Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: Silencing Dissent and Undermining Free Speech in the US

By Mohammad Hamoud

Lebanon – The term "anti-Semitism" originally referred to genuine hatred towards Jewish people. However, in recent decades, "Israeli" lobby groups and political figures have increasingly weaponized this term to suppress legitimate criticism of "Israel’s" government and its atrocities in Palestine and Lebanon. Under the Trump administration, this tactic escalated, merging with broader authoritarian impulses to punish dissent, suppress activism and erode free speech. The cases of Mahmoud Khalil, Helen Thomas, and former President Jimmy Carter demonstrate how accusations of anti-Semitism are deployed not to combat bigotry but to shield "Israel" from accountability, threatening democratic discourse and empowering hypocrisy.

The “New Anti-Semitism”: A Strategic Silencing Tool

The concept of the “new anti-Semitism,” popularized by "Israeli" lobby groups, redefines criticism of "Israel" as inherently anti-Jewish. A 2013 analysis by Mondoweiss highlighted how this framework conflates opposition to "Israel’s" occupation of Palestinian territories with hatred of Jews, effectively equating Zionism with Jewish identity. Organizations like the Anti-Defamation League [ADL] and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee [AIPAC] have spearheaded campaigns to codify this definition into law, particularly targeting the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions [BDS] movement.

This strategy has dire consequences. By framing critiques of "Israel" as anti-Semitic, lobby groups and politicians delegitimize human rights advocacy and chill free speech. For instance, the ADL routinely labels supporters of Palestinian rights as anti-Semites while offering tepid rebukes to genuine anti-Jewish bigotry from political allies. In 2024, when Donald Trump claimed Jewish Democrats showed “great disloyalty” for voting against him, the ADL called his remarks merely “divisive”—a stark contrast to its aggressive smearing of progressive lawmakers like Rep. Ilhan Omar for criticizing "Israel".

A Pattern of Suppression: From Mahmoud Khalil to Helen Thomas

Prominent figures have been labeled as “anti-Semitic” for opposing "Israel’s" policies. Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian graduate student and leader of Columbia University’s protests against "Israel’s" war in Gaza, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] agents despite holding a green card. He was detained under Trump’s executive orders “prohibiting anti-Semitism,” with the administration alleging his activism constituted support for Hamas. This marked the first publicized deportation effort under Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestine student protesters.

Khalil's situation illustrates the absurdity of weaponized anti-Semitism. No evidence linked him to Hamas; his so-called “crime” was organizing peaceful campus protests. By labeling Palestinian solidarity as anti-Semitic, the Trump administration criminalized dissent, exploiting immigration laws to target a resident whose advocacy posed no threat.

Another significant case is that of Helen Thomas, a pioneering journalist who broke gender barriers in the White House press corps. After nearly six decades of fearless journalism, her career ended abruptly in 2010 after she criticized "Israel" and its policies regarding Palestinians. The backlash was swift, forcing her into retirement. Thomas’ experience serves as a chilling warning to other journalists considering critical stances on "Israel". Her remark—“You cannot criticize "Israel" in this country and survive”—proved prophetic.

Even former US President Jimmy Carter was not immune to such attacks. In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter argued that "Israel’s" policies in the occupied territories resemble apartheid. This drew fierce backlash from "Israeli" lobby groups, labeling him as anti-Semitic while ignoring his lifelong support for Jewish communities and his role in brokering the Camp David Accords. The attacks on Carter underscore how even former US presidents face consequences for criticizing "Israel".

The Erosion of Free Speech in the US

The weaponization of anti-Semitism to silence critics of "Israel" poses a severe threat to free speech in the US In a democratic society, individuals should be able to criticize any government—including "Israel’s"—without fear of persecution. However, the pressure from "Israeli" lobby groups has cultivated a culture of fear, where politicians, journalists, academics, and activists risk losing their careers or reputations for expressing critical views on "Israel".

This suppression extends to academic institutions. Once bastions of free inquiry, universities now face pressure to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance [IHRA] definition of anti-Semitism, which equates anti-Zionism with hatred of Jews. This has resulted in canceled lectures, defunded student groups, and terminated professorships—a direct assault on academic freedom. Faculty members have also been denied tenure or dismissed for their views, stifling open debate and meaningful discussions about "Israel’s" actions and their impact on Palestinians.

Trump’s Hypocrisy: Exploiting Anti-Semitism for Political Gain

Ironically, Trump’s administration actively labeled critics of "Israel" as anti-Semitic while surrounding itself with individuals who espoused anti-Semitic views. Figures like Steve Bannon, a former Trump strategist, have been accused of promoting white nationalist rhetoric and tolerating anti-Semitism within their ranks.

Despite this, Trump’s administration pushed policies equating criticism of "Israel" with anti-Semitism, using the issue for political gain rather than genuine concern for Jewish communities. His former advisor Sebastian Gorka praised Hungarian collaborators with the Nazis, while Trump himself dined with white supremacist Nick Fuentes. These alliances expose the administration’s cynicism: accusations of anti-Semitism are not about protecting Jews but silencing critics of "Israel" and consolidating power.

Trump’s embrace of "Israel’s" far-right government and his support from Christian Zionist groups further highlight his political motivations. Christian Zionists, a key component of Trump’s base, support "Israel" not out of concern for Jewish people but due to apocalyptic beliefs that see "Israel" as necessary for biblical prophecy. This illustrates that Trump’s weaponization of anti-Semitism was rooted in advancing his political agenda rather than fighting bigotry.

Conclusion: Defending the Right to Criticize "Israel"

The ability to critique any government is fundamental to democracy. The weaponization of anti-Semitism by "Israeli" lobbies and figures like Trump poses a serious threat to free speech in the US Cases like Mahmoud Khalil, Helen Thomas, and President Carter illustrate how this strategy suppresses voices challenging "Israel’s" policies.

If the US is to uphold its values of free speech and open debate, it must reject the false equivalence between criticism of "Israel" and anti-Semitism. Genuine anti-Semitism must be confronted and condemned, but it should not be used as a political weapon to silence dissent. Only by resisting this manipulation can we ensure that discussions about "Israel’s" policies remain fair, open, and free from political coercion.