Hugo Daniel Estrella Tampieri on Latin American Antisemitism: Data & Solutions

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/29

Hugo Daniel Estrella Tampieri is a journalist, professor, conflict management and human rights specialist, and secular humanist. In 2023–25, he served as Advocacy Director on the Board of Atheist Alliance International, working across Latin America and Europe. He founded the Argentine Secular Humanist Association and formerly represented Latin America in Humanists International (formerly IHEU). Estrella founded and chaired the International Student/Young Pugwash from 1999 to 2003, contributing to peace-focused and humanist networks. He has taught at the University of Pisa’s Master’s program in Peace Studies and the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna’s International Master’s program in Human Rights. He was CFI’s Transnational Director and UN representative for the Council for Secular Humanism. He is a scholar and a member of the University of Pisa’s Interdisciplinary Center on Jewish Studies. He was also a consultant to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Program on Peace Teaching. He teaches and writes on secular ethics, disarmament, and the religious dimensions of totalitarianism.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Estrella examines Latin American antisemitism in 2025. He cites post–October 7 surges in incidents, mainstreaming older conspiracies (Protocols, blood libel, “Andinia Plan”), and Holocaust distortion. Argentina’s context includes President Javier Milei’s symbolism, while Chabad-Lubavitch is clarified as a religious, not a political, organization. Estrella distinguishes anti-Israel policy critique from anti-Jewish harassment, flags Soros-centred conspiracism, and warns about persistent online disinformation. Solutions prioritize education, secular integration, youth exchanges (similar to the Erasmus program), and robust fact-checking. Measurement should combine surveys with socio-political indicators of unrest. He argues that prosperity and pluralism reduce scapegoating, whereas inequality and populism fuel a resurgence of hostility across the region.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: All right. I am here with you. If you ask what data best captures antisemitism’s trajectory in 2025 across Latin America, region-wide monitoring shows sharp increases since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the ensuing Israel–Hamas war. In Brazil, the Jewish umbrella body CONIB reported a 961% month-over-month surge in reports in October 2023 compared to October 2022, and its 2024 annual tally reached 1,788 cases (up 26.8% from 2023 and approximately 350% from 2022). In Argentina, the DAIA recorded 687 complaints in 2024, 15% higher than in 2023, and highlighted more violent street assaults. These spikes align with record highs observed in parts of Europe (e.g., the UK’s highest-ever 4,103 incidents in 2023), although baselines and monitoring methods vary by country.

Hugo Estrella: What has become mainstream in many places are older antisemitic ideas that had been quieter in public life: blaming “the Jews” for political discontent or inventing conspiracies about control of governments or territory. In the Southern Cone, for example, the “Andinia Plan” fantasy about a Jewish takeover of Patagonia is a well-documented antisemitic hoax with neo-Nazi roots.

Likewise, medieval tropes such as the blood libel and the charge of “deicide” (that Jews killed God/Jesus) are classic, long-discredited forms of antisemitism. However, they still circulate online and in protest culture.

Specifically, regarding Argentina, President Javier Milei was born and raised a Roman Catholic. He has publicly expressed interest in converting to Judaism, but has not converted. He appointed Rabbi Shimon Axel Wahnish as Argentina’s ambassador to Israel and announced that Argentina intends to move its embassy to Jerusalem in 2026. As of August 31, 2025, this move has been announced but not yet completed.

Also, to be precise about labels: Chabad-Lubavitch (“Lubavitchers”) is a Hasidic movement within Orthodox Judaism—a religious movement, not a political or “fascist” faction. Moreover, the literary reference: Umberto Eco (not “Humberto”) explored the manufacture of antisemitic conspiracies—including the notorious forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion—in his novel The Prague Cemetery (2011). Scholars universally recognize the Protocols themselves as a fraud.

Finally, while Latin America has clearly seen increases, the intensity of these increases can differ by country and over time. Several European countries also registered unprecedented levels after October 7, which is a valuable context when comparing “how bad” things are across regions.

