February 25, 2025: OPINION BY GREG RAY
Australia needs to beware of political and religious extremists. They are dangerous. Their advice and preferences should not take precedence over those of other people. It doesn’t matter what religion they espouse or what nation-state they may be advocating for: if their pronouncements and declarations identify them as extremists then they need to be treated with great caution. Their extremist views should not be amplified and if opportunistic politicians and media outlets seek to do so in pursuit of some perceived advantage then those opportunists should be called out.
At present, all over the world, debates are raging over this issue as it relates to discussion of the conflict between the state of Israel and Palestinian people. Some people whom I regard as extremists appear to be arguing that it should be illegal to criticise the actions of the Israeli government and military in this conflict. They argue that it should be illegal to overtly support any aspects of the case for the Palestinian people. To a remarkable extent it appears their goals are being achieved. Even if criticism of the Israeli government and military is not actually illegal (yet) it is certainly being suppressed through a variety of means including:
- Loss of employment and blacklisting of critics
- Threats to funding for critical organisations
- Algorithmic throttling of critics in online forums
- Personal harassment and threats against critics
- Media manipulation to discredit critics
- Political machination: ie. rewarding pro-Israel voices and penalising critics.
Whilst these measures may be tactically and strategically understandable from the point of view of the extremist elements that are driving them, they would under normal circumstances be regarded as unacceptable. So why are the current circumstances not normal? One word: “antisemitism”. It is proposed by these extremists – who seem to want only their voices to be heard and only their arguments to considered – that because Israel is, or might like to be, a near-exclusively Jewish nation, then to criticise actions of Israel as a nation is to criticise Jews. To criticise the actions of any people who happen to be Jews is, apparently, automatically antisemitic. To suggest that Israel’s military campaigns in Palestine might be genocidal or amount to ethnic cleansing is said to be a scandalous libel which on some level implies a denial of Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. Therefore, the argument runs, only a person who hates Jews could level those and similar criticisms against Israel’s government and military.
Self-evident poppycock
This is such self-evident poppycock it’s a marvel that so many people are cowed by it. It is routine among people to debate the rights and wrongs of the actions of governments and armies, no matter on whose behalf those entities might be acting. It is entirely proper that this should be the case. Is it anti-Australian to suggest that an Australian government might be a spineless pawn of a foreign power? That it might be completely in thrall to fossil fuel and financial interests? Of course not. Australia is not a uniform bloc of people, all of one mind and all faithfully represented by the actions and omissions of their nation’s government. The same applies to Israel and to the global Jewish diaspora. Most Australians are not offended by criticism of their government and nor, I suggest, are most Israelis or non-Israeli Jews.
This week, Australia’s 39 universities adopted – with apparently minimal consultation and despite many warnings that the move will prove short-sighted and harmful – a highly controversial definition of antisemitism that seems set to make honest discussion of Middle Eastern affairs even harder than the above-listed measures had already made it. The sweeping vagueness of the adopted definition means a great deal of legitimate commentary, research and discussion is likely to be suppressed on Australia’s campuses. A valuable critique of this bad decision can be found here, on the website of the progressive Jewish Council Australia. Another good article on the subject appears on the independent news site Crikey.
Israeli media is allowed to criticise Israel’s leadership, although perhaps not much of it actually does. The respected Israeli news outlet Haaretz has habitually published the following statement at the foot of the emails it sends to subscribers and others:
The war erupted after 10 months of an intense domestic political and social crisis, due to legislation promoted by the Netanyahu government aimed at dramatically weakening Israel’s judiciary and the prime minister’s corruption trial, amid an escalation of violence between West Bank Palestinians and Israeli settlers, the latter empowered by Israel’s most right-wing government ever.
Indeed, Haaretz publishes much sterner criticism than this from progressive Israeli writers. Its flagship editorials routinely characterize the Netanyahu government as extremist. It is a simple fact that Israel’s government has been captured by right-wing religious extremists. Its actions are driven by their agendas, and also, it can be argued, by the personal ambitions and requirements of Benjamin Netanyahu. Why in the world should the actions of a government in such circumstances be exempt from criticism? The suggestion is actually insane.
In my view a non-extremist Israeli government could have reacted differently to Hamas’s October 7 attack. The apparent doctrine of collective punishment without observable limits is as extreme as extremism can go. Also in my view it is not hard to imagine a scenario in which less extreme Israeli governments before the present one might have worked to create an environment in which Palestinians would be less sympathetic to extreme behaviour against Israel. Sadly the exact opposite has been true. Extremism on one side has fed and encouraged extremism on the other and we now see the ghastly consequences.
As far as Australia is concerned, the media campaign about an alleged epidemic of antisemitism is aimed – in my opinion – at persuading Australian governments to become complicit in shutting down criticism of Israel’s extremist government and suppressing any expressions of support for Palestinians. Among the pieces of “evidence” used to back the crisis claim are the antisemitism reports of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) compiled by ECAJ research director Julie Nathan. The most recent annual report, which covers the year ending September 30, 2023, includes such instances as graffiti reading “BDS” (a reference to boycotting Israeli businesses and products) or “Nakba” (the Palestinian word for catastrophe). That report has been critiqued here. A special ECAJ report issued last December categorises anti-Jewish incidents and concludes that 33 per cent of incidents are posters, stickers, placards etc, 30 per cent are “abuse” (which might be name-calling or rude gestures), 19 per cent are graffiti, 14 per cent are direct messages, 3 per cent are assaults and 1 per cent is vandalism.
