So what is the so-called “political criticism”? Apparently—our existence.

From the President’s Desk
The Anti-Semite Corner of the Week

The ceasefire in Gaza was supposed to delight all those who had spent months shouting “genocide” and “starvation.” Yet instead of relief, it sparked a new wave of outrage. Almost as if all those moral slogans were never about human rights at all—but simply about hating Jews.

By: Anat Vidor, WIZO President

After two long and painful years, peace has returned, and our sons have come home. One might expect the world to exhale. But those who insisted that their anger was aimed only at “Israeli policy” seem more enraged than ever. Even in Gaza, the supposedly “exterminated and starving” greeted the end of the war with disappointment.

Around the world, the same theater continues: pro-Hamas demonstrations surge, “Zionist” singers are canceled in Turkey, France, and Brussels. At the University of Sydney, a faculty member told Jewish students that “Zionism is the lowest form of garbage.” Meanwhile, Turkey’s president threatened to boycott the peace summit in Egypt—simply because Israel was invited.

Strange, isn’t it? For two years, we were told: “It’s not antisemitism—it’s political criticism.” I even agreed that not every criticism of Israel is antisemitic. But reality has stripped away the mask. As Ben Jamal, a London-based head of a pro-Hamas organization, explained this week: “We will never stop until freedom for Palestine is achieved.”

There it is. They don’t want a ceasefire. They want “freedom for Palestine,” which is nothing but code for freedom from the presence of Jews in their own homeland. The issue isn’t what Israel does. It’s that Israel is. Those who hated Jews a century ago for being “parasites” in foreign lands now hate them for being “Zionists” who dare to live independently in their own.

And along came another Brit—Sadiq Aman Khan, none other than the Mayor of London—declaring this week that the slogan “From the river to the sea” is not antisemitic. Yes, he really said that. A call for the eradication of Israel and its replacement with an Arab state, rebranded as “legitimate political criticism.” In his democratic London, that’s apparently acceptable—even respectable.

At some point, arrogance becomes absurd. How stupid do they think we are? What “policy debate” lies in calling for the destruction of a state and the denial of self-defense for seven million Jews?

We already know the answer. These “political critics” have no problem with Jews—so long as Jews stay stateless, weak, and dependent. What truly infuriates them is Jewish sovereignty. That the Jews are strong. That their land flourishes. That they live well. That’s their “criticism.” No ceasefire will calm them. Not even a two-state solution would soothe their rage. Because what they oppose is not Israeli policy—it’s the very fact of Jewish independence.

They call it political criticism.

Let’s call it what it is: antisemitism.