The “New Antisemitism” Narrative: A Historical and Contemporary Weapon to Silence Dissent

Introduction

Since the 1967 Six-Day War, the narrative of “New Antisemitism” (NAS) has gained traction, equating criticism of Israel or Zionism with anti-Jewish hatred. Institutionalized through mechanisms like the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, NAS has been wielded to shield Israel from scrutiny and suppress dissent both in the United States and Israel. From university defunding and student deportations to media bans and humanitarian blockades, NAS has enabled repressive tactics that obscure the crisis in Gaza and stifle free speech. This analysis traces the historical roots of NAS, examines its contemporary applications, evaluates the evidence behind major punitive actions, and engages with counterarguments from pro-Israel perspectives.

Historical Roots: The 1967 War and the Birth of NAS

The 1967 Six-Day War marked a turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula sparked international legal debates, crystallized in UN Security Council Resolution 242, which declared the inadmissibility of acquiring territory by war and called for Israeli withdrawal. Despite over 50 subsequent UN resolutions, including Resolution 2334 (2016) condemning settlement expansion, Israel’s control persisted—bolstered by US diplomatic support, annual military aid, and repeated vetoes shielding Israel from accountability.

As global criticism intensified, especially from anti-colonial movements and the UN, Zionist organizations in Israel and the US reframed such critiques as antisemitism, giving rise to the NAS narrative. Figures like Abba Eban and ADL leaders Benjamin Epstein and Arnold Forster argued that anti-Zionism was “the new antisemitism,” targeting the political Left—especially the New Left and Black Power movements—as primary threats. This shift responded to grassroots Palestinian solidarity efforts and the rise of the settler movement and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), further polarizing the conflict. The expansion of settlements—over 700,000 settlers by 2025—remains illegal under international law.

Unlike abstract ideological accounts, this narrative is grounded in specific events: the 1967 occupation, UN resolutions, US vetoes, and the settler-PLO dynamic. These laid the foundation for NAS, prioritizing the defense of Israel over addressing traditional antisemitism.

Institutionalization: The IHRA Definition and Repression

The IHRA definition, adopted by over 40 countries and numerous US states since 2016, formalized NAS by including examples that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, such as “claiming the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” or “applying double standards”. Proponents, including the ADL and AJC, argue it targets only hate speech. However, its vague wording has enabled widespread repression. Kenneth Stern, a lead drafter, has criticized its misuse, noting it was intended for data collection, not as a legal tool to suppress speech.

Counterargument: Pro-Israel groups claim IHRA protects Jewish communities from rising antisemitism, citing a 361% increase in US incidents post-October 2023. They argue slogans like “From the river to the sea” deny Jewish self-determination, justifying IHRA’s application.

Response: The IHRA’s caveat that “criticism similar to that leveled against any other country” is not antisemitic is undermined by its real-world use. Documented cases show overreach: Columbia University’s $400 million funding cut, threats to place its Middle Eastern studies department in receivership, and deportations of students for pro-Palestinian activism, often without due process. Human Rights Watch and the ACLU report over 50 US campus incidents where IHRA was used to suspend groups or cancel events absent clear antisemitic content. The double standard is evident: while “From the river to the sea” is labeled genocidal, Likud’s 1977 charter claims sovereignty over the same territory, yet faces no similar scrutiny.

Repressive Tactics: Slim Evidence, Severe Consequences

Student Crackdowns

Since October 2023, US universities have faced IHRA-driven sanctions, including suspensions of pro-Palestinian groups and deportations of visa-holding students. Cases like Mahmoud Khalil (Columbia) and a Brown professor deported despite a court order rely on vague “antisemitism” charges, often tied to slogans like “From the river to the sea.” Blacklists by Project Esther and Canary Mission amplify these actions, targeting activists without substantiated evidence of hate speech.

Counterargument: Pro-Israel groups argue these measures protect Jewish students from harassment, citing protest rhetoric as intimidating.

Response: The evidence for “antisemitic violence” is thin, with many cases involving lawful political expression. Reports document brutal police crackdowns targeting peaceful protesters, including Jewish antiwar activists labeled “pro-Hamas.” This suggests ideological suppression, not safety measures.

