1.
“Weaponization of Antisemitism”
This phrase has become popular among some spokespeople in recent years. It refers to the strategy of hurling inaccurate, unfair, or overblown accusations of antisemitism at progressive leaders, especially non-Jewish leaders of color, in order to smear their reputations, fracture alliances, and discredit progressive movements, including those advocating for the rights of Palestinians.
This phrase—“weaponization of antisemitism”—is confusing jargon that most audiences do not understand: in three years of training thousands of people on this messaging—Jewish and non-Jewish leaders and activists who speak and work on antisemitism regularly— only 5-10% of participants report that they feel they know what this term means. If this expert population is confused, imagine how inaccessible this language is to nonexperts!
However, this isn’t the only reason not to use this term.
“Weaponization” means taking something that is not a weapon and making it into one. It implies that this narrow use of antisemitism (or accusations thereof) is the only way in which antisemitism is a weapon, or is harmful. Of course, this is not true—antisemitism is always a weapon, and always causes harm.
Don't Say:
weaponization of antisemitism. “Bad faith accusations” of antisemitism is a little clearer but still not usually recommended—it doesn’t explain WHY someone is doing what they are doing. “Instrumentalization” carries the same core problem as “weaponization”—antisemitism is already an instrument.
Do say what you mean:
“Pointing the finger at progressives for antisemitism” or something similar works well. Where appropriate, describe the strategy of someone using “smokescreen accusations to cover up for their own antisemitism.” “Using” is clearer than “instrumentalizing”—in a third of the characters and syllables.
2.
Equivocating Solutions
When we’re stuck in the story that antisemitism is not a problem we can solve, it leads us to propose action steps that are weak, pointless, and ineffective.
Don’t ask audiences to merely “stand up to antisemitism,” “push back against antisemitism,” or “call out antisemitism.”
These may be necessary, but they are not solutions, and they reinforce the idea that we cannot imagine a world in which there is no antisemitism.
Don't Say:
“Stand up to antisemitism,” “push back against antisemitism,” or “call out antisemitism.”
Do say:
“End antisemitism” or “dismantle antisemitism”— and connect it to the need to end or dismantle all forms of oppression toward your positive vision for the future.
3.
Artificial Divisions
Jewish people hold a full range of racial, ethnic, geographic, gender, Indigenous, ability, and class identities, and more.
Sometimes advocates talk about antisemitism and other forms of oppression, especially racism, as if the populations experiencing these oppressions are entirely separate.
Or we might discuss different communities—like Jewish and Black communities, for example—as being either at odds or joining together.
This language erases Jews of color from both Jewish communities and communities of color and imposes artificial divisions between many types of communities that are actually interconnected and overlapping.
Don't reinforce those artificial divisions
by saying things like “joining together with communities of color” (if you represent a Jewish organization or constituency) or “joining together with Jewish communities” (if you represent an organization or constituency that isn’t specifically Jewish).
Do recognize:
that there are Jews within diverse constituencies and audiences (for example, Black organizations should recognize Black Jews; LGBTQ organizations should recognize LGBTQ Jews, etc.).
Do recognize:
diverse identities within Jewish communities (for example, Jewish organizations should name how transphobia harms trans Jews or how racism harms Jews of color).
Do say:
“joining together across lines of difference” and consider naming racial, religious, or other identities as they are relevant.
4.
An Interpersonal Problem
As we’ve discussed, expressing antisemitism as a form of “hate” creates the impression that this is mostly an interpersonal problem, obscures its political and systemic nature, and leaves audiences without a clear story of “why.”
Similarly, it’s harmful to express antisemitism as a binary personal trait—that someone is or isn’t “an antisemite.” Like the “hatred” frame, this reinforces the idea that antisemitism is primarily interpersonal—not systemic and structural.
Don't Say:
“antisemitism is hatred toward Jews,” “antisemitism and all forms of hate,” or “Jew hatred.”
Don't Say:
“[Person X] is/isn’t an antisemite.”
