The weaponisation of Antisemitism & The "Greater Israel" Project.

10 FAQs

1. What is the "Greater Israel" project?

Think of it as a political vision, supported by some nationalist and religious parties in Israel, that aims to extend Israeli sovereignty over the entire biblical Land of Israel, meaning as described in the Bible more than 2000 years ago. This includes the West Bank (which they call Judea and Samaria) and Gaza. In practice, this often means supporting or turning a blind eye to Israeli settlements to make a viable Palestinian state impossible to create.

2. What does this have to do with antisemitism?

The connection is strategic. The argument goes like this: "Any serious criticism of Israel's expansionist policy, the occupation, or the settlements is not a legitimate political critique, but is actually an attack motivated by antisemitism against the Jewish people in their only state." This fuses the state of Israel and all Jewish people into a single entity, which is a problematic and deliberate conflation.

3. Why is this conflation a problem?

Because it's a logical fallacy. Criticizing a government's policy—any government—is a normal political act in a democratic world. Labeling all criticism of Israel as antisemitism does three damaging things:

1. It shuts down legitimate debate about Palestinian rights.

2. It prevents accountability for actions that may violate international law.
3. It harms the fight against real antisemitism by watering down the meaning of this specific form of hatred.

4. So, is there no real antisemitism in criticism of Israel?

Yes, there absolutely is. Some people hide their hatred of Jews behind criticism of Israel, using antisemitic tropes or symbols, or calling for the destruction of Israel itself. This is real and dangerous antisemitism. The problem is the tactic of claiming that « all » criticism falls into this category to avoid addressing the substance of the critique.

5. Can you show me clear examples of this instrumentalization by Israeli leaders?

Yes. Here are three clear attempts by Israeli leaders to equate criticism of state policy with antisemitism:

Benjamin Netanyahu (as Prime Minister): In 2023, after the International Court of Justice began hearings on the legality of Israel's occupation, he stated:"The decision against the settlement enterprise and the occupation is an expression of antisemitism, pure and simple... They are not attacking us because of our actions, but because of our very existence." This directly frames a legal proceeding about state policy as an existential, antisemitic attack.

Isaac Herzog (President of Israel): In a 2023 speech to a Jewish organization, he argued: "When the Jewish state, the « only » Jewish state, is singled out and held to a standard no other nation is held to, that is not diplomacy, that is antisemitism." This "double standard" argument is a key tool used to deflect any specific criticism of Israel's unique 56-year occupation by claiming it is inherently biased.

Gilad Erdan (Israeli Ambassador to the UN): In a 2021 speech, after a UN report criticized Israel, he said: "This report is the modern version of the blood libel... It is fueled by an obsessive hatred of the Jewish state and amounts to a textbook case of antisemitism." By invoking the horrific, medieval "blood libel" accusation, he attempts to place any and all condemnation of Israeli state actions beyond the pale of legitimate discourse, framing it as ancient, murderous hatred.

6. How does this strategy work in practice?

When a human rights organization like Amnesty International or the UN details the consequences of the occupation, a common response is to discredit the source as "antisemitic." This allows the person to dismiss the report's detailed evidence without having to engage with it. It's a highly effective way to shut down conversation and intimidate critics. But its efficiency is diminishing by the day because it's been used in some many instances in weaponized manner.

7. Who benefits from using this strategy?

Primarily those who support a hardline Israeli policy and territorial expansion. By framing the defense of Israel as a defense against antisemitism, they:

-Consolidate support among Jewish diaspora communities around a sense of being under siege.

- Deter international support for Palestinians by making people afraid of being labeled an antisemite.

- Justify the status quo of occupation and settlement expansion by presenting it as a necessary security measure against an eternal, irrational hatred.

8. How are Palestinians portrayed in this narrative?

They are often dehumanized. They are no longer a people with legitimate political rights and grievances. Instead, they are portrayed either as fanatical "terrorists" or as mere pawns of global antisemitism. Their resistance, even when non-violent, is framed not as a struggle for freedom, but as an expression of hatred for Jews.