Part four, Summary: The root cause of most antisemitic attacks comes from a belief in conspiracy theories. There are limited ways of combatting it.
Israel has become a catalyst for people already primed to see the world through conspiracy theories. They imagine Jews acting as a single force, secretly controlling media, finance, and governments for their own benefit. Israel gives this old story a contemporary focus: anger at a Jewish state becomes suspicion of Jews everywhere.
Politicians and entertainers help give these ideas a public voice. Rep. Rashida Tlaib spoke of “the same people” profiting “from Gaza to Detroit”; and Rep. Ilhan Omar dismissed support for Israel as “all about the Benjamins.” Musician Ye claimed “Jewish people have owned the Black voice”; and Roger Waters called the “Jewish lobby” extraordinarily powerful in the music business. Actor Mel Gibson blamed Jews for “all the wars in the world,” while French comedian Dieudonné called Jews a “sect.”
Social media carries these claims to young audiences. The United Nations give them institutional authority when antisemitic theories enter official reports. The three-part series traced that path:
The next question is harder: how do we stop conspiracy theories from taking hold? The evidence offers little reason for easy confidence. A 2026 meta-analysis of 56 study samples found only a small average effect from interventions, with much of the underlying research carrying a high risk of bias. Still, “fact-checking conspiracy claims,” was viewed favorably.
Prebunking – teaching people to recognize manipulation before they encounter it – is one promising approach according to the ADL, but its success is limited. A classroom study found that a 45-minute lesson presenting antisemitism as a recurring conspiracy reduced students’ endorsement of several antisemitic tropes. The finding offers a practical lead, not a settled solution.
Conspiracy theories about Jews have endured by adapting to each new crisis. In a post-COVID world shaped by distrust, social media incentives, and increasingly capable Artificial Intelligence, they are likely to find new audiences and spread faster.
This is Part Three of a series examining the surge in antisemitism: Conspiracy theories magnified at the United Nations
In May 2021, Pakistan, acting on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, introduced a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council establishing a permanent commission to investigate Israel and the Palestinian territories. It passed 24–9, with 14 abstentions. China, Russia, Cuba, Pakistan and Venezuela supported it. Germany, Austria and the United Kingdom opposed it. Neither Israel nor the United States voted, as neither was a council member.
Graffiti on Florida’s Holocaust Memorial in May 2021
The commission received a sweeping mandate to investigate alleged violations of international law and the historical causes of the conflict. Its mandate had no expiration date – a highly unusual move.
Three commissioners were appointed in July 2021: Navi Pillay of South Africa, a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as chair; Miloon Kothari of India, a former UN Special Rapporteur on housing; and Chris Sidoti, a former Australian Human Rights Commissioner.
A year later, Kothari publicly repeated antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish power while questioning Israel’s place in the United Nations.
The Jewish Lobby Controls What People Read
In July 2022, Kothari spoke with Mondoweiss, a publication strongly critical of Israel. Complaining about opposition to his commission, he declared: “We are very disheartened by the social media that is controlled largely by – whether it is the Jewish lobby or specific NGOs.”
He also alleged that substantial money was being spent to discredit the investigators.
For centuries, antisemites have claimed that Jews secretly control newspapers, publishing, entertainment and public opinion. Kothari updated that conspiracy for social media, coupling supposed Jewish control of information with financial power.
These were central themes of the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which portrayed Jews as manipulating society through the press, finance and politics. Nazi propaganda later exploited these accusations to depict Jews as dangerous enemies of society.
These remarks came from one of three UN officials entrusted with investigating the Jewish state.
Miloon Kothari
Jewish Influence and International Accountability
Kothari also accused Israel of undermining the United Nations: “They, in fact, consistently, either directly or through the United States, try to undermine UN mechanisms.”
His allegations followed a familiar antisemitic narrative: Jewish influence over information, money and powerful governments supposedly shielding Israel from accountability.
Kothari also suggested that accusations of antisemitism were used against critics of Israel. Under this reasoning, objections to antisemitic statements become further evidence of the supposed conspiracy.
When an investigator sees criticism as evidence of a Jewish conspiracy, he has already found a reason to dismiss those who challenge his conclusions.
From Criticizing Israel to Questioning Its Legitimacy
Kothari went further: “I would go as far as to raise the question of why [Israel is] even a member of the United Nations.” He argued that Israel failed to respect its international obligations.
His historical interpretation was equally expansive: “What has transpired in the occupied territories since ’67 is something that had already been happening inside the Green Line since ’48”
Kothari explained that the commission was examining human rights “from the river to the sea” and added: “There are similarities inside and outside Green Line, so linkages must be made.”
He also argued that apartheid alone was insufficient to explain the conflict and that the commission needed to examine “settler-colonialism.” His framework placed Israel’s founding, rather than particular government decisions, at the center of the commission’s indictment.
From Personal Prejudice to UN Findings
Not surprisingly, the commission’s first report, issued in June 2022 under Kothari, emphasized systematic discrimination, territorial control and historical causes of the conflict. Kothari explained the commission’s ambitions: “Our work is to collect a repository of all the evidence that we gather.”
He said the material could eventually be handed to judicial bodies. Commission members had already met with officials at the International Criminal Court, including a deputy prosecutor, and contemplated approaching governments about arms transfers and companies operating in Israeli settlements.
The investigation was designed to influence international legal proceedings, diplomatic pressure and commercial relationships.
The commission’s October 14, 2026 report demonstrated how its historical framework endured. Paragraph 58 begins: “Since the 1947-48 war, Israel has continuously striven to expand territorially and displace Palestinians through violence.” The report attributes Israeli actions across generations to territorial expansion, demographic control and discrimination.
Four years earlier, Kothari had connected events in 1948 and 1967 through the same historical interpretation. The new report, issued under different commissioners, carried that framework forward, expressly directing readers to consider its earlier investigations.
An interpretation advanced by a commissioner who publicly invoked antisemitic conspiracy theories had become part of the commission’s continuing institutional narrative.
