You’re right that calling them “antisemites” doesn’t work. But here’s why renaming it doesn’t work either. These people will always believe their version is the legitimate one. The question to ask someone who isn’t too far gone isn’t “what do you call this?” It’s: does it strike you as a coincidence that across two thousand years, every time someone decides there is a uniquely malevolent force in the world that needs to be neutralized, it turns out to be the Jews? Different name every time. Different stated reasons every time. Same people targeted. Same accusations of hidden power, cosmic evil, civilizational threat. Same outcomes. At some point, the pattern is the argument. You don’t need to call it anything. The target plus the accusation plus the history tell you everything about what it actually is. That’s what you can say to someone with the door still open. Not, “you’re an antisemite.” But: look at the pattern. If you’re honest, the pattern has something to tell you. See my piece. https://thsteinberg.substack.com/p/why-im-okay-with-jews-isnt-good-enough
Oh it’s not renaming! It’s identifying what antizionism is! They identify as antizionists proudly—they do all the work for us. All we have to do is say, “oh, that’s awful! Antizionism is a hate movement.”
I would counter what you’ve said only by asking: where is the harm in letting antizionism stigmatise itself? All I’m proposing is that we allow it to do so! All it requires is that we understand and name antizionism.
Because, to the extent they see antizionism as being about hate, they think they’re justified in hating. Because they don’t admit to seeing Jews at the target.
Joshua, your analysis of the 'Category Error' is the most surgical diagnosis of the branding war I’ve read. You are exactly right: we are showing up to a branding war with a history lesson, and the word 'Antisemitism' has become a defunct pathway.
However, I believe the word 'Antizionism'—even without the hyphen—remains a strategic trap. It keeps the conversation on 'political concepts,' which allows the 'Husk' of pseudo-academic critique to thrive.
I propose we move the front lines to Hebrophobia.
The Target is the 'New Jew': Unlike Antisemitism (which targets the victim) or Antizionism (which targets the state), Hebrophobia names the pathology directed at the Hebrew—the sovereign Jew who has shed the 'Docile Mask' of the exile.
The Strategic Mirror: In a world that recognizes 'Islamophobia' as a moral red line, Hebrophobia forces the 'Universalist' to apply their own logic to us. It strips away the 'socially acceptable' status of the hatred by defining it as a phobia against a People’s existence, not a debate over their policies.
Ending the Disputation: As you noted, we are like Medieval Jews turning out our pockets at a show trial. By naming the enemy’s Hebrophobia, we stop the 'Disputation' over Zionism. We aren't here to explain our movement; we are here to name their pathology.
We are moving from Exilic Deconstruction to Sovereign Re-Indigenization. Your arsenal provides the tools; Hebrophobia provides the name of the battlefield."
Beware that antizionism was already the Soviet framework for antisemitism. Jews seen as suspicious and disloyal to the country because of their potential ties to Israel (a Western democracy). Every Jew can become a citizen of israel. Today the ideology is a mix of Soviet and Nazi, Jewish lobby is the 5th column, "Zionists" are Jew-lovers and the October 7 "false flag" is just good, old "lying Jews". Openly hating Israelis is ok as long as you don't call them Jews. Some also promote Holocaust denial.
So well explained!
Thank you Amy much appreciated
You’re right that calling them “antisemites” doesn’t work. But here’s why renaming it doesn’t work either. These people will always believe their version is the legitimate one. The question to ask someone who isn’t too far gone isn’t “what do you call this?” It’s: does it strike you as a coincidence that across two thousand years, every time someone decides there is a uniquely malevolent force in the world that needs to be neutralized, it turns out to be the Jews? Different name every time. Different stated reasons every time. Same people targeted. Same accusations of hidden power, cosmic evil, civilizational threat. Same outcomes. At some point, the pattern is the argument. You don’t need to call it anything. The target plus the accusation plus the history tell you everything about what it actually is. That’s what you can say to someone with the door still open. Not, “you’re an antisemite.” But: look at the pattern. If you’re honest, the pattern has something to tell you. See my piece. https://thsteinberg.substack.com/p/why-im-okay-with-jews-isnt-good-enough
Oh it’s not renaming! It’s identifying what antizionism is! They identify as antizionists proudly—they do all the work for us. All we have to do is say, “oh, that’s awful! Antizionism is a hate movement.”
I would counter what you’ve said only by asking: where is the harm in letting antizionism stigmatise itself? All I’m proposing is that we allow it to do so! All it requires is that we understand and name antizionism.
I’ll upload parts 2 and 3 over the coming days :)
Because, to the extent they see antizionism as being about hate, they think they’re justified in hating. Because they don’t admit to seeing Jews at the target.
Joshua, your analysis of the 'Category Error' is the most surgical diagnosis of the branding war I’ve read. You are exactly right: we are showing up to a branding war with a history lesson, and the word 'Antisemitism' has become a defunct pathway.
However, I believe the word 'Antizionism'—even without the hyphen—remains a strategic trap. It keeps the conversation on 'political concepts,' which allows the 'Husk' of pseudo-academic critique to thrive.
I propose we move the front lines to Hebrophobia.
The Target is the 'New Jew': Unlike Antisemitism (which targets the victim) or Antizionism (which targets the state), Hebrophobia names the pathology directed at the Hebrew—the sovereign Jew who has shed the 'Docile Mask' of the exile.
The Strategic Mirror: In a world that recognizes 'Islamophobia' as a moral red line, Hebrophobia forces the 'Universalist' to apply their own logic to us. It strips away the 'socially acceptable' status of the hatred by defining it as a phobia against a People’s existence, not a debate over their policies.
Ending the Disputation: As you noted, we are like Medieval Jews turning out our pockets at a show trial. By naming the enemy’s Hebrophobia, we stop the 'Disputation' over Zionism. We aren't here to explain our movement; we are here to name their pathology.
We are moving from Exilic Deconstruction to Sovereign Re-Indigenization. Your arsenal provides the tools; Hebrophobia provides the name of the battlefield."
Beware that antizionism was already the Soviet framework for antisemitism. Jews seen as suspicious and disloyal to the country because of their potential ties to Israel (a Western democracy). Every Jew can become a citizen of israel. Today the ideology is a mix of Soviet and Nazi, Jewish lobby is the 5th column, "Zionists" are Jew-lovers and the October 7 "false flag" is just good, old "lying Jews". Openly hating Israelis is ok as long as you don't call them Jews. Some also promote Holocaust denial.
you’re going to like parts 2 and 3! I’ve also written a lot about Soviet antizionism, really keen to know what you think! https://fornormalpeople.substack.com/p/why-it-matters-antizionism-antisemitism
joshua, thanks so much for writing this. it will be very useful to come back and refer to