Do say:
“Antisemitism is part of the machinery of division and fear” and use the machinery metaphor to explain a complete story with human actors, their motivations, and their actions.
Use the “pollution” metaphor where appropriate.
5.
Perpetuating Racism
Antisemitism is always harmful, but sometimes conversations about antisemitism—the general discourse about the issue or our responses to specific incidents—can also do harm. For example, when people of color, Muslims, and Arabs are portrayed as particularly antisemitic, or generally more antisemitic than others, this contributes to anti-Black racism, Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, and racism in general.
This discourse also renders Black Jews and Jews of color invisible and contributes to feelings of isolation and despair. In fact, disproportionate harm from antisemitism is determined by someone’s access to power—not their identity.
Often, any antisemitism that comes from a person of color is described as “antisemitism on the left” regardless of the political affiliation or ideology of the source. Taken together, all of these examples play into strategies that are designed to divide and harm progressive movements and leaders, keep Jewish people isolated, and weaken our democracy.
Don't perpetuate racism or Islamophobia
by reinforcing ideas that Muslims and people of color are particularly responsible for antisemitism.
Do consider the effects
of a response to an antisemitic incident on all people involved, especially considering how it might deepen divides, weaken partnerships, or harm other individuals or communities based on their race or religion.
Do choose
to respond in ways that recognize and meet the needs of Jews of color.
6.
“Both Sides”
Describing antisemitism as existing equally or equivalently on “both sides” of politics is also harmful and incorrect. Of course, antisemitism can be fueled by anyone—even unknowingly, and even by people who are targeted by it or by other parts of the machinery of division and fear. Antisemitism is always harmful and needs to be addressed, whatever its source. However, ascribing an equivalency to “antisemitism on both sides” is incorrect, damages our ability to identify the power structures at work, and, by suggesting that antisemitism is ubiquitous and unavoidable, leaves Jews feeling fearful and isolated.
Antisemitism is foundational to far-right ideologies of fascism, white nationalism, and white supremacy, and these movements and their leaders benefit from using it. The most violent and deadly antisemitic incidents in America are almost exclusively associated with far-right movements. Years of public opinion and scholarly research affirm that there is no equivalency to this on the left.
Still, liberal, progressive, and left-wing individuals and movements do hold and express harmful antisemitic beliefs and biases like they do anti-Black racism, sexism, and other oppressive systems. Because most American Jews identify as liberal or progressive, and because these expressions are a betrayal of the values of equity and justice, experiences of antisemitism from progressives can leave Jewish people feeling surprised, betrayed, and isolated.
Antisemitic stories that exaggerate the power or influence of Jewish people or the State of Israel can deflect responsibility from the real drivers of structural inequality and war like huge corporations and the US military industry. All of these incidents harm Jewish people and can further normalize antisemitic ideas that lead to violence.
This is reason enough for progressive movements to take the lead in dismantling antisemitism. It is also important for progressives to understand that when groups or individuals that profess (or are perceived) to be part of the political left use antisemitism purposefully, it directly serves the goals of far-right movements: it fractures progressive movements and tarnishes them as hypocritical or disingenuous, isolates Jewish people, and damages democracy. This gives progressives a personal stake in dismantling antisemitism, whether they are Jewish or not.
Antisemitism is foundational to far-right ideologies of fascism, white nationalism, and white supremacy, and these movements and their leaders benefit from using it. The most violent and deadly antisemitic incidents in America are almost exclusively associated with far-right movements. Years of public opinion and scholarly research affirm that there is no equivalency to this on the left.
Though they are often intended to present a “balanced” perspective, attempts to draw false equivalencies in fact shield those actors most responsible for antisemitism from accountability and make it more difficult to understand and address the problem.
Don't say
“Antisemitism on both sides” or “antisemitism from the right and the left.”
Do say
“Using” or “fueling” antisemitism to highlight the harms while still differentiating between those who benefit from antisemitism and those who do not.
