Stop explaining antisemitism. Start defeating it.
Modern antisemitism is not a misunderstanding to be clarified, but a movement to be confronted, exposed, and defeated.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
This is a guest essay by Nachum Kaplan, a longtime journalist and commentator who writes the newsletter, “Moral Clarity.”
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
The fight against antisemitism in the West has failed.
It has failed not because the threat was misunderstood, but because it was treated as something it is not.
For too long, it has been conducted like a boring university seminar. The tone is calm, the language careful, and it is infused with an almost religious faith in education, dialogue, and shared humanity.
For a long time it looked like it was working. Now it is clear that it has failed miserably.
Antisemitism is spreading at a pace unseen in most people’s living memory. It is mutating, expanding, and gaining legitimacy in real-time thanks to the digital horror show we have created under the banner of progress. It has moved from the fringe to the mainstream and from the conspiratorial whisper to the confident chant.
Yet the Jewish response has followed yesteryear’s same tired script: expressing outrage, issuing statements, joining panel discussions, appealing to conscience, and demanding that authorities act. These well-intentioned responses are remnants of a strategy built for a world that no longer exists — one in which antisemitism carried social cost, institutions enforced norms, and people feared the antisemite label.
The problem is that nothing fails like success. The conventional response worked for so long that many find it difficult to accept that it is now obsolete.
None of those assumptions hold anymore. We are not facing a lack of education or misunderstanding; we are facing a malignant and malevolent movement. Education campaigns, despite their virtues, do not defeat ideological movements. Power, pressure, narrative, and cultural dominance now crush facts and, increasingly, everything tethered to them.
The old model begins with the misconception that people hate Jews because they do not know enough about them, or what terrible events antisemitism can lead to, so if we can educate them, the hatred will dissolve.
This is dangerously wrong.
If you are my age or older, you will remember the great hopes we had about the internet. With the sum of human knowledge just a click away, people would have access to facts, history, and understanding like never before. An educational utopia loomed. That whole hypothesis sounds absurd now. Cat videos and porn dominate in internet, social media has rotted everyone’s brains, lies and conspiracy theories abound, and attention spans have shrunk to the size of hair pins.
Modern antisemitism is also often highly literate. It speaks the language of human rights, quotes international law, and wraps itself in the vocabulary of justice while reviving ancient conspiracies in new forms. Far from being a lack of information, the problem is a surplus of ideology. You cannot educate someone out of a belief from which they derive identity, status, and moral certainty. You cannot correct what is not experienced as an error.
We must stop treating antisemitism as a misunderstanding. It is an adversarial force of highly committed people. Once we accept this, everything changes.
Jews also need to stop being so boringly decent. For years, Jewish organizations have been terrified of stating obvious facts clearly, always softening language, qualifying statements, and searching for formulations that will offend the fewest people. This approach has lowered antisemitism’s profile rather than exposing it, making it harder to see. Nuance has its place, but if everything is nuanced, nothing is clear. If every statement comes with caveats, every accusation becomes debatable.
As former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once said: “If you’re explaining, you’re losing.”
Meanwhile, the Jew-haters have no such hesitation. They speak in terrifying absolutes. That makes them effective at PR but also exposes them as moral lunatics. Forget politeness; we need to be offending and humiliating as many of our foes as possible.
An effective campaign requires lines that cannot be blurred. “Anti-Zionism” is antisemitism. Period. Never to be discussed again. Double standards applied to Jews or Israel are antisemitism and must not be allowed to pass as sophisticated analysis. Conspiracy narratives about Jewish power are antisemitism, and those holding them should be tarred and feathered. These are not discussion points; they are definitions, which, when repeated enough, become reality.
Today’s model must expose, not teach. Teaching assumes goodwill and a willing audience. Exposure reveals patterns and forces recognition — if not among antisemites, then among everyone else.
In a digital world, nothing shapes perception more than repetition: clips, screenshots, statements, patterns. We should spotlight the activist who calls for justice everywhere except when Jews are involved. We should show the academic who applies one standard to every country and another to Israel. We should bombard the internet with memes of institutions that enforce rules selectively.
And we should do it relentlessly. The aim is not to educate or even argue; it is to demonstrate, repeatedly, that these people are deranged scum. When people see the same pattern enough times, they stop asking whether something is happening and start asking why. That is the moment when narratives shift.
There was a time when antisemitism carried social and professional costs. That price has been heavily discounted. In some environments, it has even inverted, becoming a source of status and belonging. As long as that remains true, nothing else matters, so the aim of any serious campaign must be to raise the cost.
We should track repeat offenders, document patterns, publicize institutional failures, and apply pressure where it matters, including employers, universities, sponsors, boards, and political parties. We should do it systematically, not randomly. Behavior changes when incentives change, not when people are asked nicely. Consequences are not a side effect; they are the mechanism.
We should also do away with interminably irritating interfaith dialogues. They rest on the hopeful premise that, if everyone sits down together and finds common ground, unity will follow. This is nonsense. Only the willing attend, which means the extremists stay away. It also pretends that fundamentally incompatible worldviews can be reconciled through polite conversation. More often, these forums become a tithe that the minority pays for temporary quiet.
They also grant legitimacy to people who deserve none. I will not break bread with a demented jihadist Nazi. Doing so would make me as crazy as them. The loudest voices in modern antisemitism do not want dialogue; they want dominance.
So, Jews should stop searching for perfect allies and build coalitions of interest. Those alliances endure because each party remains for its own reasons. Natural allies include those who oppose extremism, value consistent standards, care about institutional integrity, or defend free speech — even selectively. We do not need alignment on everything; wou need alignment on something.
