Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based human rights and national security attorney specializing in international law, media strategy, and information warfare. She is the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, providing insights on global affairs and advocating for human rights. Her expertise spans the Middle East, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Latin America. Tsukerman emphasizes humour’s power to expose absurdities and the role of critical education in countering disinformation. They analyze the influence of media, algorithms, and foreign actors in amplifying hate. Addressing challenges like organized boycotts, hacking campaigns, and financial targeting, they highlight the manipulation of narratives for political or economic motives. The conversation explores systemic antisemitism in countries like Russia, China, and Iran, contrasting legal frameworks and societal impacts across regions. They stress fostering critical thinking and transparency to combat prejudice effectively.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We will discuss another important subject: antisemitism. It’s a critical topic. What do you think the role of humour is in combating antisemitism? Take, for instance, the works of Mel Brooks, Seinfeld, Larry David, and others.
Irina Tsukerman: Humour can respond to authoritarianism, conspiracy theories, and illogical or distorted beliefs. Arguing with someone deeply entrenched in such a mindset often doesn’t work; it can reinforce their position. Humour, however, can pause the conversation, ridicule the absurdity of the belief, and point out how nonsensical it is.
Not every type of humour works for everyone, of course. Sometimes, humour resonates more with outside observers than with the bigot in question. Those who harbour hateful beliefs often have a narrow sense of humour that only reinforces their worldview. Yet humour can still highlight the ridiculousness of a viewpoint, effectively saying, “This doesn’t make sense. Look at how absurd it is.” There are two key dimensions to understanding antisemitism: legal and human rights-based.
Jacobsen: On one hand, there are forms of antisemitism that are more social and don’t necessarily fall under criminal law. On the other hand, some actions cross the line into criminality, such as hate speech or spreading historical falsehoods like Holocaust denial.
In North America, these dividing lines differ. Canada has stricter hate speech laws than the United States, but it also seems to have fewer overt, conspiratorial antisemites. While free speech protections are broader in the U.S., they often allow harmful rhetoric to flourish unchecked.
Tsukerman: The obsession with conspiracy theories is a relatively recent phenomenon in its modern form, largely fueled by social media. Historically, antisemitism in the U.S. has waxed and waned. For example, it was particularly widespread in the 1920s, during a period of rising nativism and xenophobia. However, it declined in the mid-to-late 20th century as multiculturalism gained traction. Antisemitism didn’t disappear — it remained present in pockets — but it became less socially acceptable.
In earlier periods, antisemitism often existed in ignorance or isolation. For instance, stereotypes or baseless beliefs about Jews were prevalent in some areas. However, public figures with large platforms rarely spread antisemitic conspiracy theories. One reason for this was the lack of social media and algorithmic amplification.
Culturally, the mid-20th century emphasized shared national values and multicultural curiosity, discouraging divisive identity politics. However, as identity politics became more prevalent in recent decades, expressions of antisemitism also resurfaced in some spaces. A decline in education about history and critical thinking contributed to this resurgence, as fewer people understood the roots of antisemitism or its devastating consequences.
Jacobsen: How has social media impacted this trend?
Tsukerman: Social media has also played a significant role. Algorithmic amplification often promotes extreme views, and foreign actors or organized groups have used these platforms to spread disinformation. Celebrities who repeat conspiratorial rhetoric add fuel to the fire. Unfortunately, many people place undue trust in celebrity opinions, allowing harmful ideas to spread more widely.
However, the influence of major media outlets and prominent commentators is more concerning than isolated celebrities. When trusted media personalities repeat antisemitic tropes, it legitimizes these ideas and creates a dangerous ripple effect. People are more likely to believe narratives from figures they respect. Once those figures embrace extreme or harmful views, their followers also adopt those views. This escalation can have dire consequences for public discourse and social cohesion.
Jacobsen: What do you find are the common conspiracy theories? And does this come up in your legal work or geopolitical analysis? For instance, does it become so problematic that it infiltrates mainstream geopolitical discourse?
Tsukerman: Some old conspiracy theories have faded, such as the notion that Jews and Freemasons are trying to take over the world. That used to be prevalent but has largely disappeared from U.S. discourse. You might still find it in parts of the Middle East or Europe, but in the U.S., it’s not as common. Most people here don’t know Freemasonry and the movement has become far less prominent. Its visibility has significantly diminished.
That said, religious antisemitism hasn’t entirely disappeared. It still exists in various forms across certain religious organizations, whether churches, mosques, or even in ostensibly secular institutions. In secular spaces, antisemitism often takes on a more cultural or ideological bent, but it remains entrenched in peculiar ways. For example, there’s the old trope of “Jews killed Jesus” or some Islamist rhetoric, which tends to amplify hostility.
These ideas have become more pervasive with the rise of internet platforms and mass gatherings, as they provide new avenues for amplification. Whether shared in person, in social settings, or online, the issue isn’t just about free speech — it’s about how that speech is promoted and by whom.
Governments often exacerbate the problem when they try to micromanage or accommodate every perspective. Instead of defining or regulating religions themselves, they should focus on measurable factors: the violence, the results, and the ideologies fueling harmful behaviour. Separating religion from ideology and examining the real-world impacts would be more effective.
For instance, governments can look at objective factors like who funds certain institutions, who participates in them, and their levels of education. Where were these individuals educated? Where does their funding come from? What translations of texts are being used? Governments can address these tangible areas without overstepping their bounds or trying to regulate religion itself.
Society is better equipped to self-regulate than government officials regarding the broader societal discourse. However, social media companies and media institutions play a critical role. If hosting objectionable rhetoric becomes a reputational or financial risk, it’s less likely to be tolerated. Conversely, it becomes more widely accepted when platforms and institutions find they can profit from such rhetoric.
The media’s role is pivotal. By giving platforms to objectionable figures, they inadvertently normalize harmful ideas. The way these platforms amplify rhetoric has changed drastically, and with it, so has the societal impact of conspiracy theories and antisemitism.