It’s a deeply unpleasant summary of nastiness, and ECAJ wants Australian governments and police forces to crack down on perpetrators of such incidents. And yet, on the other hand, Ms Nathan has herself been accused of retweeting some quite hateful material denigrating Palestinians and Muslims generally, on the basis of their religion and race.
Another prominent lobbyist pushing for Australian governments to do more about antisemitism is Mark Leibler, chairman of the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). His son Jeremy is president of the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA). Both men have also been accused of retweeting hateful messages from the serving Israeli Minister of Diaspora Affairs, Amichai Chikli, branding all Gazan society as evil and stating that: “a society that cultivates a culture of murder and death has no right to exist. A society that tolerates Hamas sympathizers within it dooms its own elderly, its own mothers and children, to the same fate”. Just pause for a moment and imagine some Palestinian extremist boosting similar remarks about Israelis, Jews or Zionists. The uproar would be shattering.
The point is that our society has been striving, inch by painful inch, to reach a point where racism, sexism, homophobia and religious discrimination are not tolerated. While we sympathise deeply with the pain of those harmed in terrorist or criminal attacks, we should not stoop to supporting collective punishment nor the calculated dehumanisation of people who happen to belong to the same race or adhere to the same religion as the attackers.
I am nominally a Protestant Christian. If some group of Protestant Christians blows up a bus full of Catholics or Hindus should I be held accountable? Should I and tens of thousands like me be destroyed and our homes confiscated by way of retribution or some notion of pre-emptive “defence”? The principle is unsound and it is not antisemitic to say so.
Australia has some anti-discrimination laws. Perhaps it should have some better ones. Perhaps the ones it has should be better applied and enforced. What Australia doesn’t need is laws that silence some voices and complaints while others are shielded from scrutiny and criticism. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the situation. Perhaps nobody really wants that. But if anybody is asking for that, the answer has to be no: a thousand times, no.
In the meantime no government of any nation has the right to demand that its actions be exempt from scrutiny. Efforts by the government of Israel and some of its champions to characterise, at will, criticism of the government’s policies and actions as “antisemitism” are unworthy and deserved to be ignored.
Jewish Council, Australia
Also worth contesting are claims by particular groups to represent or to be “the voice” of entire racial or religious groups. People are diverse and have many voices. Palestinians, Israelis and Jewish people are no exception. ECAJ, ZFA and AJAIC clearly represent a certain section of Jewish opinion in Australia. There are other sections, however, and they are striving to have their voices heard. Notably, the Jewish Council, Australia offers a completely different perspective on most of the topics I’ve been discussing here. Here are the core principles espoused by JCA:
We are proud Jewish people in Australia with diverse histories, traditions and politics. We are committed to the values of tikkun olam (repairing the world), calling out injustice, challenging assumptions and promoting debate. We reject the assertion that Jews and the State of Israel are one and the same, or that all Jewish people support, without criticism, the actions of the Israeli government and military. Pro-Israel Jewish organisations, that do not recognise the diversity of views among Australian Jews, do not speak for us. While we have diverse views on many issues, we are united in our opposition to Israel’s continued policies aimed at the destruction of Palestinian life. We are opposed to the Israeli occupation and the prioritisation of the rights of Jewish people over the rights of Palestinians.
Jewish safety is not at odds with Palestinian freedom. We support calls for freedom, equality and justice for all Palestinians and Israelis. We reject any claim that this call is racist or antisemitic, or that it is antisemitic to criticise Israel’s conduct. Racism and antisemitism are on the rise in Australia. The only way to effectively fight antisemitism is by committing to work in solidarity with other groups facing bigotry and discrimination to fight all forms of racism.
It may not surprise you to learn that JCA and its members are under sustained attack from some other Jewish groups that appear to feel their presumed authority to speak for all Australian Jews is being undermined. Remarking on Jewish people who disown and criticize the Israeli government’s actions against Palestinians, AJAIC’s Mark Leibler opined:
Nothing, but nothing, is worse than those Jews who level totally unfounded allegations of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the State of Israel. They are repulsive and revolting human beings. Their relatives who were murdered by the Nazis – the role models for Hamas – will undoubtedly be turning in their graves. Their avowed anti Zionism is clearly no more than a cover for the reality that they are vicious antisemites.
There’s that word again, now levelled at dissenting Jews.
It may also not be surprising to you that JCA and its members are under sustained attack from the Murdoch media empire. For many people, this may be all you need to know. Here is a Crikey article about a failed Murdoch media stunt, apparently designed to create an antisemitic incident for media and political exploitation.
In my opinion this is a propaganda battle with an end goal in mind. That end goal is to limit and suppress legitimate public discussion of momentous world affairs. The rationale applied in support of that goal is spurious, in my view, and deserves to fail.
