

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Weaponizing antisemitism on behalf of Israel does not protect Jewish people. It only makes them more vulnerable to future violence—for their sake, and the sake of Palestinians, Iranians and other victims of Israel’s violence, it must stop.
On March 17, Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center and pro-Trump ally, resigned from his position in protest of the war in Iran. In his resignation letter, he remarked, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
Kent is not alone here. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters, “We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) remarked that ”[Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu just a few weeks ago said he’d been waiting 40 years for an American president to join him in attacking Iran. And in Donald Trump, he finally found somebody stupid enough and reckless enough to actually do it.”
Now, it is worth noting that this is one of several conflicting reasons that have been provided to justify this war. Yet, that is precisely why these allegations should be taken seriously and investigated. As it stands, the US and Israel have launched an illegal, unprovoked war that is indiscriminately killing civilians, including children, while wrecking the global economy. We must know why.
Despite this, these allegations against Israel have been criticized as antisemitic. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) CEO Jonathan Greenblatt condemned those who blamed “the Jews” for inciting this war. “It is a sad irony,” Greenblatt said, “that an operation against the world’s largest sponsor of antisemitism has prompted so much antisemitism.” Zack Beauchamp, writing for Vox, accused Kent of engaging in “antisemitic conspiracism.” He wrote, “Antiwar antisemitism is still antisemitism.”
Conflating criticism of Israel with genuine bigotry only makes it more difficult to assess and address this serious problem.
These responses represent a continuing and troubling trend of conflating criticisms of Israel (and the Israeli government more specifically) with antisemitism.
Let us be clear: Not all criticisms of Israel are rooted in antisemitism. Likewise, not all criticisms of Iran are Islamophobic. The same holds true for individuals: It is not inherently antisemitic to criticize Benjamin Netanyahu.
What matters is the underlying rationale. Are we judging the person or nation based on the actions they have taken, the thoughts they have expressed, or the policies they have implemented? Or are stereotypes, prejudices, and ignorance fueling those claims? Are the accusations of Israel provoking this war based on the best available evidence or antisemitic hallucinations of a “secret Jewish cabal” plotting world domination?
Parsing through these questions requires careful assessment. If the allegations against Israel are grounded in hatred, then we must hold the people spreading those lies accountable. Antisemitism can never be tolerated.
If, however, they are supported by hard evidence, then a commitment to justice, morality, and humanity requires we hold Israel accountable. The same standard applies to all nations and world leaders, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, or any other characteristic. No one is beyond reproach.
Greenblatt argues that referring to Israel as an “apartheid state,” accusing it of committing a genocide, or starting the war with Iran contribute to the “most concentrated, most dangerous surge of antisemitism in living memory.” What Greenblatt fails to realize is the role of people like him in driving this surge. His rhetoric does not silence opposition. It does not contribute to productive dialogue and understanding. Rather, it creates the false perception that all of Israel’s actions reflect its Jewish identity; that Israel speaks for and represents all Jewish people. That only someone who hates “the Jew” would ever find fault in Israel’s actions. That antisemitism is the only reason why someone would support Palestinians and advocate for their sovereignty.
We must remember that antisemitism and racism, like all forms of prejudice, are acts of depersonalization and dehumanization. The antisemite treats all Jewish people as a homogenous group—they all share the same thoughts, have the same aspirations, engage in the same acts. Here, the diversity of thoughts and opinions is denied. For the bigot, everything the Jewish person does is not a reflection of them as a person, but rather of their “Jewishness.” This flawed logic paves the way for the antisemite to hold all Jewish people accountable for the words and deeds of a few. When people like Greenblatt indiscriminately label any criticism of Israel as antisemitic, he follows this same logic: He treats Israel not as a sovereign nation whose actions reflect its own internal decision-making but as “the Jewish state” whose actions are inseparable from its Jewish identity. It reduces all discussion of Israel to its ethnicity and religion—that is, itself, antisemitic.
Jewish people are neither collectively responsible for Israel’s actions nor do they universally support them. For instance, two prominent Israeli rights groups—B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel—have accused Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza. Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist advocacy group, has protested against the US government’s unfettered support for Israel. According to a October 2025 Washington Post poll, 61% of American Jews say Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza, with 39% saying it is committing a genocide. None of this is antisemitism.
The reality is that according to both the Gaza Health Ministry and an Israeli security official over 70,000 Gazans have been killed in Israeli attacks since Oct 7, 2023. The reality is that Israeli officials have repeatedly implied or outright expressed genocidal intent. In 2024, Netanyahu said in a news conference, “In any future arrangement… Israel needs security control over all territory west of the Jordan.” In 2025, he said: "We are going to fulfil our promise that there will be no Palestinian state. This place belongs to us." More pointedly, Deputy Speaker of the Knesset Nissim Vaturi said, we must “wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth,” while adding “Gaza must be burned.” Those killings happened, those words were said—we must reckon with this reality, not cast it aside as an antisemitic conspiracy.
None of this is to deny that antisemitism is on the rise worldwide. However, conflating criticism of Israel with genuine bigotry only makes it more difficult to assess and address this serious problem. It dilutes the moral weight of accusations of antisemitism and distracts us from the harm suffered by its victims. Ultimately, we cannot seek justice for one group while denying it for another. We must stand with Palestinians who have been terrorized by Israel’s military assaults, as well as the victims of the Bondi Beach shooting, Temple Israel synagogue attack, and other acts of violence. A moral double standard cannot be tolerated.
And yes, it is the case that some anti-Israel critics, like Nick Fuentes, are antisemitic. Similarly, some disparagements of African, Asian, and Latin American countries are racist; and some attacks against Middle Eastern countries are Islamophobic. This possibility, however, does not mean we should treat every criticism as being singularly and inherently hateful. Rather, it must caution us to be more careful and critical with the words we use.
Weaponizing antisemitism on behalf of Israel does not protect Jewish people. It only makes them more vulnerable to future violence—for their sake, and for the sake of Palestinians, Iranians, and other victims of Israel’s violence, it must stop.
The oldest surviving Jewish newspaper seems dead set on using antisemitism not so much to fight racism, but to defend a racist regime and cover up horrific violations.
On Yom Kippur, two British Jews were killed at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation synagogue in Manchester, during a cruel, antisemitic act of violence. One of them was accidentally shot by police.
Later that week, while discussing antisemitism at the dinner table, my teenage son, who frequents a high school in Hackney, London, took out his phone and displayed scores of antisemitic Instagram reels.
Numerous AI-generated clips depicted Orthodox Jews in different settings, appearing to be obsessed with money, while other reels denied the Holocaust—questioning, for example, the possibility of preparing 6 million pizzas in 20 ovens. A few of his school friends liked the reels, thinking they were funny.
Antisemitism is alive and well in the UK and across Europe. This must be vigorously clamped down on. But, instead of focusing on this very real problem, major Jewish groups have instead followed the Israeli government by instrumentalizing antisemitism in an effort to criminalize and silence Palestinians and their supporters in the struggle for liberation and self-determination.
On the Chronicle’s pages, Corbyn appears to be much more threatening to Jews than Hitler.
The cruel irony is that, in effect, these organisations are dramatically weakening the real fight against antisemitism.
A case in point is the Jewish Chronicle, the world’s oldest Jewish newspaper. In December 2024, the Chronicle published an article by commentator Melanie Phillips, who wrote: “Deranged fear and hatred of Jews and the aim of exterminating them define the Palestinian cause… Left-wing governments that ideologically support the Palestinian cause and also kowtow to Muslim constituencies in which Jew-hatred is rife, shockingly recycle the lies about Israel.”
