Tallies, tricks, and truths

Myths and miscounts in German antisemitism statistics

Montecruz Foto, Creative Commons

Last December, Israel recalibrated its travel advisories concerning Germany, raising the risk level for Israeli citizens journeying to the country. This adjustment coincided with a notable surge in incidents of antisemitic hate crimes. During the third quarter of 2023, German authorities recorded 540 instances of antisemitic crimes, including 14 violent incidents, marking a significant increase from the 306 reported incidents during the same period in the previous year. Various media outlets, both within Germany and abroad, have quickly seized upon figures from the 'Statistics on Politically Motivated Crime,' curated by the Federal Ministry of the Interior (German: Bundesministeriums des Innern, BMI).

The BMI data suggest that in 2022, the overwhelming majority of antisemitic crimes, accounting for 83 percent, are attributed to the right-wing spectrum. From these findings emerges a seemingly familiar narrative: Germans, seeking scapegoats for Covid-related and other societal hardships, gravitate towards antisemitic sentiments, echoing their worst historical precedents. Proposed revisions to Germany's citizenship statutes and purported crackdowns on pro-Palestinian demonstrations have been expeditiously construed as manifestations of a compulsive guilt complex and an excessive preoccupation with Jewishness, which allegedly not only engender misdirected actions toward inappropriate targets, such as pro-Palestinian protesters or Muslim immigrants in general, but also lay bare a prevailing blind spot toward the enduring menace of right-wing extremism within the German socio-political landscape.

However, there is an issue with this narrative: it is false. Despite longstanding acknowledgments that reported numbers of antisemitic crimes attributed to the right-wing spectrum are consistently misrepresented, both government officials and media outlets seem to remain deliberately oblivious. This revelation is truly startling as the politically charged nature of these statistics poses a significant risk of distorting reality and hindering evidence-based efforts to combat antisemitism. Only recently has this issue garnered more attention and criticism. For instance, a collective of academics, who frequently scrutinize flawed statistics and their interpretations in the media, have highlighted this persistent distortion of facts as the 'Unstatistik des Monats' (Misleading Statistic of the Month).

According to the German Federal Criminal Police Office (German: Bundeskriminalamt, BKA), acts are classified as right-wing politically motivated crimes (German: Politisch motivierte Kriminalität-rechts, PMK-rechts) when there are indications, based on the circumstances of the offense or the perpetrator's attitude, that they can reasonably be attributed to a 'right-wing' orientation. This orientation typically involves appeal to concepts such as inequality or inferiority among individuals, ethnic nationalism, racism, or social Darwinism. Under this classification methodology of 'reasonable attribution,' any reference to the Holocaust or Nazi symbols automatically results in the offense being labeled as right-wing extremism or 'PMK-rechts,' regardless of the perpetrator's identity, and despite these symbols being utilized by Muslim and leftist extremists as well. This applies even in instances where individuals are demonstrably associated or sympathetic to Hamas and its supporters yet display symbols like a swastika or chant Nazi slogans.

One of the most pressing issues highlighted by the authors of the 'Unstatistik des Monats', among others, is the automatic categorization of unresolved cases under the right-wing or 'PMK-rechts' label, even when it might seem more appropriate to have a distinct category labeled 'unattributable' to accommodate such instances. This systematic misattribution practice not only distorts our ability to grasp the statistics reasonably but also clouds the genuine causes and their actual impact on antisemitic attitudes within society. Given the politically motivated crimes' low clearance rate, just above 40 percent in 2022, it's perplexing to observe such a significant proportion of total crimes being rather carelessly categorized as right-wing, thereby arguably representing the most substantial contributing factor within this category. Doubts about the validity of the BMI figures are compounded by other reports, such as those from the Federal Association of Departments for Research and Information on Antisemitism (German: Bundesverband der Recherche- und Informationsstellen Antisemitismus, RIAS), which revealed that 53 percent of hate crimes in 2022 lacked identifiable backgrounds. Notably, 21 percent of these crimes were linked to conspiracy ideology, a category conspicuously absent from the BMI statistics, and only 13 percent were linked to right-wing extremism.

