# Weaponization of antisemitism

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
The exploitation of accusations of antisemitism, especially to counter anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel, may be described as weaponization of antisemitism, politicization of antisemitism, instrumentalization of antisemitism, or playing the antisemitism card.
Accusations of weaponization have been raised in the context of the Arab–Israeli conflict, in various organizations' adoptions of the controversial working definition of antisemitism, and in the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the British Labour Party.
Accusations of antisemitism made in bad faith against Israel's critics have been described as a form of smear tactics. Some writers have compared them to "playing the race card". The charge of weaponization has itself been criticized, with scholars of contemporary antisemitism saying it is a common rhetorical device and trope employed across the political spectrum to undermine complaints of antisemitism, particularly in anti-Zionist discourse on the left.

## History

In 1943, David Ben-Gurion called a British court antisemitic because it "had implicated Zionist leaders in arms-trafficking". The New York Times suggested this was an "exaggeration", and that such a charge was "most noticeably incompatible" with the "scrupulousness and courtesy" afforded the defendants in the military proceedings. Christopher Sykes said the incident began "a new phase in Zionist propaganda" in which "to be anti-Zionist was to be anti-Semitic". Noam Chomsky said that while this incident may have been the first example of weaponizing antisemitism, it was not until "the post-1967 period that the tactic has been honed to a high art, increasingly so, as the policies defended became less and less defensible". In 1973, Israel's foreign minister Abba Eban wrote: "One of the chief tasks of any dialogue with the Gentile world is to prove that the distinction between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism is not a distinction at all. Anti-Zionism is merely the new anti-Semitism." Of Eban's statement, Chomsky said: "That is a convenient stand. It cuts off a mere 100 percent of critical comment!"
In the early 1950s, U.S. journalist Dorothy Thompson, a former advocate of Zionism, was called antisemitic after she began to criticize Zionism, and as a result of these accusations "she lost friends, work, and political influence". Thompson's transition to anti-Zionism began after a trip to Palestine in 1945. She became an advocate for Palestinian refugees displaced in the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. In 1950, she wrote a controversial article in Commentary magazine accusing American Zionists of dual loyalty. Historian Oscar Handlin wrote a response to Thompson's article wherein he dismissed her concerns of dual loyalty but said that he was "in perfect agreement with Miss Thompson as to the dangers of labeling anti-Semitic anyone who is not a Zionist". Professor Lyndsey Stonebridge wrote, "today, many see the silencing of a bold humanitarian advocate in her story, and it is not difficult to understand why", but also that "there can be no doubt that anti-Semitism was a theme in Thompson's later writing".
In his 1956 memoir, British military officer John Bagot Glubb denied accusations of antisemitism for his criticism of Israel, writing: "It does not seem to me to be either just or expedient that similar criticisms directed against the Israeli government should brand the speaker with the moral stigma generally associated with anti-Semitism." Israeli historian Benny Morris said that this was due to a "tendency among Israelis and Jews abroad to identify strong criticism of Israel as tantamount to, or as at least stemming from, anti-Semitism", although Morris also said Glubb's anti-Zionism was "tinged by a degree of anti-Semitism".
According to Cheryl Rubenberg, in the 1980s, journalists Anthony Lewis, Nicholas von Hoffman, Joseph C. Harsch, Richard Cohen and Alfred Friendly; authors Gore Vidal, Joseph Sobran, and John le Carré; and American politicians Charles Mathias and Pete McCloskey were among those whom pro-Israeli groups called antisemites. In 1989, Rubenberg wrote of Mathias and McCloskey: "The labeling of individuals who disagree with the lobby's positions as 'anti-Semitic' is a common practice among Israel's advocates."
In 1992, American diplomat George Ball wrote in his book The Passionate Attachment: America's involvement with Israel that AIPAC and other pro-Israel groups "employ the charge of 'anti-Semitism' so carelessly as to trivialize it", and: "Any Jewish American who equates that term with critical comments on transient Israeli policy implicitly acknowledges that he cannot defend Israel's practices by rational argument."
The journalist Ben White and English scholar Matthew Abraham suggest that international Israeli advocacy groups have charged prominent individuals expressing pro-Palestinian sentiment with antisemitism. Abraham gives Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu as examples. Chomsky and the academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Norman Finkelstein have said accusations of antisemitism increase after Israel acts aggressively: following the Six-Day War, the 1982 Lebanon War, the First and Second Intifadas, and the bombardments of Gaza. In 2002, Chomsky said "the distinguished Israeli statesman" Abba Eban had said Israeli propaganda sought "to make it clear to the world there's no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism", meaning "criticisms of the current policies of the State of Israel".
Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in 2008 that the charge of antisemitism can discourage others from defending in public those against whom the charge has been made. They suggested that rhetorical accusations of antisemitism put a burden of proof on the accused person, putting them in the "difficult" position of having to prove a negative. They said "we should all be disturbed by the presence of genuine anti-Semitism" but suggested that "playing the anti-Semitism card stifles discussion" and "allows myths about Israel to survive unchallenged". In 2010, Kenneth L. Marcus wrote that although Mearsheimer and Walt called such accusations "the Great Silencer", they had not themselves been silenced, having received a wide audience for their book and appearances. Marcus also wrote that many pro-Israel commentators had also taken pains to say that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic.

