Katharina von Schnurbein is the European Commission’s Coordinator for Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life. K. interviews her here about her mission, the goals pursued by European policies on these issues, and the difficulties they have encountered, particularly in the last two years.
K.: Your work as the European Commission’s Coordinator on Combating Antisemitism and Fostering Jewish Life is quite well known by the Jewish institutional actors in Europe, but less so by the general public. Can you tell us a bit about you and the pillars of your work?
Katharina von Schnurbein: I come from Germany, from the Bavarian Forest. In our family, the discussion about our responsibility as Germans towards the Jews, also towards Israel, as the Jewish state was always present. In the 80s, my parents took us to the nearest synagogue which was one hour away. So there was really nothing closer in terms of Jewish life. That community was made up of Holocaust survivors, mostly men. But still, it was so small, they didn’t even have a minyan. And then one of them, I was 10, told us his story, how he as a ten-year-old survived in Eastern Europe. He had to stand at a pit in between his parents, and when his parents were shot, he let himself fall into the pit. When the perpetrators had left, he crawled out and somehow survived with some partisans in the forest. This had an enormous impact on me and has been driving me since. We need to know about history and what the Germans did. We are not responsible for the actions of our forefathers, but we are responsible for the lessons we draw from our actions today. This is the personal side.
On the more work-related aspect – I started to work for the European Commission in Prague in 2002. I came with the then Czech Prime Minister from Prague to Brussels as his spokesperson in 2004. For five years, I served as advisor to the President of the European Commission for the dialogue with religions. The EU has a legal obligation to have this dialogue with religious organizations and as well as non-confessional organizations such as the humanists, which is quite unique. When the Commission was looking for someone to set up this office on combating antisemitism in 2015, I said I would be interested.
It came after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, where I think politicians realized that this was not just about Jews, against whom we had already seen quite a few lethal attacks – the attacks were really against freedom of speech and against democracy. In December 2015 I was appointed as Coordinator on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life together with a Coordinator on combating anti-Muslim hatred because we also saw a significant increase in anti-Muslim hatred after the Charlie Hebdo attack.
How have you found the balance of the EU Commission’s mission on the one hand on combating antisemitism and then also on fostering Jewish life?
KvS: This is important. When we drafted the EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life in 2021, we added the aspect of ‘fostering Jewish life’ with the conviction that everything we do in the end is geared towards ensuring that Jewish life in Europe can thrive, that Jews see a future for themselves and their children and that they can live free from security concerns. We even say: ‘Towards an EU free from antisemitism’. We are not naïve. I am well aware of the enormous challenges currently, but we must have this ultimate goal always in front of our eyes, to ensure the next step goes in the right direction. And we do so in permanent close cooperation with Jewish communities and organisations.
Fostering Jewish life is also about sharing traditions, giving platforms, making sure that the general public learns more about Jewish life – because, again, it’s a direct result of the Holocaust that we don’t know about it; because we don’t sit in school next to someone who is Jewish, like it used to be.
We have tried to put long-term initiatives into motion that serve these purposes as well as Holocaust education and remembrance. One concrete example: The main entry door for antisemitism into our living rooms today is through social media and the internet. So, besides a Europe-wide legal framework for platforms, the Digital Services Act established in 2022, we are also developing a network of trusted flaggers that can address antisemitism online. We are increasing victim support and have developed a Europe-wide methodology to record antisemitic hate crime because you must make the issue visible in order to actually fight it.
On the education side, the Commission is supporting the development of a European research hub on contemporary antisemitism and Jewish life and culture with 3.5 million euros. Since 2010 we have the European Holocaust research infrastructure, which is specifically focusing on Holocaust education and research and we want to do something similar on (combating) antisemitism and (fostering) Jewish life.
Regarding Holocaust education and memory, we are developing the European Network of places where the Holocaust happened (ESHEM). There are 44,000 places identified – not only concentration camps and deportation sites but also escape routes and places where Jews hid. The new aspect in the EU strategy was the aspect of fostering Jewish life. I want to be clear: it is not about the Commission telling the Jews how to live their lives. It just means to create the circumstances and to empower Jewish communities where we can. For example, the European Union of Jewish Students has become a Commission Framework Partner. That means they get funding for their initiatives and can subgrant to their national student organizations, for example for hosting Shabbatons or celebrating Jewish holidays on campus. This was before October 7. After October 7, actions have become more defensive, but I am impressed about their creativity and activism.
