In the second of IA's two-part series, Dr Evan Jones examines how Jillian Segal's antisemitism framework conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism and threatens legitimate public debate.
(Read part one HERE)
THE SEGAL DOCUMENT, ‘Understanding Antisemitism in Australia’, claims (p.17):
‘The Jewish people’s connection to their indigenous homeland... was recognised by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 181(II). The resolution reaffirmed the historical and ancestral ties of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, underscoring the legitimacy of their claim and the importance of their self-determination.’
Resolution 181(II) did no such thing. There is no mention of “indigenous” or “historical and ancestral ties” in the Resolution. This is classic opportunist appropriation of Resolution 181(II), which (in any case) former Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion et al immediately proceeded to ignore. Conveniently forgotten is the Resolution’s promulgation for an Arab state in conjunction with a Jewish state, combined economic control and development, and international control of Jerusalem.
Ditto British academic Victor Kattan’s ‘The UN Partition Plan for Palestine and International Law’, also wrongly cited in support of the Zionist cause. Kattan’s work is a detailed, sober outline of the differences surrounding the Partition Plan. The attempted appropriation of this document is an insult to Kattan himself, a part-Palestinian legal scholar with a long-time commitment to the Palestinian cause.
The froth continues (p.17):
‘Jewish self-determination does not exclude Palestinian self-determination or sovereignty.’
Really? Tell that to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.
The document continues:
‘In Australia, around 90 per cent of Jewish people believe Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state — the essence of Zionism.’
Again misleading.
The 2023 survey of Australian Jews on Israel highlighted that 85 per cent of those surveyed agreed to the loaded proposition:
‘...the existence of Israel is essential for the future of the Jewish people.’
Perhaps some or many of those questioned thought implicitly that “Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state”, but that proposition was not in the survey.
There follows a detailed exposition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) antisemitism definition (p.27ff., further elaborated p.33ff.). Yet the longer the exposition, the more the definition is exposed as fraudulent.
Thus:
‘Example 6: Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.’
Greater loyalty to Israel is a fact for self-appointed “representative” Jewish organisations and for many non-Israeli Jews, which has adverse effects on the integrity of a country’s foreign policy, leading in the global arena to tolerance of Israel’s current criminality.
‘Example 7: Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.’
The Apartheid state of Israel is a racist endeavour. And does this mean that more than half of global Jewry is not yet self-determined?
Later (p.42), Example 7 is elaborated:
‘To selectively deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination in some portion of their ancestral homeland is antisemitic.’
Which portion in particular? As noted above, the “portion” of Palestine allocated to Jews in the UN 1947 Partition Plan was excessive and incoherent, but Ben-Gurion et al wanted the lot, and more of neighbouring countries.
Ben-Gurion’s successors still do.
‘Example 8: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’
This perennial catechism (elaborated on p.43) is the central tenet of the IHRA definition. Apartheid Israel is not a democracy but an ethnocracy. Israel is a peculiar country, deserving of particular condemnation, so no “double standards” are involved.
‘Example 10: Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’
If, in surveying the evidence, I think it appropriate to draw parallels between Nazi bestiality and Israeli bestiality, I will do so.
To re-jig a paragraph from the document (p.34):
‘Foremost among the techniques that incite, justify and authorise the killing of [Palestinians] are demonisation and dehumanisation. [Israeli] propaganda exemplifies the depiction of [Palestinians] as sub-human (“Untermenschen”).’
(See Wikipedia’s ‘Dehumanisation of Palestinians in Israeli discourse’ and this from Al Jazeera in October 2023. If the shoe fits...)
‘Example 11: Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ (Replicated p.33 and p.40.)
Now this one is a doozy. From the conception and inception of Israel, Israeli leadership has constructed Israel as the state of Jewry sui generis. Over half of the global Jewish population declines to live in Israel (to make Aliyah), but all self-described “official” other-country Jewish organisations are pro-Israel in their orientation.
The Israeli leadership and global Zionist Jewish organisations see Jewry as intimately tied to Israel. Is it not conceivable that someone, furious at relentless Israeli barbarity, might make the same connection that official Jewry makes itself?
More, the sentence implies that there might be something questionable about “actions of the state of Israel”. Isn’t it then a sensible course that the official organisations of “diaspora” Jews might publicly distance themselves from Israel; indeed, as Jews, that they might actively criticise Israel and work towards influencing the Israeli leadership towards more human behaviour towards its subject Palestinian population and those of neighbouring countries?
Now we have a “key point” from the IHRA definition in “Jewish collectivity” (p.31):
‘The new antisemitism... is an attack on Jews as a nation seeking to exist like a nation as any other on the face of the Earth with rights of self-governance and self-defence.’