Claiming that the worst offenders have been “the governments in Britain, Australia and Canada,” Phillips concluded by casting all supporters of the Palestinian cause as “facilitating deranged and murderous Jew-hatred.”
Three weeks later, the Chronicle published an article entitled, “Did Elon Musk really perform a Nazi salute at Trump rally?” The subtitle assured readers that “Jewish charities deny it was a Nazi reference,” while the Anti-Defamation League was quoted as saying that Musk’s gesture was “awkward” but not a Nazi salute.
The juxtaposition of these articles—one conflating pro-Palestinian activism with murderous antisemitism, and the other downplaying the concrete dangers of antisemitism, as manifested in a nefarious salute by one of the world’s most powerful people—provides a gateway into the Chronicle’s universe, and its aggressive campaign against any demonstration of solidarity with Palestinians.
Antisemitism is often stripped of its original meaning—namely, discrimination against Jews as Jews—and used instead as an “iron dome” to defend Israel from its critics. Articles like these led me to look more closely at how the newspaper has historically understood and employed antisemitism on its own pages—a research project whose findings were recently published.
Examining the appearance of the term “antisemitism” over a period of 100 years—from 1925 to 2024—I assumed that its occurrence would be most pronounced during the Holocaust, when antisemitism led to the extermination of 6 million Jews.

The results, however, revealed that in 1938, at the height of the Nazi clampdown on Jews in Germany (which, unlike the “final solution,” was not shrouded in secrecy), antisemitism was mentioned in 352 articles. While this was substantially higher than its average appearance, it was substantially less than the term’s appearance during Jeremy Corbyn’s 2019 national election bid and Israel’s latest war on Gaza, where the number of articles invoking antisemitism was nearly double that.
Even though the term has become more common in recent decades, shockingly, in the Chronicle’s apparent view, the antisemitism threat is perceived as greater now than it was in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
Between January 2023 and June 2024—a period covering nine months before the 7 October attack and nine months after—the term antisemitism, almost always denoting anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, appeared in roughly every fifth article. This suggests that the UK’s primary Jewish newspaper has been weaponizing a Zionist notion of antisemitism to produce moral panic among its readers.
The Jewish weekly, in other words, has played a role in whipping up fear and anxiety by falsely conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism or criticism of Israel. This false and dangerous conflation explains the dramatic increase in the term’s frequency, and why on the Chronicle’s pages, Corbyn appears to be much more threatening to Jews than Hitler.
But for such spurious allegations to gain credibility, anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel must be constructed as posing an imminent threat to individual Jews around the world. This is accomplished, in part, by introducing another false conflation—this time between a person’s sense of “feeling uncomfortable” and “being unsafe.”
Given the fact that genuine antisemitism remains an all-too-present reality, the way the Chronicle has spouted the term risks displacing the threat of actual existing antisemitism.
Obviously, the claim that Israel is carrying out genocide, or that it constitutes a settler-colonial regime and an apartheid state, might make Jews who identify emotionally with Israel and Zionism “feel uncomfortable.”
But the Chronicle positions their discomfort as itself injurious, or as “being unsafe.” Ultimately, then, a fallacious notion of antisemitism is cast as a safety hazard to conjure up fears of Jewish annihilation—and this is then used as a counterinsurgency tool to silence Palestinian and pro-Palestinian activists who criticize Israel’s apartheid and, more recently, its genocidal war in Gaza.
Given the fact that genuine antisemitism remains an all-too-present reality, the way the Chronicle has spouted the term risks displacing the threat of actual existing antisemitism.
Indeed, the oldest surviving Jewish newspaper seems dead set on using antisemitism not so much to fight racism, but to defend a racist regime and cover up horrific violations. By abusing the term antisemitism, the newspaper is harming the very Jews it claims to represent—myself included.
With the ADL appealing to the NEA’s nine-member executive committee to reconsider the motion, union President Becky Pringle walks a tightrope as the committee studies whether to say yay or nay to the majority of delegates rejecting the ADL.
