Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#Requested move 21 April 2024

Regarding the sentence currently in the lead:

{{quote|The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized, with scholars of contemporary antisemitism saying it is a common rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist discourse on the left.}}

I believe this sentence violates the spirit of WP:LEAD and WP:DUE. Its placement at the top of the article preemptively undermines the concept of weaponisation before the term is even explained or contextualised. It would be analogous to beginning the Antisemitism article with:

{{quote|The charge of antisemitism has itself been criticized, with scholars of {{Pslink|Israel and Zionism}} saying it is a common rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to delegitimize concerns about Israel and Zionism, particularly in Zionist discourse on the right.}}

This kind of framing would rightly be seen as inappropriate in that context, and I believe the same standard should apply here. If there are scholarly criticisms of the term "weaponisation" or concerns that it delegitimises genuine antisemitism, those are important, but they should appear in a clearly marked criticism section in the body of the article, not in the opening summary.

I'm proposing that the sentence be relocated to a relevant section in the article, where its nuance can be preserved without introducing undue weight or bias in the lead. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:It would be inappropriate because criticism of the notion of antisemitism is not a major aspect of the topic of antisemitism—certainly not major enough that putting it in the lead would be proportional. Legitimately controversial concepts and ideas do have controversy reflected in their article leads, if the articles and leads are well-written. But analogy aside (because it’s subject to the particularities of unrelated topics; in this case another Wikipedia article and the body of literature on antisemitism)—the lead follows the body, and the body contains a substantial amount of content that is represented by this text in the lead. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Strongly disagree. That single sentence summarises what is currently a large section of the body, entitled “Responses”, a section that is well sourced and introduces the work of scholars of antisemitism (in contrast to the rest of the body, where a large part of the content is based on polemical opinion pieces by a mixture of experts and non-experts). Removing it would make the article POV and go against our MoS:LEAD guidelines. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with Bob and Zanahary. In controversial topics, such as this one, it's right to include any responses in the (usually) last paragraph of the lede with due weighting. I think this does this, since the preceding paragraphs already cover the "pro" side of the argument. Lewisguile (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this. Although I wonder if we should be saying "some charges of weaponizaion have themselves been criticized" rather than "the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I think the current wording is accurate, as the critical perspectives generally criticize the very concept (calling it a “stock rebuttal”/“retort”, a “trope”, etc.) as opposed to limiting themselves to particular examples. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think there's evidence of some scholars saying "okay, this sometimes happens, but not as often as people claim", which means while "some" might be correct, so might "many" or "most" (or even "a few", I suppose, but that seems unlikely). I.e., the critics aren't specific enough either way, so I'd rather leave out the weasel words. Lewisguile (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think that's right. I guess there are three responses: the term "weaponisation" is problematic (as the term "playing the race card" is when used about black people), the term "weaponisation" is not itself illegitimate but some/many charges of "weaponisation" are made to chill legitimate calling out of antisemitism, or the term weaponisation is totally fine and we can analyse specific instances. But that's too complex for the lead, where we should keep it concise and simple. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Exactly. And, in the case of people like Thompson or the stuff about left-wing antisemitism, there's probably a fourth category of responses which say that while a specific example is antisemitic, said example was also exaggerated or weaponised for political purposes at the same time (which doesn't detract from the initial antisemitism but may raise additional problems about why some groups'/individuals' antisemitism is considered more unpalatable than others'). Which is where it starts to get really gnarly. Lewisguile (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping group|Thanks all for the feedback|Zanahary|Bobfrombrockley|Lewisguile}}. I appreciate there's a well-sourced Responses section and that leads should fairly summarise all major perspectives. That said, the current sentence goes beyond summarising criticism and risks undermining the article's {{em|core concept}} before the reader has even encountered a definition of it.

