Why Does Michael Gove Think He Gets to Define Antisemitism for Everyone Else?
When former Conservative minister and current Spectator editor Michael Gove publicly clashes with Green Party leader Zack Polanski over antisemitism, the argument is about far more than one political disagreement. It raises a question that has become central to British politics: who gets to define antisemitism, and why are some voices treated as more legitimate than others?
The dispute is particularly striking because Polanski is Jewish himself. Yet that has not stopped commentators and political opponents from suggesting that Gove and others possess a superior understanding of antisemitism than he does. The implication is clear. Jewish identity alone does not qualify someone to speak on antisemitism if they hold the "wrong" political views on Israel, Zionism, or Gaza.
For decades, the principle behind combating racism was straightforward. Minority groups were expected to have a significant voice in defining their own experiences. Yet when it comes to Jewish critics of Israel or Zionism, that principle often appears to collapse. Instead, political and media gatekeepers decide which Jewish perspectives are authentic and which are not.
Polanski has found himself in exactly that position. As leader of the Greens, he occupies an awkward space in British politics. He is Jewish, outspoken about Palestinian rights, and willing to challenge prevailing assumptions about Israel. For some critics, those positions automatically place him under suspicion.
Gove represents a different tradition. Long one of Britain's most vocal defenders of Israel, he has repeatedly argued that antisemitism is being fuelled by elements of the radical left, Islamist movements, and parts of the populist right. The Spectator, which he now edits, has become a major platform for that perspective.
Gove frequently condemns media and political obsessions that, in his view, unfairly single out Israel, while simultaneously helping to shape those very debates from one of Britain's most influential political publications.
That contradiction became harder to ignore after Gove's controversial ridiculous suggestion that the IDF should be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize, a proposal that in itself should be considered almost blasphemous.
The Nobel Peace Prize comment was not only provocative. It symbolized a broader political divide. To supporters of Israel, the IDF is fighting existential threats and defending civilians from terrorist organisations. To critics, praising the force while Gaza lies in ruins represents an extraordinary moral blind spot.
Gove himself has often rejected genocide allegations against Israel and has accused some critics of crossing the line into antisemitism. His opponents reply that dismissing criticism in this way risks weaponising antisemitism rather than combating it.
The result is a political culture in which many people feel unable to distinguish between hatred of Jews and criticism of a government.
That confusion serves nobody.
It does not protect Jewish communities from genuine antisemitism. It does not help Palestinians.
What makes the Gove-Polanski clash so revealing is that it exposes an uncomfortable hierarchy of acceptable Jewish opinion. Some Jewish voices are amplified because they reinforce establishment narratives. Others are treated with suspicion because they challenge them.
The issue is not whether Gove or Polanski is right on every point. Both can be criticised. The question is why one man's interpretation of antisemitism is often treated as authoritative while another Jewish politician's interpretation is dismissed.
The answer may have less to do with combating prejudice and more to do with power.
After all, one participant in this debate leads a political party. The other sits at the helm of one of Britain's most influential magazines, helping shape elite opinion every week.
In modern Britain, the battle over antisemitism is no longer simply a battle over prejudice. It has become a battle over who gets to speak, who gets believed, and who gets excluded from the conversation.
We are a fully subscriber-supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.
We read your comments, so come and share your opinions with us and our subscribers.
📽️ Credit: Declassified UK
