Uncategorized
Does the Term Antisemitism Properly Convey People’s Hatred of Israel and Jews?
A placard equating Zionism with Nazism is displayed at an Oct. 23 pro-Hamas demonstration in the Place de la Republique in Paris. Photo: Reuters/ Valerie Dubois
Something happened while I was writing a book about how to fight antisemitism.
Forget internal arguments over hyphens or whether to call it “Jew-hate.” A new movement is beginning to form around using the word “antizionism” instead. At first, I was skeptical. Did we really need another term?
I’ve always understood that antisemitism adapts to the times and, like a parasite, hitches a ride on whatever version of anti-Jewish hatred is socially acceptable. But I’m beginning to understand that antizionism is different — and that the distinction matters. It gives antisemites plausible deniability for their hatred, and we need a new set of tools to fight it.
At the forefront of this effort to reclaim the language is anthropologist Adam Louis-Klein, who has led a push on social media to change the way we think about antizionism and to name it as a hate movement. He launched an organization, the Movement Against Antizionism, to advocate for this shift. His message is gaining traction because it offers something Jews desperately need: a framework for understanding — and fighting back.
The 32-year-old PhD candidate in anthropology was studying indigenous religion with the Desana people in the Colombian Amazon on October 7, 2023. On October 9, he arrived in a town with Internet access and opened his computer. He saw images from the Nova music festival massacre — and friends posting photos of burning Israeli flags, professing loyalty to “the resistance.”
What happened next was swift. PhD students stopped talking to him. Professors no longer wanted to be associated with him. He was marked as a “Zionist” simply for acknowledging that antisemitism existed.
Louis-Klein then launched the Movement Against Antizionism. A word about hyphens: he removes it deliberately. Without the hyphen, antizionism becomes its own ideology — a distinct hate movement rather than simply opposition to Zionism. [The Algemeiner still spells the movement anti-Zionism, but is using antizionism for the purposes of this op-ed.]
“The key is giving Jews the language to explain what they’re experiencing right now,” Louis-Klein told me recently. “Antizionists aren’t interested in debate. They create a scene of accusation — show trial — where you’re dragged into the courtroom and told to defend yourself.”
Louis-Klein’s core insight comes from studying how hatred evolves. Jew-hatred has always adapted to fit the moral codes of its era. Medieval accusations — killing Jesus, using Christian children’s blood for matzah — were rooted in religious doctrine. In the 19th century, when religious hatred seemed primitive, antisemites reframed their bigotry scientifically, casting Jews as a dangerous race. Each era’s version felt righteous because it aligned with contemporary values.
Today’s libels follow the same pattern. Louis-Klein points to three core accusations: “colonizer,” “apartheid,” “genocide.” These aren’t random insults — they’re the inverse of our civilization’s fundamental moral codes. After World War II, genocide and racism became absolute evils. Civil rights movements established racial discrimination as morally wrong. Decolonization rejected Western imperialism. When antizionists call Israel a genocidal, apartheid, settler-colonial state, they’re invoking the most powerful moral condemnations our culture recognizes.
This is why antizionists genuinely believe they’re righteous, and why Jews struggle to name what’s happening. Antizionists aren’t using classical tropes about big noses or controlling banks, so they insist, “It’s not antisemitic.”
This is where Louis-Klein’s approach becomes practical. The obvious objection: if antizionists already call themselves that, how does adopting their term help us? His answer is strategic. Jews have been trying to prove that antizionism equals antisemitism, and antizionists simply deny it. It becomes an endless, unwinnable argument. Instead, Louis-Klein says, we should take their claims at face value and demonstrate that antizionism itself is wrong. Stop defending. Start naming the hate movement for what it is.
The tool he offers is direct: “Hating Zionists is wrong. Hating Israelis is racism.”
According to this view, you can’t construct a theology in which one country is essentially evil. You can’t create a demonic worldview about a single nation and its supporters. That’s racism, full stop. And here’s the key: don’t debate the libels. Don’t let antizionists drag you into their courtroom to defend Israel’s policies or history. The moment you start arguing whether Israel meets the definition of apartheid or genocide, you’ve already lost.