And this is not about friendship; it is about leverage.
Antisemitism survives by turning Jews into abstractions — symbols of power rather than people. Too often, the Jewish response has been solemn, careful, and overly serious, as though facts alone might land like a punch. We are not in a boxing ring with Queensbury rules; we are in a battlefield of attention, where narratives win not because they are true, but because they are compelling, repeatable, and emotionally resonant.
So our response must evolve.
We should not just talk about antisemitism; we should show it. We should tell stories that cannot be abstracted away. We should highlight individuals, families, consequences, and contradictions. We should expose the gap between image and reality. And we should use ridicule. Bad ideas often survive because they are treated seriously. When mocked effectively, they collapse faster than under polite critique.
While there is constant talk about Jews needing to present a united front, that is true only to a point. We need as many Jews and allies as possible in the fight — that is the united part — but they do not need to speak with a monotone voice or be one voice repeated.
One of the great strategic errors has been the belief that everyone must be convinced before action is taken. This is a waste of time and energy. In any conflict, there are committed opponents, a persuadable middle, and silent observers. The first must be isolated, the second must be given clarity, and the third must be given confidence. People do not join movements unless they feel safe doing so. If we change that, and we change everything.
For too long, the model has been protective and passive. An effective campaign equips. We should give people language, confidence, and backing. People act when they feel capable. They remain silent when they feel exposed. They do not lack courage; they lack support.
Ultimately, this is a contest of power. That makes some uncomfortable, as though acknowledging it somehow undermines moral standing. It does not. Every successful campaign combines moral argument with structural pressure — legal, political, and institutional. Without that, we are not a campaign, just commentary.
Lines must be drawn not just socially, but legally. Institutions must be held accountable not just rhetorically, but materially. Moral clarity without deployed power is noise.
The hardest shift may be abandoning the need to be liked. The desire to appear reasonable and balanced has shaped Jewish advocacy for too long. It has been a survival strategy for centuries in Europe and the Middle East. These are virtues in a person, but weaknesses in a fight. If one side distorts, accuses, and repeats without hesitation while the other responds with careful disclaimers, the outcome is predictable.
Another fear is that clarity will be labeled aggression, defense will be deemed provocation, and that truth will be called bias. So be it. Who cares? What sort of madman requires their enemy’s approval? The goal is to establish reality for those still deciding what to believe. Impact matters more than approval, and consistency matters more than tone.
An effective modern campaign against antisemitism will not resemble what came before. It will be faster, sharper, and unapologetic. It will function as a media engine, a legal strategy, and a political campaign combined. It will expose rather than explain, pressure rather than plead, and define rather than debate. It will accept that some bridges cannot be built and focus instead on strengthening what remains.
We are facing a deadly threat that must be confronted and defeated, not rehabilitated, so the age of polite failure is over. What replaces it will determine the cost of what comes next.
I mostly agree, but you denigrate interfaith dialogue and education. It’s a mistake to solely rely on it, but they can plant doubts in people’s minds about the hate they’re hearing. They have the potential to slow down the spread of hate and to create allies.
You say lines must be drawn legally. There are orgs that are doing that by bringing lawsuits.
reprint of my comment in TFP-
My disgust grows daily — not just at antisemites, but at us Jews. I'm tired of reading about Jewish victims. One-sided attacks. No resistance. No one fighting back. Antisemites love a Jewish victim. A dead Jew is even better — just ask Europe. We've become the punching bag for every ignorant coward having a bad day, and somehow that's become our identity: history's eternal victim.
Look at Israelis. They live under constant, existential, life-threatening violence — and they are not victims. They are warriors. They train, they fight, they push back hard, and anyone foolish enough to test them will not go home bragging. They will go home humbled — if they go home at all. That is what strength looks like. Now look at us here and in the diaspora. What do we have? Twelve thousand Jewish organizations worldwide dedicated to fighting antisemitism — and antisemitism is rising. The ADL writes letters. The AJC hosts cocktail parties. Federations commission surveys. Our leadership fundraises, files reports, and in the US quietly supports a political party that increasingly takes us for granted without a word of pushback. These organizations exist to protect us. What are they actually doing? When 100 antisemitic agitators showed up at that synagogue this week in Mamdani's NYC, did the ADL put out a call — every Jew, show up, stand together, show them who we are? No. Nothing. No call to action. No show of solidarity or strength. It never even occurred to them.
We are not to blame for the violence against us. That must be said clearly. The hate belongs entirely to those who commit it, enable it, and look the other way. But we are responsible for our response to it — and right now, that response is failing us. We are weak in defending ourselves individually. We are weak in defending ourselves as a community. And we have leadership that is weaker still. That has to change. Words, surveys, and fundraising dinners are not a defense! Strength is a defense! Unity is a defense! Showing up — visibly, loudly, and together — is is a defense! We've been history's victims long enough. It's time to decide we're done. We are not helpless. We are not weak by nature. We have been led to believe we are — by timid organizations more concerned with their donor lists than our safety, by a culture that confused silence with dignity, and by the false comfort of believing that if we just explained ourselves well enough, hate would eventually listen to reason. It won't. It never has. So stop explaining. Start fighting. With your voice — speak loudly, speak first, speak without apology. With your presence — show up in numbers that cannot be dismissed. With your fists — train, prepare, protect yourself and protect each other. With your guts — do the hard thing, the uncomfortable thing, the thing the ADL would send a cautious memo about. And with your bravery — the deep, earned, ancestral bravery of a people who have survived everything and are still here. We are still here. Now act like it