For decades, discussions about antisemitism have focused on ideology, politics, or history. Yet the surge in hostility toward Jews and Israel across campuses, social media, and public discourse suggests something deeper is at play. The challenge today is not simply misinformation. It is psychology.
As Philippe Assouline writes in his Jewish Journal essay “Winning Hearts Then Minds” (November 2, 2023), public opinion is rooted “in a bedrock of emotion... and only later decorated with fact.” If this is true, then confronting modern antisemitism requires more than correcting errors. It requires understanding how people arrive at their beliefs in the first place.
Following antisemitism closely online has reinforced this insight for me. Through my Instagram project Antisemitism Today, which documents and analyzes contemporary anti-Jewish rhetoric across platforms, I have seen how recurring psychological patterns shape the language, imagery, and narratives people adopt. Viewed through that lens, several distinct personae emerge in today’s wave of antisemitism.
1. The TikTok expert
Highly visible on campuses and social media, this group consumes the conflict through short, emotionally charged content shaped by algorithms. Its confidence often exceeds its knowledge, but its motivation is moral rather than malicious. It believes it is defending victims.
Assouline’s work helps explain why facts alone rarely move it. People gravitate toward narratives that feel morally meaningful. If anything can reach this group, it is not argument but humanization. Faces, stories, and shared experiences resonate far more than timelines or policy debates.
2. The indoctrinated from birth
Some individuals inherit hostility toward Jews or Israel as part of their cultural or ideological identity. Their beliefs are not conclusions they reached but assumptions they absorbed.
As Assouline notes in “We Must Completely Change How We Think About Antisemitism” (Jewish Journal, December 7, 2023), attitudes are built through long-term social conditioning, not simply through exposure to information. Debate often strengthens opposition rather than weakening it. Exposure to lived reality may introduce doubt, but change here is usually slow and indirect.
3. The hyper-liberal savior
This persona views the world through a moral framework of oppression and liberation. Its hostility toward Israel often stems from a belief that it is defending justice.
Assouline argues that people respond less to what is provable than to what feels morally inspiring. Showing Israelis as human beings seeking dignity, safety, and coexistence often reaches this audience more effectively than disputing claims point by point.
4. The trend follower
Some individuals repeat antisemitic rhetoric because it signals belonging. They repost slogans or join demonstrations because it places them inside a moral community.
Assouline emphasizes that beliefs often follow social incentives rather than evidence. For this group, reconsideration happens when the emotional and social environment shifts, not when facts are introduced.
5. The neo-Nazi and ideological extremist
Unlike newer forms of antisemitism shaped by identity politics or media narratives, this group represents explicit hatred rooted in racial ideology and conspiracy myths.
Here, persuasion is rarely possible. The appropriate response is containment: exposure, marginalization, and refusal to normalize its worldview.
6. The political opportunist
Some actors amplify antisemitic rhetoric because it serves their interests. They mobilize outrage to gain influence or distract from failures.
Since their motivation is strategic rather than emotional, appealing to conscience rarely works. Exposing inconsistency is far more effective than debate.
7. The intellectual justifier
Within elite academic and cultural spaces, hostility toward Israel is often framed in sophisticated language. Arguments appear analytical but frequently rely on selective interpretation and moral asymmetry.
Assouline warns that reliance on education alone is misguided. People do not abandon identities because they encounter data. At best, one can challenge assumptions and keep the human consequences visible in discussions that drift into abstraction.
What often looks like a lack of critical thinking is, in reality, something more complex. Many people today are not failing to think. They are prioritizing emotional coherence over analytical inquiry. As Assouline’s work suggests, once a narrative aligns with identity and belonging, questioning it can feel like betrayal rather than reflection. The issue is not ignorance alone, but the human tendency to protect the stories that give our worldview meaning.
Across all these personae, one uncomfortable truth emerges. Many people today do not reject facts because they lack them. They reject them because the facts threaten the narrative that gives their worldview coherence.
Recognizing this does not mean surrendering to it. It means allocating effort wisely. Some audiences can be reached through empathy and humanization. Others can only be countered by exposure. And some will remain unmoved.
If antisemitism today is shaped by narrative, identity, and emotion, then confronting it requires engaging those same forces. Education alone will not suffice. Connection might.
Understanding how people come to believe what they believe is not a concession. It is a strategy. And it may be the only one that works.
The writer is the founder of a widely followed platform covering Israeli news, antisemitism, and the global Jewish world. She writes on Israel and Jewish affairs. Follow her on Instagram @antisemitismtoday.