The ‘Israelization’ of antisemitism:

Can we still speak of antisemitism when it hides behind criticism of Israel? The question immediately generates accusations of censorship or confusion and is unsettling and divisive. Yet, it deserves to be asked directly. We should not prohibit all criticism of the Jewish state, as that would be a grave mistake. Instead, we should analyze a contemporary mutation of antisemitism, which has become increasingly visible since the 2000s and has been severely worsened since October 7, 2023.

Western societies have completely discredited classical antisemitism. The history of the 20th century and any explicit animosity toward “the Jews” is morally unacceptable, especially in light of the Holocaust. This norm has not eliminated hatred; it has transformed it. Here, we can cautiously but clearly call it an “Israelization” of antisemitism.

Israel then becomes much more than just another state open to criticism: it becomes a moral abstraction, a symbol, and occasionally even a manifestation of evil. This shift in stigma is central. Once accused of conspiracy, cruelty, or domination, the Jewish state now centralizes these representations. The words change, but the mechanisms remain the same.

It goes without saying that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. The policies of Israeli governments, like those of any other state, are legitimately open to debate. However, this criticism crosses a line when it becomes obsessive and no longer factual, when Israel is isolated from any regional context, subjected to a single moral standard, or compared without nuance to the Nazi regime. At this stage, the criticism shifts from targeting a specific policy to making broad generalizations.

This shift is perceptible in several areas. First, there is demonization: Israel is presented as inherently criminal, even genocidal, without rigorous legal analysis or any equivalent comparison with other conflicts. Second, the Jewish state is often portrayed as a fundamentally negative actor that can only act violently. This is known as dehumanization. inevitably there is generalization: Jews living abroad are singled out, intimidated, or assaulted in the name of crimes carried out thousands of kilometers away, as though they were all accountable.

This dynamic is reinforced by the importation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into Western societies. This phenomenon transforms a complex geopolitical conflict into a local marker of identity. In this context, the Jew becomes the “supposed representative” of Israel, while hostility toward the Jewish state serves as moral justification for acts that clearly fall under the category of antisemitism.

Additionally, the radical far left, political Islam, and the conspiratorial far right—which seem to be opposing ideological circles—are beginning to converge in a concerning way. They all have an obsession with Israel, which is sometimes seen as the center of a worldwide conspiracy, sometimes as an absolute colonial power, and sometimes as an outpost of the West. This convergence is symbolic and affective rather than ideological.

The “Israelization” of antisemitism does not mean that anti-Jewish hatred is new. On the contrary, it is part of a historical continuum. After religious and then racial antisemitism, we are witnessing a politico-moral antisemitism, expressed through the lens of the Jewish state. The language has changed, but not the substance; it’s now more socially acceptable and harder to criticize without being accused of bad faith.

Recognizing this phenomenon is essential, not to sanctify Israel, but to preserve the possibility of legitimate criticism. For when any denunciation of antisemitism is dismissed as a political maneuver, public debate becomes excessively radicalized and moralistic.

Criticism of Israel is not the problem. Its use as an ideological alibi for hatred is problematic. Refusing to see this, in the name of selective antiracism, paradoxically weakens the fight against all forms of racism. Naming the “Israelization” of antisemitism does not close the debate; on the contrary, it attempts to ground it in reason, coherence, and universalism.