Five Transformations and Directions for Intervention

Executive Summary

This assessment identifies the principal transformations reshaping contemporary antisemitism and sets out priorities for Israeli decision-makers, Jewish institutions, and international partners engaged in the protection of Jewish life and the legitimacy of Israel. The central finding is that antisemitism is moving from an episodic threat environment toward a more systemic one. Its most important expressions are not only the number of incidents recorded, but the severity of violence, the inability of institutions to convert commitments into protection, the concealment of Jewish identity, the embedding of bias in digital knowledge systems, and the spread of narratives denying Jewish historical belonging.

Five transformations define the current landscape. From volume to severity. First, the challenge has shifted from volume to severity. Incident counts remain important, but they do not capture the full risk environment. Recent years have seen elevated levels of physical assaults, lethal attacks, and behavioral adaptation among Jews across several democracies. The relevant question is not only how often antisemitism occurs, but how dangerous it becomes and how deeply it alters Jewish life.

Strong laws, failing protection. Second, strong laws do not guarantee effective protection. Many democratic states have adopted legal frameworks, national strategies, and public commitments against antisemitism. Yet many Jews report declining confidence in public authorities’ ability to protect them in practice. The decisive indicator is whether governments deliver measurable protection across the full chain, from reporting and classification to investigation, prosecution, sentencing, and public accountability.

From visible institutions to invisible individuals. Third, the focus of protection must expand from institutions to individuals. Synagogues, schools, and communal organizations remain essential, but they do not capture the full geography of Jewish vulnerability. Increasingly, antisemitism affects individuals operating outside established communal frameworks. This assessment uses the term “constrained visibility” for the pressure on Jews in formally free societies to reduce the public expression of Jewish identity; “marranization” is used only as an analytical analogy, not a claim of historical equivalence. The most exposed Jews are often the least connected to support networks and the least able to access existing protection mechanisms.

From online content to cognitive infrastructure. Fourth, the problem is moving from online content to cognitive infrastructure. Artificial intelligence systems, search engines, social media platforms, and collaborative knowledge repositories increasingly shape how younger generations understand Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Israel. The issue extends beyond hostile content; it concerns the systems through which knowledge itself is produced, ranked, and transmitted. Bias embedded in these infrastructures can shape outcomes far beyond any single platform or news cycle.

From policy criticism to historical delegitimization. Fifth, challenges to Israel’s legitimacy increasingly extend beyond policy disputes to questions of historical belonging and collective identity. Criticism of Israeli policy, including severe criticism, is not inherently antisemitic; the concern is the movement from policy criticism to denial of Jewish peoplehood, historical connection, collective legitimacy, or equal national self-determination. Narratives that contest Jewish peoplehood, historical continuity, and ancestral connection to the Land of Israel have moved from fringe discourse into mainstream educational, institutional, and digital environments.

These transformations require a move from reactive response to standing systems. For Israeli decision-makers, priorities include treating global antisemitism as a national-security and peoplehood issue; building severity-based monitoring and aliyah-readiness infrastructure; launching a national initiative on AI, digital bias, and antisemitism; evaluating public diplomacy by demonstrated audience impact; strengthening diplomatic capacity to communicate Jewish historical continuity and indigeneity; and creating regular Israel-Diaspora consultation before decisions with foreseeable consequences for Jewish communities abroad.

For global Jewish leaders, priorities include measuring institutional effectiveness rather than relying solely on incident counts; reaching isolated Jews outside traditional communal frameworks; developing country-level risk and resilience dashboards; treating younger Jews as an early-warning population; building durable coalitions with non-Jewish partners; and creating protection mechanisms capable of surviving electoral and political change.

The assessment does not conclude that deterioration is inevitable. The contemporary environment presents significant challenges, but it also offers opportunities unavailable in previous generations. Israel exists as a sovereign center of Jewish life. Diaspora solidarity remains strong. New regional partnerships, technological capabilities, and institutional tools create opportunities for lasting progress. A growing body of evidence also identifies interventions that have produced measurable results – from institutional enforcement and civil-rights litigation to platform governance and accountability mechanisms.

