The fight against antisemitism as a phenomenon has proven frustrating and archaic over the generations. The only path available to a people that has suffered so greatly over thousands of years lies through the courts within the sovereign state established by the Jewish people, and through a law crafted by the Knesset that empowers the court to summon accused individuals and punish them accordingly, similar to the law for the prosecution of Nazis and their collaborators, which grants Israeli courts international jurisdiction (without any guarantee that other nations will recognize such authority). Israel today is home to about 40 percent of world Jewry and can certainly claim that its citizens are the primary victims of antisemitism, thereby exercising its authority.

Why stand trial in Israel? An example can be found in the historic libel suit (1979) filed by two Britons, Mayhew and Adams, against the newspaper Maariv, which labeled them and their book antisemites (as referenced in Dr. Balas's article from 8/12/2025: The Mayhew v. Maariv case from 1979 has since been recognized as a legal milestone in defining the boundaries of antisemitism. An Israeli court ruled that intense anti-Zionism, based on false stereotypes and conspiracy theories, may be considered antisemitism). The Britons, a journalist and a member of parliament, were deeply offended by being classified as antisemites and decided that only a court in Jerusalem was competent to clear them of the label. Judge Bazak ruled in favor of the newspaper and confirmed that they were indeed antisemites.

One must consider the psychologically interesting phenomenon that an antisemitic individual does not want this label attached to them for life. Moreover, additional penalties including imprisonment and fines may be imposed based on the severity of their actions and words. The accused in the court will have all rights to participate remotely via commonly used visual means today, through any lawyer of their choice. There is no organizational problem in establishing a special unit of investigators to handle this matter and a unit of prosecutors specializing in such proceedings.

Therefore, the private antisemite should be fought through legal means, in addition to lawful physical measures available to every Jew as a free person with self-respect and national dignity.

Indeed, organizations against antisemitism have been established over the years that achieved relative and mainly limited success, as they were local in nature and failed to draw the individual Jew into a consistent and ongoing struggle against antisemites encountered daily: the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), probably the best-known and largest such organization, was founded in 1913; LICRA (International League Against Racism and Antisemitism) was founded in France in 1927. The 43 Group was established in England and fought antisemites physically; the Jewish Defense League was founded in the United States and later outlawed.

It is worth emphasizing that the major organizations established before World War II failed to remove antisemitism from the antisemites, and the Holocaust that followed demonstrated the immense power of antisemitism and the efforts still required to combat and subdue it. Antisemitism as an ideology not only did not disappear from the world even after the horrors of the Holocaust, but it is growing to monstrous dimensions comparable to the eve of World War II. Some predict the possibility of another Holocaust looming for the Jewish people.

Some thinkers view antisemitism as an integral part of the voluntary expression of humans as social beings. A person is convinced that their desires originate within themselves, but French philosopher Rene Girard argued that they are created through an entirely different process - one that also explains rivalry, scapegoats, and antisemitism (see article in Epox).

Why are Jews the scapegoats of global society? Not every victim can be a successful scapegoat. They must be close enough for society to recognize them, yet distant enough to be presented as foreign. They must be both inside and outside at the same time. If they are entirely foreign, it is difficult to blame them for everything happening within society. If they are too ordinary a part of society, it is hard to sacrifice them without undermining the entire order. The ideal victim exists in the middle zone: familiar yet suspect, present yet distinct, weak enough to be harmed, yet imagined as strong enough to be guilty.

In this sense, Jews have functioned throughout history, in the eyes of persecuting societies, as an almost ideal scapegoat. Not because they truly fit the role, but because their historical status allowed them to become vessels for fears.

***

One situation requiring in-depth investigation: a Muslim will not fear for their safety when passing through a Jewish neighborhood and may even try to provoke the Jewish residents, whereas a Jew will fear passing through a Muslim neighborhood. How can this phenomenon be explained? After all, one should fear Jews suspected of genocide and considered killers of Arabs. Yet there is no fear of Muslims because they are the poor, the murdered, the weak, the defenseless.

This strange and inverted situation proves Rene Girard's theory. The antisemite seeks to attach genocide to the Jew in order to demonize the object of hatred, even while knowing that the Jew is not dangerous and can be approached and struck without any fear. Thus is created the unbearable lightness of falsely accusing the Jew and punishing them without fear of response.

