Naya Lekht Declares Anti-Zionism as Modern Antisemitism, Igniting Definitional Debate

Naya Lekht, an Israeli-American scholar and educator, recently asserted on social media that "Antizionism= Jew-hatred. It is today’s antisemitism." Her tweet, which included a link for further context, directly equates opposition to Zionism with a contemporary form of antisemitism, contributing to an intense and ongoing global discussion about the nature of anti-Jewish prejudice. Lekht's statement reflects a viewpoint that sees anti-Zionism not merely as political critique but as a continuation of historical animosity towards Jewish people.

Lekht, who holds a PhD in Russian Literature and specializes in the history of antisemitism, argues that "Jew-hatred mutates" and that anti-Zionism is the latest iteration of this ancient prejudice. As a research fellow at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) and Education Director for Club Z, she teaches that anti-Zionism functions by constructing Jews as villains, akin to earlier anti-Judaic and antisemitic libels. She contends that this ideology was deliberately engineered to appear as legitimate political criticism while serving as a hate movement.

This strong stance is central to a broader, often contentious, debate over how to define antisemitism, particularly in relation to criticism of Israel. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism, adopted by numerous governments and institutions worldwide, states that antisemitism is "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews." While acknowledging that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic, the IHRA definition includes examples where "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" or "applying double standards" to Israel could be considered antisemitic.

However, the IHRA definition has faced significant criticism from academics, legal scholars, and human rights organizations. Critics argue that its examples relating to Israel are often used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and actions, thereby infringing on free speech. Kenneth S. Stern, who contributed to the original draft of the IHRA definition, has expressed concerns about its "weaponization" on college campuses.

In response to these concerns, the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) was released in 2021 by a group of international scholars as an alternative framework. The JDA defines antisemitism as "discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews," and explicitly states that "criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism" or "evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state" are not, in and of themselves, antisemitic. This declaration aims to provide clearer guidance, distinguishing between antisemitism and legitimate political discourse concerning Israel and Palestine. The divergent views highlighted by Lekht's tweet and the contrasting definitional frameworks underscore the complexity and sensitivity of addressing antisemitism in contemporary society.