These experiences provide a foundation for replication, adaptation, and shared learning across different national and communal contexts. The task is therefore not simply to respond to antisemitism more forcefully, but to build systems that change outcomes.

Assessment Framework: From Incidents to Signals

Any assessment of antisemitism must begin with data. It cannot end there. Incident statistics remain indispensable, but they do not alone indicate which developments are most likely to shape the future environment of Jewish communities and Israel. A year with fewer incidents may still be more dangerous if violence becomes more lethal, if confidence in public institutions deteriorates, or if anti-Jewish narratives become embedded in the systems that shape public knowledge.

The analysis that follows evaluates developments according to their likely significance for Jewish security, communal resilience, and Israel-Diaspora policy. Some represent durable transformations requiring long-term adaptation. Others are emerging developments whose future significance is not yet fully established. Still others reveal institutional gaps where existing policies, metrics, or response mechanisms remain inadequate to the challenge.

The purpose of this framework is to describe antisemitism in 2026 and to help decision-makers prioritize attention, allocate resources, and assess whether current responses match evolving threats.

Methodological Note: This assessment draws on national monitoring bodies, community-security organizations, public polling, legal outcomes, and selected media reports. These sources differ in definitions, reporting practices, and evidentiary thresholds. Cross-country comparisons are therefore used to identify patterns of severity and institutional stress, not to rank countries by absolute levels of antisemitism.

Category Definitions: A structural trend is visible across multiple countries or institutions and is likely to persist; an institutional gap is a mismatch between declared policy and operational capacity; and an emerging signal is a development whose scale is not yet fully measurable, but whose strategic implications justify monitoring.

These classifications are intended as a recurring assessment tool rather than a one-time exercise. Future editions of this assessment should reassess them annually, tracking which emerging signals become structural trends, which institutional gaps are addressed, and which new developments require sustained policy attention.

From Volume to Severity: Measuring the New Antisemitic Risk

Recent data point to related patterns across several Western democracies: incident levels remain historically elevated; physical violence has intensified in several jurisdictions; confidence in institutional protection has weakened; and growing numbers of Jews report modifying their behavior in response to antisemitism. While the pattern is not uniform across countries, the overall trend points toward a changing risk environment in which severity, rather than volume alone, has become an increasingly important indicator.

The available evidence from 2024-2026 makes this shift visible. In several countries, total incident numbers have stabilized or declined from immediate post-October 7 peaks, yet physical assaults, lethal attacks, and behavioral adaptation remain at historically high levels.

Three readings support the shift from volume to severity:

The post-October 7 baseline has not returned to normal. In several countries, 2025 figures are below the immediate post-October 7 peak but remain far above pre-2023 levels. The relevant question is not whether incidents are slightly down from the peak. It is whether Jewish communities have entered a new elevated-risk equilibrium. The decisive question is whether Jewish citizens experience the state as capable of protecting them in practice.

Violence can intensify even when total incidents decline. The United States illustrates this possibility: total incidents fell 33%, but physical assaults set a record at 203, and lethal violence reached its highest level since the 1990s (ADL 2026). France shows a related pattern (SPCJ and FMS 2026). Policymakers must track intensity and lethality separately from frequency.

Jewish insecurity is increasingly behavioral. The key indicator is not only whether Jews say they feel unsafe – it is whether they change their lives. Behavioral adaptation concealing identity, avoiding spaces, modifying speech is a strong real-world signal that antisemitism has begun to reshape ordinary Jewish behavior.

Policy implication: incident counts remain indispensable, but they are no longer sufficient. Future assessments should place greater emphasis on severity, lethality, behavioral adaptation, and indicators of community resilience. The question is not only how much antisemitism exists, but how dangerous it has become and how profoundly it affects Jewish life.

Strong Laws, Failing Protection: Antisemitism as a Test of Democratic Effectiveness

The second transformation is institutional: the decisive question is not only whether liberal democracies condemn antisemitism, but whether they protect Jews effectively in practice. Antisemitism should therefore be treated as a communal problem and as a diagnostic test of liberal-democratic effectiveness specifically of the gap between formal condemnation and operational protection.

