I want to thank The New York Times for publishing today’s guest essay, “The Spanish Shylock Problem,” about the antisemitism embedded in everyday language. It is a welcome subject for a newspaper that has done so much to negatively shape the language used to describe Jews and Israel.
The author focuses on the Royal Spanish Academy, whose official dictionary includes a definition of judío, the Spanish word for Jew, as a miserly or usurious person. In 2024, an Argentine judge ordered the Academy to remove the definition following a campaign by Jewish organizations. The Academy refused, explaining that dictionaries record how people actually use words.
Which came first, the antisemitic stereotype or the dictionary definition? Did the Academy simply record centuries of prejudice, or has its dictionary helped perpetuate that prejudice by presenting Jewish stinginess as an accepted meaning of the word Jew?
The essay could have challenged the stereotype with some actual evidence. A national American survey found that 76% of Jewish households donated to charity, compared with 63% of non-Jewish households. Median annual donations were $1,200 for Jews, twice those of non-Jews. Among Jewish donors, 92% contributed to non-Jewish organizations. Hardly the portrait of a miserly people.
The essay also discusses Spanish expressions associating Jews with secrecy. Here, a little history would have been useful beyond generic persecution to the specific religious nature of the attacks on Jews.
The Spanish Inquisition forced Jews to convert, flee or risk death. The Inquisition existed in Mexico and Latin America for hundreds of years until the 1820s. Many converts continued practicing Judaism secretly, risking imprisonment, torture or execution. Their descendants spread throughout Latin America, where a 2018 genetic study published in Nature Communications found evidence of widespread ancestry – 23 percent! – associated with converso migration.
The persecutors forced Jews into secrecy. Their descendants inherited a language that characterized Jews as secretive.
Society has shown that it can change its vocabulary. Polite society has largely abandoned the N-word, recognizing it as an ugly racial slur. Muslim organizations have campaigned to separate Islam from terrorism, arguing that the association unfairly casts suspicion on nearly two billion Muslims rather than the radical jihadists responsible for terrorist attacks.
Yet centuries-old stereotypes about Jews remain embedded in dictionaries, journalism and everyday speech. The willingness to reconsider offensive language seems to stop when Jews are the subject.
William Safire spent decades examining the origins and meanings of words in his celebrated New York Times column, “On Language.” He understood how much a single word could convey.
In July 2014, as antisemitic attacks swept across Europe during the Gaza war, three Times articles described the protests as having an antisemitic “tinge.” A slight whiff of Jew-hatred. Dan Bilefsky used the expression on July 21, Helene Cooper and Somini Sengupta on July 24, and Jodi Rudoren on July 27.
And what was going on? On July 20, anti-Israel rioters attacked a synagogue in the Paris suburb of Sarcelles, while Jewish businesses were looted. A week earlier, demonstrators in Paris had threatened synagogues, chanting “Death to the Jews” and “Hitler was right.” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls condemned the violence, explicitly identifying the attacks on Jewish institutions as antisemitism and racism.
The newspaper seemed determined to preserve the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, even when protesters themselves had erased it. Calling the hatred a “tinge” allowed the events to remain principally political demonstrations, with antisemitism appearing as an unfortunate side effect.
“Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are continuing in Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Amsterdam and other European cities, some of them assuming an anti-Semitic tinge.” – New York Times article on July 24, 2014, “As Much of the World Frowns on Israel, Americans Hold Out Support”
The Spanish Academy says it merely records how people speak. The Times cannot hide behind that explanation. Its journalists and editors decide how events are described, which words are emphasized and what readers are encouraged to believe.
I appreciate today’s guest essay. It is refreshing to see the Times devote space to the antisemitism that survives in ordinary language, especially as The Times has spent years choosing the words through which readers understand Jews and Israel.
It might begin its examination of antisemitic language with the words it chooses itself.
Imagine Tibetan Buddhist monks helping organize a private real estate fair in Paris for Tibetan families interested in buying homes in their ancestral homeland.
