The Nexus Project has been a strong and active voice against antisemitism, but one that has taken a different approach than a lot of mainstream Jewish organizations. Nexus refuses to let antisemitism efforts stymie academic, intellectual, and constitutional freedom. In fact, upholding democracy is central to its efforts. Given the rise of antisemitism, and fissures forming in major efforts to combat it (not to mention the Jewish community’s scorched earth efforts to sway the NYC mayor’s race in the name of Jewish safety), we wanted to talk with Nexus National Director Jonathan Jacoby about his work and the release of the Shofar Report.
Berman Archive: Tell us about the Nexus Project, its formation, goals and your role.
Jonathan Jacoby: The Nexus Project originated in 2019 with a Task Force hosted by the Knight Program at USC’s Annenberg School that looked at issues at the intersection of Israel and antisemitism. Its objectives were to create greater understanding of those issues and suggest how they could be “disentagled” in political discourse. The Task Force wrote a white paper, Understanding Antisemitism at its Nexus with Israel and Zionism, which was the basis for the Nexus Document (and came to be known as the “Nexus Definition”).
In 2022, Nexus created an advocacy arm that addressed the discourse in the administration and Congress about antisemitism and Israel. We were honored to be welcomed as a resource in the US National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and played an important role in preventing the codification of the IHRA definition of antisemitism (or any other definition for that matter).
With the advent of an administration that seeks to use antisemitism as a cudgel for limiting academic freedom and undermining democratic institutions, Nexus has sharpened its focus on the dangers posed to Jewish safety by authoritarianism and its attendant instrumentalization of antisemitism.
What’s the Shofar Report and what precipitated its development and release?
The Shofar Report outlines our approach to fighting antisemitism and its weaponization in this moment. It’s a response to Project Esther, the Heritage Foundation’s plan to instrumentalize antisemitism and degrade democracy. It includes a series of concrete recommendations for policymakers, along with longer-form essays that look at the underpinning of the political issues addressed in the recommendations. Our hope is that it gives people both a real sense of how to protect liberal democracy and Jews and, as importantly, that it communicates to readers that these are the same fight.
What do you hope the report helps people understand about antisemitism in America?
Besides the above: that antisemitism and Jewish fear are real; that that shouldn’t be weaponized to attack liberal democracy, which is what keeps us safe; and that the answer is solidarity, both because Jews are a minority and because antisemitism works in tandem with other hatreds. Looking at this in isolation isn’t only bad for coalition building and maintaining alliances; it will fail to address the problem.
The Heritage Foundation’s Esther Project is on the brink of implosion given its president’s recent support of Tucker Carlson who hosted a genial interview with Nick Fuentes, a known white nationalist and antisemite influencer. Nexus has been engaged with this issue from the moment Fuentes met with Carlson. What does this incident say about the nature of antisemitism today?
We think it shows, first of all, that Project Esther was created as a tool to implement Project 2025; it was never about fighting antisemitism. If it were, the head of the foundation wouldn’t have defended Carlson, who has spent years pushing conspiracy theories around George Soros and replacement theory, or said we shouldn’t “cancel” Fuentes, who is a Holocaust denier.
We also think it shows the flaw in the right-wing belief that antisemitism isn’t real if it comes from someone who is pro-Israel — or if it’s disguised with words like “globalist” instead of “Jew.” We are not going to compromise on fighting antisemitism while selling out liberal democracy in the hope that people stay on the correct side of that line.
What is your focus for the next several months?
Continuing our exploration of issues that arise as the political climate evolves (e.g., the relationship of impact vs. intent in determining how to respond to anti-Israel protests); expanding our research capacity; working with policymakers as they navigate controversial issues (e.g., anti-Zionism and antisemitism); building coalitions with other groups targeted by authoritarian measures.
The Nexus Project’s speedy response to Nick Fuentes’s appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show is a great example of your communications approach. What goes into this effort to stay engaged on the issue? Is it effective?
One word explains it all: watchdog. We are constantly on the lookout and ready to call out instances of antisemitism and its weaponization. We think it’s effective because it gets noticed and helps counter false equations like “We need to sacrifice our democratic values/relationships so that Jews will be safe.” And it provides evidence for our position that fighting antisemitism and protecting democracy go hand-in-hand.
What is the Nexus Project’s theory of change for improving the atmosphere of antisemitism in the US?
We think we need to walk away from litmus tests more often than not. As our Campus Guide makes clear, there are terms—like apartheid or “from the river to the sea”—that are sometimes used in ways that are antisemitic, but sometimes aren’t. We want to encourage people to not be afraid of nuance. Nuance doesn’t mean you’re not committed to standing up to Jewish safety. It better enables you to do so. Relatedly, particularly in educational environments, we favor education over hard and fast punishment.
Further, we need to work to separate out antisemitism from legitimate criticism of Israel. When you insist that being opposed to weapons sales is inherently antisemitic, you are going to have people who respond, “okay, I guess I’m an antisemite, then.” It fundamentally degrades the concept, which, again, is real and a real threat in America.
Finally, we know that, if we want antisemitism to be taken seriously, we need to take other hatreds seriously. And these other hatreds — like racism and xenophobia — often intersect with antisemitism.
How does history inform your work?
History is hugely important to our work. Our task force includes some of the sharpest historians of Jewish studies. The back half of the Shofar Report is about how we got to where we are. Only by grounding the work we do in history can we really understand what brought us to this moment or, for that matter, the moment itself.
