Purpose

The Spotlight Jewish Community Safety Index (JCSI) exists to show—using publicly available records and data such as laws on the statute books, policies, practices, public budgets, and surveys—how safe Jewish people are, how secure they feel, and the work that needs to be done by governments, police, and other public bodies to improve the wellbeing of Jews in their society.

The goal is to shine a light on what needs to be done, to make clear where the deficiencies are, and to provide actionable advice based on gap analysis—country by country.

There is nothing secretive about anything in this document. Everything is drawn from publicly available sources and provides a direct comparison country to country about the relative safety of Jews living there.

It is too costly, too complex, and not productive to conduct entirely new global studies when most of the data required already exists. The Spotlight approach aggregates and synthesizes existing authoritative data into a coherent, comparable framework.

Transparency & Data Sources

For the benefit of transparency, each country report documents the specific databases and sources accessed to compile findings. Primary data sources include:

Government statistics and official crime data
Community Security Organizations (CST, SPCJ, ADL, ECAJ, RIAS, B’nai Brith)
International bodies (EU Fundamental Rights Agency, OSCE/ODIHR)
Academic research and peer-reviewed publications
Intelligence agency public reports
Community surveys (ADL Global 100, FRA EU surveys, national polls)
Media monitoring and incident tracking

Defining Safety

This index is NOT a predictor of direct violence against Jewish people—although violence is one of the factors measured. Safety is determined by how safe Jews are based on comparable criteria across a comprehensive range of indicators.

Safety is a state of wellbeing. I feel safe when the environment around me is protecting me. I do not feel safe when I feel vulnerable, exposed, and uncertain.

It is possible to live in a very violent situation and feel relatively safe. Israelis often express this paradox: even though the physical threat level is very high, the support systems provide a sense of safety, knowing that everything is being done to mitigate physical harm.

The opposite is also true. There can be a near absence of direct physical violence and the veneer of free speech protections, but the level of threat and the lack of support from institutions and law enforcement leaves Jews feeling very unsafe. This is not the hallmark of a Western democracy—it is a total failure of responsibility toward vulnerable citizens.

Such an environment is also a predictor of increasingly violent behavior, as the societal, legal, and enforcement environment enables the increased likelihood of physical violence.

This index is not intended to scare anyone, but to use hard, unflinching data that gives a simple, clear picture for policymakers, lawmakers, and decision-makers to better understand how their own society is performing in respect of its Jewish population.

Core Principles

The Spotlight framework operates on ten foundational principles:

Responsibility lies with the state, not the community.

Curbing antisemitism is not the responsibility of the Jewish community. Governments and institutions bear the primary duty to protect their citizens.

Antisemitism is a crime, not an opinion.

While free speech must be protected, incitement to hatred and violence against Jews is criminal conduct requiring criminal justice responses.

If Jews say they feel unsafe, they are unsafe.

Jewish self-reporting is primary data, not supplementary. How Jews report their own safety experience is a core metric given the highest weighting in the framework.

Reporting is not enough—action is required.

Collecting incident data without following through with arrests, prosecutions, and convictions does not make Jewish communities safer. Outcomes matter more than incident counts.

The cause of threat is irrelevant—only the danger matters.

Whether antisemitism comes from the far-right, Islamist extremism, or anti-Zionist movements, the physical safety of Jewish people is paramount. We do not weight threats differently by source ideology.

Antisemitism is a barometer of general population health.

Societies that tolerate hatred toward Jews tend to exhibit broader dysfunction. Antisemitism is often described as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ for democratic health.

The evidence exists but is usually buried.

Data on antisemitism is fragmented across multiple agencies, community organizations, and research bodies. Spotlight’s role is to aggregate, synthesize, and present this information in a comparable format.

Radical movements are precursors to violence, not merely context.

Islamist entities, calls for jihad and global intifada, and other radical movements are not just contextual factors—they are pre-text to violence and are scored accordingly.

Public activity directly impacts Jewish safety.

Protests, cultural boycotts, unsanctioned hate speech, and hostile public environments are not abstract concerns—they directly affect whether Jews feel safe walking to synagogue, sending children to Jewish schools, or displaying Jewish identity.

Verification through triangulation.