As a matter of politics, China governs Tibet and considers it an integral part of its territory and rejects Tibetan independence. As a matter of religion, history and heritage, Tibetans have maintained their connections to their homeland for centuries.
The real estate event is a test between these viewpoints.
The fair brings together developers, real estate agents, lawyers and families considering where to live, raise children and rebuild their communities. But against this personal desire, imagine French left-wing politicians and activists calling for the fair to be prohibited, accusing organizers of facilitating international crimes and questioning whether French citizens relocating there should continue receiving consular services.
There would undoubtedly be questions about why a private gathering of families and property professionals had become the subject of such political scrutiny.
Now replace the Tibetan families with Jewish families, and Tibet with Israel.
On November 15, the privately organized Icube Israeli real estate fair is scheduled to hold its 95th edition in Paris. Established in 1990, the fair brings together developers, brokers, lawyers, financial advisers and families interested in purchasing homes in Israel. It has enflamed anti-Israel agitators and politicians.
Aymeric Caron called for authorities to prohibit an October aliyah fair, alleging that it promoted immigration to what he described as illegal Israeli settlements.
Ersilia Soudais reportedly sought cancellation of similar events in Paris, Marseille and Lyon.
Andrée Taurinya accused French authorities of “complicit silence” for allowing aliyah fairs and raised allegations of complicity in war crimes. She also proposed restrictions on consular services for French citizens living in Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
Sylvie Ferrer, in a November 3 parliamentary question, specifically raised concerns about the upcoming November 15 Icube event, citing its previous exhibitors and alleged connections to settlement-related projects.
The controversy has also reached the media. TRT Français has published critical coverage of Israeli real estate fairs in Paris, highlighting allegations about properties in disputed territories and reporting calls for demonstrations against the events.
All this is unfolding in France, where antisemitic incidents have increased sharply and many Jewish families are reconsidering their future.
If there would be no outcry of Tibetan monks holding a real estate fair to buy property in Tibet, there should be no cause célèbre for Jews buying property in the Jewish holy land.
The American Dream promises that anyone can achieve anything. Build a business, accumulate wealth, enter politics and shape culture. Pursue your ambitions without an artificial ceiling imposed by your ancestry or religion.
Unless, according to antisemitic conspiracy theories, you are Jewish.
For centuries, Jews have been accused of controlling banks, manipulating politicians, owning the media and starting wars. The accusations change with the times, but the underlying claim remains: Jews possess too much power, and that power is dangerous.
Nazi Germany defined Jews by ancestry. Fighting for Germany, converting to Christianity, marrying a non-Jew or even supporting Hitler could not erase Jewish ancestry. As explored in What Does a Jew Have to Do to Be Accepted?, there was no reliable way to become acceptable under Nazi racial ideology.
The contemporary jihadi-socialist alliance presents a different challenge. Some of its rhetoric portrays Zionists and Jewish institutions as part of a privileged elite, accused of colonialism, oppression and Jewish supremacy. The objection is framed not simply around Jewish ancestry, but around Jewish power.
Left-wing media The Nation, described the grassroots organizing to oust unpopular incumbent Congressman Jamaal Bowman as a fight waged by Jewish billionaires against a poor Black man
That suggests a different solution. If Jews have too much power, perhaps they can become acceptable by surrendering some of it.
But how much?
A Jewish businessman can succeed, but at some undefined level of wealth, as success becomes evidence of financial domination. A Jewish politician can gain influence, but too much influence becomes proof of a conspiracy. Jewish writers, journalists and entertainers can flourish, until their achievements are portrayed as Jewish control over American culture.
How much Jewish wealth is acceptable? How many Jewish members of Congress? How many newspapers, universities or businesses may Jews lead before their achievements become threatening?
There is no published limit. No established threshold.
The conspiracy theory supplies its own answer: Jewish success is evidence of Jewish power, and Jewish power is something to fear.
This is a peculiar kind of glass ceiling. Jews are not necessarily prevented from achieving success. They are condemned for achieving too much of it. The ceiling becomes visible only after they have supposedly crossed it.