In liberal democracies, Jews are formally protected by law. Most states condemn antisemitism, have adopted national strategies, hate-crime statutes, school programs, and official commemorations. These instruments are important. But they do not prove that protection is effective. The decisive question is whether Jewish citizens experience the state as capable of protecting them in practice.

This gap between norm and reality can be understood as performative condemnation: public denunciation without operational consequence. When antisemitic speech is publicly denounced but rarely sanctioned; when victims do not report because they expect no result; when the chain from incident to investigation to prosecution to conviction is systematically incomplete, the problem is not only hatred. It is also institutional underperformance. In the most serious cases, this creates a perception gap between public expressions of concern and operational consequence.

The French example illustrates the distinction clearly. France has one of Europe’s strongest legal frameworks against antisemitism, yet 2025 figures showed 1,320 antisemitic acts and a record 126 physical assaults (SPCJ and FMS 2026). Similarly, Britain has robust hate-crime legislation, yet 83% of British Jews believe police are not doing enough to protect them (Boyd 2025; CAA 2025). The question is not whether the law exists but whether it functions.

A broader European pattern may be emerging. In several Western European democracies, governments have strengthened legal frameworks and public commitments against antisemitism, while significant portions of Jewish communities continue to report declining confidence in institutional protection. The problem is not only legal but operational: whether public institutions can translate formal commitments into outcomes that are visible, measurable, and trusted by those they are intended to protect.

This explains the growing importance of litigation, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. Their value lies not only in individual cases won, but also in their ability to document protection gaps, generate public scrutiny, and provide evidence of where institutional responses succeed or fail. In this sense, antisemitism functions as a challenge for Jewish communities and as a test of democratic effectiveness.

Measuring institutional effectiveness requires tracking the full operational chain: report, classify, investigate, prosecute, convict, sentence, communicate outcome, and restore victim confidence. How many antisemitic complaints are filed, investigated, classified as hate crimes, prosecuted, and result in conviction? What are the sentencing rates for hate-crime aggravation? What is the average time from complaint to judicial outcome? These numbers are rarely published. Their absence is itself a diagnostic signal. Publishing them annually should be treated as a minimum requirement for states that claim to take antisemitism seriously.

Policy implication: the key indicator is not what governments say, but what happens after an incident is reported. Future assessments should focus on reporting rates, investigations, prosecutions, convictions, sentencing patterns, and time to resolution. Antisemitism serves as a sensitive measure of whether democratic institutions can convert legal principles into effective protection.

From Visible Institutions to Invisible Individuals: Identity Concealment and the Jews Outside Communal Reach

The third transformation is social and communal: the unit of protection cannot be only the visible Jewish institution. It must increasingly include the individual Jew. Synagogues, schools, federations, community centers, and advocacy organizations remain essential, but they do not capture the full geography of Jewish vulnerability.

This report uses the term “constrained visibility” to describe the pressure on Jews in formally free societies to reduce the public visibility of Jewish identity. The term captures a contemporary pattern of constrained concealment. The related term “marranization” may be analytically useful but should be understood only as an analogy and not as a claim of historical repetition.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) found that 55% of American Jews changed their behavior in the past year out of fear of antisemitism (AJC 2026). The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) reported that 76% of Jews in Europe hide their Jewish identity at least occasionally, while 34% avoid Jewish events or sites (FRA 2024).

When Jews avoid public markers of Jewishness, refrain from posting Jewish content online, avoid discussing Israel, or withdraw from professional or social spaces, antisemitism has moved beyond external hostility and into the management of everyday life.

This evolution exposes a broader problem. Current Jewish protection strategies remain heavily oriented toward visible institutions: synagogues, schools, federations, community centers, and advocacy organizations. These institutions are indispensable, but they are not the full map of Jewish vulnerability. The most exposed Jews are often outside organized communal networks: the only Jewish pupil in a school, the employee facing hostile speech without institutional support, the unaffiliated family, the online victim, or the individual who experiences antisemitism regularly but lacks the vocabulary, confidence, or institutional connection to report it.

As a result, a growing share of Jewish vulnerability remains difficult to detect. Existing resources tend to reach those already close enough to communal structures to know where help exists. The less connected the victim, the less likely the system is to see the case. These cases often remain invisible to the very mechanisms designed to assist them.

