Introduction
The question of why people discriminate against Jews is an age-old question. It is a seemingly simple question, but there has been considerable disagreement on the answer. This is not surprising because the causes of discrimination against any minority, religious or otherwise, are complex and often crosscutting. Social scientists have long disagreed over the root causes of the phenomenon, and discrimination against Jews is certainly no exception. The case of discrimination against Jews is further complicated by the fact that it is a controversial political issue.
This study seeks to focus on the academic aspect of the controversy. That is, we seek to avoid normative issues and instead focus on empirics. We ask empirically testable questions about what causes discrimination against Jews. We draw on several types of academic literatures to inform us on both what questions we should ask and how to understand our empirical findings.
More specifically, this study uses new data to address this question and to examine the causes of discrimination against Jewish minorities in 76 countries between 1990 and 2014. In a small number of countries, including Barbados, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Panama, and Suriname, we find no discrimination either by governments or society. This is important because the question of what causes discrimination also requires an explanation for situations where no discrimination is present. In the other 71 countries, at least some discrimination is present. Often this discrimination against Jews is quite substantial. Thus there is a great amount of variation across countries in how much discrimination is present against Jews. This makes the question of the causes of this discrimination pertinent. That is, as discrimination against Jews differs from country to country, we need to ask why there are high levels of discrimination in countries like Greece, Russia, and Turkey, on one hand, and none in Barbados, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Panama, and Suriname, on the other.
This question is also pertinent because levels of discrimination against Jews are rising. Recent country-level examinations in the United States and Europe find that levels of incidents of harassment and attacks on Jews have been rising.1 These include high-profile lethal attacks against Jews, such as the Paris attacks in 2015 and the 2018 attack on the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, which are likely a consequence of this process. They also include numerous reports of harassment, vandalism, graffiti, and violence. This study’s empirical results confirm
this anecdotal and country-specific evidence and show that between 1990 and 2014 there has been a measurable rise in discrimination against Jews.
We examine a wide range of causes. We find that factors such as government support for religion, the presence of anti-Israel sentiments in a country’s population, and anti-Israel voting by a country’s government in the United Nations all predict levels of discrimination. However, the most consistent predictor of discrimination against Jews by both governments and society is the proportion of a country’s population which believes in conspiracy theories of Jewish power and control over society, the economy, the media, and politics. These causes are not mutually exclusive; that is, these factors are not competing explanations. Rather, they likely work in combination to influence levels of discrimination against Jews.
It is critical to be clear that the factor we are seeking to explain in this book is discrimination against Jews, not anti-Semitism. That being said, we argue that anti-Semitism is a critical factor in explaining why people and governments discriminate against Jews, though it is certainly not the only one. In fact, there are many potential motivations for discriminating against religious minorities, which we discuss in more detail later in this chapter and in Chapter 2. These other potential causes of discrimination are common to Jews and other religious minorities. Anti-Semitism, however, is unique to Jews. Various definitions of anti-Semitism focus on “perceptions” of Jews or “hatred of Jews” that can result in negative behavior toward Jews. Thus, anti-Semitism is primarily a belief, ideology, or motivation. Discrimination, as defined in this study, constitutes concrete actions taken against a minority. Thus, while anti-Semitism is a central element of this study, we consider it an explanation or motivation for what we are seeking to explain—discrimination against Jews.
More precisely, the empirical portion of this study focuses on forms of discrimination that can and have been measured. This is because they are overt actions taken against Jews in the real world. Our independent variables—the factors which we posit cause discrimination against Jews—are also factors with tangible measurements. These include factors that theories on anti-Semitism posit are the avenues through which anti-Semitism can cause negative actions to be taken against Jews. These include religious motivations, anti-Israel sentiment, and belief in conspiracy theories about Jews.
That being said, while the purpose of this study is to explain discrimination against Jews rather than anti-Semitism per se, our findings have important implications for our understanding of anti-Semitism. That is, as discrimination against Jews is at least in part a consequence of anti-Semitism, a better understanding of the processes which result in this discrimination will inevitably shed light on the role of anti-Semitism in causing discrimination, as well as the nature
of anti-Semitism itself. We discuss this issue in more detail in our concluding chapter.
