Opinion

COME TOGETHER, RIGHT NOW

How 10/7 changed everything — except the way Jewish interest groups fight antisemitism

In Short

Organizations and individuals are failing to adapt to the new reality and insist on debating moot topics

Over the last decade, my team and I at Technical University Berlin, along with various international academic networks, have conducted copious research about online hate directed at Jews and Israel. Based on that research, we developed a lexicon of digital antisemitism that governments and organizations around the world can rely on to help counter antisemitic narratives that dominate the digital landscape.

Yet even with my 10-plus years of research in this field, nothing could have prepared me for what took place in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre. The unabashed celebrations of the attack were shocking, from the social media accounts of BLM Chicago and communist conservative Jackson Hinkle sharing memes lauding the massacre to students at top Western colleges hijacking university spaces to demonstrate in support of Hamas’ atrocities. While the “detour communication” that holds Jews worldwide accountable for the actions and/or existence of Israel has never been a secret, it became abundantly obvious that radical hatred of Israel and Israelis would be indistinguishable from hatred of Jews worldwide. Clearly, no one could deny this connection any longer.

Or so I naively thought.

The past 12 months have shown not only how alarmingly little the non-Jewish majority and decision-makers in the West have learned from Oct. 7 and its consequences for Jewish life worldwide, but how much they lack pragmatism. I was blindsided as I joined discussions and debates about the correct definition of antisemitism (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Jerusalem Declaration or Nexus) and the legitimacy of the apartheid analogy and boycott, divestment and sanction demands. Those who initiated these discussions did not seem to understand that what we saw after Oct. 7 were not just some variations of definitional thought experiments, but the unmistakable display of what antisemitic thinking and feeling ultimately aims for: the uncompromising destruction of Jewish life.

When a firm, uncompromising response from established international institutions failed to materialize — something one would expect given the oratory rituals around “Never again” whenever the face of antisemitism appears — it fell to numerous organizations and interest groups dedicated to the safety of Jewish life to initiate change. Eager to lend my expertise and share my considerable resources, I approached both well-known and lesser-known institutions, offering my support in their efforts to dismantle antisemitic hate speech at a time when it was at its peak.

As it turns out, the catalyst for this hate lies in social media. Developing a solution, if such a thing is possible, would therefore involve tapping social media studies to both explain what is happening in the United States, Canada and Europe and critically expand our capacity for preventative and interventional measures.

Of course, the operating principles and mechanisms powering the world of philanthropists, foundations, NGOs and research institutions are incredibly diverse. Not all Jewish interest groups are working from the same priorities or perspectives; and, as with everything else, there are financial and personnel constraints to developing new, comprehensive strategies. On top of all this, persuading political decision-makers and — in the case of online hate — social media companies is an enormous challenge requiring subtle and continuous negotiations. Even so, I was confident that these various hurdles would be surmountable.

Once again, I was wrong. 

Nearly all of my workshops and pitches — in which I not only highlighted the countless challenges in researching antisemitism and other hate ideologies on social media but also outlined a very promising and scientifically sound yet pragmatic approach to the problem — were met with applause and enthusiasm. And then: Nothing happened. Not only that, but in further discussions my colleagues and I were confronted with a series of arguments, many of them false flags behind which flawed operations might hide. Let’s review and debunk these claims:

CLAIM: We already have a profound understanding of online hate as it has been comprehensively studied.

FACTS: While previous works are undoubtedly commendable, they fall short when it comes to identifying antisemitism online in all its forms, tracking its trends on various publicly accessible platforms and within online milieus and grasping the correlations between online discourse and offline developments. There is no dodging the fact that we need to and can improve our analytical methods and tools. The integration of humanities and social sciences with AI will lead us into a new era of understanding Jew-hatred.


CLAIM: We need to focus squarely on hate crimes coming from extremist and terror groups. 

