Published: 10 July 2025
Last updated: 11 July 2025
Organisations within the Australian Jewish community have had mixed reactions to the plan to combat antisemitism handed down by Special Envoy Jillian Segal today.
For some, the recommendations represent a strong and much-needed response to the antisemitism crisis, while others have questioned its efficacy and suggest it will limit legitimate criticism of Israel.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) "strongly endorsed" the plan, with President Daniel Aghion commenting that it is "very well considered" and "fully aligned with the ECAJ’s thinking and our community‘s expectations".
“It is evident that much research and thought has gone into this document over many months. Its release could not be more timely given the recent appalling events in Melbourne. The actions which the plan call for are now urgently needed," Aghion said, calling on all sectors of society to co-operate with the plan.
“We thank the Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs for standing with the Jewish community at this time and look forward to working with the government to help make antisemitism a thing of the past.”
The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) called on the government to adopt and implement the plan in full “vigorously as a matter of urgency”.
AIJAC Executive Director Colin Rubenstein said the plan “would be welcome at any time, but events of the past week have highlighted how serious the antisemitism problem in Australia remains, and the urgency of strong and determined government action to do more about it".
"The heightened antisemitism crisis in this country has now persisted for some 21 months, at terrible costs to national social cohesion, so there is no time to waste. The recommendations in the envoy’s report should not only be adopted in full, but then acted on with all possible vigour by the government."
Support for wide-ranging proposals
The Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) similarly welcomed Segal's report, pledging its support behind the wide-ranging proposals, believing it "sends an important signal that this antisemitism crisis has been left unchecked for too long, and must now be met with comprehensive action and enforcement".
"This report represents a significant milestone in Australia's fight against antisemitism. It demonstrates a clear understanding of the dangers antisemitism poses, not only to the Jewish community, but to our democratic values and social cohesion," ZFA CEO Alon Cassuto said.
"The real measure of this report will be its implementation. It is essential that these recommendations are enacted swiftly, and consistently by governments and institutions."
This sentiment was strongly echoed by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, which similarly praised a number of specific recommendations that have been considered controversial by the broader Australian society.
"Proposals to defund universities that fail to protect Jewish students and cut funding to creatives who enable hate speech show this plan is not just symbolic, it has teeth," President David Ossip wrote in a statement.
"Equally, we welcome recommendations that Australia’s migration system explicitly consider an individual’s antisemitic views before approving visas for those who wish to enter or remain in Australia.
"We hope the release of this report represents a watershed moment in combatting the hate which has thus far been allowed to flourish."
The Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) said the plan includes a “significant number of actions” that the JCCV is already undertaking around antisemitism and social cohesion, and commended its focus on security needs and online spaces as "key areas where more needs to be done”.
“Anti-Jewish hate is a centuries old problem that has had a revival in recent years,” President Philip Zajac said. “There is no quick fix, but it seems there is a deep willingness to try and turn the tide.”
Not everyone agrees
Not all community organisations have embraced Segal's recommendations with open arms.
While the Australian Jewish Association (AJA) said the report adopts several policies it has advocated strongly in favour of – including reducing funding to universities that fail to address antisemitism and stricter immigration policies – it voiced concerns over the "effectiveness" of proposed hate speech law and e-safety changes, which "would likely not be in line with AJA policies".
"This does appear to be a very constructive report from Jillian Segal, [but] we have serious doubts [about whether] the Albanese government will adopt its suggestions or if they will try and balance it with further hostile moves against Israel," the AJA wrote on Facebook, adding it was not consulted for the report.
The Jewish Council of Australia rejected the plan outright, warning it "risks undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and entrenching selective approaches to racism that serve political agendas".
"The report is riddled with misinformation and claims about nefarious funding sources for protests and universities that verge on conspiracy theory," Executive Officer Max Kaiser said.
Kaiser said The Council is "especially concerned" about the plan's endorsement of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, as well as new visa powers and judicial inquiries into student activity which "risk censoring criticism of Israel, deepening racism, and failing to meaningfully address the root causes of antisemitism".
In response, The Council proposes the government engage a broader spectrum of Jewish voices, including those critical of Israel; incorporate principles that tackle all forms of racism, such as that against Islamic, Palestinian and First Nations communities, and not just antisemitism; and reject proposals that erode civil liberties under the "false guise of Jewish safety".
The New Israel Fund Australia said it welcomed the government’s commitment to address the alarming rise in antisemitism across the country, but noted the need to distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel.
"NIF Australia continues to urge all levels of government to take decisive and coordinated action to combat antisemitism and protect the safety and wellbeing of Jewish communities nationwide," said CEO Kate Rosenberg.
"NIF Australia also supports Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s recent statements affirming that it is possible to criticise the policies of the Israeli government without engaging in antisemitism. This distinction is vital for robust democratic debate, both within Australia and among civil society actors in Israel."