This approach also has deep roots in the literature on anti-Semitism. Many writers in this literature see anti-Semitism as a negative attitude toward Jews and see discrimination, on the other hand, as a negative action against Jews. From this perspective, one can hold anti-Semitic worldviews and not discriminate against Jews, while another can discriminate against Jews but be less anti-Semitic in general (see Wistrich, 2020; Waldman, 1956; Weil, 2005).
We argue that this approach also has at least one additional advantage. It allows us to avoid many unnecessary complexities, debates, and normative conundrums on the nature and extent of anti-Semitism while trying to answer what we consider to be an empirical question—why do people and governments discriminate against Jews? In Chapter 3, for example, when we find an empirical connection between government support for religion and discrimination against Jews, this correlation exists regardless of whether these government policies and the actions taken against Jews are anti-Semitic.
We also consider the relationship between discrimination against Jews and discrimination against religious minorities in general. While we focus on discrimination against Jews, this discrimination does not occur in a vacuum. Many of the causes of discrimination against Jews are also causes of discrimination against other identity groups. Studies which compare discrimination and antiminority sentiment across minority groups generally find that levels of discrimination and prejudice toward one minority group in a country are related to the levels of prejudice and discrimination against other minority groups in the same country (Fox, 2016, 2020; Zick et al., 2011).
Thus, theories and empirical findings which focus on other identity groups or religious minorities in general certainly can add to our understanding of discrimination against Jews. Similarly, many of the findings of this study can potentially shed light on the causes of discrimination against non-Jewish religious minorities and identity groups. In addition, some of the discrimination against Jews is likely part of larger processes that also influence discrimination against other religious minorities.
Thus our approach can be seen as shaped like an hourglass. We draw from a wide range of theories and perspectives. Then, just as the hourglass forces its sand to pass through a narrow hole at the bottom of its wider upper glass, we focus these theories on the narrower question of what causes discrimination against Jews. We then take these results and discuss their implications for discrimination against a broader range of identity groups and religious minorities, much as the sand in the hourglass fills the wider lower glass. Of course we also discuss the implications of these results for our understanding of the causes of discrimination against Jews and the nature of anti-Semitism.
Finally, we selected the three theories we test in this book based on two criteria. First, all of them are central theories within the anti-Semitism literature that have parallels within the general social science literature on the causes of discrimination. Second, they are theories which can be tested with the available data. As we note, this is not meant to imply that other factors such as populism or economic deprivation do not influence discrimination against Jews. Rather, we seek to focus on three central theories that can be tested empirically.
Perhaps one of the oldest documented discussions of discrimination against Jews is the Haggadah, the book which is read at the Passover Seder. While it focuses on the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt, its discussion repeatedly addresses the eternal problem of enmity against Jews. Perhaps one of its most pertinent statements on the topic is that “in every generation they stand against us to destroy us and the Holy One, blessed be He, saves us from their hand.”2 History and the findings of this book demonstrate the accuracy of this statement.
The discussion at the Passover Seder begins with four questions, as do we. The rest of the discussion in this chapter seeks to provide an overview of the book by asking these four questions: What is this book about? What are the patterns of discrimination against Jews? What are the causes of discrimination against Jews? And what is unique about this book?
What Is This Book About?
It is important to reiterate that this book’s focus is the causes of discrimination against Jews. This raises the issue of to what extent discrimination against Jews overlaps with anti-Semitism. There is no agreement within the literature on this issue. While some consider the two the same (e.g., Johnson, 2016; Fein, 1987; Marcus, 2013), others consider them distinct topics, at least in theory (e.g., Wistrich, 2020; Waldman, 1956; Weil, 2005). As we discuss in more detail in Chapter 4, the same is true of the overlap between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
It is not the purpose of this book to settle the issue of the normative overlap between discrimination against Jews, anti-Semitism, and anti-Zionism. In fact, we do not think it is possible to do so, for two reasons. First, this is a highly politicized normative issue. Second, this study does not have the tools to settle this issue.
Given this, it is important to be transparent about how we address this issue in our study. That is, while we are unlikely to settle the debate over what antiSemitism is and how it relates to discrimination, we can be clear on how we approach the issue in our study. Our focus is to understand the causes of discrimination against Jews. We see anti-Semitism as one of the potential causes of this
discrimination. While we address many theories on the causes of discrimination which are not specific to Jews, the theoretical and empirical focus of our study are those causes related to anti-Semitism. Thus, when this study addresses antiSemitism, it is as an independent variable that is used to predict our dependent variable, discrimination against Jews. Thus we see the relationship between the two as causal.
