TALES FROM TURNING POINT. When Antisemitism Becomes a Weapon of Political Convenience

TURNING POINT HAS SHOWN THAT THE PRO-ISRAEL GROUP HAS GOTTEN IT WRONG.

When Antisemitism Becomes a Weapon of Political Convenience

In recent months, the appearance of openly antisemitic rhetoric at major conservative gatherings has shocked many observers. The reflexive explanation has been to label these incidents simply as antisemitism—and in many cases, that label is warranted. But stopping there obscures a more troubling reality: antisemitism is increasingly being used as a tool of political convenience rather than expressed solely as a belief.

The contemporary political environment is no longer organized around durable institutions or long-term coalitions. It is organized around attention, grievance, and factional dominance. In such a system, individuals are not attacked only for who they are, but for when they become expendable. When a Jewish figure loses utility within a factional struggle, antisemitic rhetoric becomes permissible—not necessarily because hatred has intensified, but because enforcement has collapsed.

This distinction matters.

For decades, Jewish advocacy organizations and Israeli diplomatic actors understood coalition management. Boundaries were enforced quietly. Reputational risks were identified early. Bad actors were isolated before they reached public platforms. Antisemitism was not merely condemned; it was made costly. That system no longer functions.

Today, antisemitic language surfaces not only at the fringes but on stage, without immediate consequence. This is not because antisemitism has become socially acceptable. It is because no actor with authority is consistently imposing consequences—and without consequences, norms dissolve.

The problem is compounded by a shift in advocacy strategy. Moral appeals—Holocaust memory, denunciation, public shaming—have increasingly displaced the harder work of coalition discipline. Moral argument alone does not restrain grievance-driven movements, attention-seeking influencers, or post-institutional politics. Moral language without enforcement becomes noise.

This failure of precision was visible well before recent conservative infighting, most notably in the public handling of controversies involving Kanye West and Kyrie Irving. Whatever one’s view of their statements or associations, the institutional response was disproportionate and strategically unsound. Neither figure advanced a coherent antisemitic ideology. Their remarks were provocative, imprecise, and entangled with broader grievances about power, representation, and cultural gatekeeping—claims that are not inherently antisemitic unless framed as evidence of collective malice or conspiracy.

Yet the reaction treated these incidents as existential threats: rapid deplatforming, corporate severance, and moral absolutism. The spectacle did not persuade skeptics or educate audiences. Instead, it reinforced a perception—especially within segments of the Black community—that taboo enforcement was being applied unevenly and punitively. That perception mattered more than intent.

Once response escalated beyond proportion, it became easy for bad actors to reframe the episode as proof of suppressed speech or hidden power. Antisemitism did not originate with these incidents; but the handling of them accelerated its circulation. After the Kanye controversy in particular, there was a visible uptick in resentful and conspiratorial rhetoric in spaces that had previously been neutral or disengaged. Overreaction supplied adversaries with the one thing they needed: enforcement without explanation, which in a post-trust environment is interpreted as confirmation of the very myths it seeks to suppress.

The same dynamic now applies inside conservative politics. When openly antisemitic rhetoric appears at prominent events, the critical signal is not who said it, but why it was allowed to happen at all. That permissiveness reflects a breakdown in boundary enforcement and coalition hygiene. It also reveals a deeper vulnerability: when Jewish figures become politically isolated—unpopular, misaligned with a dominant faction, or associated with a losing coalition—their Jewish identity ceases to function as a shield. In some cases, it becomes an accelerant for attack.

This does not mean every attack on a Jewish individual is motivated by antisemitism. It means that antisemitism becomes usable when norms collapse and enforcement disappears. It is deployed opportunistically during political removal, when the cost of doing so approaches zero.

The October 7 attack on Israel accelerated these dynamics globally. Israel’s long-standing image of total intelligence control and military dominance shattered in real time. In a post-trust information environment, failure is read as complicity and secrecy as guilt. Conspiracy narratives did not spread because they were persuasive; they spread because no authoritative, public truth framework filled the void. Silence and minimal disclosure were interpreted as narrative weakness.

The lesson across these cases is not that communities should tolerate genuine antisemitism. It is that precision and strategy are indispensable. Punishment without transparent standards erodes credibility. Moral condemnation without coalition discipline invites defiance. History without enforcement becomes theater.

Antisemitism has not disappeared, nor has it transformed into something unrecognizable. What has changed is how it travels—and how often it is allowed to work. If Jewish communities and Israeli diplomats do not adapt to this reality, antisemitism will continue to surface not only where it is believed, but wherever it is useful. And that condition is far more dangerous than hatred alone.

What Competence Looks Like Now

If antisemitism is increasingly being used as a political instrument rather than merely expressed as a belief, then the response must also change. Moral condemnation alone is no longer sufficient. What is required is a return to competence.

First, Jewish advocacy and Israeli diplomatic institutions must rebuild early-warning and boundary-enforcement mechanisms. This means systematic monitoring of coalition partners, influencers, and donor ecosystems—not to police opinion, but to identify when rhetoric is drifting toward delegitimization before it reaches public platforms. Antisemitism must once again become costly at the margins, not debated after the fact.

Second, responses must be proportional and precise. Ambiguous or provocative speech should be addressed through clarification and engagement, not immediate escalation. Overreaction erodes credibility and supplies adversaries with evidence of enforcement without explanation. Precision preserves legitimacy.

Third, coalition management must be treated as a strategic function, not a moral exercise. Allies are not defined by rhetorical alignment alone, but by demonstrated willingness to enforce norms within their own ranks. Where that willingness is absent, partnerships should be reconsidered quietly and decisively.

Fourth, Israel must adapt to the post-trust information environment. When failures occur—as they inevitably will—secrecy and minimal disclosure are no longer stabilizing tools. Public, structured truth-establishing processes, including open investigations and declassified timelines, are now essential to maintaining credibility. In an age of excess information, visible accountability is a strategic asset, not a concession.

Finally, Jewish advocacy must decouple communal safety and Israeli legitimacy from the popularity or utility of individual media figures. Personalities are volatile; institutions must be durable. Protection based on factional favor is not protection at all.

These steps do not require ideological purity or unanimity. They require discipline, foresight, and a willingness to impose consequences when norms are violated. Antisemitism thrives in environments where enforcement collapses and standards blur. It recedes when boundaries are clear and consistently maintained.

The choice facing Jewish communities and Israeli leaders is not between silence and outrage. It is between strategic competence and continued erosion.