I would even say folkloric, but it is not a massive phenomenon as we see happening in Europe with the left-wing demonstrations and the pro-Gaza or pro-Palestinian groups that deny the existence of Israel and are beginning to target Jews in Europe. Fortunately, that is not yet happening here. However, the tendency and atmosphere are present, and the situation is ripe for these individuals to emerge nowadays. However, it is not something that is mainstream within the intelligentsia.

At the universities, for example, no one is promoting cutting ties with Israel. It is a very popular phenomenon, but confined to lower socioeconomic layers of the population. It has not yet become part of the political agenda or mainstream political discourse. It is far from that. However, it could become something worse. One never knows how these things will end.

Jacobsen: What are some blind spots? So you have data. You capture specific trends. However, some things are not captured in the data. Those missing pieces are the blind spots. What are the blind spots that the data is missing? What are other areas of further study—ways to identify new types of antisemitism that are legitimate phenomena but not pursued in current research? Two possibilities come to mind. First, old forms of antisemitism that have always existed but have not been studied much. Second, with the advancement of communications technology, the internet, and new forms of social organization, new expressions emerge.

It could be as stark as the difference between print culture, which produced publications like Der Stürmer, and today’s websites, such as the Daily Stormer, or message boards like 4chan or 8chan. However, it could also be more subtle—for example, antisemitic tropes appearing in video games or in media content. That is not being studied enough to capture it.

Estrella: In my view, it is still more connected to traditional antisemitism. What you mentioned are technological upgrades—new ways of adapting the same old prejudices to different audiences. They strike at various levels but remain linked to the same groups: ultranationalists, conspiracy theorists, and people who claim to “really understand what is going on in the world,” who then add the “Jewish factor” as part of society’s problems. But nothing fundamentally new. The groups are basically the same: ultra-nationalistic and conspiratorial.

Whether from fascists or certain left-wing groups, you hear claims that the United States, Israel, George Soros, capitalism, weapons manufacturers, laboratories, and even vaccines are all somehow part of the same conspiracy. There is something for every taste—different aspects of antisemitism tailored to various audiences.

For example, I was talking to my new neighbour, the son of a lifelong friend who just moved in next to us. It came out in conversation that he said, “You know why the Israelis are so interested in the support of President Milei? Because they will run out of soldiers, they need Argentine youth to be brought to fight for them. That is what they want.” I thought—What are you talking about? Where does this even come from? However, this illustrates how, depending on the person you speak with, an antisemitic comment may emerge at some point.

Being Jewish, we are used to that. It happens in most circumstances. What is different now is that with Gaza in the news, it has worsened and become more widespread. People feel the need to impose order on things they do not understand. Instead of applying Occam’s razor, they prefer conspiracy theories as explanations.

Moreover, if you try to explain rationally, most people prefer the irrational over the rational. They distrust evidence. It is more exciting for them to believe spy stories than to accept simple facts.

As I said, it is widespread—but not too severe here. Confrontations still happen, however. For instance, abroad, in Italy or Spain, I have had to remove many friends from Facebook because of offensive comments they posted or repeated, simply because I am Jewish. People assume I side with Netanyahu, even though I have always opposed him.

There is no way to put it into words. They insist: “I am not antisemitic, I am anti-Zionist.” However, when you press them, what they really mean is that Jews should be expelled and Israel should not exist. They argue: “You invaded the country.” That does not match historical fact, yet they are blind to evidence. Such rhetoric is not typically used in Argentina. It may appear among some on the extreme left in Argentina or Chile, but it remains confined to niche groups. It is not popular or mainstream.

Jacobsen: A question: which narratives are most active now? For instance, Holocaust distortion—which could mean minimization, denial, or something else—or the “Great Replacement” theory, or the Count Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi conspiracy theory. These issues arose during my interview with Dr. Alon Milwicki, the senior researcher at the Southern Poverty Law Center. You see many of these trends fracture into various variations. Some are sci-fi, fantasy, or supernatural in tone. Others are grounded in real-world events but misinterpreted, misinformed, or explicitly racist. From your perspective, what narratives are most common now?

