Antisemitism’s Global Rebound in the Last Decade and What We Can Prove About Its Drivers, Amplifiers, and Foreign Influence Claims

Executive summary

Across 2016–2026, antisemitism has risen in reported incidents, perceived prevalence, and measurable online exposure—especially in the United States and Europe—punctuated by sharp surges following major political flashpoints and especially Middle East war triggers. In the U.S., ADL’s long-running Audit shows a steep escalation in “incidents” (a broader category than criminal hate crimes) culminating in 9,354 incidents in 2024, the highest level in the Audit’s multi-decade series.

In parallel, U.S. government hate-crime reporting indicates that anti-Jewish hate crimes (criminal incidents reported by law enforcement) reached record levels in 2023, with 1,832 incidents—over two thirds of religion-based hate crime incidents—according to the U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service summary of the FBI’s data.

In Europe, the EU Fundamental Rights Agency’s third large survey of Jewish people (fielded before the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks and subsequent Gaza war) nevertheless found exceptionally high baseline exposure: 84% saw antisemitism as a big problem, 80% thought it had increased over five years, and 96% encountered antisemitism in the prior year, with 90% encountering it online.

Country-level incident series show the same “long rise plus trigger spikes” pattern. France recorded 1,676 antisemitic “actions and threats” in 2023 and 1,570 in 2024 (CNCDH/SPCJ methodology), after far lower totals in 2022. Germany’s police recorded 6,236 politically motivated crimes with an antisemitic motive in 2024, up from 5,164 in 2023, with a notable post–Oct. 7 shift in the distribution of ideological attributions. The U.K. saw CST totals jump from 1,662 (2022) to 4,296 (2023) and remain historically high at 3,528 (2024), with documented increases in conspiratorial motifs and politicized discourse in incident narratives.

On causation, the best-supported account is multi-causal: antisemitism is being produced and normalized by interacting ecosystems—far-right extremists, conspiracist subcultures, segments of far-left “Israel-as absolute-evil” frames that slide into anti-Jewish tropes, and Islamist antisemitism tied to certain movements and state-linked propaganda networks—while social media and polarized politics increase reach and intensity.

Regarding foreign state and media influence claims (Qatar, Iran, other regional actors), there is strong evidence of significant state-linked media and influence spending (e.g., Iran’s state media networks and Qatar’s extensive lobbying and public diplomacy; state funding of major broadcasters; documented foreign gifts to universities disclosed under U.S. law). There is weaker evidence for sweeping claims that any single foreign actor “directly causes” the overall rise in U.S./European antisemitism. The most rigorous position is to (a) document what is verifiably funded and institutionalized, (b) identify plausible pathways by which influence can shape narratives and mobilization, and (c) clearly flag when claims cross into speculation or conspiracy thinking.

How antisemitism is defined, measured, and mismeasured

Antisemitism is not a single, stable object. It is a family of hostile beliefs, stereotypes, and behaviors (from microaggressions to violence) that can attach to multiple ideologies and “update” to new political contexts. Governments and institutions commonly use the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (adopted by IHRA in 2016) as a reference tool for education and recognition, and IHRA has also published guidance on its “practical use.”

At the same time, there is an active definitional debate—especially about how to distinguish antisemitism from protected political speech criticizing Israeli policies. Two prominent alternative frameworks are the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document. These are not mere academic quarrels: definitions shape campus policy, civil-rights enforcement, and public legitimacy.

A rigorous evidence standard also requires distinguishing at least three kinds of measurement:

First, incident audits capture a wide range of events, often including non-criminal harassment and vandalism. ADL’s Audit is crucial for trend signaling in the U.S., but it is not “crime stats.” CST’s U.K. series plays a similar role; it explicitly warns totals are “indicative of general trends” and notes underreporting dynamics.

