NEW YORK – A surge of antisemitic activity has concentrated across Western Europe and the United States, driven largely by a combination of geopolitical volatility and a rise in AI-generated disinformation, according to new data from the Antisemitism Research Center (ARC) by CAM.
Monitoring conducted during the Passover and Easter holiday periods revealed 263 recorded incidents of antisemitic violence, threats, rhetoric, and discrimination worldwide. The data suggests a significant shift in the ideological drivers of these incidents, with far-left motivations now outpacing both far-right and Islamist-inspired activity.
This trend reflects a broader global tension where the boundaries between political criticism of the State of Israel and ethnic or religious hatred against Jewish people have become increasingly porous. As Western democracies grapple with rising polarization, the frequency of these incidents has prompted a wave of legislative efforts to codify the definition of antisemitism into law.
Ideological Drivers and Incident Typology
The ARC analysis indicates that the majority of recent incidents are rooted in far-left ideological motivations, often emerging from campus protests, cultural boycotts, and street demonstrations in major Western cities. The breakdown of these occurrences underscores a diversifying landscape of hate:
- Far-Left: 66.5% (175 incidents)
- Far-Right: 12.9% (34 incidents)
- Islamist-Inspired: 11.8% (31 incidents)
- Unattributable: 8.7% (24 incidents)
When categorized by the specific nature of the hate speech or action, the data reveals that anti-Israel and anti-Zionist sentiment constitutes the primary driver of current activity. This is followed by classical antisemitism – including conspiracy theories about Jewish power, dual loyalty accusations, and the demonization of Jewish religious practice – and the systemic distortion of historical facts, particularly surrounding the Holocaust.
| Incident Type | Percentage | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-Israel/Anti-Zionism | 65.0% | 171 |
| Classical Antisemitism | 22.4% | 59 |
| Holocaust Denial/Distortion/Minimization | 8.4% | 22 |
| Islamist-Inspired | 1.5% | 4 |
| Unattributable | 2.7% | 7 |
Scholars note that antisemitism is not a new phenomenon: anti-Jewish ideas have circulated for centuries, taking religious, racial, and political forms that adapt to each era’s anxieties and power struggles. Today’s fusion of anti-Israel rhetoric with older stereotypes reflects that long, evolving history rather than a wholly new wave of prejudice.
Legislative Responses in the United States
In response to the escalating climate, several U.S. states are moving to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism. First agreed in 2016, the non‑binding definition – now referenced by dozens of governments and multilateral bodies – provides examples to help institutions distinguish between legitimate political speech, including criticism of Israeli government policy, and antisemitic hate targeting Jews as a people or a religion. The full text of the working definition is hosted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
The Missouri Senate recently voted 30-0 to pass HB 2061, a bill designed to combat antisemitic discrimination specifically within public K-12 schools and institutions of higher education. The bill directs education authorities to use the IHRA working definition as a tool when assessing whether harassment or discriminatory conduct is motivated by antisemitism. It now awaits the signature of Governor Mike Kehoe.
If signed, Missouri will become the 18th U.S. state to codify the IHRA definition in some form. This move follows a similar legislative path in Wisconsin, where the recent enactment of Act 143 integrated the IHRA definition into state statute. Act 143 allows the definition to be considered when evaluating discriminatory intent and applying enhanced criminal penalties, signaling a willingness by state lawmakers to translate a previously soft‑law standard into enforceable guidance for prosecutors, school administrators, and other public officials.
Nationally, Jewish advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations remain divided over how far such codification should go, with supporters arguing that a shared definition is essential for consistent enforcement and critics warning that poorly drafted measures risk chilling legitimate political speech on campus and online.
Digital Disinformation and AI-Driven Hate
The proliferation of generative artificial intelligence has introduced a new vector for the spread of antisemitic conspiracy theories. The same tools that allow users to create photorealistic images and persuasive text at scale also enable bad actors to manufacture seemingly authentic religious authorities, eyewitnesses, or community members, blurring the line between genuine and synthetic discourse.
The ARC recently exposed a high-reach operation involving a sophisticated AI-generated persona. An Instagram account operating under the name “Rabbi Goldman” featured an AI-generated Orthodox rabbi, with posts that combined religious imagery, commentary on Middle East events, and coded antisemitic messaging. The account leveraged the perceived authority of a religious figure to disseminate antisemitic tropes to a following of more than 1.4 million users, many of whom may not have realized that the rabbi was entirely fictional.
Meta, the parent company of Instagram, removed the account following the ARC report. The incident highlights a growing challenge for social media platforms: the ability of synthetic media to mimic trusted community leaders and to launder prejudice through the aesthetics of authenticity. Regulators in Europe and the United States are increasingly examining whether existing content standards, transparency rules, and AI governance frameworks are sufficient to address this kind of identity‑based deception at scale.
Geographic Epicenters
The spatial distribution of these incidents shows a heavy concentration in the Global North. Western Europe emerged as the primary epicenter of activity, accounting for 42% of the global total with 111 recorded incidents. Many of these were clustered in capitals and university towns where pro‑Palestinian and pro‑Israeli demonstrations have intensified, creating flashpoints for hateful rhetoric and harassment of visibly Jewish residents.
The United States followed as the second most affected region, recording 69 incidents, or 26% of the global total. ARC researchers note that the friction surrounding international affairs is manifesting most acutely in the urban and academic centers of the West, where political protest, online mobilization, and demographic diversity intersect. In practice, university administrators, city officials, and law‑enforcement agencies are being forced to make rapid decisions about security, demonstration permits, and disciplinary measures – often under legal frameworks that were not designed with AI‑driven disinformation and hybrid online‑offline extremism in mind.
Holocaust memory remains a powerful, if uneven, reference point in these debates. Institutions tasked with preserving historical records and educating the public about the Holocaust emphasize that current patterns of denial and distortion echo earlier forms of anti-Jewish agitation, even as the specific language and platforms evolve.
The Antisemitism Research Center continues to monitor global trends in violence and rhetoric as part of its ongoing mandate to track hate-driven activity worldwide. Its latest figures are likely to feed into policy discussions not only about campus speech and public safety, but also about the rules that will govern the next generation of AI tools and social platforms.