The Weaponization of Antisemitism in Contemporary Geopolitics: Analyzing International Responses to the Gaza Crisis and Implications for Global Order

Foreward

The ongoing conflict in Gaza has intensified debates about the instrumentalization of antisemitism accusations to deflect criticism of Israeli policies while simultaneously revealing the limitations of international diplomatic responses to humanitarian crises.

Recent developments suggest a complex interplay between legitimate concerns about antisemitism, strategic political messaging, and the evolving dynamics of global power structures.

FAF, Gulf.Inc analyzes how accusations of antisemitism have been employed as a protective mechanism against criticism, evaluates the gap between international rhetoric and concrete action regarding Gaza, and considers the broader implications for global governance and historical memory.

The Strategic Employment of Antisemitism Accusations

Historical Development and Contemporary Application

The strategic use of antisemitism accusations to deflect criticism of Israeli policies has deep historical roots that have evolved into sophisticated contemporary practices.

According to scholarly research, this phenomenon traces back to 1943 when David Ben-Gurion called a British court antisemitic after it “had implicated Zionist leaders in arms-trafficking,” marking what Christopher Sykes identified as “a new phase in Zionist propaganda” where “to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic.”

The tactic became more refined in the post-1967 period, as Noam Chomsky noted, “increasingly so, as the policies defended became less and less defensible.”

The formalization of this approach reached its apex with Israel’s foreign minister Abba Eban’s 1973 declaration that “the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all.

Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism”. This framework has since been institutionalized through various mechanisms, most notably the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which critics argue was explicitly designed to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice.

The IHRA Definition and Its Implementation

Research reveals that despite its designation, the IHRA definition “was not prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance” but rather “was the result of a concerted effort—underway since the early 2000s—by individuals and organizations aligned with the Israeli government, to redefine antisemitism in a way that deflects and silences criticism of Israel”.

Academic analysis demonstrates that “hundreds of academics, including Jewish scholars specialized in Holocaust studies, antisemitism, Jewish history, and related fields, as well as hundreds of civil society organizations, including human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch” have criticized this definition as inadequate for combating genuine antisemitism.

The practical application of these expanded definitions has created what researchers describe as a systematic effort to suppress Palestinian rights advocacy.

As documented by scholars, “in practice, these examples are used and broadly interpreted to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice,” particularly through Example 7, which “is constantly used to repress the assertion that the Israeli government commits the crime of apartheid against Palestinians.”

Community Perspectives and Internal Debate

Within Jewish communities, there is growing recognition of this instrumentalization and its harmful effects. Online discussions reveal frustration among Jewish individuals who observe how “They accuse us of playing the victim by making out someone else victim card is more valid.”

Community members note the intellectual dishonesty inherent in selectively believing Jewish voices: “They’ll say you have to believe people’s lived experiences, and then when 9/10 Jews tell them what they don’t want to hear, they believe the one Jew who has never participated in the community in their life”.

This internal critique extends to concerns about the politicization of antisemitism for broader political purposes. Israel’s antisemitism envoy Michal Cotler-Wunsh has warned that “the use of antisemitism for political purposes is hazardous—it fuels antisemitism,” specifically criticizing the use of antisemitism to justify deportation policies, arguing that “Jews must not be used as a ‘scapegoat’ for policy or politics.”

International Response: The Rhetoric-Action Gap

European Union Initiatives and Limitations

The European Union’s response to the Gaza crisis exemplifies the significant gap between diplomatic rhetoric and concrete action.

After months of mounting pressure, EU foreign ministers announced a review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement, marking “the first formal step in response to mounting calls for stronger action over the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.”

However, this development has been characterized as “devastatingly late” by human rights organizations, with Amnesty International noting that “the extent of human suffering in Gaza for the past 19 months has been unimaginable”.

The EU’s trade relationship with Israel is substantial, valued at over €42 billion annually, making the EU Israel’s largest trading partner.

This economic interdependence helps explain the reluctance to take more decisive action, as suspending the agreement “could hit hard on strategic sectors for Israel, such as technology manufacturing, which currently represents 20% of the country’s GDP.”

Germany alone exported $5.6 billion worth of goods to Israel in 2022, including vehicles, pharmaceutical products, machinery, and electronics.

National Responses and Sanctions

Individual nations have taken varying approaches to addressing the crisis. The United Kingdom has implemented a series of measured responses, including suspending trade talks with Israel, summoning the Israeli ambassador, and imposing fresh sanctions on West Bank settlers.

Foreign Secretary David Lammy characterized the military escalation in Gaza as “morally unjustifiable,” though these actions have been criticized as insufficient by some parliamentary members.