::Let me clarify by flipping the logic: If Antisemitism had a large Responses section discussing how antisemitism claims are sometimes exaggerated or weaponised, would we place {{em|that}} in the lead? Almost certainly not, because doing so would give the impression that antisemitism is itself a dubious or overused concept, which would breach WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Yet that's essentially what's happening here.

::The phrase {{tqqi|the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized}} implies a broad, possibly even disqualifying critique of the entire framing {{em|before}} the reader has had a chance to engage with the topic. That's not balance, it's front-loaded scepticism.

::If there's a need to include such critical perspectives in the lead, perhaps it could be softened to reflect that this is {{em|a}} viewpoint rather than {{em|the}} defining context for the concept. For example:

::{{quote|Some scholars have criticised the term "weaponization of antisemitism" as a rhetorical trope used to dismiss legitimate concerns about antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist contexts.}}

::This version makes room for nuance without presenting a rebuttal to the topic itself as an {{em|established truth}}.

::Open to further suggestions, but I do think the tone of the current wording places a thumb on the scale. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If controversy and criticism is a major enough part of the coverage of a concept, then reflection of said constroversy and criticism is due for the lead. If that were the case for the concept of antisemitism, then it would be due for the lead. How does {{tq|the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized}} suggest the criticisms as "a defining truth" any more strongly than your proposed wording? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's presented as a standalone sentence immediately following definitions of the term. It frames the concept as contentious or even illegitimate before the reader encounters any substantive examples or discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The concept is as contentious as the lead prose suggests, per the extensive body of literature criticising it and its application. Compare to race card. As for the reader encountering a summary of criticism before encountering examples, that's just how articles are structured. The lead summarizes the entire article, including reception, before detailed sections begin. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The current phrasing implies that the concept is inherently flawed or dishonest. That goes beyond summary. It's subtly dismissive.

::::::By contrast, phrasing such as:

::::::{{quote|Some scholars have raised concerns that the term "weaponization" may itself be used to delegitimize genuine concerns about antisemitism...}}

::::::

::::::...still reflects the same criticism, but attributes it clearly as a {{em|viewpoint}}, not an editorial framing of the entire subject. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|The current phrasing implies that the concept is inherently flawed or dishonest.}} No it does not. It says something unambiguously true, which is that the concept has been criticized. The current phrasing says the concept has been criticized—that's very clearly a presentation of a viewpoint. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think we may be talking past each other a bit, so let me clarify. I'm not disputing that the concept has been criticised. My concern is how the {{em|current phrasing}} positions that criticism {{em|immediately after the basic definition}}, in a way that subtly frames the term itself as suspect.

::::::::Saying {{tqqi|the charge of weaponization has itself been criticized}} isn't merely stating that critics exist. It's using the criticism as a {{em|lens}} through which the concept is introduced. That's why the tone feels discrediting. It carries implications not of balance, but of {{em|casting doubt}} on the term's legitimacy from the outset.

::::::::My proposed rewording still includes the same criticism but it makes clear it's {{em|an attributed scholarly perspective}}, not a structural judgement about the topic itself. This is in line with how we handle leads in other controversial topics: the criticism is mentioned, but not given a tone of "correction" or presented as implicitly overriding the topic's validity.

::::::::I'd genuinely welcome other editors' views on this as I think this is a subtle editorial judgement about tone and balance, not simply whether criticism should appear. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I’ll move it back down to the end of the lead, where it was until recently. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::@Neveselbert, I'm happy with Zanahary's suggestion and think that should resolve the issue. I was the one who moved that line up because I was unhappy with "smear tactics" being the primary lens for the same reason you have objected to the critique as providing a lens.

::::::::::However, it's not the term that people primarily criticise, but the act/concept. Also, I've probably said this before, but trope isn't technically the right term in the context you've used it, either. A trope is essentially a symbol or metaphor used within a body of work or within speech—i.e., it's a stereotype or motif.

