A new cover for Jew-hatred: Why the word 'antisemitism' is under attack

The degradation of the word "antisemitism" is not a byproduct of polarized discourse but a deliberate, funded campaign to transform it from a descriptor of hatred into an accusation of bad faith. This strategy aims to make naming antisemitism itself appear as an act of aggression, thereby positioning those who spread hatred as censored truth-tellers.

“

The degradation of the word “antisemitism” – its conversion from the name of hatred into an accusation of bad faith – is not an accident of polarized discourse. It is a funded project with measurable returns, and the institutions responsible for fighting antisemitism should treat it as adversary infrastructure rather than as noise surrounding their work.

The author points to Edward Said's "Orientalism" as a precedent, where the term for scholars studying the Middle East became an accusation, professionally hazardous for those who bore it. While Said's arguments are contested, the operational result, the professional avoidance of the label, is not. The current campaign seeks to strip "antisemitism" of its post-Holocaust weight, returning it to a state where it could be used without consequence, as it was by German agitator Wilhelm Marr in the late 19th century.

“

Whatever the merits of Said’s argument – historians have contested them for nearly 50 years – the operational result is not contested. No scholar today will accept the label.

This effort converges various groups, including white nationalists, Islamist propagandists, media personalities, and parts of the activist Left, who find common ground in the problem that Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and similar ideologies lose in open debate. Instead of defending these hateful positions, the campaign attacks the name used to identify them. The author argues that the current framing recasts "antisemitism" as a smear, an industry, or a career-ending weapon wielded by the powerful against the honest.

“

The term carries its own verdict; the verdict arrives before any evidence, and entire lines of inquiry become professionally hazardous not because they are refuted but because their name has been made toxic.

The article notes that the word "antisemitism" gained its current negative weight not through linguistic argument but through the horrors of Auschwitz. This postwar settlement, purchased at a known price, is now being challenged. The campaign seeks to reopen this settlement, allowing the term to be used publicly without the inherent condemnation it carries today. The author concludes by referencing a bipartisan House resolution condemning antisemitic content, suggesting this is part of the ongoing struggle over the word's meaning and use.

“

The cost attached to “antisemite” is not a natural property of language; it is a postwar settlement, purchased at a price everyone knows.