to what extent they find it antisemitic to criticize Israel.   In any case, there is no doubt that, regardless of their individual stand on Israel, the sense of security and degree of acceptance the Jews feel they have in all of the eight European countries involved in this study, is to a considerable degree affected by events in and around Israel and by the national and international reactions to these events.

"Aufklärungsantisemitismus"
Whatever the reason that Jews in Sweden diverge from the way Jews in other European countries regard critique of Israel, this is not the only aspect of more or less anti-Jewish discourse in which the situation in Sweden differs from the general picture in Europe.  have different driving forces than the other two sets of attitudes noted here. There might also be interesting and perhaps significant differences with respect to what kind of persons, socially, politically, intellectually and culturally, hold these different kinds of anti-Jewish sentiments. We will return to this question in the conclusion.

Perpetrators of antisemitic comments/attacks
What we have identified as classic antisemitic prejudices are, as shown in Figure 24 below, heard more frequently by Jews in Hungary than by Jews anywhere else in Europe. Statements of this kind are relatively rarely heard in the UK, less than in the other investigated countries.
Jews in Sweden are confronted by such ideas to a slightly lesser degree than Jews in general in continental Europe.

Figure 24:
We asked our Jewish respondents how they would describe the person or group that made the antisemitic comments/attacks they had been witnessing. In this connection, it should be emphasized that we do not know exactly what the respondents refer to when answering that question. It is the respondent's subjective opinion of what constitutes antisemitism that counts in this context.
What Jews in the different countries have perceived as an antisemitic comment/attack, may be attributed to different groups. We asked our respondents to describe the person or group that made the antisemitic comment or act they had recently experienced. The respondents were asked to categorize the alleged perpetrator into one of the following four groups:  A person with right-wing political views.
 A person with left-wing political views.
 A person with Muslim views.
 A person with Christian views.
In Figure 25 we see that Jews in Hungary, where the classic form of antisemitism is most predominant, mainly find the antisemitic attackers to be political right-wingers. This is also, but to a lesser extent, true for Italy, but much less so in the other investigated countries, and least of all in Sweden and France: Correspondingly, Jews in Hungary, to a considerably lesser extent than Jews in the other countries, attribute the antisemitic remarks to perpetrators from the left-wing of the political spectrum. In contrast, as shown in Figure 26, a majority of Jews in France, Italy and Belgium feel that the antisemitic comments they have experienced were carried out by persons with left-wing political views: The balance/ratio between supposedly left-wing and right-wing perpetrators naturally differ sharply between Hungary and France. Figure 27 demonstrates that their patterns are in fact almost opposite. Interestingly, the left-wing/right-wing ratio is almost equal in Sweden and the UKand many other response patterns resemble each other most closely in these two countries. In both countries, the Jewish respondents attribute almost 60% more of antisemitic comments to left-wingers than to right-wingers.

Figure 27:
In the on-going public debate, "Muslims" are often targeted as perpetrators of terrorist attacks. In many cases such attacks are openly motivated by something that has to do with Israel and actions taken by the Israeli state. Not surprisingly, as shown in Figure 28 below, we see that many Jews, particularly in France and Belgium, where some major events of this type took place shortly before our survey, attributed the antisemitic attacks to Muslims. To a lesser extent, this is also the case in the UK and Sweden (again on almost the same level). On 7 July 2005, some years before our study, a large-scale terrorist attack carried out by Muslim activists took place in London. On 11 December 2010 a failed terrorist attempt, including heavy bombs, took place in central Stockholm. The perpetrator was a Muslim activist who blew himself up, but miraculously did not succeed in killing anyone else. It is understandable that such major events may colour the perceptions of the Jewish population in these countries.
Closer analysis shows that the Swedish figure also relates to more recent events in the city of Malmöa relatively small city with only a tiny Jewish community, but with a relatively large proportion of Muslims originating from the Middle East. Malmö has become infamous for continuous harassment of Jews in the city, and for the (by now) former mayor's expressions of his tacit understanding for thatreferring to actions taken by Israel. In all of the participating countries, except for Hungary and Italy, the perpetrators of threatening antisemitic physical attacks are mostly identified as persons or groups with Muslim extremist views. In Hungary the group most frequently associated with antisemitic violence is the right-wing activists, and in Italy both right-wing and left-wing activists are seen more often as perpetrators of antisemitic violence than are Muslim extremists. However it should also be noted that in all the other countries, such as Belgium, France, Germany, UK and not least Sweden, persons with Muslim extremist views 11 are seen as perpetrators of antisemitic violence much more than any other of the groups we focused on.
In this connection, it is also interesting to note the discrepancy between those who are identified as uttering antisemitic comments and those who are identified as perpetrators of physical antisemitic violence and threats. Yet, while when it comes to antisemitic comments, two of the four groups we study here, viz. the group of people with left-wing views and the group of people with Muslim extremist views are "blamed" for being the source of such 11 Whether the person identified as such is in fact a Muslim extremist we cannot know.
comments to more or less the same degree 12 , this is far from so when the issue is physical violence and threats. On the contrary, physical attacks and threats are much more often attributed to those with Muslim extremist views than to any of the other groups we have discussed here. Hence, even if such attacks and threats do not occur frequently, the fact that such acts, if and when they occur, are perceived as caused by Muslim extremists, might constitute a much higher level of fear among Jews in areas where people with Muslim extremist views live (such as e.g. the city of Malmö in Sweden), than in areas where antisemitic comments are ubiquitous but where no significant number of people with Muslim extremist views live (such as in Hungary).
In this context a note of caution is warranted: What has been registered by the FRAstudy is who are perceived as the persons/groups who have uttered the antisemitic comment and/or launched the antisemitic attack or threat the responding Jews have experienced.
Perceptions are often coloured both by rumours circulating in the public debate and by the respondents' own stereotypes and prejudices. Nevertheless, these perceptions might of course still be accurate and regardless of whether they are or not, they constitute a significant sociological fact in and of themselves.

