Submission to Royal Commission on Antisemitism
Posted below is my submission to the Antisemitism Royal Commission. I have thought long and hard about publishing this. I have decided to do so partly because I hope it will encourage others to make submissions. While I am deeply troubled by the highly fraught process that brought us here, and do not believe that a Royal Commission is the appropriate tool for the deep social issue of racism of all kinds, now that it is here, we need to engage with it. And engage with it in good faith. I have used language here I would not always use, and avoided language I would use elsewhere.
You can make a submission here.
I particularly encourage my Jewish readers to do so.
I write as a Jewish person, the grandchild of holocaust survivors, to emphasise the following points to the Royal Commission:
1. Antisemitism is real and causes real harms, and it is too often weaponised to defend the indefensible in ways which leave the Jewish community dangerously exposed.
a. For many Jews, like myself, who are publicly critical of Israel, the antisemitism we face from non-Jews is dwarfed by the lateral abuse from other Jews, which itself often involves antisemitic tropes.
b. The single-minded focus of the mainstream leadership of the Jewish community in treating all criticism of Israel as antisemitic has blinded them to the very real threat of exterminatory antisemitism from the rising far right.
c. The IHRA definition of antisemitism forms part of this blinding process and is damaging to social cohesion through its suppression of legitimate criticism of Israel. The Royal Commission should not use it.
2. To even talk of “drivers of antisemitism” has been suppressed for many years, and is inherently fraught. However, it is crucial to recognise that the actions of the leadership of the Australian diaspora community in suppressing legitimate critique of Israel and backing criminalisation of legitimate protest is now one among many and diverse drivers of antisemitism in Australia.
3. Social cohesion means the ability to debate issues across difference. Without a wide range of opinions and perspectives, the term is meaningless. The suppression of dissent and criminalisation of protest, the banning of the use of words or phrases, attacks on legitimate debate in educational institutions, and campaigns of abuse targeting those who dare speak out, can only harm social cohesion and lead to more explosive unrest.
On this basis, I believe that, if the Commonwealth government is to take the rise of antisemitism seriously, among its primary responsibilities should be to recognise the diversity of opinion in the Jewish community about Israel, Palestine, and Zionism, no longer simply accepting the views of one section of the community, and to actively support and encourage open and respectful debate and dialogue within and beyond the Jewish community.
The Jewish community is hurting badly. We carry real, inherited and personal trauma. We are hurting partly because we expect hate from outside our community. And many of us are hurting because we are attempting to come to terms with the horrors of what is being done in our names, and what the future of our people might be. But I believe we are all hurting because of how much hate there is inside our community. We desperately need a thorough restorative process to heal the devastating rifts in our community. I beg the Royal Commission to support my call on the government to create space for such a restorative process as core to any project to address antisemitism and its drivers in Australia, as well as to support true social cohesion.
Introductory remarks:
While I am not religiously observant, my Jewish identity is very strong, and has been throughout my 50 years of life. From childhood, my Jewish identity has been closely connected with left-wing political ideals – ideals of justice, universalism, and mutual care. My holocaust-survivor grandparents instilled in me the understanding that our privilege as reasonably well-to-do professional and educated members of society was contingent and fragile – it could be torn away at any time, as theirs had been in Europe – and that our duty and responsibility therefore was to work for a society of justice and care for all. It is only in such a just society that our safety could be protected. This can be summed up in the phrase “none of us will be free until all are free”. Our family has always celebrated the important role Jewish people have played in social justice struggles in Australia, including for First Nations justice, to support later waves of migrants, for workers’ rights, and for the environment.
It came as a shock to me, then, in later adolescence and young adulthood, to discover that, to an increasing proportion of my fellow Jews, my participation in Greens and left-wing political causes was, at first, suspect, and later reason for excommunication and abuse, because these causes were associated with criticism of Israel’s violence against Palestinians.
While I first felt this lateral violence as a university student in the 1990s, my experience of it accelerated dramatically during the 2010 clashes, at which time I was an advisor for the Australian Greens in the Federal Parliament. And it has reached fever pitch since October 7, 2023.