UNRWA Defunding and Ban

Israel’s allegations of UNRWA’s Hamas infiltration led to US and Western funding suspensions and a Gaza ban. Claims include 12 staff involved in the October 7 attack and 10% of UNRWA’s Gaza staff linked to Hamas, based on intelligence dossiers.

Counterargument: Israel cites tunnels under UNRWA facilities and a hostage’s testimony as evidence of complicity.

Response: UN investigations and the Colonna Report found no credible evidence of systemic infiltration. Nine staff were terminated as a precaution, but allegations against 1,200 lack independent verification. The humanitarian fallout—Gaza’s aid crisis—far outweighs the unsubstantiated claims, failing the high evidentiary standard required for such actions.

Media Suppression

Israel’s near-total ban on international journalists in Gaza, condemned by over 130 media groups, limits independent reporting. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports 141 media worker deaths since October 2023, with strikes targeting press facilities. Haaretz faced government backlash, and Al Jazeera was banned for exposing abuses.

Counterargument: Israel claims security risks justify restrictions, allowing limited embeds.

Response: The scale of the ban and targeting of journalists suggest intent to obscure Gaza’s crisis, not just security needs. The lack of evidence linking journalists to militants undermines Israel’s rationale.

Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis

Israel’s military operations since October 2023 have destroyed Gaza’s infrastructure, leading to starvation, disease, and displacement. UN agencies and Amnesty International cite collective punishment, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention, as confirmed by an ICJ ruling.

Counterargument: Pro-Israel scholars argue blockades target Hamas, with civilian harm unintended, and aid is permitted.

Response: The majority of international legal opinion deems the blockade unlawful due to widespread civilian suffering. The scale of destruction—hospitals, schools, water systems—suggests disproportionate impact, beyond targeting Hamas.

Broader Implications: NAS and Systemic Repression

The NAS narrative, born from 1967’s geopolitical shifts, has evolved into a tool for systemic repression, amplified by US-Israeli collaboration. Its roots lie in response to anti-colonial critiques and Palestinian solidarity, institutionalized through groups like ADL and AIPAC. Today, it underpins policies that defy international law and silence dissent. The slim evidence behind actions against students, UNRWA, and media highlights a broader agenda: shielding Israel from accountability while obscuring Gaza’s crisis, often framed as a post-October 2023 conflict, ignoring decades of occupation.

Conclusion

The “New Antisemitism” narrative, rooted in the aftermath of the 1967 war, has become a powerful weapon to suppress dissent and shield Israel from scrutiny. Through the IHRA definition, it enables university defunding, student deportations, UNRWA bans, and media suppression, often based on flimsy evidence. While pro-Israel advocates claim these measures combat antisemitism, the weight of evidence—UN rulings, human rights reports, and journalist casualty data—shows they target lawful expression and humanitarian work. By grounding NAS in historical events and contemporary repression, this analysis corrects ahistorical narratives and calls for a reevaluation of free speech and international law. The challenge ahead is to expose these mechanisms and demand accountability, ensuring that advocacy for justice is not silenced under the guise of combating antisemitism.

References

1. Mondoweiss, "History and Impact of the IHRA Antisemitism Definition" (New Antisemitism:Mondoweiss.pdf).

2. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967); General Assembly Resolution 2334 (2016).

3. United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions (1970s–present).

4. Reports by humanitarian organizations and international law experts (2023–2025).

5. Independent reviews and media investigations, including the Colonna Report and UN OIOS investigations (2024–2025).

6. Human Rights Watch, ACLU, Committee to Protect Journalists, Amnesty International, ICJ rulings.

7. UNRWA and Israel – Wikipedia; NPR, Al Jazeera, UN Watch, Jewish Voice for Peace.

8. International Court of Justice and International Commission of Jurists statements (2024–2025).

9. Previous conversation history regarding protest suppression, media targeting, and humanitarian impacts.

   The Guardianmj--The new definition of antisemitism is transforming America--and serving a Christian nationalist plan,  by Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona