The fight against antisemitism has, throughout history, proved frustrating and antiquated. The only effective tool available to a people that has suffered so profoundly over thousands of years is the law — specifically, the legal system of the sovereign state established by the Jewish people. The Knesset should enact legislation authorizing a special court to summon defendants and prosecute them, similar to the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law, which grants Israeli courts universal jurisdiction over such crimes, regardless of whether other countries recognize that authority.
Israel is now home to about 40% of the world's Jewish population and can reasonably argue that its citizens are among the primary victims of antisemitism. It therefore has grounds to exercise such jurisdiction.
A Palestinian bulldozer tears through the Gaza-Israel border fence on October 7, 2023
Why should cases be heard in Israel? A historical example can be found in the landmark 1979 libel lawsuit filed by two British nationals, Michael Adams and Christopher Mayhew, against the Israeli newspaper Maariv after it described them and their book as antisemitic.
As noted by legal scholar Dr. Shuki Balas in a Dec. 8, 2025 article, "The 1979 Mayhew v. Maariv case has since been recognized as a legal milestone in defining the boundaries of antisemitism. An Israeli court ruled that extreme anti-Zionism rooted in false stereotypes and fabricated conspiracies may constitute antisemitism."
The two Britons — a journalist and a member of Parliament — were deeply offended by being labeled antisemites and believed only a court in Jerusalem had the authority to clear their names. Judge Jacob Bazak ultimately upheld Maariv's characterization, ruling that they were, in fact, antisemitic.
It is worth considering the psychological dimension of antisemitism: those who engage in it often do not want to carry the label "antisemite" for the rest of their lives. Beyond the reputational consequences, offenders could face additional penalties, including fines and imprisonment, depending on the severity of their actions and statements.
Defendants appearing before such a court should be granted full due process, including the right to participate remotely through widely available video conferencing technology and to be represented by legal counsel of their choosing. There would be no organizational obstacle to establishing a dedicated investigative unit and a specialized team of prosecutors to handle such cases.
The individual antisemite should therefore be confronted through legal means, alongside any lawful measures available to every Jew as a free individual with personal and national dignity.
Over the years, several organizations dedicated to combating antisemitism have been established, achieving varying degrees of success, though largely on a local scale. These include the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), founded in 1913 and likely the best-known organization of its kind; LICRA (the International League Against Racism and Antisemitism), founded in France in 1927; the 43 Group in Britain, whose members physically confronted antisemites; and the Jewish Defense League in the United States, which was later outlawed.
It should be emphasized that the major organizations established before World War II failed to eradicate antisemitism. The Holocaust that followed demonstrated the destructive power of antisemitism and the extent of the effort still required to defeat it.
Antisemitism as an ideology not only survived the Holocaust but has continued to grow. Today, it has reached monstrous levels that rival those seen on the eve of World War II, with some warning of the possibility of another catastrophe for the Jewish people.
Some thinkers view antisemitism as an inherent feature of human social behavior. As one article discussing the ideas of French philosopher René Girard explains: "People believe their desires originate within themselves, but Girard argued that they arise through a different process — one that also explains rivalry, scapegoating and antisemitism."
The article continues: "Why are Jews the scapegoat of global society? Not every victim can successfully serve as a scapegoat. The victim must be close enough for society to recognize them, yet distant enough to portray them as outsiders. They must simultaneously belong and not belong. If they are completely foreign, it is difficult to blame them for what happens within society. If they are too fully integrated, sacrificing them threatens the social order itself. The ideal victim occupies the space in between: familiar yet suspect, present yet distinct, weak enough to be harmed but imagined to be powerful enough to deserve blame."
In that sense, Jews have historically served, in the eyes of persecuting societies, as an almost ideal scapegoat — not because they truly fit that role, but because their historical position made them a convenient vessel onto which societies could project their fears.
***
One situation that warrants closer examination is the following: A Muslim generally does not fear for his safety when walking through a Jewish neighborhood and may even provoke local Jewish residents. A Jew, by contrast, may fear for his safety when walking through a Muslim neighborhood. How can this be explained? If Jews are accused of committing genocide and portrayed as murderers of Arabs, one might expect them to be feared. Muslims, meanwhile, are often portrayed as victims — oppressed, defenseless and vulnerable.
This seemingly paradoxical reality supports René Girard's theory of scapegoating. According to this view, the antisemite seeks to brand the Jew a perpetrator of genocide in order to demonize him as an object of hatred, while simultaneously believing the Jew poses little physical threat and can therefore be attacked with relative impunity. The result is "the unbearable ease of falsely accusing and punishing Jews without fear of retaliation."
If one seeks a thinker who explored the close relationship between antisemitism and hostility toward Jews, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre is perhaps the best known.
