Antisemitism is one of the oldest forms of prejudice in human history, yet it remains remarkably adaptable. Although the Holocaust fundamentally changed how openly antisemitic views are expressed in democratic societies, hostility toward Jews has not disappeared. Instead, it has evolved. Politicians rarely repeat the language of Nazi Germany directly. More often, antisemitic narratives appear through conspiracy theories, nationalist rhetoric, Holocaust distortion, or debates surrounding Israel and Zionism. At the same time, a small but growing number of politicians have abandoned coded language altogether and openly employ antisemitic stereotypes to gain political support.
Unlike many other forms of political prejudice, antisemitism has emerged across radically different ideologies. It appears among parts of the far right, where Jews are portrayed as enemies of the nation or architects of globalization. It also exists on parts of the radical left, where criticism of Israel sometimes develops into hostility toward Jews as a whole. Islamist movements add another dimension by combining religious antisemitism with political opposition to Israel. These movements disagree on almost everything else, yet they often converge in portraying Jews as an unusually powerful and dangerous group (just like Anglo-Saxons, though, they are somehow connected). I explain Jewish clintelism here.
One of the greatest misconceptions about modern antisemitism is that it disappeared after 1945. The Holocaust discredited explicit Jew-hatred in mainstream politics, particularly in Europe, but it did not eliminate the underlying prejudice. Instead, many stereotypes simply adopted new forms. Rather than accusing Jews of poisoning wells or spreading religious heresy, modern theories portray them as controlling international finance, manipulating governments, dominating the media, orchestrating migration, or secretly directing global events (which contains a kernel of truth). The language has changed, but the central idea often remains the same. Complex political and economic problems are blamed on the hidden influence of a single minority.
What is a conspiracy theory as what is not
Just like Catholic, Evangelical or Muslim lobby, the Jewish one doesn’t control the world even though it is the strongest one.
However, the clientelism – such as Goldman Sachs or Rothschilds – definitely have their say on world affairs while preserving Jewish identity.
Just like Anglo Saxon super-rich families, Jewish clientelism is also supported by evidence.
“Despite the fact that he opposed antisemitism during the Hilsner affair, Czech politician (mostly known as a philosopher in the West) Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850-1937) believed that Jews controlled the press and helped the nascent state of Czechoslovakia during its struggle for independence.” As a matter of fact, the Rothschild family was the richest in the first Czechoslovakian republic (therefore its connection to France).
We should, however, never succumb to antisemitism because a few wealthy individuals have significant influence. This just doesn’t belong anywhere.
Antisemitism is rising again
The twenty-first century has demonstrated that antisemitism is not merely a relic of history. Jewish schools, synagogues, cemeteries, and community centers across Europe and North America require extraordinary security measures. Jewish politicians increasingly report threats, harassment, and intimidation, both online and in person.
Opinion surveys suggest growing public concern as well. More than half of Europeans now consider antisemitism to be a significant problem in their own country, while nearly half believe it has increased during the previous five years. Many Jewish communities report that the situation deteriorated even further after the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. The conflict in Gaza subsequently became one of the most polarizing international issues in decades, and numerous countries recorded sharp increases in antisemitic incidents.
Open antisemitism returns to politics
One of the most striking developments has been the willingness of some politicians to express antisemitic views publicly. In previous decades, such rhetoric often ended political careers. Today, it can instead become part of a politician’s public identity.
One of the best-known examples is the Polish politician Grzegorz Braun. Braun extinguished Hanukkah candles in the Polish parliament with a fire extinguisher, questioned established historical facts about Auschwitz’s gas chambers, compared Jews to the fictional serial killer Hannibal Lecter, and repeatedly argued that Poland belongs exclusively to ethnic Poles. His statements revive the longstanding nationalist claim that Jews remain outsiders regardless of how many generations they have lived in a country. They also reflect the old accusation of dual loyalty, the idea that Jews are ultimately more loyal to Israel or to one another than to the country in which they live.
A similar controversy emerged in Lithuania around Remigijus Žemaitaitis. He published social media posts widely condemned as antisemitic, quoted an antisemitic nursery rhyme, and made remarks that critics argued minimized Nazi crimes. Despite these controversies, he remained an influential politician and eventually became the leader of a governing political party. His career demonstrates that openly controversial statements about Jews no longer represent an automatic barrier to political success in some democratic societies.