K.: How are you having a direct impact on communities?
KvS: We have significantly increased our project funding which includes supporting organizations and communities that engage in community activities. Another aspect is security, as a prerequisite for a Jewish life. There we have, as a result of the strategy, also financed concrete security initiatives with communities. And then fostering is also about sharing traditions, giving platforms, making sure that the general public learns more about Jewish life – because, again, it’s a direct result of the Holocaust that we don’t know about it; because we don’t sit in school next to someone who is Jewish, like it used to be. In total, there are 90 initiatives in the strategy, plus, obviously, the things that are happening on a national level. That is really the heart of our strategy. Many national authorities have also put “fostering Jewish life” as part or as the center of their strategy. This helps to focus on positive aspects: there is something to celebrate, there is always something to celebrate, in fact.
K.: It’s now been two years since October 7. Did you foresee the level and the gravity of the antisemitism that Jews had to face over this time? Were you surprised by the levels it has reached?
KvS: The speed at which circumstances changed was striking. For example, in London, the first pro-Palestine demonstration was registered on October 7th at 11:50 am, the very same day. We observed celebrations in various European cities — Berlin, London, and others — that these events were part of a systematic phenomenon.
In the immediate aftermath we relied on established networks. One is our network of Jewish umbrella organisations in Brussels where we trust each other and discuss necessary reactions of Member States, for example regarding security of Jewish schools, synagogues or community centers. Then there was the global network of special envoys and coordinators combating antisemitism, where we could strategize and ensure government action for the safety of Jewish communities. We also issued a joint statement ringing the alarm bell as to the spike of antisemitism, suggesting action forward. To demonstrate our unity and siding with Jewish communities publicly was important. I attended and spoke at a demonstration against antisemitism in Brussels that took place two months after the attacks.
The current situation is more precarious than anticipated, with increasing numbers of Jews considering leaving Europe. And when Jews considered leaving Europe in the past it was never good for Europe.
And then there were, of course, the actions that the Commission itself undertook. Such as launching funding for the support of the security of Jewish communities or putting extra funding into a network of organisations that addresses antisemitism online.
K.: How does the Commission monitor and address the rise of antisemitism within member states? Do you directly challenge or call upon national governments to take specific action in response to these developments?
KvS : We maintain close cooperation with all national governments. For instance, we convene a biannual Working Group with the national coordinators or the special envoys combating antisemitism, which serves as a forum to discuss pressing and long-term issues in line with the EU Strategy —most recently, the aftermath of October 7th and strategies to support Jewish life, but also security, the use of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition (of antisemitism), educational tools. In numerous countries, these envoys play a pivotal role in advancing the agenda at the national level. However, in cases where progress is limited or absent, the Commission remains engaged: I routinely conduct country visits, not only to address challenges but also to offer support.
Additionally, each Jewish community is represented by a designated individual of the elected Jewish umbrella organisation that interacts with the national authorities — an innovation we introduced a decade ago — so that both government officials and community representatives participate in the same meeting. This has greatly enhanced the channels of communication, enabling exchanges that previously did not exist.
It is crucial for me to observe the Jewish community directly and understand their circumstances, as well as to listen to their concerns. EU action only becomes effective if it translates into concrete policy at national level, and when it helps to improve Jewish life. We need changes at regional and local level.
This is our objective: to ensure that Jewish life can flourish.
Recently, I met with the mayor of a major European capital who explained that, following October 7, Jewish organizations and Israeli restaurants have his direct phone number. If they encounter antisemitic graffiti or vandalism, they send him a message, and he ensures it is promptly removed. Ultimately, what matters most is the authorities’ response. Antisemitic incidents continue to occur, and at alarmingly high levels recently. However, when government authorities respond, that is the crucial first step: at the very least, the incidents are acknowledged, and appropriate actions are taken, including prosecution and appropriate measures.
