Far-right extremism and the conflation of Jewish identity with Israel are the main drivers of antisemitism in Australia, the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) says.
In its submission to the royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion, the liberal Jewish group calls for more focus on the “often overlooked” threat from the far right, and recognition of the diversity of views within the Jewish community instead of the “tendency to treat Jews collectively as representatives of Israel”.
In the submission, which the JCA made public this week, executive officer Sarah Schwartz says the “resurgent Australian far-right is a hotbed of antisemitism even as it weaponises Jewish grief to legitimise attacks on migrant communities and religious minorities”.
The submission says two important drivers of antisemitism are the “growth of far-right, neo-Nazi and conspiracist movements, which represent a significant and often overlooked threat to Jewish communities, and the aggressive actions of the state of Israel and conflation of Jewish identity with Israel”.
That is “a conflation that the state of Israel itself has long cultivated and which causes direct harm to Jewish people worldwide when they are blamed for Israel’s actions”, the submission says.
Over the course of the commission’s first block of public hearings in May, the commissioner, Virginia Bell, heard discussions of the blurred lines between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions, as well as first-hand stories of antisemitic attacks, details of the policing on the day of the Bondi attack and discussions on the definition of antisemitism.
The debate over identification with Israel is multifaceted.
Other submissions have included statements from Australian Jews strongly identifying with the state, including from Daniel Aghion, the president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which has been critical of the views of the JCA and regards it as unrepresentative of the majority of Australian Jews.
Others have testified before the commission that Australian Jews should not be held responsible for Israel’s actions. Vic Alhadeff, the former chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, told the commission: “Jewish Australians have no agency in what the Israel Defense Force does, or indeed what the Israeli government does. And yet so much of the manifestation of antisemitic incidents and attacks is interlaced with, and references, what is taking place on the other side of the world. We are not responsible.”
The government’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, told Bell conflation of the Israeli government with Jewish people was Australia’s “fastest-growing” form of antisemitism.
The commission has received more than 16,000 submissions, according to its website. Submissions are not being made public, but organisations and individuals are able to share their own submissions. Others that have done so include the president of the Zionist Federation of Australia, Jeremy Leibler, as well as Aghion and the JCA.
The next block of hearings – from 29 June to 10 July – will focus on the drivers of antisemitism and hate speech, with a focus on media and social media.
In its submission, the JCA describes itself as Australia’s largest progressive Jewish organisation, supporting human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice. It has a membership of 2,500 people, according to its website.
Antisemitism is real and rising, it argues in the submission, but the dominant policy responses – “punitive legislation, conflation-reinforcing definitions, and the silencing of political dissent” – actually “makes it worse”.
The submission argues that evidence shows punitive approaches such as hate speech laws do not reduce racism, and there is a “significant risk” that “restrictions on pro-Palestinian speech and protest, when justified by invocations of Jewish safety, will backfire and weaken social cohesion and potentially increase antisemitism”.
It says the media amplifies extremists through “information laundering” and mainstreaming radical and racist messages, and it calls for responsible reporting principles such as not interviewing extremists and blurring banners at protests.
‘ The preceding article may include information circulated by third parties ’
‘ Some details of this article were extracted from the following source www.theguardian.com ’