We posit that this approach has merit because we identify at least four interrelated differences between the two concepts. First, while there is little dispute that anti-Semitism can be defined as hatred of Jews, the devil is in the details. As we discuss in more detail in Chapter 4, there is considerable dispute over whether anti-Zionism is considered anti-Semitism and, if so, what manifestations of anti-Zionism are anti-Semitic. This dispute takes place in both the academic and political arenas. As we outline in more detail in this chapter and in Chapter 2, discrimination can be measured more objectively in a manner that avoids political disputes and, to a lesser extent, academic disputes. More specifically, while academic disputes on nearly any topic are perhaps unavoidable,3 the discrimination data we use in this study are part of a larger project that is widely used and cited. These measures are applied to all religious minorities across the world, not just Jews (Fox, 2020). This lends our measures of discrimination a measure of neutrality and objectivity.
Second, anti-Semitism is something specific to Jews, just as the concept of Islamophobia is specific to Muslims. Discrimination, in contrast, can apply to a wide variety of groups, including Jews and Muslims. This book focuses specifically on the causes of two forms of discrimination against Jews that we measure empirically for Jewish minorities in 76 countries. Specifically, we look at government-based religious discrimination (GRD) and societal religious discrimination (SRD). These concepts are measured by variables taken from round 3 of the Religion and State-Minorities data set (RASM3). The RASM3 data set defines GRD as restrictions placed on the religious institutions or practices of minority religions that are not placed on the majority religion, and SRD as societal actions taken against religious minorities by members of a country’s religious majority who do not represent the government (Fox, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2020).
We discuss these variables and their definitions in more detail in Chapter 2. What is important for our purposes here is that these variables are not intended specifically for Jews and provide objective measures of discrimination that can and have been applied to other types of religious minorities. In fact, Fox (2020) examines the general causes of discrimination against 771 religious minorities in 183 countries using this data. This includes all minorities that meet a population cutoff of 0.2% of the population of the country in which they are present, as well as some smaller minorities. The minorities studied include Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Bahai, and Sikhs, among
others. Fox (2020) finds that most of these 771 religious minorities experience discrimination. In Chapter 2 we use this data to compare levels of discrimination against Jews to the other religious minorities present in the 76 countries in which RASM3 includes a Jewish minority.
Thus using discrimination as our dependent variable allows us to compare discrimination against Jews to discrimination against other religious minorities. We argue that this is important because discrimination rarely occurs in a vacuum. Jews are rarely the only minority that experiences discrimination in a country. This ability to compare allows us to discern what is unique about discrimination against Jews, and what is similar to discrimination against other religious minorities.
The third difference relates to the first two. It is possible to objectively measure discrimination while avoiding political and academic disputes. In addition to the data used in this study, other studies such as Grim and Finke (2011) have also developed measures of religious freedom, and several projects have developed measures of human rights, discrimination, or freedom (see, for example, Cingranelli & Richards, 2010; Gurr, 1993, 2000; Facchini, 2010). All of these measures, including this study’s RASM3 measures, can be criticized for focusing on some forms of discrimination rather than others. However, as they are transparent and explicit on exactly what is being measured and how it is measured, they can be considered objective measures. While some might prefer measures with different foci or content, the measures themselves are generally accepted as valid. In contrast, there is considerable controversy on how anti-Semitism is defined beyond the simple concept of hatred of Jews.
The fourth difference between anti-Semitism and discrimination in general is normative. While few would dispute that it is morally wrong to engage in discrimination against religious minorities, the normative weight of discrimination in general and anti-Semitism is, in practice, different. As we show in Chapter 2, most countries discriminate. This includes all Western democracies other than Canada. Thus, religious discrimination is utterly common. While we may agree that discrimination is wrong, it occurs all over the world, often with little discussion or sanction. Anti-Semitism, in contrast, is currently far more likely to be criticized and sanctioned than discrimination in general.
In this context we view theories on anti-Semitism as a resource for understanding the causes of discrimination against Jews. That is, theories on why people are anti-Semitic and how this anti-Semitism can cause harm to Jews are, in effect, theories on the causes of discrimination against Jews. Given this, this study’s findings on the causes of discrimination against Jews certainly have implications for our understanding of the nature and influence of anti-Semitism. Thus the two, while distinct, are fundamentally related.