::::::::::An accusation or claim may therefore use tropes (or rely on them, perpetuate them, create them, feed into them, be rooted in them, etc), but it isn't the trope itself. So the grammar of your suggested wording would be a little off anyway. Lewisguile (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I wholeheartedly agree with @Neveselbert but propose a slight amendment: "The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized by some as delegitimizing concerns about antisemitism."

:::This because not all scholars of antisemitism say this and there is no significant RS that says they do, so we cannot put this in wikivoice. Plus, people who are not scholars have said this. As Neveselbert said, if we do not add the qualifier of "some" it implies that there is a generally accepted critique when there is not one, and if there was, would change the nature of the article entirely. Smallangryplanet (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The lead also says weaponization has been described as a smear tactic. Should that also be hedged with “by some”? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::How is falsely accussing someone of antisemitism to discredit them not a smear? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::That’s not the topic at hand—we’re discussing adding “by some” to the lead language about criticism, and I brought up the parallel of the smear text. Both assessments are made “by some”, and there’s no need to add text saying so (it’s quite obvious) to either clause. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't strictly object to adding "by some", or condensing that last sentence, but I agree with Zanahary that we should do so for both statements of opinion. It also adds in weasel words so isn't ideal. However, I think an alternative would be to move the second sentence of the first paragraph to the beginning of the last paragraph, and then merge the first and second paragraphs into one, like so:

:::::::{{tq|The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, is sometimes called weaponization of antisemitism. Claims of weaponizing antisemitism have arisen in various contexts, including the Arab–Israeli conflict and debates over the concept of new antisemitism and the working definition of antisemitism.}}

:::::::{{tq|Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described as a form of smear tactic, and have been likened to "playing the race card". The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as delegitimizing concerns about antisemitism.}}

:::::::This has the benefit of avoiding imprecision (both in terms of "some" and in terms of who has made such comments), while also avoiding any "framing" of the article one way or another, since it appears at the end of the lede. Lewisguile (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I agree with this phrasing - will you go ahead and make the edit, @Lewisguile? Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Done. Lewisguile (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think this unduly shrinks the considerable criticism—I think it should be attributed in the lead to “scholars of contemporary antisemitism” and the text about it being especially noted in leftist discourse restored. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Thanks, but why did you keep the inaccurate "with scholars of contemporary antisemitism saying it is often used to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism" part? I thought we agreed that was part of the weasel words, as not all scholars have said that, so were going to go with your proposed {{tq|The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized as delegitimizing concerns about antisemitism.}}? Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::How is that inaccurate? It represents text in the body. And when do you think consensus was reached that that’s weasel-wording? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::There is no text in the body that says 100% of scholars of contemporary antisemitism say this. And maybe we didn't call it WP:WEASEL but I thought we agreed that the lead is imprecise and needs improvement? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::The lead doesn’t imply that, though. I think this was addressed above when Lewisguile and I agreed above that adding “by some” to every summary of reception and analysis to the lead is unnecessary. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:21, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::No, it doesn't imply it, it explicitly states it, and it's inaccurate, as @Neveselbert also noted. Not every scholar of the subject has said that, let alone that it is "often used" like that, and in fact there are scholars of antisemitism who also believe the charge can and has been weaponised ([https://www.npr.org/2025/03/20/nx-s1-5326047/kenneth-stern-antimsietim-executive-order-free-speech link]). There is no mention of "all scholars of antisemitism" stating this anywhere in the body... sure, we do cite some scholars, including of antisemitism, but it would be synth (and, as you can see above and elsewhere, wrong) to say 100% of them do – so it also doesn't meet WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. If we try to correct for that by adding "some" to it, we again run into weasel words. The proposed version by @Lewisguile was accurate and concise and avoids this issue. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I don’t agree that the lead text could be reasonably interpreted to mean that 100% of antisemitism scholars make this criticism. Just like saying “it was condemned by human rights groups” or “critics noted its progressive vocal technique” doesn’t imply unanimity, this text is just a very standard attribution of criticism. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Firstly, sorry if I've caused any bother with my last edit. As there was a delay of a week between my last post and @Smallangryplanet's reply, I forgot/lost track a little, so only combined and moved paragraphs.