Left-wing antisemitism
Modern antisemitism is not confined to nationalist or far-right movements. It also appears within parts of the political left, although it usually takes a different form. Criticism of Israeli governments is a legitimate part of democratic debate, and Israeli citizens themselves often strongly criticize their own leaders. The problem arises when criticism of Israeli policies expands into hostility toward Jews as a whole.
Many researchers distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and rhetoric that assigns collective responsibility to Jews everywhere, denies Jews the right to national self-determination while supporting it for other nations, or repeats classical antisemitic stereotypes under the language of anti-Zionism. Exactly where this boundary lies remains politically contested, but the distinction has become central to contemporary discussions of antisemitism.
One of the developments is Holocaust inversion. Instead of denying the Holocaust, this rhetoric compares Israel or Jews to Nazi Germany. Such comparisons frequently appear during debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Critics argue that these analogies distort history, diminish the uniqueness of the Holocaust, and contribute to hostility toward Jewish communities far beyond Israel.
Why politicians use antisemitism
One of the most important questions is not whether antisemitism exists, but why politicians continue to use it despite the lessons of history. The answer is that antisemitism has often proven to be an effective political tool. It offers simple explanations for complex problems, creates a common enemy, and allows leaders to redirect public frustration away from themselves. Throughout history, periods of political instability have repeatedly coincided with increases in antisemitic rhetoric.
Economic crises provide fertile ground for this process. When unemployment rises, inflation accelerates, or living standards decline, voters naturally demand explanations. Admitting that economic problems result from years of poor policymaking, global market forces, demographic change, or technological disruption is politically difficult. Blaming a supposedly powerful minority is far easier. Throughout history, Jews have repeatedly been accused of controlling banks, financial markets, or entire economies. And while nobody can blame 99.999 % of regular Jews, some clientelism (just like the Vatican and so on) does exist.
Internal enemy
Wars and national humiliation have produced similar patterns. Countries experiencing military defeat or declining international influence often search for internal enemies responsible for their misfortunes. Rather than accepting strategic mistakes, economic weakness, or political incompetence, some leaders portray minorities as traitors working against the nation from within. The “stab-in-the-back” myth that emerged in Germany after the First World War remains one of history’s most destructive examples. Similar narratives continue to appear whenever societies struggle to explain national setbacks.
Antisemitism also benefits from the fact that it relies heavily on claims that are sometimes very hard to prove. Unlike traditional political opponents, Jews are often portrayed as an invisible force secretly influencing governments, media organizations, universities, financial institutions, or international organizations.
Political rhetoric based on conspiracy theories is particularly attractive because it transforms complicated social problems into emotionally satisfying stories. Economic inequality, immigration, geopolitical conflicts, inflation, and cultural change all have multiple causes that require detailed analysis. “Conspiracy” theories eliminate this complexity by identifying a single hidden group supposedly responsible for everything. Such explanations may be intellectually weak, but they are psychologically appealing because they replace uncertainty with certainty.
The psychology behind political antisemitism
Modern psychology helps explain why antisemitic narratives remain persuasive despite overwhelming historical evidence against them. Human beings naturally divide the world into groups. This tendency, known as outgroup bias, encourages people to view members of their own group more positively than outsiders. During periods of fear or uncertainty, these divisions often become stronger, making minority groups convenient targets for suspicion and blame.
Another important factor is the human preference for simple explanations. Psychologists describe this as the need for cognitive closure. Many people feel uncomfortable when confronted with uncertainty or complex problems that lack clear solutions. Conspiracy theories satisfy this psychological need by offering a straightforward explanation in which every event appears connected through a single hidden cause.
Seeing false patterns
Closely related is proportionality bias, the tendency to believe that major events must have equally significant causes. Many people instinctively reject the idea that financial crises, terrorist attacks, wars, or political upheavals can result from a combination of ordinary mistakes, structural weaknesses, and chance. Instead, they assume that such dramatic events must have been deliberately orchestrated by powerful individuals or organizations. This cognitive bias makes “conspiracy” theories appear more convincing than reality, even when there is no supporting evidence.