Perhaps Jews should stop contributing to political campaigns, lobbying Congress or advocating for their interests. Perhaps they should withdraw from finance, become less prominent in entertainment and apologize for their prosperity.
Would that make them acceptable?
What about their synagogues? Jewish institutions increasingly rely on security guards, police protection and barriers against attacks. Should Jews abandon those protections to demonstrate that they enjoy no special privileges? Must Jewish worshippers accept intimidation outside their synagogues to prove they deserve no more protection than anyone else?
And what about Israel?
Americans routinely celebrate their ancestral homelands which is a core part of Judaism. Yet Jewish support for Israel is sometimes portrayed as evidence of divided loyalty or Jewish supremacy. Must American Jews abandon their homeland and support for the Jewish state or distance themselves from Jewish organizations to demonstrate that they are acceptable Americans?
Is there an emerging demand that Jews can participate in American society, provided they never become too wealthy, too influential, too visible or too supportive of Israel? An invisible glass ceiling over Jewish achievement, with the height determined by those who resent it.
That is not the American Dream.
In 1790, George Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island: “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”
George Washington’s letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport
Washington rejected the idea that Jews lived in America by the generosity of a Christian majority. Their rights were inherent. They could worship, prosper, participate in government and pursue their ambitions without asking permission. There was no provision that Jews must remain sufficiently poor, powerless or inconspicuous to avoid offending others.
The demand that Jews surrender their supposed power would turn Washington’s promise upside down. Political participation becomes a privilege. Economic success becomes an offense. Supporting Israel becomes a test of American loyalty. The American Dream becomes something Jews may pursue only until their success makes someone uncomfortable.
That is unacceptable.
The American Dream has no Jewish ceiling. Those who would impose one are challenging something far greater than Jewish success.
“Israel’s only existed since 1948,” declared political streamer Hasan Piker during a June 2026 interview on The Breakfast Club, explaining that Palestine had existed for far longer.
That’s moronic.
Piker was comparing a modern sovereign country with an ancient geographic designation. By that logic, Greece is younger than ancient Greek civilization, and Italy has existed for only 165 years.
The confusion arises because Israel is not simply a modern country. It is also a people, a land, a government with a collection of policies. These five meanings are related but profoundly different. Switching between them can erase thousands of years of Jewish history, turn criticism of a government into condemnation of a people, and make Jews appear to be foreigners in their ancestral homeland.
The Tower of David in the Old City of Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)
The Five Israels
The People of Israel, or Children of Israel (Bnei Yisrael or Am Yisrael), are the Jewish people, whose name derives from the biblical patriarch Jacob, renamed Israel. The people existed thousands of years before the modern country bearing their name.
The Land of Israel, Eretz Yisrael, is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people, where ancient Israelite and Jewish kingdoms existed, Jerusalem became the center of Jewish religious and national life, and Judaism developed. It is core element of the Jewish people and Judaism.
The State of Israel, Medinat Yisrael, is the modern sovereign country established in 1948, nearly two thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem.
The Government of Israel consists of the political leaders who govern the country. Governments change through elections, coalitions collapse, and prime ministers come and go.
The Policies of Israel are the decisions those governments make concerning security, diplomacy, immigration and other matters. They can be supported, opposed, modified or reversed.
These five meanings move from the enduring identity of a people and their homeland to the changing decisions of political leaders. Confusing them produces arguments that can sound reasonable at first blush while being historically and logically indefensible.
Making Jews Newcomers to Their Own Homeland
Piker’s comparison illustrates the problem.
The name “Palestine” has been used for centuries, including under Roman, Byzantine, Islamic, Ottoman and British rule. But the existence of an old geographic designation does not establish the existence of a sovereign Palestinian Arab country throughout those centuries. More specifically, no such Palestine has ever existed. If it had, it would not have needed to declare itself a country in November 1988.
1660 map of “Palestina Siue Terrae Sancta Descriptio” by Jan Jansson. It is flanked by pictures of the life of the Jewish prophet Moses
The modern State of Israel was established in 1948. The People of Israel and their connection to the Land of Israel existed thousands of years earlier. Ancient Israelite kingdoms, Jewish religious institutions and Jerusalem’s central place in Jewish life preceded both Christianity and Islam.
