Weaponization of antisemitism
Citing research by Christopher Sykes, Chomsky said the phenomenon began in 1943, when David Ben-Gurion criticized a British court "that had implicated Zionist leaders in arms-trafficking"."[27] In 1987, journalist Allan Brownfeld wrote in the Journal of Palestine Studies: "One cannot be critical of the Israeli prime minister, concerned about the question of the Palestinians, or dubious about the virtue of massive infusions of U.S. aid to Israel without subjecting oneself to the possibility of being called 'anti-Semitic'."[29] The journalist Ben White and English scholar Matthew Abraham (in his book Out of Bounds: Academic Freedom and the Question of Palestine) suggest that international Israeli advocacy groups have charged prominent individuals expressing pro-Palestinian sentiment with antisemitism.[46] While warning in 2010 against denying or minimizing antisemitism, Kenneth L. Marcus also cautioned against overuse of the "anti-Semitism card", paralleling concerns raised by Richard Thompson Ford with the broader misuse of "the race card": that it can be dishonest and mean-spirited, risks weakening legitimate accusations of bigotry, risks distracting socially concerned organizations from other social injustices, and hurts outreach efforts between Jewish and Arab or Muslim groups.[53] In 2004, Joel Beinin wrote that the "well-established ploy" of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism exposes Jews to attack by suggesting they are responsible for the Israeli government's actions.Matthew Abraham, professor of English at the University of Arizona, wrote that accusations of antisemitism against those criticizing Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights have increased since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000."[72] A presumption that all Muslims are antisemitic has been "increasingly deployed by Zionist groups to eliminate critical debate inclusive of Palestinian experiences", according to Mitchell Plitnick and Sahar Aziz.[73] In 2020, Ronnie Kasrils compared claims of antisemitism in Britain to rhetorical strategies employed against the anti-apartheid movement by supporters of the South African government."[77] In May 2024, in reference to the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, he wrote, "the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza"."[79] Marshall Ganz, a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, criticized the "weaponization" of antisemitism, writing in The Nation that the "tactics are remarkably similar to those used by Senator Joseph McCarthy".[80] Slate columnist Emily Tamkin also used the term for critics of antisemitism scholar Derek Penslar when Harvard appointed him to head a task force on the issue.Brown and Daniel Nerenberg said that the definition, created in good faith, had been weaponized by groups including the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Committee, and the Brandeis Center.[96] In 2019, Joshua Leifer, an editor of Dissent magazine, wrote that campaigns that consider anti-Zionism antisemitic aim to shift criticisms of the Israeli government "beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability".Instead of believing or acknowledging the experiences of Jewish people who have been targeted and subject to abuse, and dispensing with any notion of good faith, the antisemitic rejectionists instead blame and smear the victims themselves, accusing the Jews/Zionists of once again organizing their secret cabal to act maliciously and manipulate others into doing their bidding and silencing others.[105] Kenneth Roth described what Netanyahu said as a "common last resort for defenders of Israel" and said that it endangers Jews: "if people see the charge of antisemitism as a thin cover for Israeli war crimes, it will cheapen the concept at a time when a strong defense is needed."[108] Lars Rensmann suggests that while complaints about "illegitimate racism charges" are generally unacceptable in society, accusations that Jews are weaponizing antisemitism are instead "almost ubiquitous" and "virtually without empirical evidence".[109] Robert Fine says there is an "extensive literature on the allegedly illicit uses of the word 'antisemitism' in political argument" that "casts doubt on the motives of those who claim to experience or witness it".[110] David Schraub says the charge of weaponization is "a first-cut response that presents marginalized persons as inherently untrustworthy, unbelievable, or lacking in the basic understandings regarding the true meaning of discrimination".