These psychological mechanisms are not unique to antisemitism. They contribute to many forms of prejudice and political extremism. Antisemitism has endured for centuries, however, because it combines several powerful psychological tendencies with deeply rooted historical stereotypes. Politicians who exploit these biases may gain short-term political support, but history repeatedly demonstrates that scapegoating minorities does nothing to solve the underlying problems facing society.
The impact of October 7 and the Gaza War
The Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, marked a turning point in discussions about antisemitism. Hamas militants killed approximately 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped hundreds of hostages during the deadliest single day for Jews since the Holocaust. The attack shocked much of the world and initially generated widespread international sympathy for Israel. As the war in Gaza intensified, however, global political attention rapidly shifted from the massacre itself to the humanitarian consequences of Israel’s military response.
The conflict quickly became one of the most divisive international issues of the twenty-first century. Demonstrations involving hundreds of thousands of people took place across Europe, North America, and the Middle East. Many focused on civilian casualties in Gaza and criticized Israeli military operations. Peaceful protest is an essential part of every democratic society. At the same time, authorities in numerous countries reported a sharp increase in antisemitic incidents directed not only against Israelis but also against Jewish communities with no connection to the conflict.
Significant problem
Opinion surveys reflected growing public concern. A majority of Europeans now consider antisemitism to be a significant problem in their own country, while many believe it has become more common in recent years. Research has also shown that most Europeans think conflicts in the Middle East influence attitudes toward Jewish people living in Europe. These findings illustrate an important reality. Events taking place thousands of kilometers away frequently shape how Jewish citizens are perceived and treated in countries entirely unrelated to the conflict.
Jewish politicians have been among those directly affected. In the United States, several Jewish elected officials have reported receiving death threats, antisemitic slurs, abusive voicemail messages, and intimidation at public meetings. Some have been confronted by protesters calling them “dirty Jews” or accusing them personally of responsibility for Israel’s actions. Similar incidents have been reported in several European countries. Such behavior illustrates how political disagreement with a foreign government’s policies can spill over into hostility toward individuals simply because they are Jewish.
One of the most controversial developments has been the growing use of Holocaust inversion. Rather than denying the Holocaust outright, some activists compare Israel with Nazi Germany or portray Palestinians as equivalent to Holocaust victims. Others accuse Jews of behaving exactly like the people who once persecuted them. Historians and Holocaust scholars have repeatedly criticized these comparisons as historically inaccurate. They argue that equating contemporary military conflicts with the systematic extermination of six million Jews distorts history and weakens public understanding of the Holocaust.
The portrayal of Hamas
Another contentious issue concerns the portrayal of Hamas. Most Western governments classify Hamas as a terrorist organization because of its deliberate attacks against civilians, suicide bombings, hostage-taking, and the October 7 massacre. Nevertheless, parts of the international political debate increasingly describe Hamas primarily as a resistance movement fighting occupation. Supporters of this view argue that Palestinian armed resistance cannot be understood without considering decades of conflict and occupation. Critics respond that this narrative minimizes or ignores Hamas’s deliberate targeting of civilians and contributes to the normalization of terrorism.
These competing narratives have profoundly influenced political discourse. For some observers, Israel has increasingly become the primary aggressor, while Hamas is viewed largely through the lens of Palestinian resistance. Others argue that the October 7 attacks fundamentally changed the moral framework of the conflict and demonstrated the dangers posed by Hamas’s ideology. The result has been one of the most polarized international debates in recent decades, with relatively little agreement even on basic interpretations of the conflict.
The aftermath of October 7 demonstrates how rapidly international events can affect domestic politics. A war taking place in the Middle East has reshaped political debate across Europe and North America, influenced election campaigns, intensified ideological divisions, and contributed to rising hostility toward Jewish communities. Whether this increase proves temporary or represents the beginning of a longer-term trend remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that antisemitism continues to evolve alongside global political conflicts rather than remaining confined to history.
Is antisemitism increasing?