Second, official hate-crime statistics (e.g., FBI UCR/CDE, U.K. police recorded hate crime, Germany PMK, France interior-linked counts aggregated by CNCDH) measure criminal incidents recorded by authorities and are shaped by reporting behavior and classification rules. For example, England and Wales saw a 25% increase in religious hate crimes in the year ending March 2024, reported as driven largely by rises in hate crimes against Jewish people and, to a lesser extent, Muslims.

Third, surveys of perception and lived experience capture exposure that is often invisible to police reporting, especially online. FRA’s 2024 EU Jewish survey underscores this: it reports very high encounter rates, online exposure, and behavioral consequences like hiding Jewish identity.

The practical implication: comparing “counts” across datasets without noting scope differences can seriously mislead. The correct way to reason is to triangulate: look for convergent signals across audits, official statistics, and surveys, and then interpret spikes in light of context and methodology.

Empirical trends from 2016 to 2026 in the U.S. and Europe

United States

In the U.S., ADL’s Audit shows a steep rise across the decade, with recent years breaking records repeatedly. ADL counted 3,697 incidents in 2022, 8,873 in 2023, and 9,354 in 2024, emphasizing that 2024 was the highest recorded in the Audit’s history and that incidents were geographically nationwide.

Official hate-crime statistics show a similarly alarming pattern in the narrower field of criminal incidents. The U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service summary of FBI’s 2023 reporting states that religion-based hate crime incidents totaled 2,699, and more than half (1,832) were anti-Jewish.

Survey-based public opinion and experience data reinforce the conclusion that antisemitism is salient in daily life. Pew’s major survey of Jewish Americans (fielded in 2019–2020) found widespread concern about antisemitism among Jewish Americans, situating that concern within broader patterns of identity, belonging, and public engagement.

Europe

In the EU, FRA’s 2024 survey provides the most systematic cross-national evidence for the period’s endpoint. Key findings include: 84% see antisemitism as a big problem, 80% think it increased over five years, 96% encountered antisemitism in the prior year, 37% were harassed because they are Jewish, and 4% were physically attacked because they are Jewish—alongside strong evidence of avoidance behaviors.

National recording systems show large post-2023 surges alongside longer, underlying upward trends. In France, FRA’s country overview reports an increase from 436 incidents (2022) to 1,676 (2023) and 1,570 (2024) using CNCDH’s “actions and threats” framework, while cautioning that trend lines do not automatically equal changing prejudice levels because reporting and recording change too.

In Germany, FRA’s overview reports 6,236 politically motivated crimes with an antisemitic motive in 2024, noting a strong concentration in late 2023 and continuing elevated levels afterwards. It also documents that, while right-wing attribution remains high, the post–Oct. 7 period saw pronounced increases in categories such as “foreign ideology” and “religious ideology,” signaling that antisemitic mobilization is not reducible to one political pole.

In the U.K., CST’s 2024 report records 3,528 antisemitic incidents (down from 4,296 in 2023, but still the second-highest annual total). It reports substantial levels of online antisemitism and conspiracy-themed narratives and emphasizes that politicized language and Israel/Middle East references are commonly present in recorded incidents.

Global context signals

A major global attitudinal signal comes from ADL’s Global 100 research. ADL reports that an estimated 46% of adults worldwide harbor “antisemitic attitudes” on its index—framed as more than double the estimated share from a decade earlier—based on large-scale cross-national polling coordinated with Ipsos.

Meanwhile, OSCE ODIHR’s hate-crime reporting points to a consistent problem across the OSCE region: a large share of anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim incidents reported by civil society are non-criminal verbal abuse, hate speech, or discrimination—outside the strict scope of many official hate-crime reports—highlighting why mixed-method monitoring is essential.