What I have witnessed is the deliberate weaponisation of trauma, by the mainstream leadership of a traumatised community, in order to create fear and hatred in defence of a nation state whose security has been conflated with the security of the Jewish people as a whole. It is my belief that this has massively increased the danger to the Jewish community.
My personal experiences of antisemitism:
As a child, I grew up with the knowledge of the history of genocidal antisemitism. While my father’s family faced the holocaust in Europe, my mother’s family had fled Russian pogroms to China. I do not remember a time when I wasn’t aware of this dark history.
In that context, the everyday antisemitism of the schoolyard – thoughtless slurs, comments about money or noses – always seemed troubling but trite.
When I became actively involved in environmental campaigning, the peace movement, broader left causes, and then the Greens around the turn of the millennium, the first inkling I received that these were supposedly the home of the new antisemitism came from older members of the Jewish community taking me aside and questioning me as to why I would associate myself with these people. I was quite honestly dumbstruck by this. I had never experienced antisemitism in these spaces.
I can genuinely say that it was only after the campaigning by the Jewish Boards of Deputies, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and others, ably supported by the Daily Telegraph and The Australian, began to ramp up in earnest, leading to days of abusive phone calls and messages arriving in Greens offices from members of the Jewish community, that I first experienced any antisemitism in those spaces – and even then only occasionally. There have been a handful of times in my long and deep involvement in the Greens when I felt I was asked to justify myself as a Jew – having to explain my position on Israel, for example. There have been a handful of times when I felt that the passionate advocacy for justice for Palestinians spilt over into antisemitic tropes. I emphasise that this has been very occasional, followed a targeted campaign of abuse by the Jewish community, and has been swiftly condemned. These are spaces dedicated to peace and nonviolence, to consensus, to working through disagreement by and large with generosity of spirit, to accepting all people and seeking ways to cooperate and work together across difference. As such, these are not spaces in which antisemitism can take hold. Of course it can appear, as it can appear anywhere – but it cannot take hold. Unlike in spaces dedicated to othering, to dividing the community.
Which, tragically, is exactly what has been happening in recent years with the rise of far right politics. Neo-Nazism, with its explicitly exterminatory antisemitism, is reappearing here in Australia and around the world. Whether it is chants of “Jews will not replace us” in the USA or Australian Senator Fraser Anning referencing the “final solution”, I have been baffled as to why this has been treated as far less of a threat than the spectre of caring people calling for peace and justice.
Throughout this time, the bombardment from my own community became ever nastier. After October 7, my advocacy for peace in public and online became the subject of vicious attacks, and coordinated campaigns, with my posts being shared on WhatsApp groups, calling on people to take me on.
Immediately after the Bondi attack, within less than an hour, I received messages on social media saying “I hope you’re happy now”, and “this is what you get”. I have been called a kapo, a self-hating Jew, a non Jew, an as-a-Jew, a traitor. I have been told that Hamas loves me. I have been told Hitler would have been proud of me. I have been told my grandparents would be rolling in their graves in shame.
The impact on my personal mental health need not be explained. The horror is obvious. The comments about my beloved grandparents are despicable beyond anything I can say. I have spent too many nights to count lying awake in bed shaking and crying with horror, fear, rage, shame, grief. I have had to seek professional help on multiple occasions.
The specifically antisemitic nature of some of these attacks must be emphasised. To be called a kapo is a targeted antisemitic slur. As is to be called a self-hating Jew. As are references to Hitler. Often the framing of these attacks indulges in historically antisemitic ideas of weak diaspora Jews calling for peace while the strong Israeli Jew stands up and fights.
Any serious examination of antisemitism in Australia must involve a deep look into the dark heart of this lateral violence. I repeat that, while I have experienced occasional antisemitism from outside the community, and while I am increasingly afraid of the rise of the far right, the vast majority of the antisemitic abuse I have personally faced has come from Jews.
This has destroyed long and close friendships. I have had to block people I have long loved on social media because they could not hold themselves back from sending me abusive messages.
