"Intellectual Honesty" or the Dilution of Meaning: What is the Real Target of Masha Gessen's NYT Column?

In her latest column for The New York Times, Masha Gessen calls for a "new understanding of antisemitism" — and, in effect, rejects the working definition established by the international expert community. Dr. Haim Ben Yakov analyzes the potential consequences of such a proposal, particularly against the backdrop of the fierce mayoral campaign in New York centered around candidate Zohran Mamdani.

Amid a bitter mayoral race in New York, where public tensions over the Middle East conflict have reached a new boiling point, Masha Gessen's column in The New York Times — "The Attacks on Zohran Mamdani Show That We Need a New Understanding of Antisemitism" — read like a manifesto in the best traditions of Soviet propaganda, playing on reader emotions and drawing false parallels to Stalinism. While formally calling for a reassessment of the concept of antisemitism, she in fact seeks to dismantle the very intellectual and legal foundation upon which the modern struggle against antisemitism in its most sophisticated forms relies.

Gessen questions the very possibility of designating certain forms of anti-Israel rhetoric as antisemitism. Gessen criticizes those who, in her view, "prohibit" discussion of Israeli policy by labeling supporters of events like Palestinian protests as purveyors of "hate." As an example, she points to recent accusations against New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, whose slogans ("globalize the intifada") and speeches sparked a wave of indignation within the Jewish community.

However, beneath this apparent plea for "intellectual honesty" lies a disturbing trend: an attempt to replace an established system of assessing antisemitism with emotions, contexts, and political sympathies.

Masha Gessen effectively proposes discarding the recognized and functional definition of antisemitism formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which explicitly states that the demonization, delegitimization, and application of double standards toward the State of Israel constitute manifestations of antisemitism.

This definition does not preclude criticism. On the contrary, it enables a distinction between reasonable, reasoned critique of specific government policies or state institutions in Israel, and an ideological assault on the very legitimacy, right to self-defense, and existence of the Jewish state. It is this fine line that preserves productive public discourse and freedom of expression without descending into prejudice and moral violence.

Attempting to erase this boundary and portray it as obsolete or "repressive" is not merely a philosophical error. It is an act of political substitution. It constitutes a method of legitimizing rhetoric in which calls for the destruction of Israel and the justification of violence against Jews are disguised as a "liberation struggle." It paves the way for the normalization of antisemitism within the lexicon of leftist movements, particularly in academic, media, and political spheres.

Proponents of the "globalize the intifada" concept may not identify as antisemites themselves. Yet their rhetoric undermines the very capacity to distinguish where criticism ends and hatred begins.

We do not require a "new understanding" of antisemitism that blurs the lines between ethics and ideology. We must preserve the definition painstakingly formulated by experts — historians, legal scholars, and human rights specialists. This safeguards not only the fundamental ideals of modern society, such as academic freedom and freedom of speech, but also the intellectual clarity necessary to provide genuine protection for millions of Jewish people worldwide.

Redefining antisemitism means allowing it to proliferate unchecked in new guises, or, in other words, "deflecting the issue" under the smoke screen of a false debate.