Antisemitism or accountability? Drawing the line without erasing free speech

As Australia tightens hate-speech laws, a flawed definition of antisemitism risks being weaponised to shut down legitimate criticism of Israel rather than confront real hatred, writes Dr Mark Diesendorf.

WITH THE PASSING of the hate speech legislation and the forthcoming Royal Commission into the Bondi terror attack and antisemitism, Australia needs a definition of antisemitism that’s clear and useful, one that maintains freedom of expression without supporting hatred or discrimination.

In 2021, the Australian Government adopted, for “policy guidance”, the following ‘non-legally binding working definition’ proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA):

‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.’

This definition has proved controversial because it is poorly specified and open to conflicting interpretations. Perhaps because of these limitations, its accompanying text contains 11 alleged “examples” of antisemitism and the statement (called Statement A here) that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic’.

Antisemitism, extremism and the case for a cautious Royal Commission

Independent Australia cautiously welcomes the Government's announcement this week of a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in Australia.

This may appear reassuring to supporters of freedom of speech until they consider two of the alleged “examples” of antisemitism added to the working definition. These two, discussed below, directly contradict Statement A by ruling out specific criticisms of Israel that could be applied to any other country. This actively provides support for those who wish to silence any criticism of Israel’s policies and actions by labelling them as “antisemitic”.

This article outlines reasons for rejecting the two questionable “examples” and choosing a better definition of antisemitism.

Comparing Israel’s policies with the Nazis’

The first IHRA “example” is: ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’

Applying Statement A, if any country follows policies similar to the Nazis’, for example, implementing apartheid, concentration camps and genocide, then a comparison with Nazi policies cannot be ruled out. However, “any country” includes Israel.

That Israel is conducting a policy of genocide has been stated by United Nations Special Rapporteurs, the UN-linked Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and leading human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and the Israeli organisations B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights.

While Israel does not use gas chambers to implement genocide, it has turned Gaza into a de facto concentration camp, confining millions of Palestinians in a small, decreasing area, and severely limiting the inhabitants’ access to food, water, shelter, medical supplies and fuel. The result is that Palestinians are dying of starvation, wounds, exposure and multiple diseases.

Furthermore, with bombs, missiles, artillery and snipers’ rifles, Israel appears to be targeting Palestinian medical workers, aid workers, hospitals, journalists, schools, universities, water supplies, refugee camps, sewerage treatment plants, power stations and homes. It is difficult to avoid the inference that Israel is deliberately making Gaza uninhabitable.

Similarly, the Nazi regime systematically destroyed Jewish cultural, educational, religious and medical institutions as part of its broader project to eliminate Jews as a people.

Gaza and antisemitism: What a Royal Commission can’t fix

Will the Royal Commission into Antisemitism end up with a full explanation of that social problem and provide workable solutions?

Israel has arguably conducted reproductive genocide by bombing Gaza’s principal IVF centre, direct attacks on hospital maternity wards and the systemic creation of high-risk environments for childbirth. The Nazis restricted Jewish reproduction by the 1935 Nuremberg Laws that forbade marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans”, possible chemical sterilisation of Jewish women in concentration camps, and other means.

Meanwhile, in the West Bank, the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) are actively and passively supporting the destruction of Palestinian homes, farms and villages, and the murder of individuals by Israeli settlers.

Is Israel a racist state?

The second IHRA “example” is: ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’

This “example” actually comprises two parts, because the clause following ‘e.g.’ is not a logical consequence of the first part.

Most people would accept the right of Jews to form their own communities, including a state, on land that is either terra nullius (if such land existed) or land purchased from people who sold it voluntarily. But most land controlled by Israel has been obtained by force exercised before 1948 by Zionist terrorist groups (and here) and subsequently by the IDF and settlers’ groups.

Israel was established by settler colonialism, whose principal partner historically has been racism. Racism allows colonists to feel morally justified in violating the human rights of the colonised. That some leading Israeli colonists regard themselves as belonging to a superior “race” is demonstrated explicitly by Israeli politicians and others calling Palestinians “animals”, “vermin” and “insects”.

Many Jews regard themselves as a people chosen by God, a notion weaponised by the Israeli Government, which is similar to the Nazis’ belief that they were the master race. In both cases, the people discriminated against are regarded as worthless and therefore without human rights. IDF snipers have admitted to deliberately targeting Palestinians, including children, who were desperately queuing up for a possible meagre food handout.

Bondi memorials become flashpoint for Israel-Palestine politics

Israeli flag displays at Bondi massacre memorials have exposed deep political fault lines over Zionism, antisemitism and the exploitation of public grief.

A key question is rather: does the State of Israel deny the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and human rights, by claiming Jews are a chosen or superior people and hence implementing a policy of apartheid? If so, it could be argued that Israel, as it exists today, can be validly described as “racist” in the popular sense, thus refuting IHRA’s labelling of this “example” as antisemitism.

The foregoing argument could be applied to any state that claims racial superiority and practices apartheid.

An alternative definition

The IHRA working definition, with the two “examples” discussed above, could be used as a tool for powerful Zionist lobby groups to silence criticisms of Israel’s crimes against humanity.

An alternative definition is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. It was developed by a group of 270 scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies and Middle East studies to provide guidance to identify and fight antisemitism while protecting free expression.

It is concise, less open to ambiguity and misuse and likely to be more effective:

‘Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish).’

It does not need to be bolstered by so-called “examples”.

Dr Mark Diesendorf is Honorary Associate Professor of Environment and Society at UNSW Sydney and author with Rod Taylor of 'The Path to a Sustainable Civilisation' (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024).