Bret Stephens, in his “State of World Jewry” address at the 92nd Street Y on Feb. 1, was right about something fundamental: Jewish strength begins with Jewish identity. A people that does not know who it is cannot endure. Identity anchors continuity, belonging and resilience, and strengthening Jewish knowledge, pride and peoplehood is indispensable work.

But where his argument becomes incomplete is in treating internal fortification as a sufficient response to modern antisemitism. It is not. Jewish continuity depends not only on internal strength, but also on how Jews are perceived in the societies in which they live. Ignoring that second dimension is not principled restraint — it is strategic exposure.

The consequences are not abstract. When moral legitimacy erodes, the effects surface in daily life and geopolitical reality. Jewish students face exclusion or hostility on campuses where association itself becomes suspect. Professionals encounter social or workplace environments where affiliation carries reputational cost. Communities confront heightened safety risks as demonization normalizes intimidation and harassment. At the state level, the stakes are even more concrete: a nation perceived as morally illegitimate struggles to secure diplomatic concessions, build durable alliances or negotiate security guarantees. Military cooperation weakens. Political support fragments. Isolation compounds vulnerability. 

Reputation does not merely shape opinion — it shapes the conditions under which safety, access and protection are possible. Ignoring that dynamic exposes both people and state to material risk. To withdraw from that arena leaves perception to be shaped by others.

There is an irony embedded in this debate worth acknowledging. Stephens’ argument carries weight not only because of its substance, but because of who he is — a trusted columnist whose credibility precedes his words. He illustrates a broader truth: authority is conferred through trust and standing accumulated in the public sphere. The very conditions that allow his argument to be heard demonstrate the power of reputational capital in shaping influence.

The art of subconscious triggering

Antisemitism today is not simply historical residue drifting through culture. It is actively reinforced — and often strategically engineered — through organized activism, ideological ecosystems and coordinated campaigns that operate at the subconscious level. These efforts are designed not merely to critique policies or actions but to shape perceptions of character. They frame Jews as manipulative, insular, privileged and/or malevolent actors whose motivations are presumed suspect. Negative associations about Jews and Israel are implanted through imagery, repetition, emotionally loaded language and moral framing; these efforts bypass reason entirely, shaping intuition rather than argument and influencing opinions before facts are even encountered. This is not accidental hostility; it is practiced narrative warfare.

These campaigns are not reactive to Jewish behavior nor contingent on Jewish restraint. They persist because they work. Once negative moral associations embed at the subconscious level, they self-reinforce, shaping how subsequent information or events are interpreted. In that environment, silence does not preserve dignity. It concedes ground.

When a speaker is perceived as morally legitimate, facts are considered in good faith. When legitimacy is absent, those same facts are dismissed or never meaningfully registered. When Jews are framed as morally suspect, information is filtered through distrust, actions are presumed manipulative and concessions are interpreted as tactical rather than sincere.

The choice, therefore, is not between identity or engagement. We need to choose identity and reputation repair.

Moral restoration

Reputation repair is often mischaracterized as an effort to make Jews more appealing. That framing misunderstands the stakes. This work is not about likability; it is about restoring perceived moral character, because moral character determines whether good faith is granted, narratives are believed and coalitions hold — whether hostility normalizes or diplomacy endures. When moral legitimacy erodes, facts lose force, actions are interpreted cynically and concessions are dismissed as manipulation.

This matters most outside the Jewish community, where most Americans do not have a deep knowledge or experience with who Jews are and what is happening on the ground in Israel. Judgments form through ambient impressions rather than evidence-based analysis. In that environment, Jews and Israelis today often operate at a deficit of trust in broader society. That deficit shapes how messages land — or fail to land. Facts do not persuade from a deficit of trust; they arrive too late. Reputation determines whether facts are even allowed into consideration.

