The Dangers of Holocaust Inversion
Holocaust inversion – the practice of comparing Israeli policies to that of Nazi Germany – is one of the most harmful forms of contemporary antisemitism. Whilst Holocaust comparisons appear in many public discourses, their employment against the Jewish state is particularly dangerous. The deliberate misappropriation of an unparalleled historical trauma distorts our understanding of past and present, serves to delegitimize Israel, and trivializes the Holocaust. Amidst a dangerous rise in global antisemitism, these comparisons have become much more widespread, reflecting both traditional antisemitic tropes and newer forms of anti-Jewish hatred masked as ‘political criticism.’
Some critics of the State of Israel regularly suggest that the Israeli regime is strikingly similar to the Nazi one. This criticism takes many forms: crude visual photographs blending photos of Benjamin Netanyahu with Adolf Hitler, seemingly academic infographics suggesting ideological parallels, and the insulting superimposition of the Swastika over the Star of David on the Israeli flag. These, deliberately engineered to provoke, have a particularly devastating effect. They are designed to provoke an emotional impact, delegitimizing the Israeli state through demonization and painting an inaccurate picture of what is going on in the Middle East.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism designates ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’ as explicitly antisemitic. This reflects decades of scholarly analysis regarding the harm these comparisons inflict upon Jews. Contemporary scholars, including Deborah Lipstadt, have extensively documented how Holocaust inversion has become a central feature of modern-day antisemitism. Indeed, equating Israel with the Nazis plays an increasingly important role in antisemitism internationally. On several occasions this year, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has compared Netanyahu with Adolf Hitler, epitomizing the reach of this dangerous association. This phenomenon represents a key component of “new antisemitism”, as traditional antisemitic tropes have been repackaged within ostensibly legitimate political criticisms.
The use of Nazi comparisons is particularly damaging for numerous reasons. Firstly, it weaponizes the greatest trauma in recent Jewish history – if not all of Jewish history – against the Jewish people themselves. Rhetoric suggesting that Jews have become the very evil they survived, embracing the identity of their worst enemy, is understandably harmful and questions their right to self-determination. Yossi Klein Halevi, a renowned American Israeli author, lamented that ‘the satanic Jew has been replaced by the satanic Jewish state’ as a twisted way to dehumanize the Jewish people. Modern antisemitism has shifted its target from individual Jews to the collective expression of self-determination.
Secondly, this comparison trivializes the Holocaust by reducing it to a political metaphor. The Holocaust was a unique horror, and by suggesting it is comparable to the modern day minimizes or flat out denies the severity of Jewish suffering. The systematic genocide of European Jewry was characterized by specific ideological and practical elements that have no meaningful comparison with contemporary conflicts and drawing such a parallel either profoundly misinterprets the Holocaust or deliberately misrepresents it.
Historical antisemitism has often portrayed Jews as both all-powerful and morally corrupt. This has persisted in contemporary rhetoric, especially in the Nazi comparison case. This allows critics to cast Israel as a dominant oppressor and a morally bankrupt state, maintaining a veneer of political criticism to perpetuate ancient antisemitic tropes. By immediately escalating any criticism of the Israel to a level of comparison with Nazism, people diminish the opportunity for constructive and nuanced debates. Criticism of the Israeli government, state and its policies is not unfounded, but using Holocaust rhetoric serves to prevent dialogue about real issues.
Furthermore, when we deploy Nazi comparisons to criticize Israel, or compare October 7th to the Holocaust, we create a new problem. We harm our ability to understand contemporary events as well as historical ones. We can find comparison but only in order to enhance our understanding and learn more, rather than weaponize history. Using the Holocaust as a point of comparison for contemporary geopolitical issues obscures its vital lessons. When we reduce the Holocaust to a rhetorical device, we diminish our own ability to understand its unique horror and continuing relevance to human rights and the consequences of hatred.
It is fundamental that we try to distinguish between legitimate political criticism and antisemitic rhetoric. Democracies require challenge, and questioning what we are told is always essential. However, using Nazi comparisons to criticize the State of Israel crosses a line into antisemitism. Understanding and respecting this line is crucial to maintain constructive dialogue. On university campuses though, this hasn’t always been the case. Jews have been accused of weaponizing antisemitism to excuse, or distract from, Israel’s actions in the Middle East. Supposedly Jews have overstated the prevalence of antisemitism, masquerading at the oppressed despite being the oppressor. There is no meaningful way to combat this claim: Jews could protest, or merely ignore and not even dare challenge the allegations. Either route has proven to be insufficient for centuries.
The challenge of addressing Holocaust inversion extends beyond the theoretical. On university campuses, including my own campus at the University of Cambridge, antisemitism has manifested in varying ways. Although I have seen less explicit Holocaust imagery, the underlying rhetoric persists: Jews face the impossible accusation of ‘weaponizing’ antisemitism to deflect criticism of Israel. All the while, Jews have been cast as oppressors who exaggerate their own persecution, reflecting centuries-old tropes repackaged for contemporary politics. This past year at university has rendered me, like many of my peers, scared and hopeless.
The path forward requires more than a mere recognition of antisemitism; it demands a fundamental shift in how we approach discussions of historical events and contemporary conflicts. We should be cautious to avoid comparing historical events to the modern day – this will damage historical understanding and present-day dialogue. By distorting our comprehension of past and present through false equivalencies, we prevent meaningful dialogue about the Holocaust and current geopolitics.
This isn’t about policing language or enforcing semantics. This is about creating an environment where legitimate political discourse can be constructive and meaningful without resorting to antisemitic rhetoric. This requires understanding that comparing today’s issues with the Nazi regime does not bring more clarity, but merely perpetuates hatred. We must, at all costs, reject Holocaust inversion to begin to engage in meaningful political criticism and discussion. Only by maintaining this level of historical and moral clarity, we can hope to foster genuine dialogue while ensuring that “Never Again” remains more than just a slogan.