Antisemitism report confronts sinister threat but punitive solutions risk backfiring

The explosion of hate speech and violence against Jewish institutions, people and property in Australia, and around the world, since 7 October 2023, is widespread, spanning cities and states, public and private discourse. It is ongoing and it is a shocking thing for all Australians to contemplate. There has been fear on the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and many Jews have turned inward, perceiving the wider community as a source of danger and hostility.

The government’s creation of a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism a year ago was welcomed by the Jewish community as a nationally co-ordinated response to the crisis. Jillian Segal’s report released last week reflects the huge amount of work and consultation she has undertaken to provide that response.

The report addresses the full breadth of Australian society but at its heart is a recognition of the importance of education to counter the ignorance, falsehoods and distortions that have driven much of the antisemitic behaviour we have witnessed. The focus on education is well-founded: younger Australians, who are particularly vulnerable to toxic social media posts and violent imagery without context, need help to build a base of understanding.

The report proposes “to embed Holocaust and antisemitism education” in national and state school curricula. While this appears to be an ambitious goal, it is already partially underway in NSW. From 2027, students will study both World War One and World War Two, with compulsory components about the Holocaust and how it has impacted Australia.

The report also advocates for the establishment of a project to “support trusted voices to publicly refute antisemitic views, particularly via social media platforms”, which is an intelligent and practical idea.

However, it is inescapable that the rise in antisemitic behaviour and violence has been triggered by events in the Middle East, particularly Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza in response since to its brutal attack against Israelis. It would be appropriate for the proposed program to also engage with the history of the Middle East.

The report identifies Australians aged under 35 as a key educational target through their limited understanding of the history of antisemitism and the Holocaust. But this also applies to Israel and the Middle East – young people have grown up only knowing Israel as a one-dimensional occupying power. They have not been given the educational tools to help them understand the complexity of the region and the history of Israel’s founding, which would help avoid reflexively scapegoating Jews here for the policies of Israel’s government.

The report also outlines a comprehensive set of objectives to tackle the toxic influence of social media, looking to adapt the digital governance policies in the UK and EU to help reduce online hatred, and advocates working with digital platforms to reduce the influence of ‘bots’ that sow social discord. These are welcome proposals for a corrosive aspect of modern life that has so far languished in the “too-hard basket”.

So too is the re-establishment of a Jewish Arts and Cultural Council to advise government, which would recognise the importance of nourishing Jewish cultural life.

Much of the public response to the report has focused on several controversial proposals that seek to impose funding penalties on universities and arts/cultural bodies that are judged to have done not enough to combat antisemitism. These proposals are envisaged as a deterrent in response to the climates of hostility that have erupted on campuses and in arts communities towards Jewish students and creatives over the past 18 months.

In the case of universities, Segal proposes that “government funding be withheld, where possible, from universities, programs or individuals within universities that facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism”.

With regard to arts/cultural bodies, she proposes “the efficient termination of funding where the institution or festival promotes, facilitates or does not deal effectively with hate or antisemitism” and to “remove deductible gift recipient status from any charitable institution which promotes speakers or engages in conduct that promotes antisemitism”.

By tying criticism to funding, Segal’s proposals have been accused of inhibiting free speech and censoring artistic freedom.

While there is a need to send a strong message to public institutions and government-funded arts bodies over accountability, the threat to strip funding seems an overly punitive measure to engineer responsible public behaviour. It could be argued that another of Segal’s proposals – to give universities a report card on their efforts to combat antisemitism, with the potential for naming and shaming – is a sufficiently powerful mechanism for enforcing greater accountability. The report card could be extended to major arts/cultural bodies too.

These penalties are also problematic with regard to implementation and definitions. The explosion of antisemitic violence has been intertwined with an outpouring of anti-Israel rhetoric and behaviour. Who will decide whether a speech, action or artwork is antisemitic rather than just critical, or if it crosses over from anti-Israeli to antisemitic? How would that assessment body be constituted?

How would the public funding penalties be weighted and structured? On a sliding scale? Would a one-off “offence” prompt the maximum penalty? Regarding cultural bodies, what does “dealing effectively” with hate or antisemitism mean? Does it mean probation, suspension, instant dismissal? Will there be a right of appeal? If so, who would assess that?

It should also be noted that the report does not address private arts bodies or organisations. If a music festival such as Bluesfest, for example, hosted a band that sang antisemitic songs, there seems to be no provision for addressing that possibility.

These issues have shone light on another controversial element of the report: the proposal for the adoption across all government of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The definition is used by all the national antisemitism coordinators across the world. All but one of the 27 EU countries have adopted it.

But the IHRA definition has been the subject of fierce debate. Human rights groups, legal academics and advocates, including Jews here and abroad, maintain that IHRA stifles criticism of the Israeli government by conflating legitimate criticism with antisemitism. After a robust debate within Australian higher education in recent years over whether to adopt this definition, in February Australian universities agreed to adopt an “Australian version” of IHRA which the universities' peak body said upholds “academic freedom and associated obligations".

In comments made after the report’s launch, Segal maintained that the basic IHRA definition does not curtail legitimate criticism of Israel. "The definition in its own terms clearly says if Israel is criticised, that's absolutely fine, and indeed so many Israelis are criticising the policies of their own government. But if you are calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, then that is antisemitic," she told SBS.

However, there are many shades of grey between the two poles cited by Segal’s examples.

Would a theatre company stage a play about ultra-Orthodox Israeli settlers in the West Bank – identifiably and stereotypically Jewish in appearance – stoning Palestinian olive famers and ruining their crops, knowing it may be accused of antisemitism and lose its funding?

Would an artwork using the word “genocide” in relation to Palestinians be considered antisemitic because it compares Israeli policy to the Nazis? Or would the word be merely deeply offensive to many Jews?

Although critics of the IHRA definition have been vocal since Segal's report was released, its adoption in other countries does not appear to have stopped those who want to criticise Israel. The EU countries that have adopted it include Spain and in January 2025, Ireland. The presidents of both countries have accused Israel of genocide.

It remains to be seen whether Segal’s proposals will have any impact on coded language (such as 'Zios') and symbols (such as the inverted red triangle supporting Hamas) that hint at support for pro-terrorist causes, espouse anti-Zionist sympathies and target Israeli businesses which collectively create a climate that feels hostile to Jews, and blurs the psychological distinction between antisemitic and anti-Israeli behaviour.

Navigating this terrain will be a challenge for whatever body is constituted to assess whether messages and actions are considered antisemitic.

This raises a further question about how much of the report the Albanese government will commit to implementing. Given the government’s foreign policy posturing during its first term, when it was frequently critical of Israel’s conduct of the war against Hamas, it is hard to see this government embracing all of Segal’s proposals.

Even if the report is seen as a blueprint rather than a finished, practical plan ready to implement, the Prime Minister will have to tread a fine line.

On the one hand, he cannot ignore the work and scale of Segal’s report. If he wants to demonstrate to the Jewish community that he is serious about addressing the scourge of antisemitism, and restoring cohesion to our frayed social fabric, then he must commit to some of Segal’s foundational proposals with conviction.

On other hand, the government will be under pressure not to embrace those measures that would prompt calls of hypocrisy over its messaging to the global community, which carries largely symbolic weight, in contrast with domestic policies where the government’s imprimatur shapes public debate, values and our much-loved way of life.

When the relevant ministers sit down to tackle this report, they will face an ethical and legal minefield.

While it is a comprehensive attempt to combat the antisemitism crisis, the severity of the Special Envoy's response has the potential to turn Jewish safety into a permanent battle zone.

It takes us into uncharted and unwelcome territory.