 | This article mayrequirecleanup to meet Wikipedia'squality standards. The specific problem is:Multiple issues, see ongoing talk page discussions. Please helpimprove this article if you can.(January 2026) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The exploitation of accusations ofantisemitism, especially to delegitimizecriticism of Israel oropposition toZionism, is sometimes calledweaponization of antisemitism.[1] Cases of weaponizing antisemitism have arisen in various contexts, including theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict and debates over the concept ofnew antisemitism and theIHRA definition of antisemitism.[2][3] Charges of antisemitism made inbad faith have been described as asmear tactic[4] and likened to "playing therace card".[5] Some anti-Zionist Jews have been accused of antisemitism and labeled "self-hating Jews".[6]
The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as antisemitic or rooted inantisemitic tropes, and as a rhetorical device employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, especially in anti-Zionist discourse.[7][8][9]
In 1943, future Israeli prime ministerDavid Ben-Gurion called a British court antisemitic after it "had implicated Zionist leaders in arms-trafficking".[10]Christopher Sykes wrote that this incident began "a new phase in Zionist propaganda" in which "to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic".[11]Propaganda theoristNoam Chomsky has written that, although Sykes traced the origins of weaponized antisemitism to this episode, it was not until "the post-1967 period that the tactic has been honed to a high art, increasingly so, as the policies defended became less and less defensible".[12] In 1973, after theYom Kippur War, Israeli foreign ministerAbba Eban wrote: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with theGentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely thenew anti-Semitism."[13] Of Eban's statement, Chomsky said: "That is a convenient stand. It cuts off a mere 100 percent of critical comment!"[14]
After the1967 Arab–Israeli War, theAnti-Defamation League (ADL)—with the support ofAIPAC founderIsaiah L. Kenen, according to historianIlan Pappé—sought to "portray certain 'anti-Israel' actions as anti-Semitic", especially with regard to international calls for Israel to end itsoccupation of the West Bank.[15] In 1974, ADL leadersArnold Forster andBenjamin Epstein publishedThe New Anti-Semitism, which identified anti-Zionism as a "new antisemitism", an idea the ADL has sought to popularize since the early 1970s.[16][17][18][19]
In 1980,Edward Said said that, since its inception, Zionist discourse had aimed "to lay claim to Palestine both as a backward, largely uninhabited territory" and as a place where Jews had "a unique historical privilege" to rebuild a homeland. As a result, he said, this meant anyone who opposed Zionism "immediately aligned oneself with anti-Semitism".[20] Said said this routine conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism functioned to suppress criticism of Israel and was reinforced by simplistic media narratives, the influence of pro-Israel pressure groups, and academics' and intellectuals' uncritical repetition of political clichés.[20]
In the early 1950s, U.S. journalistDorothy Thompson, a former advocate of the movement, was publicly called antisemitic when she began to criticizeZionism after a visit to Palestine in 1945.[21][22][23][24][25] Thompson felt the accusations, which persisted throughout her career, amounted to a "type of blackmail" orcharacter assassination.[26] ProfessorLyndsey Stonebridge wrote, "today, many see the silencing of a bold humanitarian advocate in her story, and it is not difficult to understand why", but also that "there can be no doubt that anti-Semitism was a theme in Thompson's later writing."[27]
In his 1956 memoir, British military officerJohn Bagot Glubb denied accusations of antisemitism for his criticism of Israel, writing: "It does not seem to me to be either just or expedient that similar criticisms directed against the Israeli government should brand the speaker with the moral stigma generally associated with anti-Semitism."[28][29] Israeli historianBenny Morris linked such allegations against Glubb to a "tendency among Israelis and Jews abroad to identify strong criticism of Israel as tantamount to, or as at least stemming from, anti-Semitism", although Morris also said Glubb's anti-Zionism was "tinged by a degree of anti-Semitism" and his "outlook on the history of the Jews ... is jaundiced, inaccurate, and, at times, blatantly anti-Semitic".[29]
In 1990, the Argentine newspaperBuenos Aires Herald defended thePeronist President of ArgentinaCarlos Menem against charges of antisemitism, writing that the allegations "may have been prompted by President Menem's good relations with Jews which constitutes 'a perceived threat to the [opposing]Radical Party's traditional Jewish constituency'".[30]
Critics such as the Israel-Palestine researcherSuraya Dadoo, journalist [[Ben White {journalist)|]], and British scholarMatthew Abraham have suggested that international Israeli advocacy groups have charged prominent people who express pro-Palestinian sentiment, such asJimmy Carter andDesmond Tutu, with antisemitism. Abraham says this is a form of "political correctness" that undermines "greater understanding about the conditions producing conflict in the Israel-Palestine conflict".[31][32][33] Tutu said in 2002 that "to criticise it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic, as if the Palestinians were not Semitic ... People are scared in this country [the US] to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful—very powerful."[34] South African Muslim scholarFarid Esack wrote that it was unfortunate that Tutu's statement "verged into antisemitic tropes", but "this misspoken moment unfolded because of his prophetic support of Palestinians".[35]
American child educatorMs. Rachel (Rachel Accurso) has faced allegations of antisemitism after advocating for children experiencing trauma and starvation in Gaza.[36][37][38][39] In November 2025, the pro-Israel advocacy groupStopAntisemitism accused her of spreading Hamas propaganda and named her a finalist for its "Antisemite of the Year".[40][36][41] The left-wing groupJews for Racial & Economic Justice defended Ms. Rachel, saying that StopAntisemitism "solely exists to punish and harass private and public individuals who criticize the actions of the State of Israel or simply express sympathy for and solidarity with Palestinians."[36][42]
The charge of weaponization has been raised across the political spectrum, especially in anti-Zionist discourse on the left and right.[43][44][45] Scholars such asJohn Mearsheimer,Stephen Walt, and Matthew Abraham have suggested that the charge of antisemitism is becoming less effective when applied to criticisms of Israel.[46][47]
In 2021, religion scholar Atalia Omer of theUniversity of Notre Dame said that weaponization of antisemitism is bad for all involved, including Israel and the broader Jewish community.[48] In 2022,Nick Riemer, a Palestine solidarity activist and linguist at theUniversity of Sydney, said that antisemitism "provides the excuse for a heavy-handed and highly irrational assault on fundamental democratic liberties", comparing it to how "Islamophobia has been politically instrumentalized in the service of neocolonial control of Muslim populations".[49]
While warning in 2010 against denying or minimizing antisemitism, attorney and academicKenneth L. Marcus also cautioned against overuse of the "anti-Semitism card", paralleling concerns raised byRichard Thompson Ford with the broader misuse of "therace card": that it can be dishonest and mean-spirited, risks weakening legitimate accusations of bigotry, risks distracting socially concerned organizations from other social injustices, and hurts outreach efforts between Jewish and Arab or Muslim groups.[50]
