Jack Waterford's May 2 column, ostensibly on the Royal Commission, rehashed many of the untrue claims he has made about Israel and the Australian Jewish community in numerous previous columns, many of which are also talking points for other critics. It therefore warrants a detailed rebuttal.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

As is his wont, Waterford makes various claims about the Australian Jewish community and our beliefs. To be clear, Waterford does not speak for us. He speaks against us.

One of his most insidious and often-repeated claims is that Jewish community organisations regard any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. This is simply untrue. Mainstream Jewish community organisations unanimously endorse the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, also adopted by our federal government and opposition. The IHRA definition specifically states, "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic," before giving examples of when certain conduct related to Israel can be anti-Semitic, such as applying double standards to it or denying the Jewish right to self-determination by denying Israel's right to exist. In some cases, animosity to Israel crosses into anti-Semitism. In others, anti-Semitism is the motivation for such animosity, with the Jewish state substituted for the Jewish people.

Waterford's claim is insidious because it is basically urging dismissal of the formal Jewish community's expertise on anti-Semitism at a time anti-Semitism has never been more problematic in Australia.

Waterford objects to ASIO regarding anti-Semitism as only affecting Jews, not also Muslims and Christians as other Semitic peoples. Anti-Semitism was a term coined specifically to refer to hatred of Jews. Trying to falsely broaden it is an insidious attempt to dilute the........

© Canberra Times