From its invention in 1879 to its weaponization against American patriots who documented Israeli attacks on U.S. forces, "antisemitism" has always been a propaganda term designed to silence inconvenient truths. Here's why we must reject it entirely.
Carrie Prejean Boller made a horrible mistake. The former Miss California, appointed to President Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission, asked a simple question during a commission meeting: Could someone define antisemitism? Is historic Christianity antisemitic?
In the days that followed, Eric Metaxas, the celebrity Christian author, went nuclear. Seth Dillon of the Babylon Bee piled on. Within days, Prejean Boller was removed from the commission. Her crime wasn’t making an accusation. It wasn’t defending hatred. It was asking for a definition of antisemitism.
When you’re not allowed to define a term, when seeking clarity gets you destroyed, you’re not dealing with a word. You’re dealing with a weapon. And that’s what this article is about. I want to make the case that the term “antisemitism” has no actual value, no actual meaning, no discernible definition, serves as a cudgel to attack critics of Israel, and must be discontinued, disrespected, and decommissioned from use in the English language.
THE TERM ITSELF: MANUFACTURED CONFUSION
The word “antisemitism” is linguistically absurd from the start. “Semites” refers to peoples speaking Semitic languages: Jews, Arabs, Ethiopians, Arameans, Assyrians. German Enlightenment scholar August Ludwig von Schlözer coined the term “Semite” in 1781 purely as a linguistic classification, derived from Shem, one of Noah’s sons in Genesis.
Premium subscribers can access a free PDF of this article (ad and graphic-free) at the bottom of this post, below the paywall.
Using “antisemitism” to mean exclusively “anti-Jewish” makes as much sense as using “anti-European” to mean specifically “anti-Norwegian” while excluding Germans, French, Italians, and everyone else. The term is designed to confuse, wrapped in the veneer of academic precision while delivering maximum vagueness.
But the confusion gets worse when you examine the term’s actual invention.
In 1860, Austrian Jewish scholar Moritz Steinschneider first used “antisemitische Vorurteile” (antisemitic prejudices) in a footnote criticizing French philosopher Ernest Renan’s claims that “Semitic races” were intellectually inferior to “Aryan races.” Ironically, a Jewish scholar coined the term to describe someone else’s racism.
The term remained obscure until 1879, when German agitator Wilhelm Marr seized it for a specific purpose. Marr deliberately chose “Antisemitismus” to replace “Judenhass” (Jew-hatred) because it sounded scientific, modern, racial rather than religious. This was the era of social Darwinism and pseudoscientific race theory. Terms like “Semitic race” and “Aryan race” carried the veneer of enlightened academia.
Marr’s pamphlet “The Victory of Judaism over Germandom” argued that Germans and Jews were locked in a racial struggle that could only end with one group’s destruction. Jewish emancipation had allowed Jews to dominate German finance and industry, he claimed, and assimilation was impossible because Jewish characteristics were inherited through blood. The pamphlet ran through twelve editions in its first year. That same year, Marr founded the Antisemiten-Liga (League of Antisemites), the first organization explicitly dedicated to combating the widely acknowledged Jewish threat to Germany.
The term was purpose-built propaganda from day one. Marr himself later renounced it, publishing “Testament of an Antisemite” in 1891, apologizing for his “mistaken antisemitic notions.” Too late. The weapon was already loose.
Here’s what matters: The term has a precise historical definition. It describes the specific racial ideology of 19th century German nationalists who believed Jews constituted a biologically inferior “Semitic race,” that Jewish characteristics were transmitted through blood, and that assimilation was therefore impossible. This ideology, refined and intensified, culminated in Nazi genocide.
When someone today is called “antisemitic,” they’re being accused of holding Wilhelm Marr’s 1879 racial theories or Nazi ideology. But criticizing Israeli government policy, questioning lobbying influence, or documenting attacks on American servicemen has absolutely nothing to do with German race science. The accusation is deliberately anachronistic, a 19th-century label weaponized against 21st-century critics.
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE EXPLICIT STRATEGY
This isn’t speculation or conspiracy theory. Israeli and Zionist leaders have openly stated the strategy of conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews.
In 1973, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote: “One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism.”
Noam Chomsky’s response captured the implications perfectly. He said, “That is a convenient stand. It cuts off a mere 100 percent of critical comment!”
One year later, Anti-Defamation League leaders Arnold Forster and Benjamin Epstein published “The New Anti-Semitism,” formally identifying anti-Zionism as a new form of antisemitism. Norman Finkelstein documented in 2008 that organizations like the ADL have advanced these charges since the 1970s “to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism.”
Edward Said observed in 1980 that Zionist discourse had been constructed so that opposing Zionism “immediately aligned oneself with anti-Semitism,” functioning “to suppress criticism of Israel.”
After the 1967 Six-Day War, the ADL with support from AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen began systematically portraying anti-Israel actions as antisemitic, particularly targeting calls for Israel to end occupation of the West Bank.
Then there’s the definitional chaos. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance calls theirs a “working definition,” which they’ve been “working” on since 2005. Seven of eleven IHRA illustrative examples relate to criticism of Israel. Pro-Israel groups smuggled the examples in later, according to researcher Jamie Stern-Weiner, creating a tool “that can be used to protect Israel from criticism.”
Alternative definitions proliferate dang near everywhere. The Jerusalem Declaration, the Nexus Document, various academic frameworks, all of them different, all competing. There’s no consensus. There’s no fixed definition. When a term can mean anything, it can be deployed against anyone.