## Examples
### General

The charge of weaponization has been used across the political spectrum, especially in anti-Zionist discourse on the left and right.
While warning in 2010 against denying or minimizing antisemitism, Kenneth L. Marcus also cautioned against overuse of the "anti-Semitism card", paralleling concerns raised by Richard Thompson Ford with the broader misuse of "the race card": that it can be dishonest and mean-spirited, risks weakening legitimate accusations of bigotry, risks distracting socially concerned organizations from other social injustices, and hurts outreach efforts between Jewish and Arab or Muslim groups. Scholars such as John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Matthew Abraham have suggested that the charge of antisemitism is becoming less effective when applied to criticisms of Israel.
Anti-antisemitism in Germany has been criticized as weaponizing antisemitism and compared to McCarthyism. German political scientist Gert Krell has said that Jews are deplatformed and accused of antisemitism "because they once had contact with someone who knew somebody who was supposed to be a supporter of BDS".
In 2021, religion scholar Atalia Omer of the University of Notre Dame said that weaponization of antisemitism is bad for all involved, including Israel and the broader Jewish community. Nick Reimer, a Palestine solidarity activist and linguist at the University of Sydney, wrote in 2022 that antisemitism "provides the excuse for a heavy-handed and highly irrational assault on fundamental democratic liberties".

### Use of the charge of weaponization by the right

The German far-right has accused Jews of "using the Antisemitismuskeule" (lit. 'antisemitism club/cudgel') in relation to new antisemitism, nationalism, and neo-Nazism. German studies scholar Caroline Pearce describes the phrase as a "common far-right term" in contemporary German politics. For example, Jörg Meuthen initially described criticism of Wolfgang Gedeon's writings—which have been widely described as antisemitic—as attempts by political opponents to wield the Antisemitismuskeule against the AfD. He later reversed his position, calling Gedeon's statements "crystal clearly anti-Semitic". Gideon Botsch [de], a German political scientist specializing in the far right and antisemitism, says that, in Germany, far-right claims of weaponization of antisemitism, especially in relation to criticisms of Israel, are often overlooked because of a tendency to attribute anti-Israel antisemitism to the left and Islam, and to treat far-right antisemitism as a separate, historical phenomenon.