If you want to have a real debate between people, that’s fine. This is when better arguments can emerge, and people can see for themselves what works and what doesn’t. But conspiracy theorists, for obvious reasons, are not good debaters. Suppose you keep giving bigots soapboxes to rant, spread nonsense, manipulate people, and exploit social crises. In that case, that won’t end well.
We saw this during COVID-19, when many conspiracy theories became more prominent during a time of social and economic crisis. These crises often serve as breeding grounds for bigoted language.
When there’s a political or social crisis elsewhere, like a war in Gaza, people often import the discourse to the U.S. For example, it’s perfectly acceptable to say, “The Israeli government is taking steps I don’t agree with.” Criticism of any government or institution is valid.
However, it crosses into bigotry when people say, “All Israelis want to kill Palestinians.” That’s an assumption about an entire people, and it’s dangerous. Unfortunately, this type of rhetoric fuels the undercurrents of prejudice and is sometimes amplified by the media.
Some provocateurs deliberately stoke these tensions because outrage, polarization, and echo chambers sell. We see this phenomenon beyond antisemitism as well. Social media companies encourage polarization because it drives engagement and increases viewership. Conspiracy theories, bigotry, and outrage are particularly effective because they provide simple explanations for complex problems, scapegoats to blame and appeal to the worst aspects of human nature.
Jacobsen: So, many actors deliberately amplify this rhetoric for profit or political motives?
Tsukerman: Yes. Some actors are motivated by money, while others — often foreign state actors — deliberately foment social polarization in the U.S. Countries like Russia, China, and Iran are known to exploit social divisions through propaganda and disinformation campaigns.
Jacobsen: Do these countries face similar issues within their borders? Are they also grappling with internal dissent or unrest?
Tsukerman: To an extent, yes. Russia, for example, has a history of internal issues related to antisemitism. The worst period was during the peak of the Soviet Union when there were official state policies of discrimination, including quotas against Jews.
In contemporary Russia, antisemitism is less overt but still present. Media often portrays Jews using stereotypical tropes, and state officials occasionally make antisemitic remarks. For instance, they’ve made comments equating Jews with particular policies or questioning Jewish identities about figures like Zelensky or Israel.
China and Iran also have internal challenges, though the dynamics differ. While these countries project strength outward, there’s often a significant gap between public perception and the realities on the ground. In many cases, dissent is quietly suppressed, creating a facade of stability.
So that’s also antisemitic. It doesn’t necessarily mean that Jews within these countries are being targeted for violent acts. Still, when a country deliberately cultivates neo-Nazis within its borders and abroad while making official antisemitic statements, it sets a dangerous precedent. When TV and other media propagate subconscious messaging — implying, for example, that villains in the financial sector or other areas are Jewish — it’s bound to have a long-term impact. Sooner or later, this leads to increased social antisemitism and demands for antisemitic policies from the government.
In China, for instance, the Jewish community is practically nonexistent. However, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has embedded antisemitism into its media, education system, and even social apps. This creates a uniquely Chinese variant of antisemitism, particularly among active party members. Historically, antisemitism wasn’t a focus in China because their issues were primarily internal, dealing with various nationalities within the country. But now, the CPC is deliberately cultivating antisemitism, even though it doesn’t reflect the country’s history or reality.
In Iran, antisemitism is starkly evident. There have been executions of Jews solely for being Jewish. While the Jewish community is allowed to practice its religious rituals, there is an underlying fear. If they stray from the party line, they risk being accused of treason. Discriminatory practices are widespread.
For example, there was a recent incident where a young Jewish man killed a Muslim who attacked him during a fight. The Jewish man’s family offered “blood money” as compensation, but the Muslim family refused. Consequently, the Jewish man was executed. Normally, in self-defence cases, people are not executed for such actions, but in this instance, bigotry plays a role. The government could have intervened, declared a resolution, or sought reconciliation, but instead, they allowed the execution to proceed. This is a clear example of antisemitic policies translating into individual injustices and shaping public attitudes.
Jacobsen: How do these state-level policies and attitudes in countries like Russia, China, and Iran compare to the dynamics in the United States or Canada? The situation is distinct but still concerning in the United States. Analysis shows that the primary domestic terrorism threat now comes from white nationalist or Christian white nationalist groups. These groups often perpetuate nationalist, ethnic rhetoric, and antisemitic talking points. They amplify propaganda and conspiracy theories, which we’ve already discussed.
When these attitudes are perpetuated internally within a country or amplified by foreign state actors — like Russia, China, and Iran — they can lead to organized hate movements. These movements often result in real-world harm to individuals who are Jewish or perceived to be Jewish.
Tsukerman: The biggest challenge isn’t necessarily any single antisemitic group. The real danger lies in the “horseshoe theory” of politics. This occurs when radicals from different parts of the political spectrum — far-right extremists, radical leftists, Islamists, and fringe groups — join forces. By aligning, they amplify each other’s influence and create a false perception of unity.
These groups have limited audiences individually, even at the height of their influence. But when they join forces, they lend each other credibility and reach. This allows their antisemitic rhetoric to spread far more effectively than if they operated in isolation. The convergence of such ideologies can result in significant harm, both in terms of physical violence and broader societal divisions. It starts with normalizing and mainstreaming hate.
Jacobsen: They become unified by hate. But beyond that, they are also unified by more effective political messaging and organization — something they would typically lack on their own.
When these groups come together, they break down political and ideological barriers. Party lines no longer constrain them, and their messaging becomes mainstream. They reach individuals who would otherwise never engage with them or their rhetoric. This process corrupts everything around them as they dismantle the ideological boundaries that normally keep them isolated.
To counter this, several steps are necessary. First, we must examine and stop any foreign funding supporting these movements. Second, we need effective counter-information warfare initiatives involving the public and private sectors. There are very few such efforts at the moment, and those that do exist are in their infancy. They cannot counter highly organized and well-funded movements.
