FOREWARD

The fight against antisemitism is of a peculiar nature. It involves vast investments, strongly worded political statements, and well-intending activism, yet lacks – wherever it is staged – transparent and measurable objectives, clear and broadly agreed upon legal definitions, determined police and prosecutorial work, and scientifically rigid scholarship to guide it. In recent years, our Annual Antisemitism Worldwide Report has sought to break down crude data into nuanced analysis to help guide policymakers. Among others, studies we published demonstrated that certain Jewish demographics are far more likely to be the victims of antisemitic attacks than others are, and that a negligible number of antisemitic attacks result in arrests. This Report features an extensive study profiling the individuals who were indicted for antisemitic offenses between 2020 and 2025 in the four countries with the largest Jewish populations outside Israel: the United States (federal cases only), France, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The study involved examination of almost 100 cases through the reading of thousands of court records and media reports, as well as interviews with defense lawyers and local journalists (p. 81). While by no means exhaustive, the profiles offer some indication as to why antisemitic incidents are difficult to preempt. The team of researchers found that the indicted tend to be “lone wolves” whose actions were not directed through hierarchical networks (not withstanding evidence for Russian involvement in instigating anti-Jewish violence in Europe). The indicted span two ends of the political spectrum – from Christian white supremacists to anti-Zionist Muslims. While the vast majority of the indicted are men, they belong to diverse age groups, ethnicities, and areas of residence. Our annual analysis of data on antisemitic incidents worldwide, led for the fifth year by Dr. Carl Yonker, is discouraging. Despite the end of the war in Gaza in October 2025, the number of antisemitic incidents in countries with major Jewish populations remained in 2025 by dozens of percent higher than in 2022, the year before the war (p. 11). This raises concerns that, rather than a backlash to a specific geopolitical crisis, high levels of antisemitism have become a normalized feature in societies with large Jewish minorities. Moreover, in several countries, including Britain, Australia, Italy, and Belgium, the number of incidents in 2025 increased in comparison to the previous year. In some, like France, the overall number of incidents declined, but the number of physical assaults increased. The number of casualties resulting from four separate antisemitic attacks in 2025 was 20. This is the highest figure in decades. The prevalence of antisemitism in healthcare systems in the West is an ethical stain that injures the ability of medical faculty to provide good service and of patients to feel safe. A survey of studies from several countries, including the United States, points to the severity of this problem in the post October 7, 2023 world (p. 31). Last year, our Report highlighted the dire state of the fight against antisemitism in Australia, and cautioned about its implications. This was no prophecy, nor a wild guess. Where minoattacks are dismissed, major ones will ultimately follow, in one way or another. Rather than act in hindsight, other countries should learn from the mistakes of Australia and combat antisemitism decisively before tragedy befalls them. In a special contribution for the Report, Jillian Segal, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, charts the road that led to the Bondi Beach attack in December 2025, as well as the steps needed in order to provide a more secure future for Australian Jewry (p. 35). The most worrying phenomenon of 2025 has been the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric in American political discourse, to which this Report dedicates a special section. An essay that offers historical context to the battle over antisemitism in the conservative movement begs the uncomfortable question whether technological changes make the fight against Jew-hatred and conspiracy theorists in America a lost cause (p. 43). In an interview with the Report, Prof. Christopher Browning, the most senior living American scholar of the Holocaust, discusses his legacy, the past and the present of antisemitism in the United States, the state of Holocaust studies, and the dangerous waters that are American politics under Donald Trump (p. 61). Browning raises concerns about Trump that are particularly challenging for people who happen to be both Zionists involved in the fight against antisemitism and advocates for the causes of human rights, democracy, and justice. The Middle Eastern policies of Trump’s two administrations have so far been, as opposed to a number of careless and dangerous statements he made, by and large commendable. These include the just decision to finally