Not all Zionists: blanket attacks are antisemitic

The evidence that we live in a polarised world assails us on a daily basis. In Australia, one form of polarisation has manifested itself in the bitter communal divisions which have emerged in consequence of the atrocities of October 7 and Israel’s war in Gaza.

For the most part two competing narratives are presented in Manichaean terms: each sees the war and its tragic precursors as a conflict between darkness and light.

One person’s genocide is another’s necessary self-defence against a brutal terrorist organisation bent itself on perpetrating genocide. One person’s exercise of freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate is another’s detestable hate speech.  One person’s Naqba is another’s heroic fight to preserve a tiny nascent state created by the authority of the United Nations from destruction by five hostile armies. One person’s respect for international humanitarian law, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, is another’s confirmation of the irremediable anti-Israel bias of international organisations.

The polarisation evident in the competing narratives obscures a very important point, entirely lost on most if not all ‘anti-Zionists’. The current terrible conflict has exposed, if it was not clear beforehand, the many varieties of Zionism within the Australian Jewish community.

 It has also exposed the link between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

The census records that roughly 100,000 Jews live in Australia. The vast majority identify with the continued existence and safety of Israel as an integral component of their identity as Jews, whether for religious, cultural, historical or family reasons (or a combination thereof). In this sense the vast majority of Australian Jews are Zionists.

A very small percentage of self-identifying Jews in Australia are anti-Zionist to the extent of supporting the dismantling of the State of Israel to be replaced by the fantasy of a secular, democratic Palestine (or perhaps Israel-Palestine). These Jewish anti-Zionists no doubt have their own reasons for embracing such an extreme position.

Even so, one is reminded of Howard Jacobson’s Man Booker Prize winning novel, The Finkler Question, in which he mercilessly satirises people who proclaim their (often newly discovered) Jewishness solely for the purpose of lending force to their virulent criticism of Israel. Certainly Jewish anti-Zionists  provide useful cover for those anti-Zionists who are clearly antisemitic but who insist they are against all forms of racism including antisemitism  .

 Some Australian Zionists, while regretting the terrible civilian casualties in Gaza, cite the barbaric events of 7 October and the refusal to return the hostages as reasons to support the policies and actions of the extreme right wing Netanyahu Government. They take the view that there is simply no alternative to crushing Hamas, whatever the human toll in Gaza and whatever painful losses may be experienced by Israelis.

Some are deeply discomfited by the catastrophic failure of the Netanyahu Government to prevent the massacres and savagery of October 7 and by the inclusion in that Government of racists and extremists, including criminals. They are also discomfited by the terrible loss of innocent lives and destruction in Gaza, as well as the continued losses, displacement and hardships experienced by Israeli civilians. But they can be reluctant to express their views publicly.

Yet others speak out against the failures and self-defeating policies of the Netanyahu Government, just as hundreds of thousands of Israelis demonstrate against the current  Government, which would surely be defeated if an election were to be held now. The protests are what happens in democracies, even imperfect ones.

Some Jewish Zionists go further, as indeed do many Jewish Israelis. They ardently wish for a Jewish and democratic State of Israel which respects the human rights of all its citizens, Jewish or otherwise. They genuinely acknowledge the aspirations of Palestinians to their own state and deplore the excesses of the settlement project and the racism and brutality of so many Messianic and extreme nationalist settlers. But these Jews are also committed to a safe, secure and flourishing State of Israel. Therefore they, too, are Zionists.

The New Israel Fund Australia (NIF) seeks to represent this group of Jewish Zionists. NIF differs from the more mainstream Jewish organisations which are generally reluctant to criticise the policies and practices of successive Israeli Governments, particularly the expansion of settlements on the Occupied Terrritories and the unwillingness to hold the perpetrators of settlement violence to account. The mainstream organisations are equally reluctant to acknowledge, at least publicly, the entrenched inequalities among different religious and ethnic groups within Israeli society.

NIF also differs from fringe organisations, such as the misleadingly named Jewish Council of Australia. Unlike the JCA, NIF does not represent anti-Zionists – that is, ideologues who regard the creation of Israel as an injustice which can be remedied only by the dissolution of the State. Unlike the JCA, NIF takes practical steps to support organisations within Israel and the Occupied Territories that protect the human rights and civil liberties of all people and seek to promote the welfare of religious and ethnic minorities.

There can be no doubt that antisemitism in Australia has escalated alarmingly since 7 October and its aftermath. The responses of some (not all) Australian Governments and of many (not all) tertiary institutions has been inconsistent, confused and all too often ineffective. No single factor explains the inadequacy of these responses but one contributing element is the difficulty of defining antisemitism and demarcating the limits of freedom of speech and the right to protest.

For example, the question of whether anti-Zionism, in the sense of rejecting the legitimacy of the State of Israel, is necessarily antisemitic is complex and hotly disputed, particularly in the United States where the peculiarities of First Amendment jurisprudence must be considered (see, for example, Kenneth S Stern, The Conflict over the Conflict (New Jewish Press, 2020, at 153-154,169-172). Regardless of the answer to this question, some propositions should be clear enough to political leaders, policy makers and the chief executives of tertiary institutions.

First, no reasonable observer seriously suggests that all criticisms of Israel or its policies are necessarily antisemitic. It is true that some zealous supporters of the current Israeli Government and its policies are very quick to detect antisemitism as the motivating force underlying legitimate criticisms of Israel. But those who claim to be deterred from offering any criticisms of Israel for fear of being labelled antisemitic must be very delicate indeed. After all, that ‘fear’ has hardly insulated Israel from virulent and sustained criticism of the conduct of the Gaza war and of the settlement project.

