The Corruption of a Word: How 'Antisemitism' Was Hijacked to Silence Dissent
To speak of antisemitism is to speak of a unique and horrifying poison in human history—a prejudice culminating in industrial-scale slaughter. Its memory commands reverence; its resurgence, vigilance. It is precisely because of this profound historical weight that the word’s modern deployment as a political weapon is so deeply cynical and dangerous. We are witnessing, in real time, the deliberate corruption of a vital concept, transforming it from a shield against hatred into a cudgel to crush political dissent, specifically criticism of the state of Israel. This is not an accident; it is a strategy. And recent events have laid the playbook bare for all to see.
Consider the recent moral panic that erupted from the Glastonbury festival, a space celebrated for its progressive culture. Chants of ‘Death to the IDF’—a direct reference to the Israeli Defense Forces, a state military—were broadcast by the BBC. The reaction was swift and orchestrated. This was not treated as a political statement against a military’s actions, however crude. Instead, a well-oiled machine of government officials, the Israeli embassy, and media commentators immediately framed it as a terrifying symbol of ‘left-wing antisemitism’ breaking into the cultural mainstream. The incident was metastasized from a controversial chant into an international flashpoint, complete with the threat of a police investigation. The message was clear: criticism of Israel’s military is not political speech; it is hate speech. Any institution that allows its broadcast, like the BBC, is a platform for bigotry. This is a masterclass in strategic conflation, purposefully blurring the line between a people (Jews) and a political-military entity (the Israeli state) until they are indistinguishable in the public mind. It is a tactic designed to make any critique of state policy an attack on an entire ethnicity.
The cynical nature of this weaponization becomes even clearer when we look at the political arena, particularly the recent NYC mayoral primary. When Zohran Mamdani, a candidate with strong anti-Israel positions, faced accusations of antisemitism, a powerful counter-narrative immediately emerged: that the attacks were a disingenuous smokescreen for Islamophobia. This dynamic reveals the ugly truth of the modern antisemitism debate. The accusation is no longer a good-faith concern about bigotry but a predictable political tool, deployed with particular ferocity against critics of color. The accusers, who claim to be fighting for tolerance, find themselves aligned against a Muslim politician, using tactics that are immediately and credibly labeled as bigoted themselves. It creates a toxic feedback loop where legitimate political debate is impossible. The term ‘antisemitism’ is used as a first-strike weapon to delegitimize a critic, particularly one who disrupts the preferred narrative. The goal isn't to root out hate; it's to maintain control over who is allowed to participate in the conversation.
To give this manufactured narrative a veneer of credibility, its architects require validating voices from within the Jewish community. Any dissenting opinion is useful, but a leader’s is gold. Enter Walker Meghnagi, the head of Milan’s Jewish community, whose quote—‘Hatred of Jews is now being driven by the left’—has been endlessly amplified. This statement is not treated as the political opinion of one man, but as a dispositive fact, a final verdict from a credible authority. It is a stunningly effective piece of propaganda. It allows proponents of the narrative to sidestep accusations of political motivation and instead claim they are simply listening to the Jewish community. But which part of the community? Countless Jewish voices on the left, from academics to activist groups, vehemently disagree with this assessment and see the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism as a dangerous perversion. Their voices are conveniently ignored. A single, politically useful quote is elevated to transform a right-wing talking point into an incontrovertible truth, effectively silencing a diverse community and presenting a monolith that serves a specific political agenda.
This all feeds into the ultimate battle: the struggle over the definition of the word itself. The incidents at Glastonbury and with Mamdani are not just isolated controversies; they are skirmishes in a larger war to remold ‘antisemitism’ into a term that encompasses any and all criticism of Israeli policy. By constantly labeling anti-Israel speech as antisemitic, the establishment seeks to create a chilling effect. Artists will self-censor. Journalists will soften their language. Politicians will avoid the topic. The goal is to make the political cost of criticizing Israel so high—the risk of being branded a racist so immediate and career-ending—that the criticism simply stops. This is the most dangerous outcome of all. It not only immunizes a government from accountability but also debases the very meaning of antisemitism. When the word is used promiscuously as a political bludgeon, it loses its power to describe the real and resurgent threat of Jew-hatred. By crying wolf to protect state policy, these actors risk leaving us all deaf to the alarm when the true predator is at the door.
