The survey reveals a striking paradox. Seventy-one per cent of teachers believe it is important for pupils to be familiar with the issue of antisemitism and, by a large majority, declare themselves comfortable discussing it. Yet a non-negligible share of these same teachers fails to identify certain formulations as antisemitic, or maintains that their hateful nature depends on context. This discrepancy is not merely a shortcoming in training; it points to a deeper problem of perception. It betrays the absence of solid conceptual reference points for identifying what might be called the mental architecture of antisemitism.
The figures speak for themselves. Thirteen per cent of teachers consider the claim that Jews control global finance to be non-antisemitic, while twenty-four per cent judge that it depends on context. Similarly, eleven per cent believe it is not antisemitic to assert that Jews are responsible for Muslim or African immigration to Europe, and twenty per cent reply once again that this depends on context. Such results cannot be dismissed as simple linguistic imprecision. They reveal an inability to distinguish a structural prejudice from a polemical opinion.
Yet antisemitism, as shown by the work of historians and sociologists, cannot be reduced to an explicit form of hostility. It rests upon stereotypes, conspiracy theories, and mechanisms of delegitimisation. UNESCO insists on this dimension: antisemitism is, first and foremost, a conspiracy theory—one that must be recognised if it is to be confronted. So long as schools fail to grasp this reality, they will continue to treat antisemitism as an isolated historical episode, rather than as a living phenomenon that permeates the present.
It is here that the study brings to light another major weakness: antisemitism is too often confined to the history of the Shoah, rather than understood through the long continuum of discrimination against the Jewish people stretching back to ancient Egypt. For a significant proportion of teachers, it is a subject addressed within the framework of genocidal memory, not as a contemporary reality. Memory, indispensable though it is, does not suffice to explain the current forms of antisemitic hatred. To reduce antisemitism to a chapter of history is to treat it as a relic, even as it manifests itself today in discourse, in the media, on social networks, and in everyday interactions.
This limitation is compounded by a deficit in training. The study reveals that the majority of teachers have received instruction on antisemitism solely through the prism of Holocaust remembrance. In most European countries, there is no specific educational pathway devoted to contemporary antisemitism. UNESCO nevertheless notes the existence of more advanced structures in certain states, citing in particular France and Austria, where funding, expertise, and dedicated institutions make it possible to address these issues with greater depth.
But the problem extends beyond the question of resources. It touches on the political and social difficulty of confronting contemporary prejudices without being drawn into controversy. The Israeli-Palestinian question, often associated with antisemitism, constitutes a particularly delicate terrain. Teachers feel ill-prepared to distinguish between legitimate political criticism and hateful discourse, and the risk is either to trivialise antisemitism or, conversely, to exaggerate it by conflating it with any form of criticism.
The study also highlights a form of cultural blindness: in certain regions where no Jewish community remains, authorities struggle to conceive that hatred might persist toward an absent population. Yet physical absence does not prevent the circulation of antisemitic conspiracy theories, which are themselves symptoms of an erosion of democratic principles and social cohesion. Antisemitism, even without an immediate target, remains a barometer of social fragility.
Ultimately, UNESCO’s report poses a simple question, heavy with consequences: is Europe ready to acknowledge that it faces a problem of antisemitism in its schools, and to respond to it in a structured and enduring manner? The agency calls for awareness and action that go beyond commemoration, integrating the teaching of contemporary prejudices and the proper training of educators.
The message of the study is unmistakably clear: antisemitism is neither an ancient nor a marginal phenomenon. It is present in beliefs, in discourse, and in social practices. So long as schools are unable to recognise and combat it, they will remain fertile ground for the spread of stereotypes and conspiracy theories.
*Author is a former member of the UN senior staff