What is the controversial definition of antisemitism that institutions are being told to adopt?
Segal's recommendation to embed the alliance's definition in all public institutions last week came after a host of antisemitic attacks across Australia this year, including the doors of the East Melbourne synagogue being set alight earlier this month, and children at Jewish schools in Sydney being harassed with calls of 'Heil Hitler'.
However, pro-Palestinian and some human rights organisations fear the definition may stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its government by tying antisemitism to anti-Zionism, limiting the free speech.
So what is the definition? How widely used is it? And why has it become controversial?
What is the IHRA, and its definition of antisemitism?
The alliance was established by the Stockholm International Forum, a series of conferences held between 2000 and 2004, and convened by then-Swedish prime minister Göran Persson.
The conferences were held to combat 'the growth of extreme right-wing groups' that were spreading propaganda in schools, and to address a survey of Swedish young people that found knowledge of the Holocaust 'was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place', according to the Swedish government.
There are now 35 member states of IHRA, including Australia, Israel, the UK and the US, all of which adopted a 'non-legally binding working definition' of antisemitism in May 2016.
The definition adopted by the alliance states:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Islamist preacher unable to 'bury' anti-Semitism ruling
An Islamist preacher who used harmful racial stereotypes about Jewish people in sermons will be forced to tell the world of his anti-Semitism through prominent online posts. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad was ordered by the Federal Court earlier in July not to repeat the perverse and racist tropes used in a series of fiery sermons from November 2023. In the speeches, Mr Haddad - who is also known as William Haddad or Abu Ousayd - variously referred to Jewish people as "vile", "treacherous", "murderous" and "mischievous". Justice Angus Stewart found the sermons contained "perverse generalisations" against Jewish people and included racist, anti-Semitic tropes. The judge on Thursday ordered the preacher "pin" or "feature" corrective notices describing the court's findings to the centre's website and social media pages on Facebook, Rumble, Instagram and Soundcloud. He has been given 21 days to comply with the order and the posts had not been made as of Thursday afternoon. Mr Haddad objected to prominently displaying the notices, saying this would go beyond what was ordinarily ordered by the courts. Pinning the posts would be tantamount to promoting or advertising the findings, he said. Justice Stewart ordered the notices to be pinned for 30 days, saying the requirement was not unduly burdensome and would stop them disappearing from view. "It will prevent them from being deliberately buried by way of successive further posts," the judge wrote. Promoting the notices was part of their objective, he said. "The respondents promoted the unlawful lectures and it is not disproportionate to require them to promote the corrective notice in the relatively constrained manner described above as an appropriate form of redress," he wrote in his judgment. The notice itself highlights the "unlawful behaviour based on racial hatred" of Mr Haddad and the centre. The three lectures - titled "The Jews of Al Medina" and published on video hosting site Rumble - were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish members of the Australian community, the notice says. The lawsuit was brought by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who claimed the lectures were offensive and could incite violence towards Jewish people. The pair said they were vindicated by Justice Stewart's findings, saying no community in Australia should be dehumanised. "Freedom of expression should not be abused by the promotion of hateful anti-Semitism and those who wish to do so should know that conduct shouldn't be tolerated by us," Mr Goot told reporters after the judgment. The cleric has been ordered to remove the lectures and not to repeat similar racist statements about Jewish people in public. He will also have to pay the legal bill for Mr Wertheim and Mr Goot, which is estimated to be in the six figures. Mr Haddad's speeches were delivered after Hamas, designated by Australia as a terrorist group, attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. The attack sparked Israeli retaliation that has left Gaza in turmoil and tens of thousands of civilians dead.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Islamist preacher unable to 'bury' anti-Semitism ruling
An Islamist preacher who used harmful racial stereotypes about Jewish people in sermons will be forced to tell the world of his anti-Semitism through prominent online posts. Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric Wissam Haddad was ordered by the Federal Court earlier in July not to repeat the perverse and racist tropes used in a series of fiery sermons from November 2023. In the speeches, Mr Haddad - who is also known as William Haddad or Abu Ousayd - variously referred to Jewish people as "vile", "treacherous", "murderous" and "mischievous". Justice Angus Stewart found the sermons contained "perverse generalisations" against Jewish people and included racist, anti-Semitic tropes. The judge on Thursday ordered the preacher "pin" or "feature" corrective notices describing the court's findings to the centre's website and social media pages on Facebook, Rumble, Instagram and Soundcloud. He has been given 21 days to comply with the order and the posts had not been made as of Thursday afternoon. Mr Haddad objected to prominently displaying the notices, saying this would go beyond what was ordinarily ordered by the courts. Pinning the posts would be tantamount to promoting or advertising the findings, he said. Justice Stewart ordered the notices to be pinned for 30 days, saying the requirement was not unduly burdensome and would stop them disappearing from view. "It will prevent them from being deliberately buried by way of successive further posts," the judge wrote. Promoting the notices was part of their objective, he said. "The respondents promoted the unlawful lectures and it is not disproportionate to require them to promote the corrective notice in the relatively constrained manner described above as an appropriate form of redress," he wrote in his judgment. The notice itself highlights the "unlawful behaviour based on racial hatred" of Mr Haddad and the centre. The three lectures - titled "The Jews of Al Medina" and published on video hosting site Rumble - were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish members of the Australian community, the notice says. The lawsuit was brought by Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot, who claimed the lectures were offensive and could incite violence towards Jewish people. The pair said they were vindicated by Justice Stewart's findings, saying no community in Australia should be dehumanised. "Freedom of expression should not be abused by the promotion of hateful anti-Semitism and those who wish to do so should know that conduct shouldn't be tolerated by us," Mr Goot told reporters after the judgment. The cleric has been ordered to remove the lectures and not to repeat similar racist statements about Jewish people in public. He will also have to pay the legal bill for Mr Wertheim and Mr Goot, which is estimated to be in the six figures. Mr Haddad's speeches were delivered after Hamas, designated by Australia as a terrorist group, attacked Israel on October 7, 2023. The attack sparked Israeli retaliation that has left Gaza in turmoil and tens of thousands of civilians dead.