Suggested trend chart for publication

Antisemitic incidents (U.S. ADL Audit vs U.K. CST)

U.S. ADL Audit:

2022 – 3,697

2023 – 8,873

2024 – 9,354

U.K. CST:

2022 – 1,662

2023 – 4,296

2024 – 3,528

Timeline of major incidents and policy responses

2016: IHRA adopts working definition; UK institutional endorsements expand

2017: U.S. Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally; notable rise in U.K. incidents

2018: Pittsburgh Tree of Life synagogue massacre; Qatar cash-to-Gaza mechanism becomes visible in reporting

2019: Poway synagogue attack; Germany Halle synagogue attack; U.S. Executive Order 13899 on combating antisemitism

2020: COVID-19 conspiracism and online hate surge; U.S. Education Department issues Section 117 compliance report on foreign gifts

2021: EU adopts first EU Strategy on combating antisemitism (2021–2030); documented spikes during Israel–Hamas conflict

2022: Colleyville synagogue hostage crisis; EU Parliament addresses suspected Qatar-related corruption (“Qatargate”)

2023: White House releases U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism; Oct. 7 Hamas attacks and global incident spikes

2024: FRA publishes third EU Jewish antisemitism survey; ADL records highest-ever U.S. incident total in its Audit

2025: UN issues Action Plan to enhance monitoring/response to antisemitism; continued scrutiny of foreign influence in academia

2026: New/updated U.S. Education Department processes for foreign gift reporting announced for Section 117

What research says about drivers and why antisemitism now spreads faster

A consensus across contemporary research is that antisemitism is “ideologically portable”: it appears on the far right, parts of the far left, and within Islamist extremist milieus, often routed through conspiracy thinking and catalyzed by geopolitics. The “new” element in 2016–2026 is not that antisemitism exists, but that it is being re-platformed and re-legitimated under modern informational conditions.

Far-right extremism and conspiracist politics

A key scholarly and policy-relevant finding is that contemporary far-right violence frequently embeds antisemitic conspiracy narratives (global Jewish control, “replacement” myths, “globalist elites”). A peer reviewed article explicitly frames far-right antisemitic conspiracy theories as drivers of violent extremism and argues for public-health approaches to counter-radicalization.

Cross-national evidence in Europe links antisemitic incidents to far-right political dynamics and memory regimes. For example, research on Holocaust commemoration and far-right party strength in Europe finds systematic relationships between politics and antisemitic incidents.

In the U.S., large-scale survey work on ideology finds that antisemitic attitudes are present in multiple locations but are highest among young adults on the far right in the authors’ data, complicating simplistic “both sides equally” narratives.

Far-left “Israelization,” boundary disputes, and rhetorical drift

A central, research-supported challenge is that periods of intense Israel–Palestine conflict often produce “Israelization” dynamics: Jewish individuals and institutions become treated as proxies for Israel, or Jews are held collectively responsible for actions of the Israeli government. FRA’s 2024 findings capture this dynamic strongly: 75% of Jewish respondents felt people in their country hold them responsible for Israeli government actions “because they are Jewish.”

At the attitudinal level, research on young Americans shows that the far-left evaluates Israel unusually negatively relative to other countries, and the authors analyze how these views interact with domestic politics. This does not equate negative views of Israel with antisemitism; rather, it maps an ideological terrain in which rhetorical slippage can occur, especially when protest politics deploys classic antisemitic motifs (e.g., Jews as uniquely malevolent, conspiratorial, or globally controlling).

Because of this contested territory, definitional frameworks matter. IHRA’s definition is widely used for training and policy, while JDA and Nexus emphasize guardrails to protect legitimate political speech even while naming anti-Jewish prejudice.

Islamist antisemitism and conflict-linked mobilization

The empirical record in several European national datasets indicates that, during conflict-linked surges, categories associated with “foreign ideology” and “religious ideology” can rise sharply. Germany’s police recorded antisemitic crimes show a dramatic increase in 2023 and 2024, including large counts attributed to “foreign ideology” and “religious ideology,” while right-wing attribution remains substantial.