The sleight of hand is simple. Compare the modern State of Israel with the historical land called Palestine, and Israel suddenly appears young while Palestine appears ancient. Then treat those dates as proof that Palestinian Arabs are indigenous and Jews are foreign colonizers. Jewish history disappears through a quick change in definitions. A complete lie appears logical.
Judaism Is a Religion of a Particular Land
Part of the confusion comes from a misunderstanding of Judaism itself.
Christianity and Islam, which together account for more than half the world’s population, are universal religions. They have sacred places, including Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Mecca, but their adherents are not collectively defined as one ancestral nation awaiting restoration to a particular homeland.
Judaism is both a religion and the national tradition of a people whose history, laws and identity are deeply rooted in the Land of Israel.
God’s covenant with Abraham includes the promise of that land to Isaac, Jacob and their descendants. The Exodus from Egypt is a journey toward it as are later prophets discussing Jewish return from diaspora. Many commandments in the Torah concern its agriculture, harvests and religious obligations. Jerusalem and the Temple became the center of Jewish worship.
Even after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersal of much of the Jewish population, the connection endured. Jews continue to pray toward Jerusalem, mourn the Temple’s destruction, celebrate holidays tied to the agricultural seasons of the Land of Israel, and conclude the Passover Seder with the hope of being in Jerusalem the following year.
Christians do not need to live in Bethlehem to fulfill their identity as Christians. Muslims do not need to live in Mecca to fulfill their identity as Muslims. Jews do not need to live in Israel to be Jews, either. But Jews have a diaspora; Christians and Muslims do not because Judaism is a particular land-based religion.
Zionism did not invent the Jewish attachment to the land in the nineteenth century. It was a modern political movement seeking to restore Jewish national sovereignty in the ancestral homeland. Similarly, Jews did not become connected to Israel because a country was established in 1948. The country was established in a land to which Jews had been connected for thousands of years.
From Criticizing Policies to Denying a People’s History
The same confusion that distorts history also distorts contemporary political debate.
Someone may criticize an Israeli military operation or decision by a prime minister. That is criticism of government policy. But the argument can morph: Israel’s government becomes “genocidal”; Israel itself is declared illegitimate; Zionism becomes inherently evil and racist. Finally, the Jewish people’s connection and rights in their ancestral homeland is rejected.
That’s a preposterous slide from natural criticism to antisemitism.
Consider someone who objects to Israeli Jews living in Judea and Samaria / the West Bank. That is a dispute over policy and territory. But when the argument becomes that Jews are foreign colonizers with no legitimate claim to any part of the land, the discussion has moved from settlements to Jewish history and Judaism itself.
One can criticize a policy without denying a people’s history, oppose a government without opposing the country, and defend Jewish national rights without endorsing every action taken in their name.
When Israel Becomes a Substitute for Jews
The most dangerous shift occurs when Israel stops referring to a government or country and becomes a substitute for the Jewish people.
A Jewish student in New York is not the Israeli government. A synagogue in London is not an Israeli military installation. A Jewish business in Paris is not responsible for decisions made in Jerusalem.
Yet Jews around the world are confronted over policies they did not create, governments they did not elect and military operations they did not authorize. Jewish institutions become targets of protests ostensibly directed at a foreign government. Jews are expected to disavow Israel to establish their own moral legitimacy.
Antisemitism can hide inside this ambiguity. A speaker claims to be criticizing government conduct while advancing accusations against Jewish collective identity. The word remains the same even as its target changes.
Israel
The People of Israel are ancient and their bond to the Land of Israel is ancient. Those are facts not subject to debate or approval.
The State of Israel is modern, and its government and policies belong to the present. They are political beings and entities like others and subject to scrutiny in the same manner of others. No more, no less.
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.
Pal-Awda is organizing a protest in Riverdale, Bronx, on October 24 to stop what it calls the sale of “stolen Palestinian land.” Its target is a Jewish real estate event organized by My Israel Home.