France, Canada, and the UK issued a joint statement “strongly opposing” Israel’s expanded military offensive and threatening to “take concrete actions” if Israel does not cease its operations and lift aid restrictions.

However, the practical implementation of these threats remains unclear, and the statement primarily represents symbolic pressure rather than immediate consequences.

Turkey has taken the most decisive economic action, announcing a complete halt to all exports and imports, with Israel worth $7 billion annually “until a permanent cease-fire and humanitarian aid are secured in Gaza.”

Turkish officials justified this decision by stating that Israel’s “uncompromising attitude” and the worsening situation in Gaza’s Rafah region necessitated immediate action.

Arms Embargoes and Military Support

Despite growing calls for arms embargoes, most Western nations maintain military cooperation with Israel.

The PEN International organization has called for “an immediate global arms embargo on Israel to prevent what it called the ‘ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.’”

However, implementation remains limited, with Israel continuing to receive “billions of dollars of weapons from its largest suppliers - the US and Germany” throughout the conflict.

The UK implemented partial measures in September, halting some export licenses while supplying parts for Israel’s F-35 jet fleet.

This selective approach illustrates the broader pattern of limited action that maintains strategic relationships while appearing to respond to humanitarian concerns.

Genocide Allegations and Historical Comparisons

Academic and Legal Discourse

The characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide has gained significant traction among academic and legal communities.

According to documented research, “UN experts, the UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories Francesca Albanese, and Human Rights Watch have cited statements by senior Israeli officials that may indicate an ‘intent to destroy’ Gaza’s population in whole or in part.”

This assessment is based on the legal threshold requiring a demonstration of intent to destroy a population, which various observers argue has been met through official Israeli statements and policies.

Holocaust historian Amos Goldberg has stated unequivocally that “Israel’s actions in Gaza exhibit all the elements of genocide,” citing “explicit intent from high-ranking officials, widespread incitement, and a pervasive dehumanization of Palestinians in Israeli society.” His colleague Daniel Blatman concurred with this assessment.

At the same time, genocide scholar Mark Levene has detailed how Israel’s actions constitute “ethnic cleansing at the very least” and potentially genocide based on official statements and policies.

However, this perspective is contested within academic circles.

Holocaust historians Norman J. W. Goda and Jeffrey Herf “reject claims that Israel is perpetrating a genocide and consider them a tactic to delegitimize Israel as a state,” with Goda characterizing genocide accusations as “laden with antisemitic tropes” and calling it “The Genocide Libel.”

Systematic Destruction and Ethnic Cleansing

Analysis of Israeli military strategy reveals what researchers describe as a “comprehensive five-step program” for ethnic cleansing.

This strategy allegedly includes silencing press coverage, reducing the population through military action, using starvation as a weapon, rendering Gaza uninhabitable through systematic destruction, and seeking diplomatic legitimization for population transfer.

The scale of destruction supports these analyses, with more than 90 percent of Gaza’s housing units reportedly “completely or partially destroyed” by January 2025.

UN data indicates that by April 2025, at least 50,500 people had died—representing 1 out of every 44 people in Gaza—with most victims being civilians, including at least 50% women and children.

These statistics, combined with the systematic targeting of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and cultural sites, form the basis for genocide allegations.

Holocaust Comparisons and Historical Memory

The comparison between Gaza and the Holocaust has become a contentious aspect of contemporary discourse. Critics argue that such comparisons “trivialize the Nazi atrocities by equating them with a contemporary conflict” and represent “an assault on memory itself.”

These critics contend that “Gaza, despite its immense suffering and devastation, is the scene of a conflict between a terrorist group and a sovereign military—not an extermination effort.”

However, the invocation of Holocaust memory cuts both directions in this conflict.

Some Jewish scholars and writers have argued that “all criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic” and that accusations of antisemitism at “the slightest objection to Israeli policy have long allowed Israel to uphold a regime that human rights groups, scholars, legal analysts, and Palestinian and Israeli organizations have called apartheid.”

This perspective suggests that the instrumentalization of Holocaust memory may itself constitute a form of historical distortion.

Geopolitical Implications and World Order

Emerging Multipolarity and Power Dynamics

The international response to Gaza occurs within a broader context of shifting global power dynamics.

Historical analysis of “new world order” concepts reveals recurring patterns of great power competition and the struggle between unipolar and multipolar arrangements.

Current developments suggest that we are moving away from the post-Cold War American hegemonic order toward a more complex multipolar system.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s calls for a new world order that challenges “US global leadership and its interference on other countries’ internal affairs” reflect this broader shift.

