[thomassmith65]

I checked wikipedia, and actually it states the same as the parent comment. That sentence has five references. It doesn't shock me, given the era, but rather than speculate and squabble, someone could check the references and see if they really do support the statement in the wiki.

[newspaper1]

So all of these Jewish institutions are promoting an anti Jewish word? Please explain why they would do that.

[thomassmith65]

I assume hardly anyone remembered, or payed much mind, to the origin of that word by the 1920s. I don't know who coined 'homophobia' or 'feminism' or many other concepts; they're just common words we use.

[newspaper1]

Right, so the word as it's used today is what we're talking about. It's being used as a weapon to silence criticism of Israel and Zionism in general.

[thomassmith65]

I dunno. Regardless of the exact words one uses, one can always accuse one's opponent of bias.

If the word 'antisemitic' didn't exist, the accusation, phrased in different words, would still carry weight.

[newspaper1]

And I would complain about the false accusation if that was the case. As it stands "antisemitism" is what's being used to label people who oppose Zionism. It's just like how "communism" was used during McCarthyism.

[thomassmith65]

I think the accusations are sometimes unfair, and other times accurate. I wouldn't like for the world just to dismiss hatred towards Jews, or any other group, out-of-hand. More than anything, I would like to see measured and humane discussion in the media about the Middle East; but sadly I don't expect that will happen.

[glassounds]

They're using the current common terminology for the phenomenon, which does not have the roots you claimed it has.

[newspaper1]

That's the point, it doesn't matter what the origin was, how it is being used now is what is being critiqued.