The Apology and the Institution That Remained
Kothari’s remarks in Mondoweiss drew condemnation from American officials, including Deborah Lipstadt, the US Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, and Ambassador Michèle Taylor. European governments, Canadian officials and Jewish organizations also criticized him. Human Rights Council President Federico Villegas warned that Kothari’s comments could stigmatize Jewish people.
Commission chair Navi Pillay defended Kothari, arguing that his remarks had been misrepresented. Yet Kothari himself apologized in August 2022, acknowledging that describing social media as largely controlled by a Jewish lobby was wrong. He also clarified that he did not question Israel’s existence or advocate its expulsion from the UN.
On October 26, 2026, it publicized its October 14 report accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza, crimes against humanity in the West Bank and deliberately targeting Palestinian children. Its historical account portrayed Israeli policy since 1948 as a continuing project of territorial expansion and Palestinian displacement.
Once incorporated into successive UN reports, contested historical interpretations acquire the appearance of independently verified facts, available for citation by governments, universities and political movements. The commission also recommended action by other countries and international institutions concerning Israel’s policies.
Kothari’s antisemitic conspiracy theories prompted an apology but little institutional reckoning. The investigations he helped shape became the foundation for successive UN reports, accumulating authority long after his departure and influencing global opinion, diplomatic campaigns and potentially international legal proceedings against Israel.
The UN allowed antisemitic conspiracy theories to take root in its reports, turning them into foundational texts for a new wave of anti-Israel invective cloaked in international authority.
This is Part One of a series examining the surge in antisemitism, starting with an analytical perspective, and following it to find its basis and track its progression.
Ten countries, six years of data, and a striking change in the global pattern
Antisemitism is often discussed through individual incidents: an attack on a synagogue, harassment of Jewish students, vandalism of a Jewish business, or threats directed at Jewish families. Each event tells us something about the experiences of Jews in a particular place. Looking at thousands of incidents across several countries and multiple years can tell us something different.
It can reveal patterns.
Memorial site for Jews gunned down during a Chanukah celebration in Sydney, Australia
I examined reported antisemitic incidents in ten countries over six years, from 2019 through 2024. The objective was to understand how antisemitism changed over time, whether countries followed similar trajectories, and what happened around October 7, 2023, when the political-terrorist group Hamas attacked Israel and the subsequent war began.
I began with the numbers themselves, before considering possible explanations.
The Ten Countries
The ten countries chosen were the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Argentina. Each has an established Jewish community of more than 25,000 people and an organization or government agency that regularly publishes statistics on antisemitic incidents. Together, they provide a geographically diverse sample spanning North America, South America, Europe and Australia.
The countries also offer useful differences. Their Jewish populations range from tens of thousands to millions. They have different political systems, histories, cultures and approaches to recording antisemitism.
Before October 7, the ten countries were moving in different directions. Some had experienced years of increasing antisemitism, while others had seen substantial declines. By 2024, every one of them was reporting more antisemitic incidents than in 2022.
What could explain such a consistent change across countries with such different histories?
I used statistics from the Anti-Defamation League in the United States, Community Security Trust in Britain, the French Interior Ministry, German police, B’nai Brith Canada, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Italy’s CDEC, the Netherlands’ CIDI and Argentina’s DAIA.
What Happened Between 2019 and 2024?
The first question was straightforward: how many antisemitic incidents were recorded each year?
Country
2019
2022
2024
Change 2022–2024
United States
2,107
3,697
9,354
+153%
United Kingdom
1,805
1,662
3,528
+112%
France
687
436
1,570
+260%
Germany
2,032
2,641
6,236
+136%
Canada
2,207
2,769
6,219
+125%
Australia*
368
478
2,062
+331%
Italy
251
241
877
+264%
Netherlands
182
155
421
+172%
Argentina
918
427
687
+61%
Belgium
92
34
129
+279%
Australia uses reporting years ending in September. Its 2024 period covers October 2023 through September 2024. Figures reflect national reporting systems with different definitions and coverage.
Taken together, there were roughly 12,500 antisemitic incidents in 2022 and 31,000 in 2024, an increase of approximately 148%. Although reporting definitions vary between countries, the combined total offers another perspective on the scale of the increase.
Every country recorded more incidents in 2024 than in 2022.
The increases ranged from 61% in Argentina to more than 300% in Australia. The median increase was approximately 153%, meaning the middle country experienced roughly two and a half times as many recorded incidents in 2024 as in 2022.
Yet the countries had arrived at 2022 by very different paths.
Some Countries Had Been Rising. Others Had Been Declining.
Between 2019 and 2022, antisemitic incidents increased in four countries: the United States, Germany, Canada and Australia. The United States experienced particularly substantial growth, with incidents rising 75%.
The other six countries were moving in the opposite direction. France recorded 687 incidents in 2019 and 436 in 2022, a decline of 37%. Argentina fell from 918 to 427, a decline of 53%. Britain, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands also recorded lower totals in 2022 than in 2019.
Despite their trajectories, all ten countries had experienced substantial increases from their 2022 levels.
We tested whether countries with the fastest increases before 2023 also experienced the fastest increases afterward. The statistical relationship was extremely weak, with a correlation of just +0.13.
In practical terms, knowing whether a country’s antisemitism had previously been rising or falling told us remarkably little about the size of its subsequent increase.
How Unusual Was the Increase?
I next compared the 2024 figures with the historical patterns established between 2019 and 2022. I tested three approaches: comparing 2024 with the earlier four-year average, extending the earlier trend forward in a straight line, and projecting the earlier compound annual growth rate.
Every country recorded 2024 totals ABOVE all three benchmarks.
The size of the difference varied depending on the method, particularly in countries where earlier incidents had been declining. Extending a short downward trend can produce unrealistically low projections, so no single forecast should be treated as a definitive estimate of what would otherwise have happened.