Second, even if anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic, some expressions routinely used by anti-Zionists are plainly antisemitic. The slogan ‘Zionism equals racism’, once much in vogue and now enjoying a renaissance, effectively attributes the loathsome characteristic of racism to the vast majority of Jews, ignoring the many differences of opinion they hold on critical issues. There may well be some Zionists who are racists – indeed there are some in the current Israeli Government.  But the slogan tars all Jewish Zionists with the same brush, removing any room for differentiation. This is a classic illustration of racism.

For exactly the same reason slogans proclaiming ‘Zionists are not welcome’, which have appeared on some university campuses, are clearly antisemitic.

Third, to accuse Australian Jews or Zionists of being complicit in genocide is antisemitic. The allegation of genocide levelled at Israel in the ICJ has been contested by Israel and other nations and has not yet been resolved. Even if the allegation is ultimately upheld, to suggest that all Jews and Zionists support all the actions of Israel and the IDF in Gaza is again to attribute a characteristic to all members of a group regardless of the differences among them.

Fourth, when Jews as a group are expressly denigrated or threatened, as in the infamous Opera House cry of ‘Where are the Jews?’, the perpetrators are antisemitic.

Fifth, threats or insults publicly directed at Jews or Zionists simply because they are or are believed to be Jewish or Zionists fits the pattern of traditional antisemitism. `

Sixth, political leaders and heads of tertiary institutions often find themselves unable to condemn obvious antisemitic speech and conduct without in the same breath condemning Islamophobia and other forms of racism. This approach mirrors that of Jeremy Corbyn in his vain attempt to deny that the British Labour Party under his leadership was rife with anti-Semites and antisemitism. The Greens in Australia adopt much the same approach to well-founded accusations of antisemitism in their ranks.

Equating antisemitism and Islamophobia is misconceived. It is true that both are examples of racism and both are unacceptable. But equating the two overlooks the unique and catastrophic history of antisemitism across the ages and across cultures and nations. It also fails to acknowledge the unpleasant truth that so much antisemitism historically has been grounded in religious beliefs and practices. Even though some religions have repented of their contributions to antisemitism, the regrettable relationship between religion and antisemitism has not been entirely eliminated in 21st century Australia.

While no doubt some Jews are Islamophobic and while the Old Testament is replete with accounts of brutality, there is nothing in the foundational texts of Judaism to support Islamophobia. This should not come as a surprise to Australian political and institutional leaders, since the foundational texts of Judaism predate the establishment of Islam by up to 1500 years.

Antisemitic conduct or speech is not necessarily unlawful in Australia. It may, however, contravene the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Section 18C of the Act provides that:

       It is unlawful for a person to an act, otherwise than in private, if:

Section 18C is subject to an ’exemption’ for fair comment made in good faith on a matter of public interest. Conduct rendered unlawful by s 18C is not a criminal offence, but attracts civil remedies at the suit of a complainant.

Section 18C is a controversial provision because its broad language is thought by some to limit unduly freedom of speech. Whatever the merits of the criticism, Jewish groups have successfully invoked s 18C on a number of occasions to obtain remedies against individuals engaging in antisemitic conduct or speech, including Holocaust denial and publication of material promoting hatred of Jews. No case to date has addressed the circumstances in which offensive, insulting or intimidatory conduct or speech directed at ‘Zionists’ infringes s 18C.

Determining that conduct or speech is antisemitic does not necessarily establish a contravention of s 18C.  The inquiry is always fact specific and must be conducted in accordance with the interpretation of s 18C developed by the courts. It is enough for present purposes to conclude that the conduct directed at ‘Zionists’, described earlier, may well be capable of breaching s 18C.

The responsibilities of private or public entities are not confined to complying with laws imposing civil or criminal penalties for breach. Universities, for example, commit themselves to fostering free inquiry, preserving academic integrity and ensuring the safety and wellbeing of staff and students. All claim to regard antisemitic conduct or speech on campus as unacceptable, whether or not the conduct or speech is unlawful.

It follows that conduct of the kind described earlier, directed at Zionists or people believed to be Zionists, is unacceptable on campuses of Australian tertiary institutions and should be dealt with accordingly by the institutions. It also follows that Vice-Chancellors and other senior officers have no occasion to  seek advice from the Attorney-General or anyone else as to the scope of the Racial Discrimination Act or of State laws criminalising racial vilification. The principles the institutions themselves espouse require action to address the conduct whenever it occurs.

 This conclusion does not restrict the freedom of critics of Israel to express their views in the strongest terms. Criticism of Israel and its policies and practices is one thing. Attacking all Australian Jews or Zionists as though they have uniform attitudes towards Israel, its Government and military is quite another. It is time institutions of higher learning and other public institutions grasp this fundamental proposition.

RELATED STORIES

From the river to the sea’: six words that are testing freedom of speech in Germany (Guardian)

The recent conviction of an activist who used the phrase at a rally in Berlin has widened a rift in German society.

What should French Jews do about left-wing antisemitism? Stay in France (Bernard-Henri Lévy, Haaretz)

Antisemitic comments by a pair of extreme left lawmakers declaring Israeli athletes and the country's flag 'not welcome' at the Olympics in Paris, are a post-election wake-up call of how deep the spider webs of hate against Jews are being woven by their party