Antisemitic Attacks Rise Sharply Across the US and UK

On the morning of October 2, 2025 — Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar — a man drove a car into pedestrians outside the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester, then stabbed worshippers leaving the synagogue. Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby were killed. Three others were wounded. It was the first fatal antisemitic terrorist attack on British soil since the Community Security Trust (CST) began recording incidents in 1984 [1].

Six months later, on April 30, 2026, two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green, a historically Jewish neighborhood in north London. The UK government raised the national terrorism threat level to "severe" [2]. These attacks bookend a period of sustained antisemitic violence that monitoring organizations in both the US and UK describe as without precedent in their decades of record-keeping.

The Numbers: A Structural Shift, Not a Blip

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) recorded 9,354 antisemitic incidents in the United States in 2024 — the highest annual total since the organization began its audit in 1979. That figure represented a 5% increase over 2023's 8,873 incidents and more than 25 targeted anti-Jewish incidents per day [3]. In 2025, total incidents fell 33% to 6,274, but the ADL cautioned that this remained far above pre-October 7 levels: in 2022, the count was 3,697 [4].

Source: Anti-Defamation League

Data as of May 6, 2026CSV

In the UK, the CST recorded 4,298 antisemitic incidents in 2023 — its highest annual total ever — followed by 3,556 in 2024 and 3,700 in 2025 [1]. Before October 7, the UK's five-year average hovered around 1,800 incidents per year. The post-2023 figures represent a rough doubling of that baseline.

Source: Community Security Trust

Data as of Feb 11, 2026CSV

The FBI's hate crime statistics tell a parallel story through the lens of law enforcement reporting. The bureau documented 1,938 anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2024, the highest number since it began collecting data in 1991, representing a 5.8% increase over 2023's 1,832 [5]. Anti-Jewish offenses accounted for 69% of all religion-based hate crimes, though Jews make up roughly 2% of the US population [5].

What Kind of Incidents?

The vast majority of recorded incidents in both countries involve harassment and verbal abuse rather than physical violence, though the physical violence that does occur has intensified.

In the US in 2025, harassment accounted for 64% of all ADL-recorded incidents (4,003 cases), vandalism for 33% (2,068 cases), and physical assaults for 3% (203 cases) [4]. That assault figure — 203 — was a record high, up from 196 in 2024, even as the overall count dropped [4].

Source: Anti-Defamation League

Data as of May 6, 2026CSV

In the UK, the CST reported that abusive behavior constituted 83% of all incidents in 2025 (3,086 cases), while physical assaults accounted for 5% (174 cases, including four classified as grievous bodily harm or threat to life) [1]. Damage and desecration of Jewish property reached a record 217 incidents, a 38% increase over 2024 [1].

The October 7 Trigger and Subsequent Spikes

The data leaves little ambiguity about the primary trigger. The Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed roughly 1,200 people, was followed by an immediate and massive spike in antisemitic incidents across Western countries.

In the US, the ADL recorded a 337% year-over-year increase in antisemitic incidents for October–December 2023 [6]. The majority of antisemitic incidents recorded in 2023 occurred in the final quarter, after October 7 [6]. In 2024, 58% of all ADL-recorded incidents were related to Israel or Zionism — the first time that category exceeded half the total in the audit's 45-year history [3].

Subsequent spike events included the campus encampment protests in spring 2024, which drove campus incidents up 84% year-over-year to 1,694 — comprising 18% of the national total, a larger share than in any previous year [3]. Campus incidents then fell 66% in 2025, to 583, following the winding down of encampments and increased university enforcement [4].

In the UK, the Heaton Park attack in October 2025 produced its own secondary spike: 80 antisemitic incidents were recorded on October 2 and 3 alone, the highest two-day totals of the year. Of those, 53% directly referenced the attack, including social media posts celebrating the killings [1].

Who Is Being Targeted?

The geographic distribution tracks Jewish population centers. In the US, New York (1,437 incidents), California (1,344), and New Jersey (719) led the 2024 count [3]. In the UK, Greater London and Greater Manchester — home to the country's largest Jewish communities — accounted for the majority of incidents.