Estrella: I would not say that Holocaust denialism is dominant—that is mainly off the table. What I see today, though, is partly the result of how Prime Minister Netanyahu and some extreme right-wing figures in Israel have politicized the Holocaust.

Estrella: This has produced what I call a kind of “Holocaust-ification,” which, in my view, is even worse than denial. It takes the Holocaust and says, “You see, now you are behaving like the Nazis. You learned from them.”

To me, that is more damaging than outright denial. It is terrible. As I said, it is partly the responsibility of those on the Israeli far right who argue that every criticism of Israel’s government today is based on antisemitism. That position flips arguments upside down and allows others to claim: “Well, antisemitism was not so bad—because if there had been more antisemitism, perhaps it would have prevented what you are doing now.”

It is deeply worrying that the Holocaust—something so unique, so terrible—has been manipulated in this way. Only people with a superficial understanding of what the Holocaust was, and of the magnitude of its crimes, would compare it directly to events in Gaza today. The situations have little or nothing to do with each other. Such comparisons show how some are using Holocaust memory not to honour history, but to diminish its singularity.

The way people live with Holocaust history—especially in Europe, where the crimes occurred—has been a burden for many. Now some feel “relieved” by being able to say: “We were not so bad, because you are just as bad. It is time to equalize things.”

I am not speaking about Latin America here. I mean Europe. These are the kinds of discourses you hear in protests and demonstrations. For example, think back to the Gaza flotilla incident about fifteen years ago, when Israeli forces boarded a ship carrying activists. Many of us—Jews included—who support Israel and also support peace were horrified by that and opposed it. However, if the slogan “Freedom for the flotilla” is turned into “Palestine free from the river to the sea,” then we are in serious trouble.

So the problem I see is that Holocaust memory is backfiring—what you might call Holocaust backlash—because of how Netanyahu and others have used it politically. What Netanyahu and his allies are doing worries me very much. That is one narrative that horrifies me. You also asked about Holocaust denial and the Great Replacement theory.

That theory is also present in Argentina. It appeared in the 1950s and 1960s in the Patagonia region. Today, it is not something popular, but you begin to hear it from people who would have never voiced it before. There is the situation of Israeli boys and girls who, after finishing their military service, travel abroad—often to the Himalayas or other remote places—to clear their minds after the harrowing experiences of the army. They are still very young, and they want to reconnect with nature and escape from violence. Some Israelis have travelled to Patagonia, where they hike and explore the forests.

Thus, the conspiracy began to circulate: that they were coming to Patagonia because they wanted to settle and create a “new Israel.” The claim is that Israel is too small, too troubled, so Israelis supposedly intend to take over Argentine and Chilean sovereignty and build a new Jewish state there. This same conspiracy also circulated in Chile.

In the 1990s, a wealthy Jewish businessman, Douglas Tompkins, founder of The North Face and Esprit, purchased large tracts of land in southern Chile and Argentina. He was deeply involved in environmental conservation. Chilean nationalists spread rumours that he was buying the land to establish a “new Israel.” In reality, when he died in 2015, he left the land to the Chilean government with the stipulation that it be preserved as protected nature reserves. The conspiracy theories collapsed with time.

However, this is precisely the kind of discourse we see in replacement narratives: that Patagonia is sparsely populated, so “it would be easy to replace” the locals. It remains explicitly tied to that part of the land, Patagonia.

Jacobsen: Where do antisemitic tropes intersect with the broader conspiracy mindset?

Estrella: Part of the conspiracy mindset—or really the backbone of it all—goes back to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Historically, this forgery emerged in the early 20th century, drawing on antisemitic themes that had circulated since the late 19th century, particularly in France during the Third Republic.

Historically, antisemitic narratives were often backed or organized by Catholic forces and intertwined with anti-democratic and anti-Republican movements. They go back to that period and retain the same structure to this day. They appeal to people who feel uncomfortable with liberal democracy or with socialism as part of democratic pluralism, as well as to those who harbour nationalist fears of diversity. These narratives have also become linked to newer minority groups that were not visible at the time.

