A growing perception among certain Jewish leaders suggests that the fight against antisemitism is failing because antisemitism still exists. That argument rests on the wrong metric.

Eradication was never the goal. Antisemitism is a recurring feature of societies — sometimes marginal, sometimes explosive. The real question is not whether it appears, but whether societies ignore it, tolerate it, encourage it, or confront it. Success begins with recognition: naming the problem clearly, acknowledging its danger, and preparing institutions to respond.

To counter the perception of failure, we must reset the standard.

Historically, antisemitism has signaled broader social instability. When conspiracy theories spread and dehumanization becomes normalized, democratic norms are already eroding. For governments to recognize that pattern and adopt coordinated national strategies to counter antisemitism — as the United States and several allied democracies have done in recent years — reflects institutional awareness of a real threat. The presence of antisemitism is not proof of defeat. Refusing to confront it would be.

Mobilizing Institutions

The fight is about marshaling resistance. The appointment of special envoys, bipartisan legislative action, coordinated transatlantic partnerships, and enforcement of anti-bias protections show that institutions are choosing to act. Court decisions upholding anti-discrimination laws and increased governmental attention to antisemitic violence demonstrate that this issue is being treated not as a parochial grievance, but as a matter of civic stability.

Organizations such as the American Jewish Committee have helped drive this engagement — pressing policymakers to adopt national strategies, strengthening international coordination, and translating concern into concrete policy outcomes.

The metric is not disappearance. It is engagement. Are leaders recognizing the danger? Are they translating recognition into policy? Are they willing to incur political cost to confront it? That is where success is measured.

Protection and Resilience

Enhanced security funding, clearer campus policies, stronger hate-crime enforcement, and diplomatic coordination do not eliminate hatred. But they deter violence and strengthen democratic resilience.

It is worth asking a simple counterfactual: What would the landscape look like if no one were fighting? History leaves little ambiguity. When antisemitism spreads without resistance, it corrodes institutions, legitimizes scapegoating politics, and weakens the rule of law. Societies that tolerate the dehumanization of a minority rarely stop there. Engagement with civic and political leadership is not utopian. It is preventive governance.

Resetting the Standard

We should measure the fight accordingly. The question is not whether antisemitism exists. The question is whether those in power are willing to confront it clearly, consistently, and at political cost. Antisemitism is a stress test for liberal civilization itself. A society that cannot defend its smallest minority cannot defend its principles. The real failure would not be the persistence of hatred. It would be the failure of institutions to resist it.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)