But the important finding is that the conclusion remained consistent when we changed the mathematical assumptions: 2024 was substantially above the levels suggested by earlier reporting patterns.
When Did the Pattern Change?
Annual totals show the scale of a change. Monthly figures help establish its timing.
In France, 39 antisemitic incidents were recorded in October 2022. In October 2023, the number was 563, more than fourteen times as many. October 2024 recorded 157 incidents, substantially below the extraordinary October 2023 peak but still approximately four times the October 2022 level.
Britain offers another useful comparison. Community Security Trust reported an average of approximately 154 incidents per month during the year preceding October 7, 2023. The average during 2024 was approximately 294 per month, an increase of 91%.
Australia recorded 495 incidents in the reporting year ending September 2023 and 2,062 in the following reporting year, which began six days before the Hamas attack. That represents more than a fourfold increase.
These observations show two related developments: a dramatic initial increase around October 2023 and continued elevated reporting levels during 2024.
The timing is particularly interesting because the countries were experiencing the same international event despite having different domestic histories and earlier antisemitism trends.
Was the Increase Temporary?
A sudden event can produce a brief surge in incidents that quickly subsides. It can also be followed by a more lasting change.
The 2023 and 2024 numbers allow us to begin distinguishing those possibilities.
Britain, France and Belgium recorded fewer incidents in 2024 than in 2023, indicating that their initial peaks had moderated. Yet all remained substantially above their 2022 levels.
The United States, Germany, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands and Argentina recorded higher totals in 2024 than in 2023. Australia’s reporting calendar places nearly the entire first post-October 7 year in its 2024 total.
Thus, the immediate surge was followed by different national trajectories, but elevated incident levels persisted across the sample through 2024.
What Have We Learned?
The ten countries began with different histories, different Jewish populations and different trajectories. Yet all experienced substantial increases in recorded antisemitism during the same period. The available monthly records place the sharpest change around October 2023, with elevated levels continuing through 2024.
The statistical pattern is plainly visible. Antisemitic attacks have always existed but spiked around the world after October 7, 2023. People around the world came for their local Jews who had nothing to do with an event thousands of miles away. This is a unique global phenomena, as people do not attack other diaspora communities for wars involving their homelands anywhere else.
This is Part Two of a series examining the surge in antisemitism: Following the Evidence Across Ten Countries
In June 2024, a 12-year-old Jewish girl was raped and assaulted by three boys, aged 12 and 13, in Courbevoie, a suburb of Paris. The attackers subjected her to antisemitic insults and threats. Two were subsequently sentenced to seven and nine years in prison, while the third was found guilty of complicity and placed under educational supervision.
The presiding judge concluded that the girl would never have been subjected to the attack had she not been Jewish.
The attack raises a disturbing question. How did children barely into adolescence acquire such intense hatred of Jews, and what made them willing to act upon it?
It is a question that reaches far beyond France.
Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, reported antisemitic incidents surged across the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Argentina. Between 2022 and 2024, increases ranged from 61% in Argentina to more than 300% in Australia.
Ten countries across four continents, with different populations, economies, governments and relationships with Israel, experienced the same extraordinary escalation: Anti-Israel feelings manifest in antisemitic attacks globally.
I next sought to look at the available evidence to understand why. What characteristics correlate with antisemitism? Which beliefs make people more likely to hate Jews? And what explains the sudden transformation of that hatred into harassment, threats and physical violence?
Some of the strongest findings involve conspiracy theories, attitudes toward Israel and younger generations. Other explanations that seem intuitively obvious – and First One Through has discussed frequently – show surprisingly little relationship with the surge.
The Conspiracy Connection
Antisemitism has always found fertile ground in conspiracy theories.
For centuries, Jews have been accused of secretly controlling governments, financial markets, newspapers and wars. The accusations have changed with technology and politics, but their essential message remains the same: powerful Jews are supposedly manipulating events behind the scenes.
“They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.” – 1988 Hamas Foundational Charter, Article 22
In 2024, the Anti-Defamation League and YouGov surveyed 7,000 adults across seven countries: the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia and Argentina. They found that people who believed in secret plots controlling world events generally, were significantly more likely to accept antisemitic stereotypes.
The relationship was among the strongest measured in the survey.
Britain’s Community Security Trust found the same narratives appearing in actual incidents. In 2024, it recorded 487 antisemitic incidents involving conspiracy theories, including 345 concerning supposed Jewish control over politics, media, finance and other institutions.
Conspiracy theories offer a simple explanation for complicated events. Economic difficulties, political defeats, global pandemics and international conflicts can all be blamed on a hidden enemy.
When Jews are assigned extraordinary collective power, blaming them for events in which they have no involvement becomes easier.
That is especially dangerous when the event in question is a war involving Israel.
When Hostility Toward Israel Becomes Hatred of Jews
The strongest evidence of what changed after October 7 comes from Britain.
In 2022, the Community Security Trust recorded 246 antisemitic incidents involving Israel-related rhetoric. By 2024, that number had reached 1,844. Israel-related incidents accounted for approximately 86% of Britain’s entire increase in reported antisemitism over those two years. Other antisemitic incidents increased much more modestly.
Germany experienced a similar ideological shift. Among the antisemitic crimes police specifically connected to October 7 and the subsequent Middle East conflict, more than 85% were classified under foreign or religious ideological motivation. Right-wing extremism remained a major source of German antisemitism overall but the offenses connected to the war had a different ideological profile.
France documented hundreds of incidents involving explicit references to Palestine. In the United States, the ADL found that 58% of recorded antisemitic incidents in 2024 contained elements related to Israel or Zionism. Italy and Argentina also documented the intersection of anti-Israel rhetoric with established antisemitic accusations.
The pattern crossed borders, languages and political systems.
A synagogue in Paris, a Jewish student in New York or a Jewish business in London could become a target for anger over events in Israel.
