Listen to the article
Israeli Government Adopts Antisemitic Imagery to Target Opponents, Raising Concerns
The Israeli Foreign Ministry sparked controversy this weekend after posting an image on its official X account that depicted the Iranian government as an octopus with extending tentacles—imagery that mirrors classic antisemitic caricatures from the early 20th century that were weaponized against Jews during the Nazi era.
The octopus with tentacles gripping the globe became infamous as antisemitic propaganda before and during the Holocaust, with Nazi propagandists developing it into a recurring motif portraying Jews as malevolent creatures strangling the nations of the earth. The imagery is so recognizable as antisemitic symbolism that in 2023, climate activist Greta Thunberg was forced to issue a public apology after posting a pro-ceasefire photograph that included a small stuffed octopus toy.
According to experts, this isn’t an isolated incident but part of a troubling pattern where the Israeli government has increasingly adopted symbolic vocabulary once used against Jews and redirected it toward its perceived enemies—Iran, Gaza, progressive diaspora organizations, and sometimes even diaspora Jews themselves.
The case of George Soros, a Hungarian-born Jewish billionaire, provides another example of this phenomenon. Soros has long been the target of global antisemitic conspiracy theories suggesting he secretly orchestrates the erosion of national borders and democratic governments. This dangerous myth has inspired violence, including the 2018 Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh.
In 2017, Yair Netanyahu, son of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, posted a meme showing Soros dangling the world before a reptilian figure—imagery directly echoing antisemitic “Elders of Zion” caricatures. While the Anti-Defamation League condemned the image for containing “blatantly antisemitic elements,” the elder Netanyahu declined to comment, effectively normalizing the use of such imagery against political opponents.
The Israeli government has at times actively promoted these same tropes. When Israel’s ambassador to Hungary condemned an antisemitic ad campaign targeting Soros by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in 2019, Netanyahu countermanded the ambassador, instructing the Foreign Ministry to issue a statement claiming Soros “continuously undermines Israel’s democratically elected government”—language that invokes the same antisemitic tropes used against Jews for centuries.
In another incident from August 2025, Israel’s official Arabic-language X account warned that the growth of mosques across Europe represented the development of a “fifth column”—terminology intrinsically connected to one of the oldest and most lethal charges in European antisemitism: the idea of Jews as domestic enemies and agents of alien interests.
Experts suggest the connection between right-wing Zionism and classical antisemitic imagery isn’t merely opportunistic but reflects a shared ideological structure. Both movements express suspicion toward the same values: internationalism, universal human rights, and liberal diasporism.
This explains what might otherwise seem paradoxical: the Israeli right’s simultaneous performance of Jewish victimhood and its actual hostility toward large segments of Jewish life. The government has refused to recognize non-Orthodox conversions, blocked left-wing Jewish critics from entering the country, and treated liberal American Jewish organizations—representing the majority form of Jewish communal life in the United States—as adversaries.
Critics argue that the categories of antisemitic ideology have been detached from their original target and retrained on new enemies, revealing a worldview that has more in common with European nationalist thought than many realize.
This pattern raises serious questions about how rhetoric once used to persecute Jews is now being deployed by the Israeli state against its perceived enemies, and about the complex relationship between contemporary Israeli politics and the historical experience of antisemitism that was central to Zionism’s founding purpose.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is a troubling development that warrants serious scrutiny. The use of such historically charged antisemitic imagery, even in a propaganda battle, is deeply concerning and raises valid questions about the judgment and priorities of the Israeli government. A more thoughtful, measured approach would be advisable.
Agreed. Propagandists on all sides should be extremely cautious about co-opting symbols with such a dark history, even if the intent is to target perceived enemies. The risks of inflaming tensions and normalizing harmful rhetoric far outweigh any potential messaging benefits.
The use of antisemitic imagery, even in a propaganda battle, is deeply troubling and raises serious concerns. While the intent may be to target Iran, the Israeli government should be extremely cautious about co-opting symbols with such a dark and painful history. This is a dangerous path that could further escalate tensions and erode public trust.
Well said. Resorting to these kinds of loaded symbols, no matter the context, risks backfiring and undermining the very cause it seeks to advance. A more nuanced, principled approach would serve Israel better in the long run.
This is a concerning development. Using imagery that mirrors antisemitic propaganda from the Nazi era is deeply troubling, regardless of the target. Both sides should be more mindful of the power of symbolism and how it can inflame tensions.
I agree. Resorting to such loaded imagery, even against perceived enemies, risks further escalating the conflict and eroding public trust. A more measured, nuanced approach would be prudent.
While I understand the desire to call out adversaries, the use of historically charged antisemitic symbols seems like a dangerous path. Surely the Israeli government can find more constructive ways to make its case without invoking such toxic imagery.
Quite right. Stooping to the level of your opponents, even rhetorically, rarely ends well. A higher road of principled messaging and diplomacy would serve Israel better in the long run.
While I understand the desire to call out adversaries, the use of imagery associated with historic antisemitism is highly problematic and raises valid concerns. The Israeli government should tread very carefully and find more constructive ways to make its case without resorting to such loaded symbolism.
Absolutely. Stooping to the level of your opponents, even rhetorically, is rarely a wise strategy. A more nuanced, principled approach would serve Israel’s interests better in the long run and help avoid further escalation of tensions.
This is a concerning development that deserves closer scrutiny. The use of imagery so strongly associated with antisemitism and the Holocaust, even in a propaganda battle, is highly problematic and raises valid questions about the judgment and priorities of the Israeli government. A more thoughtful, measured approach would be advisable.
I share your concerns. Resorting to these kinds of loaded symbols, no matter the context, risks backfiring and undermining the very cause it seeks to advance. A more nuanced, principled approach would serve Israel better in the long run.
Deeply troubling to see the Israeli government adopting imagery so strongly associated with antisemitism and the Holocaust. While the intent may be to target Iran, the use of these loaded symbols is tone-deaf at best and dangerously inflammatory at worst. This is a path the Israeli government should avoid, no matter the perceived benefits.
Agreed. Resorting to such symbolism, even against perceived enemies, risks normalizing and amplifying the very hatreds it seeks to counter. A more thoughtful, measured approach would serve Israel’s interests better in the long run.
This is an unfortunate and concerning trend. Propagandists on all sides should be extremely cautious about co-opting symbols with such a dark history, even if the intent is to target perceived enemies. The risks of inflaming tensions and normalizing harmful rhetoric far outweigh any potential messaging benefits.
I share your concerns. Resorting to these kinds of loaded images, no matter the context, is a slippery slope that can undermine credibility and inflict lasting damage. Restraint and nuance are required when dealing with such sensitive historical symbolism.