Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Emma Isabella Sage, a research affiliate at the University of Glasgow, and Josef Olmert, a former Israeli government official and Middle East scholar, about the historical roots and contemporary resurgence of antisemitism. Drawing on personal experiences, historical analysis and debates over Zionism, they argue that the current wave of hostility cannot be understood solely through the lens of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Instead, they explore how centuries-old prejudices, political polarization and competing historical narratives continue to shape perceptions of Jewish identity and the State of Israel.

Personal histories reveal an enduring prejudice

Singh opens by asking why antisemitism appears to be resurging around the world. Olmert responds with personal experiences from Great Britain and the United States that convinced him antisemitism often lies dormant before reemerging during moments of crisis. He says that the October 7 attacks and the war in Gaza became a catalyst that revived long-standing prejudices, causing many Jews outside Israel to fear being judged collectively for the actions of the Israeli state. He also notes that Jews remain disproportionately targeted in religious hate crimes; antisemitism repeatedly assigns collective responsibility to Jewish communities.

Sage complements this perspective with her family history. Her grandfather lost his banking job in Britain because he was a German citizen, and was then forced to return to Germany, where he was persecuted for being Jewish. She recounts how her great-grandmother starved herself to death so her son could escape Nazi Germany, and reflects on returning decades later to a German village that had once been 13% Jewish, where she is now the only Jewish inhabitant.

Living in Germany today, Sage observes that Holocaust education has created widespread awareness of Jewish suffering without necessarily producing genuine knowledge about Jewish life. Many people believe they understand Judaism because they know its history of persecution, yet know little about Jewish traditions, culture or identity. Sage and Olmert agree that personal stories illustrate how antisemitism persists across generations in ways that broad historical narratives often fail to capture.

Historical narratives and national responsibility

The discussion broadens to examine how different countries confronted antisemitism before and during World War II. Olmert states that prejudice against Jews extended well beyond Nazi Germany, citing British political attitudes during the 1930s and claiming that many Allied leaders opposed Hitler for strategic rather than humanitarian reasons. Singh counters that Britain remained comparatively more tolerant than continental Europe, noting that Benjamin Disraeli had become prime minister despite his Jewish origins. Their exchange highlights the tension between judging historical figures by contemporary standards and recognizing how deeply embedded antisemitism was across European societies.

Sage then shifts attention to the US. She challenges the popular narrative that America entered the war primarily as a humanitarian force, pointing instead to the Evian Conference and the widespread reluctance to accept Jewish refugees before the Holocaust. She says that opportunities existed to save lives before mass extermination began but were not taken. This raises uncomfortable questions about international responsibility.

Additionally, Olmert mentions that antisemitism has never been universal. Jewish communities historically experienced far less hostility in some civilizations, such as India and China, than they did in Europe or parts of the Middle East. Singh suggests that societies without exclusive religious claims to universal truth often developed different relationships with minority faiths, leading to a discussion of how theological traditions may have shaped attitudes toward Jews across different regions.

Sage and Olmert suggest that acknowledging the variations in attitudes worldwide is essential to understanding contemporary debates. Antisemitism is not an exclusively German phenomenon; rather, it is a broader problem that existed across Europe, the Middle East and North America long before the Holocaust reached its deadliest phase.

Israel, Zionism and competing historical narratives

Can contemporary antisemitism be explained primarily as a reaction to Israeli policies? Singh presents the argument, frequently postulated by Muslim intellectuals, that hostility toward Jews in the Arab largely stemmed from the creation of Israel. Olmert strongly rejects this interpretation, pointing to examples of anti-Jewish discrimination under earlier Muslim rule. He says hostility toward Jews predates Zionism by many centuries.

Olmert believes the deeper issue is the transformation of Jews from a vulnerable minority into a sovereign people capable of defending themselves. He contends that many societies struggle to accept this reversal of historical roles. Sage agrees, but adds that the Middle East contains many vulnerable minorities besides Jews whose experiences are often overlooked, and that if the problem of discriminatory hatred in the Middle East really stemmed from the creation of Israel, then stateless minorities should be faring much better than they are. She describes the Israeli–Palestinian conflict principally as an ethnic and national conflict over land and self-determination rather than primarily a religious struggle. She compares it to disputes in the Balkans, Nagorno-Karabakh and Cyprus as examples of ethnic conflict between competing national claims..

Sage also challenges common descriptions of Jewish identity. She and Olmert both reject labels such as “Judeo-Christian,” arguing that Judaism developed along its own historical path rather than serving merely as a precursor to Christianity. She describes Jews as an ancient people with a shared ethnic identity as well as a religious tradition. Many contemporary misunderstandings arise, she contends, because outsiders struggle to distinguish between Judaism as a faith and the Jewish people as a nation.

The discussion also addresses widespread misunderstandings surrounding Zionism. Sage defines it simply as support for Jewish self-determination and contends that many critics attach far broader meanings to the term. As she explains, “It’s the belief that Jews have a right to self-determination.” Olmert similarly maintains that Zionism represents the collective response Jews developed after centuries of persecution rather than an ideology that can be separated from Jewish historical experience.

New forms of antisemitism on the left and right

The speakers both argue that antisemitism today emerges across the political spectrum. Olmert points to hostility from far-right movements alongside growing anti-Zionism on parts of the political left. Sage believes the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism has become deliberately obscured by language which conceals deeper prejudices.

She introduces the idea of “Holocaust inversion,” and explains that some Europeans and Americans cope with inherited historical guilt by drawing a false moral equivalence between  Jews and Nazis. According to this interpretation, shifting blame onto contemporary Israel allows societies to distance themselves from responsibility for past atrocities.

Drawing on her previous experiences as a university student, Sage describes initially participating in progressive activism before discovering that her Jewish identity was being used to deflect accusations of antisemitism: that she was valuable to the group as a “fig leaf” to cover unseemly truths. After the Tree of Life synagogue shooting, she says fellow activists responded not with sympathy, but by questioning the political views of the victims. This convinced her that Jewish communities ultimately could not rely on others for protection. As she puts it, “We have to be the ones who look out for each other.”

Olmert states that criticism of Israel often applies standards not demanded of other states engaged in armed conflict. While acknowledging that Israeli governments can make mistakes and criticizing some figures on Israel’s far right, he insists that Jews retain the right to defend themselves and rejects attempts to deny Israel’s legitimacy through comparisons with Nazi Germany.

Compromise, coexistence and the future

The conversation concludes by examining why efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict remain so difficult. Olmert says the greatest obstacle is what he calls an absolutist approach that rejects any Jewish national rights. He contrasts this with his own support for compromise, while acknowledging that Israeli extremists also damage prospects for peace.

Singh raises critiques from figures such as political scientist Norman Finkelstein, who argues that Israeli military actions have become disproportionate and counterproductive. Olmert dismisses proportionality as an unreliable measure in wartime and insists that Israel’s first obligation is to protect its citizens. Sage similarly believes that genuine support for Palestinians should focus on improving refugees’ political and economic futures rather than perpetuating permanent displacement.

Throughout the discussion, Singh repeatedly returns to the human cost of the conflict, pointing out that continuing cycles of violence risk radicalizing new generations on both sides. Olmert agrees that political compromise remains desirable. However, he insists that any lasting settlement must begin with mutual recognition of both Jewish and Palestinian national rights rather than denying either people’s legitimacy.

Despite the bleak picture they paint, the speakers end on an optimistic note. Olmert predicts that renewed antisemitism will ultimately strengthen Jewish identity and support for Israel rather than weaken it. He closes with a declaration of resilience: “Whether you like us or not... we are going to exist for 3,000 years more.”

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article/video are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.