Read on for article

This environment includes instances of harassment and abuse in the streets, and rising levels of antisemitic hate crimes in countries around the world. Most Jewish people, however, are experiencing it through a constant stream of online hate, the “antisemitism 2.0” that normalises the hatred and targeting of Jews in society.

A new report from the Online Hate Prevention Institute (Australia) and Online Hate Task Force (Belgium) gives the most comprehensive picture yet of online antisemitism in the world after the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack and the resulting war. Drawing on almost 3,000 items of data, each assessed by experts, the research examines antisemitism across ten social media platforms and twenty-seven specific types of antisemitism.

Dr Andre Oboler, CEO of the Online Hate Prevention Institute, explained, “This is not a report about criticism of Israeli policies or Palestinian activism. Each type of antisemitism is explained and demonstrated with examples. The report also includes examples of antisemitism on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Telegram, LinkedIn, Gab, Reddit, and BitChute. There are over 100 examples of actual online content shown and discussed in this report. Please can look and judge for themselves.”

David Matas CM, a leading expert in online antisemitism from Canada, wrote in a foreword to the report that it “provides a lot of detail on its subject matter” and that “What makes this report particularly valuable is the wealth of data”, which makes the conclusions reached “impossible to refute.”

With over eighty graphs, the report shows how the prevalence of different types of antisemitism differs across social media platforms. It documents an astronomical rise in cases of “calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion” following the October 7 terrorist attack. Worryingly, this narrative supporting violence against Jews can now be seen in one out of every ten antisemitic items online.

Dr Oboler explained the above image to J-Wire: “It shows the rise in category 3.6, which is promoting traditional antisemitism such as blood libel and claims Jews killed Jesus. The graph compares the average time content in this category, which would be seen in 8 hours of work before and after October 7. It does this for each of the 10 social media platforms. The average across all platforms was three times per 8 hours of monitoring before October 7, but it rose dramatically to 65 times per 8 hours of monitoring after October 7. 45% of all of the content we saw made use of this sort of antisemitism, sometimes in combination with other forms of antisemitism. Much of the antisemitism we are seeing on social media today is essentially little different from what might have been heard from an antisemitic preacher in the Middle Ages.”

It’s not just the justifications for violence, the old staples are back in fashion as well. Seventy-five per cent of all the online antisemitism examined involved traditional antisemitism. In fact, forty-five percent of all the antisemitic items involved the specific subcategory of “promoting traditional antisemitism such as blood libel and claims Jews killed Jesus”. Other subcategories of traditional antisemitism included claims of a world Jewish conspiracy, Jewish media control, Jewish control of banks, Jewish control of governments, holding Jews responsible for the acts of individuals, and accusing Jews of being disloyal to their country.

The largest growth (over 1000%) compared to before October 7 was in antisemitism related to Israel. Within this category, however, the dominant form this took on every platform was using the traditional antisemitism just mentioned, but in relation to Israel or Israelis. Often the only mention of Israel was in the hashtags. This is not a criticism of Israeli policy but the promotion of antisemitic hate speech.

On LinkedIn the level of traditional antisemitism used in relation to Israel was matched by an equal number of posts comparing Israeli policy to Nazism, something that distorts understanding of the Holocaust, among its many other problems. This is occurring twice as often on LinkedIn as on the other platform.

The rate at which antisemitism was removed was also examined, and the results are concerning. On a platform basis (across all types of antisemitism), they range from 36% down to 4%. By category, across all platforms, incitement to violence was the most removed form of antisemitism, but only 24% of the reported content was removed. Traditional antisemitism was the least removed category, and only 17% of that was removed.

Diving deeper, we see the best takedown rate on Instagram, where 55% of inappropriate Holocaust-related content was removed. This shows a positive response by Meta to an investigation by the Oversight Board. At the same time, on Facebook, only 9% of the Israel-related antisemitism came down. Mentioning Israel seems to be granting otherwise blatant antisemitism immunity.

There are many stories buried in the data of this report, from discussions of ChatGPT to generative AI. From complex stories of the Middle East being reduced to online memes, then stickers plastered to public spaces. The most concerning is the discussion on Racist Anti-Zionism a phenomenon that is leading to justifications for antisemitism and efforts to silence any concerns that are raised about antisemitism. It’s already in full swing on our Facebook post, where we first shared the new report.

The report introduces the concept of “Racist Anti-Zionism” which it explains “moves beyond opposition to Zionism as an ideology, and into expressions of hostility and incitement to hate and violence against people who identify as Zionists or have expressed positivity towards Israel. It rejects or simply disregards the idea that this is antisemitic.” The report explains how “in some Racist Anti-Zionism, not only is Israel called racist, but it is called a Nazi state. This is more than just a poor analogy and means that Israelis, Zionists, or those deemed to be Zionists are then called Nazis. This leads to calls to treat them as the far-left would treat Nazis – with abuse, doxxing, and violence.” The report states that “While explicit expressions of Racist Anti-Zionism are not a dominant narrative in the data we collected, we believe it is the cause of an underlying cultural shift that has made many other forms of antisemitism, particularly traditional antisemitism, so prevalent”.