### Israel and Zionism

In 2004, Joel Beinin wrote that the "well-established ploy" of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism exposes Jews to attack by suggesting they are responsible for the Israeli government's actions. Various writers have suggested that charges of antisemitism raised in discussions of Israel can have a chilling effect, deterring criticism of Israel due to fear of being associated with beliefs linked to antisemitic crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust. Norman Finkelstein says that use of "the anti-Semitism card" attempts to displace "fundamental responsibility for causing the conflict from Israel to the Arabs, the issue no longer being Jewish dispossession of Palestinians but Arab 'opposition' to Jews". In 2008, Finkelstein wrote that some of what "the Israel lobby" suggests is antisemitism is in fact "exaggeration and fabrication" and "mislabeling legitimate criticism of Israeli policy".
Raz Segal writes that not distinguishing between the State of Israel and Jews is part of the weaponization of antisemitism discourse, designed to protect Israel from criticism. In 2019, Joshua Leifer, an editor of Dissent magazine, wrote that campaigns that consider anti-Zionism antisemitic aim to shift criticisms of the Israeli government "beyond the pale of mainstream acceptability". In December 2023, antisemitism expert David Feldman said that, while "some anti-Zionism takes an antisemitic form", the context must be considered when differentiating antisemitism from legitimate discourse and that there is "a long history of Israel and its supporters portraying anti-Zionism and other criticisms of Israel as antisemitic" in order to delegitimize them.
On 17 February 2025, a coalition of Australian Muslim organizations, including mainstream groups and the fundamentalist Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, published a statement saying two nurses who were filmed saying they would kill Israeli patients were targets of "calculated, politically motivated outrage". The coalition said the nurses, who were broadly condemned and placed under police investigation, were victims of the weaponization of antisemitism, which it said was part of a "pattern of gaslighting by Zionist lobby groups and their friends within government and media circles".

#### 2022 Amnesty apartheid report

Claims of weaponization of antisemitism have also been made in relation to claims of Israeli apartheid. On 1 February 2022, Amnesty International published a report in which it said Israel was committing apartheid in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which Israeli officials condemned as "false and biased" and antisemitic. Amnesty secretary general Agnes Callamard dismissed the Israeli officials' responses as "baseless attacks, barefaced lies, fabrications on the messenger". Human rights advocates subsequently argued that the criticism of the report constituted weaponization of antisemitism.

#### Israel–Palestine conflict

Activists and scholars have said that weaponization of antisemitism, and new antisemitism in particular, has been used to stifle criticism of Israel. Norman Finkelstein says that organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League have advanced charges of new antisemitism since the 1970s "to exploit the historical suffering of Jews in order to immunize Israel against criticism".
In 2018, Jewish Voice for Peace authored an open letter signed by over 40 Jewish organizations saying that activists were the subject of "cynical false accusations of antisemitism" to protect Israel. In 2020, Ronnie Kasrils compared claims of antisemitism against those who criticize Israel in Britain to rhetorical strategies employed against the anti-apartheid movement by supporters of the South African government. Finkelstein compared use of "the anti-Semitism card" to Communist parties' denunciations of principled criticism during the Cold War as "anti-Soviet". Marshall Ganz said the "tactics" of weaponization against Israel's critics "are remarkably similar to those used by Senator Joseph McCarthy".
Multiple scholars have said that allegations of antisemitism have been weaponized against pro-Palestinian protesters. University of Arizona professor of English Matthew Abraham wrote that accusations of antisemitism against those criticizing Israel's violations of Palestinian human rights have increased since the beginning of the Second Intifada in 2000. Abraham says "there are many anti-Zionist Jews who reject Israel's attempts to speak in the name of Judaism".
According to Mitchel Plitnick and Sahar Aziz, a presumption that all Muslims are antisemitic has been "increasingly deployed by Zionist groups to eliminate critical debate inclusive of Palestinian experiences". Scholar Raz Segal, former Harvard Hillel executive director Bernie Steinberg, and former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy have said that the weaponization of antisemitism claims has been used to silence pro-Palestinian voices, especially in regard to Israel's human rights abuses.
Critics have also alleged weaponization of antisemitism against university campus demonstrations about the Israel–Palestine conflict or in support of Palestine. In May 2024, in reference to the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, Segal wrote, "the blanket assertion by pro-Israel advocates is intended as a political cudgel: weaponizing antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism of its attack on Gaza". In 2023, during the Israel–Hamas war, Steinberg wrote in The Harvard Crimson: "It is not antisemitic to demand justice for all Palestinians living in their ancestral lands." Before Columbia University President Minouche Shafik appeared before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 20 Jewish Columbia and Barnard professors published an open letter saying they "object to the weaponization of antisemitism". After Harvard appointed antisemitism scholar Derek Penslar to head a task force on the issue, Slate columnist Emily Tamkin said his critics were weaponizing antisemitism.