The accusation is enormous. The evidence is missing.
The protesters identify no stolen property, no dispossessed owner, no fraudulent deed and no evidence that anyone offering a home for sale acquired it unlawfully. They simply declare the land stolen and demand that the sale be stopped.
And what exactly makes a privately owned home “Palestinian land”?
There has never been an independent sovereign country called Palestine. Even if there had been, that would establish nothing about ownership of a particular house.
Imagine a homeowner in Dallas selling a house to someone from Los Angeles. Protesters descend on the transaction, shouting, “Stop the sale of stolen Dallas land!”
Stolen from whom? The homeowner? The city? Everyone who ever lived in Dallas?
Dallas describes an actual place. It does not own every home within its boundaries. A homeowner can sell to another person, regardless of where the buyer was born or lives.
The same is true in Judea and Samaria. Land owned by an Arab is the property of that owner, just as land owned by a Jew is the property of that owner. Lawful ownership can change hands. A property’s location or the ethnicity of its former owner establishes neither permanent ownership nor theft.
Pal-Awda previously celebrated forcing a Jewish gathering out of Queens. It targeted an event at a synagogue in Manhattan. Now it is targeting Riverdale, seeking to stop Jewish families from gathering to consider buying homes in Israel.
“It is our duty to make them think twice before holding these events. We need to make them scared! We need to make them scared! We need to make them scared.” – people at PAL-Awda protest in front of a synagogue event helping Jews move to Israel in November 2025
Congressman Ritchie Torres, Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, Bronx Borough President Vanessa Gibson and Council Member Eric Dinowitz condemned the campaign in a joint statement, calling it “an attack on Jewish New Yorkers” and declaring that “the Bronx will not tolerate it.”
The campaign has a documented pattern: targeting Jewish real estate gatherings, pressuring venues and celebrating when Jewish events are driven out of New York City. And this is in regards to ALL of Israel, as Pal-Awda has condemned all Jews making aliyah regardless of where they intend to live.
“Settler, settler, go back home, Palestine is ours alone!” – PAL-Awda’s Instagram
The protesters have identified no stolen home. But they have identified their target: Jews.
Simply allowing the event to take place is an inadequate response. The entire Riverdale community – Jewish and non-Jewish alike – should stand together in visible opposition to those who gather to harass and intimidate Jewish homebuyers. Elected officials who condemn antisemitism in statements should stand alongside the people being targeted.
Antisemites should never be allowed to decide where Jews can gather, where they can buy homes or whether they can live openly as Jews. Riverdale should make that unmistakably clear.
More than 100 Jews gathered in Brooklyn this month to plan a network of anti-Zionist synagogues, schools and summer camps. The emerging Jewish Diaspora Movement brought together people associated with Jewish Currents, Rabbis for Ceasefire, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ) and the American Council for Judaism. Rabbi Alissa Wise, formerly of Jewish Voice for Peace, is among its founders. Discussions included plans for a Jewish day school in Boston in 2029.
The gathering is part of a broader effort to reshape what future generations of American Jews learn about their religion, history and relationship to Israel.
The “intellectual” groundwork is expanding. Temple University professor emerita Carolyn Karcher’s Reclaiming Judaism from Zionism, featuring 47 Jewish contributors, includes a guide encouraging readers to bring anti-Zionist arguments into synagogues and families. Pulitzer Prize-winning author Benjamin Moser’s Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History profiles twelve Jewish opponents of Zionism, placing their dissent within a longer Jewish intellectual tradition.
Jewish opposition to modern Zionism has a history. Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel has a far longer one.
Judaism is an ancient, land-based religion. Abraham traveled to Canaan. The Israelites returned from Egypt. Jerusalem became the center of Jewish worship. The Torah commanded pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times annually, during Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot. For millennia, Jews have prayed toward Jerusalem, mourned the destruction of its Temple and concluded the Passover Seder with the aspiration of returning there.
Opposing modern Jewish statehood is a political or theological position. Denying the Jewish people’s ancient connection to the Land of Israel is a historical falsehood. The distinction matters because Judaism’s scriptures, laws, holidays and prayers are rooted in a particular people and their ancestral homeland.
