Antisemitism as a Subject of Legal Psychology

Eighty years after the liberation of Jews from concentration camps and the end of the Shoah, hostility toward Jews remains a persistent and evolving challenge in our society. The Swiss-German research paper “Antisemitismus als Gegenstand der Rechtspsychologie” (Antisemitism as a Subject of Legal Psychology) by Endrass et al. (2024) offers a thorough and well-reasoned foundation of exploration of antisemitism, particularly in relation to its relevance for legal and forensic psychology. It has been published as Open Access and can be accessed at DOI: 10.1026/0939-9062/a000013. While the study stays within the methodological limits of a literature analysis, it provides valuable insights into the historical development, psychological mechanisms, and legal implications of antisemitic attitudes and behaviors. Its balanced approach makes it a meaningful contribution to both academic research and practical applications.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Antisemitism

The study begins by situating antisemitism within its historical trajectory, emphasizing its ability to adapt to changing societal conditions. In earlier periods, antisemitism was primarily religious in nature, rooted in theological conflicts between Judaism and Christianity. Jews were often scapegoated for societal crises, accused of crimes such as desecrating religious symbols or engaging in ritual murder – a myth perpetuated under the term “blood libel.” These accusations were used to justify discrimination and violence against Jewish communities during the Middle Ages.

As societies secularized during the Enlightenment, religiously motivated antisemitism began to decline in some regions. However, prejudice against Jews did not disappear; instead, it transformed into racial antisemitism in the 19th century. Influenced by pseudoscientific theories about race and biology, this form of antisemitism portrayed Jews as an inferior race whose characteristics were immutable. Figures like Wilhelm Marr contributed to this shift by framing Jews as a racial threat rather than merely a religious minority. This racial ideology played a central role in the systemic discrimination and genocide perpetrated during the Holocaust.

The paper acknowledges that while the Holocaust marked an extreme manifestation of antisemitism, prejudices against Jews have persisted in various forms since then. Postwar societies have seen the emergence of Holocaust denial and other attempts to undermine historical accountability. These developments demonstrate how antisemitic attitudes can adapt to new cultural and political contexts, making them an ongoing challenge for social cohesion (cf. blog post “Antisemitism History I“).

Contemporary Forms of Antisemitism

The authors explore how antisemitism manifests in modern societies, with particular attention to conspiracy theories that perpetuate harmful stereotypes about Jewish influence and power. Unlike many other forms of prejudice that portray marginalized groups as weak or inferior, antisemitism often attributes disproportionate power and control to Jews. This duality – where Jews are simultaneously vilified and portrayed as omnipotent – has made antisemitic narratives particularly resilient over time.

Historical conspiracy theories such as “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” serve as foundational texts for modern iterations. These writings falsely claim that Jews orchestrate global events for their own benefit, portraying them as manipulative figures controlling media, finance, or governments. In contemporary discourse, these ideas are often repackaged under terms like “global elites” or “Zionists,” allowing individuals to propagate antisemitic beliefs without explicitly referencing Jewish identity.

The study examines the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories during periods of societal instability or crisis. People facing uncertainty often seek simplistic explanations for complex problems, making them more susceptible to narratives that identify scapegoats. Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias reinforce these beliefs by filtering information in ways that align with preexisting prejudices. Legal psychologists play an important role in analyzing these dynamics, particularly when they lead to hate crimes or extremist behavior motivated by antisemitic ideologies.

Antisemitic Conspiracy Narratives and Their Codes

The research then explores how antisemitic conspiracy narratives persist through specific language codes and substitutions. For instance, terms like “Rothschilds,” “global elite,” “Wall Street,” or “global financial elite” often function as coded references to Jews in contemporary conspiracy discourse. Similarly, conspiracy theories about a “New World Order” (NWO) frequently incorporate antisemitic elements, suggesting that this supposed new order is orchestrated by Jewish interests.

These conspiracy narratives are particularly concerning because they’re widespread. In Germany, approximately one-third of the population considers it plausible that secret powers control the world. The research explains that both personality factors and contextual elements contribute to belief in conspiracy theories. People under stress or feeling a loss of control are more likely to perceive patterns in random events or to identify conspiracies in complex situations.

The paper points out that almost all conspiracy narratives promoted by violent extremists have an antisemitic core, making this an important area of study for legal and forensic psychology in understanding pathways to radicalization and violence.

Zionism and Antisemitism: Complex Intersections

One nuanced aspect of the paper is its discussion on the relationship between antisemitism and antizionist rhetoric. The authors try to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies – which is part of normal political discourse – and antizionist narratives that deny Israel’s right to exist or apply double standards to its actions compared to other nations.

Zionism is contextualized within its historical origins as a movement for Jewish self-determination in response to widespread persecution in Europe during the 19th century. The paper explains that modern Zionism developed as a national movement from Eastern European Jewry, comparable to other national movements of the time, such as the Polish movement that sought a state for the Polish people divided between the Russian and German empires.