Herzl-Ner Tamid, a synagogue on Mercer Island, Washington that was vandalized in November 2023
The connection to conspiracy thinking is significant. When people already believe Jews possess collective political power, they can more readily assign collective responsibility for Israel’s actions to Jews everywhere.
A Troubling Generational Divide
The age of the Courbevoie attackers raises another important question: What are younger people learning about Jews?
The seven-country ADL survey found that 23% of Generation Z respondents and 24% of millennials believed Jews were responsible for most of the world’s wars. By comparison, Baby Boomers and older respondents, the figure was 10%.
Younger respondents were also substantially more likely to express favorable opinions of Hamas.
German researchers studying young people before and after October 7 found increasing traditional antisemitic prejudice, with conspiracy thinking and religious fundamentalism among the associated factors. A separate study of American and German respondents likewise found younger age to be an important predictor of certain antisemitic attitudes.
In Britain, minors were involved in approximately 30% of antisemitic physical assaults where the offender’s age was known, compared with 15% of other antisemitic incidents.
Canada’s police records also show an increase in the proportion of young people accused of religion-motivated hate crimes, from 23% to 35% when comparing 2019–2021 with 2022–2024. Those figures cover crimes against several religious communities, rather than Jews alone.
Social Media Gives Old Hatreds New Reach
A century ago, conspiracy theories spread through newspapers, pamphlets and political speeches. Today, accusations about Jewish control, Israeli conspiracies and collective Jewish responsibility can circulate globally within minutes.
Research in the United States and Germany has found associations between intensive social-media consumption, conspiracy thinking and antisemitic attitudes.
Britain’s incident records provide another revealing comparison. In 2024, 71% of online antisemitic incidents involved Middle East-related rhetoric, compared with 42% of offline incidents.
Political and ideological accusations were particularly prevalent online.
In Britain, X accounted for substantially more recorded antisemitic incidents than Facebook, Instagram or TikTok. Argentina’s monitoring likewise found more reported antisemitic activity on X and Facebook.
These records identify where incidents were reported, rather than measuring how strongly each platform influences its users. Still, they reveal how familiar antisemitic accusations have found new audiences and new means of circulation.
A young person encountering repeated claims that Jews control world events, manipulate governments or bear responsibility for a distant war may come to regard those accusations as ordinary political explanations. The messages become familiar and their acceptance can make collective blame seem reasonable.
From Prejudice to Physical Violence
The escalation after October 7 went far beyond hostile words.
In the United States, antisemitic physical assaults increased from 111 in 2022 to 196 in 2024. Britain recorded 137 physical attacks in 2022 and 202 in 2024. Australia’s reported physical assaults increased from 11 to 65 between its 2023 and 2024 reporting years, nearly a sixfold increase. Argentina recorded ten physical assaults in 2024, compared with one in 2022. France recorded 106 physical assaults during 2024.
These attacks included people being punched, kicked, spat upon and otherwise assaulted because they were Jewish.
The increases occurred in countries with very different demographic and political characteristics.
They also varied in severity. In Australia, physical assaults increased faster than overall antisemitic incidents. In Britain, the total number of incidents increased faster than physical assaults.
The international escalation had different local expressions, even as Jewish communities across multiple countries faced greater physical danger.
The challenge is understanding what separates people who hold antisemitic beliefs from those willing to act violently upon them.
The Explanations That Failed the Test
We also examined several factors that might seem obvious explanations for the international surge. The results were surprising.
Immigration did little to explain the differences. Countries with higher levels of overall immigration did not consistently experience larger increases in antisemitic incidents.
Muslim population share was also a poor national predictor. Countries with larger Muslim populations did not systematically experience greater increases in reported antisemitism.
This is a different question from identifying the ideologies or backgrounds of individual offenders. Germany’s police records demonstrate the importance of ideological motivation, while the national population comparison shows that demographic proportions alone explain little about the size of the surge.
Economic hardship produced mixed results. Unemployment showed no consistent relationship with the increase in antisemitic incidents. Some relatively prosperous countries experienced enormous increases, while others facing greater economic challenges recorded smaller ones.
Government positions toward Israel were equally unhelpful. We compared countries’ voting alignment with the United States on Israel-related resolutions at the United Nations. The relationship with antisemitic incident growth was virtually zero. A government’s diplomatic position offered little indication of how much antisemitism would increase among its population.
Countries with more widespread antisemitic beliefs did not necessarily experience larger increases in antisemitic incidents. The ADL’s international surveys measure agreement with familiar antisemitic stereotypes, including accusations of excessive Jewish power and influence. Across seven countries, the average number of stereotypes endorsed had almost no relationship with the percentage increase in reported antisemitism.
Argentina had relatively high levels of measured antisemitic prejudice but the smallest proportional increase in incidents among our nine countries. France had lower measured prejudice yet experienced a much larger escalation.
These comparisons concern the growth of recorded incidents, rather than the absolute risk of an attack. They also draw on different national reporting systems. Nevertheless, the absence of a consistent positive relationship is revealing.
The amount of prejudice already present in a society appears to be only part of the story. Something else determines when those beliefs become more openly expressed, politically mobilized or translated into attacks.
What the Ten Countries Reveal
The evidence points toward a distinction between the existence of antisemitic prejudice and the circumstances that bring it into the open.
Conspiracy thinking is strongly associated with antisemitic attitudes. October 7 and the subsequent war provided an international event around which hostility toward Israel and Jews became increasingly intertwined. Social media circulated the accusations widely, especially under younger people.
In multiple countries, the escalation extended into physical violence.
The most striking finding is that broad national characteristics – immigration levels, Muslim population shares, economic conditions, government voting patterns and even the prevalence of antisemitic stereotypes—did little to predict which countries would experience the largest increases.
The war provided a common international catalyst. The response reflected the beliefs people held, the narratives they encountered and the willingness of some to blame Jews collectively for events in Israel.
Two people killed in a synagogue on Yom Kippur in Manchester, UK by a plan pledging allegiance to ISIS
Return to the 12-year-old girl in Courbevoie.