::::::::::::::Looking back at my suggested wording, I can see that I did suggest removing the attribution previously—primarily because I was swayed by the argument that not every scholar of contemporary antisemitism says that but also because some people who aren't such scholars also level the same criticism.

::::::::::::::However, I also accept that it isn't necessarily saying "every/only" scholars of contemporary antisemitism, either. It can be read both ways.

::::::::::::::I was also the one who said "by some" was WP:WEASELy—but, for the sake of reaching a consensus, I would be happy to re-add "by some" to both opinions in the last paragraph, if that helps.

::::::::::::::My objection was primarily based on imprecision, but "by some" is sometimes acceptable, and this is probably one of those instances.

::::::::::::::So that gives us three options:

::::::::::::::1. Leave it as it is (unlikely to satisfy Smallangryplanet).

::::::::::::::2. Restore it to how it was before my recent edit (I could live with this, but Smallangryplanet might dislike this version more than I would).

::::::::::::::3. Leave it as it is but add "by some" to both of the sentences in the last paragraph. (There might possibly be mild objections from myself and @Zanahary, but I'm willing to set mine aside for the sake of consensus. I can't speak for Zanahary, though.)

::::::::::::::So, it seems to me that there may be at least mild objections to each of these—at least as they are—but we're inching very close to something we can all agree on. As such, maybe there's a compromise that combines elements of the above to reach a version we're all happy with? Lewisguile (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|12}} I have a preference for the second option (as I really think it makes most sense to separate criticisms of the concept in the lead), no substantial problem with the first one, and am more opposed to the third option, which I think would produce prose that is unwieldy and strange, especially since there are two characterizations in the second-to-last sentence: attributing both would be weird; attributing just one would be weird; and the whole project of preventing reading of characterizations as being unanimous strikes me as unnecessary and not worth sacrificing readability for. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I missed the fourth option, which I should include for fairness:

:::4. Use the version I suggested above, which Smallangryplanet was also happy with (but which Zanahary wouldn't be happy with). This version was inspired, in part, by the lede of race card, which ends similarly:

:::{{tq|Critics of the term argue that it has been utilized to silence public discourse around racial disparities and undermine anti-racist initiatives.}}

:::For the sake of offering a compromise, here are some "combined" options:

:::5. Revert to the prior edit but remove attribution from the criticism in the last paragraph?

:::6. Keep it as it is (6a), or as per the prior edit (6b), but replace the generic statement with some specific sources. E.g., "Critics such as David Hirsh and [someone else we think we is suitable here?] say..."

:::Option 6 has the benefit of being more specific in general. We could, if we all agree, also do the same with the other opinion. Lewisguile (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This is a good overview of the current status, and yes, I believe we should add the specification of "by some" for that part because otherwise it is not accurate, and if that means also adding it in both cases that's fine. My question is: why do we specify "scholars of contemporary antisemitism" there and link to that page as if that criticism is exclusive in some way to them, a claim not backed by RS or the body? We don't give any indication of expertise for the weaponisation side, so why should we for the critics? Either we leave out both, or we add expert specifications for both. Since doing the latter will involve a whole lot of wrangling over what expertises to add, scholars of this or that, and the sourcing to back that up, let's avoid that and go with the former.