FACTS: The danger posed by hate speech and hate communication in general is often ignored or trivialized. Of course, hate crimes need to be addressed, but this starts with examining the role of online peer groups and the narratives they propagate. Doing so would help us understand what drove the perpetrators of incidents in Christchurch, New Zealand; El Paso, Texas; Halle, Germany; Hanau, Germany; Pittsburgh and Poway, Calif. to their actions or fostered corresponding attitudes.

It is also outdated to believe that thinking, communicating and acting are mutually exclusive. This mindset harkens back to an era when supervisors at schools intervened only when physical harm occurred, neglecting the heightened risk of physical violence fueled by precursors such as hate speech and other forms of verbal abuse. Civil society must grasp that the persistent normalization of communicative codes sets the stage for hate crimes.

CLAIM: We must shift the focus from hate speech to harassment. 

FACTS: This argument is understandable from a pragmatic perspective, especially concerning the necessity to collaborate with the bigger mainstream platforms. The problem lies in focusing solely on addressing the immediate outbreaks of hate without gaining an understanding of the underlying currents that inform broader societal trends. The historical absence of rigorous scientific analysis of hate speech and conspiracy myths has had catastrophic consequences, from targeted attacks in Poway to El Paso to Pittsburgh. 

CLAIM: Funders require proof of a project’s success before committing their support.

FACTS: This mindset typically aligns with concerns over potential misuse of funds in many civil society projects. However, research on language and propaganda indicates that historically, high levels of hate speech, conspiracy theories, and disinformation have always led to increased individual aggression and, eventually, systemic discrimination. Examining hate on social media — where most of our public discourse occurs — will help explain why our societies behave as they do offline

Understanding and learning to anticipate societal developments through the precise analysis of discourses is a long-term endeavor. Providing results in advance is virtually impossible, as we are currently only able to approach the complex online discourse structure step by step.

Additionally, accurately defining the problem is crucial for effective intervention. A comprehensive understanding of antisemitic discourse in various contexts is essential for developing stronger counterarguments, identifying biases and tracking the evolution of antisemitism across the political spectrum.

CLAIM: Platforms and watchdogs already employ the ‘trusted flaggers’ model, which is effective at moderating hateful content.

FACTS: In this case, a responsibility that ideally belongs to the platform itself is passed off to users who autonomously identify psychologically distressing content. The lack of clear operational guidelines for these users — who essentially serve as “volunteer” moderation assistants — often results in inconsistently-labeled content. Furthermore, while AI-based solutions may be useful, there is a shortage of sufficient training datasets and a scarcity of high-quality training datasets.

Proponents of this model are disconnected from current realities. Today, social media platforms host vast and sophisticated bot armies; well-funded bad actors with advanced technological capabilities; and large communities of disgruntled, hateful individuals and groups. Compounding the issue is the systemic amplification of hateful, distorted and highly emotive content, courtesy of algorithms. Recent statistics on pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian groups on TikTok, among others, underscore the inadequacy of this model, likened to deploying the 16th-century Spanish Armada against today’s U.S. Navy.

While these are five of the most common arguments I hear from establishment groups, many more have been tossed around at galas and cocktail parties in a manner that demonstrates little recognition of the gravity of the situation, reminiscent of the mood in Europe during the 1920s. The major players seem to struggle to collaborate due to past negative experiences with partner organizations or differing definitions and understandings of antisemitism, completely disregarding the near-consensus in research and civil society on what constitutes antisemitic stereotypes and overt hate speech.

A new online ecosystem must be created through the collaboration of the research community, the private sector, elected officials, and civil society to ensure a future free from antisemitism — or, at the very least, one where it is more effectively contained. To address this urgent situation and to raise awareness of the issue through initial studies, it is crucial for Jewish stakeholders worldwide to find ways to bridge their differences and adopt a more unified, collaborative approach. 

Matthias J. Becker is a social media and antisemitism researcher at the University of Cambridge. He leads the international and transdisciplinary research project “Decoding Antisemitism” and serves as a visiting fellow at the Tel Aviv Institute.