The pros and cons of appointing an antisemitism coordinator

Simon Longstaff, executive director of the Ethics Centre

I am deeply disturbed by the significant surge in antisemitic behaviour and a resurgence in Islamophobia. I know that the phenomena are real – as I have heard personal testimony from friends. Furthermore, the world has seen how latent antisemitism, in particular, can metastasise into some of the worst evil that humanity is capable of.

Yet, despite this – and on balance – I think it would be a mistake for the federal government to create two new positions specially dedicated to addressing the pernicious effects of antisemitism and Islamophobia.

First, I think that singling out Jews and Muslims would inadvertently feed the narrative that these groups stand outside ordinary Australian society. This is an old trope, especially exploited by those who wish to whip up hatred against the Jewish people.

Second, I fear that the narrative of ‘privilege and exclusivity’ will be exacerbated by other groups whose experience is such that they feel they need equal, special attention.

Finally, I worry that the definition of what counts as antisemitic or Islamophobic behaviour would be so loose as to stifle reasonable debate. We have already seen how easy it is for, say, legitimate criticism of the actions of the Netanyahu government of Israel or the Islamic Republic of Iran to be condemned as “antisemitic” or “Islamophobic” respectively.

Everyone is harmed – and great wrongs are trivialised – when people use these words as rhetorical weapons to silence those who oppose their view with nothing more dangerous than legitimate arguments.

None of the above should be taken to mean that I do not think that the phenomena of antisemitism and Islamophobia should not be given special attention in today’s circumstances. It would be crazy to let one room in your house burn to the ground just because the others were not on fire.

However, I would address the immediate problem by other means. For example, I would establish dedicated task forces within the existing structures designed to advance and protect the human rights and security of all Australians. This is common practice in, say, policing where special groups are established to investigate particular crimes of groups of criminals.

Yet, as recommended above, these “strike forces” fall under the general command and are differentiated by focus rather than function. We need to act – but with a prudent concern not to take steps that inadvertently exacerbate the disease we seek to cure.

In summary: I applaud the ends to be served but am, on balance, sceptical of the means proposed.

Suzanne Rutland, renowned historian of Australian Jewry and professor emerita at the University of Sydney

There are advantages and disadvantages to creating positions to counter antisemitism and Islamophobia but on balance I support the proposal. I see three main advantages:

Firstly, it is important to have appointments for both antisemitism and Islamophobia, since both are significant issues, particularly if a person is visibly religious. There is a dichotomy between the two religions. In Islam, it is often hijab-wearing women who suffer abuse. This is both verbal, making fun of the hijab, and physical, people trying to pull the hijab off or spitting on Muslim women.

In Judaism, it is the kippah which arouses antagonism, also verbal and physical. I shall never forget my disabled student, obviously Jewish, who was spat on three times at university during the 2006 Lebanon war by radical members of the Socialist Alliance. More recently, the Brighton Secondary College antisemitism case was replete with examples of two religious boys having their kippahs pulled off and thrown around by other students. 

Therefore, it will be important for the two representatives to be able to work together, which would provide a powerful model of interfaith cooperation.

Secondly, the imprimatur of a government position would give the coordinators official status and authority to deal with issues as they emerge, as well as to innovate and initiate policies.

Thirdly, given the key role social media plays in fostering these prejudices, the roles would assist the government in developing an effective policy to contain hate speech.

Finally, the Jewish community has many overlapping, and at times, competing organisations that deal with antisemitism. The appointment of a government antisemitism coordinator would cut through the confusion created by the competing views of these bodies. 

Despite these potential benefits, there are also risks. If handled badly, these appointments could aggravate the situation and great care needs to be taken with the choices. They need not only to have expert knowledge, but also political skills to deal with sensitive issues. This will be the main challenge for the government.

Vic Alhadeff, SBS board member and former CEO of the NSW Board of Jewish Deputies

There is a dire need for Australia to establish an office that is dedicated to combatting antisemitism. Anti-Jewish racism emanates from diverse sources and takes on varying guises in order to adapt to changing circumstances.

The antisemitism reports published by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry show a consistent rise in the number of incidents since 2016. The increase has been especially acute in the aftermath of the Hamas atrocities of October 7 and Israel’s military response.

There was an unprecedented 738 per cent surge in incidents last October and November, compared to the two months of 2022. The spike has been accompanied by a broad-ranging proliferation of public and online antisemitic discourse.

These developments threaten the security and wellbeing of Australia’s Jewish community, as well as of Australia as a whole, and its future as a peaceful and cohesive multicultural society which respects diversity.

The Jewish community cannot combat antisemitism alone. The threat requires resolute action by the federal government, and the appointment of a special officer with expert knowledge of contemporary forms of antisemitism would be an appropriate starting point.

The office would investigate, research and report to government on the nature, extent and impact of antisemitism in Australia and make recommendations to counteract it. It would also coordinate the disparate policy areas which need to be mobilised in order to most effectively counter racism generally, and antisemitism in particular.

The US, Germany, Canada and the European Union have all established offices dedicated to combatting antisemitism. While every nation’s situation is different, Australia would do well to glean best practice from these countries.

With regard to opening an office to counter Islamophobia, while the reported numbers of anti-Muslim sentiments are of concern, I am not sufficiently apprised of the extent of the issue to make an informed comment as to whether an office dedicated to combating anti-Islamic racism is warranted.

Larry Stillman, adjunct senior research fellow at Monash University and a member of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society executive

The position of antisemitism coordinator should only exist alongside an Islamophobia coordinator because both communities are subject to increased hate and vilification at this time. Positions should be within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and not beholden to particular community interests.

For antisemitism, human rights and related legislation must be the point of reference, not the subjective International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and examples. Ken Stern, who was behind the writing of IHRA, opposes its current politicised use.

If there are to be such positions, then they should be of limited duration for a particular problem. Other communities will resent the fact that serious issues affecting them are being ignored. 

Social media issues: Elon Musk’s resistance to the taking down offensive material about the Westfield Mall murders in Sydney demonstrates that the problem is way beyond that of the Jewish or Muslim communities.

In fact, is the antisemitism problem due to conflating very different things, particularly 'obvious' antisemitism versus a spectrum of acts or words about Israel or BDS? The only way to find the truth is through good research. 

There are methodological problems with ECAJ nation-wide reports, the problematic ZFA/AUJS survey of higher education, or the recent Blueprint Institute Report, which claims 75,000 antisemitic incidents every year in Australian schools. This is eight times the combined number of incidents in the US and UK! Public policy depends on accurate data, not hype. Only independent, quality research will solve this.

The focus on alleged widespread antisemitism in higher education appears exaggerated (at odds with the ZFA-AUJS survey). We are not in the US. In addition, the recent Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism survey offers no definition of antisemitism and appears focussed on a form of hasbarah, or pro-Israel diplomacy.

As the judge in the Brighton Secondary College case ruled, real antisemitism in schools must be distinguished from robust and challenging educational discussion on political topics.

Larry Stillman writes on his own behalf.