At the level of extremist organizations and state sponsorship, the U.S. State Department continues to describe Iran as a leading state sponsor of terrorism that supports groups including Hizballah and U.S.-designated Palestinian terrorist groups including Hamas. This matters for antisemitism because Iran-linked messaging and allied group propaganda can directly promote anti-Jewish hatred in multiple languages and platforms.

Online amplification: platforms, algorithmic incentives, and crisis “attention shocks”

The last decade’s most consistent accelerant is the digital attention economy: short-form video, recommender systems, and platform fragmentation facilitate coded hate, “memetic” antisemitism, and rapid cross-border diffusion.

Peer-reviewed research in the U.K. finds a measurable relationship between COVID-era conspiracism and antisemitism, supporting the broader claim that conspiratorial cognition and antisemitic beliefs can reinforce each other.

Commissioned European research on online antisemitism during the pandemic documents the proliferation of COVID-related antisemitic content across platforms and languages and calls for integrated online/offline counter-strategies.

Platform-specific scholarship also matters. A peer-reviewed chapter based on systematic content analysis highlights antisemitic messaging on TikTok and argues that TikTok’s youth-heavy user base and content modalities create particular risks.

These academic findings connect tightly to lived-experience data: FRA reports 90% of EU Jewish respondents experienced antisemitism online in the year before the survey.

A compact causal map

Trigger events (elections, wars, crises)

→ Attention shock (media + social platforms)

→ Conspiracy ecosystems (“globalist”, replacement, blood libel tropes)

→ Polarized protest politics (proxying Jews for Israel)

→ Extremist mobilization (far-right, Islamist networks)

→ Online normalization (memes, coded speech, influencers)

→ Offline incidents (harassment, vandalism, violence)

→ Community fear + identity concealment

→ Feedback loop into heightened attention cycles

Foreign state and media influence claims: Qatar, Iran, and other regional actors

This section separates what is documented from what is asserted, and it flags where claims become speculative or drift into conspiratorial patterns.

Qatar: what is verifiable and what is inference

State-backed media and narrative power. Al Jazeera’s own institutional description states it is “funded in part by the Qatari government” while also presenting itself as an independent news organization. Scholarly work on Qatar and Al Jazeera argues that the network can function as a public diplomacy tool in regional disputes and that different Al Jazeera platforms have different editorial dynamics.

Hosting Hamas and mediation politics. Primary analytical reporting for U.S. policymakers notes Hamas officials’ movement to and from Qatar after Oct. 2023, reflecting that Qatar remains a key node in conflict diplomacy. This is consistent with reputable reporting that describes Qatar’s mediation role and the political controversy that follows it.

Gaza funding: documented transfers, contested downstream impacts. Cash infusions and aid disbursements to Gaza are documented in contemporaneous reporting and described in Qatari official communications about aid disbursement programs.

It is analytically responsible to treat “aid was diverted to Hamas’s military capacity” as a hypothesis requiring specific financial tracing; claims in this area are often highly politicized and should not be generalized without primary evidence.

Lobbying and influence spending: strong documentation of channels, weaker proof of antisemitism effects. The DOJ’s FARA system is the U.S. government’s transparency mechanism for foreign influence activities by agents of foreign principals. Secondary analyses of FARA filings suggest Qatar is a major spender in Washington influence markets, with extensive engagement through registered firms.

However, it is a methodological error to jump from “large influence spending exists” to “this spending causes antisemitism.” The causal chain would require: documented content/policy outputs → documented exposure pathways → measurable attitudinal/incident effects.

Higher education funding: real transparency data, high risk of “puppetmaster” narratives. U.S. institutions must report large foreign gifts/contracts under Section 117. ED has warned about underreporting and described investigations where universities were asked to produce documents related to Chinese, Saudi, and Qatari gifts and contracts. The ED also publishes Section 117 disclosure data as public records.

This supports a cautious conclusion: foreign funding is a documented influence channel, but claims that “Qatar funds universities, therefore campus antisemitism is Qatar’s plan” are not evidentially secured without case-level proof of conditions, program outputs, or directive relationships.

