Australia must distinguish antisemitism from criticism of Israel
Shahram Akbarzadeh
An Australian anti-antisemitism commission is under scrutiny for applying a definition that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic, sparking fears of curtailed debate. The article argues this conflation endangers public discourse and harms both Palestinians and Jewish Australians.
An article published on Al Jazeera argues that conflating criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism in Australia is creating a dangerous confusion. The author contends that questioning the actions of a foreign country does not amount to attacking a community linked to that country. The State of Israel is represented by its embassy in Canberra, not by Jewish communities in Australian cities and suburbs.
On December 14, 2025, two gunmen opened fire at a Hanukkah ceremony near Bondi Beach, Sydney, killing 15 people and wounding many others. In response to the serious attack, the federal government established a Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, headed by former High Court judge Virginia Bell. On April 30, 2026, the commission released an interim report expressing concerns about the definition of antisemitism.
The commission adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which includes examples that cite criticism of Israel as evidence of antisemitic behavior. The article's author argues such a broad definition lumps together criticism of Israeli policy in Gaza, treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank, and dehumanizing statements by Israeli officials against Palestinians into a racist attack on Jewish Australians.
This blurring is stifling public debate, narrowing the range of permissible language to describe Israel's actions in Gaza. The author criticises the official view that Israel has a "right to exist" and an obligation to protect its citizens, but this appears to give Israel carte blanche to devastate the entire Gaza Strip. No other country, the author argues, receives such special treatment. Australia also has a right to exist, yet that has never stopped Canberra governments from sharp criticism over issues like Indigenous land theft, offshore detention, or inaction on climate.
The article observes that invoking the "right to exist" and antisemitism in debates about Israel closes the door to open discussion of the State of Israel's conduct. One cannot speak of occupation, apartheid racism, or war crimes without being labelled antisemitic. This sets a troubling precedent, shielding Israel from political and moral accountability.
The author also points to the cost for Jewish Australians when this boundary is erased. Many Jewish Australians are uneasy seeing Gaza's devastation carried out in their name. Some have campaigned against Israeli actions. Assuming all Jews support Israeli actions denies their self-determination and risks branding dissenting voices as inauthentic.
The images of Gaza's destruction on the news have galvanised global public opinion. Many young Australians have marched in protest of Israeli policy and in support of Palestinian freedom. The author argues that branding these protests antisemitic would backfire, breeding resentment toward Australia's political system and, more dangerously, reinforcing the antisemitic narratives the commission needs to challenge.
The article proposes three standards to protect social cohesion: first, a clear distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israel; second, recognition of the diversity of Jewish opinion; third, protecting political space for Palestinians and their allies to describe their experiences, while rejecting any dehumanizing language about Jews.