Thus it is important to address the definition of anti-Semitism. The most commonly accepted definition of anti-Semitism, both in academia and politics, is the working definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). It reads:
Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.4
It also provides the following illustrative examples:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective—such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.5
It is important to be clear that this definition is not universally accepted and, as we discuss in more detail in Chapter 6, there is significant resistance both in politics and academia to elements of this definition.
While in this book we follow this definition of anti-Semitism, it is not directly relevant to the empirical portion of our study. This is because, as we note, this study’s empirics focus precisely on the causes of discrimination against Jews. Both these causes, our independent variables (which we discuss in more detail in the following section), and our dependent variables—discrimination against Jews as measured by the RASM3 GRD and SRD variables—can be measured objectively. This means that when we identify empirical links between these factors and discrimination against the 76 Jewish minorities included in this study (which are all Jewish minorities included in the RASM3 data set), these findings are valid, no matter one’s opinion on the definition or even existence of anti-Semitism.
Put differently, when in Chapter 2 we find, for example, that discrimination against Jews is rising, this phenomenon is occurring whether or not the discrimination is motivated in part or in whole by anti-Semitism, or whether the discrimination itself is considered anti-Semitic. Similarly, when we find in Chapter 5 that a higher proportion of a country’s population which believes in conspiracy theories about Jewish power will lead to more discrimination against Jews, that finding is present and valid regardless of whether these beliefs or the discrimination are classified as anti-Semitic. Thus, the questions of what is anti-Semitism or who is anti-Semitic are not critical to the empirical portion of our research.
By analogy, it is possible to argue over why the sun rises in the east every morning and sets in the west every evening. The scientific explanation is that the sun is not actually rising and setting. Rather, the Earth is rotating on its axis so different parts of the Earth face the sun over a 24-hour period and the sun only appears to rise and set based on our point of observation. The ancient Greeks believed that the sun was the wheel of Apollo’s chariot which Apollo rode across the sky each day. Yet, whichever explanation is correct, from our point of observation, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west. We know when to expect
light and when to expect dark. This observation remains identical regardless of the explanation for it.
This study similarly seeks to determine basic relationships through the use of empirical evidence and methodology. More specifically, we seek to determine whether discrimination against Jews is empirically connected to discrete independent variables, including how strongly states support a single religion, how many people in a country are religious (Chapter 3), how often states vote against Israel in the United Nations, the proportion of a country’s population that holds anti-Israel sentiments (Chapter 4), and the proportion of a population that believes in conspiracy theories of Jewish power (Chapter 5). We neither seek nor claim to provide definitive answers of what is and is not anti-Semitic. However, as we discuss in Chapter 7, our study’s results certainly have implications for the debate over this issue.
Accordingly, we take no stand in this book on a number of issues related to anti-Semitism. These include but are not limited to:
• How is anti-Semitism defined? While we follow the IHRA definition to the extent that we require a definition of anti-Semitism in this study, this specific definition in no way influences either our research design or our findings. Theories of the causes of anti-Semitism, most of which existed before the IHRA definition was created, do influence our research in that they make predictions on what causes discrimination against Jews, and we test several of these theories. However, we posit that these theories are independent of any single definition of anti-Semitism.
• What types of actions, speech, or discrimination are anti-Semitic? Our goal is to use objective measures of discrimination and its theorized causes to determine which of these theorized causes are accurate. Whether any discriminatory actions are themselves anti-Semitic or are caused by anti-Semitic motivations is independent of this objective.
• What types of criticism of Israel are anti-Semitic? Two of our independent variables include whether survey respondents have a negative view of Israel or a positive view of Palestine. Whether these variables influence levels of discrimination is independent of whether these views and actions are in any way influenced by anti-Semitism or in and of themselves constitute antiSemitism, however defined.
Discussions of anti-Semitism can be a political and academic minefield. At least among the mainstream, no one wants to be accused of anti-Semitism (Topor, 2018). Even actions and events that most rational people would attribute to anti-Semitic motives can cause considerable controversy and emotion. One
of the goals of our research design is to avoid this quagmire to whatever extent is possible. We limit our discussion to questions that can be asked objectively and answered using objective methodology and measures. While we realize that our findings will likely contribute to the larger debates surrounding anti-Semitism, between the covers of this book we seek to remain within the bounds of objective empirical social science research.