Comments5
Simon Krite13 July at 11:47 am
First, the “self appointed” JCA’s hysterical claim that the report “risks undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and entrenching selective approaches to racism that serve political agendas.” What utter hypocrisy!!!!
These self-proclaimed guardians of “democracy” are the ones selectively ignoring the explosion of antisemitic attacks since October 7, 2023 including firebombings of synagogues, assaults on Jewish students, and chants of “gas the Jews” at protests while obsessing over phantom threats to “free speech.” Segal’s report doesn’t undermine freedoms at all, it protects them by targeting real hatred that has made Jewish Australians fear for their lives. By rejecting measures like funding cuts to universities that tolerate antisemitic encampments and harassment, the JCA is essentially green-lighting the next wave of violence. they are just inflaming divisions by siding with the Hamas sympathisers who have turned campuses into no-go zones for Jews. If anyone’s serving a “political agenda,” it’s these radicals, whose anti-Zionist obsession aligns perfectly with the agendas of foreign funders like Qatar and Iran, who pour millions into Australian protests and academia to stoke anti-Israel hysteria.
Next, Executive Officer Max Kaiser’s sniveling accusation that the report is “riddled with misinformation and claims about nefarious funding sources for protests and universities that verge on conspiracy theory.” Conspiracy theory? Give me a break. This is willful blindness from a group that’s either complicit or clueless. I’m say complicit given their history. Segal’s report cites verifiable evidence of foreign interference. Qatar’s $5 billion-plus investments in global academia, including Australian universities, which correlate with skyrocketing anti-Israel activism; Iran’s documented support for proxy groups fueling protests; and even Hamas-linked networks infiltrating student movements. These aren’t wild theories; they’re backed by intelligence reports, congressional testimonies in the US, and investigative journalism showing how these funds launder hate under the guise of “activism.” Kaiser’s dismissal reeks of desperation, perhaps because acknowledging these facts would expose how groups like the JCA benefit from the same echo chamber of denial. By labeling this “misinformation,” they’re gaslighting the Jewish community and shielding the real conspirators who want Israel wiped off the map.
Then there’s their “special concern” about endorsing the IHRA definition of antisemitism, new visa powers, and judicial inquiries into student activity, which they claim “risk censoring criticism of Israel, deepening racism, and failing to meaningfully address the root causes of antisemitism.” This is the most insidious lie of all, straight from the playbook of antisemites who hide behind “criticism of Israel” to spew age-old tropes about Jewish control and bloodlust. The IHRA definition adopted by dozens of countries, including the US, UK, and EU explicitly states that criticising Israel like any other country isn’t antisemitic. But it does call out when “criticism” crosses into demonization, like comparing Israel to Nazis or denying Jewish self-determination, exactly the bile we’ve seen in Australian protests and campuses. By opposing it, the JCA is demanding a license to harass Jews without consequence, all while pretending to care about “root causes.” Newsflash !!! The root cause of modern antisemitism is the unholy alliance between Islamist extremism and far-left radicals, not Israel’s existence. Their fearmongering about “censoring criticism” is code for protecting chants like “from the river to the sea,” which Segal’s report correctly identifies as calls for Jewish genocide. And visa powers to deport hate-preachers? That’s not “deepening racism” ffs – it’s basic border security that every sovereign nation employs. These clowns would rather let foreign agitators incite violence than protect Australian Jews.
Their “proposals” engaging a “broader spectrum of Jewish voices” (code for amplifying anti-Zionist fringe elements like themselves), tackling “all forms of racism” (a deflection to dilute focus on Jewish suffering), and rejecting anything that “erodes civil liberties under the false guise of Jewish safety” are laughable at best, treacherous at worst. Broader voices? The mainstream Australian Jewish community, represented by bodies like the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), has welcomed Segal’s report as a vital step forward. The JCA, with its tiny membership and history of boycotting Israel, represents nobody but a vocal minority of Jews who’d rather virtue-signal about “Palestinian racism” than confront the 300% surge in antisemitic incidents Down Under. Tackling all racism? Sure, but antisemitism isn’t “selective”, it’s the oldest hatred, now normalised in academia, media, and streets, and it demands targeted action, not watered-down platitudes. And “false guise of Jewish safety”? That’s downright vile implying Jewish fears are exaggerated or fabricated, echoing the worst denialism from Holocaust minimizers. These proposals are just sabotage, designed to let antisemitism fester while they pat themselves on the back for “inclusivity.”