Tamar Meisels has written that, though she suspects "that some fierce anti-Zionism is tainted with old-fashioned anti-Semitism ... being an anti-Semite does not actually disqualify someone from also making rational criticisms of Israel and the US ... even a stopped clock is right twice a day".[51]
_(cropped).jpg)
Some activists and scholars have said that weaponization of antisemitism, andnew antisemitism in particular, has been used to stifle criticism of Israel.[55][56] Claims of antisemitism against critics of Israel have been compared toSoviet censorship,McCarthyism, and rhetorical strategies against theSouth-African anti-apartheid movement.[57][58][59]
In 1989,Cheryl Rubenberg wrote that it was "a common practice among Israel's advocates" to label opponents of "the [Israel] lobby's positions" or supporters of a Palestinian homeland as antisemitic, referring to incidents involving U.S. politiciansCharles Mathias,Pete McCloskey, andJesse Jackson.[60]
In his 1992 bookThe Passionate Attachment: America's involvement with Israel, the American diplomat emeritusGeorge Ball wrote thatAIPAC and other pro-Israel groups "employ the charge of 'anti-Semitism' so carelessly as to trivialize it", suggesting that this was due to the lack of any "rational argument" with which to defend the state's actions.[61] In 2004,Joel Beinin wrote that theAnti-Defamation League (ADL) and other organizations used the "well-established ploy" of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, exposing Jews to attack by suggesting they are responsible for the Israeli government's actions.[62]
In a 2005 interview withCampus Watch,Norman Finkelstein said, "Whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle such as theIntifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the 'new anti-Semitism.'"[63]Jonathan Judaken said Finkelstein's dismissal of new antisemitism was "the mirror-image of the alarmists he seeks to denounce".[64] In 2008,Norman Finkelstein said that organizations such as the ADL had advanced charges of new antisemitism since the 1970s "to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism".[65] Others have also accused the ADL of advancing false claims of antisemitism against anti-Zionists.[66][67][53] InThe Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2008),John Mearsheimer andStephen Walt write that Israel's supporters have sought to shield it from criticism and pressure using fears of a "new antisemitism", naming as examples Anti-Defamation League publications raising concerns of antisemitism at moments of particular political pressure against Israel.[68] ADL CEOJonathan Greenblatt has said, "anti-Zionism is antisemitism."[69][52]
Various writers have suggested that charges of antisemitism in discussions of Israel can have achilling effect, deterring criticism of Israel due to fear of being associated with beliefs linked to antisemiticcrimes against humanity such asthe Holocaust.[70][71][72] Finkelstein has said that use of "the anti-Semitism card" attempts to displace "fundamental responsibility for causing the conflict from Israel to the Arabs, the issue no longer being Jewish dispossession of Palestinians but Arab 'opposition' to Jews".[58][73] In 2008, he wrote that some of what "theIsrael lobby" suggests is antisemitism is in fact "exaggeration and fabrication", "mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy", and "the unjustified yet predictable 'spillover' from criticism of Israel to Jews generally".[74]
In 2008, Mearsheimer and Walt wrote that the charge of antisemitism can discourage others from defending in public those against whom the charge has been made.[75] They said that rhetorical accusations of antisemitism put aburden of proof on the accused person, putting them in the "difficult" position of having to prove a negative.[76] They wrote, "we should all be disturbed by the presence of genuine anti-Semitism", but suggested that "playing the anti-Semitism card stifles discussion" and "allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged".[77] In 2010,Kenneth L. Marcus wrote that although Mearsheimer and Walt called such accusations "the Great Silencer", they had not themselves been silenced, having received a wide audience for their book and appearances. Marcus also wrote that many pro-Israel commentators had also taken pains to say that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.[78]
In 2019, Joshua Leifer, an editor ofDissent magazine, wrote that campaigns that consider anti-Zionism antisemitic aim to shift criticisms of the Israeli government "beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability".[79] In December 2023, antisemitism expertDavid Feldman said that, while "some anti-Zionism takes an antisemitic form", the context must be considered when differentiating antisemitism from legitimate discourse and that there is "a long history of Israel and its supporters portraying anti-Zionism and other criticisms of Israel as antisemitic" in order to delegitimize them.[80]
In 2024,Raz Segal wrote that conflating the state of Israel with Jews is part of the weaponization of antisemitism discourse that protects Israel from criticism, especially in discussion ofIsraeli settler colonialism.[81] Political scientistOmar Shahabudin McDoom wrote in 2024 that the identification of "critic[ism] of the conduct of the Israeli government" with antisemitism is not necessarily in bad faith but may be attributed to conscious or unconscious "prosemitic" bias: "Although it has long been argued the antisemite label has been used instrumentally to silence critics of Israel, it may not always be disingenuous behaviour."[82]
In 1989, Noam Chomsky wrote, "it is now necessary to identify criticism of Israeli policies as anti-Semitism—or in the case of Jews, as 'self-hatred,' so that all possible cases are covered". In 2014, Matthew Abraham wrote, "the traditional response to [anti-Zionist Jews who counter the notion that anti-Zionism is antisemitic] has been to label anti-Zionist Jews as 'self-hating Jews,' which requires a suspension of rationality and sound judgement."[6]
In 2018, over 40 Jewish organizations on the political left, includingJewish Voice for Peace, published an open letter saying that pro-Palestinian organizations were the subject of "cynical and false accusations of antisemitism" in order to discredit them.[83][55]
Esther Bejarano wrote that criticism of Israel's policies is not antisemitism, and that "I did not survive the Auschwitz extermination camp, the Ravensbrück concentration camp and the death march, to be insulted as an 'anti-Semite'."[84]
TheGerman far-right has accused Jews of "using theAntisemitismuskeule" (lit. 'antisemitism club/cudgel') in relation tonew antisemitism,nationalism, andneo-Nazism.[44][85][86]German studies scholar Caroline Pearce describes the phrase as a "common far-right term" in contemporary German politics.[85] For example,Jörg Meuthen initially described criticism ofWolfgang Gedeon's writings—which have been widely described as antisemitic—as attempts by political opponents to wield theAntisemitismuskeule against theAfD. He later reversed his position, calling Gedeon's statements "crystal clearly anti-Semitic".[43]Gideon Botsch [de], a German political scientist specializing in the far right and antisemitism, has said that, in Germany, far-right claims of weaponization of antisemitism, especially in relation to criticism of Israel, are often overlooked because of a tendency to attribute anti-Israel antisemitism to the left and Islam, and to treat far-right antisemitism as a separate, historical phenomenon.[44]
