Let’s stop arguing about antisemitism and focus on researching it

Since the December terror attack in Bondi Beach, Australia has been increasingly focused on antisemitism, as highlighted by the ongoing Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. Like other forms of prejudice, understanding antisemitism requires delving into how it functions, its persistence, and effective methods to address it.

However, high-quality research on antisemitism is hindered by a "double bind." Firstly, there is a lack of such research in Australia, partly due to the small Jewish population and the belief that general prejudice research can adequately cover antisemitism. Secondly, existing research on antisemitism often faces intense scrutiny, especially when findings contradict popular opinions.

A review of journal articles by Australian academics from 1990 to 2025 revealed only 173 articles on antisemitism, compared to 3,640 on racism. Most of these articles focused on historical antisemitism, with only 26 presenting new empirical research, while 13 merely disputed the existence of antisemitism or claimed it was used for political gain.

This situation is not unique to Australia. In 2024, a US research team published the first quantitative study of antisemitism in the healthcare sector, but it was quickly criticized in an editorial for its methods and analysis. The authors defended their approach, arguing it was on par with research on other prejudices. This creates a negative feedback loop, where limited evidence is used to question the seriousness of the issue, and efforts to strengthen this evidence are then challenged over definitions, samples, methods, or political motives.

A recent special issue of American Psychologist on antisemitism and psychology offers insights into how antisemitism operates in practice. For instance, my article with Wen Shan of Singapore University of Social Sciences found that people in China admire Jewish success and aspire to emulate it, suggesting envy might not be a primary driver of antisemitism.

Similarly, a study by Maria Babińska and her colleagues from Université Libre de Bruxelles found that antisemitism in Poland and Germany is a predictor of Holocaust distortions, while Holocaust distortions do not predict antisemitism, indicating that collective guilt over the Holocaust is not a driver of antisemitism.

The role of ideology in shaping antisemitism has also been explored. Britt Hadar of Reichman University in Israel discovered that stereotyping Jews as powerful is a key driver of anti-Jewish prejudice, but the reasons behind this perception vary with political ideology. Right-wing individuals may view Jews as a threat to their own group's dominance, while left-wing individuals may see Jews as obstructing equality.

Jordan Moon and his colleagues at the University of Southampton found that progressives react more negatively to anti-Jewish prejudice without justification, but this shifts when the prejudice is justified by opposition to Israel's treatment of Palestinians.

Several studies have also examined the relationship between antisemitism and perceptions of Israel. Johannes Due Enstad of the Norwegian Institute for Social Research found that those who believe Israel's treatment of Palestinians is equivalent to Nazi Germany's treatment of Jews are more likely to justify harassment or violence against Jews.

Rutgers University psychologist Kent Harber and his colleagues found that negative attitudes toward Israel are partly driven by stereotypes about Jews being dishonest, self-centered, superior, and expecting special treatment. These attitudes are also influenced by conspiracy beliefs portraying Israel as secretly manipulating or exploiting conflicts to further its interests and portraying Jewish organizations as using money, pressure, and accusations of antisemitism to gain support for Israel and suppress criticism.

Lastly, Gal Gutman and Michael Gilead of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev found that negative Jewish stereotypes prevalent in the West are also present in large language models, suggesting that artificial intelligence may reproduce and amplify anti-Jewish stereotypes.

In conclusion, the key takeaway from these studies is that antisemitism has unique characteristics that cannot be assumed to function similarly to other forms of prejudice. This necessitates dedicated attention to understanding antisemitism. While it is important to challenge measures and test competing explanations, we must not delegitimize research simply because we disagree with the findings.

To further advance our understanding of antisemitism, more research is needed, particularly large-scale studies, to identify effective ways to reduce it.