Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Are jews really that hatable?
Executive summary
Antisemitism — hostility, harassment, vandalism and violence directed at Jews — has risen sharply in recent years worldwide and in the United States: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recorded 9,354 incidents in the U.S. in 2024 and reported continued high counts into 2025, with similar trend-lines documented by other monitoring groups and news outlets [1] [2] [3]. Government, advocacy and international bodies are responding with laws, executive actions and task forces even as debates grow about definitions, political uses of antisemitism policy, and the relationship between anti‑Zionism and antisemitism [4] [5] [6].
1. Hate quantified: the scale of the problem
Measured incident totals from multiple organizations show a sustained and, by many counts, record-high level of anti‑Jewish incidents. The ADL reported 9,354 antisemitic harassment, vandalism and assault incidents in the U.S. in 2024 and continued tracking high numbers into 2025 [1] [7]. Reuters and other outlets have documented attacks and vandalism globally since Oct. 7, 2023, including violent attacks in cities such as Manchester and episodes of arson and vandalism in Sydney and elsewhere [2]. Combat Antisemitism’s Antisemitism Research Center likewise recorded thousands of incidents in early 2025 and warned campuses and communities remain focal points [8] [9].
2. Where the anger shows up: campuses, streets and online
Much of the recent surge has manifested on college campuses, in public spaces and online. The ADL and other trackers reported steep increases in campus incidents — one source cited an 84% year‑over‑year rise in campus antisemitism — while swastikas and celebrations of violent attacks have appeared in vandalism and harassment cases [1] [3] [8]. International organizations and human‑rights offices note renewed online hatred and public harassment across Europe and beyond [10].
3. Policy responses — law, executive orders and investigations
Governments and institutions have moved to respond. In the U.S., the Antisemitism Awareness Act [11] would direct federal agencies to consider the IHRA working definition of antisemitism when enforcing anti‑discrimination laws in education [4] [12]. The White House issued an executive order in January 2025 directing federal action to combat antisemitism on campuses and more broadly [5]. The Guardian reported a surge in Education Department investigations into universities for antisemitism allegations, noting that such inquiries outpaced other discrimination probes in a recent period [13].
4. Political fault lines and competing narratives
There is disagreement about the aims and effects of policy. The Guardian reported that some critics view new legal and administrative definitions of antisemitism as tools that can be used by Christian nationalists or authoritarian‑leaning initiatives to suppress dissent and target left‑leaning or pro‑Palestinian groups, arguing redefinition of antisemitism can consolidate executive power [6]. Conversely, conservative task forces and Jewish advocacy groups have emphasized that antisemitism comes from multiple political directions, including the right, and have urged Republicans and others to confront that reality [14].
5. How criticism of Israel fits — contested boundary lines
Multiple sources note an important distinction and a contested overlap between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and antisemitism. Human‑rights commentary warns some criticism crosses into antisemitism when it holds all Jews responsible for government actions; policy drafters and lawmakers have incorporated IHRA examples that include certain anti‑Israel rhetoric as potential antisemitism, a move that fuels debate about free speech and enforcement [10] [4]. Legal and campus guidance documents are being prepared to help institutions navigate these tensions [15].
6. Two perspectives journalists must keep visible
One long‑standing view presented by advocacy groups and governments treats the recent spike in incidents as a clear, unprecedented rise in hatred that requires robust enforcement and prevention [1] [7]. An alternative, voiced in opinion and investigative pieces, warns that expanding definitions and enforcement can be politicized, potentially curbing legitimate protest and being leveraged by actors with broader political agendas [6] [14]. Both perspectives appear in current reporting and are driving policy debates.
7. What the reporting does not say
Available sources do not mention any definitive sociological causal model that proves a single explanation (e.g., only social media, only geopolitics, or only partisan elites) is responsible for the rise; instead, reports point to multiple overlapping drivers — the Israel‑Gaza war, extremist actors, online amplification and political disputes — without a single agreed‑upon cause [2] [8] [10]. Sources also do not provide a neutral moral verdict to the question framed by the user; rather, they document rising incidents and intense debate over definition and response [1] [6].
Conclusion: Reporting across watchdogs, news organizations and government documents establishes that antisemitism is currently elevated and has produced violence and widespread harassment, prompting legal and administrative measures — but sources also show fierce disagreement over definitions and the political uses of antisemitism policy, meaning public debate and policy responses will continue to be contested [1] [4] [6].