Consider by analogy the following thought experiment: Imagine you are testing a new drug for potential side effects. You differentiate between 'adverse reactions' caused directly by the drug and 'adverse events,' which could occur randomly and be unrelated. There's also an 'unattributable' category. If you conveniently sweep all unattributable cases into the adverse event category, wouldn't that create a web of confusion? Don't you think regulatory bodies might perceive it as a dubious attempt to manipulate data, likely resulting in a good portion of skepticism and reluctance to approve the drug for market release?

The term 'right-wing' finds itself ensnared in a similar web of confusion, leading to a troubling erosion of its meaning. Its application has become reflexive within media circles, often deployed to characterize instances of antisemitic hate crimes, and at times, extended to encompass events of openly radical Islamist nature. While such misattributions may stem from negligence rather than malice, they shed light on a disconcerting trend: the tendency to overlook the nuances of antisemitism beyond the prism of right-wing ideology. This negligence not only reflects a bias in reporting but also underscores a broader societal blind spot towards the multifaceted nature of antisemitism.

The BMI statistics also starkly contrast with the experiences of victims of antisemitic hate crimes. For instance, a recent study conducted by the University of Bielefeld among Jews in Germany revealed that 81% of the incidents were perceived to originate from individuals identified as Arab or Muslim, whereas the BMI statistics for the same year accounted for only 2% of such incidents. Right-wing perpetrators accounted for 19% according to the Bielefeld study, juxtaposed with 94% in the BMI stats. Many respondents expressed a desire for the concern over antisemitism within the Muslim community to be taken seriously. This sentiment reflects the experiences of Jews across Europe, as well as polls conducted on the issue within the European Union.

The authoritative nature of BMI figures exacerbates this discrepancy, as it apparently leads some to delegitimize Jews' ability to assess threats themselves. When, in 2015, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany mentioned the danger of wearing a kippah in certain predominantly Muslim neighborhoods, he was swiftly rebutted by Berlin's Integration Senator Dilek Kolat, who stated that "90 percent of antisemitic incidents come from the right-wing scene."

Certainly, all of this is not intended to diminish the threat posed by right-wing extremism as a significant driver behind antisemitic incidents. Neo-Nazi atrocities like the Halle synagogue shooting serve as grim reminders of this reality, emphasizing that such occurrences are not mere anecdotes. Among the large number of unsolved cases, it is conceivable that many involve perpetrators from the right-wing spectrum, underscoring the need for continued vigilance and public education regarding this dangerous threat. However, it is imperative to embrace an honest and nuanced perspective when seeking to understand the multifaceted causes and motivations driving antisemitic attacks. This need is particularly pronounced as we confront a notable surge in manifestations of Islamist antisemitism, spanning from Ivy League college campuses to the streets of Hamburg and Sydney. Such an approach would not only aid in preventing future attacks from various hate-driven groups but also serve to counteract the misleading rhetoric perpetuated by far-right political agitators. These agitators often wrongly generalize all Muslim immigrants as harboring anti-Jewish sentiments, disregarding the fact that only a minority are responsible for perpetrating vicious hate crimes against Jews. Of course, the persistent misinterpretations of BMI statistics are incessantly exploited by far-right provocateurs to advance their malevolent political aspirations—it's high time to deflate their momentum and dispel these misconceptions.

Taken together, it is crucial to recognize that statistics should not be misused as mere tools to bolster political agendas or narratives, as some are prone to do. Regrettably, the current misuse of data is exacerbated by uncritical media coverage, which irresponsibly perpetuates prevailing misconceptions. Such trends are deeply concerning and should be promptly addressed. A rigorous and intellectually honest interpretation of these statistics is necessary to effectively combat antisemitic attitudes and ensure the protection of the very individuals these institutions, behind the statistics, are entrusted to safeguard.