Does Israel Control the World Cup Wikipedia?
In light of Argentina’s victory over England in today’s World Cup semifinals, I’m reminded of a moment when a referee was accused of being a Mossad agent.
On July 7, Argentina took on Egypt in the Round of 16. Despite being down 2-0, Argentina managed to secure the win after French referee Francois Letexier disallowed an Egyptian goal. Within hours, a Wikipedia user edited Letexier’s page to say he was born an Orthodox Jew whose grandfather fled the Nazis. Though there was zero evidence for the claim, the lie quickly spread all over X, and by the time it was taken down, the damage was already done. On social media, antisemitism often goes unchecked, and despite Wikipedia’s questionable reliability, many angry fans believed the lie. One of the only pieces of “evidence” to support the claim was a photograph of Argentine soccer star Lionel Messi wearing a kippah at the Western Wall in 2013.
Yet, the photo of Messi in Israel was not enough to prove that a soccer game over ten years later was rigged. The user needed to make Messi seem like a man with power–a Jew. This is where the familiar antisemitism comes in. Infamous streamer Sneako, who chanted “Heil Hitler” at a nightclub in January, supported the claim, saying, “Mossad Messi strikes again.” The referee is not Jewish, but that does not seem to matter anymore. When something bad happens, the answer is always the same, and it always targets the same people. If it is not the Jews, it is not in the news.
Unfortunately, this is not the only time that Wikipedia has been used against Jews. Last week, I was in Washington, D.C., with teenagers from around the world to learn about politics and international affairs. While this program was not focused on Israel or the Middle East at all, naturally conversations turned toward the conflict. While I was sitting outside, I heard a group of teenagers discussing Prime Minister Netanyahu and the broader policies of the Israeli government. While the vast majority of participants in the conversation were Zionist, and though they did not support every action of the government, they still defended Israel. Still, one person held very opposing views.
The student, whom I will refer to as R, repeated the familair anti-Zionist and lightly antisemitic arguments: “Israel is an ethno-apartheid state,” “they are committing a genocide,” “the Jews should have gone back to Europe after the Holocaust,” etc. After debunking all of these accusations, I also tried to explain why statements like “The Jews should have gone back to Europe after the Holocaust” is deeply offensive aside from politics, antisemitic, and erases the millions of non-European Mizrahi, Sephardi, and Beta Jews.
Unsurprisingly, R responded with more spitback arguments devoid of logic, but what might be the most troubling was his response to what I asked him next. I curiously asked R where he gets his information about Israel from, since he had never even been to Israel or spoken with Israelis or Palestinians on their perspectives. “It’s on Wikipedia,” he responded. When I then said that I am both a proud Zionist and also sympathize for innocent people who have been affected by Hamas’ terror in Gaza and that those two beliefs do not contradict each other, R yelled, “No you don’t you support the genocide because you are a Zionist.”
A few hours later, I decided to see what Wikipedia said on the subject. However, when I searched “Zionism” on the website, I was horrified by what I saw. “Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement… to establish and support a Jewish homeland through colonization in the region of Palestine… as many Jews, and as few Palestinians Arabs as possible.” This is a direct quote from the Wikipedia page, which completely misunderstands what Zionism means. What the page should really say is “Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It says nothing about the Israeli government or the destruction of other people to accomplish that goal.”
While Wikipedia is widely recognized as a source not appropriate for serious research and fact-finding, the truth is that many people still rely on it and believe in its accuracy. Wikipedia must be held accountable for the information it presents on its page and the spreading of false information and hatred. It is not enough that one of its heads stepped down because he thought the website was too biased and one-sided. Wikipedia must be responsible for truth, justice, and neutrality with the large platform it enjoys. Without doing so, it becomes complicit in the spread of antisemitism in our world today.