The Work of the Combat Antisemitism Movement

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/09

Sacha Roytman, a 38-year-old married father of three, holds a bachelor’s degree in Interactive Communications from the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya and a master’s degree in Political Marketing from the IDC School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy. Over the course of his career as a social entrepreneur, Sacha has dedicated himself to securing and nurturing Jewish life worldwide, collaborating with a wide range of government officials, religious and community leaders, cultural influencers, sports executives, educators, artists, and business figures. Sacha, born, raised, and educated in Belgium, was deeply influenced by his Holocaust survivor grandparents, whose stories of resilience and heroism against all odds deeply inspired him. Sacha also personally experienced antisemitism growing up in Brussels, which shaped his worldview and led him to the realization that the “Never Again” vow requires personal responsibility and active social involvement. Roytman highlights the importance of coalitions to counter interconnected hate ideologies, the role of the U.S. in setting global precedents, and the value of stories of de-radicalization as tools for societal change and combating prejudice.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Sacha Roytman is the Chief Executive Officer of the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), based out of Tel Aviv, Israel. With over a decade of global experience, he excels in advocacy, strategic planning, and building international partnerships. He has previously served in other roles as Director of Digital Advocacy for the World Jewish Congress and played a pivotal role in establishing the IDF’s Digital Media Department. Additionally, he co-founded the Israel Wine Collection, which contributes to initiatives promoting Jewish impact and heritage.

The Combat Antisemitism Movement is a global coalition dedicated to eradicating antisemitism by uniting over 700 partner organizations and engaging with over 4 million individuals from diverse backgrounds. It employs three main approaches: advocacy and policy development, educational initiatives, and community engagement. So, regarding the main question about organizational work and your role, what do you see as a central pillar in the themes that continually arise globally around antisemitism, and what is a key way to combat how it manifests?

Sacha Roytman: You ask a very broad question, which I can answer at length, but I would say that we are living in an era when we truly see a conflict of civilizations these days, and Jews are at the front line. Civilizations are more complicated than the classic ones of the Western world, mostly based on the theory of clashing civilizations. We also see a clash of ideologies, a clash of civilizations, and a clash of religions.

Somehow, and historically, it has always been the case that Jews are the first to pay a price. That is the general context. We see that in the Middle East, with Israel being presented as the problem of the entire Middle East by certain people. Then, antisemitism was present in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict and was used to start the conflict. On the one hand, Putin accused Zelensky of being a Nazi, and on the other, everyone is accused—the concept of Nazism plays a big part in accusations in all conflicts. Even a few days ago, the Nazi salute of Elon Musk was presented as a penalty.

This reflects the end of the war against Nazism, antisemitism narratives, and anti-Israel narratives, which are omnipresent. Somehow, it is very easy to use these narratives because Jews are a very tiny nation of 15 million people—0.2% of the world population. Since we are a religion that exists everywhere, in 104 countries, there is always a Jew somewhere doing something that is presented as bad.

This is why we first see this global movement that consistently blames Jews. Historically, we keep our religion; we are among the oldest people in the world with a global presence. We have preserved our identity, heritage, and religion, and today, we have Israel helping us to preserve these things. Jews seem stronger than ever, despite antisemitism and Israel being under attack, because we now have our own country and army.

There are all the reasons right now to attack Jews—not directly, but through Israel. This is the second narrative of anti-Zionism being the new antisemitism. We see it everywhere. It is easier to manipulate anti-Zionism and claim to be against the only Jewish state, but this raises questions about what that opposition truly means.

The third narrative is the convergence of ideologies. From the right wing to radical Islamism to the extreme left, we see everything coming together on common ground when it relates to Jews.

We can see in the demonstrations the same slogans, very similar slogans, between pro-Palestinian radical left groups, radical Islamist groups, and right-wing groups. Though the imagery might differ slightly, they use the same terminology, but the core messaging is the same. We see the swastika being used, both by neo-Nazis and by radical Islamists, as a symbol. The convergence of ideologies is not new—we’ve been aware of it—but since October 7, it has probably become the most significant narrative we’ve seen.

