From when did the Anti-Semitism Surge, after the October 7 2023 attack, really occur?

The antisemitism which directly followed the attack emanated from groups who had always hated Jews and opposed Israel, people who were already predisposed to support attacks on Jewish individuals and the Israeli state. The "pundits" you refer to were making a distinction between those legacy anti-Semites and the opposition to the Israeli conduct of the war which began to grow after the tactics of the IDF came under criticism. Many of these people had supported Israel in the past and were not necessarily antisemitic nor anti-Zionist – they simply objected to the way the war against Hamas was being waged. All anti-Semites criticize Israel but not all critics of Israel are anti-Semites.

I've often wondered if there might have been another way for Israel to respond to the act of terrorism which should go down in history as one of the biggest blunders ever conceived. The only thing Hamas achieved was the wholesale destruction of Gaza and the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians. It wasn't even a Pyrrhic victory, unless you consider the global surge of anti-Israel sentiment a win for Hamas. I don't. I think Netanyahu felt compelled to wage pitiless destruction but what if cooler heads had been in charge, politicians who didn't owe their power to the support of the right-wing militarists and ultra-orthodox West Bank expansionists? There was widespread sympathy for Israel directly following the terrorist attack and I think an opportunity was wasted.

Both Victor Orban and Elon Musk have been accused of antisemitism, yet both are seen as friends of Israel.

True. There are some USAmerican politicians who fit that bill as well – Trump, for one. But he wouldn't support Israel if it were run by democratic socialists, if he didn't have people like the Adelsons contributing millions to his campaign, and if he couldn't use it as a wedge to pry Jewish voters from the Democratic Party. I think Netanyahu has cultivated friendships with those sorts of crypto-Nazis with the same goal in mind – political and personal expediency, Realpolitik at work.

Some people see no contradiction with support for Israel coupled with antisemitic language towards George Soros.

That's only because my countrymen are largely idiots.

Contributor "hightor":
The "pundits" you refer to were making a distinction between those legacy anti-Semites and the opposition to the Israeli conduct of the war [...]":
My response:
I did listen to those pundits, and they made NO such distinction.

Contributor "hightor":
"Many of these people had supported Israel in the past and were not necessarily antisemitic nor anti-Zionist – they simply objected to the way the war against Hamas was being waged.":
My response:
While the contributor is entitled to their opinion, their assertion is clearly not based in fact; rather it reflect the prejudice of those to whom the contributor refers, who typically object to defense by Israel, any such defense, no matter what form it takes; and typically have always done so.

Contributor "hightor":
"[...] not all critics of Israel are anti-Semites.":
My response:
Yes, "not all": yet the majority indeed are, and this is how we can tell the difference:
Contributors often claim they are only “criticizing”, Israel, but what they really mean is to:
“make unsubstantiated-accusations against”,
which they choose to do against Israel, and not other countries !
When are falsehoods against Israel typically due to anti-Semitism, and how can you recognize “Palestinian” Arab Falsehood-Propaganda?
UNSUBSTANTIATED-allegations against Israel that insult the reader’s intelligence by being typically-provided with:
No detail, no objective-sources; zero evidence.
Another symptom, would be "singling out Israel" for "special treatment", compared with what would be considered for other countries in similar circumstances.

Contributor "hightor":
"[...] the way the war against Hamas was being waged.":
My response:
Typically it would not matter what "way" Israel would carry out any war of defense and deterrence against further massacre of Israelis; the "way" that might be conducted would never satisfy Israel's enemies. Israel's reaction to the 7 October 2023 massacre was no different to that which any other country would have done in similar circumstances.

Contributor "hightor":
"wage pitiless destruction [...]":
My response:
Constantly issuing evacuation orders to clear civilians from likely combat areas, is inconsistent with the falsehood of alleged genocide, and the reader will also be aware that that is also inconsistent with the contributor's allegation of "pitiless destruction".

