The Antisemitism Smear: How a Sacred Term Was Weaponized to Silence Dissent

Let’s be clear: the charge of ‘antisemitism’ has been hijacked. What was once a word that described a real and horrific prejudice—Jew-hatred—has been systematically hollowed out and repurposed. It has become the political establishment’s most reliable and vicious cudgel, a tool wielded not to protect Jewish people, but to protect a single nation-state, Israel, from any and all accountability for its actions.

This isn't a fringe conspiracy theory whispered in dark corners of the internet. This is the new, brutal reality of our political discourse, playing out in the open. The strategy is as simple as it is insidious: conflate the state with a people, conflate criticism of government policy with racial hatred, and then unleash the full force of the smear on anyone who dares to step out of line. The goal is to create a chilling effect so profound that journalism, activism, and even private conversation become paralyzed by the fear of being branded an antisemite.

The most glaring vulnerability in this weaponized narrative—and the one its proponents are most desperate to conceal—is its transparently political function. We see this with the recent, aggressive framing of any criticism of Israel as a direct attack on Jewish identity. It’s a narrative now being aimed with full force at mainstream media institutions. Outlets like Mondoweiss are correctly identifying the rot, even pointing the finger at giants like The New York Times. The charge is that these once-respected papers have become little more than biased advocates, laundering pro-Israel talking points under the guise of objective reporting on ‘antisemitism.’ They platform fear, amplify state-sanctioned narratives, and dutifully frame any substantive critique of Israeli apartheid or military occupation as prima facie evidence of bigotry. They have become part of the problem, enforcing the very silence they should be breaking.

This intellectual dishonesty is on full display in the manufactured panic over protests and political speech. Consider the chant at the Glastonbury festival. The slogan, however crude or extreme one might find it, was ‘Death to the IDF.’ The Israel Defense Forces. A state military. Yet, this was immediately and hysterically portrayed as a call for violence against Jews. This is a deliberate, calculated misreading. It’s an attempt to erase the line between a political entity’s military arm and an entire global diaspora. By this toxic logic, criticizing the Pentagon would be anti-Christian, and condemning the Revolutionary Guard would be anti-Muslim. It’s a ludicrous standard applied to no other country on Earth, designed solely to grant Israel absolute impunity.

Simultaneously, a second, more cynical political operation is underway: the effort to pin the blame for this ‘new antisemitism’ squarely on the political left. It’s a masterstroke of political jujitsu. As progressive movements—from Black Lives Matter to climate justice groups—increasingly recognize the Palestinian cause as an integral part of the global struggle for human rights, a counter-narrative has been conveniently deployed. Suddenly, we are told, the real hotbed of Jew-hatred is not on the far-right, with its history of ethnic nationalism and replacement theories, but among left-wing students, academics, and activists who advocate for Palestinian liberation.

This claim is now being voiced by certain co-opted Jewish community leaders in Europe and North America, giving it a veneer of credibility. But let’s call this what it is: a powerful tool to create divisions. It is a wedge designed to fracture progressive coalitions, to poison solidarity movements, and to scare left-leaning individuals and groups into abandoning the Palestinians for fear of being smeared. It neatly distracts from the uncomfortable reality that some of the most vocal ‘pro-Israel’ advocates on the right hold deeply antisemitic views themselves, happily supporting an ethnostate abroad while promoting bigotry at home.

And what of our governments? Their response to this supposed crisis of antisemitism exposes the entire charade. When faced with actual, violent attacks, their actions are pathetic and performative. We are offered non-binding ‘resolutions’ from the U.S. Senate and toothless declarations of ‘concern’ from European capitals. This is the theater of official impotence. These weak, symbolic gestures are not the actions of governments genuinely concerned about the safety of their Jewish citizens. They are the actions of politicians paying lip service to a powerful lobby, going through the motions to appear ‘tough on antisemitism’ while doing nothing of substance. This performative politics only reinforces the perception that the entire issue is a political football, not a matter of human safety.

The word ‘antisemitism’ should mean something. It should describe the vile prejudice that led to pogroms and the Holocaust. But that sacred meaning is being diluted and destroyed, cheapened by its constant, cynical use as a political shield for military aggression and occupation. We are being lied to. We are being manipulated. The accusation of antisemitism is no longer a shield for the vulnerable, but a sword for the powerful. It is our duty to call it out, to refuse the conflation, and to insist on our right to criticize state power—any state power—without being silenced by a baseless, politically motivated smear.