Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start
- Written by: Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney
The antisemitism strategy presented to the Albanese government has attracted considerable – and wholly justifed – criticism.
Produced by Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, the blueprint falls short in a range of areas essential to good public policy. This is due to its biased arguments, weak evidence and recommendation overreach.
There is also the adoption of a contentious definition of antisemitism which has been criticised for conflating disapproval of Israel with anti-Jewish prejudice.
Alternative definition
The strategy uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, manifestations of which could include criticising the state of Israel.
However, this definition is contentious – so much so that its original author, Kenneth Stern, has rejected it as a tool for regulating antisemitism due its potential to be weaponised to silence free speech.
Other widely used definitions are unacknowledged in the report. These include the Jerusalem Declaration, which attempts to strike a better balance between antisemitism and freedom of speech, including criticism of Israel and Zionism.
As the declaration notes:
hostility to Israel could be an expression of an antisemitic animus, or it could be a reaction to a human rights violation, or it could be the emotion that a Palestinian person feels on account of their experience at the hands of the state.
Biased Argument
The report presents a clear and consistent argument: antisemitism has been on the rise in Australia, especially since the Hamas attacks in October 2023. It is particularly obvious in universities and cultural institutions.
Antisemitism is an insidious form of prejudice and hatred which is destructive not only to the Jewish community, but to the very fabric of Australian society. It requires a community-wide response to stamp it out.
The report is underpinned by Segal’s principled aspiration to ensure “all Australians, including Jewish Australians, can live with dignity, fairness, safety and mutual respect”.
But there are multiple problems with how this argument is presented.
First, it is sweeping in its application. A good example is the claim antisemitism “has become ingrained and normalised within academia and the cultural space”.
No explanation is given to what these terms mean, or what these practices entail. Without such qualifiers, readers could easily be misguided in thinking the problem is more pronounced than it actually is.
Weak evidence
The report provides alarming statistics about the rise in reported cases of antisemitism in Australia, including a claimed 316% spike in the 12 months to October 2024.
It pays particular attention to antisemitism in the university sector, quoting a survey by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, which noted more than 60% of Jewish students who experienced antisemitism felt unsupported by their institutions.
No doubt there has been a surge in antisemitic hatred, but there are significant problems with how evidence for it is presented in the report. Segal fails to produce a single citation, which makes it impossible to access the data and assess its veracity.
Baseline figures, details about who collated the data, the investigation of incidents and their resolution, are all missing.
The report also misquotes an important source.
It states “in February 2025, ASIO Director General Mike Burgess declared antisemitism is Australia’s leading threat to life”.
In fact, what Burgess actually said was:
In terms of threats to life, it’s my agency’s number one priority because of the weight of incidents we’re seeing play out in this country.
There are subtle yet important differences in these two statements, which need to be carefully parsed when dealing with such a serious issue.
Gaza ignored
Also problematic is the singular focus on extremist ideologies as the reason for the rise in antisemitism.
In doing so, the strategy omits a compelling fact: the recent upsurge is likely linked to Israel’s war on Gaza which has resulted in mass Palestinian civilian casualties over the past 20 months.
As international law expert Ben Saul argues:
People did not just inexplicably and without context decide to become more antisemitic in that period. [It was fuelled by] fury at Israel’s profound violations of international law in Gaza.
Furthermore, while Segal claims to be focused on mutual respect, she fails to acknowledge other groups that face similar forms of racism and discrimination, including Australia’s Indigenous peoples and Islamic communities.
In doing so, the report appears to be seeking special treatment for the Australian Jewish community.
Recommendation overreach
Much of the negative reaction to the report has rightly been focused on its far-reaching punitive recommendations, which have been described as Trumpian.
Many are directed towards the education sector, including threatened cuts to school and university funding, and extending the capacity to terminate staff who engage in “antisemitic” behaviours.
Segal envisages creating a “university report card” to adjudicate on universities that are failing the standard, presumably set against her preferred antisemitism definition.
The media and the cultural sector more broadly are also in Segal’s headlights, with recommendations to establish herself as a media monitor to ensure “fair and balanced reporting”. Charitable institutions deemed to be supporting antisemitism would lose their tax-deduction status.
These highly controversial measures are an overreach of the envoy’s terms of reference.
Segal’s mandate specifies her role is as an advisor to government, not a regulator. By taking such a drastic approach, the antisemitism strategy risks stoking further social division.
The government, which is considering the recommendations, must proceed very cautiously.
Authors: Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney
