The Corruption of a Word: How 'Antisemitism' Became the Last Refuge of the Authoritarian
Let us be clear: antisemitism, the ancient hatred of the Jewish people, is real, venomous, and must be fought wherever it appears. It is a poison that has seeped through history, culminating in unimaginable horror. But a great and terrible deception is underway—a cynical political project that has hijacked this word, drained it of its specific meaning, and reforged it into a weapon to crush dissent, silence critics, and shield a nation-state from accountability. The very term meant to protect a vulnerable people is now being used as a bludgeon to enforce a brutal political orthodoxy. What we are witnessing is not a resurgence of genuine antisemitism in progressive culture, but a masterclass in its strategic manipulation.
Look no further than the manufactured hysteria surrounding the Glastonbury festival. A chant—'Death to the IDF'—erupts from a crowd listening to an anti-establishment punk artist. It is a raw, angry, political slogan aimed at a specific state military, the Israel Defense Forces, an institution accused of war crimes by numerous international bodies. It is a cry against a uniformed army, not a people; against state violence, not a faith. Yet, in a stunningly coordinated display, this political expression was instantly and officially branded 'antisemitism.' The festival organizers, likely under immense pressure, buckled and condemned it as 'incitement to violence.' UK police launched a criminal probe. Israeli and UK officials pounced, using the incident to attack the BBC for the crime of broadcasting a moment of political protest. The script was written and ruthlessly executed. The message: any sufficiently forceful criticism of Israel’s military is now, by definition, Jew-hatred. The space for legitimate political speech has been surgically shrunk.
This is not about protecting Jews; it is about protecting policy. The campaign is insidious, weaving a narrative of ideological coercion that cleverly inverts reality. We are told, through carefully placed stories like that of rapper Azealia Banks, that a 'cancel culture' orthodoxy is forcing artists to 'say Free Palestine.' This is a laughable, transparent lie. Ask any artist, academic, or journalist what happens when they offer even mild criticism of Israel or support for Palestinian rights. They are the ones who face whisper campaigns, withdrawn contracts, public smears, and accusations of antisemitism that can destroy their careers. The true authoritarian pressure, the real ideological coercion, comes from the powerful lobby that demands absolute silence and conformity. The attacks on MIT and the BBC are not a response to their 'institutional complicity' in antisemitism; they are a demonstration of power, a warning to other elite institutions to fall in line or suffer the same fate.
The entire strategy hinges on a vicious and deliberate corruption of language. The intellectual battleground is the very definition of antisemitism. Look at the rabid attacks on New York State Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani or esteemed intellectuals like Masha Gessen. Their crime? Daring to suggest a distinction between anti-Zionism—a political critique of a specific nationalist ideology—and antisemitism. They, and others who reference frameworks like the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, are smeared by hostile outlets as engaging in a 'whitewash' of Jew-hatred. This is the lynchpin of the entire project. By successfully framing any separation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism as an apology for bigotry, they make the state of Israel conceptually inseparable from the Jewish people. The state becomes an idol, immune to criticism. Its policies, its military actions, its occupation—all are rendered untouchable, shielded by the sacred memory of Jewish suffering.
When intellectual dishonesty isn't enough, the tactics devolve into outright McCarthyite smear. The attempt to link the Glastonbury performer Bob Vylan to 'terrorism' via the Irish rap group Kneecap is a textbook example of guilt by association. The logic is as flimsy as it is poisonous: an artist who led a chant against the IDF is linked to another artist who was once charged (but not convicted under the Terrorism Act) for pro-Palestinian chants. Therefore, Glastonbury is a platform for terrorist sympathizers. This desperate, multi-step chain of 'evidence' is designed to bypass rational argument entirely. It aims to instill fear and associate any solidarity with the Palestinian cause not with human rights or political liberation, but with sinister, shadowy terrorist organizations. It’s a tactic used by all failing authoritarian projects: when you cannot win the argument, you paint your opponent as a monster.
We are being manipulated. The very real and legitimate threat of antisemitism is being used as a smokescreen for a political power grab. The goal is to create a 'chilling effect' so profound that it becomes impossible to criticize the actions of the Israeli state without being branded a racist. This cynical campaign does not protect Jewish communities. On the contrary, it endangers them. By conflating the Jewish people with the actions of a single, controversial nation-state, it falsely implicates them in political and military conflicts they may not support. It flattens the vibrant diversity of Jewish thought and identity into a monolithic political position. And, most dangerously, by crying 'antisemitism' at every political disagreement, it devalues the term, making it harder to identify and combat the genuine, violent Jew-hatred that continues to plague the far-right. We must reclaim the word 'antisemitism' from the clutches of those who use it not as a shield for the vulnerable, but as a sword against dissent.