The task is therefore not only to strengthen institutions but to extend their reach. Future protection efforts should be evaluated not solely by the resilience of synagogues, schools, or communal organizations, but by their capacity to identify, support, and empower Jews beyond established communal frameworks.

Policy implication: protection must become accessible at the level of the individual. A confidential national reporting and referral platform should combine multilingual intake, anonymous reporting where necessary, legal triage, school and workplace referral pathways, emergency escalation, connection to existing communal organizations, and anonymized public reporting. This is one of the most underdeveloped components of current antisemitism policy.

From Online Content to Cognitive Infrastructure: AI, Platforms, and the Knowledge Environment

The fourth transformation concerns the knowledge environment: digital antisemitism is not only a matter of hostile content circulating online. It increasingly concerns the infrastructure through which users learn what is true, credible, and historically meaningful. A growing share of how younger generations understand Jews, Judaism, Zionism, and Israel is shaped not by teachers, journalists, or community institutions but by social platforms, search engines, generative AI models, and collaborative knowledge repositories.

Recent developments illustrate the scale of the challenge. ADL’s AI Index evaluation of Grok, one of the most widely used AI chatbots, awarded it a score of 21 out of 100 for its handling of antisemitism-related prompts, indicating serious shortcomings in identifying, contextualizing, and responding to antisemitic content (ADL 2026).

At the same time, disputes over the content, sourcing, and framing of entries related to Israel, Zionism, and Jewish history have highlighted the growing importance of collaborative reference platforms as arenas in which historical narratives are contested and amplified. Together, these developments point to a broader reality: the systems that organize and distribute knowledge are becoming policy arenas in their own right.

The concern is not that every unfavorable presentation of Israel or Zionism is antisemitic. The more consequential dangers are often subtler: persistent imbalance in historical framing, disproportionate source weighting, distorted treatment of Zionism, erosion of Jewish historical continuity, or the repeated association of Israel with a narrow set of criminalizing narratives. When such patterns become embedded in systems that millions of users rely on to discover, rank, and interpret information, their influence extends far beyond any single article, post, or news cycle.

This transformation carries concrete implications. Traditional responses to antisemitism have focused on identifying and removing harmful content. Increasingly, however, the problem lies upstream: how AI answer generation, search ranking, collaborative reference pages, training data, and recommendation systems select, prioritize, contextualize, and reproduce information. This requires attention to four layers: search ranking, AI-generated answers, collaborative reference platforms, and recommendation or amplification systems. Questions of transparency, auditing, accountability, and data quality become as important as questions of moderation.

Israel already possesses an underutilized comparative advantage here. Israel cannot govern the global information environment alone, but it can help build the tools by which bias is measured, documented, and contested. Potential interventions include regular independent audits of major AI models; expert correction networks for key reference resources; partnerships with technology companies to improve the quality and diversity of datasets relating to Jewish history, antisemitism, and Israel; and a national initiative bringing together technological expertise, research institutions, and public communication capabilities.

The durable objective, however, is governance rather than ownership. Control of a platform is temporary and often politically contested. By contrast, transparent audits, publicly available benchmarking, trusted datasets, accountability mechanisms, and regulatory frameworks can shape platform behavior regardless of ownership and therefore endure beyond any particular company, government, or leadership team.

Policy implication: the issue is not only the circulation of antisemitic material online. It is the growing influence of digital systems that determine what information users encounter, trust, and remember. Responses should address content moderation, but also transparency, auditing, accountability, and the governance of the infrastructures through which knowledge is produced and distributed.

From Policy Criticism to Historical Delegitimization: Israel, Indigeneity, and Jewish Continuity

The fifth transformation is conceptual: Israel’s legitimacy is not challenged only through criticism of specific policies. Increasingly, the challenge concerns the legitimacy of Jewish historical belonging itself a broader challenge than ordinary policy debate. Criticism of Israeli policy, including severe criticism, is not inherently antisemitic; the issue addressed here is the movement from policy criticism to denial of Jewish peoplehood, historical connection, collective legitimacy, or equal national self-determination.