A Jew may reject God, violate Shabbat, oppose circumcision or denounce Israel and remain Jewish. Jewish belonging encompasses believers and atheists, the observant and secular, Zionists and anti-Zionists.
A Jew can reject a teaching of Judaism and remain Jewish. But that does not transform the rejection into a teaching of Judaism.
A Jew who eats ham makes a personal choice. A rabbi who certifies ham as kosher betrays the trust of Jews who rely on that certification to observe their religion. Similarly, a Jewish school that teaches children to deny their ancestral connection to Israel betrays the trust of parents who expect it to transmit Jewish history and tradition faithfully.
Jews who disagree with established organizations are free to create alternatives reflecting their beliefs. Existing institutions have the same right to preserve their missions. The Jewish identity of an institution’s founders establishes its origins. Its teachings and conduct determine whether it deserves the community’s trust.
Rabbi Brant Rosen, founder of the anti-Zionist congregation Tzedek Chicago, described his community as “consciously not an inclusive community.” His congregation establishes boundaries around its beliefs. Yet Open Hillel challenges Hillel’s restrictions on sponsoring organizations that advocate boycotts of Israel or reject its legitimacy as a Jewish state.
Hillel welcomes Jews across denominations, levels of observance and political beliefs while maintaining a mission that includes strengthening Jewish connections to Israel. Anti-Zionist congregations defend their own ideological boundaries while demanding that Hillel loosen its own. BDS supporters advocate withholding institutional support from organizations whose values they oppose, yet object when Jewish institutions apply similar standards to BDS.
At Emory Hillel, Rabbi Nikki Golomb was dismissed in August, weeks after beginning her position. She attributes the decision to her fiancé’s fierce criticism of Israel; Hillels of Georgia disputes that account, citing concerns about transparency and alignment with its mission. Golomb was affiliated with Rabbis for Ceasefire, founded by Alissa Wise. Whatever the disputed circumstances, Hillel has the right to expect its religious educators to uphold its mission.
Jewish disagreement has produced competing religious movements and institutions for centuries. But religious harm occurs when an institution entrusted with Jewish education misrepresents foundational elements of Jewish history or tradition. A school that teaches children to deny the Jewish people’s connection to Israel can legitimately have its claim to teach authentic Judaism challenged by the broader Jewish community. Opposition to modern Jewish sovereignty alone does not establish that denial.
Physical harm presents a separate and more urgent threshold. Organization that campaign to deprive threatened Jewish schools or synagogues of reasonable security protections, or to deny Israeli civilians protection against attack – like JVP, JFERJ, IfNotNow NYC and the American Council for Judaism – know that they expose Jewish lives to danger. The Jewish community has the right to challenge such conduct, withdraw communal recognition and support, and defend institutions that faithfully serve their missions.
Jewish Voice for Peace is against defensive weapons for Israel
Every Jew belongs to the Jewish people. Every institution founded by Jews does not automatically speak for Judaism. And when an institution uses the Jewish name to falsify Jewish history, betray Jewish trust or endanger Jewish lives, the Jewish community has a responsibility to confront it.
Jewish law still sanctions Jews who deliberately harm other Jews. Why has the community become so reluctant to consider that authority when the harm threatens thousands or millions?
In 1656, the Jewish community of Amsterdam excommunicated a 23-year-old philosopher named Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677). Its leaders pronounced a devastating herem, a religious ban that severed him from communal Jewish life. Members were forbidden to associate with him, speak with him or read his writings. The condemnation became one of the most famous excommunications in Jewish history.
For centuries, Jewish communities disciplined members whose conduct threatened religious obligations or communal life. Jewish law developed several levels of sanctions, most notably nidui and herem.
Nidui was the lesser punishment, a form of temporary religious and social ostracism, traditionally lasting 30 days in diaspora (non-Israel) communities. It restricted ordinary social interaction, sometimes requiring others to maintain a distance of four cubits, roughly six feet. Its purpose was to induce repentance and correction of the offending behavior.