Iran: stronger documentation of propaganda and extremist sponsorship claims

State sponsorship and proxy networks. The U.S. State Department’s Country Reports on Terrorism describes Iran as a long-designated state sponsor of terrorism and reports Iranian support in 2023 for groups including Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups including Hamas.

Holocaust denial and antisemitic state rhetoric. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum documents repeated Holocaust denial and minimization in Iranian official communications.

Foreign information manipulation and state media operations. Reports describe how Iran’s Press TV uses social media to promote antisemitic propaganda, framing it explicitly as a foreign state hate operation. EU external action reporting documents large volumes of investigated foreign information manipulation and interference incidents.

Here, the evidence supports a higher-confidence claim than in many Qatar-related allegations: there is clearer documentation of explicitly antisemitic state-linked content operations, even though quantifying the precise marginal contribution to offline antisemitic incidents remains hard.

“Other Gulf states” and ethical caution about attribution

The Gulf region is not monolithic. Some Gulf states have pursued policies that explicitly oppose the Muslim Brotherhood and have adopted “interfaith” or normalization diplomacy, while others have supported Brotherhood-linked movements in specific periods. Scholarly work describes divergent responses to the Arab Spring, indicating that “Gulf influence” cannot be treated as a single variable.

Ethically, responsible analysis must avoid collapsing “state-linked Islamist movements” into “Muslims” or “Arabs” as collective agents. Antisemitism is best understood as an ideology and practice that can be carried by many groups and institutional vectors—including Western far-right movements and conspiracy ecosystems—rather than as the property of any religion or ethnicity.

Policy responses, countermeasures, and the freedom-of-speech problem

The last decade’s policy response is notable both for expansion and for internal tension: societies are trying to counter antisemitism while also preserving democratic speech norms.

United States: civil rights enforcement, strategy documents, and definitional battles

The U.S. has moved toward a “whole-of-society” framing through the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism released in 2023. Earlier, Executive Order 13899 (2019) asserted that certain forms of antisemitic discrimination can fall under Title VI enforcement, and the U.S. Department of Education issued Q&A guidance about how OCR interprets the order for Title VI enforcement.

At the same time, policy debates show genuine risk: overly broad enforcement can chill legitimate speech and academic inquiry. This is why definitional pluralism is often proposed as a guardrail, and why legal scrutiny continues around legislation attempting to encode definitions into civil rights enforcement.

Europe: EU strategy, monitoring, and online regulation

The European Commission adopted the first EU Strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021–2030), explicitly integrating monitoring, prevention, security, and international engagement.

EU documentation also tracks the policy build-up: a Commission coordinator role (2015), an EP resolution (2017), and Council declarations (2018) as part of the EU’s evolving governance architecture.

On online governance, the EU increasingly frames antisemitism as inseparable from platform accountability, especially after pandemic-era online hate dynamics.

International coordination: the UN monitoring turn

The UN’s Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism signals a higher-level effort to harmonize monitoring and response standards across member states and within UN agencies.

Bibliography

ADL & Center for Countering Digital Hate. (2023). State hate: How Iran’s Press TV uses social media to promote anti-Jewish hatred. Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League. (2023). Audit of antisemitic incidents 2022. Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League. (2024). Audit of antisemitic incidents 2023. Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League. (2025a). Audit of antisemitic incidents 2024. Anti-Defamation League.

Anti-Defamation League. (2025b). ADL Global 100: Index of antisemitism. Anti-Defamation League.

Allington, D., Hirsh, D., & Katz, L. (2023). Correlation between coronavirus conspiracism and antisemitism: A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom. Scientific Reports, 13.

Al Jazeera. (n.d.). About us. Al Jazeera Media Network.

Associated Press. (2024). House passes bill to expand definition of antisemitism amid growing campus protests over Gaza war. Associated Press.

