Israel’s Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism published a 2026 report that names and ranks what it calls the world’s 10 most influential figures spreading antisemitic or anti‑Zionist content, placing U.S. influencer Dan Bilzerian first and Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg second.

The ministry said the ranking combined two measures: an influence score based on factors such as social media follower counts, media appearances and perceived sway over public opinion, and a risk score tied to the frequency and severity of posts the ministry judged antisemitic or anti‑Israeli. The report lists the ten figures as Dan Bilzerian, Greta Thunberg, Bassem Youssef, Candace Owens, Abdel Bari Atwan, Omar Suleiman, Anastasia Maria Loupis, Nick Fuentes, Ian Carroll and Tucker Carlson. Separate mentions in the report also identify children’s educator Ms. Rachel and U.S. commentator Tucker Carlson among those noted for content the ministry associated with antisemitic discourse.

The ministry cited specific examples for several individuals: it said Thunberg repeatedly used terms such as genocide, siege and mass starvation when describing Israel’s actions in Gaza, participated in pro‑Palestinian demonstrations and aid efforts such as the Global Sumud Flotilla, urged mobilization using hashtags including #FreePalestine and criticized language that it said normalized portrayals of a civilization at risk of extinction. The report accused Bilzerian of promoting antisemitic conspiracy claims and Holocaust denial and noted he recently filed paperwork to run as a Republican candidate in Florida’s 6th Congressional District. It said Tucker Carlson promoted conspiracy themes about Jewish control of media, finance and U.S. foreign policy; that Nick Fuentes promoted explicit antisemitic conspiracy theories and Holocaust minimization; and that Candace Owens and others promoted statements the ministry characterized as invoking a “Zionist” media or conspiratorial influence. The report also cited social posts, speeches, protest participation and other public commentary as evidence used to calculate risk scores.

The ministry linked spikes in antisemitic incidents and discourse to Israeli military actions, reporting notable increases on social media and in recorded incidents after specific military operations in Gaza, U.S.‑Israeli strikes in Iran and airstrikes in Doha. The report argued that war imagery, humanitarian narratives and political campaigns amplified antisemitic responses following those events, while also citing polling showing substantial shares of the U.S. public and of Jewish Americans describing Israel’s conduct as genocide.

The document recorded 815 antisemitic incidents worldwide in 2025, including 20 fatal attacks, and counted both violent incidents and nonviolent actions such as protests, public commentary and online content. The ministry criticized major social media platforms for inconsistent adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, naming YouTube, Reddit and X as having the lowest levels of compliance according to its assessment, and framed social media influence as a growing component of strategic challenges identified by Israeli officials.

The ministry described a shift toward a proactive, intelligence‑based approach that combines monitoring, operational support for Jewish communities and public‑awareness efforts, and called on governments worldwide to take stronger action including enforcement measures, legislation and education. Minister Amichai Chikli was noted for building ties with far‑right European parties; that development prompted some Jewish organizations and antisemitism experts to boycott a conference he organized. A separate Tel Aviv University report published for Holocaust Remembrance Day questioned the government’s expanded definition of antisemitism and recommended abolishing the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs at times for what the university called embarrassing or hasty classifications.

Public reaction was sharply divided: the ministry’s list and the placement of Thunberg prompted criticism that strong state criticism does not necessarily equate to hostility toward Jewish people, while others defended activists who describe civilian suffering. Thunberg has disputed the label applied to her. The report and the debates it generated are part of an ongoing discussion in Israel and internationally about how to define and respond to antisemitism in the context of online influence, political rhetoric and the Israel‑Gaza conflict.

Original Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (gaza) (iran) (doha) (youtube) (reddit)

Summary judgment: the article mostly reports on a government analysis and reactions to it; it offers little practical, actionable help for a typical reader. Below I break that down point by point, then give concrete, realistic guidance the article did not provide.

Actionable information The piece describes who was named in a government ranking, how the ministry said it scored influence and risk, and who criticized the move. None of that translates into clear steps, tools, or choices an ordinary person can take immediately. The report’s methods are described at a high level (follower counts, media appearances, frequency of posts judged antisemitic), but there is no usable rubric, checklist, or instructions for readers to apply those methods themselves. If you read the article expecting to learn what to do about rising online antisemitism, how to protect yourself or your community, or how to evaluate influencers, you won’t find practical steps. In short: the article provides description, not guidance.

