Where purpose is lost, blame is found.

Antisemitism has acquired a new form and become institutionalized; confronting it once again demands personal courage

"Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom."

Viktor Frankl

Two recent events, seemingly unrelated at first glance, have occurred. Yet, when viewed together, they reveal one of the most perilous trends of our time.

In central London, the British actress Helen Mirren was subjected to verbal harassment by a pro-Palestinian activist. The incident, captured on video on May 29, drew the attention of British police and received extensive coverage in the international media. The provocation was not any action by the actress, but rather her open support for Israel. The eighty-year-old woman faced accusations of being a "wicked Zionist" and supporting Israel "because of the Holocaust."

Almost simultaneously, Israel's Permanent Representative to the UN, Danny Danon, recounted an unusual telephone conversation with the American television host Tucker Carlson. According to Danon, the interlocutor requested to "remove his name from the list." It emerged that Carlson suspected the existence of some covert Jewish apparatus coordinating campaigns of criticism against him. Danon was compelled to explain a basic truth: no such "lists" exist; individuals are simply responding to falsehoods and defamation directed at Israel and its soldiers. It should be noted that this episode is known specifically through Danon's account and has not been publicly confirmed by Carlson himself. Nonetheless, its significance lies not so much in the details of the conversation as in the very mode of thinking it illustrates.

While these appear to be two distinct episodes, they in fact share a single origin.

Antisemitism as the Search for a Scapegoat

We are accustomed to viewing antisemitism as a form of national or religious hatred. However, such an explanation is no longer sufficient today. Modern antisemitism is substantially deeper; it is a symptom of a society experiencing a crisis of identity and meaning.

Viktor Frankl, who survived Auschwitz and founded logotherapy, identified the primary malady of modernity as the existential vacuum—a state wherein an individual loses the meaning of their own existence and the capacity to assume responsibility for their life.

When meaning vanishes, a demand for simplistic explanations arises.

When responsibility vanishes, a demand for a culprit emerges.

It is then that myths are born.

The myth of the "wicked Zionist."

The myth of the "Jewish conspiracy."

The myth of "secret lists" controlling global processes.

All these constructs share a common characteristic: they absolve the individual of the necessity to analyze reality and their own failures.

Frankl wrote that between stimulus and response there is a space in which human freedom resides. For an individual, this space represents the opportunity to choose a moral stance. For a society, it represents the opportunity to choose between finding a scapegoat and searching for root causes. It is at this precise juncture that its future is determined.

Antisemitism is not the cause of societal crisis. It is the method by which a society explains its own crisis to itself.

The Economic and Psychological Nature of Hatred

History demonstrates a striking regularity. Antisemitism almost invariably intensifies where society experiences a sense of insecurity, economic instability, resource scarcity, the erosion of customary social safety nets, and a crisis of the future.

It is far easier for people to attribute complex problems to the existence of a specific group allegedly controlling events than to acknowledge the objective complexity of the world.

Consequently, for centuries, Jews have served as a universal, symbolic culprit.

• Medieval Europe blamed them for epidemics.

• The 19th century blamed them for capitalism.

• The 20th century blamed them simultaneously for capitalism and communism.

• The 21st century blames them for colonialism, globalization, financial control, media dominance, and global conflicts—frequently all at once.

There is no rational logic here. There is only a psychological need to find an explanation for one's own anxiety.

Antisemitism Does Not Arise in a Vacuum

It is naive to believe that such notions originate solely "among the people." Research in social psychology and the sociology of prejudice demonstrates that persistent myths are reinforced and reproduced through a network of social institutions, such as education, specific segments of the media, popular culture, academic environments, and political discourse.

It is these institutions that establish the intellectual and moral coordinates of a society.

This is not a theoretical assertion. In the multi-year project Deutsche Zustände, researcher Wilhelm Heitmeyer demonstrated a direct correlation between feelings of social insecurity and the rise of what is termed "group-focused enmity," wherein negative attitudes toward minorities intensify during periods of societal turbulence. Anti-Jewish stereotypes consistently ranked among the most stable manifestations of this phenomenon.

Equally telling are studies by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, which indicate that a significant proportion of European Jews encounter antisemitic rhetoric specifically within online spaces and academic environments—precisely where the intellectual climate of society is shaped.

The level of xenophobia is determined not so much by the immediate sentiments of the public as by the intellectual and cultural vectors set by these institutions.

If a university explains terror as a form of "liberation struggle," if a segment of journalism replaces analysis with ideological activism, and if popular culture divides the world strictly into "oppressors" and "victims," then hatred toward Israel gradually begins to be perceived as a manifestation of moral virtue.

The wave of debates that swept through several leading Western universities following October 2023 is illustrative. In some instances, academic associations classified the Hamas attacks primarily as an "act of resistance" without awaiting a comprehensive analysis of the events. Such institutional signals create an environment in which the justification of violence begins to be viewed as an intellectually respectable position, and hatred is progressively normalized.

This is precisely why the harassment of Helen Mirren is not an isolated, minor incident, but rather the consequence of a long-standing cultivation of such an atmosphere.

Conspiracism as a Refusal of Responsibility

The episode involving Tucker Carlson's phone call is not merely of interest in itself.

It illustrates a far more dangerous phenomenon.

Conspiratorial thinking is not a form of knowledge. It represents a rejection of causal analysis. Where the complexity of the world becomes psychologically intolerable, a myth emerges regarding a hidden force that supposedly explains all events.

History shows that the role of this force is remarkably often attributed to Jews.

If a secret organization controlling public opinion is presumed to exist, then the cause of criticism lies not in one's own words and actions.

Such thinking is psychologically comforting.

Yet, it has always served as the intellectual foundation of antisemitism.

Frankl wrote that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances.

However, freedom is impossible without responsibility. Where responsibility vanishes, mythology is born. And the central figure of this mythology all too often becomes the Jew.

Why Today It Is Not Only About Jews

Following the events of October 7, the world faced a paradox. Alongside widespread sympathy for the victims, a significant portion of public discourse almost immediately shifted to justifying the terrorists or relativizing the atrocities committed. Almost simultaneously, a new form of public pressure emerged, targeted at individuals who openly support Israel's right to exist and defend itself.

If yesterday the object of hatred was Jews, today the target is anyone who refuses to join in that hatred.

This is precisely why the fight against antisemitism cannot be regarded as the concern of a single community.

It is a struggle for society's capacity to distinguish truth from ideology, facts from myths, and responsibility from the search for a convenient scapegoat.

The Lesson of Viktor Frankl

Having survived the death camps, Viktor Frankl concluded that a person cannot be completely deprived of freedom as long as they retain the capacity to choose a moral stance.

Today, this choice confronts Western society as a whole.

One can continue to explain internal crises through the existence of yet another "Jewish conspiracy," "Zionist influence," or other convenient myths.

Alternatively, one can acknowledge that the primary crisis is internal, concerning meaning, responsibility, and moral courage.

Yet, a diagnosis without therapy is insufficient. Frankl never stopped at describing an illness; his method always envisioned a path toward recovery.

For society, this path begins with three steps.

• First is institutional integrity. Universities, editorial boards, and cultural institutions must clearly distinguish between the criticism of policy and the demonization of a nation.

• Second is responsibility in shaping educational strategy. The history of the Holocaust and the history of the Jewish people must be taught not as archival episodes, but as a warning of what occurs when a society falls into an existential vacuum.

• Third is personal courage. The willingness to state openly what today requires bravery: supporting Israel's right to exist and condemning terror. This is not a matter of partisan preference, but of moral choice.