Byington, B. (2019). Antisemitic conspiracy theories and violent extremism on the far right: A public health approach to counter-radicalization. Journal of Contemporary Antisemitism, 2(1), 1–18.

Community Security Trust. (2025). Antisemitic incidents 2024. Community Security Trust.

Congressional Research Service. (2024). Qatar: Issues for the 118th Congress (R47467). Congressional Research Service.

Comerford, M., & Gerster, L. (2021). The rise of antisemitism online during the pandemic. Institute for Strategic Dialogue (commissioned by the European Commission).

European Commission. (2021). EU strategy on combating antisemitism and fostering Jewish life (2021–2030). European Commission.

European Commission. (2019). Special Eurobarometer 484: Perceptions of antisemitism. European Commission.

European External Action Service. (2024). Second EEAS report on Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) threats. European Union.

European Parliament. (2022). European Parliament resolution of 15 December 2022 on suspicions of corruption from Qatar and the broader need for transparency and accountability in the European institutions (2022/3012(RSP)).

Feinberg, A., & Stewart, B. (2018). Holocaust history, far-right parties, and antisemitic incidents. Journal for the Study of Antisemitism / Springer-related publication.

Federal Register. (2019). Executive Order 13899 of December 11, 2019: Combating Anti-Semitism. U.S. Government.

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. (2016/2021). Handbook for the practical use of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. IHRA.

Ipsos. (2025). Antisemitic attitudes are widespread globally (methodology notes related to ADL Global 100). Ipsos.

Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. (2021). Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Qatar. (2024). Qatar’s Gaza Reconstruction Committee announcement on cash assistance disbursement. Government of Qatar.

Nexus Task Force. (2021). The Nexus Document: Understanding antisemitism at its nexus with Israel and Zionism. Nexus Project.

OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. (2024). Hate Crime Report 2023: Data findings. OSCE ODIHR.

Pew Research Center. (2021). Jewish Americans in 2020. Pew Research Center.

Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. (2025). Soft power, hard influence: How Qatar became a giant in Washington (analysis based on FARA filings). Quincy Institute.

Reuters. (2018). Qatar pays Gaza salaries to ease tensions; Israel says money’s not for Hamas. Reuters.

Royden, L., & Hersh, E. (2022). The young American left and attitudes about Israel. Contemporary Jewry, 42(1), 23–42.

U.K. Home Office. (2024). Hate crime, England and Wales: Year ending March 2024. Home Office.

United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. (2024). United Nations Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism. United Nations.

U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Questions and answers on Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti Semitism) and OCR’s enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (2020). Institutional compliance with Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965: Report. U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (2023/2026). Section 117 foreign gift and contract data and reporting guidance. U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2021). Foreign Agents Registration Act: Browse/Search filings. U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice, Community Relations Service. (2024). 2023 FBI hate crime statistics (summary). U.S. Department of Justice.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2023). Jury recommends sentence of death for Pennsylvania man convicted for Tree of Life synagogue shooting. Office of Public Affairs.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2021). California man sentenced to life followed by 30 years in prison for federal hate crimes related to 2019 Poway synagogue shooting and attempted mosque arson. Office of Public Affairs.

U.S. Department of State. (2024a). Country Reports on Terrorism 2023. U.S. Department of State.

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2016). Press guide to Holocaust denial in Iran. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The White House. (2023). U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Executive Office of the President.

The White House. (2025). Transparency regarding foreign influence at American universities (presidential action statement). Executive Office of the President.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2024a). Jewish people’s experiences and perceptions of antisemitism: Third survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the EU. FRA.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2026a). Overview of antisemitic incidents recorded in France in 2014–2024. FRA.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2026b). Overview of antisemitic incidents recorded in Germany in 2014–2024. FRA.

Weimann, G., & Masri, N. (2022). New antisemitism on TikTok. In M. Hübscher & S. von Mering (Eds.), Antisemitism on social media (pp. 167–180). Taylor & Francis.