Attorney Ze'ev WelnerPhoto: Ariel CohenIn his 1946 essay Anti-Semite and Jew (Réflexions sur la question juive), Sartre analyzed the psychology of the antisemite. He argued that an antisemite is not simply someone who harbors prejudice, but someone who defines his worldview and identity through hostility toward Jews. Sartre famously wrote, "If the Jew did not exist, the antisemite would invent him."
The term "antisemite" itself also warrants clarification, particularly because some people of Semitic origin who are not Jewish argue that they cannot be "anti-Semitic" because they themselves are Semites.
Before the modern term was coined, European languages used more direct descriptions. In German, for example, common expressions included Judenhass ("hatred of Jews") and Judenfeind ("enemy of the Jews").
The modern term "antisemitism" was introduced in 1879 by German journalist and political writer Wilhelm Marr. Seeking to detach anti-Jewish hostility from its traditional Christian religious roots, Marr sought to recast it in racial, political and pseudo-scientific terms. He founded the League of Antisemites and helped popularize the term "antisemitism."
Many Israeli-born Jews, or those raised in Israel from childhood, did not fully understand antisemitism until they moved abroad and experienced it firsthand. In recent years, and particularly since the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel, many Israelis and Jews have come to feel increasingly targeted.
The anti-Israel demonstrations that erupted on October 8, before Israel had launched its military campaign in Gaza, came as a shock to many Israelis. The violence surrounding a soccer match involving Israeli fans in Amsterdam in November 2024 reinforced the persistence of antisemitism.
The fact that demonstrations occurred immediately after the October 7 attack, before Israel's military response had begun, left many Israelis stunned. We were massacred, and people were protesting against us? This was an eruption of hatred that had accumulated over time. Regardless of the role played by Qatari funding in supporting anti-Israel activism, such a global phenomenon involving millions of demonstrators cannot be explained without acknowledging the existence of deep-rooted antisemitism.
History shows that even major legal and public victories against antisemitic accusations have failed to eliminate antisemitism.
The Dreyfus Affair in France, which ultimately ended with the exoneration of Alfred Dreyfus after years of legal proceedings, did not diminish hostility toward Jews. Likewise, the Beilis trial in the Russian Empire, in which Mendel Beilis was acquitted of ritual murder allegations after extensive expert testimony and judicial proceedings, failed to stem antisemitism. Instead, the years that followed led to World War I, World War II and the Holocaust.
Although the Beilis trial discredited one of history's most notorious blood libels through evidence and judicial findings, it did not improve attitudes toward Jews. Antisemitism became even more active and dangerous.
Before the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews could respond to antisemitism only through journalism, public advocacy, literature or legal defense in the courts.
Today, a large portion of the Jewish people lives in Israel, making the country itself a visible target of antisemitism.
Israel is now a militarily and economically strong state, and Jews no longer need to justify themselves in response to antisemitic accusations. Antisemitism will not disappear and repeated attempts to rebut antisemitic stereotypes — whether by denying conspiracy theories, rejecting blood libels or explaining Israel's conduct in war — often fail to persuade committed antisemites and instead risk portraying Jews as defensive and therefore more vulnerable.
At the same time, not everyone who criticizes Israel or its policies is antisemitic. Given the current climate, any proposed tribunal dealing with antisemitism must make that distinction clear.
Israel is widely regarded as a militarily and economically strong, resourceful country. Jews no longer need to apologize for or defend themselves against antisemitic accusations. Moreover, antisemitism is unlikely to disappear and the more Jews apologize, explain themselves or try to prove they do not fit antisemitic stereotypes — that their noses are not "long," that not all Jews are wealthy, that they do not murder babies, that Hamas uses civilians as human shields or that Jews were themselves the victims of the October 7 massacre — the more they risk appearing weak, evasive or defensive, making them, in his view, easier targets for attacks, violence and pogroms.
At the same time, not everyone who criticizes Israel or its actions is antisemitic, despite the current climate. Any proposed tribunal on antisemitism should make that distinction explicit.
In conclusion, Israel must draft a law criminalizing denial of the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack and consider extending international jurisdiction to both Israel's law banning Holocaust denial and any future law prohibiting denial of the October 7 massacre.
The moment for justice for the Jewish people has arrived. We must be prepared to stand against anyone who seeks to deny our rights after everything we have endured and continue to endure.
Attorney Ze'ev Welner, founder of the legal website PsakDin, has published articles advocating Israel's right to bring genocide proceedings against Iran and its proxies before the International Court of Justice. He has also filed petitions that influenced legal precedents involving women's rights and the constitutional role of Israel's Supreme Court. This article is published courtesy of PsakDin. ynet is a partner of the website.