Antisemitism or accountability? Drawing the line without erasing free speech

Dr. As Australia tightens its hate speech laws, the flawed definition of antisemitism risks being weaponized to thwart legitimate criticism of Israel rather than confronting real hatred, writes Mark Diesendorf.

The passage of hate speech legislation and the upcoming Royal Commission Terrorist attack on Bondi and on antisemitism, Australia needs a clear and useful definition of antisemitism that protects freedom of expression without promoting hatred or discrimination.

Australian Government in 2021 adoptedFor “policy guidance”: ‘Non-legally binding working definition’ Recommended by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IRA):

‘Antisemitism is a specific perception of Jews that can be expressed as hatred towards Jews. ‘Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed against Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, Jewish community institutions, and religious facilities.’

This definition has proven controversial because it is poorly specified and is open to conflicting interpretations. Perhaps because of these limitations, the accompanying text contains 11 alleged “examples” and statements of antisemitism (here referred to as Statement A). ‘Criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other country cannot be considered antisemitic.’.

This may seem reassuring to supporters of free speech until they consider two of the antisemitism allegations added to the current definition. These two, discussed below, directly contradict Declaration A, ignoring specific criticisms of Israel that could be applied to any other country. This is actively provides support For those who want silence any criticism He evaluates Israel’s policies and actions by labeling them “anti-Semitic”.

This article summarizes the reasons for rejecting two dubious “examples” and opting for a better definition of antisemitism.

Comparing Israel’s policies to those of the Nazis

The first “example” of the IHRA: ‘Comparing contemporary Israeli policy with that of the Nazis.’

If Declaration A is implemented, if any country pursues policies similar to those of the Nazis (for example, implementing apartheid, concentration camps and genocide), then a comparison with Nazi policies cannot be ruled out. But “any country” includes Israel.

It was announced that Israel is pursuing a policy of genocide United Nations Special RapporteursUN affiliated Independent International Commission of Inquiry into the Occupied Palestinian Territories and leading human rights organizations Amnesty International And Israeli organizations B’Tselem and Doctors for Human Rights.

While Israel did not use gas chambers to commit genocide, it turned Gaza into a hell. actual The concentration camp traps millions of Palestinians in a small, dwindling area and severely limits residents’ access to food, water, shelter, medical supplies and fuel. As a result, Palestinians die from starvation, wounds, exposure and many diseases.

Moreover, Israel appears to be targeting Palestinian healthcare workers, aid workers, hospitals, journalists, schools, universities, water supplies, refugee camps, sewage treatment plants, power plants, and homes with bombs, missiles, artillery, and sniper rifles. It is difficult to avoid the inference of Israeli intentionality. We are making Gaza uninhabitable.

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

It is claimed that Israel carried out reproductive genocide By bombing Gaza’s main in vitro fertilization center, direct attacks on hospital maternity wards, and systematically creating high-risk environments for birth. Nazis restricted Jewish reproduction Nuremberg Laws of 1935 Prohibited marriage and sexual relations between Jews and “Aryans”, possible chemical sterilization Jewish women in concentration camps and other vehicles.

Meanwhile, in the West Bank, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) actively and passively supporting destruction Destruction of Palestinian homes, farms, and villages and killing of individuals by Israeli settlers.

Is Israel a racist state?

Second IHRA “example”: ‘Denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, for example claiming that the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.’

This “example” actually has two parts because the following sentence ‘for example’ It is not a logical consequence of the first part.

Most people accept the right of Jews to establish their own communities on land, including a state. soil nullius (if such land exists) or land purchased from persons who voluntarily sold it. However, most of the territory controlled by Israel was obtained through Israeli force before 1948. Zionist terrorist groups (And Here) and subsequently by the IDF and settler groups.

Israel was founded by settler colonialism. main partner Historically there has been racism. Racism allows colonizers to feel morally justified in violating the human rights of the colonized. It has been made clear by Israeli politicians and others that some leading Israeli colonists viewed themselves as belonging to a superior “race.” Palestinians are called “animals,” “vermin” and “insects”.

Many Jews see themselves as a people chosen by God; This is a concept weaponized by the Israeli Government and is similar to the Nazis’ belief that they are a master race. In both cases, people who are discriminated against are seen as worthless and therefore without human rights. IDF snipers confessed We deliberately target Palestinians, including childrenThey were desperately lining up for possible meager food distribution.

The fundamental question is: Does the State of Israel deny the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and human rights by claiming that the Jews are a chosen or superior people and thus implementing a policy of apartheid? If so, it could be argued that Israel in its present form could validly be described as “racist” in the popular sense, thus refuting the IHRA’s labeling of this “example” as antisemitism.

The above argument can be applied to any state that claims racial superiority and practices apartheid.

An alternative definition

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

An alternative definition is Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. It was developed by a group of 270 scholars working in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies, and Middle Eastern studies to provide guidance for detecting and combating antisemitism while protecting freedom of expression.

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

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

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

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

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.