Mythbusting the misinformation campaign
We cannot allow this misinformation campaign to derail the response to the wave of antisemitism
This past week, we have seen a smear campaign attacking the Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism, soon after its launch last week.
This concerted campaign has focused on just a couple of details in a wide-ranging program of 49 key actions in 13 focus areas, and (most outrageously) attacked the Antisemitism Envoy herself personally, for her husband’s private political activity. I am not going to discuss the personal attacks on the Antisemitism Envoy herself – other than to say it is the lowest form of smear tactics – because they are irrelevant to the merits of her plan.
But I do want to address a couple of the loudest objections to the plan itself: the false claim that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism supported by the plan will silence criticism of Israel, and that the alleged “author” of the IHRA definition supposedly repudiated it. While we are on the topic of misinformation, I also want to address misleading claims that the recent Haddad decision held that anti-Zionism can never amount to antisemitism.
Myth: the IHRA definition silences criticism of Israel
The Plan proposes that the IHRA definition of antisemitism, already adopted by the Australian government and many others, be used across all levels of government and public institutions to inform their understanding of antisemitism.
The misinformation campaign to discredit the Plan claims that the definition will restrict legitimate debate because it defines any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. This is not true.
The IHRA definition itself says: “Criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. The definition goes on to note possible examples of antisemitism that manifest as criticism of Israel:
- Applying double standards to Israel, not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation
- Using antisemitic tropes to demonise Israel or Israelis
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions,
but only on the basis that these “could, taking into account the overall context,” amount to antisemitism. It is not automatic. There is no blanket characterisation of any particular set of words as antisemitic. Each case must be assessed in context and on its merits.
Doing these things is problematic, but it is possible to criticise Israel without doing them. You can read the full text of the definition and examples on IHRA’s website.
Commentators who deny the Jewish people their right to self-determination while claiming that very right for Palestinians; or who require Israel to observe standards of behaviour exceeding that to which other democratic nations are held; or who draw comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; or who hold Jews in Australia collectively responsible for actions of Israel, may well be transgressing into antisemitism.
Every case must be assessed individually. The language used and the context will be critical. But when the line is crossed, it should be called out. Free speech is not a license to engage in hate speech.
Myth: The IHRA definition’s author disowned it
The misinformation campaign also repeats a long-debunked untruth that the alleged “author” of the IHRA definition has disowned it.
In fact, the IHRA definition had about 20 authors, and the one author referred to in these attacks has not repudiated the definition but has been critical of how some have misrepresented it and overstated its effect.
The misinformation about the IHRA definition has been so widely used by opponents over the years that three other authors of the definition wrote an open letter in 2021 to address it. You can read their open letter on our website for a comprehensive account of the true origins of the definition.
Myth: What the Federal Court said about Zionism
I also want to address misleading claims that the recent Federal Court decision against the hate preacher William Haddad held that criticism of Zionism can never be antisemitic. It did not.
The Court found that in one of his speeches, William Haddad was specifically referring to an Israeli military operation and his own distorted version of the ideology of Zionism.
The Court held that “political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity. … Indeed, the [ECAJ] did not submit that it is.”
It follows that if the language used and the context indicate that the real target of the criticism is “Jews in general” or “Jewish racial or ethnic identity”, then it is indeed antisemitic.
The Court’s position is absolutely consistent with the IHRA definition of antisemitism and our own view. The IHRA definition explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” but also recognises that “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” is a manifestation of antisemitism. You can read the full text of the IHRA definition on their website.
The Court held that in the specific example in question, the ordinary, reasonable listener would understand that the reference was to Zionism and Israel only and could not be a reference to Jews. However, it should be obvious from the Court’s words that criticism of Israel or Zionism that conflates them with Jews, vilifies Jews generally, or is based on racial or ethnic identity, can be antisemitic.
See our statement on the case for background and a link to the full judgment.
Be a voice standing up to hate
We cannot allow this misinformation campaign to derail the response to the wave of antisemitism. We need your help, as a sensible voice supporting the pragmatic proposals in the Antisemitism Envoy’s plan, to debunk the misinformation and the myths.
Daniel Aghion is the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.
comments