Germany reports spike in anti-Semitism
The number of anti-Semitic incidents recorded in Germany surged by around 77% in 2024 compared to the previous year, according to a report by watchdog RIAS. The authors linked the spike to 'collective blame' over Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza.
The document, published on Wednesday, recorded a total of 8,627 anti-Semitic incidents in the country last year, up from 4,886 in 2023.
'The extent and quality of anti-Semitic incidents in Germany in 2024 were very similar to the situation in the first months after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel,' the watchdog said, noting that the Gaza conflict 'became a pretext for many people to make anti-Semitic statements.'
'For Jews in Germany, anti-Semitism remains a phenomenon that shapes everyday life,' the report stated.
RIAS said the increase was especially visible in anti-Israel activism. It recorded 5,857 instances tied to anti-Semitism at protests, through posters and stickers, and at schools and universities. Cases targeting Jews and Israelis directly nearly tripled in two years, it said, from 331 in 2022 to 966 last year. The number of right-wing extremism-linked cases hit a record 544 since tracking began in 2020.
RIAS recorded eight cases of extreme personal violence, 186 assaults, and 300 threats. Reported incidents also included vandalized Holocaust memorials and anti-Semitic graffiti.
Germany's federal police also track anti-Semitic crimes, though only if they meet criminal thresholds. The agency logged a 20.7% increase in crimes against Jews in 2024 compared to the year prior, with 6,236 incidents.
Josef Schuster, the president of the Central Council of Jews, said the RIAS report 'bears witness to a daily life that is increasingly characterized by hostility and hatred for many Jews.' He called for more training for police and the judiciary to better identify and prevent these incidents.
German Anti-Semitism Commissioner Felix Klein, who previously linked the rise in anti-Semitic incidents to the country's growing Muslim population, said the Gaza war has come to 'serve as a justification' for anti-Semitic acts.
'It's a sad trend that every year we hear how sharply the number of anti-Semitic incidents has risen,' Klein said. 'The increase in 2024 was particularly striking – hatred against Jews in Germany has normalized to a shameful level.' He called for a stronger, more focused effort to counter the trend.
Germany is home to an estimated 125,000 Jews.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
11 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO boss demands huge military spending hike
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has announced that he will propose a new military spending target totaling 5% of each member state's GDP during the bloc's June summit in The Hague. This would mark a sharp increase from the current 2% floor. Since assuming office in January, US President Donald Trump has intensified demands that the bloc's European members spend more on defense. He has repeatedly accused them of failing to shoulder the burden equitably. According to NATO's latest report, ten of its 32 members do not even spend 2% of GDP on defense, while the US remains by far the bloc's biggest contributor. Speaking during a press conference following a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels on Thursday, Rutte said that they had 'agreed on an ambitious new set of capability targets,' which included 'air defense, fighter jets, tanks, drones, personnel, logistics and so much more.' The military bloc's chief proclaimed that he 'will propose an overall investment plan that would total 5% of GDP' in order to finance the outlined priorities. Under the scheme, 3.5% of each member state's GDP would go toward 'core defense spending,' with an additional 1.5% of GDP to be allocated each year for related investments, such as infrastructure and industry. Responding to a reporter's question as to whether there is any mechanism built into the plan that would help ensure its implementation in the long run, Rutte said that member states would 'commit to yearly plans showing the increase each year to make sure that you come to the new target of 5%.' In early May, Germany's Der Spiegel reported that the US ambassador to NATO, Matthew Whitaker, had warned member states that failure to agree to the new 5% benchmark could result in Trump declining to attend the summit in late June. Several weeks earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that NATO only makes sense 'as long as it's a real defense alliance, not the United States and a bunch of junior partners that aren't doing their fair share.' Also in April, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth warned European NATO countries that the 'time of the United States... being the sole guarantor of European security has passed.
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
15 hours ago
- Russia Today
NATO more powerful than Romans and Napoleon – bloc chief (VIDEO)
NATO is the 'most powerful alliance' in global history, Secretary General Mark Rutte has claimed, comparing the US-led bloc to the Roman Empire and Napoleon's army. Rutte urged member states to ramp up military spending to make NATO even 'more lethal' and better prepared to counter the alleged threat from Russia, which Moscow has long denied and ridiculed. 'NATO is the most powerful defense alliance in world history. It's even more powerful than the Roman Empire, and more powerful than Napoleon's empire,' Rutte stated at a press conference ahead of the NATO Defense Ministers meeting in Brussels on Wednesday. 'But the defense alliance needs maintenance and needs investment.' He laid out priorities to strengthen NATO's military, insisting they are essential to deter potential future aggression. 'We must make NATO a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance… We need more resources, forces, and capabilities so that we are prepared to face any threat,' he added. Rutte claimed that Russia could attack NATO within several years and said the bloc would not be prepared to defend itself unless it moves beyond its long-held 2% of GDP defense spending benchmark. NATO Chief Mark Rutte says the NATO 'defensive alliance' is more powerful than both the Roman Empire and Napoleon's Empire.1. NATO is essentially the US, and a collection of vassal states that submit to Washington's hegemony 2. The Chief of NATO compares the organisation he… Rutte said he would present member states with a new 'defense investment plan' at the upcoming NATO summit in The Hague. Russia has repeatedly rejected claims that it poses a threat to NATO, calling them 'nonsense' and accusing the West of stoking fear to justify more military spending. Moscow has also warned that the West's rearmament efforts risk escalating into a broader conflict in Europe. Russian officials have also drawn their own historical comparisons. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the West of trying to inflict a 'strategic defeat' on Russia 'just like in the times of Napoleon and Hitler' through its proxy war in Ukraine. He said the only way to avoid a wider conflict is for the West to abandon its militaristic path. Rutte's imperial comparisons have sparked criticism on social media. Media analyst Michael William Lebron, known as Lionel, wrote: 'NATO's chief boasting they're 'more powerful than the Roman or Napoleonic Empires' sounds less like diplomacy and more like 1939 Berlin. This isn't defense – it's imperial arrogance... Dangerous rhetoric.' John Laughland, a historian and specialist in international affairs, pointed out on X that 'The Roman and Napoleonic empires were not alliances, they were states. Or is NATO now an empire?' 'NATO 'Chief' sounds like Uncle Adolf back in 1939,' Irish journalist Chay Bowes added. British journalist Afshin Rattansi also weighed in, saying it's no wonder non-NATO states view the bloc as 'a hyper-militarist threat' after it 'destroyed Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so many others.' Rattansi called Rutte 'a puppet' of Washington and warned that NATO 'is a dangerous, hyper-militarist organization that is far from defensive.'
