The term “antisemitism,” which originally denoted a form of hatred against Jewish people, is undergoing a process of erosion and redefinition, according to Omar Mohammed, a historian and director of the Antisemitism Research Initiative. He argues that this shift is not an accidental byproduct of polarized debates but the result of a deliberate campaign designed to strip the word of its moral and social weight, effectively making expressions of Jew-hatred more publicly acceptable.

Mohammed traces the historical evolution of antisemitism as a political term back to 1879, when Wilhelm Marr, a German agitator, coined it to provide a cloak of legitimacy to anti-Jewish agitation. The term’s potency was ultimately reshaped in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, associating antisemitism with the atrocities committed during the Nazi era. This association attached a heavy social and political cost to the label “antisemite,” deterring public expressions of Jew-hatred in many parts of the world.

He warns that a contemporary effort seeks to dismantle this postwar consensus, allowing hostility toward Jews to be expressed without societal or institutional repercussions. The campaign driving this change is ideologically diverse and includes white nationalist groups, Islamist propagandists, segments of the activist Left, and media personalities. Despite their differing motives, these groups share a common objective: to weaken the credibility and seriousness of antisemitism as a charge by framing it as an overused or weaponized accusation.

This strategic undermining not only benefits those engaged in spreading antisemitism but also generates financial returns, Mohammed points out. A study cited in his analysis found that a handful of accounts on platforms like X (formerly Twitter) were responsible for a significant proportion of antisemitic content engagement, with some of these accounts monetizing their influence through subscriptions and other means. High-profile incidents, such as controversial content that draws mass attention, also feed into narratives of persecution that fuel further dissemination of hateful material.

Mohammed compares the current campaign to prior historical phenomena where language was weaponized to reshape public perceptions and policies, referencing Edward Said’s critique of the term “Orientalism” and the Red Scare tactics in 1950s America. He underscores that while allegations of antisemitism have occasionally been misapplied or exaggerated, the broader consequence of this delegitimization is the empowerment of genuine antisemitic actors who benefit from the term’s diminishing force.

The stakes are high, as documented antisemitic violence has surged. The J7 task force, representing major Jewish organizations from the seven largest diaspora communities, recently reported that 2025 marks the deadliest year for antisemitic attacks outside Israel since the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish community center in Buenos Aires. Incidents this year have included deadly attacks in Sydney, Manchester, Washington, and Boulder, Colorado.

Mohammed warns that while the public label “antisemitism” may be under assault, the more critical battleground lies in preserving the integrity of records, documentation, and research about antisemitic networks and incidents. He contends that institutions fighting antisemitism must prioritize safeguarding these informational infrastructures with dedicated resources. Failure to do so risks not only linguistic degradation but also the erasure of the factual basis necessary to confront and counter antisemitism effectively.

The historian, who has documented life under ISIS in Mosul, concludes that the survival of truthful scholarship and comprehensive record-keeping will determine how much can be preserved once this campaign challenging the meaning and weight of antisemitism has run its course.