Public education and critical thinking skills are also essential. People must be equipped to identify bad arguments, distinguish between fact and opinion, and recognize bigotry versus rational analysis. Unfortunately, these skills are currently at an all-time low, leaving people vulnerable to disinformation and manipulation. Many don’t even realize they are acting with bias or that their statements are socially unacceptable or rooted in harmful generalizations.
For instance, I’ve had people ask me, “What do Jews think about this or that?” My response is, “Which Jews are you referring to?” Like any other group, Jewish communities are diverse and hold various opinions. You can track voting patterns or trends based on historical reasons, but you cannot say everyone votes or thinks the same way about every issue. That’s not true.
Jacobsen: One obvious red flag to watch for is when someone starts a statement with “the,” as in “The Muslims,” “The Jews,” “The Christians,” or “The atheists.” These groups are incredibly diverse internally, with differing social, community, and political dynamics. Making blanket statements about them is not only ridiculous but also biased. People often don’t recognize that they’re stereotyping because they view their question or statement as perfectly normal or rooted in common political discourse.
Do you find that state or non-state actors are more effective in combating antisemitic narratives?
Tsukerman: Governments are not generally particularly efficient at most things, and countering disinformation is certainly not one of their strengths. However, there are exceptions. Some European countries have implemented successful initiatives. Finland, for example, has a robust program for combating disinformation. Sweden also has relatively effective state and private efforts.
In the U.S., the situation is far less developed. Any official state efforts to counter disinformation are rudimentary or have been dismantled entirely. Despite its limitations and criticisms from both sides of the political spectrum, the Global Engagement Center was one of the few agencies attempting to address information operations and engage with the outside world. However, it has since been defunded, leaving a significant gap in the fight against disinformation.
A coordinated effort is needed to address these challenges, but the U.S. currently lags behind in this critical area.
During the Cold War, information bureaus were tasked with countering propaganda, at least internationally, if not domestically. They were far more effective at that time. But after the fall of the Soviet Union, those efforts were dismantled. So, on a government level, such initiatives are nonexistent now.
The government has attempted public-private partnerships with social media companies. Still, those efforts have been extremely controversial due to constitutional concerns about government interference in private speech. What about private efforts? Have social media companies been effective?
Social media companies have attempted self-regulation, but the results have been mixed. Often, their frameworks backfire because they’re either implemented poorly or provoke dissatisfaction from all sides. In some cases, their efforts have actually exacerbated the problem.
Jacobsen: You mentioned “deliberate boosting” of antisemitic and hateful accounts. What do you mean by that?
Tsukerman: Let me give you an example. There’s a figure named Jackson Hinkel. He’s a troll who promotes propaganda for Russia, Hamas, and other groups. Two years ago, he had only about 1,000 followers — a relatively obscure social media personality with no significant accomplishments or media presence.
Today, he’s verified on social media, has an American flag next to his name, and has over 2.8 million followers. This is someone who went from complete obscurity to a massive following, not because of genuine merit or noteworthy achievements, but because he aligned himself with Russian and Hamas propaganda networks.
Hinkle has a checkered past, moving from one radical activity to another before finding his niche amplifying antisemitic and extremist rhetoric. He’s now heavily promoted, even receiving significant exposure in a major New York Times profile. This raises questions about how such obscure figures gain sudden prominence.
Jacobsen: What’s behind this “boosting”?
Tsukerman: It’s often driven by entities seeking to promote “alternative perspectives.” This gives these individuals an aura of legitimacy, even martyrdom, feeding into conspiracy theories that they were previously suppressed or silenced. People like Hinkle have no substantial qualifications or meaningful contributions to public discourse. Yet, they gain wide exposure by being amplified — both by Moscow-aligned networks and social media algorithms .
This creates a dangerous feedback loop. Antisemites flock to figures like Hinkle, while others, who may not be inherently antisemitic but are ignorant or easily manipulated, start finding his content compelling. They begin questioning what they perceive as “state narratives,” which is precisely the intended effect of these propagandists.
Tucker Carlson is a good example of someone who doesn’t need boosting because he already has a massive platform and significant influence in certain circles. However, when someone like Carlson uses that platform irresponsibly , introducing or normalizing extreme ideas into mainstream discourse , it legitimizes those narratives.
Jacobsen: What did you make of Tucker Carlson’s interview with Putin?
Tsukerman: That interview was an unsettling example of how influential figures can serve as conduits for authoritarian propaganda. Carlson gave Putin a platform to spread narratives that appeal to the West’s fringe elements, further polarizing and undermining democratic discourse. It’s a stark reminder of how media responsibility matters, especially when dealing with figures like Putin, who are adept at weaponizing information for strategic gains.
Local regimes, such as the Ba’athist regimes in Syria and Iraq or Nasser’s government in Egypt, followed these narratives for political purposes. Once those ideologies became entrenched in the popular mindset, they became almost indistinguishable from the broader culture. It’s been decades, and there have only been brief, inconsistent attempts at reform, often disrupted by internal political squabbles.
Jacobsen: What would it take to undo this deeply rooted antisemitism?
Tsukerman: Undoing this would require a serious, long-term, and consistent effort. Some countries have attempted to revise their textbooks to remove antisemitic conspiracy theories, but the state media remains a bigger challenge. Many officials who benefit from these narratives are deeply entrenched in their positions. Reforming this system is difficult when governments juggle security issues, economic crises, and other pressing concerns.
For deprogramming to be successful, it would need to be supported by major powers like the U.S. and the European Union. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen a consistent commitment to such a project from any U.S. president in the last 20 years. Some administration members made brief reform efforts during Trump’s first term. Still, these were insufficient and often countered by conflicting initiatives from the same administration.
Jacobsen: Regarding the Soviet influence you mentioned earlier, some texts — such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Besides The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, we have Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Henry Ford’s The International Jew, and The Talmud Unmasked by Justinas Pranaitis, though I must admit that one is less familiar to me. There’s also the broader range of Holocaust denial literature, exemplified by figures like David Irving.