Educational depth The article gives some context about the ministry’s scoring categories and mentions research linking spikes in antisemitic incidents to specific military events, but it does not explain methodology in any useful detail. There are no transparent definitions of the scoring formulas, no breakdown of sample sizes, no statistics showing effect sizes, and no explanation of how posts were judged antisemitic versus legitimate political critique. It notes disagreements — a Tel Aviv University report questioned the expanded definition of antisemitism — but does not analyze the competing definitions, their implications, or the legal and ethical tradeoffs. Because the piece stays at the level of claims and counterclaims, it fails to teach readers how to evaluate such reports, interpret social-media compliance measures, or understand causation versus correlation in spikes of incidents.

Personal relevance For most readers the article has limited immediate relevance. It may matter to people who follow Israeli politics, diaspora organizations, social-media policy advocates, or the named individuals’ audiences. For those groups the article could influence perceptions or decisions about platforms, conferences, or advocacy strategies. For the general public it is mostly informational: a news item about a government report and academic pushback. It does not affect most readers’ safety, finances, or health in any direct way.

Public service function The article does not provide warnings, safety guidance, or emergency information. It reports a potential link between military events and increased antisemitic incidents, which is useful to know in principle, but it does not translate that into public-facing guidance such as how communities should prepare for or respond to threats, how individuals should report hate crimes, or how platforms could improve moderation. As written, it is largely a recounting of disputes and personalities rather than a public-service piece.

Practical advice quality There is no practical advice in the article that an ordinary reader could realistically follow. It criticizes social platforms’ compliance with a definition of antisemitism but does not tell readers how to check moderation policies, report content effectively, or protect vulnerable communities. It mentions polling numbers but does not explain how those polls were conducted or what the margins of error are, so readers cannot judge how robust the claims are.

Long-term impact The article highlights an ongoing strategic concern — online influence as a front in political conflict — which is relevant for organizations planning long-term communications. However it offers no guidance on how to build resilience against misinformation, how to train staff, or how to measure influence reliably over time. For individuals and many organizations, the long-term utility of the article is low.

Emotional and psychological impact By naming high-profile figures and using charged terms such as genocide and antisemitism, the article may provoke strong emotions: alarm, anger, or helplessness. Because it does not suggest ways to respond or channels for redress, readers may be left with anxiety rather than constructive options. It does provide some balance by reporting the academic critique, which can reassure readers that the topic is contested, but overall the piece risks amplifying polarization without offering coping or response strategies.

Clickbait or sensationalizing tendencies The article’s emphasis on ranking “most dangerous” figures and singling out a prominent young activist is likely to attract attention. That framing leans toward sensationalism: focusing on a ranked list and controversial names rather than the substantive methods or the larger policy debate. It appears designed to provoke debate more than to illuminate methodology or solutions.

Missed opportunities the article should have covered The piece missed several chances to be more useful. It could have explained the scoring methodology in detail, shown samples of posts that were judged antisemitic and explained why, offered guidance on how to compare definitions of antisemitism, provided practical steps for reporting and documenting hate incidents, or summarized what reasonable platform policy changes would look like. It could also have provided resources for communities at risk and given readers simple critical-reading tools for evaluating similar government reports and media claims.

Practical guidance the article failed to provide (useful, realistic steps) If you want to act or assess similar situations, start by checking the source and method. Look for a published methodology: does the report define terms clearly, list data sources, and show examples of what was classified in each category? When a study references “influence” or “risk,” ask whether those are measured objectively (follower counts, reach) or subjectively (perceived sway). For any claim that social events caused spikes in hate incidents, ask whether the study provides timelines and counts and whether it controlled for confounding factors such as media coverage intensity or coordinated campaigns. When you encounter charged labels applied to speech, compare at least two independent definitions and note legal standards in your country versus broader working definitions used by nonprofits. If you are concerned about online antisemitism or targeted harassment in your community, document incidents with screenshots and timestamps, report to local law enforcement and platform reporting tools, and reach out to established community organizations that handle hate incidents for guidance. To evaluate whether a social platform enforces its rules, sample several problematic posts, attempt to report them using the platform’s procedure, and track whether and how the platform responds; multiple failures across repeated reports suggest systemic noncompliance. For personal emotional resilience, limit exposure to highly charged feeds, curate your social media by muting or unfollowing inflammatory accounts, and rely on trusted summaries rather than constant live coverage. For organizations planning longer-term responses, establish a simple incident response plan: designate a contact, keep a secure log of incidents, set thresholds for escalating to law enforcement or public statements, and train staff on safe online conduct and reporting. These steps use general reasoning and common-sense practices; they do not require access to the specific data the article reported but give readers practical things to do if the subject affects them.

