Crying Wolf on Antisemitism: A Zionist’s Case for Nuance

In an era where antisemitism is surging globally at alarming rates, our Jewish community faces a complex challenge: how to forcefully combat genuine anti-Jewish bigotry while maintaining credibility and moral clarity in discussions about Israel’s policies. This distinction has become increasingly critical as debates about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict intensify across college campuses, social media, and public discourse.

As a proud Zionist from a family of traditional Iranian Jews (yes, there are many of us in LA), my commitment to Israel’s security and right to exist as our Jewish homeland is unwavering. Throughout my academic career and professional life, I’ve consistently defended Israel in hostile environments, organized pro-Israel events, and engaged in countless debates with Israel’s detractors. Even today, I’m a big supporter of the Netanyahu government. This dedication has sometimes come at a personal cost—including lost friendships—but it’s a price I’ve willingly paid to stand by my convictions.

However, it is precisely because of this deep commitment to Israel and the Jewish people that we must exercise careful judgment in how we deploy accusations of antisemitism. The current tendency to label any criticism of Israeli government policies as antisemitic not only dilutes the term’s power, but it also undermines our ability to combat actual anti-Jewish hatred effectively. Here’s why:

The Spectrum of Criticism

Consider the varying forms of Israel-related discourse we encounter today. On one end, we have legitimate policy critiques: analysts questioning specific military strategies, human rights organizations examining civilian casualties, or Israeli citizens themselves debating government decisions. Even within Israel, newspapers like Haaretz regularly publish pointed criticisms of government policies without any hint of anti-Semitic intent.

In the middle, we find what I call ‘Uninformed Criticism’ – statements or positions that may be factually incorrect or oversimplified but don’t stem from anti-Jewish animus. Take, for instance, a college student who, having only been exposed to one narrative, questions Israel’s defensive measures without understanding the full security context. Enter the dumb and malleable useful idiot posing as a ‘social justice warrior’, whose entire Middle East education consists of 30-second TikTok clips. They suddenly become experts on international law and decide that Israel must be the aggressor simply because they have an organized military – not a ragtag group of basement-dwellers firing Qassam rockets after their day jobs. While such views deserve correction, openly labeling them as anti-Semetic is akin to calling a three-year-old child irresponsible for drawing on the living room wall: they don’t know any better and the only way to help them is to educate them.

Then there are those whose cowardly apathy masquerades as intellectual nuance. Take, for example, former Harvard president Claudine Gay who, along with former Penn president Liz Magill, embarrassed themselves trying to play constitutional scholars with their pompous “it depends on the context” tap dance when asked the no-brainer question of whether calling for Jewish genocide would violate their universities’ codes of conduct. Their academic doublespeak was a masterclass in moral bankruptcy disguised as measured analysis – but it was not antisemitism.

At the far end of the spectrum lies genuine antisemitism masked as “criticism of Israel” – those who use anti-Jewish tropes, deny Israel’s right to exist, or promote conspiracy theories about Jewish power and influence. The difference is often evident in the language used: comparing Israeli policies to Nazi Germany, invoking age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of media or governments, or suggesting that Jewish people’s connection to the land of Israel is fabricated.

Case in Point: the repugnant spectacle of Dan Bilzerian appearing on Piers Morgan’s Uncensored show is a perfect case study in undisguised anti-Semitism. Here was a shameless hatemonger who appeared on Piers Morgan’s show to spew anti-Jewish conspiracy theories, claiming that “Jewish supremacy” is the greatest threat to America today, and offering to bet his entire net worth that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was overstated. Such statements aren’t political criticism – they’re textbook examples of anti-Semitic hatred, combining historical revisionism, conspiracy theories, and pure unadulterated stupidity all in a pathetic attempt legitimize violence against Jews.

These stark examples illustrate the crucial difference between legitimate political discourse and genuine bigotry. When someone moves beyond critiquing specific policies to embracing conspiracy theories, denying historical atrocities, or celebrating violence against Jews, they’ve crossed a clear line from political criticism into anti-Semitism.

The Cost of Crying Wolf

When we fail to maintain these distinctions, we risk several dangerous outcomes. First, we contribute to what some call “antisemitism fatigue” – where repeated, questionable accusations of anti-Semitism cause people to become skeptical of all claims of anti-Jewish bigotry, even legitimate ones. This skepticism can be particularly dangerous in an environment where actual antisemitic incidents are rising dramatically. When we reflexively label every criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitic, we risk diminishing the term’s gravity and impact. Just as crying ‘racism’ at every slight has spawned the cynical dismissal of the ‘race card’ – thereby crippling our ability to address genuine instances of racial bigotry – we face a similar danger with ‘antisemitism.’ If we deploy the charge of antisemitism too readily, it could become merely another rhetorical weapon, robbed of its proper weight and urgency. In a time when real antisemitism is surging globally, we cannot afford to dilute the term’s power through overuse or misapplication, thereby turning our sharpest sword against bigotry into a dull butter knife.

Second, we risk creating a chilling effect on legitimate political discourse. Jewish students, academics, and public figures who wish to engage in good-faith criticism of specific Israeli policies often self-censor, fearing they’ll be branded as “self-hating Jews” or traitors to their community. This dynamic doesn’t serve anyone’s interests – not Israel’s, not the Jewish people’s, and certainly not the cause of justice and truth.

Moving Beyond Binary Thinking

The reality is that most Israel-related discourse exists in shades of gray rather than black and white. A student group calling for Palestinian rights isn’t necessarily antisemitic, just as an Israeli citizen criticizing settlement policy to promote a peace accord isn’t a “self-hating Jew.” By maintaining these nuanced distinctions, we strengthen rather than weaken our ability to combat actual antisemitism.

The famous Jewish tradition of debate and disagreement – exemplified by Talmudic discussions where multiple viewpoints are preserved and respected – should guide us here. Just as our ancestors could disagree vehemently about interpretation of religious law while maintaining mutual respect, just as Republicans and Democrats can engage in civil discourse without hating each other (for the most part), we too must learn to navigate political disagreements without resorting to accusations of bigotry.

The stakes are too high for anything less. With antisemitism on the rise globally, we need our warnings about anti-Jewish hatred to be taken seriously. This requires us to be precise in our language, measured in our accusations, and committed to maintaining moral clarity even in heated political debates.

As we move forward in these challenging times, we should remember that the strength of our community has always come from our ability to engage in principled debate while maintaining unity in the face of genuine threats. By getting this balance right, we honor both our commitment to Israel and our obligation to fight bigotry in all its forms.

Ryan Cadry is a Los Angeles-based attorney who has passionately followed and studied U.S. foreign policy, global political trends, transnational diplomacy, and American-Israeli relations for nearly two decades.