In 1967, Jewish writer Moshe Menuhin wrote in the German far-right publicationNational-Zeitung that antisemitism charges were "becoming more and more a weapon of propaganda serving Zionist aims".[87] During the 1984–1985 trial ofJames Keegstra for promoting hatred against Jews, Keegstra told the court that antisemitism was, in the words ofAlan T. Davies, "a smear word invented by Jews to obscure their conspiratorial activities" ans "divert public attention from the truth."[88][89]
Upon resigning from the far-right National Front party (nowNational Rally) in 2011,Jean-Marie Le Pen said, "Jews cry wolf, unduly claiming to be victims of anti-Semitism" and that a journalist who had claimed he was racially insulted and violently expelled from a party meeting "could say that it was because he was Jewish that he had been expelled... It could not be seen, neither on his card nor on his nose, if I dare say." The party's next leader, his daughterMarine Le Pen, said the claim of antisemitism was a lie.[90][91][92][93]
Several commentators have suggested that political groups on thepopulist right and far-right weaponize antisemitism to demonize immigrants, especially Muslims, and obscure their own antisemitism.[94][95][96] Political scientist Jelena Subotić suggests that parties such as theAfD andFidesz first declare support for Israel andBenjamin Netanyahu, then portray their "hostility to Islam and Muslim immigration to Europe" as defending European Jews, as a "shield" from their own antisemitism. She describes this as part of a growing "pro-Israel antisemitism".[94]
Stanford University professor Cécile Alduy (fr) says theNational Rally has "started to target the supposed entrenched antisemitism of immigrants of Muslim heritage" and pretends to "protect the Jewish community from them" as a way to obscure its own antisemitic past.[96]Rachel Shabi writes that "wrapped in the Israeli flag, far-right parties with fascist roots and current displays of antisemitism cast themselves as defenders of Jews against an antisemitism claimed to be coming from Muslims and migrants".[95]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding missing informationadding missing information ormaking an edit request.(January 2026) |
The culture ofanti-antisemitism in Germany has been criticized as weaponizing antisemitism and compared toMcCarthyism.[97][98][99] Similar concerns have been made about Austrian politics and academia.[100]
In 2019, the GermanBundestag passed a resolution declaring theBoycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement antisemitic and compared it to the 1933Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses.[101] This comparison—and the belief that BDS is "nothing less than the start of a road to another Holocaust"—is prevalent in German discourse.[97]
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the "non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism" that theInternational Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted in 2016.[102][19][9] It is also known as the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (IHRA-WDA).[19][9][103] It was first published in 2005 by theEuropean Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), aEuropean Union agency. Accompanying the working definition are 11 illustrative examples, seven of which relate tocriticism of Israel, that the IHRA describes as guiding its work on antisemitism.
In 2011, the UK'sUniversity and College Union Congress debated a motion to formally reject the IHRA's working definition of antisemitism.[104][page needed] Antisemitism scholarDavid Hirsh said the definition was "denounced as a bad-faith attempt to say that criticism of Israel was antisemitic".[105][page needed]
In 2019, 2024, and 2025,Kenneth S. Stern, the lead author of the original definition, said it had become weaponized by Donald Trump and right-wing Jewish groups in ways that threatened to suppress and limit free speech in the U.S. Stern said Trump'sExecutive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, aimed at university campuses in particular, would "harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself".[106]
A 2023 report by theBritish Society for Middle Eastern Studies analyzed 40 cases where UK university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition between 2017 and 2022, and found that in 38 cases, the accusations were dismissed, with two yet to be resolved. According to the report, false accusations of antisemitism have caused staff and students severe stress.[107]
In 2023, Middle East scholarNathan J. Brown and Israeli academic and peace activistDaniel Nerenberg, writing in+972 Magazine, said that the definition, though created in good faith, had been weaponized by groups including theZionist Organization of America, theAmerican Jewish Committee, and theBrandeis Center.[108] In 2024, Holocaust scholarRaz Segal wrote: "The weaponization of antisemitism by Israel and its allies, including the U.S. government, draws on the deeply problematic 'working definition of antisemitism' adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)."[109]Jonathan Hafetz andSahar Aziz made a similar argument about the definition's use against critics of Israel's actions during its war on Gaza.[110]
PhilosopherEve Garrard countered the idea that the IHRA definition suppresses free speech critical of Israel, writing that the IHRA's definition and examples are "peppered with conditional verbs", which Garrard attributes to an adherence to necessary caution in discussions of racism. "The only view which this definition threatens", she wrote, "is the view that criticism of Israel can never, ever, in any circumstances, be antisemitic. But this is not a view which is even remotely plausible (although some critics of the IHRA definition do seem to find it attractive)."[111] Responding to widespread criticism that the definition classifies legitimate speech on Israel as antisemitic, philosopherBernard Harrison and legal scholarLesley Klaff argued that such criticism was unfounded.[112][113][114]
In 2018, in light of accusations ofantisemitism in the British Labour Party underJeremy Corbyn's leadership,Communities SecretarySajid Javid called a debate on antisemitism in Parliament. At the debate, Jewish Labour MPsLuciana Berger andRuth Smeeth spoke of their experiences of being accused of weaponizing antisemitism.[115] Lesley Klaff says Berger experienced online antisemitic and misogynistic harassment by supporters ofJeremy Corbyn who saw her "as deliberatelymanufacturing a crisis within the Labour Party by making false accusations about antisemitism".[116]Anthony Lerman says that "many hyperbolic claims" were made against Corbyn himself and that such claims "politicized antisemitism" and emptied the word of utility.[117] A 2018 YouGov poll of paying Labour members found that 77% believed that the "extent [of the issue of antisemitism] is being deliberately exaggerated to damage Labour and Jeremy Corbyn or to stifle criticism of Israel".[118] Support for Labour among British Jews fell to 13% during the affair.[119]
In 2020, theEquality and Human Rights Commission investigated claims of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, concluding that investigators should treat complaints of antisemitism in good faith according to theMacpherson principle,[a] and that dismissing reports of antisemitism without investigation could itself be antisemitic.[121] It said party agents who suggested complaints of antisemitism were "fake or smears" could be guilty of "unlawful harassment". It also said that Jewish members, in particular, were accused of trying to "undermine the Labour Party" with reports of antisemitism, and that this "ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party".[122] In response to the report, several formal complaints were filed against Labour MPs. TheJewish Labour Movement said, "We were told that this racism was imagined, fabricated for factional advantage or intended to silence debate. Today's report confirms that our voices were marginalised and our members victimised". Gideon Falter, leader of theCampaign Against Antisemitism, said that the EHRC report "utterly vindicates Britain's Jews who were accused of lying and exaggerating, acting as agents of another country and using their religion to 'smear' the Labour party".[123] Similarly, the Antisemitism Policy Trust's 2020 report on antisemitism in the Labour Party said that some Labour activists had "dismissed [Anti-Jewish hatred] as a 'smear' or as being 'weaponised' by its victims for political ends", which they said was against the Macpherson principle and not supported by the evidence.[124] In 2022, Corbyn's successor as Labour leader,Keir Starmer, commissioned theForde Report,[125] which said antisemitism had been used as a "factional weapon" between the party's anti-Corbyn and pro-Corbyn factions.[126][127][128]
