Difficult question still facing anti-Semitism inquiry

As Australian Jews gave evidence of their experiences of anti-Semitism last month, Virginia Bell, chair of the royal commission into the Bondi attacks, concluded by asking many of them a question.

He asked about his personal connections to Israel.

Many, but not all, said they felt a strong connection or that Israel contributed to their identity in a meaningful way, a connection that made them Zionists, the former Supreme Court justice said.

Answering the question of whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism is the stated aim of the ongoing Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism and Social Cohesion.

On Friday, the commission wrapped up a week of closed-door hearings into the intelligence and law enforcement response to the Bondi attack.

But as the inquiry prepares to reopen its doors for a third hearing into institutional antisemitism, it is grappling with very different definitions and perspectives on Zionism within and beyond its walls.

Some say it would be a mistake to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and call for the commission to make sure it hears diverse Jewish voices.

However, many Jews argue that criticism of Israel’s actions should be directed at the government of the day, not Australian Jews.

Some see Zionism as support for Jews to live peacefully in Israel, while others see it as a justification for bloodshed and degradation of human rights.

Deakin University Middle East expert Andrew Thomas says Australians may struggle to find common ground due to the lack of a clear common definition or differing understandings of what Zionism is.

“The reason people see it as complicated is because it is complicated,” he told AAP.

Commissioner Bell summarized the definitions of Zionism that the witnesses gave to the commission.

“If I could summarize it, it is the belief in the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland in part of their ancestral land in Palestine,” he said.

None of the witnesses said that genuine criticism of the Israeli government did not amount to anti-Semitism.

Dr Thomas, who is not Jewish, says modern Zionism is a political movement, although it has some basis in biblical texts, adding that it is not homogeneous like any ideological or political movement.

Currently, he says, Zionism is in most cases conflated with the most extreme version, personified by right-wing Israeli politicians such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He says Netanyahu and others represent “revisionist Zionism,” which expresses the view that Jews in Israel should not be docile and should take what they see as their own through military force and annexation.

There are also many people who fall under the definition of “liberal Zionist”.

Dr Thomas says it is perfectly possible and legitimate for a Jew to consider himself a Zionist without supporting the actions of the state of Israel.

However, there are many within the Jewish community who view Zionism as much more charged and who say that defending Zionism is used to suppress criticism of the injustices inherent in Israel’s existence.

Sarah Schwartz founded the Jewish Council in 2024 to provide balance to pro-Israel Jewish organizations.

He says it’s critical that the commission listen to a wide range of Jewish voices.

“Jewish voices that support and are part of the Palestinian human rights movement do not see their own identity as integral to support for Israel,” Ms Schwartz told AAP.

Ms. Schwartz says Zionism should be judged by what it means in practice.

The reality is that the creation of the state of Israel clearly prioritizes the rights of the Jewish people over the rights of Palestinians, leading to the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, he says.

“Many people would say that political Zionism today is about supporting the maintenance of a Jewish-majority state in a land that is also the home of Palestinians,” Ms. Schwartz says.

In his view, the claim that Zionism is only about the question of whether Israel has the right to exist ignores the issue of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.

“This is something that Israel has been promoting for a very long time in defense of its own actions,” he says.

“The fact that people have different views on what Zionism means shows that it should be open to free discussion, debate and criticism.”

Dr Thomas notes that criticism of Zionism “does not appear out of thin air”.

He says that apartheid and ethnic cleansing are highly observed in the West Bank and that there is serious debate about the use of the term genocide.

“This is why Zionism attracts criticism,” says Dr Thomas.

“This is not just pure anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish people.”

He shares Ms. Schwartz’s concerns and says that while much anti-Zionist rhetoric is anti-Semitic, they are not the same thing.

“I fear that the royal commission will try to conflate these two concepts,” he says.

Senior Rabbi Daniel Rabin of Caulfield Shule in Melbourne testified to the commission.

He says he feels anti-Zionism much more personally and that he is not alone in the Jewish community.

“Zionism is a big part of Jewish culture, so for someone to say they are against it is anti-Semitic,” Mr. Rabin said.

“When you look at the mantra or the statements of those who killed people in Bondi, it was saying ‘This is against the Zionists’, so I don’t think we were sensitive enough to understand how dangerous this was.”

Mr. Rabin argues that criticism of Israel should be directed at the government of the day.

He says the Jews just want the language used to be changed.

“If I don’t like Anthony Albanese and his policies, I’m not anti-Australian, I’m against the Labor government,” he said.

“If they don’t like the current government, then they’re not anti-Zionist, they’re anti-current government; say so.”

“If Jews tell you that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism, maybe you should listen.”