Contributor "hightor":
"[...] what if cooler heads had been in charge, politicians who didn't owe their power to the support of the right-wing militarists and ultra-orthodox West Bank expansionists?":
By, "cooler heads" [...] right-wing militarists": I can only assume the contributor means, Israel should not have taken the military action necessary for seeking to prevent further massacre of Israelis.
There is nothing wrong with Jewish people being "ultra-orthodox"; they are a blessing to the Jewish Community.
"West Bank expansionists":
That description indicates revisionist historical belief.
Judah and Samaria is the correct name for the area of land to which the contributor refers; not "west bank, the" which refers to the Jordanian illegal-occupation of it from 1948 to 1967. That area of land is part of the ancestral-homeland of the Jewish people as the reader can confirm by looking up a map of the last indigenous state in the land of Israel prior to Modern Israel, the Jewish post-Biblical Hasmonean Kingdom. By examining such a map, the reader can see that Israel is Re-established within the Jewish ancestral-homeland.
The Jewish people cannot logically or legally be accused of:
stealing, expanding, illegally-occupying, or being a colony upon,
the Jewish people's ancestral-homeland.
By comparison, The "Palestinian" Arabs mostly originate from Foreign-Arab-Migrant-Workers who arrived in the land of Israel just prior to, and during the British Mandate: Quote: '[...] most Arabs in British Mandate Palestine were migrant workers and descendants of the 1832-1947 wave of Arab/Muslim immigration from Egypt, the Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, North Africa, Bosnia, India, Afghanistan, etc. While the British Mandate encouraged Arab immigration, it blocked Jewish immigration.' Look up: Arab migration shaped Palestinian society - Ettinger.
There has never been any indigenous "Palestine" / Arab sovereign state in the land of Israel upon which the "Palestinian" Arabs could base any claim to any part of the land.
Countries, the Media, NGOs, all assert that the "Palestinian" Arabs "want" land in Israel for a state, or assert a "two-state solution", but consider:
upon what historical or legal basis? There is none whatsoever!

Contributor "hightor":
"widespread sympathy for Israel directly following the terrorist attack":
My response:
Appearances can be deceptive. That "sympathy" was apparently conditional upon Israel taking no effective action to seek to prevent a further future massacre of Israelis, and that "sympathy" also coincided with a surge of anti-Semitism directly following the massacre, followed by State Media and pro-Palestinian Arab protesters forming mutual admiration society.

Contributor "hightor":
"an opportunity was wasted":
My response:
Only the opportunity for appeasement.

It has been said that the recognition of Israel was appeasement for the King David hotel bombing and other atrocities committed by Israeli terrorists.

If you look at the OP's posting history it's just a load of right wing bs.

For all his support of Israel he classed Lash's depiction of the 7th October atrocities as being staged as a difference of opinion.

Contributor "izzythepush":
"[...] recognition of Israel was appeasement for the King David hotel bombing:

My response:



The Arab rioting of 1936 in British Mandate Palestine lead to a change of policy by the British under their White Paper of May 1939, which was that instead of allowing Jewish immigration, to:
Limit Jewish immigration, while allowing Arab immigration:
https://www.historycentral.com/Israel/1939WhitePaper.html

The British never put into action the promise in their “Balfour Declaration of 1917”, nor as their legal obligation as repeated word-for-word in the wording of the Mandate document:
to (re)establish a Jewish “home” [state] in the land.

Therefore from 1939 when the British changed policy to favour the Arabs, and ceased to be in compliance with their Mandate, the British became in “Palestine” an illegal colonial regime. Not surprising then that as in British-colonial Kenya, the British of the time met with inconvenience.

Contributor "izzythepush":
"[...] atrocities [...]":
My response:
What is "propaganda" - It is allegations made in favor of only one side of a conflict.

Contributor "izzythepush":
"Israeli terrorists":

My response:
The Irgun and the Haganah were not ‘terrorist” organizations. The Jewish groups defending the then “Palestinian” Jewish Community against Arab attack and British assistance to the Arabs, were fighting within the Jews ancestral-homeland, while the British were an Imperial controlling power. Thus the Jewish defenders cannot be objectively-considered “terrorist”.

Contributor "izzythepush":
"right wing bs":

My response:
That can only be so, if someone is so emotionally-attached to the falsehood-propaganda of the "Palestinian" Arabs, that they regard as such any defense of Israel.

Do reader take a look at my posting history - No right-wing nor left-wing promotion.

Contributor "izzythepush":
"[...] he classed Lash's depiction of the 7th October atrocities as being staged as a difference of opinion":

My response:
Neither do I know anything about what that contributor may have posted about the 7 October 2023 massacre, nor do I even have any idea who "Lash" is.
No doubt the contributor can site the title of the thread and its URL.

Hightor will be able to find it OK.

The fact that you can't access your posting history, or even use the quote button, does not surprise me.

Your lack of wherewithal is about par for the course.