The differential responses to Gaza among global powers illustrate these emerging fault lines, with traditional Western allies increasingly diverging in their approaches to Israel-Palestine issues.

The concept of American hegemony maintaining global order through military supremacy, as established during the Persian Gulf War era, appears increasingly strained.

The inability to achieve consensus on Gaza response mechanisms demonstrates the limitations of existing international institutions and the emergence of alternative power centers willing to challenge Western-led initiatives.

Imperial Continuities and Resistance

Some scholars frame current developments within longer historical patterns of imperial dominance.

Noam Chomsky’s analysis of the post-Cold War “new world order” as an era where “the New World gives the orders” provides context for understanding contemporary dynamics.

According to this perspective, “these assaults aim to establish the role of the major imperialist powers—above all, the United States—as the unchallengeable arbiters of world affairs.”

The differential treatment of various humanitarian crises and conflicts reveals what critics argue are double standards that reinforce existing power hierarchies.

The extensive support provided to some conflicts while limiting response to others suggests that humanitarian concerns may be subordinated to strategic interests in maintaining existing power arrangements.

Pathways Forward and International Obligations

Legal and Institutional Mechanisms

International legal obligations provide frameworks for addressing the current crisis.

The principle of preventing genocide, established under international law, requires states to take concrete action when credible evidence of genocidal intent emerges.

Amnesty International has emphasized that “EU member states must ban trade and investment that could contribute to the commission of genocide and other grave violations of international law.”

The International Court of Justice’s ruling that Palestinians face a “plausible risk of genocide” creates legal obligations for signatory states to prevent such outcomes.

However, the enforcement mechanisms for these obligations remain weak, particularly when powerful states resist implementation.

Proposals for institutional reform include strengthening UN peacekeeping capabilities, reforming Security Council veto powers, and creating more effective enforcement mechanisms for international humanitarian law.

However, these reforms face significant political obstacles from existing power holders.

Economic and Diplomatic Measures

Economic measures represent one of the most practical tools for international pressure. A complete arms embargo, comprehensive trade sanctions, and investment restrictions could significantly impact Israeli decision-making processes.

Turkey’s example demonstrates that substantial economic pressure is possible, though coordination among multiple major economies would be necessary for maximum effectiveness.

The establishment of alternative trade relationships and economic partnerships could provide Palestinian communities with economic lifelines while reducing dependence on Israeli-controlled systems.

However, such initiatives require sustained international commitment and coordination.

Civil Society and Advocacy

Civil society organizations have played crucial roles in documenting violations and maintaining international attention on Gaza.

The testimony collection efforts by organizations like PEN International demonstrate how cultural and academic institutions can contribute to accountability mechanisms.

These efforts help counter information warfare and provide evidence for future legal proceedings.

Educational initiatives that distinguish between legitimate criticism of policies and antisemitism could help reduce the effectiveness of weaponized antisemitism accusations.

Jewish scholars and writers have contributed significantly to this effort by articulating how support for Palestinian rights does not constitute antisemitism.

Conclusion

The contemporary crisis in Gaza reveals fundamental tensions between humanitarian obligations, geopolitical interests, and historical memory.

The strategic employment of antisemitism accusations to deflect criticism has created significant obstacles to addressing the humanitarian crisis. At the same time, the gap between international rhetoric and concrete action demonstrates the limitations of existing global governance mechanisms.

The genocide allegations against Israel, supported by substantial academic and legal analysis, require a serious international response regardless of their ultimate legal determination.

The systematic destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure and population, combined with explicit statements of intent from Israeli officials, creates obligations under international law that cannot be ignored for strategic convenience.

The broader implications for global order suggest a transition period where traditional Western hegemony faces increasing challenges from alternative power centers.

The differential responses to Gaza among traditional allies indicate potential realignments that could reshape international relations for decades.

Preventing the normalization of the Gaza crisis as an acceptable form of conflict resolution requires sustained international pressure, comprehensive economic measures, and institutional reforms prioritizing humanitarian obligations over strategic interests.

The risk that Gaza becomes a “forgotten” genocide, similar to other historical atrocities, can only be mitigated through continued documentation, legal accountability mechanisms, and civil society pressure.

The ultimate test of international institutions and global governance will be whether they can prevent the completion of what many scholars characterize as ethnic cleansing or genocide in Gaza.

Failure to do so would establish dangerous precedents for future conflicts and potentially delegitimize the post-World War II international legal framework.

The choice facing the international community concerns Gaza as well as the principles that will govern international relations in the emerging multipolar world order.