Antisemitism: Why Does Israel Get More Coverage Than Wars That Kill Far More?

On October 7, 2026 — the third anniversary of the Hamas massacre — Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire episode addressed a question that sits at the center of the Israel debate: why does Israel get covered the way it does?

The argument is not that Israel should be immune from criticism. The argument is that the scale of attention directed at Israel — relative to conflicts that kill far more people — requires an explanation. Shapiro argues the explanation that fits the evidence is antisemitism.

Israel is a country of approximately 9 million people. The Palestinian population of Gaza is approximately 2 million. The Israel-Gaza war since October 7 has killed — according to Gaza Health Ministry figures (which Hamas controls and which include combatants) — more than 70,000 people over two years of war (the ministry's named list contained 72,835 records through May 2026).

Compare to conflicts occurring simultaneously:

Russia-Ukraine War (2022–ongoing)

• Estimated military deaths: 200,000–400,000 (both sides combined)
• Estimated civilian deaths: 10,000–30,000 documented; actual figures believed far higher
• Involves a nuclear power invading and systematically destroying a democracy
• Protest movement: present but modest compared to anti-Israel movement
• UN resolutions: passed, but Russia vetoes enforcement

Sudanese Civil War (2023–ongoing)

• Estimated deaths: 150,000–200,000+ (including famine deaths)
• Displacement: over 10 million people — one of the largest displacement crises in the world
• Documented mass atrocities including rape as a weapon of war, ethnic targeting
• Protest movement: almost nonexistent in Western cities
• Media coverage: a fraction of Israel-Gaza coverage

IRGC — Bloody November 2019 (Iran)

• During less than two weeks of unrest beginning November 15, 2019, Iranian security forces killed about 1,500 people according to Reuters' sources inside the Iranian government; Amnesty International confirmed at least 304 deaths
• This is more than the total Palestinian civilian death toll in most individual Israeli military operations
• Protest movement in the West: minimal
• Academic boycotts of Iranian universities: none
• ICC warrants for IRGC commanders: none

The disproportion is not a matter of small differences. Iranian security forces reportedly killed about 1,500 people in under two weeks (per Reuters' sources; Amnesty confirmed at least 304) — yet the killings generated a fraction of the international response.

At anti-Israel protests in London, New York, Sydney, Paris, and every other Western city, the stated justification for the protest is typically some version of: anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism, or opposition to Western-backed oppression.

If that were the actual motivation, you would expect to see:

• Chinese flags in protest of the Uyghur genocide (1–3 million detained)
• Russian flags in protest of the Ukraine invasion (or inverted Russian flags in protest)
• Iranian flags in protest of the IRGC's killing of women's rights protesters
• Sudanese protest flags
• Flags representing Chechnya, Tibet, Yemen, Kashmir, or any of the dozens of other conflicts with higher casualty counts

At anti-Israel rallies, Palestinian flags predominate.

The protesters do not organise around the principle of opposing state violence, or Western imperialism, or civilian casualties. They organise specifically around opposing Israel. Israel is widely rated the Middle East's most established democracy. The only Jewish state in the world.

Shapiro argues that this specificity is the tell: if the protests were about the principle, he says, it would be applied consistently, and the selective focus points to antisemitism.

According to UN Watch's tally, from 2015 to 2022 the UN General Assembly adopted 140 resolutions on Israel compared to 68 on all other countries combined (UN Watch); "against Israel" is UN Watch's classification, not an official UN category.

This is not an Israeli figure. It is documented in UN records and has been noted by UN Watch, former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (who in 2006 urged the new Human Rights Council not to let the Israeli–Palestinian issue "monopolize attention at the expense of other situations" such as Darfur), and multiple US administrations across party lines.

The UN includes:

• 57 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation
• Multiple authoritarian states that benefit from keeping the focus on Israel
• A structural bloc that votes as a unit on Israel-related resolutions

The result is an international body that has passed more condemnations of a democracy of 9 million people than of any dictatorship on earth.

Scholars and critics offer additional explanations for the attention, including direct U.S. and European military and diplomatic support for Israel (which protesters see as implicating their own governments), the much larger media presence and Western ties in Israel compared with Sudan, the intensity of destruction in a small territory, and long-standing religious and historical interest in the region. Researchers studying antisemitism, including some who endorse the IHRA definition, note that disproportionate focus can be a marker of antisemitism but is not by itself proof of it.

What Makes This Antisemitism and Not Just Bias?

The argument is not that every critic of Israel is an antisemite. Specific, evidence-based criticism of specific Israeli policies is legitimate — the same standard applied to every other country.

The argument is that the pattern — the disproportionate focus, the unique standard, the singling out of the Jewish state for opprobrium not applied to countries committing demonstrably greater violence — matches the historical pattern of antisemitism: holding Jews to a standard applied to no one else.

The working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) — adopted or endorsed by more than 40 countries and hundreds of institutions — explicitly includes:

• Applying a double standard to Israel not expected of other democratic nations
• Denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination
• Comparing Israeli policy to Nazi policy

None of these prohibit criticism. They identify the form criticism takes when it crosses from policy disagreement into antisemitism.

The diagnostic test Shapiro describes is simple: if you are more outraged by Israel's response to the October 7 massacre than by the Sudan civil war, the Ukraine invasion, or the IRGC killing protesters in the streets — ask yourself why. The answer, in most cases, has a name.