The intersection of Israel-related discourse and antisemitism is the most contested area in hate speech classification. Getting it right requires understanding both what is and what is not antisemitic.

The Core Distinction

Criticism of Israeli government policies, military actions, or political positions is not antisemitic. Israel is a state, and like all states, it is subject to critique. Holding Israel to the same standards applied to other democracies is legitimate political discourse.

Antisemitism enters when: - Classical antisemitic tropes are applied to Israel or Israelis - All Jews worldwide are held collectively responsible for Israeli actions - Israel's right to exist as a state is denied while no other state's existence is similarly challenged - Israeli actions are compared to the Holocaust or Nazism in ways designed to hurt rather than illuminate - The word "Zionist" is used as a direct substitute for "Jew" in conspiracy narratives

Three Frameworks for Assessment

**IHRA** provides 7 of its 11 examples related to Israel. These include denying Jewish self-determination, applying double standards, and using Nazi comparisons. Critics note that some examples could chill legitimate criticism.

**The Jerusalem Declaration (JDA)** explicitly protects: supporting BDS, comparing Israel to other historical cases of settler colonialism, describing the situation as apartheid, and criticizing Zionism as a political project. It defines antisemitism as applying antisemitic tropes to Israel or treating Jews everywhere as agents of Israel.

**The Nexus Document** offers a two-part test: Is Israel being targeted because it is Jewish? Are antisemitic tropes being applied to Israeli actions?

Practical Examples

Not antisemitic: "Israel's settlement policy violates international law." This is a political and legal claim, assessable on its merits.

Borderline - context needed: "Zionists control American foreign policy." This maps onto the dual loyalty and conspiracy tropes, but could also be read as a political claim about lobbying. Context determines classification.

Antisemitic: "Jews in Amsterdam should pay for what Israel does in Gaza." This holds diaspora Jews collectively responsible for the actions of a foreign state - a clear antisemitic pattern.

Antisemitic: "Hitler was right about the Zionists." The substitution of "Zionists" for "Jews" does not change the genocidal endorsement.

Why This Matters for Classification

HateCheck applies all three frameworks simultaneously. Content that meets IHRA criteria but falls within JDA's protected categories is flagged as Tier 2 (context-dependent) rather than automatically classified as antisemitic. This layered approach produces more defensible, nuanced assessments that can withstand scrutiny from all sides of the debate.