Visibly identifiable Jews are disproportionately affected. The CST noted that visibly Orthodox individuals are more frequently targeted for street-level harassment and assault. A 2024–2025 survey by Hillel International found that 83% of Jewish college students had experienced or witnessed antisemitism firsthand since October 7, and 78% reported concealing their religious identity on campus [7]. Roughly 13% of Jewish students said they had withdrawn from campus or social activities, compared with 2% of non-Jewish students [7].

Children and schools have also been affected. The UK government launched an independent review into antisemitism in schools and colleges and committed £7 million to address the problem [8].

The Definition Debate

Not everyone agrees on what these numbers measure. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, adopted in 2016 and used by both the ADL and many government agencies, includes examples that reference Israel — such as "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" or applying "double standards" to Israel [9]. The definition itself states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic" [9].

Critics argue that in practice, the definition has been used to classify constitutionally protected political speech — particularly criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza — as antisemitic. In November 2022, 128 scholars, including leading Jewish academics at Israeli, European, and American universities, urged the United Nations not to adopt the definition, calling it "divisive and polarizing" [9]. Kenneth Stern, one of the original drafters, accused advocates of "weaponizing" the definition to suppress speech critical of Israel [9].

Human Rights Watch and Palestine Legal have argued that the IHRA definition, as implemented, chills advocacy for Palestinian rights [10]. The controversy prompted the creation of two alternative frameworks: the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document, both of which draw sharper lines between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli state policy [9].

The ADL's own data offers some indication of how definitions shape the count. In 2024, 58% of all incidents were related to Israel or Zionism [3]. Not all of these would necessarily be excluded under narrower definitions — many involved threats, vandalism, or violence — but the proportion underscores how much the Israel-Gaza conflict drives the total. The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), using its own methodology, attributed 68.4% of global incidents in 2024 to far-left ideology, with far-right incidents dropping to 7.3% [11]. The ADL does not use the same ideological classification system, making direct comparison difficult.

Perpetrator Demographics: A Shifting Picture

The question of who is committing antisemitic acts carries significant policy implications. The CAM's 2024 data attributed 68.4% of global incidents to far-left actors, 13% to Islamist ideology, and 7.3% to far-right ideology [11]. Far-left incidents surged 324.8% from 2023, while far-right incidents dropped 54.8% [11].

These figures are contested. The CAM's methodology classifies campus protest activity — including some that others view as legitimate political expression — under the far-left category, which inflates that share. The FBI's tracking of domestic terrorism incidents in 2024 showed a more even distribution: seven incidents connected to Islamist extremism, six to far-right extremism, and four to far-left or other extremism [12].

In the UK, the Heaton Park attacker was identified as Jihad al-Shamie and the attack was classified as Islamist terrorism by the government [13]. But the CST's broader data shows that the overwhelming majority of UK incidents — verbal abuse, online harassment, property damage — are not carried out by individuals with identifiable extremist affiliations. The perpetrator profile matters because different threat sources require different policy responses: far-right violence calls for domestic extremism policing, Islamist terrorism triggers counterterrorism protocols, and diffuse harassment from unaffiliated individuals demands community-level intervention.

The International Picture

The post-October 7 surge was not confined to the US and UK. Canada recorded 6,219 antisemitic incidents in 2024, according to B'nai Brith — up from 2,769 in 2022 [14]. Germany reported 5,177 incidents, down slightly from 5,671 in 2023 but nearly double the 2022 figure [14]. France recorded 1,570 incidents in 2024, with physical assaults rising from 85 to 106 [14].

Source: ADL / CST / B'nai Brith / SPCJ

Data as of May 8, 2025CSV

A Tel Aviv University study found that global antisemitism surged 340% between 2022 and 2024 [15]. Antisemitic violence worldwide in 2025 killed the highest number of Jews in 30 years, according to CNN's reporting on the study [16].