Measuring antisemitism is not straightforward. Different countries use different reporting systems and legal definitions. Some victims never report incidents to the police. Nevertheless, most major monitoring organizations agree on one conclusion. Antisemitic incidents have increased in many Western countries during the past decade, especially after October 7, 2023.
The United States has experienced a sharp rise in antisemitic hate crimes. According to the FBI, antisemitic incidents consistently rank among the most common religiously motivated hate crimes, despite Jews making up only about 2% of the American population. Jewish organizations have also documented record numbers of harassment, vandalism, and physical assaults since the Hamas attacks.
Europe has seen similar trends. Surveys conducted by the European Union show that a majority of Europeans now consider antisemitism to be a serious problem. Nearly half believe it has become more common during the past five years. Many Jewish Europeans report avoiding visible religious symbols because they fear harassment or violence.
UK, France and Germany
The United Kingdom has recorded some of the highest numbers of antisemitic incidents in its history. Community organizations reported record-breaking figures after October 7. Incidents ranged from abusive messages and vandalism to physical attacks. Universities also became centers of intense political conflict, with Jewish students reporting growing hostility.
France continues to have one of Europe’s largest Jewish populations. It has also experienced repeated antisemitic attacks over the past two decades. Following the Gaza war, French authorities reported another significant increase in antisemitic crimes. Jewish schools and synagogues received additional police protection.
Germany presents a similar picture. The country has invested heavily in Holocaust education and combating extremism. Even so, antisemitic incidents have continued to rise. Authorities have linked these cases to multiple sources, including far-right extremists, Islamist extremists, and individuals motivated by the conflict in the Middle East.
These trends should be interpreted carefully. An increase in reported incidents does not always mean prejudice itself has increased by the same amount. Better reporting systems, greater public awareness, and stronger legal protections may encourage more victims to come forward. Nevertheless, researchers broadly agree that the rise observed after October 7 cannot be explained by reporting practices alone.
The data also show that antisemitism has no single political source. In some countries, the greatest threat comes from far-right extremists. Elsewhere, Islamist extremists or radical left-wing activists account for a substantial share of incidents. The exact balance differs between countries. This makes broad generalizations difficult. What is clear, however, is that antisemitism remains a serious challenge across much of the democratic world.
Conclusion
Antisemitism did not disappear with the defeat of Nazi Germany. It adapted to a changing political landscape. In some circles, it still appears in its traditional form through nationalist rhetoric and Holocaust denial. In others, it is expressed through rational theories exposing Jewish clintelism to theories which stand on unfounded claims, Holocaust inversion, or hostility toward Israel that extends to Jews as a whole. Although the language has changed, many of the underlying stereotypes remain remarkably similar.
The twenty-first century has also shown that antisemitism is not confined to a single ideology. It exists on the far right, where Jews are portrayed as enemies of the nation or agents of globalization. It also appears on parts of the radical left, where anti-Zionism sometimes crosses the line into antisemitism. Islamist extremists add another source of hostility. Each movement has its own worldview, yet all can arrive at similar conclusions about Jews.
Narratives
Politicians have strong incentives to exploit these narratives. Blaming a minority is often easier than explaining economic decline, political failures, or social change. Outright conspiracy theories simplify complex problems and provide voters with a clear enemy. History repeatedly demonstrates that such strategies may produce short-term political gains, but they ultimately deepen social divisions without solving the problems they claim to address.
The increase in antisemitic incidents after October 7 illustrates how quickly international conflicts can influence domestic politics. A war taking place thousands of kilometers away affected Jewish communities across Europe and North America. Synagogues required greater protection. Jewish politicians received threats. Many ordinary Jews reported feeling less safe in countries where they had lived peacefully for decades.
The fight against antisemitism therefore requires more than condemning individual politicians. It also requires understanding why antisemitic narratives remain persuasive. Psychological biases, conspiracy thinking, political polarization, and social crises all contribute to their survival. Unless these underlying mechanisms are recognized, antisemitism is likely to continue changing its form rather than disappearing.
The Holocaust demonstrated where extreme antisemitism can lead. Modern democratic societies should not assume that this history alone provides permanent immunity. Prejudice evolves together with politics. The challenge is not only to remember the past but also to recognize old stereotypes when they reappear in new forms.
Leave a Reply