K.: We have closely observed the establishment of the network of envoys tasked with addressing antisemitism across various countries. What outcomes have emerged from this initiative? Additionally, each state was required to implement a specific roadmap. In your view, where has this approach proven effective, and where have you encountered persistent obstacles or situations in which the roadmap was not put into practice?
KVS: We published our progress report last October, which showed that out of the twenty-seven member states, twenty-three have now adopted national strategies. Now, it is 24 as the Czech Republic just adopted their national strategy. Considering that this is not a legal requirement, this represents significant progress since 2021, when the EU strategy was first introduced. The momentum was also due to the Working Group which we began in 2019 to support the development of national strategies already on the agenda.
This demonstrates that governments are making progress. Many ministries are now engaged in the process, assessing how they can contribute — whether through funding, staffing, or coordination with the Jewish community and other national organizations — to establish effective structures for coordination. I believe this is what has truly changed the landscape: despite the deeply troubling and unacceptable persistence of antisemitism at high levels, there is now, in most countries, an awareness, real response and willingness to explore what actions are possible, as well as to show solidarity with the Jewish community.
EU action only becomes effective if it translates into concrete policy at national level, and when it helps to improve Jewish life. This is our objective: to ensure that Jewish life can flourish.
Another key aspect was the appointment of national coordinators. There are currently twenty-one coordinators, but even in countries where no formal envoy has been designated, each government sends a representative to our working group meetings, ensuring there is an established point of contact for coordination at the governmental level.
A third important element has been the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism as the foundation for our work. With Malta’s recent adoption, all member states have now formally endorsed this definition; the focus has shifted to its practical implementation. While some countries apply it more extensively than others, it is particularly essential for training law enforcement personnel and educators. It helps them to discern, for example when Israel-related expressions cross into antisemitism. The definition also serves civil society organisations, businesses, universities or sports. Notably, when large football clubs such as Borussia Dortmund utilize the definition—incorporating it into their communications, organizing educational outings, and promoting related activities locally—it has an impact. They also organise visits to Auschwitz for staff and fans, for educational purposes.
K.: One of the ongoing challenges in combating antisemitism is the inappropriate or antisemitic comparison of other issues to the Holocaust. Such rhetoric has unfortunately been prevalent in a number of European electoral campaigns over the past two years. Are there examples of envoys who have publicly condemned this kind of language when it has been used by their respective governments?
KvS: It depends on the mandate of the national coordinator. In Germany or the UK, for example, the coordinator’s mandate explicitly includes addressing such issues, including when it comes from public figures. These coordinators are also empowered to criticize their own government if necessary — though in practice, this is rare, as their primary responsibilities as civil servants is developing and recommending policy rather than public condemnation. Following the events of October 7, this task has become even more complex.
Holocaust distortion, particularly through false analogies, is a topic of ongoing concern and discussion. According to the IHRA definition, comparisons between actions of Israel and that of the Nazis, or Jews and the Nazis, are unequivocally antisemitic and must be called out as such. It can amount to Holocaust trivialisation in which case it would even be illegal. There is also the broader issue of conflation — holding all Jews collectively responsible for events in Gaza — which is another serious problem that requires explicit denunciation, and which Commissioner Brunner recently called out as unacceptable in his speech at the European Parliament on 7 October 2025.
K.: In your observation, are you witnessing a division among countries—on the one hand, those that take the fight against antisemitism very seriously within their own borders and adopt a more measured and pragmatic position concerning Israel, and on the other hand, those that maintain highly radical attitudes toward Israel and fail to address antisemitism effectively?
KvS: Indeed, this varies by country. For some coordinators, the period following October 7 proved particularly challenging, especially when their governments adopted firm positions on the political situation. Here it is particularly important to avoid a projection of the situation in Gaza on Jews in Europe. Nonetheless, the existence of established strategies enabled the continuation of certain aspects of their work, which is often longterm, such as education initiatives. It is important to note that government policy in this area was not determined by the presence or absence of a coordinator. The positions taken with regard to Israel often predated these events; October 7 intensified pre-existing stances.
