Talk:History of the Jews in Sweden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions over claims at swedenandthejews.blogspot.com[edit]

Removed link to website: swedenandthejews.blogspot.com, because it was written with an strong bias and an unnuanced take on this issue, and there are not any other links to sites containing opposing viewpoints or a more nuanced perspective to counter the arguments made on this blog. Main argument against this site is that it fails to present the problem of anti-Semitism in Sweden in its true complexity, effectively painting it as more of a widespread societal problem than it is, with statements such as these anonymous quotes which are presented as though it was the entire country speaking:

"This hatred is … both understandable, reasonable and justified" Sweden 2003

“Jew pigs!” Stockholm, Sweden 2002

"DEATH TO THE JEWS!” Stockholm, Sweden 2004

Also, with loaded statements such as:

"In Sweden one can publicly scream and chant “Jew pigs!” and “Death to the Jews!”, unpunished"

The above statement isn't justifiabliy any more true in Sweden than in other democratic countries in general. In fact Sweden has instituted a law against hate speech much like other countries, which while not entirely effective in all cases, makes the above statements technically untrue from a legal standpoint.

This statement below is both disproportionate and offensive:

"So when is enough enough? A judenrein Sweden perhaps? Yes, at the beginning of the millennium little Sweden actually had some 18,000 registered Jews. That wouldn’t be too much for Israel to airlift out."

