Accusations of antisemitism

Here we list instances of people being accused of antisemitism, with the likely intention to silence them, where they have in fact been "guilty" only of criticism of Israel.

The difference between antisemitism and criticism of Israel should be clear enough, but can perhaps be best illustrated by articles such as

Often, though, people don't get this (or pretend not to). For example, this article, originally headed If you support the Palestinian cause in any form, you’re facilitating Jew-hate, by Melanie Phillips. (For an account of how it has been changed, see here.) So here is a reality check: the Israel government is facilitating Israeli-hate, and the more you push the narrative identifying Jew with Israeli, the more you facilitate this being translated to Jew-hate.

Another article by the same author is Don’t fall for bogus claims of ‘Islamophobia’, which contains such gems as 'The concept of “Islamophobia” is thus profoundly anti-Jew'. So why am I linking to these articles, when I think they are completely bonkers? Well, it is to encourage you to not to be fooled by anyone who says commentary or opinions about Israel/Palestine is antisemitic.

Other cases of the same phenomenon:

The IHRA definition of antisemitism

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance provided a so-called Definition of Antisemitism. It has been trenchantly criticised by several leading lawyers:

Other criticisms have been made:

Let me add to these some briefer comments of my own. Here is the "definition", with my emphases and [my interpolations or comments]

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may [or, presumably, may not] be expressed as hatred toward Jews [and presumably, may or may not be expressed otherwise].
So what have we learnt about it so far? Only that it is something to do with attitudes antagonistic to Jews, which is more than what we get from the second sentence, which I won't bother to quote. As Prof Avi Shlaim says "It fails even to meet the most elementary requirement of a definition, which is to define." (quoted here, para 97)

Then follows a section about examples. With a prefatory paragraph

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel [that is what this is really all about] conceived as a Jewish collectivity [I'm not sure what that means].
The rest of that paragraph is probably uncontroversial. Then it goes on to more specific examples, introduced by this text
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to
That is, the 11 examples following may or may not be examples of antisemitism and anything else may or may not be an example of antisemitism. And that's it. Truly!

In fact as an example of saying nothing, this rather reminds me of the sentence I found once on Wikipedia, "The parasang may have originally been some fraction of the distance an infantryman could march in some predefined period of time."

So what is happening here is that the proponents would counter criticism by saying "it says only could include, not do include", but then, when organisations have adopted, or been pressured to adopt, the IHRA definitions, including all the examples (eg see here) they would treat those examples as antisemitic by virtue of the definition. That is, they ignore the fact that the examples may or may not be examples of antisemitism. So it is pertinent to look at those examples. Strikingly, the majority of them mention Israel, and some of these don't even refer to Jewish people. Which gives an idea of the concerns of the definition's proponents.

The weirdest one, to me, is the 7th example:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
A "right to self-determination" sounds nice, but give it a moment's thought. Does any similarly identifiable group have such a right? (Or should it?) How about the Sikhs, or the Sinhalese, or the Tamils in Sri Lanka, or all Tamils? And what does having a "right to self-determination" mean anyway? Does it mean And if I say none of these groups should have a "right to self-determination", does that show prejudice against Sikhs, or Sinhalese, or Tamils? Or just Jews?

And then, coming to the second half of that example, why is criticising Israel as racist (even if such criticism were knowingly wrong, and thereby suggestive of anti-Israel prejudice) anything to do with a "right to self-determination"? See this article, As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist.

The IHRA definition has been defended against criticism, sometimes along the lines of "it has no legal effect", and/or "it doesn't actually define anything to be antisemitic". Unfortunately it has been used as though it does. Here is a long report by the European Legal Support Center and British Society for Middle Eastern Studies, The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism in UK Higher Education, where universities were pressured by the UK Government to "adopt" (whatever that means) the "definition".

And here is an article discussing the text of the definition and its usage, Why calling Israel an apartheid state or racist is not anti-Semitic, by Ben White. Likewise, Jewish group opposes adoption of IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Other definitions of antisemitism

Meanwhile, here are some other definitions of antisemitism, which aren't focussed on discouraging criticism of Israel.

Self-hating Jews

This expression seems like meaningless nonsense - am I a "self-hating Christian" because I disagree with other Christians on something? - but it seems to be used of Jews who are critical of Israel. Anyhow, making a list here of Jewish people or organisations which are critical of Israel should help to debunk the narrative that there is anything "antisemitic" about criticising Israel. It's a list which, at 40 entries (March 2025), is longer than I'd ever imagined it might be, and I'll no doubt keep adding to it.

Franck Magennis

Complaint lodged against barrister who tweeted ‘Zionism is a kind of racism’. Conveniently the article includes the content of the tweet, as follows:

“Zionism is a kind of racism. It is essentially colonial. It has manifested in an apartheid regime calling itself “the Jewish state” that dominates non-Jews, and particularly Palestinians. You can’t practice anti-racism at the same time as identifying with, or supporting, Zionism.”
The article goes on to say
According to the ... IHRA, a contemporary example of antisemitism is ...
As I've pointed out in detail above, that is not correct: it may be ...

Apparently the Bar Standards Board rejected the complaint. This article, by the Campaign Against Antisemitism (which had made the complaint),