The Media Line: Streamlining the Global Jewish Message: Why Minister Sa’ar Set Up the J50 

Streamlining the Global Jewish Message: Why Minister Sa’ar Set Up the J50 

Years of lack of cohesive communication and real time coordination have prevented uniform messaging. Israel’s Foreign Ministry set up a forum to correct the problem. 

By Felice Friedson and Gabriel Colodro/The Media Line 

For Michael Wegier, CEO of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the shift has been gradual but unmistakable. “For the first time, it feels like we’re not reacting alone,” he told The Media Line, describing how coordination between Israel and Jewish communities abroad has changed over the past year. 

The global Jewish response to antisemitism historically rested on a fragile equilibrium. Israel addressed threats as a state through diplomacy and security, while Jewish communities abroad confronted hostility through local advocacy, education, and ties with law enforcement. The model assumed that antisemitism would remain largely local, shaped by national politics and social conditions. That assumption collapsed after October 7, 2023. 

Against that backdrop, Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar moved to codify and streamline a broken system. 

“We are all under attack, regardless of the size of the community,” said William Daroff, CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, speaking with The Media Line. “Whether it’s New York with millions of Jews or Vienna with 9,000, we are facing the same venomous hate in every corner of the world.” 

From Latin America, Mauro Berenstein, president of the umbrella organization of Argentina’s Jewish community (DAIA), told The Media Line that October 7 marked not only a terrorist attack in Israel, but the beginning of a coordinated effort to export antisemitism globally, particularly through social media. “The world after October 7 became much more antisemitic,” he said, adding that while Argentina has experienced a smaller increase than some countries, the trend is unmistakable. 

Daroff’s assessment captures the premise behind Israel’s J50 forum, an initiative of the Foreign Ministry that brings together leaders of 50 Jewish communities and umbrella organizations worldwide. The forum is not intended as a symbolic gathering. Its stated purpose is functional alignment, an effort to narrow the gap between a globalized threat and responses that have remained largely national. 

The initiative was launched under the leadership of Minister Sa’ar, who has placed the fight against global antisemitism at the center of his diplomatic agenda since taking office. Sa’ar has argued publicly that antisemitism today is no longer a series of isolated local phenomena, but a coordinated global challenge requiring a coordinated response. 

Under his direction, the Foreign Ministry moved to formalize engagement with Jewish communal leadership worldwide through the J50 framework, positioning Israel’s diplomatic corps not only as a state actor, but as a convening platform for communities confronting parallel threats abroad. According to a senior Israeli Foreign Ministry official, speaking on background with The Media Line, the forum was designed to correct a long-standing weakness. Engagement with diaspora leadership existed before, the official said, but it was inconsistent and often slowed by bureaucratic layers. 

J50 links leaders through a secure WhatsApp group that enables real-time communication and rapid information sharing, supplements that with regular briefings from senior officials, and convenes monthly virtual meetings alongside in-person gatherings in Israel twice a year. The goal, the official stressed, is to provide timely, verified information and context, not to dictate messaging. 

Wegier emphasized that Jewish life in Britain continues. Synagogues, schools, and communal institutions remain active, and both government and opposition have taken firm public positions against antisemitism. He rejected alarmist narratives but acknowledged that the threat environment has become more complex. Hostility now emanates simultaneously from the far left, the far right, and Islamist extremism, and increasingly manifests in academic, cultural, NGO, and civil-society spaces. “People are asking longer-term questions than they used to,” he said. “That alone tells you something has changed.” 

Asked about a recent poll by the British nongovernmental organization Campaign Against Antisemitism indicating that a significant number of British Jews are considering leaving the United Kingdom due to rising antisemitism, Wegier said he had seen the figures, even if he had not reviewed the study in full. What stood out to him was a parallel trend often overlooked. “For every two or three Israelis coming into the UK, you also see people thinking about going the other way,” he said. “It’s not dramatic, but it’s real.” 

Since October 7, the distance between threat and response has not merely widened—it has largely disappeared. Incidents, slogans, and accusations now move across borders at digital speed, amplified by social media and activist networks, and increasingly translate into violence. 

J50 forum participants pointed to the shooting attack at Bondi Beach in Australia, the deadly terrorist attack targeting Jewish worshippers in Manchester during Yom Kippur services, and the shooting attack against Israeli diplomatic staff in Washington as examples of how quickly incitement migrates from rhetoric to bloodshed. 

“What our opponents do in one part of the world can be emulated minutes later elsewhere,” Daroff said. “We saw that with campus encampments in the United States that appeared almost immediately in London and other parts of Europe. Being in constant communication allows us to respond quickly, accurately, and with a full grasp of what’s happening.” 