Clearly the writer has little respect for the democratic system in Sweden or the generally tolerant world view of the majority of Swedes. It ignores the fact (according to a major survey of 30,000) that while anti-Semitism is a problem in Sweden as elsewhere, the majority of Swedes are not anti-Semetic, and that the problem is largely confined to marginalized groups such as Muslims and far-right or far-left groups. The website also makes the argument that the entire Swedish media has an anti-Semitic bias, based on certain media criticisms of Isreal government policies, and makes accusations of anti-Semitism against prominent Swedish politicians and others based on similar criticisms of the Israeli government. While anti-Semitism is a problem in Sweden as it around the world, this topic should be addressed in a more nuanced, factual, and balanced perspective whether within the Wikipedia article itself or in the links on this page. It would be more appropriate to link to news articles or other similar references than to have this biased blog as the sole link about this topic. Perhaps then the site could be re-listed as an editorial site. G coen (talk) 04:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish law exists and protects minorities except Jews. The Swedish Justis Känslieter (JK) (sic.) Göran Lambertz judged that Jews and Muslims were bringing their problems to Sweden, and so he refused to prosecute the hate speech of the tape urging "Kill the Jews". He also conceded "Don't ask me to explain my ruling." These facts can be checked easily enough by anybody reading Swedish and consulting SVD or DN in 2006.
It would be orginal research to state the obvious, that Swedish civil society offered no serious protests against the state's acquiesence of death-threats against the 4 thousand Jews in Sweden. JK Lambertz still is treated like a kändis and celebrated for poetry, etc.
The rise of anti-Jewish hatred has occured for many years. Göran Persson was shocked enough by anti-semitic attitudes, especially among youth, to commission a book on the Holocaust, which was given to every gymnasium student in Sweden (and which may still be available from the Center for Living History). I trust Göran Persson may be cited as a reference who is not guilty of disrespecting the Swedish people. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC) (Updated Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Justitieombudsmannen, JO, does not have anything to do with hate crimes. It is Justitiekanslern, the Chancellor of Justice or JK, that is the sole prosecutor of crimes against freedom of speech. First, the direct quote "kill the Jews" where not on the tapes. And, second, he did motivate his ruling.
Göran Persson where not chocked by "anti-semitic attitudes" in general either, but specifically the high number of pupils that did not believe in the holocaust. Steinberger (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction about JK versus JO (in an earlier version of my above posting).
Persson has spoken & written elsewhere about his personal motivation for the book, which certainly was not limited to one poll.
As I wrote, the JK (Lambertz) was quoted on Svenska Dagbladet on the front page with the command "Don't ask me to explain my ruling". I'll find the quote, to which I referred. (Obviously he wrote a legal decision, which editor Steinberger referenced.) English readers can use Google-translator to make sense of "JustiKänsler (JK)" (sic.) Göran Lambertz's retraction of Swedish legal protection from Jews in Sweden, because they are not regarded as real Swedes by JK Lambertz, but rather as connected to Israel: Look at Dagens Nyheter (DN), and judge for yourself. It is notable that 3 thousand persons protested against Lambertz's removal of protection against one minority in Sweden, Jews, according to the DN article.
Regarding the article, before it stated that Malmö's Jewish community (only, without mentioning other critics) criticized Ilma Repallu's Jew-baiting statements. Swedish Television had an extensive report, which quotes many journalists and politicians condemning Repallu. I corrected the statement to say that many Swedish media figures and politicians also criticized Reepula. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the article in SvD that you reefer to? It is the only article in SvD i could find where JK is qouted saying anything like "don't ask me to explain my ruling". However, it rather was "I have always said that this [decision] is pedagogically impossible to explain - but correct". Well, the article is an opinion piece by a pro-israeli writer at, among other places, this blog. He disagrees with JK decision and say that he started a dismantlement of the protections against antisemitism. However, he notes the motivation JK had for his decision - that the tapes should be viewed in the light of the Israel-Palestine conflict. That far from the motivation you give, that Jews "are not regarded as real Swedes". This is a interview with Lambertz in the same newspaper. There he touched the issue, the criticism he got for the decision and explained that, if it where not for the connection to the conflict and the Jews of Israel, the statements on the tapes would be illegitimate. Steinberger (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC) PS. Kansler, not känsler. Ilmar Reepalu, not Ilma Repallu/Reepula.[reply]