What used to be framed as a “Judeo-Masonic” conspiracy—accusing Jews and Freemasons of working together to destroy Christian roots and national strength by promoting rationalism, doubt, and democracy (“the rule of numbers over the rule of the best”)—has evolved. Today, it incorporates anti-feminist rhetoric, anti-atheist prejudice, and above all, homophobia.

For example, in many countries, population decline is discussed as a demographic challenge. Some conspiracy-minded groups blame this not on economic or social trends but on “accepting homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals.” Figures like Vladimir Putin, who is one of the most vocal opponents of LGBTQ+ rights, reinforce the idea that tolerance of homosexuality is leading to societal collapse, arguing that it undermines “traditional families” and fuels demographic decline. It is, of course, absurd, but these views are widely spread.

This links back to antisemitism because Jews have historically struggled for equality, for secularism, and for recognition as equal citizens in minority contexts. Because of this, Jews have been accused both of driving the communist agenda and of exploiting capitalism. The contradiction does not matter—Jews are made the scapegoats in both narratives.

In the United States, for instance, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization historically associated with Jewish lawyers and activists fighting for civil rights, is now dismissed by some as part of a broader “anti-traditional” agenda. All of this ties into the recurring fear that diversity itself destabilizes society.

Moreover, now, with trans people, LGBTQ+ visibility, and gay pride movements, we see how this logic extends. In Hungary, for example, during Budapest Pride, European liberal leaders had to march in solidarity to prevent participants from being beaten or jailed. This is part of the ongoing narrative of Jews and now other minorities being cast as “infections” in the healthy body of the Christian nation.

So today, Jews are no longer the only visible minority targeted. Other minorities—LGBTQ+ people, feminists, secularists—are blamed with the same conspiratorial logic once reserved for Jews. Moreover, it is interesting to see how these older patterns of scapegoating have been expanded and repurposed.

People who, in theory, should be embracing Jews—because we are on the same side in terms of equality and minority rights—are sometimes marching in defence of Hamas. That is the most baffling thing. For instance, movements like “Rainbow for Gaza,” where LGBTQ+ people show support for Hamas, are beyond imagination. However, still, the Jew will always be seen as the Jew, even when one would expect a natural alliance with other minorities.

This is especially ironic since there are so many gay Jews, so many atheist Jews. I myself say: I am Jewish and an atheist. I belong to the tribe, but not to the religion. Most Western Jews are free thinkers. Since Spinoza, Jews have given the world both a rational God and atheism. We are, in a sense, both the “bodies” and the “antibodies” within the same people.

To return to your question, it is the same mindset applied to different historical situations. Those who defend tradition, nation, and the “untouchability” of the past always stand against the enlightened. In the end, it is obscurantism against enlightenment.

Jacobsen: Now, outside of conspiracies, what about geopolitics? For example, geopolitical disinformation. It can be used in almost absurd ways, but with tragic consequences. Take the Russia–Ukraine war: at the start of the full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, the Kremlin spread the narrative that they had to stop a “neo-Nazi takeover” of Ukraine. This was used as a pretext to justify their aggression, an international crime. The implication was that Nazis ran the Ukrainian state, yet its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is both Jewish and a former comedian. So, Russia’s message was that a Jewish “neo-Nazi” was leading the country. That is far-fetched, but it has a more concrete and seemingly grounded logic than the more abstract conspiracies. What about geopolitical disinformation or misinformation in this regard?

Estrella: That is very evident in the discourse Putin directs toward the West. He knows he has a dual audience. On the one hand, there is an anti-European, antisemitic, nationalist current that includes elements of the far right in Italy and leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary. On the other hand, some support Putin because he presents himself as defending “traditional values” of family and nation. Moreover, he has significant financial resources to support these groups within their own national politics and political games.

