The Steady Intensification of "New Antisemitism" (NAS) in Response to Pressure on Israel

 

The Steady Intensification of "New Antisemitism" (NAS) in Response to Pressure on Israel

The concept of "New Antisemitism" (NAS) has steadily expanded since the late 1960s as a direct response to mounting international and legal scrutiny of Israeli policies, especially regarding the Occupied Territories (OTs), land-for-peace efforts, and, most recently, the war on Gaza. NAS, which conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, has become a central tool for shielding Israel from accountability as global public opinion shifts and the humanitarian record grows increasingly dire.

Origins: Post-1967 War and the Birth of NAS

• After the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem, and other territories brought international law and UN resolutions—such as Security Council Resolution 242—into sharp focus.

• As international bodies and leftist movements pressed Israel to withdraw from occupied lands and recognize Palestinian rights, Zionist organizations in the US and Israel began to redefine antisemitism to include criticism of Israel and Zionism itself.

• This shift was institutionalized through new definitions, culminating in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The NAS framework was used to delegitimize opposition to Israeli policies, especially from the international left and anti-colonial movements, by casting such criticism as inherently antisemitic.

The Oslo Accords: A Brief Easing

• The early 1990s Oslo Accords brought a temporary moderation in the deployment of NAS rhetoric. The prospect of a negotiated two-state solution, with Israel ostensibly prepared to exchange land for peace, reduced the urgency of equating criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism.

• With the collapse of Oslo and the resumption of settlement expansion, the use of NAS as a defensive shield against renewed criticism and legal challenges quickly intensified.

Renewed Conflict and Legal Disputes

• From the Second Intifada onward, and especially as Israel entrenched its control over the OTs, NAS intensified alongside mounting international condemnation.

• UN resolutions repeatedly reaffirmed the illegality of settlements and the occupation, while human rights organizations documented systematic violations of international law.

• The NAS/Hasbara apparatus worked to frame such scrutiny as motivated by antisemitism rather than legitimate concern for Palestinian rights or international norms, chilling debate and marginalizing dissent.

The Gaza War: NAS as a Shield for Catastrophe

• Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack, Israeli leaders declared a total siege on Gaza, vowing to cut off electricity, food, and medicine, and making public statements about turning Gaza into a “city of tents” and promising to deliver “hell” to its population.

• Nearly two years later, the results are catastrophic: mass starvation, the destruction of hospitals and infrastructure, and the displacement of nearly the entire population.

• Throughout this period, the NAS/Hasbara narrative has doubled down, insisting that Israel is merely “defending itself” and branding all criticism—no matter how grounded in international law or humanitarian concern—as antisemitic.

• The US and other Western powers, citing unsubstantiated “Hamas infiltration” claims, cut funding to UNRWA and acquiesced to Israel’s ban on the agency, despite the absence of credible alternatives for humanitarian relief.

• The “Hamas” label has been used to justify not only military actions but also the exclusion of journalists, humanitarian workers, and peaceful protesters from public sympathy and support.

Factual Record: Rhetoric vs. Reality

• Every major escalation in NAS rhetoric has coincided with increased international legal and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law, especially regarding the OTs and Palestinian rights.

• The devastation in Gaza—starvation, destroyed hospitals, and mass displacement—has been extensively documented by international agencies, even as access for journalists and observers is blocked.

• NAS is not a response to rising antisemitism, but a calculated campaign to delegitimize criticism, suppress dissent, and maintain impunity for policies that violate international law.

Conclusion

The intensification of NAS since 1967, with only a brief lull during the Oslo Accords, has closely tracked the arc of international legal and political challenges to Israeli policies. As the factual record of suffering and destruction in Gaza grows ever more undeniable, the NAS/Hasbara apparatus has only redoubled its efforts to reframe the conflict as a matter of Jewish self-defense against antisemitism. This strategy is increasingly at odds with global public opinion and the mounting evidence of humanitarian catastrophe—a disconnect that exposes the NAS project as a tool for sustaining impunity, not combating genuine antisemitism.

 References:

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

   • Analysis of the origins and evolution of the "New Antisemitism" (NAS) movement, its political motivations, and its institutionalization through definitions such as the IHRA.

2. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 (1967).

   • Called for Israeli withdrawal from territories occupied in the 1967 war and established the principle of "land for peace."

3. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 (1948).

   • Affirmed the right of return and property restitution for Palestinian refugees displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

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

   • Repeatedly condemned Israeli occupation and settlement policies, reaffirmed the illegality of territorial acquisition by force, and highlighted the temporary and illegal status of the Occupied Territories.

5. Documented statements by Israeli officials (October 2023).

   • Public declarations of a "total siege" on Gaza by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Gallant, and others, promising to cut off electricity, food, and medicine.

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

   • Consensus that UNRWA was irreplaceable for humanitarian aid in Gaza; documentation of mass starvation, destruction of hospitals, and infrastructure collapse.

7. Independent reviews and media investigations (2024–2025).

   • Found no substantiated evidence for widespread Hamas infiltration of UNRWA; noted the political use of the "Hamas" label to justify aid cuts and bans.

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

   • Condemnation of forced displacement, construction of "humanitarian camps," and the potential classification of such actions as war crimes.

9. Previous conversation history (as summarized and confirmed in the discussion).

   • Includes detailed confirmations regarding UNRWA’s defunding and banning, the inadequacy and danger of alternative aid, exclusion of journalists and observers, and the use of NAS rhetoric in public discourse.