Please review the remarks preceding my first "Discussion" entry here, which claimed that Jews are protected by the hate speech law and provided a too rosy picture. Writing here, on the "Discussion" page, I wanted to clarify that the JK did rule that hate speech against Jews, which included "Kill the Jews", was protected as free speech because he judged that "Kill Jews" was motivated by conflicts between Palestinians and Israel. Clearly, hatred against Jews is protected in Sweden, where hatred against other minorities has no such protection, because such minorities are not viewed as being connected with another state. Both Lambertz and Reepalu both repeatedly treat Jews living in Sweden not as Swedes but as representatives of Israel (even when such Swedes with Jewish ancestry have no connection to Israel). Like much of the Swedish "left", Lambertz and Reepalu repeatedly "explain" that the attacks on Jews in Sweden "must" be understood in the context of criticism of "The Neighborhood Bully". (Göran Persson's 6-part interview has a segment where he discusses his dismay at the Israel-bashing in even the SAP.)
Apparently, you agree with Lambertz, when you write "he explained that, if it where not for the connection to the conflict and the Jews of Israel, the statements on the tapes would be illegitimate." What "connection" do Swedish Jews have?
No Swede has ever subjected me to attacks because I have some ancestors from various countries --- none from Israel, cowardice tempts me to say, so that I can free myself from licensed attacks. But Jews lack protection now in Sweden, and Swedish attacks on Jews are supported by the repeated Jew-bashing apologetics of Lambertz and Reepalu etc.
It might be useful for the article to discuss the drop in participation in surveys in Sweden that ask even one question about the role of Jews in Sweden, or about the WWII approval of the firing of Swedish Jews from German companies in Sweden, etc.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jews are protected against hate speech in Sweden. As mush as homosexuals. That Åke Green and these infamous tapes not where illegal depends on technicalities. In the case of homosexuals and reverend Green, that it was a sermon. When it comes to the tapes, that there where no connection to Swedish Jews, but rather that the tapes was on the middle east conflict and that it was clear that it wasn't Jews in general, but Israelis, that should be attacked. To say that Jews lack protection is simply a gross oversimplification. That is on Lambertz.
On Reepalu you are at least partly right. He excused intolerable beahavor against Jews with reference to the conflict and he was grabbed by the ear by his party leader for it (Mona Sahlin). But that is not the whole story. The Jewish congregation in Malmö did in fact arrange a demonstration for Israles right to self-defense in the aftermath of the Gaza war - this he explicitly cited as a cause for confusion that the congregation should refrain from causing. This was seen as a way of blaming Jews for the attacks on them - but there not general agreement on that interpretation and he himself denies that he have blamed the Jews of the abuse they sustain. The bit on Reepalu is badly WP:UNDUE by the way and should be shortened to one paragraph.
On the Göran Persson documentary (I suspect you mean the four-part "Ordförande Persson"), I don't remember any long bits on Israel. What episode was it? Steinberger (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, editor Steinberger, for your latest round of constructive and excellent edits, which showed good faith and working towards consensus. Your edits and good temper are particularly praiseworthy given the tone of my comments above. (I am sorry for writing stiffly, but I've only edited when very tired lately.)
I believe that I read about Swedish "approval" of German firings of Swedish Jews on Swedish Wikipedia. (I don't have time to look in the next weeks, I'm sorry to say.)
It was the interview series that you named, I believe, the one taped over years and only broadcast at the end of Persson's service. Persson reflects that when SAP giants walked the earth, social democrats admired labour/socialist zionism, especially the Kibbutzs: Persson's Swedish quotation is something like "På den tiden, var den den finaste example av socialism det fins de israeliska kibbutzer". The biography of Persson (by a Skånsk journalist who wrote speeches for Erlander and Palme) has further discussion of his concerns about the new left's hostility towards Israel. It should be easy to find reliable sources discussing Persson's motivations, but I lack time, I must admit. (I am answering your question, and not suggesting that this material be included in the article.)
In contrast to Persson, contemporary Swedish "left"/or even "center-right" politics is very hostile towards Israel, with frequent musings about wishing it had never been founded, etc.; c.f. the op-ed piece by the Center-Party youth spokesperson, a year or two back, claiming Israel to be European imperialism.
I rarely edit about Israel and anti-semitism, because outrage would impair my edits: My editing consists mainly in removing euphemisms, e.g. in the article about mathematician Werner Fenchel.
Thanks again for your good work. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Kenneth Andreasson's op-ed and generally on Reepalu[edit]

Kiefer Wolfowitz made a number of changes in the text I added on Kenneth Andreasson's impressions on the tapes. And I can't see the reason for it. For starters, Wolfowitz claims that the Swedish Social Democratic Party owns Aftonbladet. That is not true. Schibsted owns 91% and the remainder is owned by Swedish Trade Union Confederation. The latter provides an indirect link to the party, but there is no reason to cast doubt over that the newspaper is independent as it is done in the article. Wolfowitz also removed Anreasson's summery of what Reepalu actually talked most of and instead felt that the ending note was more relevant to the matter. I don't think so. Not so that I absolutely want it removed, but if its inclusion is to the price of Andreasson's assessment over what Reepalu said, why should it be there?

However, the reason for why I brought the op-ed was to balance the articles heavily biased rant against Reeplau. My principal idea is to have it shortened severely. It seems very WP:UNDUE. And the bigger issue is not Reepalus statements but that Jews feel increasingly insecure. That Skånska Dagbladet with its Centre Party affiliation, Sydsvenska Dagbladet as independent liberal and other Swedish right-wing newspapers is more keen on Reepalu could be explained by that 2010 is an election year. (The Local said goal is to give an international audience an insight into what is discussed in Swedish media, they do not have an open political affiliation although I would say that they are liberal judging from what they write about.) Steinberger (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet is "independent social democratic" (oberoende socialdemokratisk). At least according to its owners, Schibsted and Landsorganisationen and the newspaper is also referred to in that way by other reliable newsorganizations such as Svenska Dagbladet, Sveriges Radio, Sydsvenska Dagbladet, Skånska Dagbladet, Göteborgs Posten, Expressen and Dagens Nyheter - to name a few. Steinberger (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reepalu's comments were criticized by politicians and news media throughout Sweden, sometimes as being shameful: Steinberger shifts the blame to Jews feeling anxious, which seems to be pov/OR as well as another example of bad taste, if I may indulge in euphemism.
Newsmedia have reported on increasing Jew-hating violence and verbal assaults in Europe for some years: Swedish Jew-bashing was discussed in an article in the International Herald Tribune a few years ago (the same article that focused on France, with a French minister discussing a bombing of a synagogue (if my memory is correct) and commenting that "an innocent Frenchman was killed", again illustrating the problem that European Jews are often regarded as foreign elements, just as in many Swedish discussions, like Reepalu or Lambertz.)
Regarding the "independence" of Aftonbladet: This is just a bad joke. Look at the articles of Andreasson, and you can see that he writes hack-pieces for his masters. Katrin K. was long active in S-Studenter, and honorable Olle Svenning (whom I cited without name before regarding his biography of Goran Persson) wrote speeches for SAP prime ministers Tag Erlander and Olof Palme. Aftonbladet's unprofessional and unethical coverage (including distortion) of Littorin's statements were criticized throughout Sweden, with many commenting on the SAP-links of Aftonbladet. Does Steinberger deny that 10 citations may be found criticizing Aftonbladet's SAP biases?
The most serious WP-problem is that Steinberger selectively quoted from Aftonbladet's hack-piece as though it were reporting (the give away strawman title, "Hunt for Reepalu" was not mentioned) and described the hack-editor as a reporter. 09:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steinberger cites a slew of newspapers, failing to mention that Steinberger cites (TT), a Swedish news-service that is usually regarded as associated with the left party in its slant on reporting. I'm removing the independent before SD. 10:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aftonbladet is independent from the social democratic party. It does not drive the party line, but reserve their right to disagree in various questions. Question marks after "independent" have been risen when the paper have criticized the party and it is relieved that the trade union confederation had reservations with the newspapers take on things. That does not equal "not independent", rather it suggest that the paper truly is an independent. Then we have the issue with revolving doors where people both can go from being politicians to editors - or the opposite. That does not necessarily mean that they bring the party platform with them to the newspaper - or the newspapers political platform to the party. See for example Svenska Dagbladet, it is a independent "moderate" newspaper. Their former editor Maria Abrahamsson now is in the parliament for the moderate party. And, you know what, no one say that Svenska Dagbladet lost is status as independent from the moderate party because of it.
Moreover, I have never called Andreasson a reporter (he is, or could be, but not in function he wrote the article in question). If he where "reporting", and not "commenting" as he did, I would not name him. Steinberger (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC) PS, TT does not have any political affiliation and is not associated with any party. It does not do editorials, it is a news agency.[reply]

A problem with one of Reepalu quotes[edit]

The quote from Reepalu is wrong and somewhat change the meaning of what he said. A important piece of what he said is also missing. A more correct quote is "I wish that the jewish congregation would denounce (the state of)Israel:s violations of civilian palestinians. Instead they choose to hold a demonstration that could send the wrong signals. At the same time I wish that muslim leaders in Malmö clearly state that the jews in Malmö should not be involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict." The swedish word "Församlingen" is not equal to the english word "community" as community also refers to the whole etnict/religious group. Judiska Församlingen is a mix of congregation/civil-rights group for the jewish community in southern Sweden.There is about 3000 jews living in southern parts of Sweden and around 700 of the is members of Judiska församlingen. And the context of his quote is missing. Another important part that is missing is in what context the quote is made.The source for the quote is here : http://www.skanskan.se/article/20100127/MALMO/701269748/1057

Text reads: In the seventeenth century, however, the Jewish question had merely a religious aspect in Sweden, and had not yet assumed the character of a race problem.[edit]