The last part is the fact that the Western world is defending itself, and Israel is a part of this Western world. We see this reflected in the elections in the United States and Europe and in changes in Latin America, such as Argentina. After World War II, a utopian dream of a peaceful world was achieved by creating the United Nations and striving to make all nations equal. While it’s a very noble vision—and one we support—it cannot work when extreme ideologies are embedded in the system.

We are now living in a post-utopian, post-naive period where people are realizing that extreme countries and ideologies—such as those from Russia, Iran, or other Muslim states—make globalization challenging. This is where we see a clash of civilizations, essentially divided into two groups: the Western group and the anti-Western group, which includes Russia, China, Iran, and other major Muslim nations. In the middle, however, we see promising initiatives like the Abraham Accords. These are opportunities created by different administrations, showing that not everything is bleak.

The spread of ideologies is global, and social media makes it very easy for these ideologies to travel. For instance, a conflict originating in Russia can quickly influence other regions, as social media is accessible to everyone. There’s no single starting point anymore. Activism and hate messaging can be placed everywhere, and with the right strategy, anti-Western values, anti-Western messaging, and hatred—whether directed at Jews, America, or Europe—can be easily spread.

Today, we don’t see one central focus point. Nations like Russia, for example, spread hatred against Jews for political purposes. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are antisemitic; rather, they use antisemitism as a means to achieve broader goals, such as destabilizing the Western world. This is often done in partnership with nations like Iran. At the same time, such efforts have seen mixed results, as in the United States, the change in administration there has led to policies that actively defend against hatred and support Western values.

Ideologies infiltrate the Western world on three levels: first, through media and social media; second, through immigration and grassroots-level efforts, building new social structures in various countries and spreading these ideologies; and third, through finance. For instance, large financial investments from Qatar fund universities, companies, and other entities to influence narratives, curriculums, and ideologies. These three factors combined form a powerful mechanism for spreading hatred.

Now, what can counter this? First, the public vote. Public voting is one of the best tools to combat foreign funding and interference in public narratives. We’ve seen examples in the Netherlands, the United States, Germany, Austria, and France, where voters are pushing back against the three major elements I mentioned: immigration, media, and funding. People are expressing a desire to preserve their national identities and heritage.

Second, law enforcement plays a crucial role. Law enforcement needs to detect new ideologies that aim to destabilize societies. 

Law enforcement is equipped with the tools to detect both online and offline activity, to be aware of changes in ideologies, and to understand what constitutes modern forms of antisemitism. For example, we try to address this through research and by identifying new forms of antisemitism. A good example is the use of the red triangle in demonstrations. Hamas uses this symbol to target the Israeli army, but when the same red triangle appears in a demonstration in the UK or the United States or is placed on the home of a Jewish person, it becomes a clear signal of targeting. We work to show law enforcement these changes and emphasize the need to protect communities.

Third, we aim to equip local leaders. It is very difficult to create change at the federal government or nationwide strategy level—it takes much time, and we do not have that time. We have found that mayors and municipal leaders are often very eager to make an impact. They want their cities to be free of hate crimes and to protect all citizens. Sometimes, they do not know how to address these issues. If we can educate them about antisemitism, its history, interfaith relations, and related topics, they are often ready to stand up and take action because protecting their citizens is why they were elected.

On the national level, governance often becomes a political game, making it much harder to implement real change quickly. This is why we decided that local government is one of the best venues for us to make a difference.

The second venue for our work involves interfaith cooperation. We collaborate extensively with formal organizations such as the Vatican, the Muslim World League, and other major groups. However, we realized that many of these organizations do not know how to engage with grassroots communities effectively. As a result, we shifted our model to focus on working with interfaith groups at local and regional levels.

You can work with any church, mosque, or group open to collaboration. Sometimes, it is just a matter of reaching out to them. Of course, we are too small to reach everyone, but this is the only way to create meaningful change—by building a shield against hatred through relationships and celebrating each other. For instance, next week, we are hosting an interfaith event at a Muslim center in New York City, where a large Muslim community will learn about the Holocaust. This is where our efforts are focused. While working with large formal organizations globally is almost impossible, local events and celebrations allow us to connect with hundreds of people, and this strategy works very well.

