Three Ds of antisemitism

It was first published in Jewish Political Studies Review, a journal run by the Israeli think tank Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in 2004.

Professor Irwin Cotler has said that "we've got to set up certain boundaries of where [criticism of Israel] does cross the line, because I'm one of those who believes strongly, not only in free speech, but also in rigorous debate, and discussion, and dialectic, and the like.

[10] This claim allegedly discriminates against Jews by singling them out as ineligible for the basic right for self-determination as it is determined by the international law.

Cotler uses the term political anti-Semitism to describe the denial of the Jewish people's right to self-determination and the de-legitimization of Israel as a state.

It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and actions, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits".

[10] The implementation of a different moral standard for Jews and Israel compared to the rest of the world, just like the delegitimization claim, discriminates against a specific group and is labeled as antisemitism.

Similar arguments were made by Thomas Friedman, stating that Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movements that ignore the situation in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran are hypocritical and antisemitic.

According to Faaborg-Andersen, "the only parallel that exists is the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict", in which the European Union made sure that areas in Azerbaijan that were under Armenian occupation were excluded from any deals with Armenia.

[15] Some scholars, such as Jonathan Judaken[2] and Kenneth L. Marcus[16] concede the usefulness of the 3D test either in terms of its mnemonic cleverness in identifying Judaeophobia or as a helpful point of departure for demarcating the unacceptable limits of anti-Israel sentiment.