### IHRA

In 2011, the UK's University and College Union Congress debated a motion to formally reject the IHRA's working definition. According to antisemitism scholar David Hirsh, the definition was "denounced as a bad-faith attempt to say that criticism of Israel was antisemitic".
In 2019 and 2024, Kenneth S. Stern, one of the authors of the definition, said it had become weaponized by Donald Trump and right-wing Jewish groups in ways that threatened to suppress and limit free speech in the U.S. Stern said Trump's Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, aimed at university campuses in particular, would "harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself".
In 2022, responding to widespread criticism that the definition classifies legitimate speech on Israel as antisemitic, Bernard Harrison said such criticism was unfounded.
A 2023 report by the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies analyzed 40 cases where UK university staff and/or students were accused of antisemitism on the basis of the IHRA definition between 2017 and 2022, and found that in 38 cases, the accusations were dismissed, with two yet to be resolved. According to the report, false accusations of antisemitism have caused staff and students severe stress.
In 2023, Nathan J. Brown and Daniel Nerenberg said that the definition, created in good faith, had been weaponized by groups including the Zionist Organization of America, the American Jewish Committee, and the Brandeis Center. In 2024, Holocaust scholar Raz Segal wrote, "The weaponization of antisemitism by Israel and its allies, including the U.S. government, draws on the deeply problematic 'working definition of antisemitism' adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)." Jonathan Hafetz and Sahar Aziz made a similar argument about the definition's use against critics of Israel's actions during its war on Gaza.

### In the UK Labour Party

In 2015, David Hirsh wrote of antisemitism in the "Corbyn faction" of the British Labour Party: "It is difficult to engage in a reasoned and evidenced discussion about contemporary antisemitism, but it is easy to mobilise the issue of antisemitism as an indicator of political cleanliness. In our time a person who raises the issue of antisemitism is more clearly recognisable as belonging to the wrong crowd than a person who stumbles into actual antisemitism."
In 2018, in light of accusations of antisemitism in the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, Communities Secretary Sajid Javid called a debate on antisemitism in Parliament. Jewish Labour MPs Luciana Berger and Ruth Smeeth spoke at the debate on being accused of weaponizing their experiences of antisemitism. In 2020, the Equality and Human Rights Commission investigated claims of antisemitism in the UK Labour Party. The EHRC said investigators should treat complaints of antisemitism in good faith according to the Macpherson principle, and that dismissing reports of antisemitism without investigation could itself be antisemitic. It said that party agents who suggested complaints of antisemitism were "fake or smears" could be guilty of "unlawful harassment". It also said that Jewish members, in particular, were accused of trying to "undermine the Labour Party" with reports of antisemitism, and that this "ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party". Similarly, the Antisemitism Policy Trust's 2020 report on antisemitism in the UK Labour Party noted that some Labour activists had "dismissed [Anti-Jewish hatred] as a 'smear' or as being 'weaponised' by its victims for political ends", which they said was against the Macpherson principle and not supported by the evidence.
Lesley Klaff says Berger experienced online antisemitic and misogynistic harassment by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn who saw her "as deliberately manufacturing a crisis within the Labour Party by making false accusations about antisemitism". Anthony Lerman says that "many hyperbolic claims" were made against Corbyn himself and that such claims politicized antisemitism and emptied the word of utility.
In 2022, Corbyn's successor as Labour leader, Keir Starmer, commissioned the Forde Inquiry, which said antisemitism had been used as a "factional weapon" between the party's anti-Corbyn and pro-Corbyn factions.