::::So I propose: {{tq|Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described by some as a form of smear tactic and likened to "playing the race card". The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized by some, with critics saying it is often used to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism.}} Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:48, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::To be honest, I think "by some" in both cases (without attribution) just ends up being clunky and redundant. If you simply remove "by some" in both cases, it's fine. However, as I noted above, I suspect @Zanahary will not be satisfied with that solution, which is why I had suggested some other alternatives. Are any of those alternatives acceptable to you, @Smallangryplanet? If not, I am happy to go with your suggested wording without "by some" in either case, but would obviously prefer something we can all get behind. Lewisguile (talk) 06:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes, it does come over as needlessly clunky, and I've found a way to resolve it that I think everyone can accept without it, taken from the language of the race card lede you cited: {{tq|Charges of antisemitism made in bad faith have been described a form of smear tactic and likened to "playing the race card", while critics have said the charge is used to delegitimize concerns about antisemitism.}} What do you think? Smallangryplanet (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Nope, I don’t see this as an improvement over the current lead, and I don’t see how it even addresses your concern about hedging about the ubiquity of criticisms—it’s just combining phrases into one sentence. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think this version should be fine. I do think it avoids the ubiquity issue and keeps it concise, without "by some" or the equivalent.

::::::::To keep this from dragging on, I will implement the change now on the basis that we have two agreed and one opposed. This does not, of course, prejudice anyone offering new wording which we might all get behind.

::::::::@Zanahary, what additional tweaks do you think we need to make this acceptable to you? The sticking point seems to be the "scholars of contemporary antisemitism" thing? However, I do agree that this isn't necessarily the whole picture, so would you accept a more specific description (e.g., "scholars such as x, y and z have said...")? Lewisguile (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

One of the most dangerous current examples of weaponization of antisemitism is the current attack on universities in the guise of fighting antisemitism. For an introduction to the topic, [https://forward.com/fast-forward/713467/jewish-students-alumni-decry-weaponization-of-antisemitism-across-country/ this article] is suitable. Zero^talk 00:42, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is just typical Republican anti-intellectualism, simply using a new pretext. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't disagree, although there are also others who put this in the context of a wider trend among populist right and far-right political groups to use alleged Muslim antisemitism to cover for their own historic (or sometimes current) antisemitism. However, I think most of this is covered in the section on universities and the new section on "Opposition to immigration". I'm not opposed to new sources that strengthen those sections. Lewisguile (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@User:Onceinawhile I was reading [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/opinion/antisemitism-israel-palestine-esther.html this] Michelle Goldberg piece today and I was wondering if there could be more info added to Wikipedia about this trend of non-Jewish Zionists accusing progressive Jews of antisemitism. I'm sure others have written about it. I added a little bit to the Project Esther and Zionist antisemitism articles. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:The op-ed doesn’t describe bad-faith or deception, just a "danger" of "conflating" antisemitism with criticism of Israel. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that in most cases it's probably not bad faith or deception, because those words imply intentionality. For Zionists (Jewish or Christian) who fervently and emotionally support Israel, their extreme views on the subject typically blind them to what Israel's doing to the people of Gaza. So it's natural for them to think that any protest against the Israeli government is anti-semitic. They don't think they're deceiving anyone by saying that. NightHeron (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This article’s scope is the bad-faith deployment of accusations of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel. There are a number of other articles where disputes over definitions and designations of antisemitism more broadly can be covered. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was merely pointing out that "deception" and "bad faith" are not the appropriate terms to use when the person spreading the falsehood believes it to be true because of their fanaticism on the issue. In that case the false charge of anti-semitism is still being used as a weapon. And there are plenty of people who are making those accusations in bad faith, intentionally deceiving the public; U.S. President Trump and his lackeys are prime examples. NightHeron (talk) 00:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::The reliable sources used to define the concept that constitutes this article’s scope are clear that it is a device of bad faith and manipulation, and do not support a concept of unintentional “false” accusations “used as a weapon”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There is a great deal of scholarly coverage about how attempts have been made to silence non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jewish voices with weaponized accusations of anti-Semitism against them. Our article on the topic is Self-hating Jew – that article needs more work (there are some excellent sources to add), and we should have a summary section here. The concept of "Self-hating Jew" is a classic form of weaponized accusations of anti-Semitism, as it has a long history and is wholly transparent.