The parallel trajectories suggest a shared trigger — the October 7 attack and subsequent Gaza war — but national dynamics differ. Canada's spike is partly attributed to its large and politically active diaspora communities. Germany's figures reflect both Islamist and far-right sources, with 41% of attacks historically committed by extremist Muslims and 20% by far-right actors [17]. France's numbers are shaped by its uniquely tense relationship between Jewish and Muslim communities, the largest of each in Western Europe.

The Cost of Fear: Security Spending and Community Impact

The American Jewish community spends more than $765 million annually on security, with 14% of a typical Jewish organization's budget now dedicated to protection [18]. Individual security guards cost institutions approximately $90,000 per year, and community security directors $160,000 [18].

The federal Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP), which in 2024 awarded 36% of its grants to Jewish institutions, has been a critical funding source — but has faced cuts and freezes. The 2024 spending bill reduced the program from $305 million to $274.5 million [19]. A 2025 FEMA funding freeze under the Trump administration temporarily halted disbursements, and a subsequent DHS shutdown in early 2026 further delayed grants [20].

In the UK, the government announced £25 million in additional funding for police patrols, synagogue security, and specialist officers in Jewish communities following the 2025 and 2026 attacks [8]. Prime Minister Keir Starmer convened a Tackling Antisemitism Forum at Downing Street in May 2026, bringing together leaders from business, health, education, and policing [8].

The broader communal impact is harder to quantify but widely reported. Jewish students hiding their identity on campus. Synagogues investing in blast-proof glass and armed guards. Jewish day schools conducting lockdown drills. The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council published recommended steps for government following the 2026 attacks, warning that Jewish communal life in Britain was under existential strain [21].

Institutional Responses and Their Limits

The US Department of Justice has increased hate crime awareness efforts, and bipartisan congressional task forces on antisemitism have issued statements after each FBI data release [22]. The Antisemitism Response and Prevention Act of 2025 proposed creating a National Coordinator to Counter Antisemitism within the DOJ [23]. The US government also announced in April 2025 that it would begin screening immigrant social media for antisemitic content [24].

In the UK, Lord Mann, the Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, issued recommendations to the incoming Labour government in mid-2024 calling for stronger enforcement and educational measures [25]. The government subsequently launched reviews into antisemitism in education and health services [8].

Online antisemitism remains a particular challenge. The CST recorded 1,541 instances of online antisemitism in 2025, a 23% increase over 2024 and the highest figure on record [1]. An American Bar Association analysis found that social media algorithms amplify antisemitic content through engagement-driven recommendation systems [26]. The AJC's 2024–2025 report documented coordinated campaigns of online harassment targeting Jewish public figures [27].

Social media platforms have faced criticism for inadequate content moderation. CyberWell's 2024 annual report tracked online antisemitism across major platforms and found persistent gaps in enforcement of existing community guidelines [28].

What the Data Does and Doesn't Show

Several caveats apply to all of these figures. The ADL and CST rely on self-reported incidents supplemented by media monitoring and law enforcement data; under-reporting is widely acknowledged. The FBI's hate crime statistics depend on voluntary reporting by law enforcement agencies, and many departments do not participate or report zero hate crimes in jurisdictions where they almost certainly occur. Comparing ADL counts (8,873 in 2023) to FBI counts (1,832 in 2023) illustrates the gap between community monitoring and criminal justice data [3][5].

Methodological differences between organizations — the ADL, CST, CAM, and government agencies all use different criteria — mean that headline figures are not directly comparable across countries. What is consistent across all sources is the direction: a sharp increase following October 7, 2023, sustained elevation through 2024 and 2025, and a qualitative escalation in the severity of physical attacks.

The debate over definitions is not merely academic. If the IHRA definition is over-inclusive, as critics argue, then the surge in numbers partly reflects a broadening of what gets counted rather than a proportional increase in anti-Jewish hostility. If the definition is appropriately calibrated, as its defenders maintain, then the numbers reflect a genuine and alarming deterioration in Jewish safety. The answer likely lies somewhere between these positions — but either way, the increase in violent assaults, property destruction, and terrorism is not in dispute.