The research addresses how Zionism is sometimes falsely labeled as a colonialist movement of Western origin, noting that this characterization overlooks that it emerged as a response to the existential threats faced by Jewish communities, particularly in Eastern Europe. The paper distinguishes between criticizing specific aspects of Israeli policy, which is not inherently antisemitic, and denying Israel’s right to exist, which clearly crosses into antisemitic territory.

The authors highlight examples where antizionist rhetoric overlaps with classic antisemitic tropes. For instance, equating Zionists with Nazis would clearly trivialize both Jewish history and contemporary realities while reflecting hostility toward Jewish identity. Legal psychologists are tasked with analyzing these overlaps when assessing hate speech cases or incidents involving anti-Israel protests that escalate into harassment or violence against Jewish individuals.

Defining Antisemitism: Frameworks for Analysis

A significant portion of the study is dedicated to discussing definitions of antisemitism that are relevant for legal psychology and legal systems. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition is highlighted as one widely accepted framework that provides concrete examples of antisemitic behavior. These include Holocaust denial, accusations of Jewish control over media or finance, and holding Jews collectively responsible for actions taken by the State of Israel. The IHRA definition builds on the “3-D Test” developed by Natan Sharansky for distinguishing between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism: Demonization, Double standards, and Delegitimization. The authors note that statements like “Israel is a genocidal state” would be considered antisemitic under this framework, while allegations such as “The Israeli army commits war crimes in Gaza” – regardless of its factual accuracy (!) – would still be considered legitimate political speech, at least from a formal point of view. The authors do not elaborate further on this, but this example clearly demonstrates that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in no way restrict freedom of speech, as some critics claim (cf. blog post “Defining Antisemitism: The IHRA Framework“).

The authors also examine an alleged alternative framework, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA). The JDA takes a somewhat different approach, particularly regarding what constitutes antisemitism in relation to Israel. For example, under the JDA, criticism of Israel, even the (mere) demand for the dissolution of the Jewish state is not per se an expression of antisemitism (!). Furthermore, the JDA even states that criticism of Israeli policy is still not per se considered antisemitic, even if such criticism is inappropriate, disproportionate, boundless, unreasonable or could be seen as an expression of double standards (!).

Ethical Considerations for Psychology

The study emphasizes the ethical responsibilities of legal psychologists when addressing issues related to antisemitism. Prejudices like antisemitism not only harm Jewish communities but also undermine trust within broader societies by fostering division and scapegoating.

Psychological interventions aimed at reducing prejudice among individuals prone to extremist ideologies are one area where legal psychologists can make meaningful contributions. By understanding cognitive mechanisms such as dehumanization or moral disengagement, psychologists can develop strategies to counteract these tendencies before they escalate into violence.

Another ethical consideration discussed is the role psychologists play in educating policymakers about the psychological roots of antisemitic behavior. This includes advocating for educational programs that address implicit biases from an early age while supporting legal measures that hold perpetrators accountable for hate crimes.

Of particular significance is the paper’s assertion that the disciplines of psychiatry and (legal) psychology have a special ethical responsibility regarding antisemitism. This stems from the historical complicity of these fields during the Nazi era, when some practitioners provided pseudoscientific justifications for antisemitic policies and actions.

Memory Culture and Contemporary Challenges

The paper situates current antisemitism within Germany’s evolving relationship with its Nazi past. It notes how different generations have approached the Holocaust differently, from the immediate postwar desire to “move on” to the critical examination that began in the 1970s, sparked by events like the Eichmann trial and cultural touchstones like the “Holocaust” television series.

Despite decades of education and commemoration, the research identifies concerning trends in public attitudes. Surveys show that a significant portion of Germans believe Jews “still talk too much about the Holocaust,” reflecting a desire to draw a “final line” under the past. This resistance to ongoing remembrance coincides with narratives from far-right political figures who characterize Germany’s memorial culture as “foolish processing politics”.

The persistence of these attitudes underscores why continued engagement with antisemitism remains necessary, both at a societal level and specifically within the field of legal psychology.

Conclusion: Continuing Relevance for Legal Psychology

This research paper offers thoughtful insights into antisemitism by examining its historical evolution, psychological mechanisms, legal definitions, and ethical implications within legal psychology. Its detailed analysis provides useful perspectives for addressing antisemitism from a perspective of legal psychology.

For professionals working within legal systems or psychological fields – or anyone concerned with combating antisemitism – the findings serve as a reminder of why understanding antisemitism remains essential today. The paper makes clear that antisemitism represents a threat to social cohesion and deserves focused attention also from legal psychology. However, the authors also mark that despite the relevance of the topic, their literature analysis reveals that very little has been published on the subject in the field of legal and forensic psychology. Accordingly, the field of research is still very open.