For decades, Israel’s international legitimacy has often been framed through the memory of the Holocaust, the need for Jewish refuge, and the moral imperative of Jewish vulnerability. This framework remains essential, but it is no longer sufficient in an era of competitive victimhood, decolonial categories, and declining historical literacy. When legitimacy rests primarily on suffering, it becomes vulnerable to counter-narratives that minimize, relativize, or reframe that suffering.

The indigenous reframing offers a different basis: presenting Jewish legitimacy not primarily through suffering but through rootedness historical continuity, language, archaeology, religion, collective memory, and enduring attachment to land. In this framework, Zionism is not a European colonial project but the national movement of a people returning to political agency in its ancestral homeland. This framing can reverse rather than merely deflect the colonial accusation and can open the possibility of dialogue based on mutual recognition rather than competing victimhood, provided it is developed carefully and supported by scholarship rather than asserted as a slogan.

Related forms of recognition can be seen in the logic of the Abraham Accords and in emerging coalitions between Jewish, Christian, and indigenous activists who share a framework of rootedness and recognition. This reframing should be applied carefully: its purpose is not to deny Palestinian identity, suffering, or political claims. The concern arises when criticism of policy becomes denial of Jewish peoplehood, erasure of Jewish historical belonging, collective blame of Jews, or exclusion of Jews and Israel from standards applied to other nations.

Policy implication: policy-based advocacy should be complemented by frameworks rooted in Jewish peoplehood, historical continuity, and indigeneity. The question is not only what Israel does, but whether the legitimacy of Jewish nationhood itself is recognized.

Taken together, these five transformations point to a single underlying phenomenon: the progressive problematization of the Jewish fact itself. As Israel is recast from a contested state into a moral anomaly, Zionism comes to stand as the name for that anomaly, and visible Jewishness becomes, by association, socially burdensome.

The result is not merely an increase in hostility, but a new symbolic climate in which Jews learn to scale back their public presence, institutions hesitate to extend unambiguous protection, and aggression becomes easier to rationalize as the Jew is increasingly cast as bearing collective guilt. Constrained visibility, in this light, is not an isolated behavioral response but the social symptom of a deeper shift one in which Jewish identity, Israel, Zionism, Hebrew memory, and Jewish peoplehood are increasingly treated as problems to be managed rather than as the legitimate expressions of a living people.

What Has Worked: From Condemnation to Consequence

The five transformations described above point to a deteriorating environment, not to inevitability. The operational lesson is consistent: monitor, document, translate the problem into the institution’s own rules, escalate, impose a cost, measure the outcome, and replicate the model.

A growing body of evidence demonstrates that antisemitism can be reduced when interventions move beyond awareness and condemnation toward institutional accountability. The decisive variable is effectiveness in practice, not commitment in principle.

Despite operating in very different arenas, the most successful interventions share a common logic. They translate antisemitism into the institution’s own language of responsibility whether civil-rights law, editorial standards, platform-governance rules, educational norms, or compliance obligations. They create tangible costs for inaction or misconduct: legal, financial, reputational, disciplinary, or regulatory. They rely on documented evidence rather than appeals to sympathy, building cases through complaints, dossiers, audits, edit histories, and verified violations. They are often driven by specialized actors capable of acting more rapidly and more precisely than governments. They are grounded in universal standards that strengthen institutional integrity beyond the Jewish community alone. Above all, they can be measured.

What Works, What Works Partially, and What Does Not Work Alone

The evidence points to a hierarchy of effectiveness. The most consistently successful interventions are those that create consequences: application of existing law, civil-rights enforcement, litigation, funding pressure, professional accountability, evidence-based watchdog work, platform governance, and security hardening. Across very different contexts, these mechanisms alter incentives by attaching legal, financial, reputational, disciplinary, or regulatory costs to antisemitic conduct.

A second category consists of interventions that are necessary but rarely sufficient. National strategies, EU action plans, IHRA adoption, educational initiatives, interfaith dialogue, and public diplomacy can strengthen awareness, coordination, and institutional capacity. Their impact, however, becomes measurable only when they are connected to enforcement mechanisms and accountability structures.

