ABC and SBS refuse to adopt IHRA

Australian Jewish leaders described the refusal of the ABC and SBS to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism as “deeply concerning”.

The ABC reportedly told the media it would not adopt IHRA, adding, “The ABC’s existing guidance on hate speech is clear and unambiguous, including the principle that legitimate criticism of the State of Israel or the actions of some Israelis becomes antisemitism when the target shifts from ‘Israel’ to ‘Jews’”.

Jewish leaders have argued that the distinction is often not clear and as criticism towards ‘Zionists’ has been coded for Jews.

The ABC also claimed IHRA’s examples have “in some contexts, been applied in ways that risk conflating legitimate political and policy critique with antisemitism”.

SBS similarly declined to adopt IHRA, reportedly stating, “SBS acknowledges there are diverse definitions of antisemitism and does not adopt or endorse any one organisation’s definition”.

The IHRA definition says in part that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” and includes examples.

In Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s 2025 plan to counter antisemitism she recommended the IHRA definition be adopted by “all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies”, noting “Consolidating a uniform national definition of antisemitism is a critical first step toward co-ordinated action.”

The IHRA definition has been endorsed by the federal government, state governments and was adopted by the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.  Commissioner Virginia Bell noted that the IHRA examples must be interpreted in context and in relation to the terms of the definition.

Zionist Federation of Australia CEO Alon Cassuto criticised the inaction: “At the very moment Australia is undertaking the most serious national examination of antisemitism in our history, our publicly funded broadcasters have chosen to stand apart from the framework adopted by the Australian Government, State Governments and the Royal Commission itself.

“Importantly, the IHRA definition explicitly makes clear that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic. In fact, it specifically states that ‘criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’ This is not a framework designed to silence legitimate debate about Israeli government policy. It is a practical and widely adopted tool to help identify when criticism crosses the line into antisemitism.

“If the ABC and SBS are unwilling or unable to adopt a broadly accepted framework to properly define and identify antisemitism, it raises serious questions about how they can hope to address it adequately in their reporting, editorial standards and institutional culture,” he said.

Cassuto added, “At a time when antisemitism has surged to unprecedented levels in Australia, public broadcasters must reflect on the role sections of the media have played in contributing to the normalisation of anti-Jewish hostility and rhetoric… For many Jewish Australians, this decision will only deepen the sense that our national broadcasters are unwilling to take antisemitism seriously.”

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council executive director Colin Rubenstein said the refusal to adopt IHRA was “inexcusable” and further underscores the persistent institutional bias and double standards that “pour more fuel on the antisemitic fire.”

“We must once and for all dispense with the false notion that the IHRA definition somehow stifles free speech or legitimate criticism of Israel. It does neither of those things. What it does do is help identify when such criticism crosses the line into antisemitism, something increasingly evident in public discourse since October 7 and which has been made plainly evident in the testimonies presented before the Royal Commission,” Rubenstein said.

Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Alex Ryvchin commented, “It’s ludicrous that we’re still at the point of debating definitions when antisemitism has shown it’s a lethal and ongoing threat to Australian life. The IHRA definition is being used by the royal commission as well as governments around the world, including our own. The focus should be on eradicating antisemitism from our society rather than petty squabbles intended to create a controversy when none exists.”

Former ABC Board Director Joe Gersh told The AJN it reflected the ABC’s “institutional bias”: “As I’ve said consistently since October 7, 2023, the ABC is not part of the solution (to antisemitism), because it is indeed part of the problem.

“It is clear that the ABC has an institutional bias against Israel; a point which has been made by me and many others based on anecdotal observation, but has now been confirmed forensically in evidence presented to the Royal Commission. The refusal by the ABC to acknowledge the IHRA definition of antisemitism, citing freedom of speech, is a telling symptom of this institutional bias”, adding, “the manner in which Israel is reported, dealt with and indeed misrepresented in the media, impacts directly and in recent times devastatingly in the way in which the Jewish community is perceived and treated. This point has also been made by many others to no avail.”

Speaking to The AJN, Senator Raff Ciccone said it was “disappointing” that SBS and ABC were not adopting IHRA.

“As I said in parliament… prominent individuals, like John Lyons, who, quite frankly, should really take a good hard look at themselves about how they present the news, and should be impartial, be honest, and that is what people expect from news agencies like SBS, like ABC, and any other major outlet. The moment that you refrain from acknowledging things like the definition, you are effectively saying that you are not taking or tackling antisemitism seriously.”

While CEO of the Jewish Centre for Law and Justice Alessandra Steele, who is a former ABC lawyer, commented, “It is unsurprising that the public broadcasters would not want to be held to a definition of antisemitism given their content has been widely reported as contributing to an explosion in antisemitism. These organisations have had minimal accountability from their own internal processes and the ACMA to date. Adopting the government’s accepted definition of antisemitism should be uncontroversial but doing so would open them up to criticism.”

A member of the Independent Research Group responsible for the 58-page submission to the Royal Commission about the ABC’s systematic breaches of accuracy and accountability, told The AJN, “By rejecting the IHRA definition of antisemitism – which Australia itself has adopted and which explicitly protects criticism of Israel equivalent to that of any other country – ABC and SBS are deliberately removing the main objective guardrail against discriminatory coverage.

“Without it, they rely solely on their own subjective editorial judgment, affording themselves the luxury of obsessive focus, fabricated narratives, and routine downplaying of Hamas’s responsibility, while applying double standards to Israel and framing the Jewish state as the singular villain. The IHRA definition does not stifle legitimate debate; it simply enforces basic standards of fairness.”