However, the problems grow larger every day. The world is increasingly becoming polarized into a black-and-white mindset, which is not healthy. We see two clear sides forming, and the center—what I would call the moderate or balanced middle—is disappearing. This is evident in elections, where voters increasingly support extreme parties rather than centrist ones. Without a strong center, conversations diminish.

What concerns me most is the idea of a world without dialogue, where there are only two opposing sides unable to listen to each other. Each side may hold some truth and some falsehood, but without cooperation, we cannot fix anything. This worries me. On the other hand, it is crucial to ensure that the choices we make are deliberate and thoughtful.

Your side cannot afford not to fight back. Yes, you need to be able to speak, but when you’re under threat, you cannot just respond nicely. We need to be very strong and have a strong response. We’re excited to see what may happen in the United States with the new administration—not as a political question, but because the previous administration didn’t succeed in certain areas. We hope the new administration will be able to address these gaps, make significant changes, and implement what the prior administration was unable to deploy.

America is very important; the world follows America. When the U.S. determines its policies, it often sets the tone for how the world approaches key issues. We’re already seeing signs of change within just a few days of the new administration, and the types of policies being developed are interesting to analyze and understand about our issues. This is where we are right now.

Jacobsen: Do you find the more toxic elements of antisemitism are emerging more in the online space now or more traditionally in physical spaces? It’s happening on multiple fronts, but in the 2020s, with the rise of social media, is that the area where you’re seeing the biggest uptick?

Roytman: I think it’s becoming harder to separate the online and offline spaces. Let’s leave aside bots and fake accounts and talk about real people. Real people are online because they’re not well-educated offline. This is why I always emphasize education first. The global level of education is declining, particularly among the middle class, lower class, and those unwilling to invest in it. The tragic irony is that education has never been more accessible.

On the one hand, education is available to everyone; on the other hand, fewer people are becoming educated. This creates a dangerous situation where uneducated individuals now have platforms to express themselves. The second part of this problem is that small, marginal groups—who in the past could only speak antisemitic rhetoric in private or small gatherings of 100 or 200 people—are now able to spread their ideology online and reach uneducated individuals. When these two groups meet, they create a fire of hatred.

Online spaces have become breeding grounds for this hatred due to two factors: declining education and platform accessibility. It’s not social media itself that’s the problem, but how it enables the spread of this discourse. The question then arises: What responsibility do platforms bear? This is a complex issue, especially in America, where freedom of speech plays a major role.

What’s critical is being able to define antisemitism. For example, Holocaust denial is a serious issue. Even if you cannot block it outright, you need to define it clearly as antisemitism. Unfortunately, this is a major gap today. The American government has yet to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, and internet platforms have not either. It’s not about creating legislation to block everything; it’s about being able to identify and define antisemitic discourse clearly. Once we do that, we can address it on an educational level rather than through punitive measures.

This is what we’re striving for. Yes, the online space is terrible, but it’sthat’s because the offline world isn’t doing well either—it’s not the other way around.

When things grow online as a fire, they eventually move back offline. The cycle perpetuates itself, with online hatred fueling offline behaviour. We’re seeing this now with more people participating in demonstrations. Why? Because they are less educated and have access to marginal ideologies that are becoming more mainstream. In the past, these ideas were confined to private spaces and inaccessible to the average person. Today, anyone can access these ideologies daily, leading to the societal downgrade we’re witnessing.

What’s most frustrating is that we have more access to knowledge than ever in history, yet society is regressing in critical thinking and education. This is what deeply concerns me.

Jacobsen: Access is not necessarily the main condition; it is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Some fringe ideologies you alluded to often involve historical secret organizations or conspiratorial thoughts. As I’ve seen, a recurring theme revolves around banks or similar ideas. When I spoke with Dr. Alon Milwicki of the Southern Poverty Law Center, he noted that conspiracy theories almost always draw back to blaming the Jewish people. That is typically the common thread—they all seem to pull back to that narrative.

