Catch 22? A problematic definition of antisemitism
The greatest single cause of the recent rise of antisemitism in Australia is the behaviour of Israel, which the Australian Government has not condemned.
The Australian Government has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, a definition criticised for equating antisemitism with criticism of Israel. It follows from this that, if the actions of Israel are largely responsible for the surge in antisemitic behaviour, then arguing that Israel’s actions are driving antisemititsm may be dismissed as yet another example of antisemitism itself: a catch 22 Joseph Heller would be proud of.
In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry on antisemitism, the Jewish Council of Australia reported that just 20 per cent of individual incidents of antisemitism were classified as antisemitic under its definition of ‘discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews, or Jewish institutions as Jewish’. Almost half the incidents amounted to support for Palestine or criticism of Israel or Zionism but did not meet its definition of antisemitism.
Israel’s influence in Australia operates primarily through well-funded political advocacy, organised lobbying and strong political ties on both sides. This influence is most visible in Canberra’s foreign policy decisions and across major Australian newsrooms. The pro-Israel lobby is highly effective in contacting mainstream media outlets to clarify facts, provide commentary and challenge what they deem to be biased or antisemitic reporting. In A Balcony over Jerusalem (2017), John Lyons states the Israeli influence on media and politics in Australia is stronger than in any other nation.
Human rights organisations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have documented that Israeli policies against Palestinians constitute apartheid and are a crime against humanity. The International Court of Justice determined it is plausible........