This “rich and unillustrious” history of antisemitic works continues to shape hate movements. Even though these texts have been debunked extensively, they persist. The failure to eradicate them raises questions about the nature of this style of hatred and its resistance to rational analysis, evidentiary discourse, and debunking efforts.
Why do these ideas resurface, even after being thoroughly discredited? It’s like a game of whack-a-mole. You can debunk these ideas repeatedly, but they’ll keep popping up.
Tsukerman: You can’t fully convince 100% of people all the time. Still, you can build a societal baseline of rational thinking that minimizes their impact.
Think of it like a vaccination. Not everyone will benefit from a vaccine — some might be medically unable to take it, and others might refuse it. However, society becomes better protected overall when most of the population is inoculated against a particular strain or illness. Similarly, we need to “vaccinate” society against the appeal of antisemitic ideas through education and critical thinking.
Jacobsen: How would such an educational “inoculation” work?
Tsukerman: It starts by building a foundation of critical thinking and deep historical understanding from a young age. Students must learn to grapple with complex narratives rather than absorb oversimplified propaganda. Doing so makes them more likely to question ideas, engage with diverse perspectives, and resist emotional manipulation and simplistic explanations.
This “base” of education must also be reinforced over time — much like booster shots in medicine. Critical thinking and historical study shouldn’t stop in childhood; they must be part of lifelong learning. Regular exposure to thoughtful discourse and factual information can counter the emotional appeal of propaganda and inoculate society against hate.
Jacobsen: Besides inoculating the population with basic critical thinking training and developing an anti-conspiratorial mindset, how do you boost public awareness? For example, periodic exercises or updates about new developments in information warfare. How can people be taught to recognize when they’re being taken for a ride, much like scams targeting vulnerable populations, such as senior citizens?
Tsukerman: That’s a great analogy. Scams show how easily people can fall for false narratives without realizing their origins. Many believe they understand what they’re hearing or reading but often don’t grasp the manipulation behind it.
The best thing governments, companies, and institutions can do is to be transparent and truthful. Admit mistakes, remain flexible, and be receptive to citizens’ concerns. Trust is easier to build when experts are humble, clear in their communications, and open about the evolving nature of their knowledge. Experts should emphasize that science and understanding are not static but continually advancing. Humility — admitting what you don’t know and acknowledging mistakes — goes a long way in cultivating trust and societal buy-in.
Conspiracy theories thrive in environments where the social contract feels broken. When people feel betrayed by their government, authorities, doctors, or the media, bad actors exploit these vulnerabilities. They offer narratives that align with existing feelings of resentment or doubt, preying on cognitive biases. People gravitate toward ideas that validate their emotional and intellectual frameworks rather than challenge those ideas skeptically.
Jacobsen: You mentioned Jackson Hinkel earlier as an example of a promoted individual. At another level, there are individuals and organizations whose antisemitism doesn’t depend on being boosted — they’re entrenched in conspiratorial thinking, bad logic, and pseudo-evidence. From your analysis, which personalities or organizations would you say exemplify the most virulent or entrenched forms of antisemitism?
Tsukerman: That’s a good question. There are certainly personalities and organizations that have professionalized their hatred, so to speak. One example is CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). CAIR markets itself as the leading civil rights organization for Muslim Americans. However, its actual membership is relatively small, and it has actively suppressed efforts by other organizations attempting to serve similar roles.
CAIR has faced accusations of receiving funding from foreign entities linked to extremist ideologies. These financial ties often align with fundamentalist interpretations of Islam, which many Muslim Americans do not support. Despite these internal and external issues, CAIR has managed to create an image of legitimacy by building a network of associations, sister organizations, and affiliated groups. This makes it appear influential and representative of the broader Muslim community.
The problem is that there is no monolithic “Muslim community.” Muslims are incredibly diverse in terms of ethnicity, culture, and religious practices. Many feel unrepresented by CAIR but believe they have no alternative because of its prominence.
I can give you a clear example. I attended a conference. At this conference, a CAIR representative participated in discussions about religious inclusion and human rights. They portrayed themselves as the sole voice for Muslim Americans, leveraging their established reputation to dominate the narrative. However, some attendees, including Muslim participants, quietly expressed their discomfort with CAIR’s approach, feeling it did not reflect their views or experiences.
This situation highlights the broader issue: organizations like CAIR use their networks and media presence to amplify their influence, even when they don’t represent most of the communities they claim to speak for. It’s a calculated strategy that capitalizes on the lack of alternative voices while presenting a unified but misleading front.
Jacobsen: I really enjoy talking to experts and being educated by them. As I often tell them, I can’t replace their expertise as a freelance journalist simply surveying the landscape. That’s the whole point of conversations, book projects, etc.
Sometimes, I’ll go to a pub or nightclub and end up in interesting discussions. For example, I once went to a Latin nightclub, and a Saudi guy was there. We hit it off, had a couple of drinks together, and got into a conversation.
He started talking about the LA fires, which had just begun. He insinuated that the fires were caused by divine intervention—he nudged his head upwards, implying they were started by God Almighty as a punishment.
Here’s this Saudi, liquor-drinking Muslim in Vancouver, at a Latin nightclub with his brother, drinking heavily and yet holding this mindset of divine retribution against, I don’t know, Hollywood or something.
Compare that to someone like Imam Soharwardy, a Canadian Sufi Muslim. He’s a gentle person who founded the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and led a 6,500-kilometer walk against violence to promote peace and nonviolence within his community. These two individuals represent vastly different expressions of Islam.
One is a Pakistani Sufi Muslim who doesn’t drink, as far as I know and leads a life of activism and peacebuilding. The other is a Saudi Muslim who goes out drinking with his brother and, instead of expressing sympathy for people affected by the fires in LA, immediately frames the disaster as divine punishment then has sympathy mixed into it.
Tsukerman: Right, and that speaks to the diversity within Muslim communities. To the extent that someone operates within a religious framework, they might view events as having divine significance. But even if an event is seen as divinely inspired, the human mandate — across all major religious texts — is to help those in need, not to stand by or wait for people to suffer.