So, with these marginal ideologies, which are not necessarily in the mainstream but are given mainstream platforms periodically, how do you see this playing out in daily life for people? For instance, individuals not deeply invested in education might be given equal time online on relevant subjects with educated people on these topics. They then buy into conspiratorial, historical, or contemporary ideas, go home, and continue their regular lives. How do you see this impacting their daily interactions, working relationships, or even their participation in workshops or organizational meetings like the Combat Antisemitism Movement?

Roytman: It impacts everything—their behaviour, antisemitism itself, and the number of hateful acts. These individuals are often educated online, and this influences offline actions. There is a clear relationship. In most of the hate crimes we’ve seen in the past decades, individuals were indoctrinated online. They sought information and education online, making the online world a key part of organized hate crime, hate speech, antisemitism, and anti-Western ideologies. This is no longer up for debate—online platforms are central to this.

What we need is responsible leadership. While I don’t believe we can entirely change the way antisemitism exists—that’s not our role—we can influence how educators address these issues, how law enforcement detects antisemitism, and how they are trained to recognize hate crimes. We can help open the eyes of the media so they report antisemitism more accurately and ensure legislators understand what constitutes an antisemitic crime and what doesn’t. It’s about ensuring that society, as a whole, is aware of the growing dangers of hatred and knows how to address them.

We cannot fight this alone as a community. We are too small, and history has shown us what happens when we try to stand alone. The goal is to educate society about the dangers of rising hatred and empower those who need education to act. Antisemitism will always exist. The goal is not to eradicate it—that’s unrealistic. Instead, it’s about controlling it and ensuring it doesn’t escalate to an uncontrollable level.

There will always be antisemitic groups and messages, just as there will always be people who harbour racist beliefs. We can’t entirely remove these sentiments from the world, but we must control them. Right now, the situation is out of control—there are too many attacks on Jews every day all over the world. This unchecked violence is dangerous. If it continues to grow, it could lead to even greater violence, which society may eventually normalize and accept.

The key to change lies in educated and responsible leadership. When leadership at all levels takes these issues seriously and acts responsibly, we can see meaningful change in our society.

One more comment: It sounds very negative, but we see so many allies in this fight, so many people who want to see a society that respects everyone. They want a world free of hatred. They truly see the Western world under attack, which is how we feel. They genuinely believe that Jews are on the front line right now, and they want to protect the Jewish community because they understand that eradicating antisemitic ideology can lead to eradicating other deep forms of hatred.

Usually, a Nazi is also a racist or Islamophobic. Similarly, an extreme radical Islamist is often anti-women’s rights and anti-LGBT rights. There is a correlation. Just as we see a convergence of antisemitic ideologies, we also see a convergence of these groups of hatred—they are not isolated.

This is an opportunity to create coalitions with other groups who recognize that they are also threatened. Together, we can fight back. There are many opportunities, and we see many great people engaging with us, willing to fight, express their opinions, and reject the status quo as a solution.

Jacobsen: Have you seen any cases of individuals who were strong antisemites but later had a change of conscience? What’s that like when you witness such cases?

Roytman: We’ve encountered many cases of extremism. We’ve worked with former Nazis, neo-Nazis, and even former jihadists who realized that something was not right. We love these stories because they are the stories we need.

If we want to change a generation of white supremacists into being less hateful, they need to see someone who has gone through that transformation. That’s very exciting work—de-radicalization. It’s incredible to see people change their minds, recognize that they were in a place of hatred that perpetuates itself, and move to a place of peace, which also perpetuates itself.

This is a significant thing now, and we’re seeing real differences. It’s exciting for us to see and to work around that.

Jacobsen: Excellent, Sacha, thank you. I appreciate it. I’m glad we were finally able to make this happen.

Roytman: Thank you very much.

Jacobsen: Okay, we’ll be in touch.

Roytman: Yes, bye-bye.

Jacobsen: Bye.

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.