K.: Fostering Jewish Life is the second axis of your mandate. In your view, where is the greatest need for fostering Jewish life in Europe today? Could you highlight some areas where you have observed particular successes? Additionally, what does fostering Jewish life entail in practical, concrete terms?
KvS: I believe that the focus on fostering Jewish life was an innovative and perhaps unexpected element for some Jewish organizations and communities. This approach is rooted in two main motivations. First, combating antisemitism is essential, but it is fundamentally a negative endeavour – it is a fight. This fight is necessary to ensure Jewish life can flourish. And this positive agenda is the ultimate aim of all our actions. Cultivating vibrant Jewish life inherently counters antisemitism, but it does so with a very different, more constructive perspective. And it is result oriented: the aim is to ensure Jewish communities are thriving.
Secondly, the relatively small size of the Jewish population in Europe today is a direct result of the Shoah. The EU strategy explicitly states that the Second World War and the Shoah serve as defining moments for the Union’s creation, imparting a unique responsibility upon its institutions to actively foster Jewish life. This duty reflects our commitment towards Jewish communities, it is on a personal note, the joyful part of our work. Given the current difficult situation it is also a yardstick that we must do more.
Our strategy explicitly states our aspiration for a European Union entirely “free from antisemitism”. It is essential to keep this ultimate goal always clearly in view. Achieving meaningful progress requires a clear sense of our end goal. However, it takes time to address this 3000-year-old-evil. Time that we do not have, but there is no magic stick.
Before October 7, some countries had already implemented ambitious policies, and there were signs of improvement. For example, we have been financially supporting the European Union of Jewish Students to celebrate Jewish life on campus, Shabbatons, Chanukah and we saw visibility of Jewish life modestly increasing on campus. In Austria, we saw a tangible decline of recorded antisemitic incidents in the first half of 2023, despite the fact that reporting channels had improved. However, following October 7, progress stalled abruptly. The current situation is more precarious than anticipated, with increasing numbers of Jews considering leaving Europe. And when Jews considered leaving Europe in the past it was never good for Europe. Antisemitism is first and foremost a threat for the Jews but eventually also a threat to democracy and democratic values.
In my experience, when politicians understand this context, they intensify their actions. At present, it is crucial to stand publicly in solidarity with Jewish communities — condemning scapegoating, clarifying that it is unacceptable to hold Jews collectively responsible for world events, and ensuring concrete interventions such as the swift removal of antisemitic graffiti and effective prosecution of offenders. Timely and genuine support, extending well beyond security measures, distinguishes those governments truly committed to protecting their Jewish community from those whose actions are dictated by electoral calculations.
K.: In a recent interview, K. spoke with Jonathan Boyd, who was also your guest at the previous event in Brussels. We discussed the concept of “ambient antisemitism,” which, as yet, lacks a formal academic framework. This notion suggests that there is a latent presence in the media discourse and broader culture that creates a hostile environment: while Jews require physical security, they also, like all citizens in a democracy, deserve the freedom to thrive in an open and tolerant society. How do you address these intangible challenges? In addition to measures like the removal of graffiti, what steps do you take to influence and regulate the cultural and media landscape in order to combat the subtler manifestations of antisemitism?
KvS: This is a particularly intricate issue. In the case of ambient antisemitism, the act itself may not be itself antisemitic or illegal, but it creates a challenging atmosphere for Jews and those side with them. Take, for example, the removal of hostage posters that we saw in many European cities (and often even under the guise of human rights!). Antisemitic? Illegal? But in any event an outlandish situation for a Jewish person passing by. And then the silence of bystanders. Some possibly would have reacted stronger to the removal of a notice about a missing dog. This is a point I have discussed with Jonathan Boyd: Where does an act cross the line into antisemitism, and where might it be interpreted differently?
For Jewish individuals, witnessing such acts can generate a profound sense of exclusion, a feeling of not belonging in society. Unfortunately, few people outside the Jewish community, especially those without personal connections to Jewish individuals, even recognize that a problem exists. This is our current predicament. In the past, antisemitism was easier to identify—whether originating from the far right or the far left or Islamism, it was more likely to be recognized, even if not always acknowledged. Today, the ambient nature of this phenomenon makes it far less perceptible to non-Jews, which poses a significant challenge. We often emphasize that antisemitism mutates, and what we are presently witnessing represents a distinctly new form of this persistent problem.
