Antisemitism never disappears. It evolves.
Today, it has found a new and disturbingly effective form: anti-Zionism dressed up as intellectual rigor, even as “science.” What was once crude hatred is now presented as analysis. What was once shouted in the streets is now taught in lecture halls.
Look at the case of Joe Kent. A young, articulate figure who has clearly understood that antisemitism remains a powerful political tool—if framed correctly. Not as hatred of Jews, of course, but as opposition to Israel and its alleged influence.
The formula is familiar. The “powerful Israeli lobby.” External pressure. War driven not by strategic necessity, but by manipulation. Kent resigned from a senior national security position rather than support what he described as a conflict undertaken “due to external pressure, particularly from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
The language is careful. He does not say “Jewish lobby.” He says “Israeli lobby.” But the meaning is unmistakable.
This is how antisemitism adapts. It changes its vocabulary, not its essence.
The claim that Iran posed no imminent threat is not just questionable—it ignores decades of reality. The regime of the ayatollahs has been responsible for the deaths of more than 1,000 Americans, attacks on U.S. bases, the kidnapping of citizens, and the arming of proxies across the Middle East and beyond. It has amassed enriched uranium sufficient for multiple nuclear weapons and developed advanced missile and drone capabilities.
Above all, it has never hidden its intentions. For 47 years, it has called for the destruction of Israel and the United States.
And yet, the narrative persists: that the real driver of conflict is not Iranian aggression, but Israeli manipulation.
This is not new. It is the modern iteration of a very old idea—the belief that Jews secretly control world events. From The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Nazi propaganda to Soviet disinformation, the theme has remained constant. Only the language has changed.
Today, it appears in discussions of “global elites,” in accusations of undue influence, and in the portrayal of Israel as a uniquely malevolent force. Figures across the political spectrum have echoed these ideas, often without acknowledging their historical roots.
What is new, however, is the institutionalization of this narrative.
Since the 1960s, under the influence of Soviet ideology and later international bodies, Zionism has been systematically redefined. No longer understood as the national movement of the Jewish people—a people returning to its historic homeland—it has been recast as colonialism, racism, even a form of illegitimacy.
The 1975 United Nations resolution declaring that “Zionism is racism” was a turning point. Although later revoked, its intellectual legacy endures.
Today, in universities, media and international forums, Zionism is often presented not as a historical reality, but as a moral failing. As Adam Louis Klein has noted, it has become almost axiomatic in some circles that Zionism is devoid of legitimacy.
The result is a profound inversion of truth.
A people that has endured centuries of persecution, exile and attempted annihilation is now accused of oppression. A state created as a refuge is portrayed as a threat. Accusations once directed at Jews as individuals are now directed at Jews as a nation.
The pattern is unmistakable. In medieval Europe, Jews were accused of ritual murder. In the 20th century, they were accused of seeking world domination. Today, they are accused of genocide.
The charge changes. The target does not.
What makes the current moment particularly dangerous is the breadth of support this narrative now commands. It is not confined to the fringes. It is echoed in political movements, amplified by well-funded networks, and legitimized by academic discourse.
Those who adopt it can present themselves as defenders of justice, of the oppressed, of human rights. They can gain public support, political traction—even electoral success.
This is why it is so effective. And this is why it must be confronted clearly.
To criticize Israeli policy is legitimate. To question decisions made by any government is part of democratic discourse. But to attribute global events to the manipulations of an “Israeli lobby,” to deny the reality of Iranian aggression, or to recast Zionism as a uniquely illegitimate ideology is not criticism. It is something else.
It is the latest mutation of a very old hatred. Recognizing it is the first step. Refusing to normalize it is the next.
Because when antisemitism becomes “respectable,” when it is taught, repeated and rewarded, it does not remain confined to words. History has shown, time and again, where it leads. And we would do well not to forget it.