National Education Association teachers in support of Palestinian rights are celebrating their breakthrough success at the NEA’s Representative Assembly in Portland this summer. After years of organizing with both one-on-one conversations and state delegation talks, NEA delegates voted to pass a Drop the Anti-Defamation League motion that rejects the ADL as a curriculum and professional development partner.
“We are witnessing a sea change in people’s understanding of who the Palestinians are and what colonialism has done to them,“ said Merrie Najimy, former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) and Founder of MTA Rank and File for Palestine. “In the past, too many people didn’t see the humanity of Palestinians because Israeli propaganda erased and dehumanized them. We call that anti-Palestinian racism.”
While the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), and CODEPINK applauded the motion, the Anti-Defamation League blamed a “pro-Hamas” cabal inside the NEA for rejecting an organization that smears peace activists and slams Muslims and anti-Zionist Jews.
The “pro-Hamas” accusation echoes the verbiage of Project Esther, the Heritage Foundation’s MAGA blueprint for crushing pro-Palestinian voices amid Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The product of Christian nationalists, Project Esther has earned the ire of the Academic Council of Jewish Voice for Peace for blasting anti-genocide protesters as members of a fictitious U.S. Hamas Support Network.
“Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change.”
In response to the motion’s passage at the NEA Representative Assembly (RA), an enraged ADL sent out a mass email urging its supporters to tell the NEA executive committee to reverse the NEA delegates’ recommendation that teachers not “use, endorse, or publicize” ADL materials, nor “participate in ADL programs or publicize ADL professional development offerings.”
A national Drop the ADL From Schools campaign has long criticized the ADL’s materials for whitewashing the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, where Zionist militias destroyed over 500 Palestinian villages in the Nakba (Arabic word for catastrophe) of 1947-48 when the State of Israel was declared.
The ADL’s mass email made no mention, however, of Palestine, focusing instead on the urgency of providing resources to fight antisemitism. “Don’t let the radical anti-Israel advocates within the NEA marginalize Jewish voices,” read the ADL email.
Whereas Merriam-Webster defines antisemitism as “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group” and makes no distinction between the antisemitism that fueled the Holocaust and today’s white supremacist chants “Jews will not replace us,” the ADL’s Echoes and Reflections curriculum, co-developed with the Shoah Foundation and Yad Vashem, includes a unit that defines contemporary antisemitism as “anti-Zionism and opposition to the State of Israel.”
The unit introduces a pro-Israel vocabulary framework—delegitimization, demonization, and double-standards–a 3D test to evaluate whether an incident is antisemitic. Under this rubric, the campus slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is noted 600 times in the ADL’s 2024 audit of antisemitic incidents, according to the magazine Jewish Currents, which conducted a “line by line” examination of the audit. Even the ADL admits that 58% of the incidents cited in its 2024 audit were related to criticism of Israel.
Still, teachers and students who access ADL curriculum—No Place for Hate, Echoes and Reflections, A World of Difference—are encouraged, through links back to the ADL website, to complete a complaint form accusing others of involvement in what the ADL defines as antisemitic incidents.
On the floor of the Representative Assembly, delegate Stephen Siegel of Oregon reminded the delegates that Wikipedia editors determined the ADL is not a reliable source on antisemitism. “Allowing the ADL to determine what constitutes antisemitism would be like allowing the fossil fuel industry to determine what constitutes climate change,” said Siegel.
Backers of the NEA motion object to the ADL’s Zionist framing and stereotyping of all Jews as supporters of Israel.
“The ADL and other Zionist organizations continually try to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,” said Judy Greenspan, the Oakland Education Association NEA delegate who introduced the motion that emerged from the Educators for Palestine Caucus inside the 3-million-member union. “The NEA will no longer be bullied into supporting this genocidal war,” added Greenspan, a public school teacher and member of Jewish Voice for Peace who was among the 6,000 delegates at the NEA Representative Assembly.