I don’t know of any divine text that calls for passivity in the face of a natural disaster. The human response should always be to assist others, regardless of theological interpretations.
Jacobsen: Regarding organizations, you mentioned earlier that CAIR was linked to controversies.
Tsukerman: CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trials. They were accused of illicitly sponsoring commerce through various networks. Although they were never prosecuted, a file sitting with the Department of Justice could be reopened at any time.
One of CAIR’s co-founders, Nihad Awad, made headlines recently by praising the October 7 terrorist attacks on Israel. This prompted the Biden administration to remove CAIR from its antisemitism task force.
Frankly, I don’t understand why CAIR was ever part of an antisemitism task force in the first place. They might have expertise in Muslim issues, but they’re certainly not experts on antisemitism or anything related to Jewish communities. That’s not their field.
Jacobsen: It does tie into your earlier point about governments often being ineffective
Tsukerman: This is another example of why governments aren’t always the most efficient or logical actors in addressing these issues. CAIR’s inclusion in an antisemitism task force raises questions about the decision-making process and the criteria for selecting participants. It reflects broader inefficiencies and missteps that are too common in government initiatives.
So, the issue is that they’ve monopolized the space. They’ve threatened other organizations and used cartel-like, monopolistic methods to ensure no competition emerges. This leaves communities, such as new immigrants from Bangladesh who don’t know anyone, with little choice but to turn to these organizations for help.
These groups create an illusion of legitimacy, but it’s more akin to a mafia structure — creating a racket, controlling a community, and claiming they are the only ones capable of defending it.
That’s precisely the problem. Their methods aren’t legitimate; they’re criminal and monopolistic in nature. You see this pattern with many similar organizations. They are highly organized, structured, and connected to international networks. They understand local societies well enough to establish effective networks of associates and supporters. However, their influence often extends into spreading conspiracy theories, which is not what they claim to be doing.
Their stated mission might be legal defence or assistance to communities, but their agenda often involves social subversion. They misuse funding for propaganda and accusations rather than genuinely helping those in need. That’s just one example.
Jacobsen: Can you elaborate on how other nations, like Russia, have used similar tactics?
Tsukerman: Russia has created parallel structures — essentially shell organizations or fronts — in various contexts. They target diverse audiences in different ways. For example:
- They appeal to old Russian diasporas with nostalgic messaging.
- They fund neo-Nazi groups to destabilize societies.
- They support radical leftist groups, pushing extremist ideologies.
All of these efforts inevitably lead to antisemitism in some form. These organized campaigns are deliberate, sophisticated, and global.
We’ve also seen targeted efforts against specific industries and sectors, particularly influential figures with large platforms. Former athletes, comedians, or podcast hosts — people with big audiences but limited expertise on complex topics — are prime targets. Their followers aren’t expecting nuanced discussions on the history of antisemitism.
Instead, these influencers either platform individuals with antisemitic leanings without challenging them or amplify contrarian viewpoints that seem appealing for the sake of being “anti-establishment.” Contrarianism, for its own sake, can become a gateway for normalizing antisemitic ideas.
Jacobsen: That’s a concerning trend. Moving on, you mentioned human rights violations earlier. How should antisemitism be investigated as violating international human rights under frameworks like UN principles or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)?
Tsukerman: That’s an excellent question. Historically, the international community has been reluctant to treat antisemitic incidents as human rights violations. They’ve often been framed as issues of hate speech, bigotry, or intellectual discourse but not as violations of fundamental human rights.
Under existing frameworks, antisemitism should be considered a human rights issue. Suppose a state or actor deliberately targets an entire community based on ideological hatred. In that case, that constitutes a violation of their human rights.
For example, hate crimes motivated by antisemitism often involve deliberate campaigns against a group, including incitement to violence, atrocities, or even genocide. This falls squarely under international human rights principles. Such acts can and should be treated as violations of the UDHR, particularly when they escalate to incitement or organized efforts to harm or ostracize an entire community.
Jacobsen: So, in essence, antisemitism can amount to more than just hate speech — it can escalate into incitement toward genocide or mass violence?
Tsukerman: When antisemitism involves systemic, deliberate campaigns — especially state-sponsored ones — it goes beyond mere bigotry or speech issues. It becomes an international human rights issue that demands accountability under frameworks like the UDHR or international law.
The problem with the international community is that it’s only as good as its members. Let’s face it — when you have a large international organization, it becomes harder to enforce basic standards of lawfulness, democratic norms, and the rule of law.
We’re seeing a lot of corruption at the UN. Lobbies sometimes sway smaller or developing countries into voting for hateful or illogical resolutions. There’s also significant dissent and disagreement over basic definitions. How do we address that?
It starts with something small: defining the terms. For instance, what is antisemitism? You’ll never get anywhere without an agreed-upon, clear definition — especially in large forums with diverse members. Agreeing on what exactly you’re fighting is the first step.
Once you’ve done that, the next challenge is ensuring that member states are incentivized to adhere to the framework. Without accountability or enforcement mechanisms, all you’re left with are empty words.
Jacobsen: Within such frameworks, do you see risks in how certain historical atrocities are used for comparison? For example, attempts to compare the Holocaust with other atrocities can lead to conflation, diminishing the significance of both.
Tsukerman: That’s a great point. Comparing the Holocaust — a targeted, systematic campaign of genocide against millions of Jewish people — with other atrocities is often inappropriate and problematic. While it’s possible to make comparisons as an intellectual exercise, doing so in public discourse can diminish not only the Jewish suffering but also the suffering of other groups involved in those comparisons.
Jacobsen: Can you provide examples of such inappropriate comparisons?
Tsukerman: Absolutely. Two recent examples come to mind, and while controversial, they’re worth discussing.
First, there’s been a trend to bring up the Holocaust too easily in discourse, reducing its significance. For example, it’s often invoked to make ugly or hyperbolic comparisons, which can diminish the unique horror of that crime and devalue discussions of other genocides, such as those in Rwanda or Darfur.