Her attackers were children. She was a child. The court determined that her Jewish identity was the reason she was targeted. The tragedy reveals what is at stake when anti-Jewish prejudice becomes a justification for violence.
The most urgent challenge is to confront the ideas and conspiracy theories that turn Jews into collective enemies—before another child, student, worshipper or passerby becomes their target.
Israel held five national elections between April 2019 and November 2022, an exhausting cycle that cost billions of shekels, distracted the country from pressing challenges and produced a succession of short-lived governments.
The problem lies partly in Israel’s parliamentary system. Parties must win at least 3.25% of the national vote to enter the 120-seat Knesset. Forming a stable government generally requires a coalition of at least 61 members, giving smaller parties considerable leverage over larger ones.
When coalition negotiations fail, Israel can return to the polls under essentially the same rules, often producing another fragmented parliament and another round of political paralysis.
What if Israel changed the rules to make political deadlock increasingly costly for the politicians responsible?
Here is a proposal:
the first election would retain the existing 3.25% threshold. If no government could be formed, a second election would raise the threshold to 5%, encouraging smaller parties to merge, form alliances or consolidate around larger political blocs.
Each major party or bloc would designate both a primary and an alternate candidate for prime minister before the second election. The primary candidates would have a defined period to assemble a governing coalition. If they failed, their designated alternates would receive a fresh negotiating period, while the original candidates would lose their opportunity to become prime minister during that government-formation process.
This could be particularly consequential in Israel, where political deadlock has frequently centered on personalities as well as policy. During the 2019–2022 elections, opposition to Benjamin Netanyahu personally contributed to repeated deadlock, even among parties sharing substantial policy positions.
Under the proposed system, Likud could retain its electoral strength while another leader attempted to assemble a government. Rival blocs would face the same pressure to compromise. Negotiators could also agree to rotate the premiership after two years, sharing leadership over a four-year term.
If both leadership rounds failed, a third election would raise the threshold to 7%. Smaller parties would face even greater pressure to consolidate, while larger parties would have to reconsider whether their leadership disputes justified another election.
The rising threshold carries a cost: smaller political constituencies could lose direct representation. Joint electoral lists would offer a way to preserve their voices while encouraging broader political alliances.
Israel’s electoral system currently allows political leaders to return to voters without fundamentally changing the conditions that produced the deadlock. A rising electoral threshold, combined with leadership succession, would make each failure more consequential.
Voters should choose the country’s political direction. Politicians should be responsible for forming a government. When negotiations fail, the burden of compromise should fall on those seeking power, rather than repeatedly on the citizens who elected them.
The New York Times has once again turned the Middle East conflict upside down.
In an article titled “For Israel’s Neighbors, the Election Offers Little Hope of a Reset,” the newspaper features a photograph of destruction in Lebanon, and that Israel’s election offers “little hope” that relations will improve with the Jewish State.
The message is unmistakable. Israel is the problem. Its neighbors are waiting for Israelis to elect someone more accommodating.
But Hezbollah attacked Israel. Hamas attacked Israel. Both organizations have pursued Israel’s destruction.
Hamas invaded Israel on October 7, 2023, slaughtering civilians and taking hostages. Hezbollah opened another front the following day, firing rockets into Israel.
Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 and removed its civilians and permanent ground forces from Gaza in 2005. Neither withdrawal brought peace. Hezbollah rearmed, while Hamas built an extensive terrorist infrastructure in Gaza.
Meanwhile, Israel has made peace with Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco. Those countries chose coexistence over confrontation.
The Times could examine why Hezbollah continues to threaten Israel, why Hamas rejects the Jewish state, or why Iran finances and arms organizations dedicated to attacking it. Instead, it places the burden of regional peace on the outcome of Israeli elections.
The Times fails to comprehend that jihadists cannot accept a Jewish State “in any part of Palestine,” as radical Muslims have made clear for a century. Reorienting that narrative is either propaganda or the sign of a fool. Both tell readers to go elsewhere for something intelligent to consider.
On October 27, 2026, Israel witnessed an extraordinary demonstration of democracy. Preliminary estimates put Israeli Arab voter turnout at approximately 80%, potentially exceeding that of Israeli Jews. Nearly a million Israeli Arabs may have voted, with Arab-led parties projected to win 17 to 18 seats in Israel’s 120-member Knesset. It was among the highest Arab turnouts in decades.
The New York Times chose a different story. Adam Rasgon’s headline declared: “Israeli elections have great consequences for Palestinians, but they don’t get to vote.”
On a day of remarkable Arab political participation, the Times focused on Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank who cannot vote in Israeli elections – who aren’t Israeli citizens. An achievement of Israeli democracy became another story of Israeli power and exclusion.
The last Palestinian parliamentary election took place in January 2006, when the US- designated foreign terrorist group Hamas defeated Fatah. The last presidential election was in January 2005, when Mahmoud Abbas, who wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial, won a four-year term that expired in 2009. He remains president today.
Hamas violently seized control of Gaza in 2007, while the Palestinian Authority continued governing parts of the West Bank. Neither has renewed its national electoral mandate. An entire generation of Palestinians has reached adulthood without electing its national leadership.
That’s not a story for the Times.
Meanwhile, Israeli Arabs regularly elect representatives to the Knesset, organize opposition parties and participate in governing coalitions. In 2021, Mansour Abbas’s Ra’am party joined Israel’s government, helping sustain a coalition headed by Naftali Bennett. Arab political parties can help determine who governs the Jewish state.
That’s not a story for the Times.
Israel is routinely accused of being an “apartheid” state that excludes Arabs from political power. Yet Israeli Arabs, roughly one-fifth of the country’s population, exercise the same national voting rights as Jews, hold parliamentary seats and serve as judges. Rather than educate the public about the democracy in Israel, the Times wants its readers to continue to perceive of Israel in racist terms.
It is an antisemitic lens, and the far left continues to be conditioned to view Jews and the Jewish state through a deeply jaundiced perspective.