Herem was more severe, imposing deeper and potentially indefinite exclusion from communal life. Depending on the circumstances, it could restrict social relationships, commercial dealings and religious participation. In tightly integrated Jewish communities, exclusion could devastate a person’s livelihood and standing in society.
Maimonides, the Rambam (1138–1204), enumerated 24 grounds for nidui in his Mishneh Torah. They included maintaining dangerous conditions, such as a vicious dog or unstable ladder; refusing to obey a religious court; and preventing the public from performing a commandment.
That last provision is particularly important. Jewish law recognized that obstructing a community’s religious obligations could warrant religious discipline.
These sanctions remain part of modern Jewish life. Orthodox communities still employ religious and social pressure against husbands who refuse to grant their wives a get, the Jewish divorce document required for remarriage under Jewish law. When a rabbinical court determines that a husband must grant a get and he refuses, communal measures may include exclusion from synagogue honors, religious gatherings and other forms of participation. Depending on the circumstances, formal nidui or herem may also be considered.
The Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA) organizes communal pressure against recalcitrant spouses, including public demonstrations and campaigns encouraging synagogues to impose restrictions, with appropriate rabbinic authorization.
Jewish communities recognize that one Jew’s deliberate conduct can cause another such serious harm that communal intervention becomes necessary. Yet these sanctions are rarely discussed when the threatened harm extends beyond an individual to an entire Jewish community.
A husband who refuses a get may face public ostracism for trapping one woman in a marriage. What of a Jew who deliberately works to prohibit circumcision, obstruct synagogue security or prevent entire communities from fulfilling religious commandments?
Three fundamental obligations provide a framework: protecting Jewish lives, preserving religious observance and sustaining Jewish communal continuity.
Protecting Jewish Lives
Jewish law places the preservation of human life, pikuach nefesh, above almost every other religious obligation. Leviticus commands, “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor.” The Talmud extends this principle into an affirmative obligation to rescue someone facing danger.
The clearest case involves a Jew knowingly facilitating violence against other Jews or deliberately obstructing their rescue from an immediate threat. Such conduct directly violates the obligation to protect human life and demands serious religious and communal accountability.
Consider a person deliberately sabotaging essential security at a synagogue or yeshiva facing credible threats. Jewish institutions increasingly depend on trained guards, controlled entrances and protective infrastructure. Knowingly interfering with necessary safeguards could expose worshippers and children to foreseeable danger.
A related question arises when someone campaigns to eliminate protective buffer zones around synagogue or school entrances. Where violent intimidation or obstruction threatens access, removing necessary security measures could endanger the community.
The issue becomes more complicated when the discussion moves to Israel’s national defense. Israeli missile-defense systems, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow, protect civilians against incoming rockets and missiles. Campaigning to eliminate essential defensive capabilities without adequate alternatives could foreseeably increase the danger to millions of people.
Broader opposition to American military assistance to Israel presents a less direct case. Military assistance encompasses different weapons, defensive systems and strategic objectives. A Jew who advocates eliminating defensive funding despite a demonstrated threat raises different questions from someone disputing a particular military appropriation.
Jewish law has long required Jews to address threats to human life. Religious authorities should be prepared to examine whether deliberately undermining essential security, whether at a synagogue or across Israel, violates that obligation.
Protecting Jewish Religious Observance
A Jewish community can endure poverty, exile and political upheaval while preserving its identity through religious practice. The covenant of circumcision, the laws of kashrut, prayer, Torah study and communal institutions have sustained Jewish life across generations.
Maimonides explicitly includes preventing the public from fulfilling a commandment among the grounds for nidui. This provides a classical foundation for examining deliberate interference with Jewish observance.
Consider a Jew actively working to outlaw brit milah, the covenant established with Abraham. A successful prohibition would directly prevent Jews from performing one of their foundational commandments. A campaign specifically intended to achieve that result should invite serious halachic examination.
A campaign to prohibit kosher slaughter, shechita, presents a similar concern. Such a law would prevent traditional ritual slaughter within the jurisdiction and could make religious observance substantially more difficult.
