A Strange Choice of Words…

In our casual conversations, the choice of words is governed by habit, but when dealing with political issues where there is much at stake, we need to select our words more carefully.

In 1946 George Orwell wrote an essay called Politics and the English Language, where he pointed out that careless use of language prevents clear thinking and can corrupt our political decisions. Later in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four he wrote eloquently about how words shape our understanding, and about how a corrupt party could take control of language (doublespeak) to prevent people from thinking clearly. (The parallels between the Ministry of Truth in 1984 and the Board of Peace in 2026 should be obvious.)

Is this an issue today, and how do we know when a word or phrase should be used in political discussions? George Orwell suggests these criteria for choosing words:

Is the word precise, with a clear meaning? It should make communication more efficient, not more confusing.
Would another word be more accurate and allow greater clarity?

Is this corruption and confusion of language happening today in Britain?

Why do many of our political leaders and newspapers insist on using the compound word ‘antisemitic’ instead of the compound word ‘anti-Jewish’ to describe hatred or bigotry against Jewish people? Many Jewish people in the world are not from Semitic races and there are very many more Semitic people who are not Jewish, so the use of that word to describe hatred of Jewish people is not logical. The compound word anti-Jewish could be used instead of antisemitic and would fit George Orwell’s criteria of being more precise and more easily understood.

The compound word ‘anti-Jewish’ is readily understood.

By contrast the meaning of ‘antisemitic’ has been debated for years and requires hundreds of words of definition and explanation. (See IHRA definition at the end of this article.)

The word ‘antisemitic’ has no clear or precise meaning, (eg the IDF can kill thousands of Semitic people but the BBC does not consider this to be antisemitic). The use of ‘antisemitic’ rather than ‘anti-Jewish’ brings confusion rather than clarity to discussions, so why do some insist that we use it?

I know there are historical reasons, the word antisemitic was coined by a German journalist who wanted to stir up hatred of Jewish people in Germany, but I suggest the main reason is because the use of the word ‘antisemitic’ conflates being Jewish with being Israeli and so helps to link all Jewish people with whatever crimes the government of Israel commits. I suggest that the use of the word ‘antisemitic’ is encouraged to help prevent rational discussion of Zionism and Palestine.

The fact that the BBC insist on using ‘antisemitic’ rather than ‘anti-Jewish’ is particularly perverse when you consider their goal of reporting and explaining accurately, as well as their historic links with George Orwell.

Israel and her Zionist supporters insist on accusing anyone who criticises their war crimes as ‘antisemitic’, Jewish people have been called ‘antisemitic’ for opposing Israel, Joe Biden was called ‘antisemitic’, our PM Keir Starmer, a self-confessed Zionist has been called ‘antisemitic’.

The word ‘antisemitic’ is so vague and imprecise that you can label anyone antisemitic and that is its real value. It deliberately conflates being Jewish with being a supporter of Israel.

Criticism of Israel allows you to be labelled antisemitic, then you can be labelled as ‘anti-Jewish’ and linked with the Nazi death camps. The word ‘antisemitic’ helps Israel to cynically use the tragedy of the Holocaust as a shield, behind which to hide their war crimes. They can wipe out tens of thousands of semitic Palestinians in Gaza and those who object are seen as the divisive ones.

I suggest that we start insisting our journalist behave more professionally and use accurate language, it they want to accuse someone of being anti-Jewish they should use anti-Jewish.

If they want to accuse someone of being anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist they can do that directly.

The two should not be confused.

For your information, the full IHRA Definition of Antisemitism is shown below:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.