Published online in the Australian Financial Review, 15 July 2025.
The IHRA definition does no more than recognise that anti-Zionism may or may not be antisemitic in its motivation or effects. It nearly always depends on how points are made, content and context.
Of course, political criticism of Israel is legitimate, even warranted, sometimes. But antisemitism, a term for anti-Jewish racism and hatred is not. That is at the heart of Australia’s Antisemitism Envoy’s, Jillian Segal’s, call for effective education, monitoring and management of those who overstep the mark.
In Australia, criticism of Israel is commonplace. Deserved criticism of the wild men in the Israeli Cabinet, including Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, for their racist statements about Palestinians, is a case in point.
But some demonstrations are violent, filled with loathing for Jews. When that happens, it is antisemitism. Clear definitions are needed. Otherwise, we are left only with capricious, subjective judgement fuelled, more often than not, by prejudice and ignorance. That is where the current debate is located.
Naturally, defence of free speech is bundled into the question of limits, definitions, and what are ‘red lines’ as to what is said and done. This article explores the controversy.
In 2021, the Australian government, on a bi-partisan basis, supported the definition of antisemitism adopted 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.”
Adopted in May 2016 in Bucharest by Alliance members including governments and community organisations, the stakeholders determined to reach agreement about antisemitic terms.
On the weekend, Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy, in his ‘Insiders’ interview reaffirmed Australia’s support for the definition.
Yet some human rights groups, claiming to champion fair, legitimate dissent, say that the definition “conflates” criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Does it?
Here is what the definition itself says: “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The definition then provides 11 illustrative examples of antisemitism, some relating to Israel, but only on the basis that these “could, taking into account the overall context” amount to antisemitism. It is not automatic. There is no blanket characterisation of any particular set of words as antisemitic. Each case must be assessed in context and on its merits. The “conflation” assertion is thus entirely bogus.
Common sense should tell us that it is as fallacious to argue that political criticism of Israel, or of Zionism as a set of beliefs, can never amount to antisemitism, as it is to argue that such criticism always amounts to antisemitism.
To take an extreme example, the words “F… Israel” spraypainted on the front of a synagogue in Australia are obviously both anti-Zionist and antisemitic. The IHRA definition cites more subtle and insidious examples of where anti-Zionism and antisemitism may coincide.
Commentators who deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination while claiming that very right for Palestinians; or who require Israel to observe standards of behaviour exceeding that to which other democratic nations are held; or who draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; or who hold Jews in Australia collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel, may well be transgressing into antisemitism. Every case must be assessed individually. The actual language used, and the context will be critical.
Kenneth S. Stern is put forward by IHRA’s critics as the “author” of the definition who now disowns his creation. His is an important, legitimate voice. But, in fact, he was neither the sole nor even the principal author; a team of people drafted it, including the former Canadian Attorney-General and human rights lawyer, Irwin Cotler. Stern has not disowned the definition. He is critical of the way that some proponents of the definition distort its meaning in order over-state its effect. One could make an identical criticism of IHRA’s detractors. Stern says the link between antisemitism and anti-Zionism needs to be treated with extreme care. Agreed. He does not say there is no link.
The IHRA definition does no more than recognise that anti-Zionism may or may not be antisemitic in its motivation or effects. It depends on how points are made, content and context. It nearly always does.
The obvious conclusion is that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are neither identical nor mutually exclusive. The relationship between them can be represented by a Venn diagram, with a considerable area of overlap.
Are shouts “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” antisemitic? If the objective effect is a call for the wholesale destruction or abolition of Israel as a country as opposed to engaging in a political debate regarding its borders and/or the actions of the Israeli government vis a vis Palestinians, then yes, even if the yellers don’t know which sea, which river.
In a case this May before the UK High Court, Justice Chamberlain referenced the IHRA definition and ruled: “If properly understood—i.e., as examples of speech which could, depending on the context, be antisemitic—most of the IHRA’s examples are, in my view, both unobjectionable and useful…It must also be borne in mind that the IHRA’s examples were billed as “contemporary examples” in 2016. They were not intended to set the parameters of legitimate political debate for all time.”
That is the reasonable interpretation of the IHRA examples and of Australia’s Antisemitism Envoy’s call to action.