::::Onceinawhile (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The concept of the self-hating Jew is not prominent enough in coverage of weaponization to be due for this article—I think I only came across it mentioned incidentally a handful of times in researching for this article. But if I am wrong and there are good sources connecting the two, feel free to add. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I disagree with Zanahary that it requires a demonstration/accusation of bad faith rather than mere weaponisation, and this has remained a point of contention on the article. I don't think there has been nor is there consensus that weaponisation requires an explicit charge of bad faith—there's an implication of bad faith when making a claim of weaponisation, certainly, but it doesn't need to be explicit. An RS might refer instead to misuse, exploitation, or abuse of antisemitism, etc. These are generally negative framings, at any rate.

::However, in this article, the author is certainly making the case that this is bad faith, even if she doesn't explicitly use those words. I think this is about weaponisation of antisemitism. She says:

::{{tq|Here we see the perversity that can come from conflating antisemitism with opposition to an increasingly brutal and authoritarian Israeli state.}} This in itself isn't clear because of the use of passive voice, but the tone is clearly negative. (It would've been clearer if she'd said "[Project Esther and/or the Heritage Foundation] is conflating antisemitism...", or better yet "is intentionally conflating...")

::{{tq|In the twisted logic of Project Esther — which is also the logic of Donald Trump’s war on academia — ultra-Zionist gentiles get to lecture Jews about antisemitism even as they lay waste to the liberal culture that has allowed American Jews to thrive.}} This is much clearer. It's accusatory. It's talking about how non-Jews get to "lecture Jews" while simultaneously undermining institutions that Jews have benefited from, all in the name of fighting antisemitism. The language is one of "war", "lectur[ing]" and "lay[ing] waste", which is violent—this is clearly framed as an attack. This is describing weaponisation by context and syntax.

::{{tq|the report targets both radical groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace as well as run-of-the-mill liberals}} The project is targeting people based on claims of antisemitism. I.e., antisemitism is a weapon.

::{{tq|Project Esther singles out the majority of Jewish House Democrats who declined to censure their colleague Rashida Tlaib for anti-Israel language, including her defense of the slogan "From the river to the sea." Their votes, said Project Esther, are "indicative of the strong strain of antisemitism that is running rampant through the progressive left" as well as a "dangerous complacency and indifference across America's Jewish community."}} This is clear: they are being "singled out" (attacked/targeted) because they're accused of "a strong strain of antisemitism".

::{{tq|one clue that there’s something off about Project Esther’s definition of antisemitism is how often it tags Jews as perpetrators}} More language of attacks, again tied to antisemitism, and clearly portrayed as unjust/inaccurate ("there's something off" about it).

::{{tq|The outfit's distorted definition of antisemitism matters because Trump... [has] defunded universities on the pretext of punishing them for antisemitism and attempted to deport pro-Palestinian student activists.}} "Pretext" indicates bad faith. "Punishing them" is using it as a weapon.

::{{tq|It wants to see those it calls "Hamas supporters" removed from university staffs, denied the right to protest and banned from social media. Ultimately it hopes to see them stigmatized the way the K.K.K. and Al Qaeda are.}} More of the same. Very much treating it as a weapon with malicious intent.

::And it goes on, but I'll end with this quote:

::{{tq|But even Roth, for all his prescience, couldn't have foreseen a modern-day Lindbergh who, in transforming America into something out of Jewish nightmares, pretends he's trying to ensure Jewish safety.}} I.e., he's pretending to defend Jews from antisemitism while making them less safe. This is a description of both bad faith and weaponisation. Arguably, this sort of stuff is also more likely to constitute any real sort of "weaponisation" of antisemitism than person x claiming antisemitism is being weaponised in response to being called out (which, I think most of us would agree, is usually just defensive behaviour from someone who probably doesn't want to own up to their actions).