Well, no. Israel is like no other nation and, strategically, has no defined borders to facilitate ongoing expansion.
‘...Jillian Segal notes: “Attacks on Jews often signal broader assaults on society and the breakdown of cohesion.”’ (p.32.)
This is rubbish. Social cohesion is threatened by a community (Australian Zionists) actively committed to the support of an apartheid state and pressuring Australian governments towards that end. If Australian Jews want social cohesion, they should ditch such support.
More deception follows (p.42):
The recognition of Jewish indigeneity and the right of Jewish people to self-determination in the land of Israel does not negate the right of self-determination for the Palestinians or others on that land. In contrast, it reinforces the right for self-determination of all peoples under international law. Today Israel is home to a diverse population and people of many different faiths and has many holy sites of significance for Jews, Christians and Muslims.
On the contrary. Zionist lebensraum does deny Palestinians (‘or others’ — who?) the right of self-determination on that (their own ancestral) land. Israel will never grant Indigenous Palestinians self-determination and no international body or powerful state is prepared to take on Israel over this rejection.
As for the claim that ‘Israel is home to a diverse population’, the country (as above) is fully committed to ridding itself of that diverse population and destroying the holy sites and places of worship for Christians and Muslims.
‘IHRA Example 9: [Antisemites] denying the Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CRSV) perpetrated by Hamas and other terrorists against Israeli women on 7 October 2023.’ (p.42.)
Hamas operatives murdered Jewish Israelis on 7 October — heinous enough. But claims that Hamas systematically used rape as a weapon of war remain unsubstantiated. While UN investigators found evidence that sexual violence occurred, they found no evidence that Hamas ordered such acts and several widely circulated allegations were subsequently debunked. But do the authors care?
Then there’s this (p.44):
The application of antisemitism to Israel and Israelis has included claims that Israel is responsible for terrorist attacks [true — endemic to Israel; consult Suárez’s State of Terror] and pandemics [read white phosphorus bombs]. It also involves the adaptation of the “blood libel” such as accusing Israel or Israelis of being “child murderers” [self-evident truth] and “organ thieves” [true] or evokes ancient libels of Jews poisoning wells [true]...
Thanks, authors, for reminding us of Israel’s perfidious character.
Finally, we come to the program for the wholesale censoring of opinion critical of Israel, including in workplaces, and brainwashing of students and teachers in the educational institutions (p.50ff.):
‘Curricula should be designed to include education on Jewish religious beliefs and practices (including indigenous practices related to the Land of Israel), and historical and contemporary antisemitism, including the most extreme manifestation of antisemitism of the Holocaust and genocide. Curricula may also include education on the history and contributions of Jews in Australia, as well as contemporary Jewish culture and religion.’
What? No context, no juxtaposition with other religions and cultures, no history and contribution of other ethnicities in Australia (not least the indigenous population). Nothing on the history of the terrorist creation and reproduction of Israel, not least the original Nakba and its current manifestation, nor on the Australian “official” Jewish organisations' long lobbying pressure that inhibits Australian governments from acting with principle against Israel’s actions. But we can’t have any of that, because to do so would be “antisemitic”.
The media is also a target (p.56):
‘By integrating the IHRA definition, Australian media can actively contribute to a more informed, respectful and inclusive society while maintaining the principles of free expression and editorial independence.’
The mainstream media is already a mouthpiece for pro-Israel interests (Murdoch) or is engaged in self-censorship (Nine Entertainment, ABC, SBS). One already gets a less informed and exclusive society which is neglectful or contemptuous of free expression and editorial independence.
As a comprehensive project of censorship and brainwashing, the document thus foresees a ‘whole of society response’ (p.57).
To recapitulate, this Understanding Antisemitism document is essentially about the defence of apartheid Israel. The hubris with this convoluted and deceptive message is staggering. The document treats the reader with contempt and wants to further repress the public’s intelligence and integrity by brainwashing, censorship and threats to employment. That public funds underpin this dangerous rubbish is equally staggering.
The Royal Commission currently hogs the media, but the Segal apparatus is seemingly permanent. It’s a sham operation and it should be immediately dismantled.
Dr Evan Jones is a political economist and former academic.
This article is the second in a two-part series by Dr Evan Jones examining Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal's 'Understanding Antisemitism in Australia' report. Read the first part here.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
Related Articles
- Jillian Segal's report turns criticism of Israel into a punishable offence
- Segal’s anti-antisemitism role draws criticism over free speech concerns
- Jillian Segal's plan to combat antisemitism straight from lobby group wish-list
