Unpacking the Rapid Growth and Weaponizing of Antisemitism

Recent events in Washington, D.C. and Colorado point to the continued rise and challenges of antisemitism in the U.S.  It is apparent that hate crimes against Jews have no boundaries, no logic and no end. The increase and the random but persistent nature of this hate makes vigilance and dialogue around antisemitism more urgent than ever. Yet paradoxically, as it is on the rise, accusations of antisemitism are increasingly being used not as tools for justice and resolution, but as weapons of political convenience. No matter your political or cultural background there continues to be an ongoing distortion and muddying of the waters of public discourse around what constitutes antisemitism—making it harder to fight genuine antisemitism when it arises.

And the horror that recently played out in Washington, D.C. and Boulder only exacerbates the level of division and animus on both sides of this issue. To be clear, antisemitism is real, dangerous and deeply rooted in centuries of prejudice and violence. From white supremacist marches where people chant “Jews will not replace us” to recent attacks, the threat is palpable. But the issue becomes more complex—and more troubling—when the label of antisemitism is deployed to silence political opponents, particularly around contentious issues like the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

Unfortunately, the accusation of antisemitism has become a powerful rhetorical tool in public discourse. While vigilance against genuine antisemitism is crucial given the long and painful history of prejudice against Jewish communities, there is a growing concern among scholars, activists and Jews themselves that the charge is increasingly being weaponized—particularly by special interest groups—to stifle criticism, silence political opponents, and advance unrelated ideological agendas.

Historically, antisemitism referred to discrimination, hostility or violence against Jewish people based on their religious, ethnic or cultural identity. It is a term with deep roots in tragedy, most notably the Holocaust, and has rightly triggered societal vigilance. But in the last decade, the definition of antisemitism has become more elastic, particularly as it relates to discourse about Israel and Zionism.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, for example, includes certain criticisms of the state of Israel as potentially antisemitic. While this definition has gained acceptance with at least 30 countries and many institutions within the global community, there have been concerns raised about this broad definition by a number of organizations and interest groups around the world. As an example, in 2023 Human Rights Watch and over 100 global organizations raised concerns about the broadening of the definition that includes for many what they perceive as merely free speech and commentary about their position on how the State of Israel has handled the Palestinian conflict.

The weaponization of antisemitism accusations is most visible when discussing criticism of Israeli government policies—especially regarding the ongoing Palestinian conflict, where criticisms are often quickly labeled as antisemitic. In some cases they can cross over into the territory of antisemitism; but in other cases they do not, and characterizing them as antisemitic attacks is detrimental to the fight against real antisemitism. This tactic, deployed by organizations and a number of very important cultural and research institutions, has had a chilling effect on public debate. University professors, conservative and liberal activists and even Jewish critics of Israel have found themselves accused of bigotry for voicing dissenting views.

This approach does not just affect those on the political left. It also serves to shield policies from scrutiny, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign aid, military alliances and broader geopolitical strategy. By redefining antisemitism to include a wide range of criticisms of Israel, these groups create a climate where meaningful debate is stifled, and the line between legitimate discourse and hate speech is blurred.

Groups on both sides of the spectrum have engaged in this campaign to redefine antisemitism.  Liberal and progressive groups have created their own litmus tests, focused on how there is no support for Israel that can be tolerated. For groups like IfNotNow, the narrative is that there is a binary choice: You are either against Israel and their efforts to protect their lands and people or you are part of the forced genocide of the Palestinian people. Even pro-Jewish groups that have for decades supported every liberal or progressive movement are now sidelined by the extreme left. And then there are several conservative organizations that have made weaponizing antisemitism a cornerstone of their political strategy. The Republican Jewish Coalition, for example, has frequently accused political opponents—especially progressive Democrats—of antisemitism for statements critical of Israel or supportive of Palestinian rights. Media outlets then amplify these accusations on both sides, creating a feedback loop that pressures institutions and individuals to self-censor.

Liberal and progressive groups have created their own litmus tests, focused on how there is no support for Israel that can be tolerated.

Ironically, the weaponization of antisemitism can undermine the fight against real antisemitism. When the term is used too broadly or cynically, it loses its moral force. Many Jewish organizations, from the center right like AIPAC to the center left such as Jewish Voice for Peace, have spoken out against this trend, arguing that conflating every instance of anti-Zionism with antisemitism silences a real discussion about the growing global threat of antisemitism and silences any critics or supporters of Israeli policy while distracting from actual threats—like white nationalist violence, synagogue attacks, and the spread of neo-Nazi ideology.

Furthermore, this dynamic can create divisions within Jewish communities themselves, pitting those who support the Israeli government uncritically against those who advocate for human rights and social justice alongside support for Israel. It can also alienate potential allies in the struggle against genuine antisemitism, including activists within communities of color and the broader progressive movement.

The rising tide of antisemitism, both in the U.S. and abroad, is real and alarming. From deadly attacks in Washington, D.C. and Poway to online hate campaigns, Jewish communities face genuine threats. But using antisemitism as a political weapon dilutes the term and makes it harder to confront the true dangers.

Interest groups, by broadening the definition of antisemitism to include nearly any criticism of Israel or its policies, risk turning a grave moral issue into a partisan cudgel. This not only distorts public debate but also undermines solidarity in the fight against bigotry in all its forms.

As society continues to grapple with antisemitism’s persistence, it is vital to distinguish between legitimate criticism and hate, between passionate debate and prejudice. Only then can the fight against antisemitism remain credible, and effective, for everyone. 

Seth Jacobson is nationally recognized public affairs consultant, the Founder of JCI and a regular lecturer at UCLA, USC and Pepperdine University.