Multiple scholars have said that allegations of antisemitism have been weaponized against pro-Palestinian protesters.[129][130][100] ScholarRaz Segal, formerHillel executive director forHarvard University Bernie Steinberg, and former Israeli negotiatorDaniel Levy have said that the weaponization of antisemitism claims has been used to silence pro-Palestinian voices, especially in regard to Israel's human rights abuses.[131][130]
According toMitchel Plitnick andSahar Aziz, a presumption that all Muslims are antisemitic has been "increasingly deployed by Zionist groups to eliminate critical debate inclusive of Palestinian experiences".[132] In 2024, a group of Germanophone scholars said the weaponization of antisemitism against pro-Palestinian protesters, people of color, and post- and decolonial scholars by universities and the Austrian political right meant the "recent increase of antisemitic crimes and the structural antisemitism across Austrian society are thereby obscured".[100]
One organisation accused of weaponizing antisemitism isCanary Mission, an anonymously rundoxing website established in 2014 that publishes the personal information of students, professors, and organizations it describes asanti-Israel orantisemitic, focusing primarily on people at North American universities.[133] Canary Mission's published materials were called ablacklist by freelance journalistAlex Kane inThe Intercept[134] andJames Bamford said inThe Nation that it weaponizes the accusation of antisemitism in order to silence criticism of Israel.[133]
During the 2023-25Gaza war, there were manyprotests at universities. Israel and its supporters branded the protests in US universities as antisemitic, and Israel’s critics say it uses such allegations to silence opposition. Thee were antisemitic remarks and violent threats during the protests, but the protest organizers, some Jewish, described the movement as peaceful defense of Palestinian rights.[135] In the U.S., Democrats and Republicans have characterized campusprotests in solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza as "rampant antisemitism", a characterization Israeli Holocaust historianRaz Segal has called "woefully misguided—and dangerous".[136] Segal, formerHillel Harvard directorBernie Steinberg, andJewish Currents editor-in-chiefArielle Angel said that criticisms of the protests include the weaponization of antisemitism.[137][138] Of the2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, Segal wrote, "the blanket assertion [of 'rampant antisemitism' at the protests] by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza".[109] Angel said the American right has weaponized claims of antisemitism against pro-Palestinian campus activism to ban boycotts of Israel and curtail theright to protest, and thatRepublicans and theAnti-Defamation League have attempted to portray pro-Palestinian student protesters as "terrorists".[138] Steinberg wrote that "fabricated and weaponized" charges against campus protesters must be "put aside" to deal with the "real and dangerous" antisemitism posed by "alt-right white-supremacist politics".[139]
Some Jewish and Palestinian faculty and students atColumbia University andBarnard College called the response of politicians and the universities' administrations to campus protests "weaponization of antisemitism".[140]Harvard University appointed antisemitism scholarDerek Penslar to head a task force on the issue. Following criticism of Penslar, who had signed an open letter critical of Israel's treatment of Palestinians,Slate columnistEmily Tamkin said his critics were weaponizing antisemitism.[141]
Following restrictions on pro-Palestinian protests at universities, several Jewish organizations, activists, and scholars said thesecond Trump administration was using antisemitism as a pretext for anti-democratic and authoritarian actions.[142]Kenneth S. Stern said the Trump administration was "absolutely weaponizing antisemitism" to curtail "speech we don't like", in "a total assault on the university".[143] RepresentativeJerry Nadler said Trump was "weaponizing the real pain American Jews face to advance his desire to wield control". Nadler also criticized cuts to theOffice for Civil Rights, which terminated nearly half its staff, as contradicting Trump's claim to combat antisemitism.[144][145]Shaul Magid, a Jewish studies scholar, has suggested that Republicans used congressional hearings about antisemitism to attack universities'diversity, equity and inclusion policies rather than to address campus antisemitism.[146]
Lara Deeba andJessica Winegarb, anthropologists of the Middle East. suggest antisemitism has been weaponized in the U.S. against pro-Palestinian students and university staff in an attempt to "silence pro-Palestinian speech, abolish anti-racist teaching and diversity initiatives, eliminate academic freedom, and question the value of higher education in general".[147]
In September 2025 a federal judge ruled against Trump's funding freeze for Harvard University, finding that it was "difficult to conclude anything other than that [the Trump administration] used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically-motivated assault on this country's premier universities, and did so in a way that runs afoul of [federal law]".[148]
Between January and June 2025, nine U.S. attorneys at the U.S. Department of Justice resigned because of the pressure they felt from the Trump administration to conclude thatUniversity of California (UC) campuses had violated the civil rights of Jewish students and staff.[149]Middle East Monitor reported thatEjaz Baluch, a trial attorney assigned the task of finding antisemitism atUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) described the exercise as "unserious": "It was not about trying to find out what really happened", he added. A federal judge found that the Trump administration's proposed settlement with UC was "coercive and retaliatory" and likely violated theFirst Amendment.[150]
In February 2022, whenAmnesty International reported that Israel was committingapartheid in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Israel rejected the findings and denounced them as antisemitic.[151] Amnesty secretary generalAgnes Callamard called the Israeli officials' responses "baseless attacks, barefaced lies, fabrications on the messenger".[152] Human rights advocates subsequently argued that the criticism of the report constituted weaponization of antisemitism.[153][154]
During theGaza war, pro-Israel advocates, including speakers, writers, and politicians, have been accused of exploiting the accusation of antisemitism to silence validcriticism of Israel.[155] Political scientistOmar Shahabudin McDoom has written that accusations of antisemitism play two roles in what he callsGaza genocide denial: claiming that Israel is unfairly targeted in an orchestrated campaign motivated by antisemitism, and attacking the motivations of critics of Israel's genocide.[156]Martin Shaw has written that Israel's supporters use the ideology ofanti-antisemitism as institutionalized in the U.S., Germany, and other Western countries to block recognition of the genocide.[157]