Second, a more specific example involves Queen Camilla in the UK. At a Holocaust memorial service, she mentioned antisemitism and Islamophobia in the same sentence. This was highly inappropriate and in poor taste — not because Islamophobia isn’t an issue worth addressing, but because it has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
The Nazis collaborated with Islamist extremist groups during World War II, aiming to eliminate Jews, so bringing up Islamophobia in this context not only risks conflating unrelated issues but also opens the door to historical controversies that are irrelevant to the Holocaust itself. It was an unnecessary inclusion that detracted from the focus of the event.
Jacobsen: What do you think motivates these kinds of comparisons?
Tsukerman: Often, they stem from either a lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt to subvert the narrative. In some cases, they’re meant to devalue the Holocaust as a singular atrocity, portraying it as just one of many and erasing its specific significance. At times, this reflects antisemitic motivations — seeking to minimize Jewish suffering or deny the uniqueness of their persecution.
When these comparisons are made inappropriately, they shift the discourse away from meaningful discussions of historical atrocities and their lessons. Instead, they risk trivializing both the Holocaust and the other tragedies they’re compared to.
Armenian lobbies in the U.S. are quite distinct from the Pashinyan government in Armenia. These groups represent local Armenian-American communities in the U.S. for over a century. They’re not new migrants, and many of them didn’t even come directly from Armenia — they’re from other parts of the world but happen to be Armenian.
These lobbies often attempt to draw comparisons between the Holocaust and the events of 1915, the Armenian genocide. While historical tragedies deserve acknowledgment and remembrance, how these lobbies sometimes frame their arguments is problematic. They have, at times, employed antisemitic rhetoric when others don’t align with their political strategies or narratives.
There have also been controversies surrounding some of these lobbies, including allegations of embezzlement of humanitarian funds meant for Armenia. Some of these groups have been linked to organized crime or Russian-backed efforts, which complicates their activities further. Despite these issues, they have become highly influential in American politics.
Jacobsen: How does this tie into Holocaust comparisons specifically?
Tsukerman: The Armenian lobbies often use the Holocaust as a rhetorical tool to draw attention to their cause. This co-opting of Holocaust history for a different political agenda is deeply problematic. It’s not just offensive — it’s historically damaging.
It undermines the unique significance of both historical events, distorting the understanding of history and failing to treat each atrocity in its own right. Moreover, there is often a deliberate intent to appropriate the Holocaust’s cultural and historical weight to gain attention for their political aims.
Jacobsen: Shifting gears, what are your thoughts on the economic and cybersecurity implications of antisemitic rhetoric and conspiracy theories?
Tsukerman: Unfortunately, antisemitism sells. Popular media personalities like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson wouldn’t normalize obscure conspiracy theories and extremist arguments if they weren’t profitable. Without money or an audience for these ideas, they wouldn’t pursue them.
Someone is paying for it, and someone benefits from pushing these narratives. In many cases, the funding likely comes from state actors, though not always. But make no mistake — if there weren’t a financial incentive, much of this antisemitic rhetoric wouldn’t persist. Books and other materials wouldn’t sell if there weren’t demand for them.
Jacobsen: So, how do we address the economic aspect of antisemitism?
Tsukerman: It’s a matter of understanding demand and supply dynamics. The demand side is critical. If people stop consuming this content, the supply will diminish naturally. Trying to shut down supply without addressing demand often backfires.
Look at the Soviet Union as an example. Anything taboo or forbidden became more desirable, fueling curiosity and conspiracies about why it was banned in the first place. By reducing demand — through education, awareness, and counter-narratives — you can reduce the market for these ideas.
Another key aspect is cutting off foreign funding for these narratives. Many people don’t realize that external actors push some of this rhetoric maliciously and don’t have the public’s best interests at heart. Identifying and exposing these foreign influences is crucial to curbing the spread of antisemitism and conspiracy theories.
Jacobsen: That’s the economic argument. What about cybersecurity? How do we see antisemitic narratives being boosted in cyberspace?
Tsukerman: Boosting happens in cyberspace, and it’s not just by Elon Musk or Russian trolls — it involves state actors from various countries. Qatar, for instance, plays a significant role. They use Western influencers and cybersecurity experts to craft complex narratives that ultimately boost antisemitic sentiments.
The most sophisticated tactic involves selecting “good Jews” — often hardcore anti-Zionist or self-hating types — and propping them up to justify antisemitism. The narrative becomes, “We’re not antisemitic; we’re just against Israel or religious extremism. Look at these Jewish people who agree with us!”
This is one of the worst forms of antisemitism, and it has historical parallels. Throughout history, so-called “court Jews”in monarchies were often employed to suppress their communities in exchange for favour from governments. What we’re seeing now is the same idea, where antisemites deploy individuals with internalized self-hatred to legitimize their rhetoric.
Jacobsen: You mentioned bots earlier. How do they factor into this?
Tsukerman: Bots are heavily involved in amplifying these ridiculous arguments. They’ve become more sophisticated over time. It’s not just Russia with its troll farms anymore — it’s a variety of countries investing in AI technologies.
Interestingly, some of these efforts are based in Europe. European groups, leveraging advanced AI, are running these campaigns. Because they’re European-based, they attract less scrutiny and are harder to trace. These campaigns are more complex and insidious.
Jacobsen: What about targeted campaigns to boycott anything Jewish — whether explicitly antisemitic or framed as part of a hypothetical noble cause?
Tsukerman: If people choose not to buy a product for personal reasons, that’s their prerogative. The problem arises when organized campaigns attempt to create economic pressure on institutions, including government entities, to engage in illegal discrimination against citizens or allied states.
These campaigns often invoke the apartheid South Africa comparison, but it’s an entirely inappropriate analogy. Apartheid South Africa was a unique phenomenon where a minority population oppressed a majority through explicit, codified policies.