Louis-Klein draws a parallel to how we treat classical antisemitism. No one today debates whether Nazism constitutes “legitimate criticism” of Jews. We recognize the ideology as evil in its totality. We should do the same with antizionism. Yes, all libels contain partial truths — there were powerful Jewish families in 19th-century Europe, there were Jews in communist movements, there are checkpoints in the West Bank. But libels aren’t critiques. They’re theological constructions designed to cast a people as intrinsically evil. Once we recognize how antizionism functions, we stop engaging with it on its own terms.
This is the practical advice Jews have been asking me about while I’ve been writing my book. Louis-Klein’s framework offers both intellectual clarity and actionable strategy — a way to understand what’s happening and how to respond. But I remain somewhat skeptical that one word can perform such a Herculean task. Changing the culture around Zionism and antizionism, with or without the hyphen, means fighting against a tsunami of hostility that has already reshaped academic institutions, social movements, and public discourse. The gaslighting is entrenched. The permission structures are firmly in place.
I understand that Louis-Klein is trying to get us to fight antizionism as a separate animal from antisemitism, but it’s also important to remember the ancient roots of the “colonizer,” “apartheid,” and “genocide” libels. They are the grandchildren of antisemitic tropes involving Jewish money and power, and there is value in pointing out that they are modern manifestations of ancient antisemitism. They’re how antizionism rings familiar to most Jews.
Still, Louis-Klein is right about one thing: Jews need new tools for a new form of hatred. The old vocabulary isn’t working. We can’t keep trying to prove that what we’re experiencing is “really” antisemitism when our accusers have built an entire ideology designed to deny that claim. At minimum, naming antizionism as its own hate movement gives Jews language to describe their reality and a framework to push back. It’s a place to begin.
Howard Lovy is a Michigan-based author and book editor who specializes in Jewish issues. His work can be found on his Substack newsletter, Emet-Truth. He is also the author of Found and Lost: The Jake and Cait Story and is currently writing a book on fighting antisemitism.
Uncategorized
Amid antisemitic attacks, Trump has forced an impossible choice on American synagogues
The Thursday attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan, did not occur in a vacuum.
In the past few months, shots were fired at three congregations in Toronto; an explosion rocked a synagogue in Belgium; and an arsonist caused massive damage to Beth Israel Congregation in Mississippi. Antisemitic incidents in the United States have reached historic highs. The threat is real, it is escalating, and American Jews know it.
Which is why the federal government’s decision to use this moment in history to force Jewish communities to choose between their own safety and that of immigrants is so unforgivable.
That choice is being created as part of the government’s Nonprofit Security Grant Program, which under President Donald Trump has instituted troubling new changes.
The program was established in 2004 to help houses of worship pay for cameras, barriers, armed guards and alarm systems, then expanded after the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre in 2018. It has perhaps never mattered more than it does right now. It provides, quite literally, life-saving money. The demand for grants vastly outpaces the supply, with thousands of organizations competing for a fraction of the security funds they need.
Now, those funds come with new strings attached.
Beginning in 2025, the Department of Homeland Security attached sweeping ideological conditions to new security grants. Recipients of new awards must cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, and must also agree not to “operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology.” They additionally must not run any aid program which “benefits illegal immigrants or incentivizes illegal immigration.”
When asked to clarify what those conditions mean in practice — whether a synagogue that declares itself a sanctuary for refugees would be disqualified, or whether a congregation offering programming for Jews of color or LGBTQ+ Jews would run afoul of the anti-DEI clause — the federal government’s answer has been months of contradictory guidance and confusion.
The terrifying potential consequences of that muddle were thrown into sharp relief by Thursday’s attack.
A man armed with a rifle rammed his truck through the doors of Temple Israel, driving down a hallway before being killed by the synagogue’s security staff. Thankfully, no congregants were hurt, and the children in the preschool run by the synagogue all made it home safely.
