Why Criticising the Israeli Government Is Not Antisemitic. (Opinion)

In moments of war, language becomes a battlefield of its own. Few accusations carry as much moral weight — or are deployed as quickly — as the charge of antisemitism. Increasingly, it is invoked not to describe hatred of Jews, but to shut down criticism of the Israeli government. This conflation is not only intellectually flawed; it is dangerous.

Antisemitism is real. It is ancient, lethal, and resurgent. It refers to hostility, prejudice, or discrimination against Jews as Jews. Criticising the actions of a modern nation-state, however — even harshly — is something entirely different. Governments are political entities. They exercise power. They make decisions. And like all governments, they can be questioned, criticised, and held accountable.

---

---

Judaism, Israel, and the Israeli government are not interchangeable. Judaism is a religion and a people thousands of years old, spanning continents and political beliefs. Israel is a state founded in 1948. The Israeli government is a temporary administration, elected and contested, composed of fallible human beings. To collapse these into a single identity is not a defense against antisemitism — it is a form of collective attribution that antisemitism itself relies upon.

Inside Israel, criticism of government policy is not fringe or taboo. Opposition parties attack the ruling coalition daily. Israeli newspapers publish blistering editorials. Former generals, intelligence officials, judges, and diplomats openly dissent. Israeli human rights organisations investigate and accuse their own government of grave violations. If criticising the Israeli government were antisemitic, Israel’s own democratic culture would be indicting itself.

International law, too, makes no exceptions for history, trauma, or identity. The Geneva Conventions, the Genocide Convention, and human rights treaties exist precisely because states — all states — have proven capable of committing atrocities. These laws apply to conduct, not character; to actions, not ancestry. To argue that Israel should be exempt from legal scrutiny is to place it outside the very system designed to prevent the horrors Jews themselves once endured.

This is not a denial of Jewish suffering. On the contrary, many critics approach the question of Gaza precisely because history matters. “Never again” was never meant as an ethnic possession. It was meant as a universal warning. Taking that warning seriously means resisting the idea that trauma grants permanent moral immunity to power.

The accusation that criticism of Israel is uniquely targeted also collapses under examination. Russia is condemned for Ukraine. Saudi Arabia for Yemen. China for Xinjiang. Myanmar for the Rohingya. States are scrutinised when civilian suffering reaches intolerable levels.

Israel is not being singled out; it is being assessed by the same standards applied elsewhere.

What would be antisemitic is blaming Jews collectively for the actions of a government.

What would be antisemitic is invoking stereotypes, conspiracies, or racialised language.

What would be antisemitic is holding Jewish people worldwide responsible for decisions made by a state they may not support — or even belong to.

Criticism rooted in evidence, law, and concern for human life does none of these things.

In fact, the routine weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to silence debate carries its own risks. It erodes trust in genuine claims of antisemitism. It endangers Jewish communities by turning a vital moral safeguard into a political tool. And it forces Jews themselves into a false unanimity, erasing the diversity of Jewish thought and conscience.

Democracy depends on the ability to criticise power without being accused of hatred. Human rights depend on the universality of law. And the fight against antisemitism depends on precision — not dilution.

Criticising the Israeli government is not antisemitic. It is political speech. It is legal argument. It is moral engagement. And in a world that claims to care about justice, it is not only permissible — it is necessary

Ian Kydd Miller