Bottom line The article informs about a controversial government ranking and the pushback it received, but it is weak as a practical resource. It leaves readers without reliable tools to judge the report’s methodology, to respond to hate incidents, or to assess platform behavior. The concrete, general steps above will help readers evaluate similar reports and take sensible, realistic actions if they are affected.

"The ministry said the ranking was based on two categories: an influence score, measured by factors such as social media follower counts, media appearances, and perceived sway over public opinion; and a risk score, determined by the frequency of posts the ministry judged antisemitic or anti-Israeli."

This frames the ministry’s method as objective while using "perceived sway" and "the ministry judged" to hide subjectivity. It helps the ministry by making its criteria sound technical, and it hides that judgments of antisemitism rely on interpretation. The wording pushes trust in the ranking without showing how decisions were made. That can make readers accept the list as factual rather than opinion-based.

"Greta Thunberg was cited for using terms such as genocide, siege, and mass starvation when discussing Israel’s actions in Gaza, a characterization the report counted as evidence of antisemitic conduct."

Calling those words "evidence of antisemitic conduct" treats charged descriptive terms as proof of bias. This equates criticizing actions with hatred of a people. It helps the ministry's position by turning policy critique into moral blame and hides the difference between accusing actions and attacking a group.

"Dan Bilzerian topped the list."

This short statement isolates a name with no context or quote. It works as a strong emotional anchor—placing him "on top" makes the ranking feel decisive. The lack of explanation hides why he outranked others and nudges the reader to accept the list's prominence ranking without evidence.

"The report linked spikes in antisemitic incidents and discourse to Israeli military actions, identifying notable increases on social media after specific military operations in Gaza, U.S.-Israeli strikes in Iran, and airstrikes in Doha."

This frames causation from events to antisemitic spikes without showing proof; "linked" suggests a clear causal tie. It helps argue that military actions lead to antisemitism while not showing alternative causes. The phrasing can mislead readers to see a direct cause-effect when the text only claims correlation.

"The ministry argued that war imagery, humanitarian narratives, and political campaigns amplified antisemitic responses following those events rather than attributing spikes to Israel’s actions themselves."

This shifts blame from events to how they were presented, using "amplified" to minimize direct responsibility. It helps the ministry deflect criticism of Israeli actions and hides the possibility that the actions themselves provoked responses. The phrasing narrows the cause to media and campaigns instead of the events.

"The analysis criticized major social media platforms for inconsistent adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, naming YouTube, Reddit, and X as having the lowest levels of compliance according to the report."

This paints platforms as failing without showing the criteria used to measure "compliance." Naming three platforms singles them out and helps the ministry argue platforms are part of the problem. The wording hides methodological detail and frames the platforms as negligent based on the report's judgment.

"The ministry framed social media influence as a new front in Israel’s broader strategic challenges, citing remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about the growing importance of online influence."

This borrows authority from a political leader to elevate the ministry's view. It helps connect social media concerns to national strategy while hiding dissenting views. Using Netanyahu's remark as support nudges readers to accept the ministry’s framing as part of state strategy.

"A separate Tel Aviv University report published in honor of Holocaust Remembrance Day questioned the government’s expanded definition of antisemitism and recommended abolishing the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs at times for what the university called embarrassing or hasty classifications."

This highlights institutional pushback but uses "at times" and "called embarrassing or hasty" to soften the university's criticism. It helps show dissent while reducing its force, and it hides the full strength or specifics of the academic critique. The phrasing makes the critique sound occasional rather than systematic.

"The ministry’s head, Amichai Chikli, was noted for building ties with far-right European parties, a development that prompted some Jewish organizations and antisemitism experts to boycott a conference he organized."

This links Chikli to far-right parties and to boycotts, using "noted for" to present it as established fact without sourcing. It helps paint the ministry leader as politically extreme and hides details about the ties. The sentence frames opposition as justified but doesn't provide the ministry’s view or context.