A third category includes measures with symbolic or political value that do not, alone, change institutional behavior. High-level rhetoric, conferences, commemorations, new laws without prosecution, and public condemnations may be necessary for public norm-setting, but they do not reliably reduce antisemitism unless connected to enforcement and measurable consequence.

Two qualifications matter. First, protective success should not be confused with ideological reduction. Security measures for synagogues, schools, and community institutions save lives and reduce vulnerability, but they address physical protection rather than the drivers of antisemitism itself. Second, recognition frameworks – national strategies, special envoys, and formal policy instruments – remain important but cannot be assessed solely by their existence. Without publicly available enforcement data and measurable outcomes, their effectiveness remains difficult to evaluate.

That sequence should be treated as a replicable model: monitor, document, translate the problem into the institution’s own rules, escalate, impose a cost, measure the outcome, and adapt the model to local conditions.

Opportunities: Building Durable Systems in a Crisis

The current crisis is both a threat environment and an opportunity to build durable systems. The five transformations described above require severity-based monitoring, operational protection metrics, channels to reach individual Jews outside communal structures, technological governance of knowledge infrastructure, and a confident language of Jewish historical rootedness. The present crisis is severe, but it is not structurally comparable to Jewish vulnerability before the creation of Israel. Israel exists as a sovereign center of Jewish life. Diaspora solidarity has deepened in measurable, financial terms. Opportunities exist that were not available in earlier historical moments. The challenge is to act on them with method.

Abraham Accords: From Diplomatic Framework to Operational Alliance

Despite the Gaza war, the 2026 conflict with Iran, and sustained diplomatic pressure, regional alignments have shown signs of durability. Reported UAE-Israel trade has exceeded $11.7 billion. Joint military exercises took place in April 2025. Reports of UAE deployment of Iron Dome systems under Iranian fire in 2026, if confirmed, would mark a qualitative threshold. Morocco signed a joint military action plan for 2026 with $277 million in defense contracts. Reports that Somaliland and Kazakhstan joined or moved toward the Accords in late 2025 should be treated as politically significant but require continued verification and monitoring. The Builders of the Middle East initiative has accumulated over 500 million views, documenting Arab, Iranian, and Kurdish populations who aspire to normalization (JPPI 2025).

These developments matter for antisemitism because they weaken the civilizational isolation of Israel and create non-Jewish validators of Jewish legitimacy. They suggest the Abraham Accords may be evolving from a diplomatic framework into a more operationally relevant network, though durability remains dependent on regional politics, U.S. policy, and the trajectory of regional conflicts.

Diaspora Solidarity: From Emotion to Patrimony

Israel Bonds reached $2 billion for the third consecutive year. Post-October 7 philanthropy generated $2 billion in additional contributions. This is more than emotional solidarity. It is a financial and patrimonial bond in active construction.

The same evidence also points to a mobility challenge. Amid growing concern about Jewish emigration from parts of Europe, some communal leaders have warned of a significant demographic outflow. In January 2025, Menachem Margolin, Chairman of the European Jewish Association, stated that approximately 40,000 Jews had left Europe in recent years with no intention of returning. Combined with evidence of rising emigration intent among British Jews (Boyd 2025), these warnings suggest that large-scale aliyah scenarios should be incorporated into planning as contingencies, even if their scale remains uncertain.

The challenge is to institutionalize this solidarity before crisis-driven mobilization erodes; the 1967 precedent shows that post-shock mobilization can dissipate rapidly if not formalized into durable structures.

Institutional Firmness as a Replicable Model

In the United States, the closure or removal of antisemitic university encampments coincided with a 33% decline in antisemitic incidents (ADL 2026). This suggests that visible institutional enforcement may reduce permissive environments, though causality should be treated cautiously and tested against other factors, including protest cycles, university policies, reporting practices, and legal pressure.

The broader lesson is not partisan endorsement of any single case, but the importance of enforcement that survives litigation and produces measurable consequences. This model should be documented, analyzed, and adapted across Western democracies.

