Israel-related antisemitism

denotes the rejection of Zionism – that is, of the idea that the Jewish people has a right to national self-determination in a state of its own, Israel. This stance can have different motives:

• Political-ideological, for instance in socialist or anti-imperialist movements that interpret Zionism as imperialism or colonialism;
• Religious, for instance in ultra-Orthodox currents that regard the founding of a Jewish state before messianic redemption as theologically impermissible;
• Antisemitic, when anti-Zionism is not aimed at political or religious arguments but at the negation of Jewish self-determination as such.

The transition to antisemitic anti-Zionism takes place where Israel is not merely criticised politically, but portrayed as illegitimate, artificial or morally inferior. The Jewish state then becomes the collective substitute object of traditional antisemitism – and anti-Zionism the modern form of its articulation.

Demonisation, delegitimisation, double standards

These three mechanisms are regarded as the core forms of Israel-related antisemitism:

• Demonisation: Israel is portrayed as the epitome of evil, as a “child-murdering state”, “apartheid regime” or “new Nazis”.
• Delegitimisation: Israel’s existence is called into question morally or legally – the Jewish state is to be allowed to exist not differently, but not at all .
• Double standards: Israel is condemned for actions that are tolerated or ignored in the case of other states – a standard that applies only to the “Jewish state”.
  These patterns shift criticism into the realm of antisemitic symbolism.

 “Unnaturalness” and “artificiality”

A central motif of the antisemitic perception of Israel is the attribution of artificiality: the Jewish state is held to be “unnaturally created”, “erected on foreign soil” or “not organically grown”. In this logic, other nations appear “authentic” and “rooted”, while Israel is demonised as a “synthetic project”. The classic antisemitic image of the “homeless Jew” is thereby transferred to the level of statehood – Israel as the “unnatural body” among the nations.

Soviet anti-Zionism

Early Soviet anti-Zionism was initially ideologically, not ethnically motivated: it was directed against Zionism as a bourgeois-nationalist movement, not against Jewish women and men as a group. Under Stalin, however, this discourse turned into a state-sponsored form of antisemitism. In campaigns such as the one against the “rootless cosmopolitans”, Zionism was equated with “Jewish disloyalty” and “world conspiracy”. The Soviet Union thereby exported a rhetorical pattern that combined political enemy images with traditional antisemitic stereotypes – Israel as a symbol of global Jewish power.

Hamas Charter (1988)

The founding document of Hamas is a prime example of the fusion of religious, political and antisemitic motifs: it describes the struggle against Israel as a divine mission, refers explicitly to the

Protocols of the Elders of Zion

and ascribes collective guilt and moral depravity to Jews. The text transfers classic antisemitic myths into a modern, Islamist-nationalist world view – with worldwide effect to this day.

BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions)

Since 2005, BDS has been calling worldwide for an economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel. Although many supporters understand this as a non-violent form of protest, antisemitic actors use the campaign to dispute Israel’s legitimacy in principle.
In Germany and several EU states BDS is therefore assessed as antisemitic, because it aims at the delegitimisation of Jewish self-determination.

IHRA working definition of antisemitism

The

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance

(IHRA) presented an internationally recognised definition in 2016 which also includes Israel-related forms. According to it, antisemitism is not only hatred of Jews as individuals, but also of the State of Israel, when this state is demonised as a Jewish collective or made the screen for the projection of historical prejudices. Worldwide, the definition serves governments, educational institutions and NGOs as a guide for education and prevention.

Conclusion

Israel-related antisemitism transforms old prejudices into new political forms. It transfers the religious and nationalist enemy images of the 19th and 20th centuries into the present – from the figure of the “homeless Jew” to the “unnatural state”. Engaging with it requires sensitivity: not every criticism of Israeli policy is antisemitic, yet where the existence of Israel itself is disputed or morally devalued, the old hatred returns in new guise.