The one minority whose self-definition of prejudice is rejected

This article is part of a debate. Read Distinguishing prejudice from political disagreement by Larry Stillman.

There is something deeply strange happening in Australia’s public discourse around antisemitism. Strange enough that many Jews feel it instinctively, even if they struggle to articulate it precisely.

When other minorities describe the forms prejudice against them takes, modern institutions generally listen.

When Indigenous Australians speak about racism, language and representation, we are correctly told that lived experience matters.

When Muslim Australians describe Islamophobia, we are urged to understand how prejudice mutates in contemporary society.

When LGBTQ Australians describe coded hostility, dog whistles or exclusionary rhetoric, institutions increasingly accept that discrimination evolves and cannot always be reduced to explicit slurs.

Yet when Jews say that antisemitism in the twenty-first century often manifests through obsessive anti-Zionism, delegitimisation of Jewish nationhood, or standards uniquely applied to the Jewish state, many institutions suddenly become sceptical.

Not cautious. Not probing. Sceptical.

Nowhere is this more visible than in the debate over whether the ABC and SBS should adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.

The broadcasters argue they do not require a formal definition because journalism must remain independent and free to criticise governments, including Israel. Critics of IHRA insist it risks silencing legitimate political debate.