Official statistics are cross-referenced with community security organization data and community surveys to address known gaps in official reporting and provide the most accurate picture possible.

The Seven Pillars Framework

Spotlight evaluates countries across seven pillars, each carrying a specific weight reflecting its importance to Jewish safety:

Pillar	Weight	Focus Areas
P1: Legal & Government	10%	Laws, IHRA, Envoy
P2: Security Infrastructure	10%	Funding, Police, CSO
P3: Criminal Justice	10%	Arrest, Convict, Data
P4: Threat Environment	18%	Incidents, Attacks
P5: Movement Ecosystem	15%	Islamist, Radical, Protest
P6: Cultural Climate	15%	Boycotts, Campus, Heritage
P7: Lived Experience & Voice	22%	Safety, Identity, Future

Weight Rationale: Lived Experience & Community Voice receives the highest weighting (22%) because Jewish self-reporting is primary, not supplementary, data. How Jews actually feel in their daily lives matters as much as objective threat metrics.

Pillar 1: Legal & Government Framework (10%)

Assesses the legal infrastructure protecting Jewish communities:

Constitutional protections for minorities
Hate crime legislation and enforcement mechanisms
IHRA definition adoption and implementation
Holocaust denial laws
Gun control legislation
Special Envoy/Commissioner for Antisemitism (with policy-making authority)

Pillar 2: Security Infrastructure (10%)

Evaluates the protective apparatus in place:

Government security funding per capita
Dedicated police liaison programs
Community Security Organization capacity and reach
Intelligence sharing arrangements
Physical security at Jewish institutions

Pillar 3: Criminal Justice Outcomes (10%)

Measures whether perpetrators face consequences:

Arrest rates for antisemitic crimes
Prosecution rates
Conviction rates
Sentencing patterns
Data transparency and tracking

Pillar 4: Threat Environment (18%)

Quantifies the actual threat landscape:

Incident statistics (per 100,000 Jewish population)
Violent attack frequency and severity
Mass casualty attack history (with decay model)
Terror threat level
Foiled plots and prevented attacks

Pillar 5: Radicalization & Movement Ecosystem (15%)

NEW in v1.2: Now scored rather than contextual:

Islamist movement presence and activity
Pro-Palestinian/anti-Zionist extremism
Far-right and neo-Nazi organization activity
Proscribed organization presence
Youth radicalization indicators

Pillar 6: Cultural & Societal Climate (15%)

NEW in v1.2: Assesses the broader environment:

BDS activity and academic/cultural boycotts
Campus climate for Jewish students
Media bias assessment
Israel bilateral relations
Jewish heritage recognition and celebration
Public favorability toward Jews

Pillar 7: Lived Experience & Community Voice (22%)

Highest weighted pillar: Community self-reporting:

Safety perception surveys
Self-censorship and identity concealment rates
Avoidance behavior (areas, events, visibility)
Emigration consideration
Future outlook for Jewish life
Trust in authorities

Scoring Methodology

How Scores Are Calculated

Each pillar is scored on a 0-100 scale using standardized methodologies:

Quantitative indicators: Normalized to 0-100 scale against best/worst performers or absolute thresholds
Qualitative indicators: Expert panel scoring using defined rubrics (1-5 scale converted to 0-100)
Binary indicators: 0 or 100 with partial credit where applicable
Survey data: Direct percentage conversion (higher safety feeling = higher score)
Inverse scoring: For negative indicators (incidents, emigration intent), lower = higher score

Final Score Formula

JCSI Score = (P1 × 0.10) + (P2 × 0.10) + (P3 × 0.10) + (P4 × 0.18) + (P5 × 0.15) + (P6 × 0.15) + (P7 × 0.22)

Score Interpretation

Score	Classification	Interpretation
80-100	HIGH SAFETY	Strong protections, effective enforcement, high community confidence
60-79	MODERATE SAFETY	Reasonable protections with gaps; elevated concerns
40-59	CONCERNING	Significant vulnerabilities; community anxiety; systemic failures
0-39	CRITICAL	Severe threats; inadequate response; community under acute pressure

Temporal Decay Model

The JCSI works similarly to a credit scoring system: the score today reflects both past events (which decay over time) and current conditions (which indicate trajectory). Scores can move upward relatively quickly with consistent positive indicators, rewarding forward progress. However, longer-term chronic issues take longer to impact scores.