If one seeks a thinker who delved deeply into the close connection between the identity of the antisemite and being an enemy, French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre did so in the most famous manner.

In his essay Reflections on the Jewish Question (1946), Sartre analyzed the psychology of the antisemite. He determined that the antisemite is not merely a person with prejudice, but someone who chooses to define their entire essence, existence, and worldview through hatred and hostility toward the Jew. Sartre also coined the famous statement: If the Jew did not exist, the antisemite would invent him.

It should be clarified that the term antisemite includes any antisemite of Semitic non-Jewish origin who boasts that they cannot be anti-self.

From enemy of the Jews to antisemitism: For hundreds of years, the common terms in Europe for describing haters of Jews were quite direct. In Germany, for example, the terms Judenhass (hatred of Jews) or Judenfeind (literally meaning enemy of the Jews) were used.

The invention of the modern term: In 1879, a German journalist and publicist named Wilhelm Marr decided to rebrand the hatred. He wanted to detach it from the traditional religious-Christian context and give it a scientific, racial, and political dimension to justify it in the modern era. He founded the League of Antisemites and popularized the term antisemitism.

A Jewish Israeli born in Israel or raised there from childhood does not feel or understand what antisemitism is until they leave for another country and try to live there. In recent years, and especially since 7/10/23, Israelis and Jews have suddenly felt persecuted. The hate demonstrations that erupted the day after the October 7 massacre made it clear that there exists and has existed a profound hatred released from its hiding place. The events of the match and the pogrom in the Netherlands explained to us that there is nothing new under the sun; the Jew is a target for every antisemite or group of antisemites.

The shock brought by the demonstrations of hatred against us on 8/10 before we even began the war against the murderers left us speechless. We are being slaughtered and demonstrators are against us? This was a terrible eruption of hatred that had accumulated against us, and with all due respect to the dubious Qatari funds financing the hatred, without basic and profound antisemitism it cannot be explained in the scope of millions of demonstrators worldwide.

It turns out that even after the defeat of antisemitism in the greatest legal and explanatory cases in which the Jew defended against defamation, antisemitism grew stronger until it reached its peak during the Holocaust period.

The Dreyfus trial, which ended at the beginning of the previous century in France in what seemed like a legal and explanatory victory, did not dispel the tension and hatred toward Jews. The Beilis trial, held in the Ukrainian court and becoming one of the greatest trials for clearing Jews of blood libels and ending several years after the Dreyfus trial, leads us to the years of World War I and then World War II and the Holocaust.

The Beilis trial was based on evidence and expert opinions, and the determination of a hostile legal system had to admit the defeat of antisemitic ideas, yet it changed nothing in the attitude toward Jews, and not only did antisemitism not fade but it became more active and dangerous for Jews.

All that time, before the State of Israel, the only way was to defend against antisemitism through the press, explanations, literature, or legal defense in courts.

A large part of the Jewish people now resides in the State of Israel and constitutes an undisguised target for antisemites.

The State of Israel is considered a strong military and economic power full of resourcefulness. Jews today have no need to apologize or defend against antisemitic motifs. Moreover, there is no doubt that antisemitism will not disappear, and the more the Jew apologizes, explains themselves, tries to prove that they are not the stereotypical figure the antisemite has dressed them in, the more we prove that our noses are not long, that we are not all rich, that we are not baby killers but that Hamas uses civilians as human shields, that we are actually the victims of the October 7 massacre, the more we will be seen as having a weak argument, evading responsibility, and so on, and become an ideal target for attacks, murder, and pogroms.

Furthermore, it turns out that not every person who has some criticism of us and our actions is an antisemite, despite the general atmosphere, and therefore it is very important that the court for antisemites clarify this well.

In the margins of this article and while emphasizing the importance of the proposal, a special law should be prepared against deniers of the October 7, 2023 massacre, and consideration should be given to granting international jurisdiction to the law prohibiting Holocaust denial and the law prohibiting denial of the October 7 massacre. The moment of justice has arrived for the Jewish people, and we will know how to stand firm against anyone who tries to deny our rights after all we have been through and are still going through.