The Advertiser
11 hours ago
- The Advertiser
I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy
Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely. Turns out that the federal government's anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal and I have a lot in common. We are both oldish. We are both Jewish. And we are both so very married. I reckon Segal must have been married to John Roth for close to 40 years. Same! Same! My spouse and I got married in 1983. Now I'd like to think I know my spouse better than I know the back of my hand (and he is far more interesting than my wrinkled, be-veined specimen). Shocking news this week that not all couples married for decades have a clue about their partners. The Australian Electoral Commission donation records show that Henroth Investments gave $50,000 to Advance Australia in 2023-24. Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth. And Segal claims she didn't know about the donation. I asked one of my kids about this. She said: Maybe rich people don't know where $50k goes. Maybe. But I think I'd know if my husband was supporting a divisive disgusting political organisation and if he was, I'd then file for divorce. Even if she didn't know before the weekend, she knows now. For those who don't know, Advance Australia campaigns against immigration (Mr Roth, pretty sure you are from a family of migrants), it campaigns against Welcome to Country. It was part of the ugly campaign against the Voice to Parliament. Which is weird. Is it just opposed to an Indigenous Voice to Parliament? Or all voices to parliament? And if so, why is it not campaigning against special envoys on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? Let me be straight with you. These special envoys are just voices to parliament with direct access to government. They act as advocates and advisors for their specific cause. I would dearly love to wipe out both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and am thrilled that the government decided these two forms of bigotry and hatred needed to be addressed in this particular way. So let's also address one elephant in the room. While Israel continues to commit mass murder in Gaza, anti-Semitism will continue to rise. There's a link between military operations (also known as war) conducted against Palestinians by Israel and the resultant rise in anti-Semitic behaviours. Three studies all found a clear correlation - including one paper by Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani and others that examined 673 incidents between October 2013 and September 2017, well before this current razing of Gaza. The other elephant? Why not a special envoy to address the hatred of Aboriginal people in this country? Yes, Australians voted against the Voice to Parliament. Why did this government give Australians the chance to be racist bigots, the chance to play to their lowest natures? Anthony Albanese could have had an entire phalanx of Indigenous envoys to write reports and make recommendations on how to fix the problem, so devastatingly expressed in the coroner's report into the death of Kumanjayi Walker. Racism coming out of our bleeding ears. So, if 50 grand is unimportant, how about the sentiment of the man who gives this money to a bunch of racists? Can't you tell the measure of a man by the company his money keeps? Or is it only racism against Jews which concerns you? Because if so, you are part of a much bigger problem. Which brings me to your report. One of the key recommendations in your report is that all levels of government should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. As Josh Bornstein writes: "In part, this definition states that it is anti-Semitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour." I'm a Jew. I want to be able to criticise Israel freely. I especially want to do that now as Benjamin Netanyahu bombs Gaza relentlessly, continues its mass slaughter of starving civilians. The IHRA definition also says it is anti-Semitic to draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. I'm assuming that means you can't mention the G-word. But in an extraordinary essay, leading genocide scholar Omer Bartov writes: "Discrediting genocide scholars who call out Israel's genocide in Gaza as anti-Semitic threatens to erode the foundation of genocide studies: the ongoing need to define, prevent, punish and reconstruct the history of genocide. Suggesting that this endeavour is motivated instead by malign interests and sentiments - that it is driven by the very hatred and prejudice that was at the root of the Holocaust - is not only morally scandalous, it provides an opening for a politics of denialism and impunity as well." Australia could adopt the Jerusalem definition, one which doesn't spend two-thirds of its focus on Israel. Dear Jillian, in your wafty deer-in-headlights performance, utterly lacking in facts, on the ABC's 7.30, you thought it was OK to suggest that you would monitor the outputs of the ABC and SBS. I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like. Which brings me to the federal government. How is it even possible that it did not do a check on those adjacent to Segal? My mind is boggled by this. And how did it think it was appropriate to nominate a person to this role who so clearly supports Israel's current behaviour? Jews experience anti-Semitism every single day in this country and that's what needs to be urgently addressed. If you conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism you make it worse for all of us, you make anti-Semitism far more likely.