In the days following the RA, photos of delegates who championed the motion were posted on social media, leading to “doxing, harassment, and hate emails,” according to Greenspan.
In contrast, Jason Goldfisher, an NEA Jewish Affairs Caucus delegate, complained on his Facebook page that his Jewish friends did not feel safe following the vote at the NEA convention. “There were tears. Panic attacks. Silent breakdowns,” wrote Goldfisher, who noted the presence of keffiyehs in the assembly room.
“Yes, many of us wore keffiyehs throughout the NEA Representative Assembly,” said Greenspan, “because we wanted to visibly show our support for the Palestinian people who are being brutally murdered by the U.S. and Israel in what can only be called a genocidal holocaust. One of the continuing mantras of the Zionists is that our anti-Zionist activism makes them feel ‘unsafe.’ It is such a false narrative because looking at what is happening in the world objectively, it is the Palestinians who are being brutally massacred by the Israeli government with U.S. bombs and military equipment.”
On the floor of the assembly, a delegate from the “great state of New Jersey” skipped over Israel’s concentration camp in Gaza to “rise in opposition” to the NEA motion. “The ADL defends members of the Jewish community against hate, discrimination, and antisemitism. That support extends to our students and fellow educators who use those resources regularly,” said the delegate whose name was “unclear” in a transcript of the debate.
The ADL, however, did not defend New England teachers who developed a counternarrative to the “land without a people for a people without a land" mythology. Former MTA President Najimy said the ADL launched a smear campaign against the MTA to accuse the union of antisemitism following the MTA’s development of resources on Palestinian history and indigeneity. “So why would we partner with an organization that is actively trying to discredit the teachers’ union?” said Najimy.
In 2024, when the federal census added a new category—Middle East-North Africa—the NEA bestowed formal recognition on a MENA Caucus, which Najimy said helped delegates understand that the union’s commitment to antiracism must include support for equal rights for Palestinians. Israel’s live-streamed genocide also brought new member delegates to the NEA RA, making passage of the motion possible due to widespread outrage, according to Najimy.
The NEA motion rejecting the ADL followed a similar motion passed overwhelmingly last spring by the governing body of United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA), which represents 35,000 educators in the country’s second-largest teachers union, right behind New York City. The UTLA motion asked Los Angeles Unified School Board members, administrators, and educators not to adopt or teach ADL curriculum or partner with the ADL for professional development because “the organization conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism to suppress debate.”
In its rationale, the UTLA motion referenced the ADL’s history of surveilling activists (UAW, NAACP, ACLU), suing school districts, and sending a threatening letter to college presidents demanding investigations of the nonviolent Students for Justice in Palestine.
With the ADL appealing to the NEA’s nine-member executive committee to reconsider the motion, union President Becky Pringle walks a tightrope as the committee studies whether to say yay or nay to the majority of delegates rejecting the ADL.
Pringle assured the public that the NEA is committed to combating “all forms of hate and discrimination, including antisemitism and anti-Palestinian bigotry.” In a public statement on the actions taken at this summer’s NEA’s Representative Assembly, Pringle reminded critics that the NEA hosted a panel on antisemitism, honored a Holocaust survivor, and voted to honor Jewish American Heritage Month.
The NEA executive committee will forward its recommendation on the motion to the NEA board, which will then circle back with the Representative Assembly for a final vote, according to Najimy.
In solidarity with Educators for Palestine, CODEPINK urged its supporters to reach out to the NEA executive committee, and Jewish Voice for Peace asked its members to weigh in with a one-click tweet to NEA leadership:
Thank you @NEAToday for voting to cut ties with the ADL. The ADL pretends it’s a civil rights group, but really, it’s a pro-Israel lobbying group that smears Palestinian rights, and it should never be trusted as an educational resource. I urge all educators to #DropTheADL.