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 for her: 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. (UPDATE: the article is mentioned in the opening paragraph of The weaponisation of antisemitism: The Jewish Chronicle and the production of a moral panic, by Neve Gordon).

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.

Meanwhile you would be excused for assuming this article is satire: Bake sales for Gaza could stoke Jew hatred, EU warns - well, it's not. It goes on

Fundraisers for Gaza make ‘Jews feel uncomfortable’, says Europe’s anti-Semitism tsar.
...
She’s hostile to any sign of solidarity with the Palestinians, calling it ‘ambient anti-Semitism’

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 a non-definition 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.

This page, Distorted Definition: Redefining Antisemitism to Silence Advocacy for Palestinian Rights, has lots of relevant links, as does Backgrounder on Efforts to Redefine Antisemitism as a Means of Censoring Criticism of Israel. And here you can get their report The Palestine Exception to Free Speech: A Movement Under Attack in the US

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. Please note that in some cases, I've identified a person as being Jewish on the basis of (for example), the name, or holding a senior position in the Israel government, or in an Israeli university, or having written in Hebrew, etc, so please tell me if I'm wrong - streisandeffect AT substack DOT com. In other cases I have simply included Israeli organisations, without knowing whether those involved are Jewish or not. 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),

Jewish loyalty to Israel??

In doing a web search about Dave Smith (see above), I came across this article One in Five Britons Found to Be Antisemitic in Shocking New Poll. It says "... one in five Britons now [affirm] multiple antisemitic statements". Being the sort of person who would wonder what these (allegedly) "antisemitic statements" are, I read on. The article mentions only one, saying "nearly 40% of British adults now believe that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to Britain". There is a lot to say about this - here is a sample

As a matter of fact the same website has a page listing articles about "Antisemitism" . This page will change continually, but right now (17/9/25) more of the headlines specifically reference Israelis than Jews.

Anyway, back to the question of Jews being more loyal to Israel than to their own country: Australian defence force officer stripped of security clearance over loyalty to Israel The relevant case is HWMW and Director-General of Security [2025] ARTA 105 In the applicant’s own written statement (paragraph numbers are of the judgment) he said

(It is made clear that the applicant is Jewish.) So there we have these supposedly "antisemitic" statements straight from the horse's mouth.

Melanie Phillips (again): in this article, 'Home truths' from Melanie Phillips convey one message: Israel will always be at war she is described saying

Phillips reminded diaspora Jews that their first loyalty was to Israel. She said they were not just Americans or Britons with Judaism added on; they were part of the “Jewish nation”, and that should come first. Everything else was secondary.

Jenan Matari - “Everything Grows in Jiddo’s Garden”

Quoting from this article
New Jersey area Jewish leadership described a factual Grayzone report about Charlie Kirk’s falling out with Netanyahu as “hateful, divisive, and antisemitic,” and weaponized it to cancel the book event of a Palestinian children’s writer who reposted the article on social media.
Zionist activists ... accused New Jersey-based Watchung Booksellers of antisemitism and threatened to boycott the establishment if they didn’t withdraw her invitation. It was the second store in the past month to scrap a planned event for Matari’s newly-published children’s book, “Everything Grows in Jiddo’s Garden,” following a mass harassment campaign by local Jewish communal leaders.
So here is the Grayzone article in question, Charlie Kirk refused Netanyahu funding offer, was ‘frightened’ by pro-Israel forces before death, friend reveals, and here is more about the children’s book, Everything Grows in Jiddo’s Garden.

And here is a link to the offerings of the publishing house (based in the USA) in History/Politics/Current Affairs

These people are LYING

I find that lying enrages me more than any individual political view does, so excuse this rant. See the following (rather old) news articles, with select quotes:

Oddly, the reports differ on what he said, whether "-shteen" or "-shtine". While the press gets things wrong all the time, wouldn't you think they would take a bit of care when criticising someone so trenchantly?

So here's a fact, and some rational consideration of the issue. Fact: it doesn't make him sound more Jewish, it makes him sound more German. It (and other names ending in -stein) is German not Jewish. And the German pronounciation is "-shtine" (not "-stine" or "-steen"). (Incidentally, none of the reports I've found gave any clue as to why "-shtine" makes him sound more Jewish).

Now this doesn't deny the right of a person to decide what pronounciation he prefers for his name. But I've never seen any discussion of what Epstein preferred (or any indication that TV newsreaders and the like had either.)

Now for the rational consideration (for the benefit of those who do have some reason to think it makes him sound Jewish): even if you did know which pronounciation a person preferred, if it's different from the normal pronounciation, it's quite understandable to slip back and forth between them.

And for some personal experience: my wife's name often gets mispronounced (following the spelling). I really think it would be totally insane to take this as an indication of anti-Chinese prejudice. And doubly insane to take it as an indication of prejudice against her religion.

And more personal experience: Hungarian has, as it happens, a similar issue: spelling "-s-", pronounciation "-sh-". My niece always accepted "-s-" without comment - either she was never fussed about it, or, living in Australia, had given up fussing about it. It was only when I met her family at her wedding to my nephew that I was told all about correct (Hungarian) pronounciation. And now that I know this, arguably maybe I should use the correct pronounciation, even though so far as I know she doesn't seem to care. But definitely I would not expect to be criticised for either, or for slipping back and forth between the two pronounciations. And even more definitely, it shouldn't be seen as anything to do with her religion.

So where does all that leave us? That these critics of Corbyn (on this issue) are quite simply LIARS, or so lacking in principle that they are prepared to criticise him on anything whatever (which is in my view, tantamount to being LIARS). And for that I despise and detest them. (end of rant).

Caitlin Johnstone (and others)

The Israeli Government Put My Name At The Top Of An 'Antisemite' List, archived here (actually it's a list of just Australian individuals and organisations). The document she writes about is Delegitimization and Antisemitism in Australia – A Snapshot October-December 2025, but she also quotes an earlier one, Antisemitism & Anti-Zionism in Australia. Note the titles - "Delegitimization" (which I assume means like, for example, numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions), and "Anti-Zionism".

She quotes at length the earlier document, saying "I’ll just copy and paste [it] here because it makes me look awesome" - which indeed she is. She also says

I’m not going to lie, I do regard all this attention I’m getting from Israel as a compliment. Winding up at the top of an Israeli list of enemies is certainly more of an assurance that I’m doing the right thing than winning some shitty western “journalism” award like a Pulitzer would ever be.
She publishes frequently on substack, on Medium, and on caitlinjohnstone.com.au. I subscribe to (and highly recommend) her writing myself - so I know that calling her "antisemitic" is nonsense (but she "happily admits" to "delegitimization").

As a matter of fact the Israel government documents cited above seem to be detailed and accurate - apart from confusing criticism of Israel with antisemitism - so you can work out for yourself whether any of the individuals and organisations are antisemitic. In fact they don't consistently confuse criticism of Israel with antisemitism: on page 3 of the earlier document it refers to "antisemitic and anti-Israel sentiment", "antisemitic and anti-Zionist content", "antisemitic and anti-Israel attacks", "antisemitic/anti-Israel groups", "antisemitism and anti-Zionism".

The later document lists several other individuals and organisations, the ones I'm familiar with are

The earlier cited document lists numerous individuals and organisations, usually describing or quoting what they have said - presumably the things that the Israel government finds most objectionable - which mostly only shows that there is nothing much objectionable about them. So there is probably lots of stuff these folk have produced which is worth reading.

A cursory search fails to find similar lists from the Israeli government about writers in other countries. Since these would warrant recommendation just as much as Australians, do let me know if you come across any - streisandeffect AT substack DOT com.