Segal report backlash reveals the heart of the antisemitism debate’s problem

July marked the return of antisemitism into the Australian national conversation, and it continues to be as racked by division and diversions as ever before.

Less than three weeks after the East Melbourne Synagogue was set on fire and Israeli-Australian restaurant Miznon was attacked by anti-Israel protesters, our public debate has become fixated on details of Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism, rather than the issue itself.

Newspapers have published countless op-eds denouncing the plan. It has been labelled a threat to democracy, Trumpian and a push to weaponise antisemitism by the “Jewish establishment”.

Greens deputy leader and anti-racism spokesperson Mehreen Faruqi called Segal’s position untenable, posting five times within a week to denounce Segal on Instagram, but has yet to issue condemnation of the synagogue attack itself – the second Melbourne synagogue set on fire since December.

Even putting aside the rhetoric one finds in the sewers of social media, the prevailing narrative and debate around antisemitism has become about conflation.

The charge around conflation goes like this – antisemitism has been conflated with legitimate criticism of Israel, or Zionism. It has been weaponised to shut down, or even criminalise, this dissent.

This narrative has become dominant in progressive circles, and it offers a compelling account to those horrified by the scenes coming out of Gaza. A powerful lobby is conspiring to prevent you from speaking out against these horrors, using antisemitism as its sword.

The problem is this narrative has created a false dichotomy – a binary choice between accepting that antisemitism is real and rising in this country and around the world; or speaking out for the Palestinian people and the rising humanitarian toll in Gaza in the 21 months since October 7, 2023.

The other side to this framing is to recast the victims and the perpetrators. If antisemitism is a ploy to stifle dissent against Israel’s conduct, then the Jewish people need no longer be considered its victims, but its perpetrators. And their victims are not just the innocent civilians of Gaza, but the Australian activists, artists, academics and writers seeking merely to raise their plight.

This has been a recurring theme in the commentary on Segal’s report – whether it be from The Guardian’s cartoonist/columnist First Dog On The Moon or prize-winning writer Richard Flanagan – if this plan goes ahead, criticism of Israel will be criminalised.

The irony of this is that it comes at a time when the Australian government continues to harden its criticism of Israel’s conduct in the war, signing increasingly harsh statements with like-minded nations condemning Israel, and imposing sanctions on far-right ministers in the Israeli government.

If the commentary was right, that the government was seeking to codify a definition of antisemitism that criminalises legitimate criticism of Israel, it would presumably have to start by turning on itself.

But as Minister Tony Burke rightly pointed out in defending both Segal and the IHRA definition of antisemitism that Labor first adopted in opposition – the definition sets important guardrails where criticism of Israel cannot be deemed antisemitic. Burke is not the only minister to cite IHRA in defence of criticising Israel – Foreign Minister Penny Wong also did so last year.

These issues are complex, and accusations of antisemitism made in these debates are not always reasonable. But Burke was also right to say that the weaponisation in some quarters of IHRA does not mean its actual text is wrong. We shouldn’t discard a definition because it may be misinterpreted.

None of this means that Segal’s report is immune to criticism. I believe it strays into some territory that is too far-reaching which the government will look to steer clear from. But Segal’s report is broader than the specific areas that have been subjected to criticism.

And ultimately, her mandate has been specifically defined – to put forward recommendations and advice to combat antisemitism. It is government’s job to consider these recommendations and balance them against other important principles and considerations.

The framing of this debate – and Segal’s recommendations – is to assume the worst in the mainstream Jewish community – the “Jewish establishment” as Louise Adler put it. It is to declare that they are not just misguided or wrong, but calculating and sinister.

This is perhaps the greatest casualty of this debate – that some have lost the ability to see any humanity in a Jewish person unless they appropriately absolve themselves of the guilt that the Jewish nation has imposed on them.

Adler is pretty explicit about this too – she describes the Jewish community in the broadest and crudest terms she can muster, “120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals”. Aside from this sweeping accusation being untrue, if a sentence like that was published in the name of a conservative podcast host, I suspect there would be plenty of outrage from progressives.

But Adler’s conclusion is just as telling, declaring that “If the actions of Israel… doesn’t engender any dissent in the diaspora, it’s unsurprising that critics of Israel conclude that Jews are to be condemned.”

And here lies some critical contradictions in the argument – firstly, that antisemitism is a beat-up, but also that Jewish people deserve it if they don’t condemn Israel. Equally, that anti-Zionists cannot demand the separation of Jewish identity from Israel while also demanding that Jews apologise for what Israel does.

A group which defines its Judaism in opposition to Israel is not separating Israel from Judaism, it is just flipping the equation.

Of course, the normal response would be to acknowledge that multiple things can be true at once, and people can care about more than one thing.

The people of Gaza can be suffering unimaginable horrors and Jewish people in Australia can be facing a real and measurable rise in antisemitism. One need not offset the other, nor should it ever be used as justification.

Criticism of Israel is not inherently or in and of itself antisemitic, but it cannot be a shield to absolve any critic of Israel from saying whatever they want or targeting whoever they want, especially on the other side of the world from Gaza.

Jewish people can and should be empathetic to what the people of Gaza are going through, and we should not reflexively accept the justifications or arguments the Netanyahu government uses to explain them away. We should be prepared to listen to the significant mistrust and opposition to the Netanyahu government and its conduct within Israeli society – not least from the family of hostages who believe Netanyahu has prioritised his own political survival over bringing them home.

But how we express our feelings about what is happening – or whether we do at all – is up to us. We are Australians. We are not responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, and we are not fair targets, however we do or don’t define our Jewish identities in relation to the Jewish nation.

Whatever people think about what is happening on the other side of the world, there can never be justification for targeting Jewish or Israeli people living in Australia. It won’t end the war, nor deliver Palestinian security or safety. It only weakens the fabric of our multicultural society in Australia.