A recurring idea in modern political discourse is that antisemitism exists primarily because of Israel. According to this narrative, if Jews would simply distance themselves from Zionism or publicly condemn Israel, hostility toward Jews would disappear.

This belief is historically incorrect.

Antisemitism long predates the modern state of Israel. For nearly two thousand years Jews were persecuted across Europe and the Middle East without any Jewish state at all. Medieval accusations such as blood libels, forced expulsions, and pogroms occurred centuries before the founding of Israel in 1948.

In many periods of history, the only way Jews could escape persecution was by renouncing their identity entirely. In medieval Christian Europe, Jews could sometimes avoid discrimination by converting to Christianity. In other cases, such as under the Nazis during the Holocaust, even conversion offered no protection because antisemitism had become racial rather than religious.

The idea that antisemitism began with Zionism ignores this long history.

Former anti-Israel activist Kasim Hafeez has described this dynamic clearly. Before changing his views, he said he despised Jews who condemned Israel just as much as those who supported it. Their criticism of Israel did nothing to change how he felt about Jews.

This highlights an uncomfortable truth: antisemitism has rarely depended on what Jews actually do. Historically it has persisted regardless of whether Jews assimilate, convert, or distance themselves from their own community.

The Pattern of the “Good Jew”

Throughout history there has been a recurring expectation placed on Jews—the idea that there are “good Jews” and “bad Jews.”

The “good Jew” is the one who publicly distances themselves from the rest of the Jewish community. In earlier centuries, this often meant Jews who converted to Christianity. In some modern political circles, it means Jews who loudly condemn Israel.

Commentator Dennis Prager discusses this dynamic in his book Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism. He argues that antisemitism frequently requires Jews to justify their own existence in ways no other group is expected to do.

The result is a troubling double standard. Jews are encouraged to criticize their own community more harshly than anyone else. But history suggests that doing so rarely protects them from antisemitism. Instead, it often reinforces the idea that Jews must constantly prove their innocence to critics who already assume their guilt.

When Critics Rewrite the History of Antisemitism

In recent years, this narrative has entered popular culture. Actor Seth Rogen, for example, has publicly questioned the historical justification for Israel and suggested that Jewish narratives about the state are shaped largely by trauma.

But the claim that antisemitism began with Zionism is historically impossible.

Jewish communities faced violence and expulsions across Europe and the Middle East long before modern Zionism existed. Events such as the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 and the pogroms of Eastern Europe occurred centuries before the founding of Israel.

Zionism did not create antisemitism. In many ways, Zionism emerged as a response to it—an attempt to solve the persistent insecurity Jews experienced in diaspora communities.

The belief that Jews can reduce antisemitism by condemning Israel is therefore based on a misunderstanding of history.

The Double Standard Applied to Israel

Another striking feature of modern debates about Israel is the extraordinary standard applied to the Jewish state compared with other countries born in the same historical moment.

In 1947 and 1948, the world witnessed several major partitions following the collapse of colonial empires. One of the most consequential was the division of British India, which produced the modern states of India and Pakistan, with Bangladesh emerging later after further conflict.

The violence surrounding the Partition of India was enormous and well-documented. Historians estimate that roughly a million people were killed and tens of millions displaced. Massacres, abductions, rape, and forced migrations occurred on a massive scale.

Yet today, this history is generally treated as a tragic but contextual event of decolonization. There is no global movement demanding the dismantling of the states that emerged from that partition. No international campaigns treat them as uniquely illegitimate.

By contrast, Israel emerged in the same year from the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Many accusations about that period remain historically debated among scholars. Meanwhile, one rarely mentioned fact is that Arabs who remained in Israel became citizens with voting rights and political representation. Today Israel includes a substantial Arab minority with full citizenship under Israeli law.

This raises an uncomfortable question about consistency.

When violence during the partition of India is discussed, it is treated as part of the tragic upheaval of decolonization. But when Israel’s founding is discussed, many activists apply a completely different moral framework.

The Jewish state is not treated as one of many countries born in a turbulent era of national partitions. It is treated as uniquely illegitimate.

Virtue Signaling Will Not End Antisemitism

This brings us back to the phenomenon sometimes described as the “self-hating Jew.” Some public figures appear to believe that loudly condemning Israel will distance them from antisemitism or earn them moral approval in political circles.

But history suggests this strategy is unlikely to succeed.

Antisemitism has never been satisfied with partial concessions from Jews. In earlier centuries it demanded conversion. In the twentieth century it demanded exclusion. Under the Nazis, it demanded extermination.

Condemning Israel may earn applause from certain political audiences, but it will not erase antisemitism. As critics like Kasim Hafeez have pointed out from personal experience, hostility toward Jews rarely disappears simply because some Jews criticize their own community.

The uncomfortable truth is that antisemitism has never depended on Jewish behavior alone.

And history suggests that those who believe they can escape it by joining the mob are often the last to realize that the mob never intended to spare them.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)