Australia's institutions yet to follow court rulings on antisemitism

The notion that criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic has a documented history of failure in the courts, yet Australia’s education, health and arts institutions continue to be cowed into submission, writes Paul Begley.

THREE MONTHS BEFORE the 7 October Hamas atrocity in 2023, La Trobe University (LTU) adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, but without the definition’s 11 examples.

At the same time, La Trobe officially adopted the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) as an accompanying document for its guidelines.

Under then vice -chancellor John Dewar, the wise heads at La Trobe were apparently aware that the IHRA definition, especially when the 11 examples were included, would make it nigh on impossible for staff or students to discuss the state of Israel without incurring accusations of antisemitism.

The strongly pro-Israel international Campaign Against Antisemitism website promptly singled out Australia’s La Trobe University for "shamefully" adopting the Jerusalem definition alongside a "deficient" IHRA definition.

By February 2024, Professor Theo Farrell had succeeded Dewar as La Trobe vice-chancellor and by March 2025 the university had dispensed with the each-way bet of his predecessor by adopting an alternative each-way bet; namely the definition recommended by Universities Australia (UA).

It was a definition that may have been seen as providing safety in numbers in the sense that many of Australia’s 39 universities were likely to adopt it.

The UA definition was developed by a working group from the Group of Eight universities, Albanese’s special antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal, and Professor David Slucki, Director of the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University.

La Trobe Vice Chancellor invokes Bondi killings to defend festival censorship

The Vice Chancellor of La Trobe University used the Bondi attack to absolve himself over the attempted censorship of writers due to speak at Bendigo Writers Festival back in August.

The submission of the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion observed that the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) opposes the UA definition:

'it was developed without appropriate consultation with staff, students and stakeholders representing diverse Jewish and Palestinian voices, and that it would codify antisemitism in a manner not applied to any other form of racism or discrimination. The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) has called on Universities Australia to withdraw the definition until wider consultation has been undertaken...'

The Jewish Council submission observed that the UA definition asserts that for most Jewish Australians 'Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity', an assertion that the JCA’s Jewish members, along with a great many Jewish people worldwide, see as concerning because Zionism is 'a modern political ideology of Jewish nationalism, not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity, and there is a long history of Jewish opposition to it'.

Of particular concern to the Jewish Council is the assertion in the UA definition that calls for the elimination of the State of Israel are antisemitic because it implies:

'that advocating for a binational or unitary state in the place of Israel, even with full civil equality for all who live there, is itself antisemitic. The definition risks capturing any speech or protest legitimately calling for alternative political structures in the region..."The UA document undermines academic freedom and lawful freedom of expression".'

Where La Trobe University’s adoption of the UA definition differs from other universities is that its inclusion in its 19-page "Anti-Racism Action Plan" was put to the test in the real world just before the opening of the Bendigo Writers’ Festival in August 2025.

'Wrong risks, no moral courage': La Trobe and the Bendigo Writers Festival

Clare Wright says La Trobe lacked “moral courage” in the Bendigo Writers Festival collapse — and still hasn’t apologised for its actions.

In its capacity as a principal sponsor of the annual writers’ event, La Trobe demanded that participants sign a code of conduct which touched on the following part of its antisemitism definition:

'Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel.'

Academic and author Dr Randa Abdel-Fattah was invited to present at Bendigo but was accused of posting comments on social media that called for the elimination of the state of Israel, and withdrew from the festival when asked to sign the code of conduct.

The La Trobe code of conduct required participants to:

'avoid language or topics that could be considered inflammatory, divisive, or disrespectful.'

Writers’ festivals typically invite authors whose work is regarded as representing positions that do not simply reiterate political platitudes or empty rhetoric but take moral stands and employ a measure of literary skill in representing positions that question received wisdom.

Without making extravagant claims about the literary merits of her novel Discipline, about which Dr Abdel-Fattah was to speak in Bendigo, the book’s representation of the plight of Palestinian Australians in the university and media sectors was arguably accurate and fair-minded.

Festival of cowardice: The cancellation of Randa Abdel-Fattah

If the decision to remove a Palestinian author from Adelaide Writers' Week was intended to reflect intellectual awareness, it failed.

That said, La Trobe University’s insistence on imposing a wide-ranging code of conduct on participants at the writers’ festival was seen for what it was.

Michael Bradley, Abdel-Fattah's lawyer, described it as:

“a mask for getting rid of Randa because they knew she wouldn't agree to it, because it included a contested definition of antisemitism she was required to sign up to."