Part 2 of Democracy Is Beautiful. Politics Is Ugly.What holds a divided society together when citizens lose faith in their future, their institutions and one another?
The United States has operated under the same Constitution since 1789. It has endured wars, depressions, assassinations, political scandals and profound disagreements over the meaning of freedom and equality. It also suffered a catastrophic Civil War that demonstrated how completely a nation can fracture.
What allows people with fundamentally different beliefs and interests to remain committed to the same country?
A constitution establishes the rules of government. It cannot guarantee that citizens trust those rules, believe they have a future within the system or feel any obligation toward people with whom they disagree.
For more than two thousand years, political philosophers have examined the conditions that sustain a republic. Their insights reveal five foundations that extend beyond constitutional design.
A Stake in the Future
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) warned in Politics that deep divisions between rich and poor could destabilize government. He believed a substantial middle class moderated competing economic interests and helped preserve political stability.
America has long been sustained by the expectation that hard work could produce a better life. Homeownership, entrepreneurship, education and the opportunity to provide more for one’s children gave people a personal stake in the country’s success.
But that confidence weakens when housing becomes unaffordable, healthcare and education consume family incomes, and younger generations question whether they can achieve the standard of living their parents enjoyed.
The problem extends beyond inequality. People can tolerate considerable differences in wealth when they believe advancement remains possible. Resentment grows when opportunity appears closed and economic rewards seem disconnected from effort.
A republic becomes vulnerable when citizens stop believing they have a future worth investing in.
Confidence in Fair Institutions
John Locke (1632–1704) argued that legitimate government exists to protect fundamental rights through established laws and impartial administration of justice.
Citizens can accept decisions they dislike when they believe the rules are fair. But when courts, elections, law enforcement and government agencies are viewed as instruments of political or economic favoritism, dissatisfaction becomes a challenge to the system itself.
Trust in Washington has fallen dramatically. Pew Research Center’s historical series shows that 73% of Americans trusted the federal government to do what is right most or all of the time in 1958, compared with just 17% in September 2025.
The more troubling development is the tendency to judge institutions by whether they produce politically desirable outcomes.
A court is considered legitimate when it rules favorably and corrupt when it does not. Elections are celebrated when preferred candidates win and questioned when they lose.
The danger arises when citizens lose confidence that the rules apply equally to everyone.
The Bonds That Make a Nation
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859), writing in Democracy in America, admired Americans’ extraordinary willingness to form churches, charities, schools, local organizations and voluntary associations.
These institutions taught cooperation. Neighbors could disagree about national politics while working together to improve their communities.
Tocqueville feared that isolated individuals would increasingly depend upon centralized government as local associations weakened.
Today, political identity increasingly reaches into friendships, families, schools, religious institutions and businesses. Social media encourages people to surround themselves with those who share their opinions while regarding political opponents with suspicion.
The danger is that citizens begin to lose relationships that transcend politics.
A nation needs more than a common government. It needs communities in which people learn to live and work together despite their differences.
A Shared Understanding of Reality
Hannah Arendt (1906–1975), in her 1967 essay Truth and Politics, examined the importance of factual truth to public life.
People can disagree about policies, values and the interpretation of events. But meaningful debate requires some common understanding of what actually happened.
Today’s information environment offers unprecedented access to knowledge while allowing competing political communities to inhabit entirely different accounts of reality.
Traditional media, partisan commentators, social platforms and artificial intelligence can reinforce existing beliefs and spread misleading claims.
When citizens cannot agree on basic facts or recognize credible evidence, persuasion becomes difficult. Every disagreement can become another accusation of deception.
“In a world where facts are extraneous, we are only left with a clash of emotions.” – First One Through, “Eyes Wide Shut” November 2016
A republic requires more than freedom to express competing opinions. It needs a public capable of distinguishing facts from arguments about those facts.
The Character Required for Self-Government
John Adams (1735–1826) understood that republican institutions depended upon civic virtue as well as laws.
In Thoughts on Government (1776), he emphasized representative institutions, impartial justice and the responsibilities of citizenship.
No constitution can anticipate every circumstance in which citizens or political leaders must choose between immediate advantage and the integrity of the system. People must sometimes accept electoral defeat, respect unfavorable court decisions and defend principles that benefit their opponents. When political disagreement becomes moral hostility, such restraint becomes harder. Political victory may begin to appear more important than the rules governing competition.
The republic depends upon citizens willing to preserve institutions even when those institutions prevent them from getting what they want.
When the Foundations Begin to Fail
These five foundations reinforce one another.
Economic opportunity gives citizens a stake in the future.
Fair institutions give them confidence in the rules.
Community creates belonging. S
hared facts make disagreement manageable.
Civic virtue sustains the willingness to preserve the system.
Their erosion can create a dangerous cycle.
People who believe they cannot get ahead may blame institutions they consider unfair. Social isolation makes it easier to view other groups as responsible. Competing information environments reinforce hostility. Political leaders and citizens become more willing to sacrifice restraint in pursuit of victory.
America has endured such pressures before. The Great Depression tested confidence in economic opportunity. The civil rights movement challenged a system that denied equal rights to millions. The Civil War demonstrated the catastrophic consequences when competing visions of the nation could no longer be reconciled peacefully.
These crises also reveal that constitutional endurance depends upon reform, institutional legitimacy and the ability to rebuild a shared national purpose.
The Constitution remains in place today. The more important question is whether the conditions that sustain it are growing weaker.
What Makes the Republic Worth Preserving?
A nation cannot remain united merely because its citizens are governed by the same laws.
They must believe that opportunity remains possible, that institutions operate fairly and that their neighbors’ success does not require their own failure.
The deepest danger arises when citizens conclude that their future depends upon defeating, excluding, depriving or stealing from other Americans rather than building a society in which they can all prosper.
