Australians should be appalled by the rise in antisemitism, including arson, vandalism, assaults, abuse and threats. Every person in our country has the human right to live free from fear, racism and discrimination. Many positive steps have already been taken to address it. Some measures have gone too far, like the New South Wales government’s law criminalising protest outside places of worship and disproportionate, blanket bans on certain protests in universities.
Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, also goes too far in some ways, and not far enough in others in her recently released plan.
Segal’s plan goes too far in urging the widespread adoption of the definition of antisemitism prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. The definition itself is innocuous enough, essentially addressing bias or hatred towards Jews. Eleven examples are then given to illustrate it.
There are three key problems with the IHRA approach. Firstly, it was intended to be a non-binding monitoring and awareness raising tool, not an operational definition for disciplining staff or students, cutting funding to universities or arts institutions, censoring the media or excluding immigrants – strategies which appear similar to the Trump Administration’s. It is too vague and broad to operate as a binding instrument of enforcement and punishment. Even its key drafter, Kenneth Stern, opposed its use as a legal or regulatory tool, including in universities.
Secondly, the IHRA approach is not consistent with human rights and excessively infringes on legitimate freedom of expression. International law allows free speech to be limited where a person incites violence, or national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. United Nations human rights mechanisms and the world’s leading human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have rejected the IHRA approach.
The real problem lies in some of the examples given to illustrate the IHRA definition, which the special envoy wants adopted in Australia even though they are not part of the definition. Many of the examples are not usually problematic, such as inciting violence, harmful stereotypes, collectively blaming Jews, Holocaust denial and “blood libel” tropes. Even these can still be misused, as where mention of “intifada” or wearing a kaffiyeh scarf as a symbol of resistance, regardless of context, is interpreted as violently antisemitic.
Other examples – particularly because of how they are weaponised against critics of Israel in practice – are controversial. Example 7, denying Jewish self-determination or claiming that Israel is a racist endeavour, can be invoked to silence, for example, legitimate discussion of a plural “one state” solution to the conflict or lawful chants like “from the river to the sea”. It can also be weaponised to crush critique of how Israel purports to exercise self-determination over land that does not belong to it, as well as Israeli practices of racial segregation or apartheid and religious nationalism.
Example 8 refers to applying double standards by requiring of Israel behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. This example clearly conflates criticism of Israel with racism against Jews and does not necessarily have anything to do with antisemitism, although in some cases it could do so. It is also often a red herring. Israel is not generally expected to behave differently to other democracies. It is expected to respect the same international legal standards as other democracies. The unique nature of Israel’s near-60 year occupation of Palestine, unresolved human rights issues stemming from its foundation in 1948 (including refugees, property and compensation), and the severity of Israel’s violations of international law – Israel’s choice – are what makes it a target of accountability efforts, including lawful boycott, divestment and sanctions.
Abstract definitions operate in the real world. The vaguer they are, the more they are susceptible to being instrumentalised for political goals. The United Nations human rights mechanisms, including my own, have documented the heavy repression of pro-Palestine speech, protests and organisations in western democracies, including the US, UK, Germany, France and Australia.
Personally, I have seen academic conferences and colleagues self-censoring for fear of falling foul of vague and overly broad policies and disciplinary procedures on antisemitism and protest. In some ways the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. It has not been helped by orchestrated campaigns by pro-Israel advocacy groups to smear and bully Israel’s critics, including through aggressive lawfare, and destroy their reputations and livelihoods.
The IHRA approach is divisive and controversial, including among Jews. This alone makes its adoption counter-productive, because it can never build the consensus necessary to unify national efforts to effectively combat antisemitism. There are better definitions available, including the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.
Separately, Segal’s plan does not go far enough because in identifying the “drivers” of antisemitism, it simplistically blames “extremist ideologies”, as if these mysteriously appeared out of thin air. There is no mention of a totally misguided but nonetheless structural driver of antisemitism – fury at Israel’s profound violations of international law in Gaza. The upsurge in antisemitism in Australia clearly correlates with the 21 months of violence since the atrocious Hamas attack on Israel of 7 October 2023. People did not just inexplicably and without context decide to become more antisemitic in that period.
Israeli violations can never justify blaming and attacking Jewish Australians and do not help Palestinians. But the special envoy’s plan will never be effective if it tackles only the symptoms and refuses to acknowledge let alone address a key driver.
The government must act in the best interests of all Australians when combating all forms of racism, including to defend free speech and human rights, and not simply genuflect to the incessant, excessive demands of some Jewish voices.
• Ben Saul is Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
