This is not a pro-Israel or anti-Israel article…. Can we establish that upfront? It’s just a scholarly, historical and linguistic article to tell you about the history you probably have no idea about. Namely, “Antisemitism” and the word “Semite” probably don’t mean what you think they mean. The truth is that for millennia, the word “Semite” meant the descendants of Shem, one of Noah’s three sons.  Shem eventually became “Sem” and a “Sem-ite” was a descendant of Shem. And for anyone who knows their Bible lineage, Abraham would be a descendant of Shem, as well as Isaac and Ishmael. So for millennia, a “Semite” was an Israelite and Arab and several other groups in the region too. Now in 2025 is means almost strictly just a “Jew”.  I’ll explain how that changed in a just a bit, but first this from Grok who confirms what I just told you: Short answer: yes, your linguistic instinct is correct, and no, the modern usage is not strictly correct if judged by original or technical definitions. But the reason for the shift is historical, not a secret plot or recent maneuver. Here’s the careful, double-checked breakdown. 1. What “Semitic” originally means (and who it includes) “Semitic” comes from Shem, one of Noah’s sons in Genesis (Gen 10–11). In biblical genealogy, the descendants of Shem include: Israelites (Jews) — via Abraham → Isaac → Jacob Arabs — via Abraham → Ishmael Assyrians Arameans Babylonians Phoenicians Others of the ancient Near East In linguistics, “Semitic” refers to a language family, not a people: Hebrew Arabic Aramaic Akkadian Syriac Ethiopic (Ge’ez) So from both biblical and linguistic standpoints: Arabs are as Semitic as Jews. That part is uncontroversial among historians and linguists. 2. The origin of the word “antisemitic” The word “antisemitism” did not arise in antiquity or theology. It was coined in Germany in the 1870s. The key figure: Wilhelm Marr (1819–1904)A German political agitator and racial theorist. In 1879, Marr popularized the term “Antisemitismus” His goal was to give Jew-hatred a “scientific” and racial framing He wanted it to sound: modern biological inevitable not religious (since religious intolerance was falling out of favor) Crucially: Marr explicitly meant Jews only He was not talking about Arabs He was not using “Semitic” accurately He was deliberately rebranding Judenhass (hatred of Jews) So from day one, the term was: political racialized imprecise 3. Why Jews specifically—and not all Semites? Because European Jew-hatred had a long history and needed a new justification. By the 19th century: Open religious persecution was becoming unfashionable Enlightenment values made overt bigotry harder to defend Pseudoscience and racial theory were filling the gap So: “Antisemitism” was framed as opposition to a “Jewish race” Jews were portrayed as an alien group within Europe Arabs were largely irrelevant to European internal politics at the time In short: The term narrowed because the hostility was narrowly targeted, not because of linguistic logic. 4. Is the modern definition technically wrong? Yes — strictly speaking. If someone today were being perfectly precise, they would say: “Anti-Jewish hatred” “Jew-hatred” “Anti-Jewish racism” Even major reference works quietly admit this problem. For example, scholars routinely note: “Antisemitism is a misnomer” “There is no such thing as hostility to ‘Semites’ as a group” “The term refers specifically to hostility toward Jews” So the modern definition is: Historically established Socially entrenched Conceptually sloppy But it persists because it’s become fixed idiomatic usage, not because it’s accurate. 5. Was this a “hijacking” of the term? It depends how you mean that. What is true: The term was never neutral It was created with an agenda It used a prestigious biblical/linguistic word inaccurately It deliberately obscured older religious hatred under a racial veneer What is not accurate: That Jews as a group engineered the term That modern Jews secretly control or manipulate its definition That the shift was recent or coordinated The distortion happened at the moment of invention, by a 19th-century German antisemite, and the usage stuck. 6. Why the issue still causes confusion today Because people notice an obvious contradiction: Arabs are Semitic Jews are Semitic Yet “antisemitism” only applies to Jews That discomfort is intellectually valid. But language doesn’t always evolve logically — it evolves politically and historically. Bottom line Yes, “Semitic” includes Arabs and Jews Yes, “antisemitism” is a technically incorrect term Yes, the narrowing happened in the 19th century No, it was not a modern or Jewish “hijacking” Yes, it originated as a polemical rebranding of Jew-hatred Today, the term persists by convention, not precision Did you catch that last part? The term “anti-Semite” was actually created by a notorious Jew-hater in Germany in 1879. Again, Grok confirms: The term “antisemitism” was coined and popularized by a Jew-hater, not by Jews and not as a neutral descriptor. The facts, plainly stated Wilhelm Marr, a German nationalist and racial ideologue, introduced Antisemitismus in 1879. Marr was openly hostile to Jews and believed Jews were a destructive racial force within German society. He deliberately chose the term to: Strip Jew-hatred of its religious framing Recast it as scientific, racial, and inevitable Make hostility toward Jews sound modern and intellectual rather than medieval Marr even founded an organization called the League of Antisemites (Antisemiten-Liga). There is no ambiguity about his intent. Why this matters The word did not evolve organically It was designed as propaganda It was inaccurate from the moment it was created It successfully reframed old Jew-hatred in new, “respectable” language That framing proved so effective that the term stuck—and is still used today, despite its technical flaws. One precise sentence summary “Antisemitism” was invented by a 19th-century German Jew-hater as a rhetorical upgrade to traditional Jew-hatred, using an imprecise racial term to give bigotry a scientific gloss. That is not an opinion. That is settled historical record. So there you go! Now you know!