Jefferson Memorial, Washington DC
The ultimate test of a republic is whether its citizens still recognize one another as legitimate participants in a shared national future. When political opponents become enemies who must be defeated at any cost, elections cease to be a means of resolving disagreement and become battles over who has the right to govern.
A constitution can establish the rules of that contest. Only the citizens can decide whether those rules—and the republic itself—remain worth preserving.
Why the American Founders believed that free elections were only the beginning of a free society.
Democracy is one of the great achievements of human civilization. The idea that ordinary people should select their leaders, determine the direction of their country and peacefully replace those in power represents an extraordinary departure from thousands of years of human history.
For much of that history, people lived under kings, emperors, military rulers and hereditary elites. Government was imposed upon them. Democracy introduced the revolutionary proposition that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed.
Yet democracy carries an inherent contradiction. While allowing people to choose their government is a beautiful principle, the political process through which those choices are made can be remarkably ugly.
Elections encourage competition, division, personal attacks and promises that cannot be fulfilled. Political parties organize people into opposing camps. Candidates exaggerate differences, question their opponents’ motives and convince supporters that the future of the country depends on their victory.
Ambrose Bierce (1842–1914), in The Devil’s Dictionary, offered a cynical definition of politics: “A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.”
Democracy gives people the right to choose their government. It also gives political winners the opportunity to exercise power over those who voted against them.
The American Founders understood this danger. They sought to create a constitutional republic that would preserve popular government while restraining the political power that electoral victories conferred.
The Unavoidable Problem of Politics
People naturally disagree about the society in which they want to live.
Some favor higher taxes to fund public services. Others prefer lower taxes and greater private control over resources. People hold different religious beliefs, economic interests, cultural traditions and ideas about individual freedom.
These differences are inevitable in a free society. Indeed, the freedom to hold different opinions is among democracy’s greatest virtues.
But elections transform those differences into contests for political power.
Two neighbors may disagree about religion, education, taxation and immigration while maintaining a perfectly cordial relationship. Neither has the authority to impose his preferences on the other.
Politics changes that relationship. When one neighbor can enlist the power of government to advance his beliefs, their differences become much more consequential.
James Madison (1751–1836) recognized this problem in Federalist No. 10, published in 1787. He described competing groups organized around shared interests or passions as factions, and understood that they would always exist wherever people enjoyed liberty.
James Madison (1751-1836) by John Vanderlyn in 1816
Madison argued that eliminating factions would require destroying the freedom that allowed them to form. His objective was to control their harmful effects rather than eliminate political disagreement.
He distinguished between what he called a pure democracy, in which citizens govern directly, and a republic, in which elected representatives exercise governmental authority.
Madison believed that representative government, particularly across a large and diverse republic, could make it more difficult for any single faction to dominate the others. Representatives might refine public opinion through deliberation, while the diversity of interests would complicate efforts to assemble oppressive majorities.
The objective was to accommodate competing interests without allowing political winners to destroy the rights of political losers.
When the Majority Becomes a Threat
Democracy relies upon majority rule. When people disagree about public policy, voting provides a peaceful mechanism for reaching decisions.
But does winning 51% of the vote give a political majority the right to do whatever it wishes?
Suppose a majority decides to confiscate the property of a wealthy minority, prohibit the religious practices of an unpopular community or silence political opponents who challenge government policies.
Each decision might enjoy majority support. None would necessarily be just.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Cea Weaver of the Office to Protect Tenants, discuss plans to confiscate private real estate assets
The fundamental problem is that elections determine who exercises political authority, but they do not establish the moral limits of that authority.
A majority can be oppressive just as a king or dictator can be oppressive. The fact that political power is obtained democratically does not guarantee that it will be exercised fairly.
Furthermore, minorities are not simply the people who voted for the losing candidate. A citizen may support the winning party while belonging to a religious, ethnic or economic minority whose rights are threatened by the government.
Political coalitions change with every election. Individual rights must endure regardless of those changes.
The Founders understood that property rights, freedom of conscience, due process and equal treatment under the law required protections extending beyond ordinary electoral outcomes.
Democracy determines who has the authority to govern. A constitution establishes what government has the authority to do.
The challenge is to reconcile the right of the majority to govern with the right of every individual to remain free.
The Founders’ Constitutional Republic
The American Founders spent considerable time debating how to resolve this dilemma.
They had rejected the arbitrary authority of a monarchy but faced two competing dangers. A government that was too powerful could threaten liberty. One that was too weak could fail to enforce laws, maintain order or protect the nation.
Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804) advocated a stronger national government capable of addressing national interests. Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), writing from France, emphasized individual liberty and the dangers of centralized authority. The Anti-Federalists feared that the proposed Constitution did not adequately protect citizens against federal power.
Their objective was not the weakest possible government, but one powerful enough to govern and restrained enough to preserve liberty.
The resulting Constitution incorporated competing ideas rather than embracing any single political philosophy.
It established a representative republic in which the people would select their leaders, but those leaders would operate within defined boundaries.
Power was divided among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, and between federal and state governments. Elections would provide accountability, while independent institutions and competing centers of authority would restrain abuses of power.
Madison captured the challenge in Federalist No. 51 in 1788: “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
The Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791, added explicit protections for fundamental liberties, including freedom of religion, speech, assembly and due process.
The Constitution also made its foundational rules deliberately difficult to change. Ordinary legislation could be enacted by elected representatives, but constitutional amendments generally required approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Public policy needed to respond to changing circumstances, while fundamental constitutional principles required a much broader consensus to alter.
The Founders’ achievement was imperfect. The original Constitution accommodated slavery and failed to secure equal rights for all Americans. Subsequent amendments abolished slavery, established equal protection and expanded voting rights.
That history illustrates both the importance of enduring constitutional protections and the necessity of preserving a mechanism to correct fundamental injustices.
A constitution must be durable without becoming incapable of reform.
Making Political Defeat Bearable
Constitutional restraint serves another important purpose: it reduces the stakes of political competition.
The more authority government exercises over people’s lives, the more consequential every election becomes.