"Public polling cited in the analysis showed substantial portions of the U.S. public and of Jewish Americans expressing the view that Israel was committing genocide, a finding the report referenced while discussing mainstream acceptance of some of the terms it flagged."

Presenting polls as showing "substantial portions" implies broad agreement without giving numbers or question wording. It helps the ministry argue those terms have mainstream acceptance while hiding how questions were asked or what respondents meant. The wording can make the reader overestimate the polls' clarity and scope.

The text conveys several emotions woven into its factual reporting, starting with concern and alarm. Words and phrases such as “prominent influencers,” “second-most dangerous,” “risk score,” and “spikes in antisemitic incidents” carry a tone of warning and urgency; these appear where the ministry ranks individuals and links online activity to increases in antisemitic acts. The strength of this concern is moderate to strong because the language frames people as “dangerous” and ties online speech to real-world harm, which raises stakes and signals a need for attention. This emotion guides the reader to feel wary about the named figures and about the role of online influence, encouraging the reader to take the ministry’s findings seriously and to view the described online behaviors as potentially harmful.

A defensive or protective emotion is present when the ministry’s actions and judgments are described. The report’s use of a “risk score” and its linking of terms like “genocide, siege, and mass starvation” to “antisemitic conduct” reflect an underlying impulse to protect a community from perceived threats. The strength of this protective tone is moderate; it gives the ministry authority and a justificatory stance, aiming to legitimize its monitoring and classification efforts. This helps the reader understand the ministry’s motivation and nudges them toward accepting the need for oversight or intervention.

There is an element of criticism and embarrassment directed at the ministry, evident in the mention of the Tel Aviv University report that “questioned” the government’s expanded definition of antisemitism and recommended “abolishing the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs at times” for “embarrassing or hasty classifications.” Those words carry a tone of reproach and mild indignation. The strength of this emotion is moderate and serves to balance the earlier alarm by signaling that the ministry’s methods and choices are contested, prompting the reader to doubt or scrutinize the ministry’s authority and accuracy.

The text also conveys distrust or disapproval toward social media platforms through phrases like “inconsistent adoption” of a definition and naming YouTube, Reddit, and X as having “the lowest levels of compliance.” This language communicates frustration and disappointment with platforms expected to act responsibly. The strength is mild to moderate and aims to push the reader to view platform behavior as inadequate, supporting the idea that online spaces need better oversight.

A tone of political concern or unease emerges in references to the ministry head “building ties with far-right European parties” and Jewish organizations and experts “boycott[ing]” a conference he organized. Those phrases express worry about political alignment and potential reputational harm. The strength is moderate and functions to alert the reader to a possible politicization of the ministry and to suggest that these alliances have real consequences for legitimacy and community trust.

There is also an undercurrent of factual neutrality and analytic detachment in much of the text, signaled by words like “analysis,” “ranked,” “cited,” and “polling cited.” This measured tone is mild but deliberate and serves to give the overall message credibility and authority, encouraging the reader to view the content as researched and evidence-based rather than purely emotional rhetoric.

Together, these emotions steer the reader’s reaction by first creating concern about online influence and its consequences, then providing justification for oversight, while simultaneously introducing skepticism about how that oversight is applied. This blend pushes the reader toward a nuanced response: worry about antisemitism and the role of influencers, coupled with caution about possible overreach or politicized judgments.

The writer uses emotional persuasion through selective wording and juxtaposition rather than outright appeals. Terms with strong connotations such as “dangerous,” “genocide,” “mass starvation,” and “embarrassing” are chosen instead of neutral alternatives, amplifying emotional response. The text contrasts the ministry’s authoritative actions with criticism from an academic report and boycotts, creating tension that heightens interest and invites the reader to weigh competing claims. Repetition of evaluative frameworks like “influence score” and “risk score” reinforces the idea that the ministry’s approach is systematic and serious, increasing its perceived legitimacy. Linking specific high-profile names to both online language and spikes in incidents leverages the attention those names draw to create a sense of causality and urgency; this makes the threat feel concrete rather than abstract. Mentioning polling that shows mainstream acceptance of contested terms also normalizes those terms and adds emotional weight by implying broad public concern. These techniques increase impact by making the situation feel both immediate and contested, steering the reader toward concern about antisemitism while simultaneously prompting critical reflection about the ministry’s methods.