We posit that this approach has three advantages. First, it avoids the many complicated and controversial issues surrounding what is considered antiSemitic. Second, it focuses on empirics rather than normative issues. This allows us to focus on factual issues that can be resolved objectively. Third, despite this more limited scope, the results still provide evidence that is relevant to the normative debates surrounding anti-Semitism and its definition. That is, providing empirical evidence for what does and what does not cause discrimination against Jews cannot be anything other than relevant to the academic and political discussion of anti-Semitism and its causes.
This book is also about applying the methodologies of comparative politics and the empirical social sciences to answer the question of why people and governments discriminate against Jews. This methodology assumes that it is possible to compare across cases and detect patterns. This includes comparing Jewish minorities in different countries, as well as comparing the case of Jewish minorities to the cases of other religious minorities. This is not in any way intended to deny that the case of Jewish minorities is unique. In fact, we posit that it is the uniqueness of this case which increases the power of comparative methodology. The insights gained from comparative methodology come from determining what elements are different and what elements are similar across cases.
Also, sometimes patterns that are not obvious in one case become easier to identify when they are more obvious in another. For example, in Chapter 4 we examine theories on how Muslims become stigmatized as a security threat and how this leads to discrimination against them. This, we argue, can shed light on the processes involving how tropes of Jewish dual loyalty and association with the state of Israel can stigmatize Jews and lead to discrimination. While the reasons for the stigmatization of Jews and Muslims are different, we argue that the dynamics of this stigmatization are similar. Thus, while both the Jewish and Muslim experiences as minorities are unique, comparing these cases can lead to greater insight, which involves applying theories developed to understand the Muslim case to better understand the Jewish case. In addition, this comparison also leads to insights that help to better understand the Muslim case.
Another implication of this methodology is that it is evidence-based. We collect data to test various theories on what might cause discrimination against
Jews. This includes data on levels of discrimination and data which measures the theorized causes. While no social science data can ever be called perfect, all data in this study are from recognized sources, and we are fully transparent on how the data are obtained and used. Thus, our results, in our eyes, are results based on the use of the scientific method. We start with a theory, test it, and reevaluate it in light of the results. As we discuss in the following, some theories hold up better than others, but all of the results provide new information that allows us to add depth to our understanding of the causes of discrimination against Jews.
This is not to imply that there have been no previous empirical studies on the causes of anti-Semitism. However, the vast majority are based exclusively on survey data and look at what type of person is likely to have anti-Semitic attitudes. Some of the factors connected to anti-Semitism in these studies include religious identity, religiosity, an authoritarian personality, left-right political affiliation, sexism, racism, and other types of prejudices, among others.6 Some compare levels of anti-Semitism to other factors, such as homophobia, anti-immigrant attitudes, racism, sexism, and anti-Muslim attitudes (Zick et al., 2011). Other studies simply track the number and type of incidents over time in a single country or group of countries, or survey what proportion of Jews have experienced anti-Semitism. While most studies in these genera do not empirically test the causes of these incidents, one study connects anti-Semitic incidents on US college campuses to the presence of anti-Israel activities and organizations on those campuses.7
However, our study’s approach is different. Our dependent variable measures real-world discrimination, rather than attitudes, though it does look at the prevalence of some types of attitudes in society as potential explanations for discrimination against Jews. Also, most previous empirical studies focusing on anti-Semitism are limited to a single country or a small number of countries. This study of 76 countries includes nearly every sizable Jewish population in the world outside of Israel.
Finally, while this book focuses on why people discriminate against Jews, we also address larger issues. Our findings have implications for our understanding of the general causes of discrimination against religious minorities, not only Jews. An important assumption of comparative methodology is that what occurs in one case may also occur in another. If it doesn’t apply in other cases, this allows us to ask why and to learn more about the general phenomenon. In addition, we posit that the general literature on the causes of discrimination against religious minorities and the anti-Semitism literature have been relatively isolated from each other. In this book we seek to increase the cross-fertilization between these literatures and believe that each can gain insight from the other.
What Are the Patterns of Discrimination against Jews?
