(An earlier version of this article appeared in the Jewish Chronicle paper edition on 29 May.)

The rise in antisemitic incidents since October 7 has prompted the familiar demand that the government must “do something”. One proposal now circulating is mandatory antisemitism education in schools. Will that work?

The honest answer is: not by itself. Once antisemitic attitudes take hold, they can be deeply resistant to correction.

The Jewish Chronicle correctly pointed out that, if children grow up with little or no understanding of Judaism as a living civilisation of Am Yisrael, then a lesson or two on antisemitism is unlikely to shift attitudes much. As Daniel Finkelstein observed in the same issue, this approach may even backfire.

Better to focus on prevention. This means

1. beginning to take Religious Education (RE) in Judaism seriously and
2. confronting the anti-Jewish bias that underlies much so-called “antiracist” education.

(1) It is crucial that RE Judaism is taught well, accurately and by people who actually know it from the inside. Too many Jews fail to recognise that RE is the single most important influence on how British children come to understand Jews and Judaism.

Many other faith communities devote considerable resources to RE. Jews should be no exception. Some valuable work has been done, including by the Board of Deputies, but too much of what schools use is still produced by non-Jews, shaped by non-Jewish priorities, and detached from what Jewish children and Jewish communities need others to understand.

Those Jews who go into non-Jewish schools to teach Judaism often receive little or no financial support, despite the specialist knowledge required for that work.

More broadly, secondary pupils may learn very little about Judaism itself, while lessons on Christianity and Islam can sometimes include narratives from those faiths that are historically damaging to Jews, yet are taught without sufficient explanation of their impact. Why deliver a corrective lesson on antisemitism on its own, when others’ distorted narratives have already been taught as authoritative and mainstream?

(2) Instituting separate antisemitism education simply further exceptionalises Jews. Instead, we need to totally rethink how so‑called “antiracism education” is conducted in schools.

Too often, antiracism is framed in terms of privilege and power, through the lens of critical race theory (a US import). This leaves little space for hatred like antisemitism, which itself is fuelled by such narratives; such lessons may in fact deepen the problem. As I write, activists are lobbying to embed this approach in a new National Curriculum for RE, a threat the Jewish community must take seriously.

Holocaust education on its own cannot counteract this bias and, as recent events demonstrate, it can even produce perverse results when antisemitism is rife.  When children learn about the Holocaust without learning properly about Judaism, they may view Judaism as a dead religion, or antisemitism as the Nazi horrors.  Contemporary expressions of antisemitism, such as double standards applied to Jews, particularly with regard to the State of Israel, thus appear irrelevant. Worse, some may absorb the notion that centuries of hatred against Jews must somehow be justified.

Critical race theory places humanity in two camps: oppressors and oppressed, privileged and underprivileged. Our credibility thus depends on belonging to the “oppressed” class.  Easy to prove in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, but not so easy when we fight back. By showing resilience against antisemitism, we become laden with supposed “privilege”, allowing those who hate us to claim dishonestly that we cannot be victims of hate.  People forget just how quickly one can lose such “privilege” under hateful regimes: Jews under Hitler, Asians under Idi Amin… (We are not the only ones to experience this.)

Correctly taught, rather than standing alone and exceptionalising Jews, antisemitism education should be an integral element of politically neutral anti‑bigotry education which teaches that all bigotry is wrong; that any person of any background is capable of being bigoted and also of facing bigotry; and that Jews, like any other group, can face bigotry and are entitled to the same respect and understanding as everyone else.

Such equality, after all, is only just.

NATRE resources on antiracism for schools do not mention antisemitism as a type of racism. This is a predictable blind spot.

Much of the conceptual difficulty here surrounds the meaning of “religion”. 

In its broadest sense as understood by former Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, religion should be able to include the multifaceted aspects of Judaism such as Jews as a people.  Religion comes from the root religare – to bind. We are bound to each other and to the Tradition that we follow.

However, many people understand “religion” in its narrow (protestant) Christian sense, as a religious belief system or collection of truth claims. 

This led to a movement to “decolonise” the language by speaking instead of “religious worldviews”. However, worldviews only makes matters worse, by making more explicit the reductive idea that religion = propositional belief (viewpoint). This is therefore a backwards move.