To her credit, La Trobe University’s Guest Curator at the Writers’ Festival, historian Professor Clare Wright, distanced herself from the University’s escalation of Zionist complaints about the presence of Abdel-Fattah.

Professor Wright has since observed that La Trobe “looked at the wrong risks”, and failed to show “moral courage”.

In January 2026, the Adelaide Writers’ Week (AWW) took steps to actually 'disinvite' the Palestinian author.

While more than 50 writers had withdrawn from the Bendigo festival in 2025 over Abdel-Fattah's exclusion, more than 180 withdrew from the 2026 AWW in support of her, and the AWW was cancelled as a direct result.

The rancour generated by those events was felt among many institutions throughout the country in education, health and the arts, many of which saw the need to run scared over demands to better demonstrate their antisemitic credentials, none more so than the universities.

In July 2026, Dr Abdel-Fattah launched legal action against La Trobe University and the Greater City of Bendigo, stating that they discriminated against her on the basis of political belief, as reported by the ABC.

If her case gets to court, La Trobe will finally have to be open about the role it played in Bendigo.

The ABC's Antoinette Lattouf ‘issue’

"Deliberately starving and killing children is a war crime. Today, the court has found that punishing someone for sharing facts about these war crimes is also illegal."

The law on definitions of antisemitism

The backdrop to the foment being experienced by Australia’s cultural institutions included the dismissal of Antoinette Lattouf in December 2023 by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

A WhatsApp group from Lawyers for Israel used direct access to ABC board members to create the impression that Lattouf posed a legal threat to the broadcaster, and succeeded in bringing about her dismissal. This was despite the fact that Lattouf’s employment at the ABC had nothing to do with political reporting in any capacity.

During the 18 months following Lattouf’s dismissal, she launched unlawful dismissal proceedings with the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court.

The ABC contested the cases, which involved board chair Ita Buttrose and senior executives giving evidence to the streamed Federal Court proceedings, which in turn led to the ABC suffering a humiliating defeat. The court found Lattouf’s dismissal had been unlawful for reasons that included her political opinions opposing the Israeli occupation and military siege in Gaza.

The ABC was ordered to pay Lattouf $70,000 in damages. The court found that the broadcaster had allowed itself to be panicked and manipulated in order to 'appease the pro-Israel lobbyists' who escalated their complaints about the ABC employing a presenter they perceived to have anti-Israel and therefore antisemitic opinions.

One curious outcome of the fiasco was that the identities of the Lawyers for Israel lobbyists who orchestrated the campaign for Lattouf’s dismissal were granted suppression orders for 10 years on the grounds of 'safety'.

Zionist Federation v Mary Kostakidis: A defining moment for press freedom

Genocide is occurring in Gaza and Israel is currently a rogue state — but let’s be sure not to offend anyone by reporting the facts, writes managing editor Michelle Pini.

The word “safety” was cited a number of times by Jewish witnesses giving evidence about their feelings at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, even when an objective correlative for what they felt was not evident.

The word was also used by parties in a case appearing before Justice Desmond Fagan in the New South Wales Supreme Court (State of NSW v Farhat). In August 2026, Fagan wrote in his judgment that 'Fuk Israel' was 'a curse against a foreign state'.

He also criticised the IHRA definition of antisemitism as 'detached from reality' and 'inept'. The NSW Government had been attempting to use the IHRA definition to frame Farhat as an antisemitic terrorist.

The Guardian reported Fagan telling a hearing in July that:

"This proceeding against this man seems to me to have been derailed and gone completely haywire right from the beginning by the police representation to the magistrate and submissions to the magistrate and again to the district court judge that this content was antisemitic. And it’s erroneous.”

In his response to the Fagan decision, the NSW Attorney General Michael Daley said the Government would not lodge an appeal because it would have no reasonable prospect of success, so the decision will stand.

The Fagan judgment likely affected the long-running Federal Court proceeding brought by the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) chief executive Alon Cassuto against former SBS journalist Mary Kostakidis.

During September, Cassuto withdrew his case against Kostakidis, no doubt prompted by the realisation that the Fagan decision would weigh heavily against his chance of success.

When tested in Australia’s courtrooms, by now the notion that criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic has a documented history of failure, yet the leaders of Australia’s education, health and arts institutions, in particular its universities, continue to be cowed into submission by Israel lobbyists.

Paul Begley is a Melbourne writer who worked for many years in public affairs roles, most recently as general manager of government and media relations with the Australian HR Institute.