When theInternational Criminal Court (ICC) was rumored to be preparingarrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu,Aryeh Neier said that Netanyahu's assertion "that ICC indictments would be antisemitic is indicative of his promiscuous use of antisemitism allegations".[158][159] Shortly thereafter, on 20 May 2024, the ICC announced that it was seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, and Netanyahu called chief prosecutorKarim Ahmad Khan one of the "great antisemites in modern times", saying that Khan was "callously pouring gasoline on the fires of antisemitism that are raging across the world".[160]Kenneth Roth said Netanyahu's response was a "common last resort for defenders of Israel" that endangered Jews: "if people see the charge of antisemitism as a thin cover for Israeli war crimes, it will cheapen the concept at a time when a strong defense is needed."[161]
In February 2024, Israeli officials accused theInternational Court of Justice of antisemitism followingSouth Africa's genocide case against Israel.[162] Writing inDeclassified UK,Anthony Lerman said the officials' "deployment of weaponised antisemitism to deflect criticism" and said that "using past experience of anti-Jewish persecution to neutralise criticism of, and generate sympathy for, the Jewish state [...] is decades old".[163]
Some scholars have said that charges of weaponized antisemitism often seek to delegitimize complaints of anti-Jewish sentiment, are antisemitic, or draw onantisemitic tropes about Jewish power and deception.[164] Scholars such as Matthias J. Becker, Mark Goldfeder,Robert Fine, andKenneth Waltzer have said charges of weaponization are themselves antisemitic and rely onstereotypes of Jews that portray them as dishonest or greedy.[165][166] In an article inFathom,John Hyman andAnthony Julius wrote in response to claims of false charges of antisemitism, "that Jews lie is an established antisemitic defamation" given "canonical form" byMartin Luther inOn The Jews and Their Lies andHeinrich von Treitschke's view that "Jews stand for 'Lug und Trug'" (lit. 'lying and cheating').[167]
Political scientistLars Rensmann [de] has said that while complaints about "illegitimate racism charges" are generally unacceptable in society, accusations that Jews are weaponizing antisemitism are "almost ubiquitous" and nearly always lack evidence.[168]
Rensmann and German historianJulius H. Schoeps compare claims of a "general misuse of 'antisemitism'" to claims that racism more generally is "only a 'political weapon' of powerful groups to suppress 'the white people.'" They write that the notion of weaponization is often accompanied by ethnic stereotyping and the downplaying of antisemitism, and is common among thefar left, theNew Right, and "various European publics".[169] David Schraub says the charge of weaponization "presents marginalized persons as inherently untrustworthy, unbelievable, or lacking in the basic understandings regarding the true meaning of discrimination".[170]
Becker, a hate speech scholar, says the charge that Jews "instrumentalize antisemitism" for political or financial gain is connected to the claim they "instrumentalize the Holocaust", which he says can lead toHolocaust distortion and denial. Becker interprets this trope in post-WWII German and Austrian society (inGerman,die Antisemitismus- oder Auschwitz-Keule schwingen,lit. 'wielding the antisemitism or Auschwitz club') as a "collective reflex" in the context ofreckoning with Nazi history.[164] Similarly, Julius called the trope of weaponization of antisemitism a version of the "libel" that Jews are "liars and deceivers, hoodwinking others by making false claims about themselves", with the other version being Holocaust denial.[171]
In 2015, Marcus wrote that after antisemitic incidents occur, people invariably "argue about whether the incident was really anti-Semitic or whether the Jewish complainants are instead trying to smear and silence the innocent", which often means "the accuser is punished" for speaking up.[104][172]
Scholars such as Schraub,Dov Waxman, and Adam Hosein have said that accusations of bad faith are often made about those who raise charges of antisemitism—especially Jews—because "antisemitism today is not always easy to identify or even define".[2] They suggest that accusations of bad faith may be defused by clarifying which of the potential understandings of antisemitism is being invoked, and that "persons who encounter a Jewish claim of antisemitism [should] at least adopt a presumptive disposition towards taking that claim seriously and considering it with an open mind".[2]
In an independent study funded by the office of the UK Government's Independent Adviser on Antisemitism (Lord Mann), Daniel Allington and Tanvi Joshi found that alternative media outlets, includingThe Skwawkbox andThe Canary on the left andTommy Robinson'sTR News on the right, often represent Jews and Zionists as raising antisemitism in bad faith.[173]
Rensmann has said that someMarxist andpost-Marxist thinkers, such asJudith Butler, do not "recognize current antisemitism" but only the "chilling effect" of "bad-faith" charges of antisemitism.[174] Robert Fine has criticized progressive perspectives (such as those of Butler,Alain Badiou,Tony Judt, andGöran Therborn) on the charge of antisemitism as primarily weaponized, saying they abandon "inclusive universalism" to stigmatize others and treat "instrumentalizing the charge of antisemitism" as intrinsic to antisemitism itself.[175]
Sina Arnold and Blair Taylor say charges of weaponizing antisemitism are a common way of "shutting down" discussions of antisemitism in the contemporaryAmerican Left, along with changing the subject to Israel orright-wing antisemitism. Arnold and Taylor attribute this to "unexamined political assumptions" and ignorance about the nature of antisemitism rather than "conscious antisemitic intent".[176] Rifat N. Bali writes that the left's "sensitivity toward the phenomenon ofantisemitism in Turkey tends to be quite low" due to the belief that Israel weaponizes the charge of antisemitism against criticism.[177]
Mikael Shainkman writes that the contemporary left openly condemns right-wing antisemitism but is unable to recognize antisemitism disguised as criticism of Israel, instead calling those who raise the issue Zionists acting in bad faith.[178]Jovan Byford says there has been a "contamination" of antisemitic motifs in leftist politics due to the belief that antisemitism is less of a social problem than the accusation of antisemitism itself, "which'the Lobby' uses to silence opponents and de-legitimize criticism of Israel".[179]
Coined in 2005 by sociologistDavid Hirsh after an incident involving former mayor of LondonKen Livingstone, the "Livingstone Formulation" refers to "responding to an accusation of antisemitism with a counter-accusation of Zionist bad faith".[180] The term has been applied especially to charges of weaponization of antisemitism from anti-Zionists and thefar left,[181][182][183] although Hirsh says the formulation "long predatesantizionist antisemitism".[184] He gives as examples comments by former Iranian presidentMahmoud Ahmadinejad, Americanwhite supremacistDavid Duke,British National Party leaderNick Griffin, and American aviatorCharles Lindbergh,[185] along with passages by 19th-century German antisemitesHeinrich von Treitschke andWilhelm Marr.[184]
Arnold and Blumenfeld say the Formulation is a key characteristic of discourse related to antisemitism on the American Left.[186] Rensmann calls it a "discursive ideological strategy to immunize antisemitism from antisemitism charges".[187] Samuel Lebens writes that it amounts toepistemic injustice andgaslighting against Jews who complain of antisemitism, and says claims of antisemitism should be treated in good faith, like claims of sexual harassment or racism.[188]