A Critical Caveat: The Electoral Fragility of Positive Signals

Several of these positive signals are politically fragile. Some campus enforcement steps were administration-specific decisions that future governments could reverse. The Abraham Accords’ resilience partly depends on U.S. credibility in the region. In the UK, 81% of British Jews believe the current Labour government tolerates antisemitism in its ranks (Boyd 2025).

Strategies for protecting Jewish communities must be designed to survive electoral change: anchored in law, measured by public indicators, and supported by institutions independent of the political cycle.

The test is whether crisis-driven gains can be converted into law, budget lines, institutional procedures, and public indicators that survive political turnover.

The opportunity, therefore, is to convert fragile gains into institutions, metrics, and partnerships that endure beyond the current crisis.

A Dissenting View: The Case for Turning Inward

In his February 2026 “State of World Jewry” address at New York’s 92nd Street Y, columnist Bret Stephens offered a challenge this assessment takes seriously. Antisemitism, he argued, is largely impervious to education, persuasion, and appeals to Jewish accomplishment; the organized “fight against antisemitism” is therefore a well-meaning but mostly wasted effort. His conclusion is radical: stop funding defense – he would “dismantle” the ADL – and reinvest entirely in internal Jewish life: schools, culture, institutions, and a confident sense of identity.

On two points, this assessment agrees. His diagnosis matches Transformation 2: formal commitments are not translating into effective protection. And his prescription abandon apologetics, stop seeking approval, affirm Jewish identity on its own terms – is the very shift urged in Transformation 5 and in the move from condemnation to consequence: from a defensive narrative of suffering to an offensive one of rootedness and historical continuity.

The disagreement is narrow but decisive. Stephens treats defense and identity as an either/or, defunding the first to fund the second; this assessment treats them as both/and, holding that protection remains necessary even where it is insufficient. Here Transformation 3 is the deciding consideration. A turn inward reaches Jews already connected to communal structures; it does not reach the isolated – the only Jewish pupil in a school, the unaffiliated family, the online victim – who are the most exposed precisely because they stand outside those structures. To dismantle the protective apparatus in their name would deepen their invisibility, not relieve it. The task is not to choose between defense and identity, but to build standing systems that do both, and that reach the individuals current systems miss.

Directions for Intervention

The recommendations below translate the five transformations into operational priorities for two distinct audiences: Israeli decision-makers and global Jewish leaders.

Their roles are complementary, not interchangeable. Israel possesses sovereign capacities, diplomatic leverage, technological assets, and responsibilities toward Jewish migration and absorption that no Diaspora institution can replicate. Global Jewish organizations, by contrast, are closer to local vulnerabilities, communal networks, educational environments, and the everyday realities of Jewish life in democratic societies.

Several recommendations therefore apply primarily to one audience or the other. Certain challenges, however, cut across all five transformations. Preparedness for large-scale Diaspora mobility, digital knowledge governance, and measurable protection require sustained cooperation between Israel and Jewish communities worldwide and cannot be treated as standalone issues separate from the broader evolution of antisemitism.

Recommendations for Israeli Decision-Makers

Antisemitism as a national security variable. Antisemitism is conventionally treated as a matter of communal security guards at synagogue doors, hate-crime statutes, the physical safety of Jews where they live. That framing is no longer adequate. The normalization of antisemitic discourse has become a variable in Israel’s national security and should be tracked as one. When anti-Zionist premises are held by protesters, the cost to Israel is reputational. When they are held by the official who signs an export license, the cost is material.

That cost is already visible. Arms export licenses have been suspended, restricted, or litigated in a series of allied capitals over the past two years, with parallel pressure building on dual-use components, research consortia, divestment, insurance, and shipping. Each of these began as a marginal demand; each has since found sponsors inside government. And the timelines are asymmetric political moods are measured in months, defense supply chains in years. A restriction sustained for a single parliamentary term can open a capability gap that takes a decade to close.

Two implications follow. Responsibility for antisemitism cannot sit solely in the Diaspora and foreign affairs portfolios; it belongs on the National Security Council’s agenda, assessed for how elite attitudes in allied states translate into procurement, legal, and intelligence-sharing risk.