::Of course, it's an op-ed, so should be attributed. And we'd probably want more than just one source to show notability here. But I do think it's on-topic. Extremely so. Lewisguile (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay, additional sources on Project Esther and weaponisation of antisemitism:

:::* {{tq|The project also proposes targeting "foreign members vulnerable to deportation" and working with law enforcement to "generate uncomfortable conditions" for progressive activists, raising serious concerns about civil liberties and the weaponization of antisemitism for political ends. We’ve already seen this playbook in action at Columbia University... Recent efforts to criminalize pro-Palestinian activism and brand it as inherently antisemitic threaten free expression and distort genuine concerns about rising antisemitism.}}[https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-insidious-antisemitism-of-the-heritage-foundations-project-esther/]

:::* {{tq|the main tool is a sweeping legal redefinition of antisemitism in American law and policy. {...] under the guise of a legal redefinition of antisemitism, the basic architecture of American public life is being radically transformed [...] has become a powerful instrument for political control, solidifying executive power to enforce a narrow, state-sanctioned definition of Judaism. In the name of combating antisemitism, this effort threatens to reshape American public life – and with it, the pillars of American liberalism. [...] The labeling of criticism against Israel as antisemitism has already worked to quash serious discussions on Israel-Palestine in the United States. Even Kenneth Stern, who drafted the original working definition, argued in an opinion piece for the Guardian that the IHRA definition has been weaponized against legitimate political expression.}}[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/mar/23/antisemitism-redefinition-jewish-safety-christian-nationalism-democracy]

:::* Definitely in need of attribution, but: {{tq|'Disingenuous accusations of antisemitism have been weaponized [...] Project Esther means to unify and coordinate the cynical use of the fight against real antisemitism in order to completely destroy the movement for Palestinian rights.}}[https://mondoweiss.net/2024/11/inside-project-esther-the-right-wing-action-plan-to-take-down-the-palestine-movement/]

:::* {{tq|President Donald Trump has enacted a raft of suppressive policies ostensibly designed to combat antisemitism, such as cutting off funding to universities that he claims haven't done enough to curb antisemitism on campus. But if you take a look [...] it becomes evident how little it has to do with ending bigotry against Jews. [...] Project Esther is a kind of miniature Project 2025, offering guidance on using authoritarian tools to crush criticism of Israel across the country.}}[https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-antisemitism-project-esther-heritage-palestinian-rcna207935]

:::* {{tq|the conservative DC-based Heritage Foundation introduced Project Esther as their latest and most brazen effort yet to crush Palestinian solidarity. Framed as an initiative to combat antisemitism, Project Esther exclusively targets voices and groups critical of the Israeli regime. It calls for collaboration between public and private entities to employ censorship, intimidation, and lawfare to delegitimize and dismantle organizations advocating for Palestinian rights.}}[https://al-shabaka.org/briefs/project-esther-suppressing-palestinian-solidarity-in-the-us/]

:::* {{tq|All of these agendas — from dismantling basic government functions to crushing the independence of cultural and educational organizations to criminalizing political speech to legitimating petty presidential vendettas — endanger the principles and institutions that have actually made this country great. [...] Among the first high-profile targets of the anti-antisemitic push have been... [...] the instrumentalization of Jewish fear is so pernicious. Those who attack people like Mr. Khalil today will be breaking bread with the "Ausländer raus!" folks tomorrow. They will seek new targets. Who’s next?}}[https://archive.ph/Ty5vK#selection-695.0-695.75]

:::* {{tq|critics such as Mr. Jacoby say the think tank is exploiting real concerns about antisemitism to advance its broader agenda of radically reshaping higher education and crushing progressive movements more generally"}}[https://archive.ph/Bx3c3#selection-4921.249-4921.461]

:::* In need of attribution, obviously: {{tq|in an open letter published this month, influential American Jewish leaders warned that a "range of actors" in the US are currently "using a purported concern about Jewish safety as a cudgel to weaken higher education, due process, checks and balances, freedom of speech and the press".}}[https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/5/19/project-esther-and-the-weaponisation-of-zionism]

:::I'm sure there are many others. Lewisguile (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)