Scholars such as Ben Cohen, Shany Mor, Lars Rensmann, andEfraim Sicher say that anti-Zionist statements and criticism of Israel are sometimes framed as neutral while often relying on traditional antisemitic tropes.[168][189][page needed][8] Werner Bonefeld says this is more common among those who view antisemitism as "a phenomenon of the past".[9] David Schraub says that the statement "criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic", while true, falsely implies that "any non-trivial number of individuals" must believe the opposite, recentering discussions of antisemitism from Jewish victims to the way charges of antisemitism are "allegedly abused to victimise innocent bystanders".[190]
In 2016, Schraub wrote that the presumption "that most anti-Semitism claims related to Israel are leveled in bad faith" is "very common" and itself antisemitic, relying on the belief that Jews are largely either dishonest or delusional. Schraub writes that the ubiquity of this presumption among progressives contrasts with the general unacceptability of similar claims about complaints made by groups such as women and black people. He writes that "most Jews and Jewish organizations" are reluctant to raise claims of antisemitism, since the "default response" to even clear-cut cases of antisemitism "will be to fulminate about oversensitive Jews always playing the anti-Semitism card".[191] Shany Mor wrote of the frequent charge of weaponization in discussions of anti-Zionist antisemitism: "It is a weak defense to rely on the very antisemitism you are supposing try to abjure in order to exculpate oneself from the charge of antisemitism—so weak, in fact, that its repeated use is the best evidence that it represents a deeply held belief."[192] Derek Spitz, John Hyman, and Anthony Julius have called this a form ofvictim blaming that places a large burden of proof on Jews.[193][167] In 2025, Gabriel Sacks wrote, "There is no meaningful way to combat this claim [that Jews weaponize antisemitism to deflect criticism of Israel]: Jews could protest, or merely ignore and not even dare challenge the allegations. Either route has proven to be insufficient for centuries."[194]
According to Iraqi historian Omar Mohammed, attempts to discussIslamic antisemitism with Muslims or Arabic speakers are frequently met with accusations of "being pro-Israel or attempting to whitewash Israel’s policies", sometimes in the form of the Livingstone Formulation, with those who raise the issue of antisemitism being accused of being "Westernized" and "attempting to impose a Western problem onto Muslim communities, which purportedly have no connection to hatred against Jews". Mohammed writes that this makes discussions of the matter of Islamic antisemitism in Muslim or Arabic-speaking social contexts difficult and potentially dangerous.[195] Esther Webman wrote in 2010 that Arab leaders have responded to increasing charges of antisemitism "mainly by denial and accusing Israel of using it as a ploy to mute criticism."[196]
Political scientistGideon Botsch [de] has said that because anti-Zionist antisemitism is often associated with the left and Muslims, the German far-right's claims of weaponization of antisemitism have often been overlooked.[44] Daniel Sugarman of theBoard of Deputies of British Jews has said that while the left downplays antisemitism as criticism of Israel, the right often denies or downplays its antisemitism by citing its support for Israel.[181]
Daniel Ian Rubin and Mara Grayson criticized theUniversity of California, Santa Cruz Critical Race and Ethnic Studies department's statement following theOctober 7 attacks for not condemning the attacks and for supposed "underhanded efforts" by Jewish nonprofits to "smear" the department's Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism as antisemitic. Rubin and Grayson analyzed the statement as preemptively deflecting accusations of antisemitism by "declaring that any such accusation is strategically designed and unscrupulously deployed to silence criticism of Israel", reinforcing antisemitic tropes about conspiracy and Jewish dishonesty.[197] Psychologists Miri Halpern and Jaclyn Wolfman say the propagation of the notion that "Jews weaponize antisemitism to stifle criticism of Israel" is an example of traumatic invalidation for Jews since the October 7 attacks.[183]
Fine and Philip Spencer say that while antisemitism may be weaponized to stifle criticism of Israel in some cases, "the reverse is more plausible: that there are many who cry 'Israel' in order to shut down debate on antisemitism".[198] Bernard Harrison says this "stock" rebuttal attempts to portray complaints of antisemitism as "putatively absurd".[199][page needed][193]
Hirsh highlights the 1952 "confession"—extracted under torture—byRudolf Slánský, former general secretary of theCommunist Party of Czechoslovakia, of "shield[ing] Zionism" by accusing its critics of antisemitism as a deployment of theLivingstone Formulation characteristic ofSoviet antisemitism.[185][page needed]Izabella Tabarovsky has compared contemporary left-wing antisemitism to Soviet antisemitic campaigns between 1967 and 1988 that said Zionists "complain about antisemitism in order to smear the left", rejecting allegations of antisemitism as "Zionist tricks" and "nefarious imperialist scheming".[200]
Aleksander Smolar wrote in 1987 thatCommunist Polish authorities wielded "real and imagined" charges of antisemitism against their opposition, particularly in theCatholic Church. He added that the Communists' image as the defenders of Jews might have inhibited the Church's willingness to defend Jews frompogroms, as Church authorities would not want to be interpreted as giving support to the Communists.[201]
András Kovács has written that antisemitic discourse after the replacement of the CommunistHungarian People's Republic held that, during the Communist era, powerful Jews used "the charge of antisemitism [to] de-legitimize [...] the anticommunist national forces and places them in a disadvantageous position both in politics and in public life", and that Communist Jews then allied with liberal Jews to retain political power after the establishment of the Republic of Hungary.[202][203][204]
Anna Zawadzka wrote that the Livingstone Formulation was already in use inPoland in 1968, such that Jews "could not articulate their experiences of antisemitism" without having their articulations "diagnosed as either cynical victim-playing or an emotional disorder." She interpreted this response as a form of "paternalistic violence", viewing the traumatizedPolish Jews as deserving of sympathy, but not of trust in their view of antisemitism in the decades following the Holocaust. Zawadzka wrote that this paternalistic view has changed, with Jews now being taken as cynical and manipulative rather than as traumatized and paranoid in their articulations of antisemitism.[205]
In 1970, Ron I. Rubin wrote, "Nations raising charges of Soviet antisemitism [at the United Nations] are accused of attempting to subvert the Soviet Union by destroying its multinational character through the introduction of the poison of nationalism", and that Soviet denials of antisemitism are generally irrelevant to the accusation and contradicted by "certain official admissions".[206]
The exploitation, the instrumentalization, the weaponization of antisemitism, a concomitant of its de-historicization and de-textualization, became a metonymy for speaking of the Jewish genocide and of anti-Zionism in a way that confined its history to the court's benches and research library and its memory to a reconstruction based mostly on criteria of memorial legitimacy for and against designated social groups.
