Rebutting intellectual, moral dishonesty
What begins as a critique of Israeli policies often slips into outright antisemitism, cloaked under the guise of moral outrage against "Zionism" or Israel's so-called "crimes".
John Menadue’s refusal to publish my response to an obscurist rant about the Israel lobby weaponising antisemitism to suppress discussion of Israel and Gaza in his online journal, Pearls & Irritations, is unsurprising but nonetheless disturbing.
It exemplifies a troubling pattern in the way Israel, Jews and antisemitism are discussed in ostensibly left-leaning spaces. What begins as a critique of Israeli policies often slips into outright antisemitism, cloaked under the guise of moral outrage against “Zionism” or Israel’s so-called “crimes”. The refusal to engage with dissenting views only deepens the intellectual and moral dishonesty that pervades these platforms.
Menadue’s response to a friend who enquired why he hadn’t published my rebuttal, reveals the type of distorted reasoning that not only deflects from the realities but also insidiously perpetuates antisemitism while claiming to oppose it.
His accusation that Jews – or “Zionists”, as Menadue prefers –are weaponising antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel is as old as it is offensive. It frames Jews as manipulative, using their historical trauma to stifle legitimate debate. This is a classic antisemitic trope: that Jews wield undue influence over public discourse, particularly through emotional manipulation.
Let me be clear: criticism of Israeli government policies is not inherently antisemitic. But when that crosses the line into questioning Israel’s right to exist, or when Jews everywhere are held accountable for the supposed actions of Israel’s government, it becomes antisemitism, plain and simple.
Claiming that pointing out antisemitism is a form of “weaponisation” is designed to shut down any discussion about the rising tide of Jew-hatred. It not only ignores the real and present danger of antisemitism but also perpetuates it by allowing hateful rhetoric to masquerade as valid political critique.
Menadue claimed we are “witnessing the first live-streamed genocide in history”. To call Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide” is not only factually incorrect but deeply irresponsible. Israel, like any state, has the right to defend itself against terrorism. What is happening in Gaza is tragic, but it is the result of a complex conflict in which both sides suffer and in which Hamas – a terrorist organisation – is cynically using Palestinian civilians as human shields.
Furthermore, to suggest that pointing out antisemitism is a strategy to deflect attention from Israel’s actions is an attack on Jews everywhere. It diminishes the very real experiences of Jewish communities facing a surge in antisemitism since October 7. Around the world, Jews are being harassed, synagogues are being vandalised and Jewish students are being ostracised on university campuses – not because they support the Israeli government, but because they are Jewish. Calling it out is not “weaponisation”.
Menadue then turns to pro-Palestine writer Paul Heywood-Smith’s interpretation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion, using it to justify the so-called Palestinian right to “resist”. This is where the rhetoric becomes even more dangerous.
The argument that Israel has no right to defend itself against Palestinian violence because it is an occupying force is a grotesque distortion of international law. It ignores the fact that Israel has, on multiple occasions, sought peace, only to be met with waves of violence. It also ignores that Hamas is not interested in self-determination for the Palestinians – it is interested in the destruction of Israel. When Menadue talks about “resistance”, he is talking about the indiscriminate murder of civilians.
To suggest that Hamas’s October 7 attack was an act of resistance, not terror, is to deny the humanity of the victims and to condone terrorism as a legitimate means of political expression.
Menadue goes on to draw a grotesque comparison between the fears of Palestinians and Jews. He suggests that Jewish concerns are trivial, a mere “psychological discomfort” compared to the life-and-death fears of Palestinians. But Jewish communities are not simply “uncomfortable” – they are afraid for their safety in the face of rising violence and hate. When synagogues are attacked, Jewish children are harassed, Jews are afraid to show their identity in public, when “Jew Die” is daubed on Jewish schools, this is not psychological discomfort. It is the same terror that has haunted Jews for centuries.
This framing also reduces the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a black-and-white morality play, where Palestinians are innocent victims and Jews (as “Zionists”) are oppressors. This is not only reductive, but denies the agency of Palestinians to make choices that affect their fate – such as their ongoing support for Hamas.
In refusing to publish my rebuttal, Menadue is engaging in the very behaviour he accuses others of: weaponising a narrative to silence opposition. The real “weaponisation” here is not of antisemitism – it is of misinformation, historical revisionism and moral relativism. By refusing to acknowledge antisemitism and by justifying violence under the banner of resistance, Pearls & Irritations is contributing to a climate of hate that threatens not only Jews but the very fabric of civil discourse.
Israel, like any country, has its flaws. But the right of the Jewish people to live in peace and security, free from violence and hate, is not up for debate. And that is the real truth – one that Menadue seems unwilling to face.
Adam Slonim is director of the Middle East Policy Forum.
comments