And the metrics need revision. Incident counts measure the safety of Jewish communities, which matters enormously, but they do not measure what is most dangerous to Israel. What is needed is an index of institutional penetration – the positions held inside legislatures, ministries, courts, and party structures in the states on which Israel’s defense depends. That is the number that predicts the next embargo, and it is not being systematically tracked.

Conclusion

The current phase of global antisemitism cannot be understood simply as the intensification of an old phenomenon. It reflects linked changes in violence, institutional protection, Jewish behavior, digital knowledge systems, and the language of Jewish historical legitimacy.

These transformations require a different kind of response. Public condemnation, physical security, legal protection, and communication campaigns remain necessary. But they are insufficient on their own. Decision-makers must measure institutional effectiveness, reach Jews outside organized communal networks, address digital and AI-based knowledge systems, prepare for large-scale Diaspora mobility, and develop a more robust and confident language of Jewish historical belonging.

For Israel and Jewish institutions worldwide, the central task is not only to respond more forcefully. It is to respond with greater discipline, better instruments, and clearer measures of success.

The task is not only to condemn, protect, or explain. It is to build systems that change outcomes.

Bibliography

Anti-Defamation League (ADL). 2025. Editing for Hate: How Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Bias Undermines Wikipedia’s Neutrality. New York: Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League (ADL). 2026a. Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2025. New York: Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League (ADL). 2026b. “A Tipping Point: Canada’s Jewish Community Faces Unprecedented Threat as Three Synagogues Attacked in Five Days.” March 12, 2026.

American Jewish Committee (AJC). 2026. The State of Antisemitism in America 2025. New York: American Jewish Committee.

B’nai Brith Canada. 2026. Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2025. Ottawa: B’nai Brith Canada.

Boyd, Jonathan. 2025. Two Years After the October 7 Attacks: British Jewish Views on Antisemitism, Israel and Jewish Life. London: Institute for Jewish Policy Research.

Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). 2025. New Polling Shows Britain’s Failure to Protect Its Jews. London: Campaign Against Antisemitism.

CNN. 2024. “Melbourne, Australia: Adass Israel Synagogue Attack to Be Investigated as a Terrorist Incident.” December 9, 2024.

Community Security Trust (CST). 2026. Antisemitic Incidents Report 2025. London: Community Security Trust.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2024. Jewish People’s Experiences and Perceptions of Antisemitism. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Euronews. 2025. “Europe Urged to Tackle Antisemitism as Thousands of Jews Leave the Continent.” January 14, 2025.

Euronews. 2026. “UK Police Investigate Jewish Charity Ambulance Arson Attack as Hate Crime.” March 23, 2026.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ). 2025. Special Report: Anti-Jewish Incidents in Australia 2025. Sydney: Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

France 24. 2024. “Attaque de la synagogue de La Grande-Motte: l’incendiaire présumé et un proche mis en examen.” August 28, 2024.

The Guardian. 2024. “Armed Man Who Set Fire to Rouen Synagogue Shot Dead.” May 18, 2024.

Hendrix, Steve, and Karla Adam. 2025. “Two Killed in Synagogue Attack on Yom Kippur in Manchester, England.” The Washington Post, October 2, 2025.

Jewish News Syndicate (JNS). 2026. “2026 on Pace to Become Most Violent Year for Canadian Jews, B’nai Brith Warns.” May 9, 2026.

Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI). 2025. Annual Assessment of the Jewish People 2025/5785. Jerusalem: Jewish People Policy Institute.

NPR. 2026. “U.K. Calls Antisemitism an Emergency After Arson and Stabbing Attacks on Jewish People.” April 30, 2026.

Service de Protection de la Communauté Juive (SPCJ) and Fondation pour la Mémoire de la Shoah (FMS). 2026. Rapport sur l’antisémitisme en France en 2025. Paris: SPCJ and FMS.

Solomon, Shoshanna. 2024. “Fueled by Fear and Fraternity, Foreigners Start Buying Up Israeli Homes, Just in Case.” The Times of Israel, December 6, 2024.

The Times of Israel. 2026. “Jewish Apartment Building in London’s Golders Green Targeted in Suspected Arson, No Injuries.” June 2, 2026.