### International organizations

When the International Criminal Court (ICC) was rumored to be preparing arrest warrants for Israeli officials, including Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Aryeh Neier said that Netanyahu's assertion "that ICC indictments would be antisemitic is indicative of his promiscuous use of antisemitism allegations". Shortly thereafter, on 20 May 2024, the ICC announced that it was seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, and Netanyahu called chief prosecutor Karim Ahmad Khan one of the "great antisemites in modern times", saying that Khan was "callously pouring gasoline on the fires of antisemitism that are raging across the world". Kenneth Roth said Netanyahu's response was a "common last resort for defenders of Israel" that endangered Jews: "if people see the charge of antisemitism as a thin cover for Israeli war crimes, it will cheapen the concept at a time when a strong defense is needed."
In February 2024, Israeli officials accused the International court of Justice of antisemitism following South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Writing in Declassified UK, Anthony Lerman noted the officials' "deployment of weaponised antisemitism to deflect criticism" and said that "using past experience of anti-Jewish persecution to neutralise criticism of, and generate sympathy for, the Jewish state [...] is decades old".

## Responses

Scholars David Schraub, Dov Waxman, and Adam Hosein have said that accusations of bad faith are often made about those who raise charges of antisemitism—especially Jews—because "antisemitism today is not always easy to identify or even define". They suggest that accusations of bad faith may be defused by clarifying which of the potential understandings of antisemitism is being invoked, and that "persons who encounter a Jewish claim of antisemitism [should] at least adopt a presumptive disposition towards taking that claim seriously and considering it with an open mind".
Multiple scholars have said that accusing someone of weaponizing antisemitism aims to delegitimize complaints of anti-Jewish sentiment. Political scientists Lars Rensmann suggests that while complaints about "illegitimate racism charges" are generally unacceptable in society, accusations that Jews are weaponizing antisemitism are "almost ubiquitous" and "virtually without empirical evidence". Robert Fine says there is an "extensive literature on the allegedly illicit uses of the word 'antisemitism' in political argument" that "casts doubt on the motives of those who claim to experience or witness it". Schraub says the charge of weaponization is "a first-cut response that presents marginalized persons as inherently untrustworthy, unbelievable, or lacking in the basic understandings regarding the true meaning of discrimination". John Hyman and Anthony Julius connect "the 'Antisemitism as smear' trope" to the "established antisemitic defamation" that Jews are dishonest, as polemicized by Martin Luther in On The Jews and Their Lies and Heinrich von Treitschke's declaration that "Jews stand for 'Lug und Trug' [lying and cheating]".
Hate speech scholar Matthias J. Becker echoes Goldfeder's analysis of the instrumentalization charge as related to Jewish stereotypes about power, dishonesty, and greed. Becker links the charge that Jews "instrumentalize antisemitism" for political or financial gain to the claim that they "instrumentalize the Holocaust", a position he argues can, in extreme cases, lead to Holocaust distortion and denial. He writes that the charges, which he calls a topos, "became prevailing concepts in post-1945 discourses" and were not common before the Holocaust due to antisemitism's widespread social acceptability. Becker interprets the presence of the "instrumentalization" trope in post-WWII German and Austrian society (in German, die Antisemitismus- oder Auschwitz-Keule schwingen, lit. 'wielding the antisemitism or Auschwitz club') as a "collective reflex" in the context of the reckoning with Nazi history. Becker cites Norman Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry as an example of the trope's currency in mainstream discourses about Jews and antisemitism, while in radical discourses it is often accompanied by denial of the Holocaust.

### Politics

Rensmann says that some on the left do not "recognize current antisemitism" but only the "chilling effect" of "bad-faith" charges of antisemitism. Izabella Tabarovsky has compared contemporary left-wing antisemitism to Soviet antisemitic campaigns that sought to accuse Zionists of "complain[ing] about antisemitism in order to smear the left" between 1967 and 1988. Sina Arnold and Blair Taylor say charges of weaponization are a common way of "shutting down" discussions of antisemitism in the contemporary American Left. They say that the left often responds to discussions of antisemitism by changing the subject to Israel or right-wing antisemitism, or by dismissing complaints of antisemitism as a "smear". Arnold and Taylor attribute this to "unexamined political assumptions" and ignorance about the nature of antisemitism rather than "conscious antisemitic intent".