Israel doesn’t fit that framework. It’s a country with Arab Muslim parties in the government. Yes, there are issues of discrimination that need addressing, and some politicians have said deplorable things. Policies can be criticized, and governments can always improve, but to compare Israel to apartheid South Africa is historically and factually inaccurate.
Jacobsen: So these campaigns distort definitions to justify hate campaigns?
Tsukerman: The goal is to weaponize flawed definitions to legitimize hate campaigns and push for illegal discrimination. State and non-state foreign actors often fund these organized movements. They’re not grassroots efforts but deliberate, well-funded initiatives to spread hate under the guise of legitimate political discourse.
The good news is that 27 U.S. states have enacted laws opposing these discriminatory movements. A federal framework has also been pushed, though it hasn’t materialized yet.
Jacobsen: What’s the next step?
Tsukerman: The next step is to unravel the funding sources behind these campaigns, expose the foreign actors involved, and ensure legal frameworks are in place to protect against discrimination. Public education on why these narratives are flawed is also critical. Without understanding the tactics and motivations behind these movements, it’s easy for people to fall prey to their rhetoric.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss the characterizations and slurs used in antisemitic rhetoric. Beyond the overtly hateful terms, you have the less obvious ones — ”globalists” or “international banksters,” for example. Then there’s the idea of a hypothetical Zionist or dual control of the world. The notion that 0.2% of the global population somehow pulls the levers on everything, or separation in ‘Good Jews’ and ‘Bad Jews.’ What’s your take on this kind of narrative?
Tsukerman: Yes, I know exactly what you’re referring to. I always joke, “Where are my bags of gold in this conspiracy? How did I get left out?” By the way, if these supposed conspirators are so effective, why are things going so badly? The logic doesn’t hold up.
Jacobsen: What about antisemitic hacking campaigns? Are these targeting Jewish institutions or individuals?
Tsukerman: There have been hacking campaigns targeting Jewish organizations and institutions. However, we need to unpack this topic fully when we have more time.
Jacobsen: One angle I’ve found interesting is individuals who grew up surrounded by antisemitism or even converted to antisemitic ideologies in adulthood but later deconverted and became outspoken critics. These individuals, having lived it, know the language and the mindset. Do you see this group as effective in combating antisemitism?
Tsukerman: In theory, it sounds promising. You’re referring to people akin to ex-communists who became liberal critics of oppressive systems or former Maoists who switched ideological sides. But there are significant caveats.
First, many of these individuals lack a classical liberal mindset or a genuine, deeply rooted repulsion to oppressive systems. Some of them move from one extreme to another. After leaving antisemitic ideologies, they may embrace another form of extremism rather than adopting a truly balanced perspective.
Second, not everyone claiming to have “converted” away from antisemitism is genuine. Some are opportunists seeking attention. Others infiltrate Jewish communities under pretenses, gathering information to pass back to their original networks or governments.
Jacobsen: That’s concerning. Are there other limitations with this group?
Tsukerman: Yes. Many of these so-called converts are ineffective because they primarily preach to the converted — they appeal only to Jewish or Christian audiences already sympathetic to their message. Rarely do they engage with their communities or challenge antisemitic mindsets in their native languages or cultural contexts.
The critical question is: What value are they providing? Often, they reiterate what the audience already knows. “X, Y, Z regime is antisemitic and needs to go.” Great — we’re aware of that. What’s missing is actionable insight: how to effectively combat that regime or convince others in their communities to stop listening to propaganda.
Jacobsen: In most cases, they’re not developing strategies to challenge antisemitism in their home contexts.
Tsukerman: In my experience, very few of these individuals have been truly valuable in this regard. Worse, some sponsored by organizations do more harm than good. In some cases, they deliberately infiltrate Jewish communities, pretending to be allies while gathering intelligence to pass on to their original networks or governments.
We need to be cautious when evaluating the authenticity and effectiveness of these individuals. While few may provide genuine insight and support, many do not challenge their communities or provide strategies for meaningful change.
Jacobsen: Something I’m not too familiar with are antisemitic hacking campaigns. I assume these are black hat hackers, not white hat hackers, meaning they aim to cause harm rather than help. What do these campaigns look like?
Tsukerman: Yes, exactly. These are black hat hackers with malicious intent. There have been extensive campaigns, particularly involving Iranian, Russian, and Chinese hackers targeting Israel’s institutions. Interestingly, there have been counter-responses from Indian hackers who’ve hacked back at some of these groups.
Jacobsen: Leave it to the Indian hackers, they’re great.
Tsukerman: You have Russians, Chinese, and Iranians on one side and Indians countering them.
Jacobsen: Then, Nigerians enter the mix, trying to scam you as the “son of a prince, and a banker.” What about the U.S.? Do you see much hacking activity targeting Jewish organizations or activists?
Tsukerman: In the U.S., you hear less about outright hacking aimed at Jewish organizations compared to what’s happening globally. However, there have been incidents targeting Jewish institutions, Jewish activists, and pro-Israel advocates.
One particularly insidious tactic, especially prominent with Qatari actors, involves preemptive hacking. This means identifying activists or critics before they reach their peak influence, gathering compromising or embarrassing information about them, and then leaking it later when they’ve gained prominence. It’s preemptive talent spotting, and I’ve seen it in action.
Jacobsen: Is this widely known?
Tsukerman: Not really. It’s so targeted and specific that it often flies under the radar. The more well-known incidents tend to be simpler, like defacing websites with hateful messages. But these more sophisticated, intelligence-level patterns of hacking — particularly aimed at Jewish or pro-Israel individuals and organizations — aren’t getting the attention they deserve.
Jacobsen: What needs to be done to address this?
Tsukerman: We need data. First, detailed data must be collected to understand the scale and patterns of these attacks. From that data, we can build a framework to analyze the tactics used. Once we have actionable insights, or “NSATs” (next steps and tactics), we can effectively develop strategies to counter these attacks—whether through governmental action, NGO work, or individual advocacy.