In Chapter 2 we discuss in detail how we measure discrimination against Jews and compare the results to discrimination against other minorities in the same countries. We find that patterns of discrimination against Jews are unique. This is not, in itself, unique, as all categories of minorities experience unique patterns of discrimination (Fox, 2016, 2020). In the case of the 76 Jewish minorities included in this study, what is particularly unique is that while SRD is comparatively high, levels of GRD against Jews are mostly below the mean levels for all minorities. In Christian-majority counties, SRD is higher against Jews than against any other religious minority. In Muslim-majority countries, it is higher than against all other minorities except Christians. GRD against Jews in Muslim-majority countries is lower than against any other minority. In Christian-majority countries, GRD against Jews is lower than against all other minorities except “other” minorities—those which are not Jewish, Muslim, or Christian.
This is a particularly interesting relationship because Grim and Finke (2007, 2011) theorize that SRD should be a cause of GRD. Thus, if SRD is high, so should be GRD. Other studies find that this SRD-GRD relationship applies only under certain circumstances, particularly where the minority is seen as some form of existential threat and this threat triggers the SRD-GRD relationship (Fox, 2020). Yet, as we discuss, particularly in Chapters 4 and 5, many do see Jews as a threat, so the absence of this relationship remains interesting and indicates that it is likely that the perception of Jews as an existential threat have not yet become sufficiently mainstream for the SRD-GRD link to be activated. In addition, the question of why SRD is higher than GRD against Jews is also important. We theorize that the legacy of the Holocaust deters governments from discriminating against Jews, though while this deterrence lowers levels of GRD, it does not inhibit it altogether. However, this deterrence is less effective at the societal level.
What Are the Causes of Discrimination against Jews?
The theories on the causes of discrimination against Jews can be divided into two categories: theories which focus specifically on Jews, mostly derived from the literature on anti-Semitism, and theories which are intended to apply to all religious minorities. However, the line between these two types of theories can often be difficult to draw. This is because most theories from the anti-Semitism literature have parallel theories in the general literature on religious discrimination. Nevertheless, the application of many theories in the general literature to explain discrimination against Jews can have aspects that are unique to Jews.
This raises three additional and related questions regarding how we should understand the causes of discrimination against Jews. First, should the focus of the study be on Jews specifically, or should we examine the causes of discrimination against all religious minorities and, in this context, seek our answers to the causes of discrimination against Jews? Studies examining the general causes of discrimination against religious minorities are a valid approach. The quantitative literature includes several such studies, which we draw upon for insight in this study (e.g., Grim & Finke, 2011). In fact, as we have noted, the data used in this study comes from the RASM3 data set, which has been the basis for several such studies (e.g., Fox, 2016, 2020). However, there has been no cross-country study of this nature focusing on Jews. Thus, this study’s approach of focusing on Jews is a novel approach with the potential to add a new perspective to the issue.
Second, should the study focus on general theories of the causes of discrimination to find its explanation for discrimination against Jews, or should it focus on theories specific to Jews? We consider each of these approaches valid and therefore seek to use both. In doing so, we compare and contrast the insights of these two bodies of theory and demonstrate that there is considerable overlap and agreement between them on the causes of discrimination—both against Jews and in general. However, we also find that each body of theory has much that can enrich the other.
Third, how should we address the relationship between what causes discrimination against Jews and what causes discrimination in general? We take a classic comparative politics approach to this issue. While our focus is specifically on the causes of discrimination against Jews, as we noted earlier, we believe that our findings have wider implications. An important insight of the comparative politics approach is that we can examine a specific case and use it to provide insights which may be generalizable to other cases. Accordingly, we begin by applying a mix of theories, those specific to the Jewish case and more general theories, to understand the causes of discrimination against Jews. We then take our results and ask to what extent they may shed light on the general causes of discrimination.
Theories Specific to Jews
In Chapters 3, 4, and 5 we focus on three types of causes of discrimination which we draw from the literature on anti-Semitism: religious motives, anti-Zionism, and belief in conspiracy theories about Jews. More specifically, the literature on anti-Semitism posits that these are causes or manifestations of anti-Semitism, and we argue that they can also be seen as causes of discrimination against Jews. While we derive these theories from the literature on anti-Semitism, we demonstrate that all of these potential causes and motives are addressed to some extent
in the general literature. The parallels are likely more obvious and clearer in the case of religious motives than they are for anti-Zionism and conspiracy theories, but they still remain present for the latter two.
