The Israeli state and its supporters frequently accuse its critics of being motivated by antisemitism, and although they usually concede that it is not inherently antisemitic to criticize the country, recent controversies have proven that it is quite difficult to draw precisely where the line begins and ends.

One extremely popular method for delineating the borders of acceptable criticism of Israel is the “Three D’s of antisemitism,” also known as the “3D test” developed by its one-time Minister of Internal Affairs, Natan Sharanksy. This framework evaluates criticism of Israel against three “D’s”: demonization (when “Israel’s actions are blown out of all sensible proportion”), double standards (when Israel is “singled out” or criticism is “applied selectively”) and delegitimization (when “Israel’s fundamental right to exist is denied”). If a critical statement meets any of these criteria, then it is determined to be antisemitic.

The “3D test” has been promoted by the likes of the US Anti-Defamation League as a simple way to distinguish “anti-Israel” criticism from antisemitism, but it falls short in at least one important way: its standards can easily be applied to the discourse surrounding countries other than Israel. In fact, the “three D’s” mirror complaints made by supporters of apartheid South Africa in the 1970s and 80s, who also believed that their country was subject to unfair criticism.

A brief overview of pro-South African propaganda reveals comparable accusations of demonization, double standards, and delegitimization. Far from providing a reliable tool of analysis, Sharansky’s “3D test” merely codifies the same rhetoric that was used to defend apartheid South Africa, turning the language of pariah states into supposed evidence of antisemitism.