Many congregations do not have the independent resources to support security protocols as effective as Temple Israel’s proved to be. Instead, they rely on the government to help bridge the gap.
But under Trump’s second administration, security funding — the money that pays for the tools that may one day save lives — is now a lever to use to force political compliance.
This is of particular significance for Reform Judaism, the largest Jewish denomination in the U.S. and that to which Temple Israel belongs. The movement’s commitment to welcoming the stranger, hachnasat orchim — stemming from the commandment to love the stranger, repeated no fewer than 36 times in the Torah — is core to its identity. It is no coincidence that many Reform congregations have declared themselves sanctuaries for refugees.
And it’s of particular significance because antisemitic violence is often linked to anti-immigrant sentiment. The deadliest act of antisemitic violence in U.S. history, the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, was motivated by hatred toward immigrants, and toward Jewish programs that aid them.
The Trump administration’s demand that liberal American Jews choose between a foundational Jewish value and basic safety from violence is heartbreaking. One anonymous rabbi described the dilemma with devastating clarity to JTA: “Money is being given to us on condition that we violate a specific mitzvah. I don’t see how we can possibly accept that money.”
Rabbi Jill Maderer in Philadelphia put it even more bluntly, saying “Jewish safety requires inclusive democracy and inclusive democracy requires Jewish safety. We do not comply so we will not apply.”
These are communities under armed threat — as Thursday clearly reminded us — forced to choose between their physical safety and their moral integrity. That is a choice that no American religious community should ever have to make. The government’s obligation to protect its citizens, especially its most targeted minorities, must not come with an ideological price tag.
What makes this especially galling is the timing. A government shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security, born out of a political standoff over immigration enforcement, is currently halting the review of security grant applications. Synagogues that applied for funding months ago are waiting for approvals that may not come.
They are waiting, in many cases, to find out whether the security upgrades that might have made the difference under circumstances like those that unfolded in Michigan will be funded or not.
There is a word for demanding that a persecuted minority community abandon its values in exchange for protection: extortion. The Trump administration would no doubt dispute that framing. After all, the administration claims to care deeply about Jewish safety. Thursday’s attack makes clear that it is not enough for the administration to make that claim; it must prove its commitment through action.
It must remove the political conditions from the Nonprofit Security Grant Program. It must let houses of worship be what they are: sanctuaries, not instruments of federal policy.
The post Amid antisemitic attacks, Trump has forced an impossible choice on American synagogues appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘For As Long As Necessary’: Katz Says Campaign Against Iran Entering Decisive Stage
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israel Katz said Saturday that the confrontation with Iran had entered a “decisive phase,” as US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets continued and regional tensions escalated.
Speaking after a security assessment at Israel’s defense headquarters alongside Eyal Zamir, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, and senior military and intelligence officials, the Israeli defense minister said the campaign against the Islamic Republic would continue “for as long as necessary.”
“The global and regional struggle against Iran, led by American President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is intensifying and entering its decisive phase,” Katz said.
Katz also praised US strikes on Kharg Island, a key Iranian oil hub, describing them as a “severe blow” to the Iranian regime. He said the attacks were an appropriate response to Iranian threats against the strategic Strait of Hormuz and to what he called Tehran’s attempts to pressure the international community.
At the same time, Katz said the Israeli Air Force was continuing a “powerful wave of attacks” against targets in Tehran and other parts of Iran.
He accused the Iranian leadership of using “regional and global terrorism” and strategic blackmail in an effort to deter Israel and the United States from pursuing their military campaign, warning that such actions would be met with a “strong and uncompromising response.”
Katz added that the outcome of the conflict would ultimately depend on the Iranian population. “Only the Iranian people can put an end to this situation through a determined struggle, until the overthrow of the terrorist regime and the salvation of Iran,” he said.
According to the minister, the confrontation now pits the Iranian regime’s determination to survive against growing military pressure from Israel and its allies.
