In his speech on Friday, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei blamed the country's troubles on (among other people) Zionists. In his most striking reference to them he is reported as having said:
Enemies and dirty Zionists tried to show the election as a contest between the regime and against it. [See also under these links.]
How to interpret the supreme leader's delicate turn of speech in a context not overtly concerned with matters of hygiene? On the one hand, it is known that in some parts of the world 'Zionists' has become a code word for Jews; and it is known, equally, that there is a tradition in which the locution 'dirty Jews' is a way of talking about Jews that would put them in an unflattering light. So it seems to be a possible interpretation of the Ayatollah's remarks that they were anti-Semitic. On the other hand, this is not the only possible interpretation. Khamenei didn't actually say 'Jews', did he? No, he said 'Zionists'. And, for all we know, he isn't aware of the tradition of discourse according to which Jews are dirty. So there's another possible interpretation. At least, there is if you've been to Siobhain's corner and had guidance from the Guardian's Readers' Editor on the question of possibility in interpretation when a discourse contains patently prejudicial themes attached to an ethnic group which has historically been disparaged by use of those very themes.
Or else you could skip a further visit to Butterworth-among-the-buttercups and read about what Jonathan Sacks has to say on the vocabulary of contemporary anti-Semitism. It's a more serious contribution.