With the forthcoming Royal Commission into the Bondi terror attack and antisemitism, and the rushed passing of the hate speech legislation in response to that attack, it’s clear that Australia needs a definition of antisemitism that’s clear and useful, that maintains freedom of expression without supporting hatred or discrimination, and that most people can agree on.
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 lacks clarity and is 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”.
Statement A may appear reassuring to supporters of freedom of speech until they consider three of the 11 alleged ‘examples’ of antisemitism added to the working definition. These three, discussed below, directly contradict Statement A by ruling out specific criticisms of Israel that could be applied to any other country. Thus the ‘examples’ provide support for those who wish to silence any criticism of Israel’s policies and actions by labelling them as ‘antisemitic’.
I examine briefly three alleged ‘examples’ of antisemitism associated with the IHRA working definition that violate Statement A.
First ‘example’: “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.
Israel is currently developing a plan for what critics describe as a ‘concentration camp’ that would confine all 2.2 million inhabitants of Gaza in a small part of Gaza.
Second ‘example’: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”.
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’.
Thus the situation in Israel is very similar to that which existed in apartheid South Africa. Then, many countries declared South Africa a racist state. From 1962 onward, the UN General Assembly repeatedly condemned apartheid as a system of racial discrimination and racial domination.
Incidentally, the leading drafter of the IHRA working definition, Kenneth Stern, told US Congress in 2017 that there is a double standard in the application of the definition (expressed in the first part of this ‘example’), because there are pro-Israel groups that deny the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and the right of Palestine to exist.
Example 3: “Applying double standards by requiring of it [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”
At first sight, this may appear reasonable but, upon reflection, it could permit labelling as antisemitic any statement that focuses on Israeli abuses while worse abuses are deemed to have occurred elsewhere.
An alternative definition
The IHRA working definition, with the three ‘examples’ discussed above, must be rejected because it is used to silence criticisms of Israel’s crimes against humanity. Furthermore, equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism could increase antisemitic hatred and attacks.
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’.