And then it triggers the reaction of the nationalist groups, who are also racist and do not want to accept any migrants. For example, Putin facilitated the transfer of Syrian migrants into Belarus, pushing them toward Poland. This was a way of destabilizing the European Union and supporting extreme right-wing movements. It is the twisted mind he has—he knows how to exploit the West’s fears, and the concerns of Europeans in particular.

Look at what has happened in eastern Germany, where a majority of people in some areas now vote for the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland). One has to acknowledge that Germany did an excellent job with denazification and with accepting responsibility for the Holocaust, but this did not take hold in the same way in the former East Germany. That region has become a stronghold of neo-Nazis.

In terms of geopolitics, I believe this trend will continue. Moreover, of course, in North Africa and across much of the Islamic world, there has always been antisemitism. Strangely, it is not as bad in Iran. In Iran, they are both anti-Israel and antisemitic, of course, but Iranian Jews are somewhat protected. They even hold a reserved seat in the parliament. This dates back to ancient times, to the Babylonian exile following Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the First Temple. The Jews who live in Iran have been there for millennia, so they are treated as part of the fabric of the country.

The same can be said about Jews living in Turkey, although the attitude there is more ambivalent. Both Iran and Turkey differentiate between their “own” Jews and Jews abroad, whom they regard as enemies because Jews in the diaspora are seen as part of the modern democratic, liberal world forces that threaten their authoritarian or monarchical systems.

This is quite worrisome. On the other hand, in the United States, we see people unquestioningly supporting the extreme right in Israel. For example, the born-again Christians who feel it is their duty to help Israel because they believe that once Israel triumphs, it will trigger the Second Coming of Jesus. It is nonsense—so much nonsense—but it becomes politically significant when articulated in the political arena.

Moreover, when I say “semi-religious,” I also mean the left wing that still clings to a kind of faith that Putin somehow represents a continuation of the USSR. These ideological distortions, whether religious or pseudo-religious, are deeply problematic when intertwined with politics.

Jacobsen: Oh, this one comes up quite often, both in interviews and outside of them. What distinguishes anti-Israel rhetoric from anti-Jewish harassment in civic spaces? For instance, a student who has no geopolitical interests but happens to be Jewish may still get harassed. Suppose someone has genuine geopolitical or policy disagreements with the Netanyahu government but no anti-Jewish sentiment whatsoever. They would not endorse any harassment of Jews—indeed, they might even be Jewish themselves. How does one thread that line? Obviously, it becomes harder when geopolitical tensions rise, because the “red button” is much bigger and more prominent. I will leave it to your discretion how much you want to address this.

Estrella: I would focus on one last name, which represents the whole madness: Soros. For more than thirty years, George Soros has been cast as the number one enemy, the supposed bandit or threat. Why? Because he chose to promote liberal democracy, to support the normalization of Eastern Europe after the Cold War, and to strengthen liberal values and rationalism. For this, he became the number one villain in the eyes of so many.

In the minds of conspiracy theorists, everything is linked to some underground management. For some, it is the Illuminati, for others, Freemasonry, but for many, it is Soros. Moreover, since Soros is Jewish, the logic goes “one plus one.” Even though he has nothing to do with the Israeli government—indeed, he is against Netanyahu and the religious right in Israel—he is still blamed for what is happening today.

The same happens with liberal Jews around the world. Anti-Zionist rhetoric quickly transforms into antisemitism in practice—whether in Greece, Italy, Spain, or anywhere else.

I read something recently that captures the dilemma perfectly: there is no way out. If you are a Jew and vocal in support of Israel, then you are blamed for what is happening in Gaza. If you are a Jew and against what is happening in Gaza, then you are branded a hypocrite, because you still want Israel to exist. In that case, you are not to be trusted—you are considered even worse than someone supporting Netanyahu.

So there is no escape. Whatever we say or think, we are still hated, because we are all cast as part of a conspiracy to erase Palestinians from the earth.

Moreover, of course, conspiracy theories multiply: some claim Israel wants to build a “parallel Suez Canal” through Gaza, and therefore must eliminate the Palestinians living there. Others insist Israel intends to seize oil or gas reserves under Gaza. These theories are absurd, but they circulate widely.