Responding with resignation — asserting that perception cannot be influenced — is not realism. It is fatalism. Responsible engagement does not abandon the terrain on which hostility is being shaped. Repairing reputation is not about vanity. It is about restoring the benefit of the doubt.

Stephens is correct that many reputational efforts have failed. Many initiatives have shown little measurable impact. Some may have worsened perception. Awareness campaigns, advocacy approaches and even longstanding Holocaust education investments have not reversed rising antisemitism trends.

But the lesson is not abandonment. Two failures must be acknowledged. First, the community underestimated the scale and coordination of efforts shaping negative associations. Second, it continued investing in familiar tactics despite weak evidence of effectiveness.

No serious society abandons cancer research because early treatments did not cure the disease. It stops funding ineffective approaches and doubles down on what works.  Stopping ineffective approaches is responsible leadership. Doing nothing at all is abdication.

The Nagen Project’s research demonstrates precisely this distinction. Some long-trusted messages actively entrench bias; others produce measurable shifts in moral perception. The lesson is not that perception cannot change, but that how it is changed matters. Persistence without learning is ineffective. Learning without persistence is irrelevant. What is required is both.

The approach we are suggesting today differs fundamentally from the reputational efforts of the past. It is grounded in empirical research into how subconscious associations form and shift over time, drawing on behavioral science and brand-strength methodologies used to rehabilitate damaged global institutions. Rather than arguing facts or amplifying defensive narratives, it focuses on building a surplus of positive moral associations in advance, so future facts are received through trust rather than suspicion. Messages are rigorously tested against real audiences, ineffective tactics are discarded and only those proven to shift perception are scaled. This is not persuasion by insistence. It is legitimacy rebuilt through disciplined signal-building. That distinction explains why prior efforts failed — and why this approach is structurally different.

This is not hasbara, marketing or public relations; those operate at the tactical level of communication. Reputation repair operates structurally, reshaping moral credibility within the cognitive frameworks through which audiences interpret actors over time.

Crucially, how this work is done matters as much as whether it is done. Casual, defensive or instinct-driven efforts can reinforce negative associations. Messaging that resonates internally may alienate external audiences. Moral insistence can be interpreted as evasion. Poor execution hardens opposition rather than softening it.

Effective engagement begins with understanding how audiences interpret the world — their moral frames, cultural reference points and cognitive shortcuts. Perspective does not shift through confrontation alone; it shifts when communication aligns with existing interpretive terrain. Execution therefore matters: poorly designed reputational efforts can reinforce negative associations, while disciplined, research-driven approaches reshape the conditions under which trust — and influence — become possible.

Reputation repair is not optional. When a group is persistently framed as morally suspect, consequences accumulate: trust erodes, coalitions weaken, indifference spreads, and hostility normalizes. History shows how this progression unfolds. Long before violence emerges, narratives condition moral perception, enabling ostracization, exclusion and dehumanization.

Narratives alone do not produce catastrophe. But they establish the moral environment in which escalation becomes conceivable — and defensible. Ignoring early stages ignores how risk accumulates.

Stephens is right that identity is indispensable. Without it, continuity falters. But identity alone cannot shield Jews from the consequences of moral delegitimization in the broader public sphere. Reputation is not optional. The opposition understands this; so should we.

The path forward is not choosing between peoplehood and persuasion, but integrating both — strengthening who Jews are internally while rebuilding the moral legitimacy that allows them to be heard, believed, defended and protected externally. 

Because facts only work when they come from a trusted source, and trust must exist before argument can begin.

The stakes are not symbolic. They are existential.

Marnie Black is the chief marketing officer of the Nagen Project, a nonprofit organization dedicated to redefining how we confront antisemitism and reshape perceptions of Jews and Israel. She brings over 30 years of expertise in strategic brand-building for major media and consumer lifestyle companies including AMC Networks, MTV, Weight Watchers, HBO, Comcast and CNN. 

Mark Mandell is a marketing expert, entrepreneur and philanthropist. He currently serves on the board of the Nagen Project.