Discussion and conclusions
Our study has led us to distinguish between three different kinds of antisemitism. ideas about the individual's right to choose for him-/herself and concern for the well-being of animals involved in this critique of Jewish traditions. We use the term Aufklärungsantisemitismus to summarize this phenomenon. Figure 31 below shows the degree to which the three different antisemitisms are represented in the eight countries included in this study: Each of the three rather distinct antisemitisms we have discerned seems to be based on a particular and underlying "philosophy". It appears that they are also carried by sociologically rather distinct types of persons/persecutors. The ways these different forms of antisemitisms are manifested publically also seem to differ significantly. It is probably not too farfetched to suppose that the psychological driving forces triggering manifestations of these diverging antisemitic positions also differ among their respective persecutors.

Antisemitism and political exploitations of fear.
What could explain why the Jews in the country with the lowest level of classic antisemitism in the population, Sweden, manifest the highest level of fear and avoidance behaviour when it comes to manifest one's Jewish identity (cf. Figure 17 and Figure 18.)?
Two factors appear to be in operation here: one is the fact that Swedish Jews are, as are most inhabitants in Sweden, rather indifferent to religious practices and symbols as such. It is not so important for most Jews in Sweden to openly manifest their often very strong Jewish identity by carrying religious symbols, since their Jewish identity can for the most part be described as "ethno-cultural" rather than "religious". 13 With a very few individual exceptions, there are no openly orthodox Jews (in terms of dress-code, etc.) in Sweden. Sweden is a highly secularized country and symbols and manifestations of religious affiliation are not part of daily life in Sweden in any case.
The other significant factor in this context is the fact that public critique of Israel is almost ubiquitous in Sweden. Those groups and persons who are prone to Israel-derived antisemitism might find a kind of tacit understandinghowever misinterpreted!or even legitimization of their attacks on Jews in that framework. At the very least, many Jews in The purpose of those who attack Jews in Europe based on their hatred for Israel is clearly to arouse fear in the Jewish community living in these countries and they actually seem to be succeeding. This is also the idea of ISIS (Daesh): one effect of their actions is the "destruction of the Grey Zone", i. e. to create political polarization and disturb the fabric of civil lifein this case civil Jewish life.
One important point in this context is that even if violent attacks are not frequently experienced, the very fact that they have taken placeand that there is a constant threat that they may occur again!is enough to trigger fear. This might be comparable to a pyromaniac operating in a residential area. Most inhabitants in the area, or even neighbouring areas, would feel justified in the fear that the pyromaniac would choose their house for his next attackeven if the likelihood that this would indeed happen is actually low. Nevertheless, probably none of them would claim that the actions taken by the pyromaniac are only the "top of the iceberg" of an underlying "pyromanianism" in society. However, when it comes to Israel-derived antisemitic attacks on Jews, certain commentators tend to do so. Such attacks are oftenrightly or wronglyinterpreted as the top of an iceberg indicating an underlying and widespread antisemitism in society.
It should be observed that this is fully in line with the ambitions of the antisemitic perpetrators. It facilitates their exploitation of the attacks for their political purposes.
However, there are also other political forces that have an interest in exploiting Israelderived antisemitic attacks, often instigated by certain Arab/Muslim groups (as they have proven often to be,) for their own political purposes. One such political force is the populist anti-Muslim camp in the society. For them it is easy and more than tempting to generalize from single cases and to make claims like: "Look! That's how they are! We cannot have "these Muslims" around in our society!" Another political force also interested in generalizing and exploiting fear and antisemitic attacks for their particular political purpose, is the Zionist camp: "Look! That's how it is there (in Sweden/ Europe). Antisemitism is ubiquitous in these societies. It has just manifested its ugly face again. Jews cannot live there." (Implying: move to Israel, i.e. make

aliyah!)
Our question is: Is there really an "iceberg of antisemitism" underlying the violent antisemitic attacks that we can indeed observe? Or are we dealing with certain "pyromaniacs" creating fear among the inhabitants, plus certain, but seemingly opposed, political forces who are successfully exploiting such fears for their particular political interests?
Either conclusion is in need of empirical evidence to back it up.

Distinctions between the three antisemitisms.
Classic antisemitism, i.e. antisemitism based on traditional antisemitic stereotypes about Jews is most frequent in the Hungarian population, where it is also by far the predominant form of antisemitism. Those who manifest this kind of antisemitism are mainly identified as political right-wingers. This kind of antisemitism is primarily manifested in derogatory verbal personal or public remarks and acts of social discrimination.
As can be seen in Figure 31 this kind of antisemitism is present to a considerable degree also in the French population, but much less so in the UK and in particular Sweden. As can be seen in Figure  There might of course be persons who share all three sets of antisemitic attitudes. The popular idea that it is "the same old antisemitism" that again and again pops-up and "shows its ugly face" does not, however, find support in our study. It is more likely that there are actually three distinct antisemitisms in play. Of course, a number of persons might at the same time, for example, hold classic antisemitic stereotypes, be hostile towards Israel and in favor of prohibiting core Jewish customs such as the manufacture of kosher meat products and circumcision. However our data do not suggest that there should be a significant correlation between themrather that they are inspired by different underlying "philosophies", carried by different social groups, and manifested in different ways.