As we noted earlier, we’d like to be clear that these are not the only theories on the causes of discrimination against Jews that can be found in the anti-Semitism literature. For example, theories of the racial inferiority of Jews, such as those propagated by the Nazis, figure dominantly in that literature. This type of motivation is prominent in right-wing populist discourse. Given this, it is not surprising that there is also a growing literature on the link between populism and antiSemitism (Wodak, 2018). While our empirical focus is on these theories, in our discussion of the literature we discuss a wider array of theories. Also, we know of no cross-country data which would allow us to test the validity of the propositions that racial ideology or populism influence discrimination against Jews.
The concept that religious exclusivism and theology can result in discrimination against religious minorities is certainly not unique to potential motives and causes of discrimination against Jews. As we discuss in more detail in Chapter 3, this is an argument found both in the general literature and the anti-Semitism literature. In fact, the existing empirical literature finds that governments which are more closely connected to religion also tend to engage in more discrimination against all religious minorities (Fox, 2008, 2015, 2016, 2020; Grim and Finke, 2011). In Chapter 3 we confirm that this finding specifically applies to GRD against Jews and, to a lesser extent, that government support for religion also predicts SRD.
However, SRD against Jews is lower in countries in which the populations are more religious. This is interesting as it means that in countries where the societal actors who could potentially engage in discrimination against Jews are more religious, they tend to engage in less discrimination. We argue that this is likely a result of two societal dynamics. First, in an age where all religions are challenged by secularism, there is more respect among religious individuals for members of other religions who are religious. Second, a major cause of discrimination against religious minorities, especially in the West, is secular ideologies which are intolerant of many religious practices, especially those of minority religions. Countries which have more religious people will likely have fewer secular people with this motivation to discriminate.
Of course, this is likely at least partially contextual; that is, in societies where secularism is on the rise, religious people may feel more threatened and thus band together to support each other. However, this is less likely to be the case in highly religious societies where secularism is not seen by religious people as a serious threat.
In contrast, societal levels of religiosity have no impact on GRD. We posit that it is logical that one aspect of government policy—state support for religion—is
more likely to influence another form of government policy—government-based restrictions on the religious institutions and practices of minority religions— than are societal factors.
We posit that anti-Zionism can motivate discrimination against Jews based on two mechanisms. First, it can be a cover for other motives for anti-Semitism; that is, it can be a “politically correct” excuse or alibi for engaging in actions that have other motivations and would otherwise be seen as inexcusable. Being against Israel can be considered politically and socially acceptable, so if those with other motivations are able to frame their actions in this manner, it can provide an efficient camouflage. Yet, as we discuss in more detail in Chapter 4, many anti-Zionists place on all Jews the responsibility for the evils Israel is perceived to commit or, in some cases, blame all Jews for the existence of the state of Israel. This can lead to retribution or punishment in the form of discrimination, which is the second mechanism by which anti-Zionism can lead to discrimination against Jews (Topor, 2018, 2021).
The parallels to these mechanisms in general social science theory are less obvious but nevertheless present. Perhaps the clearest parallel is the concept that individuals can be blamed for actions taken by other members of their identity groups. As we discuss in more detail in Chapter 4, many consider all Muslims collectively responsible for terror attacks that are perpetrated by Muslims. Securitization theory posits that this has caused Muslims to be “securitized,” which justifies actions against them that might otherwise be considered unacceptable. We argue that perceptions of Jews as disloyal agents of a foreign power may initiate a similar process. We also argue that the process used to stigmatize Muslims for alleged security reasons can also be used to stigmatize Jews even if security is not an issue.
Another literature focuses on discrimination against those seen as nonindigenous. Jewish loyalty toward Israel, combined with the perception that Jews are foreigners and perhaps linked to a foreign Israeli threat, might be another parallel mechanism from the general literature.
The empirical tests in Chapter 4 do not directly measure anti-Zionism. Rather, they test the impact of anti-Israel government behavior and anti-Israel sentiments in society on discrimination against Jews. We find a limited link between these factors and discrimination. States which vote against Israel in the United Nations engage in more GRD, but not SRD, against their Jewish minorities, but only in Christian-majority states. States in which the population holds both anti-Israel and pro-Palestine views engage in higher levels of both SRD and GRD, but the link between these attitudes and SRD is weak. Thus, whatever the mechanism, anti-Israel behavior and attitudes influence discrimination against Jews, but this link is far stronger for government-based discrimination than for societal discrimination. We posit that this implies that the many manifestations
of SRD against Jews which are anecdotally attributed to anti-Zionism or antiIsrael sentiment are likely, at least in part, to be motivated by more classical forms of anti-Semitism.