The same questions arise when Jews advocate prohibitions on synagogue worship, Torah education or the construction of religious facilities such as mikvaot. Restrictions on kippot and other religious clothing can also interfere with Jewish practice, depending on their scope.
These are precisely the kinds of conflicts in which religious authorities should examine whether conduct constitutes the deliberate obstruction of commandments. Where a recognized court determines that a violation warrants nidui, continued defiance may raise the question of stronger sanctions under Jewish law.
Further along the spectrum lies the controversy over government funding for yeshivas. Some advocates want public funding conditioned on students meeting secular educational standards in English and mathematics. Such requirements may create financial pressure on religious schools, while educational oversight also serves legitimate public purposes.
Jewish law must distinguish legitimate public oversight from deliberate obstruction of religious commandments. Where that boundary is crossed, religious authorities should be prepared to act.
Protecting Jewish Communal Continuity
The Jewish connection to the Land of Israel is integral to Judaism. Jerusalem occupies a central place in Jewish prayer, religious memory and law. Nachmanides, the Ramban (1194–1270), regarded settling the Land of Israel as a positive biblical commandment, although later authorities have debated its precise scope and application.
Consider a Jew advocating a prohibition on Jewish immigration to Israel. Such a restriction would interfere with the ability of Jews to settle in their ancestral homeland, an act that major halachic authorities regard as religiously significant.
Preventing Jews from visiting or praying at their holy sites raises related questions about religious access and worship. Restrictions on Jewish homeownership introduce another dimension, particularly where they specifically target Jewish purchasers.
These concerns are already entering American legislation. In October 2026, Representative Joaquin Castro introduced the Stop the Settlements Act, backed by dozens of Democratic lawmakers. The bill would impose sanctions on certain foreign persons involved in “settlement” activities and prohibit imports from covered settlements. Its reference to the West Bank raises a disturbing question: Would eastern Jerusalem, including the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, fall within its reach?
If so, Jewish organizations involved in purchasing and renovating homes, restoring historic synagogues such as Tiferet Yisrael, or supporting archaeological projects at the City of David could face sanctions-related consequences. The bill leaves critical questions about its application to these activities unresolved. Its sponsors should be required to explain whether Jewish religious and communal institutions in Jerusalem could become targets.
The possibility that American Jewish lawmakers would support legislation reaching Jewish religious institutions in Jerusalem is extraordinary. If Jews knowingly work to obstruct other Jews from maintaining synagogues, owning homes or fulfilling religious obligations in Jerusalem, why should their conduct escape the scrutiny of Jewish law?
Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) co-sponsored the Stop the Settlement Act
Further along the spectrum are efforts to boycott Israeli universities, exclude Israeli rabbis or educators, or discourage purchases of Israeli goods. Such actions may weaken educational, economic and communal relationships, although their connection to established grounds for nidui is less direct.
The case for religious sanctions is strongest where conduct directly obstructs an identifiable commandment or violates another established halachic obligation.
From Nidui to Herem
Jewish communities have historically imposed sanctions on individuals and movements. In 1772, rabbinic authorities associated with the Vilna Gaon (1720–1797) supported bans against the emerging Hasidic movement, a precedent that also illustrates the danger of communal authorities misjudging religious differences. Today, institutions such as Hillel restrict partnerships with organizations supporting BDS such as Jewish Voice for Peace, while the Conference of Presidents rejected J Street’s membership application in 2014. Between silence and herem lies a range of communal measures, from public censure to restrictions on institutional membership and leadership. These measures require clear standards and responsible authority.
The Jewish community is fraying. Its religious institutions, security and connection to Israel face growing internal conflict. Jewish law already recognizes that deliberate harm to another Jew can warrant communal sanctions. Qualified religious leaders should be prepared to examine serious violations, distinguish them from political disagreement and apply appropriate measures where justified.
If Jewish law can sanction a man for trapping one Jewish woman in a marriage, how can Jewish leadership refuse even to consider sanctions against those who deliberately endanger Jewish communities or obstruct their commandments?