Uncategorized
Trump Rejects Efforts to Launch Iran Ceasefire Talks, Sources Say
US President Donald Trump speaks on the day he honors reigning Major League Soccer (MLS) champion Inter Miami CF players and team officials with an event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, March 5, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
President Donald Trump’s administration has rebuffed efforts by Middle Eastern allies to start diplomatic negotiations aimed at ending the Iran war that started two weeks ago with a massive US-Israeli air assault, according to three sources familiar with the efforts.
Iran, for its part, has rejected the possibility of any ceasefire until US and Israeli strikes end, two senior Iranian sources told Reuters, adding that several countries had been trying to mediate an end to the conflict.
The lack of interest from Washington and Tehran suggests both sides are digging in for an extended conflict, even as the widening war inflicts civilian casualties and Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz sends oil prices soaring.
US strikes on Iran’s Kharg Island, the country’s main oil export hub, on Friday night underscored Trump’s determination to press ahead with his military assault. Iran’s new Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei has vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz shut and threatened to step up attacks on neighboring countries.
The war has killed more than 2,000 people, mostly in Iran, and created the biggest-ever oil supply disruption as maritime traffic has halted in the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil is transported.
ATTEMPTS TO OPEN LINES OF COMMUNICATION
Oman, which mediated talks before the war, has tried multiple times to open a line of communication, but the White House has made clear it is not interested, according to two sources, who like others in this story were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about diplomatic matters.
A senior White House official confirmed Trump has rebuffed those efforts to start talks and is focused on pressing ahead with the war to further weaken Tehran’s military capabilities.
“He’s not interested in that right now, and we’re going to continue with the mission unabated. Maybe there’s a day, but not right now,” the official said.
During the first week of the war, Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that Iran’s leadership and military were so battered by US-Israeli strikes that they wanted to talk, but that it was “Too Late!” He has a history of shifting foreign policy stances without warning, making it hard to rule out that he might test the waters for restarting diplomacy.
“President Trump said new potential leadership in Iran has indicated they want to talk and eventually will talk. For now, Operation Epic Fury continues unabated,” a second senior White House official said when asked to comment on this story.
The Iranian sources said Tehran has rejected efforts by several countries to negotiate a ceasefire until the US and Israel end their airstrikes and meet Iran’s demands, which include a permanent end to US and Israeli attacks and compensation as part of a ceasefire.
Egypt, which was involved in mediation before the war, has also tried to reopen communications, according to three security and diplomatic sources. While the efforts do not appear to have made progress, they have secured some military restraint from neighboring countries hit by Iran, according to one of the sources.
Egypt’s foreign ministry, the government of Oman and the Iranian government did not respond to requests for comment.
POSITIONS HARDEN ON ALL SIDES
The war’s impact on global oil markets has significantly increased the cost for the United States.
Some US officials and advisers to Trump urge a quick end to the war, warning that surging gasoline prices could exact a high political price from the president’s Republican Party, with US midterm elections looming.
Others are pressing Trump to maintain the offensive against the Islamic Republic to destroy its missile program and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon, according to Reuters reporting.
Trump’s rejection of diplomatic efforts could indicate that, for now, the administration has no plans for a quick end to the war.
Indeed, both the United States and Iran appear even less willing to engage than during the opening days of the war, when senior US officials reached out to Oman to discuss de-escalating, according to several sources.
One source said Iran’s top security official, Ali Larijani, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had also sought to use Oman as a conduit for ceasefire discussions that would have involved U.S. Vice President JD Vance.
But those discussions have not materialized.
Instead, Iran’s position has hardened, said a third senior Iranian source.
“Whatever was communicated previously through the diplomatic channels is irrelevant now,” said the source.
“The Guards strongly believe that if they lose control over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran will lose the war,” the source added, referring to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite paramilitary force that controls large parts of the economy.
“Therefore, the Guards will not accept any ceasefire, ceasefire talks, or diplomatic efforts, and Iran’s political leaders will not engage in such talks despite attempts by several countries.”