The article is not just a political critique. It is an emblematic example of rhetorical distortion, ideological simplification and, above all, a dangerous inversion of moral priorities. When attacking one, Greenwald chooses to frame it as a supposed instrument of censorship, deliberately ignoring its actual content.
The central point that needs to be reestablished is simple: the project does not criminalize opinions, does not restrict debate and does not create punishment mechanisms for criticism of Israel.
This is an initiative aimed at building public policies —education, monitoring, prevention and awareness— in the face of a real and growing phenomenon: .
Turning this into “censorship” is not just an interpretive error; it is a rhetorical choice and demonstrates that Greenwald, historically positioning himself as a defender of civil and minority rights, demonstrates selectivity when dealing with anti-Semitism.
The writer builds his argument based on a false premise that the adoption of definitions such as that of the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) automatically leads to the repression of legitimate criticism of the State of Israel.
It ignores the essential fact that the IHRA definition itself makes an explicit distinction between legitimate political criticism and anti-Semitic speech. By erasing this nuance, the article replaces analysis with scaremongering.
Criticisms can be made against Israel, as against any other legitimate state within the international system and recognized by the UN. What is unacceptable is the condemnation –formal or otherwise– of all Jews, as a people. Or turn the word “Zionist” into an offense and advocate the destruction of the Jewish State.
The narrative against the IHRA, frequently repeated in certain ideological circles, creates a perverse effect: it transforms the fight against prejudice into political suspicion. In other words, instead of discussing how to protect a historically persecuted minority, the debate shifts to a conspiracy theory about speech control.
Another critical point is the attempt to frame the Brazilian debate within external dynamics, especially those of the United States. By importing controversial and decontextualized examples, the article completely ignores the Brazilian reality, where the project in question is inserted in a solid democratic framework, with clear constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression.
Furthermore, by mixing criticism of Israel, Zionism, war policies and anti-Semitism into the same indistinct bloc, the text reinforces exactly the confusion it should combat. This deliberate overlap prevents serious debate and contributes to the trivialization of anti-Semitism itself — a phenomenon that, historically, adapts precisely through these ambiguities.
At its heart, Greenwald’s article is not about free speech. It is about resistance to recognizing that contemporary anti-Semitism often manifests itself in sophisticated ways, even disguised as legitimate political discourse. Denying this does not protect the debate.
Brazil is not faced with a choice between freedom and censorship. You are faced with a choice between facing a real problem responsibly or ignoring it under the pretext of defending abstractions. The deputy’s project falls into the first category.
As is clear, it is a “project”. Like it or not, like Greenwald, it presents a definition supported by all institutions representing the Jewish community in Brazil and in most of the world, it has already been adopted by 40 countries, international organizations and several Brazilian states and cities. It is the definition of anti-Semitism with the most consensus in Brazil and the world, and PL 1,424/2026 received the signature of 45 deputies from 19 parties, from left to right.
Demanding that the proposal be blocked, without at least presenting other suggestions and facing the debate democratically — that is indeed censorship. In addition to the obvious attempt to silence part of society, it also weakens the State’s ability to protect its citizens against one of the oldest and most persistent forms of hatred.