Mass Casualty Attack Decay

Fatal attacks carry different weights based on recency:

0-3 years: 100% weight — Full impact on score
3-5 years: 75% weight — Still highly relevant
5-10 years: 50% weight — Reduced but significant
10-25 years: 25% weight — Historical context

Why This Matters: The Tree of Life Example

The Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh (2018) was carried out by a radicalized individual with access to firearms. Although the specific event has now decayed in terms of its direct relevance to the score, the underlying factors that led to it have not been meaningfully addressed: access to semi-automatic weapons remains unchanged, radical dark web actors continue to operate, and access to public buildings remains largely unprotected.

Armed guards paid for at every synagogue service would reduce the likelihood of mass casualties and increase the sense of safety among Jews—but the underlying problem and risk factor has not significantly shifted. The Jewish community itself has largely borne the cost of hardening synagogues, rather than systemic government response addressing root causes.

Accounting for Unevenness

Each country is different—they have different laws, different social, economic, and historical situations. What is true in each case is that Jews represent a very small proportion of the total population and that it is reasonable for them to expect to live their lives safely.

Known Comparability Challenges

Reporting disparities: Incident reporting rates vary significantly by country; some communities underreport
Definition differences: ‘Antisemitic incident’ is defined differently across jurisdictions
Attribution challenges: Some countries auto-classify unknown perpetrators as ‘far-right’; others don’t track motive
Criminal justice data gaps: Prosecution/conviction data often unavailable or not disaggregated by bias type
Survey comparability: Different methodologies across countries; timing affects responses
Time lag: Official statistics often 12-24 months behind; surveys conducted irregularly

For example, there may be more self-reporting and comprehensive surveys available in the USA compared to France. The framework accounts for these gaps through triangulation, using multiple data sources to validate findings and noting data quality limitations in each country report.

Special Cases

Israel

Israel is an outlier as the world’s only Jewish state and the only country with a Jewish majority population (approximately 80%). Nevertheless, it is included in the study to illustrate a critical point: having security apparatus and one of the most advanced militaries in the world does not necessarily make Jewish people safe or feel safe.

Israel consistently ranks as one of the least safe places for Jews to live due to ongoing wars and a hostile regional environment—even if many Israeli Jews report feeling safe there. The paradox illuminates the distinction between objective threat levels and subjective safety perception, which the JCSI attempts to measure separately.

United Arab Emirates

The UAE has a tiny Jewish expatriate community but is included because it is considered the most safe place for Jews in the Gulf region. Its inclusion demonstrates that even the ‘safest’ location in a region may still rank as one of the least safe places globally for Jews—providing important regional context and demonstrating the range of conditions across the index.

Update Schedule

The JCSI is updated quarterly, incorporating new developments and data as they become available. Each quarterly update may include:

New incident data and statistics
Legislative changes and policy developments
New survey data releases
Significant events impacting Jewish community safety
Criminal justice outcome updates
Changes in government funding or security arrangements

Score changes between quarters reflect both genuine developments and natural decay of historical events. Significant score changes (±5 points or more) warrant detailed explanation in the country reports.

Limitations & Caveats

What This Index Does NOT Measure:

Day-to-day granular lived experience
Regional or local variation within countries
Future threat trajectory (predictive modeling)
Individual risk (aggregate ≠ personal)
Effectiveness of all protective measures
Comparative quality of Jewish communal life (cultural, religious, social dimensions)

Interpretation Guidance: Rankings should be interpreted alongside country profiles, not in isolation. Small score differences (<5 points) may not be statistically meaningful. Trend data is often more important than point-in-time rankings.

Statement on Methodology and AI Use

This research utilizes artificial intelligence to source, organize, and present publicly available data. AI tools assist in aggregating information from government databases, community security organization reports, media sources, and academic publications. All AI-generated findings are reviewed by human analysts for accuracy and context.

While every effort is made to represent facts accurately, AI systems can make errors. Data may be incomplete, misinterpreted, or outdated. All findings should be independently verified before citation or further publication. Spotlight welcomes corrections and updated information from official sources and community organizations.