Netanyahu’s Antisemitism Conference Sparks Controversy Over European Far-Right Attendees

The International Conference on Combating Antisemitism, held in Jerusalem on March 26 and 27, 2025, has faced significant criticism due to the inclusion of far-right European politicians with documented ties to antisemitic rhetoric and Nazi affiliations. It seems to be part of a larger strategy to expand Israel’s diplomatic influence, even if it means forming controversial alliances. This development has raised concerns about the Israeli government’s approach to defining and combating antisemitism.

The Weaponization of Antisemitism

This conference is part of a larger trend in which Israel’s government has been accused of selectively defining antisemitism to serve its political agenda. Critics argue that the event revealed a contradiction in Israel’s approach to combating antisemitism, as it appeared to prioritize political alliances over historical accountability.

Allegations of antisemitism are occasionally used to discredit or silence valid critiques of Israeli government policies, particularly regarding Palestine. Some ways this happens include, but are not limited to:

o  Labeling pro-Palestinian university activism as antisemitism, while downplaying or ignoring antisemitic rhetoric from far-right allies. Pro-Palestinian university students in the U.S. are facing increasing scrutiny, including expulsions, degree revocations. Additionally, many face immigration-related penalties such as deportation, despite holding legal residency. None have been charged with a crime, yet they are experiencing severe consequences amid rising geopolitical tensions. These actions have sparked concerns over academic freedom, civil liberties, and the targeting of political activism.

o   Political alliances with far right, neo-Nazi nationalist leaders in Europe, prioritizing their diplomatic and economic support for Israel over their histories of antisemitic policies and rhetoric. This includes support Israel’s policies on Palestine, creation of Greater Israel, immigration, and global Jewish affairs.

Far Right European Leadership

The far right, Neo-Nazi leaders prioritize nationalism over liberal democracy and are increasingly working together against perceived common enemies: progressivism, Islam, immigration, and international oversight. Many of these far-right parties, despite their antisemitic histories, racism and xenophobia have repositioned themselves as pro-Israel-primarily because of their Islamophobic and anti-immigrant platforms. They see Israel as a model for nationalism, strict border control, and military assertiveness. This shift has allowed Netanyahu to justify alliances with groups that were once considered political pariahs.

Jordan Bardella, leader of France’s National Rally (RN), attended the conference. The RN, formerly known as the National Front, was founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has a history of making antisemitic remarks, including minimizing the Holocaust. Despite efforts by Marine Le Pen to rebrand the party and distance it from its antisemitic past, the invitation of its members to an antisemitism conference has raised eyebrows.

Bosnian-Serb President Milorad Dodik attended the event and, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, emphasized the importance of a historic bond between the Serbian and Jewish and people. However, his refusal to align with EU policies and close ties to Serbia and Russia are jeopardizing Bosnia’s efforts to join the European Union. Dodik has also dismissed the 1992-1995 Bosnian War and Srebrenica genocide against the Bosniaks as “a fabricated myth” contradicting rulings by the international courts that have officially recognized it as genocide.

The Strategy Risks

Normalizing Antisemitism for Political Convenience

By inviting and legitimizing these figures, Israel not only dilutes the meaning of antisemitism, but they damage their credibility on combating antisemitism, particularly among Western Jewish communities, historians, and human rights organizations. Critics argue that by inviting or meeting with far-right figures, Netanyahu risks legitimizing groups with histories of antisemitism, racism, and xenophobia.

“A generation ago, it would have been unthinkable: the leader of France’s far-right party-an organization informally founded by Nazis.” The invitation underscores evolving political alliances and the complex relationship between Israel and Europe’s far right. While some view it as a sign of the party’s normalization, others see it as a concerning revision of history. It reflects broader global trends where past ideological divisions are being reassessed in response to changing political and social landscapes.

Alienating Traditional Jewish Allies

Many Jewish organizations, particularly in the U.S. and Western Europe, have already condemned this conference. Prominent Holocaust remembrance institutions have warned that aligning with parties that have a history of antisemitism damages Jewish solidarity and Israel’s moral authority.

Criticism And Backslash

The conference has been widely condemned as a “fiasco and embarrassment.” Critics argue that the event revealed a contradiction in Israel’s approach to combating antisemitism, as it appeared to prioritize political alliances over historical accountability.

Jewish organizations worldwide have expressed concern that Israel was undermining the fight against real antisemitism by legitimizing former Nazi collaborators and far-right extremists. Meanwhile, Holocaust remembrance organizations accused Israel of rewriting history to suit its political needs. They were “shocked that Israel a state founded as a sanctuary for the Jewish people after the Holocaust, would be inviting representatives of far-right parties, many of whom are neo-Nazi.”

Former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid condemned the event, stating: “You cannot fight antisemitism by embracing those that perpetuate it.”

Israel’s Geopolitical Shift and Isolation

As Israel faces increasing diplomatic isolation due to its policies in Gaza and the West Bank, Netanyahu is seeking new allies. Some progressives and left-leaning governments have argued Israel’s right-wing government sees the European far-right as potential partners who share a strong nationalist, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant sentiments. By offering legitimacy to Europe’s far-right, Israel risks emboldening extremist movements that still harbor Neo-Nazi, racist and authoritarian tendencies.

Conclusion

Instead of reaffirming Israel’s leadership in combating antisemitism, the Jerusalem conference has widened divisions and alienated Jewish communities worldwide. By giving a platform to figures once seen as enemies of Jewish history, Netanyahu’s government has raised serious concerns about the ethical and historical integrity of Israel’s approach to antisemitism. For many, the message from this conference is clear: Israel cannot fight antisemitism while simultaneously embracing those who have perpetuated it. The fallout suggests lasting damage to Israel’s credibility on antisemitism, particularly among Western Jewish communities, historians, and human rights organization.