THE LAVON AFFAIR: BOMBS IN AMERICAN BUILDINGS
Now let’s examine how this weapon works in practice. We’ll start with an incident most Americans have never heard of, precisely because the accusation of antisemitism kept it buried for half a century.
It was the summer of 1954, in Egypt. Israeli military intelligence launched Operation Susannah. The mission was to recruit Egyptian Jews to plant bombs inside American libraries, American educational centers, and British-owned cinemas in Cairo and Alexandria.
The bombs were timed to detonate several hours after closing time. The attacks were designed to be blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood, Egyptian communists, or “unspecified malcontents.” The goal was creating enough instability and violence to convince the British government to maintain its occupying troops in Egypt’s Suez Canal zone and to damage relations between the United States and Egypt.
The operation failed spectacularly. Egyptian security services caught the operatives. Eleven were arrested. Two, Moshe Marzouk and Shmuel Azar, were sentenced to death by hanging and executed. The rest received lengthy prison terms ranging from seven years to life.
In Israel, the operation caused a massive political crisis. Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon denied knowledge of the operation. Intelligence chief Benjamin Gibli claimed Lavon had given verbal orders. The resulting scandal brought down Lavon and eventually forced Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion to resign. The affair, which became known as the Lavon Affair, shook the foundations of Israeli governance.
But here’s what matters for Americans: Israel’s official response to the world was to call it all “antisemitism.”
For fifty-one years, Israel denied any involvement whatsoever. The official line, delivered by Prime Minister Moshe Sharett, characterized the Egyptian trial as “a show trial which is being organized there against a group of Jews who have fallen victims to false accusations of espionage.”
The trade union newspaper Davar claimed the Egyptian regime “seems to take its inspiration from the Nazis” and lamented the “deterioration in the status of Egyptian Jews in general.”
Israeli newspapers immediately compared Egyptian proceedings to Nazi Germany. The message was unmistakable: anyone who believed Egypt’s claims was trafficking in “antisemitic conspiracy theories and blood libels.”
Anyone who suggested Israel had actually planted bombs in American facilities was dismissed as a conspiracy theorist at best, an antisemite at worst. For five entire decades. Then, in 2005, fifty-one years after the operation, Israeli President Moshe Katsav awarded certificates of appreciation to the surviving agents, finally acknowledging what Israel had done.
Israel planted bombs in American facilities. They lied about it for half a century. They accused critics of antisemitism. Then, they quietly admitted the truth when nobody cared anymore.
This is the playbook.
USS LIBERTY: KILLING AMERICANS, THREATENING THE PRESIDENT
The Lavon Affair involved bombs that never detonated and killed no Americans. The USS Liberty incident involved bombs, torpedoes, napalm, and machine guns that killed thirty-four Americans and wounded one hundred seventy-one others. The accusation of antisemitism was deployed not just to cover up the attack, but to threaten the President of the United States himself.
It was June 8, 1967. It was the fourth day of the Six-Day War. The USS Liberty, an American intelligence ship, operated in international waters twenty-five miles off Sinai. The ship was clearly marked. It flew a large American flag. “USS LIBERTY” was painted on the hull.
Israeli reconnaissance aircraft circled the Liberty starting at 5:15 AM. There were multiple passes throughout the morning. Crews waved to each other. Both sides clearly identified the other as friendly.
At 1:50 PM, Israeli aircraft attacked. Multiple waves strafed the ship with machine guns, rockets, and napalm, covering the Liberty completely. Israeli forces jammed communications. Then torpedo boats arrived, firing five torpedoes. One hit, killing twenty-five men. The boats machine-gunned crew members attempting to evacuate in life rafts and sailors in the water.
According to declassified documents published in Naval History Magazine in 2017, “Israeli diplomats, meanwhile, manipulated the media to downplay or kill stories about the attack and even silenced an angry President Lyndon Johnson by threatening to publicly accuse him of ‘blood libel’ or anti-Semitism.”
Israeli diplomats threatened the President of the United States with accusations of antisemitism to prevent an investigation of an attack that killed thirty-four American servicemen.
Documents show U.S. officials discussed sinking the Liberty at sea to prevent reporters from photographing the damage. Survivors received gag orders, forbidden to discuss what happened for decades.
When survivors finally spoke publicly, the Anti-Defamation League “questioned the motivation” behind a White House ceremony honoring them. Jim Ennes, a survivor shot in the femur and former director of a local board against racism, spent his life documenting the evidence. He was repeatedly accused of antisemitism.
Today, Wikipedia describes the USS Liberty incident as “frequently referenced in antisemitic conspiracy theories.” The Southern Poverty Law Center calls it a “rallying cry” for antisemites. When Representative Paul Gosar referenced it in 2024, the ADL immediately condemned him.
Anyone demanding accountability gets labeled antisemitic. This is the weapon in action.
WHY WE MUST REJECT THE TERM ENTIRELY
It’s time for Christians, patriots, and lovers of truth to stop playing this game. Here’s why we must reject the term “antisemitism” entirely and refuse to legitimize its use.
If you appreciate my content, please grab a premium subscription for only $8 a month to access exclusive content (like the rest of this article). Act now, and get 20% off an annual subscription.
Don’t do subscriptions? Please consider a one-time gift of your choosing by clicking the link below.