We are guilty of everything. It is no longer just the old charges—that Jews killed Jesus, poisoned wells, or spread plagues—though even those persist. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, conspiracy theorists claimed Jews put microchips in vaccines to control people’s brains, or that COVID itself did not exist.

Some conspiracy theorists described COVID-19 itself as a Jewish invention. They claimed people pretended it existed so that Jews could sell vaccines first, and then use those vaccines to “enter people’s minds” and control them. Again, we see this tied back to the myth of the “Elders of Zion.”

Jacobsen: This is a good point to shift into solutions. What historically informed, evidence-based practices help reduce the harms of antisemitism?

Estrella: Once, the very existence of Israel was presented as a solution. Many nationalist groups believed that the establishment of Israel would liberate their own societies by sending Jews away, making their countries “Jew-free.” That was their distorted idea of a solution.

In terms of a liberal mindset, the real solutions were education and general social well-being. In the 1960s, for example, antisemitism was far less widespread than today. It was the time of the baby boom, economic growth, and a broad sense of well-being compared to the war and postwar years. That prosperity reduced the perceived “need” for an enemy.

At that time, many Jews were also deeply involved in the advancement of science and technology. Because science and technology enjoyed popularity and prestige in the 1960s, Jews were often regarded as an asset. I believe antisemitism is closely linked to social conditions: when populations experience general well-being, the impulse to blame minorities decreases.

In my view, the problem is that the post–Cold War era was poorly managed. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a significant historical moment, but it occurred at the wrong time and under the most shortsighted leadership. After World War II, enlightened leadership helped shape a more equal world, one founded on education, human rights, and the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

By contrast, after the Cold War, inequality increased. Many believed that anything was possible, but instead of channelling the resources saved from the arms race into improving lives, those resources were squandered. Rather than investing in people, education, or quality of life, the period was dominated by neoliberalism and conservative politics.

Instead of distributing the peace dividend fairly, inequality grew. The West abandoned models that had worked during the Cold War—welfare states, investments in education, and socialized healthcare systems, such as those in Canada. Instead of following that path, post–Cold War politics widened the gap between the rich and the poor.

After the fall of communism, European governments began dismantling welfare states. The logic was: “There is no longer a communist threat, so why should we invest in people? Let us privatize everything. Let people pay. Why should I pay for your healthcare? Why should I pay for your education?”

This shift was reflected in the culture. It was so well captured in Bret Easton Ellis’s American Psycho, later made into a film. That novel perfectly expressed the ethos of the late 1980s and 1990s: greed, individualism, and disregard for social responsibility. In my view, this was the basis for the enormous inequality we live with today.

Inequality has bred pervasive fear—fear of losing one’s job, fear of losing one’s home, fear of starting a family because you do not know whether you can support children. Meanwhile, billionaires like Elon Musk or the ultra-rich could solve many global problems in a single day, yet masses of young, educated, capable people lack stable jobs and must take on 30- or 40-year debts to buy a home. This breeds frustration.

If that frustration exists in the center, it is even worse at the periphery. In the heart of the West, it creates instability: people no longer trust democracy and instead vote for populist leaders. At the borders, it generates war, aggression, and extremism.

To me, this is the actual root cause of today’s instability. It began in the late 1980s, with the advent of Reaganomics in the United States and Margaret Thatcher’s policies in the United Kingdom. These policies triumphed just as the world was being reshaped after the Cold War. However, instead of offering equality and opportunity, they offered inequality and austerity.

In many African and Near Eastern countries, groups that had once been communist or pro-communist during the Cold War shifted toward Islamism, because religion became the only ideology available as an alternative. This occurred partly because local elites failed to manage the transition effectively. Islam, with its community networks and strong social bonds, filled the vacuum left by communism. However, it also fueled authoritarianism and religious extremism.

This, I believe, is not something dependent on Jews themselves but on broader social conditions. What affects us directly is how these conditions give rise to antisemitism and conspiracy theories.