As for the New Israel Fund Australia, their mealy-mouthed “welcome” of addressing antisemitism while harping on the “need to distinguish between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel” is equally spineless. CEO Kate Rosenberg parrots PM Albanese’s obvious point that criticizing Israeli policies isn’t inherently antisemitic. As if Segal’s report ever claimed otherwise. But NIF’s obsession with this “distinction” reveals their true priority – shielding anti-Israel activism, even when it veers into blood libels and calls for Jewish state’s destruction. They fund groups in Israel that undermine its security, and now they’re whining about a report that would hold universities accountable for fostering hate. This isn’t “robust democratic debate” as claimed is it? It’s more like enabling the very forces that have made Jewish Australians hide their stars of David and avoid synagogues. NIF isn’t protecting Jews; they’re throwing them under the bus to appease progressive elites who equate Zionism with racism.
In short, these self-appointed councils are a disgrace, enablers of hate who prioritise anti-Israel ideology over Jewish lives. Their rejection of Segal’s report, which draws on evidence from police data, community surveys, and international best practices, isn’t principled opposition. Their rejection is a tantrum from radicals terrified of accountability. Australian Jews deserve better than these figures who amplify the voices of our enemies. The government should ignore their noise, implement Segal’s recommendations swiftly, and consign these fringe groups to the irrelevance they deserve. Anything less would be a surrender to the antisemites they’ve emboldened.
Jessica12 July at 12:18 pm
I believe the special envoy’s recommendations are dangerous both for the Australian Jewish community and for Australian democracy – and these aren’t unrelated. Singling out and separating the fight against serious and rising antisemitism from the struggle against other forms of racism and discrimination, and allowing the community to be isolated and used to enable political repression, will never make us safer. It is basically the worst thing you could do if you actually wanted to protect and maintain Jewish life into the future as part of a vibrant pluralist democracy in Australia.
David Schulberg10 July at 11:57 am
Giving credibility to the nefarious Jewish Council of Australia is undermining any semblance of cohesion in our Jewish community as we struggle with on-going antisemitic attacks. The Jewish independent is giving licence to the JCA allowing them to dismantle any common understanding about what antisemitism is and to replace it with some other cocked up definition that does us no service. The Jewish Independent might as well have consulted the Australian Palestinian Advocacy Network for their view which would align exactly with that of the JCA.
Andrew Jakubowicz10 July at 08:02 am
The identification of antisemitism and other ethno-religious hates as problematic in Australia rightly points to their two primary effects – terrorising of the Jewish community (though others have been effected at different times) , and erosion of inter-communal trust.
However it misrepresents the history of antisemitism in Australia, which has been a problematic issue for many years and was particularly dangerous before during and after WW2. The national government today is far more supportive of the rights of Jewish Australians than its UAP, Labor and Liberal predecessors three generations ago.
The report fails to explore supporting community based resistance to hate, falling in line with the ESafety commissioner who has avoided this approach.
Astoundingly no mention is made of the responsibilities of commercial media and strategies to have them adapt to an antiracism agenda (rather than their common support in for instance the Murdoch media) of racist tropes and perspectives. So those institutions that are vulnerable to government pressure are targeted and those that are not are let off.
Finally and given the importance of this perspective that has corroded Australian antiracism policy for sixty years, no recommendation is made to withdraw the Australian reservation on Article 4 of the UN Convention on Eliminating Racial Discrimination which criminalises hate speech. Until this happens much of what is proposed has no moral or ethical standing or rather little heft.
Also while the IHRA definition of antisemitism has some value its adoption should never compel users to sign on to the examples attached, as the report requires. These examples are too controversial and diversionary. The challenge now is to advance against antisemitism in an environment where so many Australian Jews are horrified by its rise, yet ashamed and horrified too by what the Netanyahu clique is doing in the name of Jews everywhere.
This reality has generated such a corrosive flood saturating the Jewish community in Australia, yet no leaders are adequately coming to grips with it. It is unfortunate the report makes no mention of this element as a factor in dealing with antisemitism, and the increasing perception among young Australians that the claim by Israel to represent all Jews is indeed true and justifies all sorts of antipathies.
It is indicative of the issues at stake that exactly these problems lie at the heart of the public ridicule that the ABC and Creative Australia now face over their Latouffe and Venice decisions. Meanwhile hundreds of Jewish creatives have been doxed and marginalised, while Jews with no sympathy for the Israeli madness in Gaza and the West Bank find themselves isolated and marginalised by their erstwhile colleagues in universities across the country.
We need openness and intelligence – the report makes some steps towards that goal, but sidesteps a lot along the way. Hopefully the government will reflect carefully in terms of both the near future and the longer term, on how it moves on this document, and how it needs to act in order to bring Australians from all cultural backgrounds on board for the journey.
Ian Bowie10 July at 07:13 am
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. All promotion of hatred is hateful but it’s hard to see how the law can do much to deal with antisemitism except at the margins. Cancel culture is always risky in practice