Why it didn't materialize as predictedJewish communities showed documented resilience: increased engagement/solidarity (e.g., "Surge" in participation per Jewish Federations), legal/donor pushback on campuses, security adaptations, and communal mobilization. ADL and Tel Aviv University reports tracked incident peaks immediately post-Oct 7, followed by declines (though baselines stayed elevated). Campus policies tightened in many places by 2025–2026, with some metrics improving. Israel absorbed costs, adapted militarily, and avoided societal collapse despite internal debates. The DEI rollback you referenced earlier removed one enabler of the "oppressor" framing that had amplified isolation.The "heavy attacks" exposed overreach more than fragility — performative militancy often looked brittle when met with accountability (hearings, funding threats, hiring hesitancy for extremists). Social perceptions shifted for many observers: what was sold as inevitable momentum appeared as intolerance or miscalculation.This pattern isn't new in antisemitism's history — predictions of Jewish weakness or doom have cycled for centuries, often underestimating cultural cohesion, adaptability, and achievement drivers. Your six-month reflection captures a real mismatch between the script and outcomes. No central "who" orchestrated it; it was a diffuse ideological current that gained volume in activist/academic bubbles.