If political victory determines not only taxes and public spending but also religious expression, educational choices, property rights, business opportunities and personal freedoms, the consequences of winning or losing become enormous.
Political opponents may begin to view one another as existential threats. Compromise becomes dangerous because it might allow the opposing faction to gain power. Electoral defeat becomes frightening because the winners may fundamentally change the lives of those who opposed them.
“The people of America look around this political system and think that all this money, chasing all these political candidates, is a nightmare, and they’re right.” – Justice Elana Kagan, October 2026
George Washington (1732–1799) warned of this danger in his 1796 Farewell Address, describing “the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.”
Washington understood that partisan retaliation could become a recurring feature of government, with each victorious faction seeking to punish or reverse the actions of its predecessor.
The incentives of campaigning and governing are also fundamentally different.
Campaigns reward candidates for distinguishing themselves from opponents, mobilizing supporters and emphasizing disagreements. Governing a diverse society requires negotiation, restraint and recognition that political opponents remain citizens with legitimate interests.
Politicians may campaign as though winning an election grants them a mandate to remake society. A constitutional republic places limits on how far that mandate can reach.
The objective is to give government sufficient authority to perform its legitimate functions while protecting citizens from arbitrary interference. Laws, national defense, public infrastructure and the protection of individual rights all require effective institutions.
Likewise, constitutional protections should allow elected representatives to make ordinary policy decisions. A government incapable of acting would frustrate democratic accountability.
The challenge is to distinguish matters properly decided through elections from fundamental freedoms that should survive every election.
When those boundaries are respected, political competition becomes a contest over the direction of government rather than a struggle for control over society itself.
The Greater Achievement of a Free Society
Democracy is often celebrated because it allows people to choose the government they want. But in a society of millions of people with different interests and convictions, no government can satisfy everyone.
The more ambitious achievement is creating a society in which people can live freely even when they disagree with those exercising political power.
A free society requires more than the ability to choose its government. It requires space for people to live their lives beyond the reach of government. When government becomes the primary means of resolving every social disagreement, differences that people might otherwise accommodate become battles for political control.
The constitutional republic offers a different approach. Elections determine who governs, while foundational rights establish boundaries around what government may control.
The greatest achievement of such a system is not that everyone gets the government they want. It is that people can disagree about government without having to fight for control over every aspect of one another’s lives.
As we enter elections season, we must acknowledge that politics is often a very ugly business in a process to continue our dream of a stable democratic republic. We owe it to our nation to focus on electing leaders who will preserve our laws and rights, and not dissolve our great republic in the pursuit of a fictional purely democratic utopia.
A political ad backing Abdul El-Sayed tells Michigan families that America’s support for Israel is part of the reason they cannot afford groceries. It turns Israel into the culprit for economic pain and casts Americans who support Israel as politicians bought by a foreign power, choosing Israel over their own neighbors. That is the old dual-loyalty smear dressed up as a grocery-price argument.
“Even though the rage of the people sometimes flares high against the eternal blood-sucker [Jew], it does not in the least prevent him from reappearing in a few years in the place he had hardly left and beginning the old life all over again. No persecution can deter him from his type of human exploitation, none can drive him away; after every persecution he is back again in a short time, and just the same as before.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
The ad comes from Rebellion PAC, founded by Cenk Uygur. It links U.S. aid to Israel and the war in Gaza to the cost of food, while accusing Republican Mike Rogers of putting Israeli interests ahead of Michigan families. The Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt condemned the ad as scapegoating Israel.
The figures expose the absurdity of the accusation. The United States spends an estimated $80 billion annually to maintain its military presence abroad. Japan, Germany, South Korea, Qatar, Italy and the United Kingdom together account for tens of billions of that cost. Israel receives $3.8 billion in regular annual military assistance – less than five percent of the $80 billion estimate. The ad singles out Israel while ignoring the vastly larger cost of America’s global military posture.
The Ukraine comparison is just as revealing. Since the wars began, the United States has provided roughly $127 billion in assistance to Ukraine, compared with $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel—about six times as much for Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine war has caused an estimated 610,000 deaths, compared with roughly 77,000 in the Israel-Hamas war. That is about eight times as many deaths in Ukraine.
America’s own casualty record sharpens the contrast. More than 65,000 U.S. service members died in the recent direct wars: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf War and the U.S.-Iran war. In the wars Ukraine and Israel are fighting against America’s adversaries, three American soldiers were killed in Jordan by an Iran-backed militia.
The ad offers no evidence that aid to Israel drives grocery prices. Instead, it directs public anger at Israel and at Americans who support its right to defend itself. It turns pro-Israel sentiment into an accusation of disloyalty: if you support Israel, you are supposedly taking food from American families.
Dana Nessel, a fellow Michigan Democrat – who has endorsed El-Sayed – has already warned her party to stop making Israel and AIPAC the villains in every political story.
Cenk Uygur’s PAC turns grocery prices into an indictment of Israel. His nephew, Hasan Piker, supplies the online megaphone. Zohran Mamdani and El-Sayed give this politics electoral respectability. The message running through it is profound Jew hatred: Jews who support Israel are foreign agents, their loyalty is suspect, and their political participation is a threat to ordinary Americans.
Hasan Piker (right) campaigning with Abdul El-Sayed
“Trade and all money business he considers his very own privilege, which he exploits ruthlessly. Financial business and trade have become altogether his monopoly.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
If this was all about money to foreign countries, if it was all about military spending, if it was all about people being killed, the ad would have mentioned Japan and Germany and Qatar and Ukraine. But it only mentioned one conflict, one country, and featured one government: Israel, and targeted its supporters.
Nessel has told them to stop. Jewish groups have told them to stop. Instead, they are doubling-down as elections approach.
Every Democrat who stays silent while Zionists are cast as the cause of Americans’ financial hardship helps make antisemitism acceptable. Voting for these candidates and promoting their backers accelerates the demonization of Jews.
