By: Fern Sidman

A volatile convergence of rhetoric, vandalism, and statistical alarm bells has once again cast a harsh spotlight on the persistent and evolving menace of antisemitism. In recent days, incidents ranging from inflammatory testimony in an American state legislature to physical attacks on Jewish institutions in Europe and Australia have underscored the global scope of a problem that Jewish advocacy organizations warn is accelerating with alarming intensity. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), which has closely tracked these developments through its Antisemitism Research Center (ARC), describes the current trajectory as both historically resonant and urgently destabilizing.

The week’s most incendiary episode unfolded not in a distant capital but within the chamber of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee. Khalid Turaani, executive director of the Ohio branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), invoked a grotesque and centuries-old antisemitic trope while testifying against SB 87, legislation that would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism into Ohio state law. In remarks that have since drawn widespread condemnation, Turaani alleged that Israel possesses “the largest human skin bank” in the world and accused Israeli authorities of harvesting the skin of deceased Palestinians.

The Combat Antisemitism Movement swiftly denounced the claim as a modern iteration of the medieval “blood libel”—the baseless accusation that Jews engage in ritualistic or macabre exploitation of non-Jewish bodies. The CAM report emphasized that such rhetoric is not only demonstrably false but deeply dangerous, evoking narratives that have historically incited violence against Jewish communities. The ARC division of CAM characterized Turaani’s remarks as emblematic of how antisemitic mythology is repackaged in contemporary political discourse under the guise of policy critique.

The Ohio hearing was convened to consider SB 87, a bill aimed at incorporating the IHRA working definition of antisemitism into state law. Advocates argue that the IHRA framework provides essential clarity in distinguishing legitimate criticism of Israeli policies from rhetoric that crosses into anti-Jewish prejudice. Opponents, including Turaani, contend that codification could chill political speech. The IHRA definition is designed precisely to preserve free expression while drawing necessary boundaries against hate speech that demonizes Jews collectively.

According to the Combat Antisemitism Movement, the invocation of a blood libel in a legislative forum signals a troubling normalization of antisemitic tropes within mainstream discourse. CAM has urged Ohio lawmakers to proceed with the bill’s passage, arguing that legal clarity is essential in combating narratives that dehumanize Jews and distort public debate.

Beyond the United States, CAM’s Antisemitism Research Center (ARC) cataloged a series of incidents this week that illustrate the international breadth of the crisis. In France, a kosher restaurant in Paris was vandalized with acid for the third time in a single year. The repeated targeting of the establishment underscores what CAM describes as a climate in which Jewish businesses are perceived as legitimate outlets for ideological rage. In a separate Parisian episode, a Jewish resident was reportedly instructed by building management to remove a mezuzah from his apartment door—an act CAM decried as a coercive attempt to erase visible expressions of Jewish identity.

Germany, whose historical responsibility to safeguard Jewish life is uniquely profound, has witnessed its own disturbing developments. Anti-Israel activists are reportedly planning to stage a protest during the annual liberation commemoration at the site of the Buchenwald concentration camp. The Combat Antisemitism Movement warned that politicizing such solemn memorials risks trivializing the Holocaust and transforming spaces of remembrance into arenas of ideological confrontation. CAM emphasized that remembrance ceremonies must remain sacred to the victims rather than repurposed as platforms for contemporary polemics.

In Australia, the ARC documented an alarming act of physical aggression: a man deliberately drove a truck into the gate of a synagogue in central Brisbane. While no injuries were reported, CAM underscored that such actions carry symbolic and psychological weight, signaling to Jewish communities that even houses of worship are not immune to attack. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) has called upon Australian authorities to pursue vigorous prosecution and to reinforce protective measures for Jewish institutions.

Meanwhile, in the United States, a newly opened Palestinian bookstore in Los Angeles has come under scrutiny for featuring titles that deny the existence of the Jewish people and promote radical anti-Israel narratives. CAM’s ARC division noted that while bookstores are entitled to diverse viewpoints, the dissemination of literature that questions Jewish peoplehood crosses into territory that erases identity and fosters hostility. CAM has consistently maintained that the denial of Jewish historical continuity is itself a form of antisemitism, echoing themes embedded within the IHRA definition.

The cumulative effect of these episodes is reflected starkly in new statistical data emerging from Europe. In Italy, Jewish community monitors recorded 963 antisemitic incidents last year—an all-time high and a 10 percent increase over 2024. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) cited these figures as evidence that antisemitism in Western democracies is no longer episodic but systemic. Similarly, Berlin police tallied 2,267 antisemitic crimes in 2025, marking the highest-ever total for the German capital. CAM noted that such numbers, while alarming, likely underrepresent the true scale of hostility due to underreporting.

The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) has emphasized that contemporary antisemitism often operates through multiple ideological channels. Far-right extremists, Islamist radicals, and segments of the far-left each deploy distinct rhetorical frameworks, yet converge in targeting Jews. The blood libel invoked in Ohio, the vandalism in Paris, and the truck assault in Brisbane illustrate how ancient myths and modern grievances coalesce into tangible threats.

CAM’s leadership has argued that combating this proliferation requires coordinated international action. The organization advocates for the adoption of the IHRA definition at municipal, state, and national levels, enhanced law enforcement training, and sustained educational initiatives. Through its ARC division, CAM provides policymakers and community leaders with data-driven analyses intended to inform strategic responses.

What distinguishes the present moment, according to CAM, is not merely the frequency of incidents but their brazenness. Antisemitic claims once relegated to fringe pamphlets now surface in legislative testimony; vandalism recurs at the same establishments; protests target memorial sites of unparalleled historical significance. This normalization, CAM contends, erodes the social taboos that once constrained overt hostility.

In assessing the week’s developments, the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) has reiterated that antisemitism thrives in environments where ambiguity prevails. Codifying clear definitions, confronting myths head-on, and prosecuting acts of vandalism and violence are necessary components of a broader societal reaffirmation that Jewish communities are integral to national fabrics across continents.

The events in Ohio, Paris, Berlin, Brisbane, and Los Angeles are disparate in geography yet unified in implication. They demonstrate that antisemitism, far from receding into the annals of history, adapts to contemporary contexts with unsettling agility. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) warns that complacency in the face of such adaptation risks entrenching prejudice as a normalized feature of civic life.

As policymakers debate legislation and law enforcement agencies respond to criminal acts, the underlying challenge remains cultural and moral. It requires confronting not only physical manifestations of hatred but the narratives that incubate them. In the words of CAM’s leadership, the battle against antisemitism is not solely about protecting a minority community; it is about safeguarding the integrity of democratic societies themselves.

The resurgence documented this week is sobering. Yet the sustained vigilance of organizations like the CAM signals that countervailing forces are equally resolute. Whether through legislative clarity, educational outreach, or legal accountability, the response to this moment will shape the trajectory of Jewish life—and the moral health of broader societies—for years to come.