‘Dangerous’ narrative reducing Zionism to colonialism ‘justifies violence’, expert tells anti-Semitism inquiry

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians is being hindered by treating Zionism as a “form of western colonialism”, a hate inquiry has heard.

The leader of a Jewish charity in the United Kingdom claimed that the same narrative also “justifies the use of violence.”

The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion met in the early hours of Thursday morning to hear evidence from Community Security Trust policy director Dave Rich MBE, who wrote an expert report on his views on antisemitism and how it manifests in society.

Describing claims that Zionism is merely Western colonialism as a “historically inaccurate” and “highly dangerous” narrative, he told the hearing that the Jewish people have an ancient and legitimate connection to these lands.

“Jews had always lived in the land of Israel… they were refugees fleeing anti-Semitism, pushed out, squeezed out of their own society,” Dr Rich said, calling an audiovisual link from London.

“So historically this argument is not valid… The danger of this lies in a sort of modern radical left theory… (that) colonizers can never have rights.”

Speaking of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, he said the towns attacked were not in legally disputed territory but there was a sentiment of “Well what do they expect? They’re colonisers”.

“This is a narrative that prohibits reconciliation, dilutes the idea of ​​working for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and legitimizes the use of violence within Israel itself against Israeli citizens,” he said.

“So in this way of thinking, anyone in the west who supports Israel… is therefore a colonizer… a racist… can be ostracized, attacked, demonized. “And that’s what we’re seeing happening to a lot of Jewish people right now.”

Using the Holocaust in political debates is ‘wrong’: hate investigation

He branded the use of the Holocaust in political debate “wrong” and, when cross-examined extensively by Peggy Dwyer SC on behalf of the Jewish Council of Australia, said he struggled to think of scenarios in which comparing Israel to the Nazis could not be considered anti-Semitic.

He asked him whether the classification of comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany as anti-Semitism depends on the circumstances and subtleties.

“I think the starting point is that it’s often anti-Semitism… it’s hard to think of situations where that wouldn’t happen,” Dr Rich replied. Rich.

Dr Dwyer said at the start of questions that the organization had warned against the use of Nazi symbols but wanted to ensure that legitimate criticism of Israel was not “weaponised”.

Ultimately, Dr. acknowledges that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism makes clear that comparisons with Israel’s policies and the Nazis will not be classified as antisemitism. Rich said he found it “wrong” to use the Holocaust as a “political tool” in discussions.

“There are many other historical comparisons that can be used,” Dr Rich said.

He said the Holocaust is often used in the context of Israeli politics, but takes on a different meaning when used in other contexts.

“When you take that out of the arena, it starts to take on a whole different meaning,” he said.

Dr Dwyer said the comparisons might be “inaccurate” and “extremely sensitive”, but they were not necessarily anti-Semitism, which was an important distinction.

“That’s true, but… they can often reasonably be considered anti-Semitism,” he replied.

He had previously told the hearing that anti-Semitic allegations pegged Jewish people that modern-day Nazis were “hurtful” and “completely distorted the history of the Holocaust.”

“He takes Jewish pain and turns it against Jews,” he said.

Dr Rich argued that this contained the subliminal message that “We don’t need to care about the Holocaust anymore.”

“So this is hurtful and harmful to Jews, historically inaccurate… It completely distorts the history of the Holocaust… It also undermines the core values ​​of society,” he said.

Expert defends ‘vague’ definition of anti-Semitism

Dr Rich defended the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, describing it as a guiding tool for detecting cases of antisemitism.

The IHRA defines antisemitism as: “A specific perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed against Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, Jewish community institutions, and religious facilities.”

The organization also includes a series of examples to guide people in identifying antisemitism.

Dr Rich told the hearing that a common understanding and definition of antisemitism could help inform policymakers and make it easier to recognize and combat antisemitism.

“If governments are to develop policies and measures to combat antisemitism, it is necessary to have a common understanding of what antisemitism is,” he said.

Dr Dwyer dismissed claims that the definition had “serious flaws”, saying it was “vague”, while Dr Rich said “flexibility” was crucial.

He has previously described it as “a set of lights to guide you on your path as an investigator” when determining whether an incident is anti-Semitic.

“It places a great responsibility on the individual to use his or her own judgment to evaluate each case on its own merits,” he said.

“Anti-Semitism is a very serious allegation in terms of its level… I think it is right, fair and correct to evaluate each case on its merits.”

He also rejected suggestions that the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism might be a better tool, telling the hearing that it was “much longer” and impractical.

“Can the security guard at the MCG who had a complaint about anti-Semitism…use this declaration as a useful, practical tool?” he said.

“That stadium security guard would get about a third of the way through and give up.”

Antisemitism is a conspiracy theory that undermines democratic values

Dr Rich also told the hate inquiry that antisemitism was a “common feature” of religious and political extremism, describing it as “anti-democratic” that undermines the core values ​​of liberal democracies.

He told the royal commission that antisemitism was at its core a “conspiracy theory” that held Jews responsible for everything that happened in the world.

“It reinforces conspiracy theory interpretations of the world and society and undermines trust in institutions and authority,” he said.

“The growth of antisemitism, the spread of antisemitism from the margins of society to the mainstream, should be a great alarm call for all those who care about liberal democracy, truth, the rule of law, trust in institutions and social harmony.”

Dr Rich’s evidence concludes the first block of hearings at the royal commission, with the second block set to begin on 25 May.

It will examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged terrorist attack in Bondi on December 14, 2025, which killed 15 innocent people.