### Israel and anti-Zionism

Werner Bonefeld has said that antisemitism is often rejected "as an expression of bad faith—a camouflage for insulating Israel from criticism" by those who view antisemitism as "a phenomenon of the past that merely casts its shadow on the present but has itself no longer any real existence in it". Shany Mor says the statements "anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism" and "it is not antisemitic to criticize Israel or its policies", while true, are often said with "less than honest intent". David Schraub says that the statement "criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic" implies that "any non-trivial number of individuals" must believe the opposite, reframing discussions of antisemitism from Jewish victims to the way charges of antisemitism are "allegedly abused to victimise innocent bystanders". Ben Cohen says that "with growing frequency, it is assumed that the real victims of what is called 'antisemitism' are not Jews, but those who are unfairly branded as antisemites". Efraim Sicher said the weaponization argument is a common straw man and ad hominem in postcolonial discourses on Israel.
Fine and Philip Spencer say that while antisemitism may be weaponized to stifle criticism of Israel in some cases, "the reverse is more plausible: that there are many who cry 'Israel' in order to shut down debate on antisemitism". In a 2025 report for the Toda Peace Institute, Lisa Schirch wrote, "both the weaponization of antisemitism and the left's dismissal of antisemitism disrupt solidarity and coalition building" in regard to the Israel–Palestine conflict.
Rensmann says that some on the left do not "recognize current antisemitism" but only the "chilling effect" of "bad-faith" charges of antisemitism. Sina Arnold and Blair Taylor say charges of weaponization are a common way of "shutting down" discussions of antisemitism in the contemporary American Left. They say that the left often responds to discussions of antisemitism by changing the subject to Israel or right-wing antisemitism, or by dismissing complaints of antisemitism as a "smear". Arnold and Taylor attribute this to "unexamined political assumptions", and ignorance about the nature of antisemitism rather than "conscious antisemitic intent".
Rensmann says that one characteristic of "modernized antisemitism" is "the trope that criticism of Israel is 'suppressed' or 'taboo' in society". Instead, he says, antisemitic tropes are applied to Israel and then their antisemitic character is denied, leading to "charges of bad faith against Jews who allegedly exploit the problem of antisemitism... and even use the Holocaust for their own collective interests". Bernard Harrison says this "stock" rebuttal attempts to portray complaints of antisemitism as "putatively absurd". Derek Spitz says this "denial of antisemitism" is "a form of victim blaming" that forces Jews into the "defensive posture of having to justify the very making of the allegation of antisemitism". John Hyman and Anthony Julius say "the 'Antisemitism as smear' trope" is "especially burdensome to Jews today". Holocaust historian Kenneth Waltzer says such claims of "bad faith" are themselves antisemitic. Mark Goldfeder says that antisemitism is unique in that "even attempts to describe or define the phenomenon are often themselves rejected by antisemites using classic antisemitic tropes about Jewish power".

### The Livingstone Formulation

In 2005, sociologist David Hirsh coined the term "the Livingstone Formulation" for "responding to an accusation of antisemitism with a counter-accusation of Zionist bad faith". The term is named for former London mayor Ken Livingstone, who said "the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government" after he was called antisemitic for saying a Jewish journalist behaved like "a German war criminal". Hirsh says the formulation "long pre-dates antizionist antisemitism", and gives as examples comments by former President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, American white supremacist David Duke, British National Party leader Nick Griffin, and American aviator Charles Lindbergh, as well as passages from 19th-century German antisemites Heinrich von Treitschke and Wilhelm Marr. Efraim Sicher and Linda Weinhouse say the Livingstone Formulation's history dates to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which accused Jews of "inventing or being the cause of antisemitism".
Rensmann calls the Livingstone Formulation a "discursive ideological strategy to immunize antisemitism from antisemitism charges". Daniel Sugarman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews said the formulation was an "almost Pavlovian reaction". Lesley Klaff, speaking of British politics (particularly on discourses involving Holocaust inversion), says the formulation amounts to a "denial of contemporary antisemitism commonplace in Britain". Sugarman and others—such as Ernest Sternberg, Sina Arnold, and Jacob Blumenfeld—have said the Livingstone Formulation is particularly common on the left.