INSS outlines recommendations for US, UK to set independent oversight, enforceable 'red lines'

OCTOBER 29, 2026 19:33A new study by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) published on Wednesday urges US political parties to establish binding definitions, independent review mechanisms, and enforceable red lines to address antisemitism among political candidates and elected officials.The analysis entitled "Partisan Antisemitism in the United Kingdom and the United States: Response Mechanisms and Red Lines" was authored by INSS researchers Ariel Cohen, a senior international security and foreign policy analyst, and Ofir Dayan, head of the INSS Antisemitism and Delegitimization Research Team. The authors examined how political organizations determine who is qualified to represent them and what consequences should follow when ideological boundaries are crossed. The researchers noted that while political parties grant candidates campaign funds, legitimacy, and institutional infrastructure, responses to antisemitism in the US often remain ad hoc and contingent on political calculations.The authors explored the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership as a primary case study. In the UK, an accumulation of antisemitic statements by party members, including formal complaints submitted between 2016 and 2018 by the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) and Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), culminated in a formal investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) in 2020. The EHRC found Labour responsible for unlawful acts of harassment, discrimination, and political interference in complaints handling, shifting the issue from individual misconduct to institutional failure.British member of parliament Jeremy Corbyn attends a ceremony held by the Palestinian mission to the United Kingdom, at the mission's headquarters in London, Britain, September 22, 2025 (credit: REUTERS/TOBY MELVILLE)The authors highlighted that public pressure, including the March 2018 "Enough Is Enough" protest outside Parliament organized by the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) and the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), a poll showing 55 percent of respondents viewed Corbyn unfit to be prime minister, and an unprecedented pre-election intervention by Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, turned antisemitism into an electoral crisis. Britain's centralized party structure, combined with EHRC regulatory oversight, allowed Labour to establish an independent complaints process and candidate vetting under Keir Starmer. The authors noted that this framework could serve as a model for parliamentary systems like Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand.In analyzing the United States, the authors found a distinct dynamic shaped by a decentralized party network, primary elections, and First Amendment protections. Because state governments run primaries and no central party organ approves ballot access, US party leadership cannot directly disqualify candidates or prevent them from running.The authors observed that US party leaders often limit themselves to public condemnation without taking concrete action, disavowing candidates only when separate, electorally dangerous scandals emerge. As an example on the Democratic side, the authors cited Graham Platner, a Senate candidate in Maine who maintained party support despite possessing a tattoo associated with the Nazi SS, with senior figures withdrawing support only after he faced unrelated sexual assault allegations. On the Republican side, North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson faced criticism for Holocaust denial statements, but senior party figures distanced themselves only after a report linked him to explicit posts on a pornography website.The authors also pointed to incumbent figures who expanded their political standing despite public controversies over antisemitic rhetoric, noting that when Democratic Representative Ilhan Omar made controversial remarks in 2019, the resulting House resolution was broadened into a general condemnation of hate without censuring her, naming her, or addressing antisemitism as a standalone issue.On the Republican side, Minnesota Senate nominee Royce White and Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene maintained political standing despite promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories. Furthermore, the authors raised concerns regarding political boundary-setting with influential outside figures, citing Democratic candidate Abdul El-Sayed's collaboration with online influencer Hasan Piker, as well as Republican figures and Jewish groups warning against the influence of Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and supporters of Nick Fuentes infiltrating conservative activist training institutions. A Politico investigation exposing antisemitic messages exchanged by young Republican leaders was cited as evidence of extreme rhetoric seeping into youth pathways.Examining existing US response mechanisms, the authors noted that while parties can withhold funding, endorse primary rivals, or strip elected officials of committee assignments, these tools carry limited impact against candidates with independent fundraising bases, Super PAC support, or strong online followings. Post-election sanctions like committee removal or expulsion require congressional votes that parties are often reluctant to pursue due to tight voting margins and fear of political retaliation.Condemnation alone fails to define political legitimacyThe authors highlighted 'The Front Line,' a political organization launched in July 2026 affiliated with Republican Senator Ted Cruz as a potential vehicle for change. The group seeks to make antisemitism a "disqualifying factor" in Republican primaries by running targeted campaigns against candidates, such as spending $400,000 against Florida gubernatorial candidate James Fishback following his statements on "white genocide" tropes.Authors Cohen and Dayan told The Jerusalem Post that public condemnation alone fails to define political legitimacy unless linked directly to structural consequences within political parties.“Both major American parties condemn antisemitism in principle, but too often fail to translate that condemnation into meaningful consequences. On both sides of the aisle, candidates continued to advance after antisemitic remarks surfaced, and were dropped only when a separate scandal made them an electoral liability, signaling that antisemitism alone does not disqualify one from being a public servant,” said Cohen and Dayan.“The British Labour Party's experience demonstrates the importance of treating antisemitism as an institutional challenge rather than a series of isolated incidents. While American parties cannot simply replicate the British model, they can establish clear standards and enforce them through endorsements, campaign funding, and committee assignments. Without consistent enforcement, condemnation remains a statement, not a true commitment to protect Jews, ” Cohen and Dayan told the Post.Follow us on Google