Explains that “erasive antisemitism” is the denial or distortion of core elements of Jewish identity — especially Jewish peoplehood, indigeneity, and the historic connection to Israel. It shows how institutions often treat Judaism only as a religion (in its narrow sense), which allows hostility toward Jewish ethnicity or nationhood to be dismissed as “political” rather than antisemitic. The fact sheet highlights examples where non‑Jews redefine Judaism for Jews, exclude Jewish students from minority protections, or delegitimise Zionism as uniquely unacceptable. It argues that erasing Jewish peoplehood enables discrimination and leaves Jews unprotected and calls on institutions to recognise the full scope of Jewish identity in order to address antisemitism effectively.

Explains how Jews in the 18^th and 19^th century Germany were forced to renounce the national and ethnic component of their Jewish identity in exchange for citizenship. German Jews felt pressurised to distance themselves from (more traditional) Eastern European Jews, whom they disparaged as unenlightened, uncouth and uneducated.

“Emancipation meant that Jews were free as individuals, but that Jewishness and even a full embrace of Judaism could not be freely expressed within German culture. The notions of being German and citizenship in the modern state excluded the possibility of other types of collective belonging.” (p. 49)

Explains how Jews emancipated by Napoleon were forced to abandon their ethnic identity as Jews to avoid accusation of dual loyalties. Jews had to disavow the notion of a Jewish nation and swear allegiance only to France. Judaism was to be solely a set of beliefs and laws to follow, not an identity. Thus, Jews in France were pressured to declare that they would consider themselves “among strangers” when visiting English Jews. Only other Frenchmen were their brethren. Similarly, Jews emancipated in Holland were forced to abandon any connection with Palestine as a condition of being part of the Dutch nation. One could not belong to the Jewish nation and also be citizen of the Nation in which one lived.

Describes how antisemitism adapts to contemporary preoccupations, evolving from religious rejection to racial pseudoscience, and now often to framing Jews/Israel/Zionism as embodiments of oppressive ideologies (e.g., imperialism, capitalism/communism conspiracies). The essay notes that antisemitic content shifts with societal worries but remains a flexible “imagination” of Jews as a negative force, detached from actual religious practice. 

Discusses how progressive spaces equate Zionism/Israel with white supremacy, colonialism, or imperialism, barring Jewish/Zionist voices from anti-racism efforts. This ideological framing casts Jews as oppressors, echoing antisemitic delegitimisation. 

Gives a brief overview of how Jews emerged as an ancient people in the Levant and how they maintained a distinct identity across the Mediterranean world. Shows that hostility toward Jews began early and was directed at them as a people with a shared way of life, not just a belief system. 

Levenson argues that modern forms of supersessionism—whether in progressive politics, liberation theology, or anti‑Zionist church activism—depend on reframing Judaism as a belief system rather than a people. Once Jewish identity is reduced to abstract values like “justice” or “oppression,” other groups can claim to embody those values more authentically and present themselves as “the new Jews,” effectively displacing the Jewish people from their own covenantal story. This conceptual shift makes it possible to universalise the Exodus, moralise Jewish history, and deny Jewish peoplehood and nationhood, allowing replacement narratives to flourish in secular guise.

Examines how framing Judaism purely as a religion (vs. ethnicity) affects legal protections against antisemitism. It highlights that antisemites often target Jews based on perceived ethnicity/ancestry, not just beliefs, but reducing Jewishness to a religion (in its Christian sense) can limit recognition of certain discrimination forms.

Distinguishes anti-Judaism (opposition to Judaism as a religion) from racial/ethnic antisemitism. It notes that anti-Judaism focuses on rejecting Jewish beliefs/practices as inferior, often tied to supersessionism, where Christianity assumes the role of God’s covenanted people. This framing allowed conversion in theory to end hostility, but in practice perpetuated prejudice by denying Judaism’s validity as a living faith/system.

Explains the doctrine that the Church replaced the Jewish people as God’s chosen, treating Judaism as an obsolete religion. This theological view (held by figures like Augustine, Aquinas, Luther) marginalised Jews by framing their identity solely in religious terms that Christianity claimed to fulfil/abolish, fuelling centuries of discrimination. Many modern Christian groups have repudiated it due to its antisemitic implications.