Opponents of antisemitism definition fight back

MARTIN MUNZ defends the opposition to the IHRA definition, which was this week adopted by the University of Melbourne.

Two The Jewish Independent articles by Andre Oboler and Philip Mendes attacking the opposition to the IHRA definition of antisemitism misrepresent the recent academics’ letter to Australian Vice-Chancellors opposing the adoption of the definition by Australian universities.

This debate raises important issues that are germane to the past, present and future of all of us who care about the community of Israel. They will have added import as the fate of Palestinians worsens and as the crisis in Israel deepens.

Mendes' article misrepresents the contents of the recent letter from 117 Australian and international  academics (not a small number),  opposing the adoption of the IHRA definition. He says the letter provides no evidence that adoption will undermine academic freedom. This is false. The letter references examples of the undermining of academic freedom including The IHRA Definition at Work, which documents the effect of the definition at universities in the US, Canada, the Uk and Europe. It also cites a study of it effects in Canada entitled  Unveiling the Chilly Climate- The Suppression of Speech on Palestine in Canada.

Mendes accuses BDS advocates of pursuing an ‘unrelated political agenda’ of the Palestinian nationalist cause instead of dealing with the problem of antisemitism. But it is the IHRA definition which couples antisemitism and Israel criticism. The majority of the IHRA definition’s examples are concerned with speech about Israel, limiting what can and cannot be said about it, and therefore criticism of how Israel treats its Palestinians. The IHRA definition is thus really a political project designed to suppress criticism of Israel’s responses to Palestinian nationalism.  The two have unfortunately become inseparable by dint of unrelenting pro-Israel advocacy linking them.