Jacobsen: Beyond hacking, how do you see financial targeting of Jewish organizations? How do you differentiate between those targeted for political reasons — such as criticism of Israel — and those targeted explicitly for being Jewish?
Tsukerman: At this point, it’s often a distinction without a difference. Suppose someone is attacking all of Israel, not just specific government policies. In that case, they’re effectively targeting Jews and anyone associated with the state. Israel is recognized as a Jewish state, so such attacks disproportionately impact Jewish individuals and organizations.
Criticism of specific policies or leaders, like Netanyahu, is, of course, legitimate. But the real question is: What about the rest of Israel? Are these critics okay with Israel and its people’s existence? In my experience, I’ve yet to see an organization exclusively dedicated to criticizing specific Israeli political decisions without also smearing the broader society.
Jacobsen: So, in theory, such a distinction could exist, but it’s rare in practice? It’s one of those academic exercises — nice in theory but almost nonexistent in reality.
Tsukerman: Most organized criticism ends up targeting Israel as a whole, which inevitably crosses into antisemitism.
Jacobsen: Let’s discuss international conspiracies involving Freemasonry, banks, and various institutions — specifically, the conflation of these ideas with antisemitic narratives. While media portrayals often perpetuate the same old tropes, I’m curious about the weaponization of financial stereotypes. These conspiracies often center around the idea of “global financial control” and are weaponized to harm Jewish individuals and communities. They’re pervasive and can target anyone, from wealthy public figures like Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld to regular Jewish families — whether they’re Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or otherwise.
Tsukerman: One of the clearest examples of this was the case of Ilan Halimi in France. He was a 23-year-old Jewish man, a cell phone salesman, abducted and tortured by a violent gang called the “Gang of Barbarians.”
The gang specifically targeted him because they believed he was wealthy, purely because he was Jewish. They demanded a ransom of €450,000, more than most people earn in a lifetime. In the end, they killed him.
Jacobsen: That’s horrifying.
Tsukerman: It is, and it’s a stark example of antisemitism in its purest and most brutal form. This was not someone wealthy or prominent. He was just a regular person. Even the gang admitted they believed all Jews were wealthy, and that motivated the crime. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Interior Minister at the time, acknowledged this explicitly.
Jacobsen: It’s striking that they even called themselves the “Gang of Barbarians.”
Tsukerman: Yes, you can’t make this up. They openly identified as villains, which is rare, but at least they were honest about their motivations. It’s a tragic case that illustrates how pervasive and dangerous these stereotypes can be.
Jacobsen: Beyond this case, how do these stereotypes manifest in other parts of the world?
Tsukerman: You see variations of this narrative in the Middle East and many developing countries. In some places, people don’t even know what being Jewish means, yet they parrot stereotypes like “Jews are rich” or “Jews control everything.” These ideas have become so entrenched that they’re often accepted without question, even in regions with no significant Jewish population.
There’s also magical thinking at play. People fail to connect the dots between the cultural emphasis on education and hard work in many Jewish communities and the resulting financial success for some individuals. Instead, they attribute success to conspiracies or luck, ignoring the historical context of discrimination and the resilience it necessitated.
At the same time, not every Jewish person is wealthy or successful. There’s a broad spectrum, just like in any other community. But these stereotypes persist because they’re easy, reductive explanations for complex realities.
It oversimplifies and dehumanizes. When people fail to recognize the diversity within Jewish communities and the effort behind individual achievements, they perpetuate harmful myths that fuel prejudice and, in extreme cases, violence.
Many people gravitate toward professions that provide financial stability and allow them to take care of their families.
Jacobsen: Are there any major topics we missed? We’ve covered radicalization, extremism, geopolitics, propaganda, state and non-state actors, Israel, disinformation campaigns, human rights violations, antisemitism, protections, cybersecurity, economics, boycotts, hacking, financial targeting, and destabilization. Did we miss anything?
Tsukerman: We’ve covered a lot.
Jacobsen: Earlier, we touched on the AfD and the far right in Britain, but they don’t have much of a chance under Trump.
Tsukerman: One additional point I wanted to mention is that a recent trend is seeing individuals who aren’t genuinely pro-Jewish or pro-Israel use fake appeals to advance their own agendas.
For example, Viktor Orbán in Hungary invited Netanyahu for a visit and boasted about how safe Hungary allegedly is for its Jewish community compared to other European countries. However, Orbán is deeply invested in Iran, does business with China, and sides with Russia. He also has no issue with the horrific crimes occurring in Ukraine. How can someone like that possibly be pro-Jewish?
I’m deeply skeptical of Orbán’s intentions. It looks like pure opportunism — a scheme to attract Jews to Hungary because many are politically influential in the U.S., and he likely sees them as useful for building political connections. It’s political cynicism at its finest.
Jacobsen: This ties into the broader category of “useful idiots.” Cynical actors like Orbán play both sides, creating the illusion of being allies while serving their interests.
Everyone seems to have this archetype of a Bond villain in mind. It reminds me of a German comedian’s joke on Conan O’Brien’s show. Conan asked if it bothered him–the interviewee–that Germans in American media are often portrayed as villains. The comedian immediately replied, “No.”
He said, “Have you Wiki’d Germany history before?” It was quick and to the point. That’s sharp humour — concise and accurate.
Jacobsen: We could dig into these tropes more. One area I’d like to explore in the future is how people who hold antisemitic beliefs define “Jewish.” What’s their conception of a Jewish person? That’s a fascinating and broad topic. It warrants its discussion.
Jacobsen: Thank you so much. It was great to connect with you.
Tsukerman: Excellent. Thank you so much for your time.
—
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, The Humanist, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332-9416), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Free Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
***
If you believe in the work we are doing here at The Good Men Project and want a deeper connection with our community, please join us as a Premium Member today.
Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS. Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.
—
Photo by Benny Rotlevy on Unsplash
The post A Comprehensive on Antisemitism With Irina Tsukerman appeared first on The Good Men Project.