So when did it assume the character of a (sic) race problem, and how was this solved? RPSM (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Swedish sources for the history of the Jews in Sweden: Hugo Valentin, and Eskil Olán. Neither of them appear to have been consulted for this article, and essentials are missing. There is an anti-Jewish bias to the article. RPSM (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between hate crimes and "violent incidents"[edit]

The Local is apparently wrong in pointing out a doubling in reported "violent incidents". (There was one such incident in Malmö 2009, according to the statistics.) What there was an doubling of is hate crimes in general. This according to DN who is citing the "National Council for Crime Prevention" (BRÅ). Steinberger (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section on increasing anti-semitism seems to be given undue weight. Needs trimming and better sources. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of an almost overwhelming frequency of hypocritical posturing on the part of the elite and its followers (about 75% of the voting public), racism is a huge problem in Sweden and always has been, mostly well camouflaged under a play-acted surface of solidarity and caring. In the real world it's one of the few countries still with such sham legislation that people still need to change their surnames to get jobs. The job description of the government's Ombudsman for Discrimination is basically to throw out 70-80% of all complaints at once, and prosecute practically none. Ethnic discrimination of all kinds is perfectly legal if you are wealthy enough to pay unimposing damages, in case you ever do get sued, which is extremely rare. These problems cannot be ignored in any context. I would trust a free spririt like The Local long before DN or BRÅ which for decades and decades have protected the elite from having to take any effective action whatsoever. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Serge, as you obviously read Swedish you may find this interesting as it may explain why DO throw out many of the complaints they receive. But to the issue: Where do you think The Local got their figures from in the first place? Steinberger (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Swedish Jews-section[edit]

I think it would be nice to have a list of famous Jews from Sweden here. --83.254.36.6 (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a small list here, although it might need fact-checking. List of_North European Jews#Sweden. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cities where jews were allowed to live[edit]

I think this is slightly wrong "permission was only given to reside in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Landskrona and Norrköping" and it should be "permission was only given to reside in Stockholm, Gothenburg, Karlskrona and Norrköping". Someone should check this up. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.121.84 (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


"Elizabethan times"?[edit]

Why on earth is this article on Swedish-Jewish history contextualised by the reign of a British monarch in the 16th century? The anglocentricity of the "British Isles" school of British nationalism is consistently impressive in the narrowness of its worldview. 88.131.58.163 (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftonbladet's "The Hunt for Reepalu"[edit]

This section seems rather problematic to me. It consists largely of lengthy quotes from the editorial in question; essentially there's a section of the article which explicitly defends Reepalu, which is hardly neutral. CharlesMartel (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel[reply]

Flag[edit]

I think we should reference this flag in the article. It seems to be political, though, but really it is rather relevant. Any thoughts? Shikku27316 (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV-section[edit]

I have added a POV-tag to the section about the situation in Malmö with regards to antisemitism. This belongs to Antisemitism in Sweden and just copying it from there to any article about the same topic is not right. Summarize the content instead. --IRISZOOM (talk) 10:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of the Jews in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the Jews in Sweden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J in German passports[edit]

The page ignores anti-Jewish policy before the Holocaust, eg. ban on J-passports.Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust[edit]

Shouldn't the section respect the timeline?

Now it says :
  • Sweden was OK
  • Sweden wasn't OK
So if someone reads first few lines, s/he obtanis biased opinion.
The "J" passports aren't mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global map?[edit]

I see no need in this article for an image showing Sweden's location on the globe. Seems to me that info is readily available in other relevant articles. I will remove that again unless someone can explain its pertinence here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civil rights term[edit]

An edit war brewing? I do not agree with this reversal of what was in the article before. People of any kind who by law were not allowed to do business centuries ago, for example, but then were given what in current law was called "privileges" - should Wikipedia change the term to "civil rights"? Looking for more input, before I change this back to "privileges" again to coincide with the legal terminology of that time. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:History of the Jews in Abkhazia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Sweden&oldid=1202734169"