recognize Jerusalem for what it is, the capital of Israel; the groundbreaking Abraham Accords; the ending of the war in Gaza (under far from ideal terms, yet still arguably the best that could be achieved); and the efforts to destroy Iran’s nuclear and ballistic capabilities and bring its ruthless dictatorship down. Yet Trump is also the president who has tolerated, as no contemporary president has, deepseated, loathsome antisemites within his camp, and continues to do so for cynical political reasons. The result is a new culture of everything-goes that is undermining the sense that Jews have had for decades that their future in America is secure. More broadly, Trump’s inflammatory, degrading political rhetoric, disrespect of the sovereignty of democratic allies, lack of recognition of the evil that is fascist Russia, contempt for the rule of law, and dismissal of scientific findings that show our planet is under threat, make him a danger to the future of the Union – and liberal democracy at large. For the first time since polling on the matter began, in the past year, more Americans stated that they favor the Palestinian side to the conflict than the Israeli. Trump is an exceptionally unpopular president who has, at best, two and a half more years in office. Tying Israel’s fate exclusively and jubilantly to his persona, let alone bragging about the sway Israeli politicians or philanthropists have on him, is irresponsible folly of existential measure. Some issues for the consideration of Israeli agencies and Jewish organizations that are part of the fight against antisemitism. As this Report already noted several times, the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism has not contributed in any meaningful way to the cause, and in some cases has been an embarrassment. It serves as an example of the 6Foreword way petty politics and ever-expanding bureaucracies injure policies. It is thus imperative on the next Israeli government, whatever its composition may be, to close that ministry down and transfer its authorities and budgets to the Israeli Foreign Ministry. Only diplomatic missions have the capacity to engage in the kind of in-person contacts with Jewish communities, public officials, and civil society activists that are necessary for impacting and adjusting counterantisemitism policies. We have noted for some time, with concern, that not a few antisemitism-related publications have developed the habit of presenting data that lacks empirical rigidity and nuance, and often reads as if it was tailored-made for publicity purposes. This harms the righteous cause, and must stop. In an Israeli society and a Jewish world so deeply divided on pretty much everything, including the definition of who is a Jew, the fight against antisemitism presents a unifying pole. Perhaps the only one. The temptation to make it an ultimate definer is great, but it must be avoided. The enemies of Jews should never be allowed to define them. A small nation that endowed humanity with some of its greatest ethical, cultural, and scientific treasures has more, much more, to draw from. Israeli politicians and media have, particularly in recent months, continuously expanded the scope of what qualifies as antisemitism, at times in absurd or hasty ways. In doing so, they do not win arguments or silence critics, as they perhaps believe; rather, they discredit a crucial f ight by politicizing it and emptying it of analytic meaning. The label of antisemitism is harsh and should be applied only after careful consideration and based on solid criteria. Caution must also be exercised not to inadvertently imply that politically-motivated attacks against Israeli-Jews or Jews are a wrong only if proven to be motivated by antisemitism. This is not the case, neither in the legal nor in the moral sense. The war crimes committed by Hamas justified an unwavering military campaign as well as retribution against those responsible, including their accomplices. This, foremost, as a matter of serving the cause of justice. However, what those war crimes did not do is to legitimize racist rhetoric or actions. Some in Israeli society must be reminded that there is no good racism and bad racism. There is nothing the enemies of Zionism like more than to argue that Kahanism is reflective of the spirit of Zionism rather than a despicable mutation thereof. They must be proven wrong. In more than four years of aggression against Ukraine, fascist Russia, the ally of Hamas, Iran, and North Korea, justified its war crimes through Holocaust distortion and abuse of the term de-Nazification. It is frightening to think where the world would be today if the Russian attempt to take over Ukraine, terrorize Europe, and shatter the American-led world order would have succeeded. It failed foremost because of the tremendous courage and sacrifice of the Ukrainians, and the leadership of their president, Volodymyr Zelensky. The greatest living Jew of our time deserves recognition and support.