It is important to remember that anti-Zionism is a complex phenomenon. Many of the anti-Zionist arguments against Israel can be seen as anti-Semitic tropes that migrated from more classical anti-Semitism. It can also be a cover for other prejudices against Jews. Yet people can legitimately criticize Israel without being either anti-Semitic or anti-Zionist. Thus, even though anti-Israel sentiments and behavior have a measurable impact on discrimination against Jews, this likely represents a more intricate relationship and is influenced by other factors, many of which we describe in this chapter and elsewhere in this book, particularly Chapter 4.
The final type of theory specific to Jews that we test in this study is conspiracy theories of Jewish control and power. Perhaps the most common is the type of conspiracy theory that posits that Jews seek or possess some form of world domination. Many of the others are subcategories of this one or are otherwise related to it. Other types include blood libels, causing wars revolutions and atrocities, well poisoning, the murder of religious figures, and controlling the media and finance.
One interesting thing about conspiracy theories and Jews is that while there are certainly many conspiracy theories whose conspiracies do not involve Jews, it is difficult to think of any people, nation, or entity which has consistently been the subject of persistent conspiracy theories for millennia across the world. While social science theory can and does address how stereotypes influence discrimination, the extent to which these stereotypes apply to Jews is arguably unique. In this case, the difference in degree is arguably a difference in kind.
We posit that there are two related mechanisms linking conspiracy theories and discrimination against the objects of these theories. Specifically, postulating a sinister and powerful group acting clandestinely behind the scenes for their own benefit to the detriment of others will be related to discrimination in two manners. First, from the perspective of those who believe in these conspiracies, the Jews pose a significant threat, and discrimination is a response to this threat. This response can be seen as a punishment or as a form of retaliation for the perceived insidious and evil behavior of the Jews, or it can be seen as a way to counter their powerful and menacing influence. Second, these conspiracy theories may simply be an indicator that prejudice and hatred toward Jews are at high levels. In this scenario, the conspiracy theories are not the cause of discrimination but, rather, are a symptom of the underlying prejudices and hate which cause the discrimination.
This study finds a strong correlation between belief in conspiracy theories about Jews and discrimination against them. Specifically, both levels of SRD and GRD are strongly predicted by the proportion of people in a country who believe
that Jews have too much power or control over (1) the business world, (2) international finance markets, (3) global affairs, (4) the United States government, (5) the global media, and (6) the world’s wars.
This link between belief in Jewish conspiracies and discrimination against Jews is the clearest and most consistent result found in this study. We argue that this has a number of important implications. Whether belief in conspiracy theories is itself the cause of discrimination against Jews or a symptom of the underlying causes of this discrimination, on a practical level the extent to which people believe in them is the most important and accurate indicator that societies and governments will likely discriminate against Jews.
Both the anti-Zionist and religious brands of anti-Semitism can stimulate belief in conspiracy theories about Jews. This indicates that when these types of motivations, as well as others which we do not empirically examine in this book such as populism, pass the threshold of inspiring popular belief in conspiracy theories, the negative consequences for Jews increase dramatically. Thus, every public figure who propagates these conspiracy theories or even just turns a blind eye to them is substantially contributing to a process that creates real and negative consequences for Jews not only in their own country, but also in other countries. That is, because this type of speech act tends to be reported internationally, the impact can often be international.
This result also speaks to the potential danger of conspiracy theories in general. This is important because there has been little previous research on the consequences of conspiracy theories to the objects of those conspiracy theories. We find that, at least in the case of the Jews, when conspiracy theories are widely believed, this creates a real danger for the objects of those conspiracy theories, assuming that those objects are identifiable and vulnerable. This is not always the case. For example, space aliens and the CIA are the objects of numerous conspiracy theories. The former are arguably difficult to identify and locate, and the latter have a reasonable level of insulation and protection from harm. Jews, in contrast, are easy to locate and have been demonstrated on multiple occasions to be vulnerable to acts of discrimination and violence. This is also true of many types of minorities, including those based on religion, ethnicity, immigration status, political belief, gender identity, and sexual preference. Thus, potentially, this finding has a wide applicability.
General Theories of Discrimination
The potential causes of religious discrimination against any religious minority are multiple and complex. While this study focuses on those causes of discrimination that are most associated with discrimination against Jews, levels of