In London, the first pro-Palestine demonstration was registered on October 7th at 11:50 am, the very same day. We observed celebrations in various European cities — Berlin, London, and others — that these events were part of a systematic phenomenon.
Another concern relates to access to services, a type of discrimination reminiscent of the darkest chapters of history. Last summer, we witnessed instances where vacation rentals were abruptly cancelled upon revelation of the guests’ Jewish identity as well as difficulties encountered with flights and restaurants. Such explicit forms of discrimination represent a form of antisemitism that we hoped never to see again.
One of our responsibilities as coordinators is to draw the attention of political leaders to these issues and to emphasize the necessity of decisive action. Discrimination in access to services is clear-cut, but ambient antisemitism proves far more complex. In such cases, it is important to acknowledge the concerns raised by Jewish people rather than debating the legitimacy of their experiences. The matter should be viewed through the lens of well-being—particularly in the workplace.
K.: Returning to the language selected by your coordination team: by referring to “combating antisemitism” and “fostering Jewish life,” does this terminology not suggest a persistent struggle, rather than conveying a vision of fully sustainable or secure Jewish life in Europe?
KvS: Our strategy explicitly states our aspiration for a European Union entirely “free from antisemitism”. It is essential to keep this ultimate goal always clearly in view, even—indeed, especially—when faced with the unfortunate reality that antisemitism has increased rather than diminished during the implementation of this strategy. Achieving meaningful progress requires a clear sense of our end goal. However, it takes time to address this 3000-year-old-evil. Time that we do not have, but there is no magic stick. We have to redouble our efforts.
K.: What would you say to a Jewish individual who feels unsafe and is contemplating leaving Europe? Is this sentiment something that can be addressed through reasoned discussion, or do you also recognise and empathise with their desire to leave?
KvS: A rabbi I met recently commented on this issue, observing that, although the current situation is difficult, one must consider the broader sweep of European history. For the first time, the entire continent is, by large, standing in solidarity with the Jewish community. Certainly, in some countries there remain individuals who engage in conspiracy-mongering or openly hostile actions, including at the political level. Nevertheless, there is a genuine and unprecedented commitment to fostering Jewish life and combating antisemitism—an effort to which all twenty-seven EU member states have formally subscribed. Even countries outside the EU. Despite current challenges, the strategies and policy structures being put in place—including national action plans and strengthened dialogue between Jewish communities and state authorities—have contributed to growing awareness. My hope and trust is that, in the long term, these efforts will have a profound and lasting impact. Nonetheless, we are engaged in a substantial struggle, especially given the role of social media.
I believe this represents the core challenge. Safeguarding our democracy necessitates ensuring that internet platforms are in line with European hate speech laws. This is why the rigorous implementation of the Digital Services Act—already adopted and now being rolled out—is critical. I am aware that my colleagues responsible for this area are fully committed to its enforcement. In fact, we have acted more swiftly than in many comparable situations. For instance, immediately after October 7, when certain platforms failed to remove Hamas videos, we initiated one of the very first infringement procedures, targeting X (formerly Twitter) at the time. Numerous additional proceedings are now underway, as platforms continue to resist fully implementing the legislation. Unfortunately, this means the process is likely to be slower than we would wish. Nevertheless, as implementation advances, with increased transparency and stringent adherence to the rules, I am confident that this framework can contribute significantly to addressing illegal content online.
K.: What do you make of the reality that some Jews are thinking about leaving Europe?
KvS: This is a deeply personal and difficult decision that is certainly not taken lightly. I have seen incredible resilience among individual Jews and the wider community. Now that the ceasefire is in place, I believe that disentangling the situation in Gaza from the regard on Jews here will be more straightforward. Mobility is one consideration, uprooting oneself and establishing a new center of life elsewhere is a far greater challenge. We have seen that some of those who left France in 2015 or 2016 have returned. I hope and will continue to join forces with those who want to create a Europe where Jewish life can thrive – because Europe can only flourish if its Jewish community flourishes too.
