<\/p>\n
Palestinian voices are being excluded from the debate on social cohesion, the peak body for Palestinians in Australia has said after it was refused leave to appear before the royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion.<\/p>\n
The Australia Palestine<\/a> Advocacy Network (Apan) made detailed submissions on the issues of antisemitism \u2013 including how it is defined \u2013 as well as on racism and social cohesion, but was told it did not have a \u201cdirect and substantial\u201d interest in the public hearings, which are under way in Sydney.<\/p>\n \u201cExcluding voices from the Palestinian community increases the very real probability of producing an incomplete and polarising account of the rise in antisemitism,\u201d Apan told Guardian Australia.<\/p>\n The network said it was deeply concerned that the inquiry would rely heavily on submissions \u201cequating criticism of Israel<\/a>, Zionism, and Israel\u2019s actions in Gaza with hatred of Jewish people, without rigorous inquiry\u201d.<\/p>\n Apan said criticism of Israel was routinely misrepresented as antisemitic. \u201cThe definition of antisemitism is distorted and weaponised in attempts to silence those who criticise Israel,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n The inquiry\u2019s first block of hearings, currently before commissioner Virginia Bell, is focused on defining antisemitism, its historical and contemporary manifestations, and its current impact on Jewish Australians.<\/p>\n Apan\u2019s 259-page submission to the commission included testimony from professors Ilan Pappe, Shaul Magid and Noura Erakat, experts on Middle Eastern history, Judaism and international law, based in the UK and US.<\/p>\n The Apan submission argued antisemitism was often conflated with anti-Zionism, which it said was counterproductive to tackling antisemitism, and delegitimised criticism of Israel\u2019s policies and actions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe conflation is also harmful to Jewish Australians because it diverts attention from bona fide examples of antisemitism.\u201d<\/p>\n On Monday, the research director for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Julie Nathan, told the commission<\/a> that criticism of Israel was not inherently antisemitic, \u201ceven though a lot of it is incredibly offensive\u201d.<\/p>\n Nathan said pro-Palestinian protest material, such as posters and stickers, were not inherently antisemitic, but could be considered examples of Jew hatred dependent on context.<\/p>\n Apan formally sought leave to appear before the commission\u2019s public hearings.<\/p>\n The solicitor assisting the commission responded, telling Apan \u201cthe commissioner is not satisfied that Apan has a direct and substantial interest in the scope of the hearing and has refused Apan leave to appear at hearing block 1\u201d.<\/p>\n The commission confirmed to the Guardian that Apan had applied to appear at hearing block 1, but that leave was not granted.<\/p>\n \u201cApplications are considered and determined on a case-by-case basis having regard to the royal commission\u2019s practice guideline<\/a>,\u201d the commission said in a statement.<\/p>\n Apan will be given the opportunity to respond in writing at the end of hearing block 1.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are profoundly disappointed by this decision,\u201d Apan\u2019s president, Nasser Mashni, said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Australian Palestinian community and its allies deserve the same democratic access as any other group.<\/p>\n \u201cExcluding our voices at a time when Palestinians face a surge in racism and vilification \u2013 as documented by the recent report from our anti-Palestinian racism register<\/a> \u2013 sends a devastating and deeply alienating message about who belongs and who doesn\u2019t and whose suffering counts and whose doesn\u2019t. This is entirely inconsistent with and counterproductive to calls for social cohesion.\u201d<\/p>\n Mashni said it was vital that people living in a democracy such as Australia were able to criticise the policies of the Israeli government and the actions of the Israel Defense Forces if they chose to, without that criticism being equated with antisemitism or hatred of Jews.<\/p>\n \u201cThe refusal to hear evidence that distinguishes anti-Zionism from antisemitism creates the very real risk of turning this [royal commission] into a one-sided process rather than a genuine inquiry, with very serious ramifications for those who have been excluded, and more broadly, for the Palestinian struggle for liberation.\u201d<\/p>\n