'The far-right instrumentalization of antisemitism and solidarity with Israel is one of the most disturbing developments of recent years.'
This weaponizing of antisemitism is not only 'cancelling' Palestinian rights advocates and failing to make Jews any safer; it's also using Jews to cancel others.
TheJewish Socialists Group said that anti-Semitism accusations were being 'weaponised' in order to attack the Jeremy Corbyn–led Labour party
...This time, too, the anti-Semitism card has been pulled from the sleeve of explanations by the Israeli government and its most faithful spokespeople have been sent to wave it.
This provoked Ben-Gurion, understandably exasperated by the publicity organized by British information services, to a violent counterattack in which he asserted that the court had acted under anti-Semitic influence. In keeping with the new spirit of absolute uncompromise, he opened a new phase in Zionist propaganda which lasted to the end of the mandate: henceforth to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic; to disapprove of Jewish territorial nationalism was to be a Nazi.
After 1967, combating anti-Semitism against American Jews ceased to be its main task - now, cheered on by AIPAC, it sought to portray certain 'anti-Israel' actions as anti-Semitic. It propagandised against any attempt to pressure Israel into withdrawing from the occupied territories.
Attempts to rearticulate antisemitism to encompass opposition to Israel's 'right to exist' or its character as a Jewish state date back to the 1970s, when the Anti-Defamation League first popularized a discourse on 'the new antisemitism' (see Forster and Epstein 1974; on the subsequent development of that discourse see Judaken 2008). The identification of anti-Zionism with antisemitism has long been de rigueur in Jewish communal and broader pro-Israel circles...
Daniel Schroeter writes that in the aftermath of the 1967 war, advocates for Israel 'alarmed at what they saw as growing sympathy for the Arabs and Palestinians began to use the term "new anti-Semitism," which they understood as antisemitism either expressed or disguised as anti-Zionism.' ... The 1974 bookThe New Anti-Semitism by Anti-Defamation League (ADL) leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein gave a name to the concept.
The ADL says they're a neutral arbiter of antisemitism, no matter where it shows up, but that's not true. They have conflated the safety of Jews with support for the state of Israel. In so doing, they undermine their own stated mission of fighting antisemitism. How did this happen? Since the 1970s, the ADL has sought to popularize the concept of the 'new antisemitism,' the idea that Israel as 'the Jew on the world stage,' was being unfairly singled out for criticism in ways that echoed old school antisemitism (see Forster and Benjamin 1974).
Zionists routinely branded Glubb an 'anti semite', and he was keenly aware of this.
Almost as enduring as Tutu's support of the Palestinian liberation struggle has been smear campaigns against him, accusing the Archbishop of anti-Semitism ...
The group nominated Ms. Rachel, the children's YouTube personality who has become an outspoken advocate for children affected by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza, because it said she "has used her massive platform to spread Hamas-aligned propaganda." A left-wing group, Jews for Racial & Economic Justice, has defended Ms. Rachel, saying StopAntisemitism targeted her for expressing sympathy with Palestinians.
Ms. Rachel, has come under fire from StopAntisemitism, a US-based pro-Israel group that accuses her of "spreading Hamas propaganda" simply for expressing concern for the suffering of children in Gaza. StopAntisemitism, a right-wing organisation known for launching public smear campaigns against activists, artists, and academics critical of Israel, has been widely criticised for conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with "antisemitism".
The YouTube star, Ms.Rachel (Rachel Griffin Accurso), who produces highly regarded children's content including catchy original songs, faced over-the-top backlash for singing "Hop Little Bunnies" with Rahaf, a 3-year-old Palestinian girl who lost both her legs in an airstrike. She was accused of anti-Semitism, ignoring the suffering of Israeli children, and of being paid by Hamas, none of which were true.
The group targeting Ms. Rachel, StopAntisemitism.org, solely exists to punish and harass private and public individuals who criticize the actions of the State of Israel or simply express sympathy for and solidarity with Palestinians. Instead of combating antisemitism, the group cheapens the word through its use of false and bad-faith accusations, making it harder to take on the very real and serious problem of antisemitism.
On January 9, for example, a few weeks after a large pro-Palestinian demonstration in New York City, Greenblatt released a report listing over 3,000 antisemitic incidents committed in the three months since the war in Gaza began. ... But much of the report was hype. Rather than attacks against Jews due to their religious or ethnic identity, many of the cited "incidents" were actions directed against Israel to protest the conduct of its war in Gaza—incidents the ADL would later admit made up nearly half of the total.
They have conflated the safety of Jews with support for the state of Israel. In so doing, they undermine their own stated mission of fighting antisemitism. How did this happen? Since the 1970s, the ADL has sought to popularize the concept of the "new antisemitism," the idea that Israel as "the Jew on the world stage," was being unfairly singled out for criticism in ways that echoed old school antisemitism (see Forster and Benjamin 1974). They have long worked to smear and discredit the movement for Palestinian freedom.
The impact of the silencing of debate about Israeli policy on Jewish life has been devastating.
Today, the Israeli hasbara apparatus's most active front is the attempted redefinition of anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism, with the goal of rendering any opposition to the occupation, Zionism—or even simply Israeli policies themselves—beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability.
More recently, and partly in response to the increasing use of the IHRA definition, more than forty left-wing Jewish organizations wrote an open letter, initiated by Jewish Voice for Peace, warning of "cynical false accusations of antisemitism," which are used to discredit anti-Israel activism and the BDS movement.
