For decades, Zionists have used public pressure to silence any Palestinian voices, or those sympathetic to their cause, from gaining traction. Whether it was a documentary on a broadcast network, an art exhibition displaying the work of Gaza’s traumatized children, or two American Jews selling falafel sandwiches wrapped in serving paper relating Palestinian stories, Zionists have screamed antisemitism to marginalize dissident voices, browbeat people into submission, and wrap their political persecutions in the guise of a contrived victimhood.
Until recently, public campaigns were sufficient. The ADL would launch a smear campaign, the local Jewish Federation would get involved, and, where relevant, well-connected Zionist donors to, say, a museum or a university would bring immense pressure to bear on the target. For decades, this worked in no small part because public opinion was on the side of Israel and against the Palestinians. But what to do when public opinion runs contrary to your agenda?
The American public has moved decisively against Israel. The latest poll shows that 60% of Americans have a negative opinion of Israel. Anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian sentiment is even stronger amongst Democrats and Democrat-leaning Independent voters. A majority of Republicans below the age of 50 now have a negative view of Israel, too.
In response to the collapse in public support, Zionists have had to trade public pressure for state persecution. Unable to rally a majority to the side — unable to win the battle in the public square, despite the enormous resources devoted to propaganda — Zionists have turned to federal, state, and local government to silence pro-Palestinian voices.
The most salient examples are the anti-BDS laws passed by a majority of American states (with varying degrees of enforcement) and the effort to codify the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which deliberately and mendaciously redefines antisemitism to shield Israel and Zionism from criticism. The former circumscribes the normal exercise of political advocacy — of which boycott is a time-honored American tradition from the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery Bus Boycott — by restricting state assistance and contracts on a pledge not to boycott Israel.
Keep in mind that boycotts that target American states are not uncommon in the country. After North Carolina and Arizona passed anti-trans and anti-immigrant laws, respectively, successfully boycotts campaigns were launched against the states by fellow Americans. Only when it comes to Israel, a foreign nation, have states passed laws to penalize those who even advocate such a quotidian course of political action.
The IHRA definition effectively seeks to reframe opposition to Israel’s apartheid regime as a civil rights offense, a hate crime against Jewish people. This attempt to criminalize criticism of a political entity reflects a desperate effort by Zionists, unable to make the case for Israel, to win by default by silencing their detractors.
The Trump Administration’s assault on academic freedom — and ICE’s political detentions, such as the recent arrest of a pro-Palestinian activist in Wisconsin — are guided by the IHRA definition. The administration has used the camouflage of antisemitism to shake down both private and public universities and compel them to revamp their educational programs in line with pro-Israel politics and mythology. Similarly, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s designation of anti-antisemitism as a core U.S. foreign policy objective — admirable if sincere — has been used to justify the expulsion of foreign students and ICE’s detention and potential deportation of long-term residents.