From the Jewish side, it is also necessary to resist the pull of ghettoization. For many years, Jews fought hard to leave the ghetto, to win equality and full participation in society. However, with renewed attacks against Jews worldwide, combined with rising Islamist radicalism and antisemitism in Europe, some Jews have turned back toward religion and a sense of ghettoization.

I do not think this is a good path, though I understand why people choose it out of fear. They feel safer retreating into insular communities—living in the same districts, sending their children only to Jewish schools, joining clubs only for Jews, often surrounded by guards. This response may feel protective, but in reality, it isolates us again.

Jacobsen: So you are distinguishing between voluntary community life, such as kibbutzim, which are still integrated with broader society, and a closing off from society altogether?

Estrella: EKibbutzim and community spaces are different—they integrate into society. What I mean here is cutting relations with broader society, not mixing, not sharing schools, universities, or clubs. That is what I fear. Unfortunately, many people, particularly those between 45 and 60 years old, have adopted this approach in recent years. Younger generations, fortunately, are less inclined toward it. However, I do see ghettoization returning in parts of Europe, and it troubles me deeply.

In the United States, harassment of Jewish students at universities—often by people on the left or center-left—also raises the risk of Jews retreating into ghetto-like isolation. Fear can push communities to retreat into what feels like safety, but is ultimately a false sense of security.

Jacobsen: Let me ask you this: What about civil society partnerships—NGOs, CSOs, and grassroots organizations that work steadily through networks over time? Can they reduce levels of antisemitism? What works in practice?

Estrella: People often speak of interfaith or religious dialogue, but I am skeptical of that. It is not about organizations or religions talking to each other. The key is a secular, mixed society. The more secular and integrated a society is, the more tolerant it tends to become.

From preschool through university, children and young adults must grow up in a diverse environment. That is the only way for others to realize that Jews are not alien, not a threat. We are just neighbours, classmates, and friends. When people grow up together, they learn that they have different traditions and different foods at certain times of the year, and it can even be fun to share those differences. However, it does not make us enemies.

The only long-term solution is to struggle for secularism, for diversity, and for a society where people accept that we are all human and we are all different. That is what leads to tolerance and resilience against antisemitism.

It is better—and in fact beautiful—to be different. We should not see any threat in diversity, whether in the colour of someone’s skin, their beliefs, or any other characteristic. It is simply a fact of life. You may be short, tall, blonde, or anything else, but at the end of the day, you are a person and deserve acceptance for who you are. We must place the center of our lives not in belonging to this or that group, but in our shared humanity.

That is why I call myself a humanist. We must acknowledge that we are all human. The more we accept that humanism stands for peace, respect, and equality, the fewer problems we will face in living together.

Jacobsen: Let me approach this from a more modern perspective, which is more challenging. How should educators build resilience not only to the classic antisemitic myths, but also to misinformation amplified by AI-generated content? Images and videos can increasingly be faked, but the real challenge already lies in audio and text, where our minds are less adept at distinguishing fact from fabrication. How do we build resilience to this stereotyping and disinformation?

Estrella: I am comfortable addressing this because I am a trained social communicator. From the perspective of communication theory, I rely on the idea of “two-step communication.” People tend to believe not only what they directly receive but also what is filtered through someone they regard as a reference or authority. In society, when we encounter information—even if it is fake—we often rely on a trusted figure in our circle to help us interpret it. That can be a safeguard, but it can also be dangerous.

Fortunately, with the flood of fake news today, many associations and organizations exist that focus on checking the accuracy of information. These fact-checking organizations play a crucial “second-step” role, countering misinformation and reinforcing truth. They must be supported and strengthened.

At the same time, some groups reinforce falsehoods—the anti-vaccine movement is a typical example. Even some medical doctors or scientists with misguided views act as “second-step communicators,” lending false legitimacy to disinformation.

To counter this, we need stronger fact-checking groups and also readiness for debate at different levels. At one level, dialogue is key: when talking to someone convinced by misinformation—for instance, about vaccines—we should avoid attacking and instead engage in a respectful conversation. The goal is to plant a seed of doubt and introduce alternative perspectives.