In Austria, false accusations of antisemitism leading to the cancellation of speakers associated with Palestine unfortunately have a long history. [...] The charge of antisemitism is here often instrumentalized also to counter critical engagement with settler colonialism, coloniality and racialization.
starting in 2010, rightwing Jewish groups took the 'working definition', which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases.
There were examples about Israel, not to label anyone an antisemite but because there was a correlation, as opposed to causation, between certain expressions and the climate for antisemitism. But it was never intended to be weaponized to muzzle campus free speech
[Stern] also said that the definition is being distorted and used to silence anti-Israel critics. He was the lead drafter of the definition in 2004-2005 to help European countries have a common definition to track data on antisemitism. Then it was officially adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.
What started as an honest attempt to tackle growing antisemitism quickly became weaponized by definitional warriors, among them the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the American Jewish Committee (AJC), and the Brandeis Center, all of whom have lobbied institutions and governments to adopt it
The IHRA definition of antisemitism has been widely criticized on the alleged ground that it restricts freedom of speech by stigmatizing, as antisemitic, views that critics assert to fall well within the bounds of legitimate political controversy. In several recent papers, my legal colleague Lesley Klaff and I have argued that these criticisms are without foundation.
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)Anti-Jewish hatred has been dismissed as a 'smear' or as being 'weaponised' by its victims for political ends. Talk of Jewish and/or right-wing media plotting is dangerous and contrary to the British model for addressing hate crime, namely, the Macpherson principle. This translates to treating perceived victims with sensitivity, recording the crimes they report as 'racist' if perceived as such, and investigating claims with due diligence.
Thus, rather than confront the paramount need to deal with the profoundly serious issue of anti-Semitism in the party, both factions treated it as a factional weapon.
The report says both supporters and internal opponents of Mr Corbyn could be accused of 'weaponising the issue and failing to recognise the seriousness of antisemitism'.
Israel and its supporters have branded the university protests as antisemitic, while Israel's critics say it uses those allegations to silence opposition.
That's woefully misguided—and dangerous. Indeed, the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza...
Anti-boycott laws – targeting the non-violent tactic of boycott when applied to the state of Israel – exist in 38 states, under the argument that such boycotts constitute antisemitism. In the past few years, this tactic has spread to protect other causes beloved by the right. Now, several states have laws on the books that prohibit the government from doing business with groups or individuals who are boycotting fossil fuels or the gun industry. [...] The pro-Palestine movement has also provided cover for the right to expand its attack on protest – a project advanced significantly after the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. [...] In a tactic familiar from the post-9/11 landscape, GOP lawmakers and civil society leaders from groups like the ADL and the Brandeis Center have endeavored to paint student protesters and groups as 'terrorists'.
Sarah, a Jewish student at Columbia [... said] that the term had been 'weaponized in a really deceitful way by political opportunists who insist on conflating anti-Zionism and antisemitism.' [...] Nara Milanich, professor of history at Barnard College [...] was among nearly two dozen Jewish faculty members to write to Columbia president Nemat Shafik before the protests broke out [...] warning against the 'weaponization of antisemitism' at Columbia by politicians eager to stoke division."Columbia professor says student protesters are being smeared".Newsweek. 29 April 2024. Retrieved11 June 2025.
almost two dozen Jewish faculty members of Columbia University and Barnard College signed a letter published in theColumbia Daily Spectator rejecting the "weaponization of antisemitism" ...Nadworny, Elissa (17 April 2024)."At antisemitism hearing, Columbia official tells lawmakers, 'We have a moral crisis'".NPR. Retrieved11 June 2025.
...several Jewish faculty members at Columbia and its sister school, Barnard College, warned against the 'weaponization' of antisemitism on college campuses.Thompson, Isaiah (22 May 2024)."Jewish Academics Push Back on Claims of Anti-Semitism in Student Protests".Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved11 June 2025.Solomon, Alisa; Nation, The (6 May 2024)."The Real Takeover of Columbia Was By Those on the Right".The Nation.ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved11 June 2025.
I am a professor at Columbia, a Jewish one at that, and I have watched with alarm as politicians have ginned up exaggerated charges of antisemitism to advance an ultraconservative agenda.
'There's been a very strong simmering war of attrition against DEI for some time in universities. And somehow these two things started to merge together to the point where we got these congressional hearings,' said Rabbi Shaul Magid, who teaches Jewish studies at Harvard University and Dartmouth College. 'It seemed to me that the issue [at the December 5 hearing] was antisemitism and also not antisemitism. It seemed like it was about DEI and [Rep.] Elise Stefanik's interest in attacking it, rather than the rise of antisemitism on campus.'
In a governmental attack on academia not seen since the McCarthy era of the 1950s, the US House of Representatives has held multiple hearings accusing college presidents of fomenting anti-Semitism because they allow criticism of Israel on campus. ... These attacks are part of a coordinated effort in the US to silence pro-Palestinian speech, abolish anti-racist teaching and diversity initiatives, eliminate academic freedom, and question the value of higher education in general.
Amnesty International has become the latest human rights organization to accuse Israel of apartheid for its treatment of Palestinians, prompting an angry response from Israel, which has denounced the report as anti-Semitic.
12 Israeli human rights organizations have since expressed "grave concern" about attempts to associate Amnesty's report with antisemitism, and they have rejected the Commission's failure to recognize Israel's apartheid. These organizations argue that weaponizing antisemitism to silence legitimate criticism actually undermines attempts to address rising antisemitism.
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link){{cite book}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)Instead of believing or acknowledging the experiences of Jewish people who have been targeted and subject to abuse, and dispensing with any notion of good faith, the antisemitic rejectionists instead blame and smear the victims themselves, accusing the Jews/Zionists of once again organizing their secret cabal to act maliciously and manipulate others into doing their bidding and silencing others.
Today, more often than not, those who address the problem [of antisemitism] are targeted by portraying them as allegedly swinging 'the antisemitism bat' against innocuous 'Israel critics' or 'upset Muslim youth' in bad faith ... However, the charge of bad faith, of " overstretching " the term and illegitimate charges, is almost ubiquitous whenever Jews raise the issue of antisemitism or anti-Zionist antisemitism. This denial, which constitutes a profound ethical problem ... is virtually without empirical evidence...
We arenot saying these dynamics are motivated by antisemitic hatred, but are rather the result of unexamined assumptions, myopic political analysis, and, importantly, a genuine but inconsistent concern for the suffering of others. Nevertheless, the result is that the left has set an inordinately high bar for what constitutes antisemitism, in effect defining it out of existence – at least on the left.
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link){{citation}}: CS1 maint: work parameter with ISBN (link)