by Jonathan Jacoby, for The Hill
A dangerous chain reaction is underway, and it may be only in the beginning stages…
In the wake of U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran, some U.S. officials and commentators have begun suggesting that Israel effectively drew the United States into the conflict.
Israeli leaders, for their part, have openly celebrated American participation in the campaign.
Asking how closely Washington and Jerusalem coordinated their decisions — and whether Israeli actions influenced the path to this conflict — is essential if we are to grapple effectively with this moment. Having this kind of open debate is a basic responsibility in a democracy when a government decides to go to war.
At the same time, claims that Israel drew the U.S. into the war and Israeli leaders’ celebration of the joint campaign have created the conditions for an all-too-familiar chain reaction. Discussion of Israeli influence on U.S. policy may begin as geopolitical analysis, but the emphasis and impact can quickly shift when malevolent actors enter the conversation. The decision-making role and overall agency of American policymakers fade into the background while Jews, broadly defined, become the implied instigators of all wars and violence.
History tells us where that ‘logic’ can lead. The idea that Jews manipulate powerful governments into waging war for their own self-interest has fueled antisemitic conspiracy theories for centuries.
An example came this week from Joe Kent, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Kent resigned from his post with a letter claiming that the U.S. began the war ‘due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.’ Kent has a documented history of ties to antisemitic white supremacist figures, and his letter included grandiose conspiracist claims about Israel’s global influence – including allegations that it was responsible both for the war in Iraq and the Syrian civil war.
After his resignation, Kent went on Tucker Carlson’s show to imply that Israel may have assassinated Charlie Kirk to pave the way for war.
Since the war with Iran began, versions of these ideas have spread rapidly online, alongside a broader surge in antisemitic rhetoric. Some posts and pundits blame Jews collectively for the war rather than Israeli or American leaders. Others use dehumanizing language, referring to Israelis running for shelter as ‘rats.’ Still others claim that ‘Jewish imperialism’ requires non-Jews — often using the slang term ‘goyim’ — to die in wars fought for Jewish interests.
These statements are not critiques of policy, government, or leaders.
They are attacks on the Jewish people.
Recognizing how easily claims about Israeli influence on the war can feed antisemitic conspiracy theories does not mean the war should be beyond criticism and opposition. The United States’ decision to join Israel in attacking Iran demands serious public scrutiny and debate. And just as that debate must not be toxified by antisemitism, it also should not be distorted by weaponized and unfair insinuations of antisemitism directed at the war’s critics.
We have seen that distortion before. Over the past 30 months, Israel’s war in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of civilians, including children. That is not a myth. It is a documented fact. The United States has provided significant military and diplomatic backing for that war. Now, as the U.S. and Israel have launched military operations in Iran, evidence of major civilian casualties, including children, is already mounting.
Protecting that space for grief, anger, criticism, and protest is not only legitimate — it is vital. When those responses are preemptively labeled ‘antisemitic’, as they have been by Israeli and American Jewish leaders, it doesn’t protect anyone. It is not antisemitic to say that Israeli military actions are killing children. It is not antisemitic to oppose American support for those actions. It is not antisemitic to argue that the United States should not escalate war with Iran.
And meanwhile, actual antisemitism advances — including its most vicious forms, like the grotesque images circulating online that depict Israeli leaders and other Jews devouring dismembered babies.
The distinction between criticizing what governments do and demonizing Jews is essential. One is political criticism. The other is ethnic hatred dressed up as political criticism. Antisemites will spread these ideas regardless. But political leaders and commentators must be held accountable when they reinforce them.
Opposing antisemitism does not require defending every action of the Israeli government. And opposing war does not require resurrecting ancient hatred or embracing conspiracist figures like Kent.
In fact, the opposite may be true. When Israeli leaders frame military escalation as synonymous with Jewish survival, and when American officials suggest that U.S. force is deployed primarily because of Israeli pressure, Jewish identity becomes entangled with state violence in ways that make Jewish communities around the world more vulnerable.
At moments like this we must call out those who target Jews with hatred and conspiracy theories and, at the same time, be clear about what does not constitute such hatred. Opposing the war is not antisemitic; supporting it doesn’t make someone an agent of ‘Jewish power.’ This understanding is what makes it possible to protect the integrity of debate about the war, its causes, and its consequences.
Jonathan Jacoby is president of the Nexus Project, a watchdog group working to combat antisemitism and protect free speech and democracy.