At another level, however, more vigorous pushback is necessary. We have seen this in the public sphere with figures like Richard Dawkins, who confront misinformation and pseudoscience head-on. Both approaches—dialogue and confrontation—are needed, depending on the audience and context.

The stronger forms of response are necessary when confronting those who exploit misinformation for financial gain or political advantage. They deliberately manipulate ignorance and profit from it, so the pushback must be firm.

Jacobsen: Then let me ask: if you were to measure antisemitism, what indicators could reliably show a rise or fall over, say, a year? In other words, how do we measure it correctly? To propose antisemitism as a form of prejudice is to define it as a conceptual construct with distinct properties. Once we determine those properties, we can measure them, track them annually, and assess trends. So how do we measure it both reliably and validly?

Estrella: As I said before, you can conduct sociological analysis through surveys, polls, or other traditional methods for measuring attitudes—much like marketing studies. You examine antisemitic attitudes across populations in a structured way.

However, I also consider more than just direct measures; I also take into account the socio-political conditions of a given place. If there is social unrest, frustration, or widespread problems, antisemitism is likely to rise. I am convinced of that link.

Antisemitism does not emerge out of nowhere. It is deeply rooted in the traditions of Christian societies—whether in the West or the East. In the East, in the lands of the former Byzantine Empire (Turkey, Greece, Russia, and surrounding regions), antisemitism has often been more vocal and overt. In the West, it persists as well, though in more subtle forms, partly due to the Reformation, Enlightenment, and other historical developments that have tempered its expression.

Social and philosophical progress over the centuries has made antisemitism in the West more subtle. However, whenever there is social unfairness, unrest, or political instability, antisemitic demonstrations or sentiments will likely resurface.

Jacobsen: Let us suppose you were given a large sum of money—imagine a Looney Tunes bag with a dollar sign on it—and told, “Fund any initiative you want to combat this problem.” What would you do?

Estrella: I would do the same as Mr. Soros. I would invest in education, specifically in programs that immerse young people and young professionals in the joy of moving from one country to another—something akin to the Erasmus program in Europe. Such exchanges expose people to diverse social and political environments, enabling them to learn from different cultures. This helps to educate the future leadership of the next 20 years.

I would create something like a Rotary-style organization devoted to investing in the brightest minds, regardless of their social background, and educating them in the values of diversity, liberal democracy, and the Enlightenment.

Jacobsen: Does the Argentinian context have any unique factors in this regard?

Estrella: Argentina was, in many ways, similar to the United States in the late 19th century. It was even more liberal in terms of its population, institutions, and secularism. It served as a good example of the “melting pot” idea. Moreover, in Argentina, the melting pot worked better than in the U.S., where the “salad bowl” model prevailed. In the U.S., you could be mixed, but you remained separate—still a potato, an onion, or a lettuce leaf. In Argentina, you became something new.

This melting pot worked. There was little, if any, racial tension. That was a positive thing. However, when economic troubles accompanied conservative rule, Argentina adopted the worst possible solution—populism. This ruined a country that had once been stronger than Canada or Australia. At one point, we were the fifth-largest economy in the world. However, 80 years of populism destroyed the potential of a country that could have been much greater.

They have dismantled almost all of the social safety net. What little remains, the new president is trying to destroy. Public education, free universities, and a robust healthcare system remain, but are under threat.

These were the things that made Argentina different from much of Latin America. It was a middle-class society. Public hospitals, scientific institutions, and a robust research system supported the development of a broad middle class. However, much of that middle class was nearly erased in the 1990s.

Now, what remains is being destroyed. Public hospitals, as well as the national system of science and research, are being defunded. If this continues, it will put an end to what was once a good country to live in.

Jacobsen: That brings us to the end. Hugo, thank you very much. You have given me a lot. Thank you very much. This will be a good contribution to the project. 

Estrella: Let us stay in touch. Thank you. Goodbye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.