That sense of convergence was evident at a recent J50 in-person meeting in Jerusalem. Participants included representatives from Australia, Poland, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, Argentina, and several other countries. Communities of vastly different size and political context, attendees noted, are now confronting remarkably similar dynamics, often driven by narratives that originate elsewhere and arrive locally already fully formed. 

The structure of J50 cannot be separated from Israel’s own institutional history on antisemitism. Responsibility for combating antisemitism has shifted repeatedly within the Israeli government. For many years, the issue was handled by the Foreign Ministry. After the creation of the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, it moved there. Under the Bennett–Lapid government, it was returned to the Foreign Ministry. When the current government took office, the portfolio was transferred to the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, which was formally renamed the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism and placed under Minister Amichai Chikli. 

Those shifts created uncertainty abroad about where coordination should reside, particularly during moments of crisis. Several J50 participants, speaking off the record, said that the period in which responsibility for combating antisemitism was concentrated in the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs under Chikli was marked by confusion and weak coordination. Jewish communal leaders, they said, were often left without a clear or reliable counterpart when incidents escalated. “We didn’t know who to call,” one participant said. “There was no clear address and no follow-through. There was a lot of rhetoric, but no operational system behind it.” 

J50 participants said the experience underscored the need to shift coordination back to Israel’s diplomatic infrastructure, arguing that embassies and the Foreign Ministry, through their global reach and daily engagement, are better positioned to maintain continuous and functional contact with Jewish communities worldwide. 

Berenstein argued that Argentina’s relative resilience is linked to strong governmental support and a clear condemnation of Hamas. Even so, he described J50 as a necessary response to a shared challenge. “There was an understanding that if we meet and work as a team, we achieve a better objective,” he said. 

He outlined how DAIA functions within a broader institutional chain, serving as the political representative of Argentina’s Jewish community, while coordinating regionally through the Latin American Jewish Congress and globally through the World Jewish Congress. He said that J50 adds focus and immediacy to the existing structure. “This was not a general meeting,” he said. “We were convened to understand the current situation of antisemitism and what actions can be taken to counter it.” 

One of the clearest examples of that added value lies in the transfer of practical tools. DAIA worked with TikTok to develop a guide aimed at countering antisemitic content, alongside a streamlined reporting mechanism that allows flagged material to be reviewed quickly. “It took us almost a year to get there,” Berenstein said. “Now other countries can use it immediately. If they had to start from scratch, it would take them another year.” 

Daroff described the same dynamic in broader terms. He argued that the ability to share tactics, legal approaches, and language that resonate locally turns isolated successes into cumulative impact. “It’s not one plus one plus one equals 50,” he said. “It’s 50 plus 50.” 

Security concerns form another pillar of the forum’s rationale. After attacks on Jewish targets abroad, the capability to communicate instantly has become critical. While J50 does not handle classified intelligence, the Foreign Ministry source said it allows leaders and officials to understand developments on the ground without relying solely on fragmented media reports. When something happens in one country, others are alerted immediately, allowing communities to reassess risk and posture in real time. 

Beyond immediate response, participants emphasized that J50 is also about narrative. Berenstein argued that after October 7, Israel and Jewish communities were confronted by a coordinated messaging campaign that moved faster than official responses. Accusations hardened into slogans before Israel had begun to explain what had occurred. Addressing that gap, he said, requires both education and law enforcement. 

Daroff framed the same challenge more starkly. He described what he called a “horseshoe effect,” in which ideological extremes converge in demonizing Jews and delegitimizing Israel. “This hate has caused death,” he said, warning that the rhetoric increasingly targets not only Jews but also evangelical Christians who support Israel. 

For Wegier, the lesson is that reaction alone is insufficient. Education and engagement with non-Jewish allies must be central, particularly in universities and civil society. He noted that after a particularly difficult academic year following October 7, conditions on British campuses improved in the most recent year, with increased Jewish participation even as security around events intensified. 

The role of J50 leaders, then, is neither ceremonial nor subordinate. They are not spokespeople for Israel, and they are not policymakers. They are intermediaries who already operate at the intersection of community leadership, media scrutiny, and governmental engagement, and who now have access to faster information and a wider comparative view of how antisemitism manifests globally. 

Whether the model endures remains an open question. Daroff warned that Israeli political turnover could undermine continuity if the framework is not institutionalized. “Foreign ministers come and go,” he said. “What matters is that this infrastructure stays in place.” 

For now, J50 marks an attempt to clarify roles at a moment when antisemitism no longer respects borders or institutional boundaries. Whether coordination can keep pace with the threat will depend not on rhetoric, but on continuity, credibility, and the willingness of all sides to sustain the framework beyond the current crisis.