Published: 15 October 2021
Last updated: 4 March 2024
Leading Australian Jewish bodies welcome the decision, while others say it will make criticism of Israel harder to voice without being tarred as antisemitic
AUSTRALIA’S DECISION TO adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism has been met with mixed reaction by Australian Jewish advocacy groups.
In an announcement on Wednesday night, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said: "the Holocaust serves as a perpetual and brutal reminder of exclusion, of racism, of systematic political hatred and evil, itself.
“Antisemitism has no place in Australia. It has no place anywhere in the world," he said.
The decision to adopt the IHRA definition, which has already been embraced by 32 countries, was welcomed by community roof bodies, the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
ECAJ President Jillian Segal said: “The government’s announcement has set the standard, for which we are grateful, and the challenge of making the Working Definition a reality in daily life lies before us.
“This is a watershed in Australia in the unending battle against antisemitism.
"It is the beginning, not the end of the journey. In order to make good on the Prime Minister’s pledge that Australia embraces the IHRA Working Definition as a nation and a people, it will need to be adopted by the public and private sectors, the University sector, civil society, school education systems and sporting organisations among others.”
ZFA President Jeremy Leibler said: “Antisemitism is increasing around the world and the key to its reduction is education. The IHRA working definition provides the central plank to this educational endeavour."
"The definition does not aim to, nor does it actually stifle criticism of Israel. Indeed, it specifically says, “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
The Executive Director of AIJAC, Colin Rubenstein, in welcoming the announcement, said: “We need to use all tools available to teach Australians about the dangers of antisemitism and to stop hate speech before it turns into violence."
But other Australian Jewish advocacy groups expressed reservations and concerns about adopting the IHRA definition.
The Executive Director of NIF Australia, Liam Getreu, said: “We remain concerned about codification of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and don’t support the government’s decision.
“Fighting antisemitism must remain a high priority. It is equally important to differentiate between the very real threat of hatred and violence towards Jews and legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government.
“The Working Definition is increasingly being used to conflate antisemitism and criticism of Israel... We urge the government to remain vigilant about the potential impact of this decision on vibrant discourse, especially on university campuses and in civil society.”
Harold Zwier, from the Australian Jewish Democratic Society, said: "The major issue from those who are pushing for the adoption of IHRA is to try to address antisemitism in the context of criticism of Israel.
"The problem is that there is no simple way of judging criticism of Israel as being reasonable or unreasonable.
"And from the perspective of Palestinians and their supporters, who will judge that robust criticism of the treatment of Palestinians will or won't ultimately be labelled as antisemitic?
" For that reason, I think the various definitions such as IHRA ...should be pushed as tools which can be used to recognise and counter antisemitism without the political fanfare that accompanies IHRA in particular.”
THE QUESTION OF HOW AUSTRALIA should define antisemitism has become a lightning rod for Jewish attitudes towards discussion of Israel. In the wake of concerns that the IHRA definition would be used to tar any legitimate criticism of Israel as antisemitic, two other definitions have been proposed, both seeking to clarify how to demarcate criticism of Israel from antisemitic comment.
Debate over the definitions has raged around the Jewish world during recent years, raising a raft of awkward questions such as: When do discussions about Israel slip into antisemitism? Is anti-Zionism inherently antisemitic? How do we manage the difference between political disagreement and antisemitism?
This Sunday The Jewish Independent is hosting a discussion, on Zoom, featuring leading international authorities on contemporary antisemitism. Professor Dov Waxman (University of California, LA) and Jeremy Jones (Australian Israel Jewish Affairs Council) will address growing international debates regarding efforts to define antisemitism.
The panellists will address concerns that definitions such as the IHRA’s could have a chilling effect on speaking out about Israel. A rival definition, the Jerusalem Definition (2020), which critics regard as flawed and “failing to help the fight against antisemitism”, will also be discussed.
Professor Waxman – author, academic and commentator – is the Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation Professor of Israel Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Jeremy Jones AM is a leading figure in interfaith dialogue and human rights advocacy in Australia, and is also a well-known public speaker and writer on a range of public policy issues, who has researched and written 25 annual reports on antisemitic violence in Australia.
Journalist Deborah Stone is also a content creator and communications consultant, having formerly edited the Australian Jewish News.
The discussion will be held at 3pm AEDT this Sunday October 17.
Entry is free. TO REGISTER, CLICK HERE
Photo: Prime Minister Scott Morrison receiving the Jerusalem Prize in 2019 (Giselle Haber)
READ MORE
Australia to back international definition of anti-Semitism (SMH)
STATEMENTS
ZFA
ECAJ
AIJAC
NIF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN JEWISH DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
