The reluctance of Australia’s public broadcasters to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism should not surprise anyone who understands the institutional culture of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS). The surprise would be if they embraced it enthusiastically.

For years, both broadcasters have positioned themselves not merely as neutral conveyors of information, but as custodians of a particular liberal-progressive worldview. Within that worldview, identity politics, post-colonial analysis, and activist-driven journalism increasingly shape editorial instincts. The IHRA definition presents a challenge to that framework because it complicates one of its central moral binaries: oppressed versus oppressor.

The debate over Israel and antisemitism sits awkwardly inside modern progressive politics. Israel is frequently framed as a colonial or “settler” state. The IHRA definition, particularly its illustrative examples relating to Israel, forces institutions to confront when anti-Zionist rhetoric crosses into antisemitism. That creates discomfort in organisations where criticism of Israel is often treated as politically straightforward rather than morally complex.

Yet one of the most persistent misconceptions about the IHRA definition is that it prohibits criticism of Israel or the Israeli government. It does not. The definition explicitly allows for legitimate criticism of Israel in the same way criticism is directed at any other country. Israel is a democracy. Like all democracies, its governments, leaders, military decisions, and public policies are open to scrutiny, criticism, and debate. Israelis themselves engage in fierce internal political argument every day.

The issue is not criticism. The issue is disproportionate and discriminatory criticism: when Israel alone is subjected to standards not applied to any other nation, when Jewish self-determination is uniquely delegitimised, or when rhetoric about Israel slips into conspiratorial, dehumanising, or collective accusations against Jews. That is precisely why the IHRA definition matters. It attempts to distinguish between legitimate political disagreement and rhetoric that crosses into antisemitism.

Public broadcasters have an obligation to preserve robust debate, particularly on matters of war, foreign policy, and human rights. But the refusal to adopt IHRA........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)