It is important to note that, while some of this abuse is traumatised people (whose trauma has been weaponised) simply lashing out, a substantial portion of it is a deliberate strategy to suppress advocacy through targeted abuse. And it works. I have had countless conversations with Jewish friends and relatives who are appalled by the actions of the State of Israel but cannot bring themselves to say anything about it because of the fear of this abuse. And, of course, I have felt this myself. My own advocacy has absolutely been limited by the knowledge of the attacks which will come whenever I say anything. It is important to recognise that this is likely to skew the responses the Royal Commission receives from the Jewish community.
One of the most damaging aspects of the single-minded focus of the mainstream community’s leadership on treating critique of Israel as antisemitism has been the way it has blinded the community to the extreme danger of the rise of the far right. The existence of the State of Israel was supposed to prevent the return of genocidal antisemitism, so it makes sense that those steeped in its existence cannot accept the reality of its return. But accept it they must. The defence of Elon Musk after he threw a Nazi salute on the day of President Trump’s second inauguration is a prime example of this (see here). The silence of the Australian Antisemitism Envoy in the face of repeated neo-Nazi marches and protests is another. Indeed, horrifically, the leadership of the State of Israel, and of mainstream diaspora communities, is sometimes actively working with the far right, whether it is the now-defeated Orban regime in Hungary or Advance in Australia, despite their divisive rhetoric and either implicit or explicit antisemitism.
The irony of being called a kapo by people working with groups associated with the far right is almost too much to bear.
On this note, I want to say a few words about the definition of antisemitism. The fact that the Anti Defamation League initially defended Musk’s obviously Nazi salute exposes how politicised the question of defining antisemitism has become. And how difficult. I do not have an easy answer, because I believe it is inherently difficult, if not impossible, to define it with a simple form of words. That said, I believe that the IHRA definition is problematic for a range of reasons. Amongst them is that its attempt to suppress criticism of Israel is damaging to the public debate that is crucial for social cohesion. The internal contradiction among the examples, between the clear statements of differentiation between the Jewish people and the State of Israel and then the conflation and blurring of the boundaries between the two, makes the definition unworkable in practice on that issue. But most problematic, for me, is that the definition itself has become a political tool, used to suppress debate more than to actually address antisemitism.
I believe that the Royal Commission should reverse its decision to use the IHRA definition, and make the case to the Commonwealth government that it, too, should reverse its decision to accept this definition.
Perhaps the clearest example of the unworkable nature of the IHRA definition in relation to the State of Israel is Prime Minister Albanese’s comment, regarding Israeli President Herzog, that “the Jewish community asked for their Head of State to visit”. This is clearly a breach of the definition, suggesting that the Jewish community is more loyal to Israel than to Australia. And yet, the statement was made in the spirit of having adopted the definition.
Drivers of antisemitism:
The fact that the Royal Commission is seeking comment on the drivers of antisemitism marks an important shift in the conversation, in and of itself. Until very recently, antisemitism has been treated, in the mainstream Jewish narrative, as sui generis. Any attempt to explain or articulate drivers at all has been attacked, often in vicious terms such as “doing Hitler’s work”.
In making the following points, I want to emphasise the crucial difference between culpability and responsibility. These are well-known frameworks in both ethics and the law, and I ask the Royal Commission to make this important differentiation. In some cases, actions are truly culpable – worthy of blame and, potentially, legal consequences. In others, the threshold of culpability may not be reached, but one may nevertheless be responsible for actions which have particular repercussions. This should lead to a reconsideration of those actions.
Having said that, I want to attempt to tease out a few different drivers of antisemitism – drivers that differ based on the type of antisemitism and the groups that espouse it.
There is a long and thorough history of articulating the drivers of antisemitism on the far right, most powerfully articulated by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism. She sets out how social atomisation, injustice, a growing division between rich and poor, and general political instability, provide the perfect breeding ground in which antisemitism grows. The deliberate campaigns of othering, dividing the community, attacking immigrants and people of different religious and ethnic backgrounds, feed it further. It is far from controversial to suggest that we are currently living in a period of atomisation, division, inequality and instability, all of which are leading to the growth of far right ideology, including antisemitism. In this context, any political narrative that divides people on an ethnic or cultural basis presents a danger to the Jewish community. And we see far too much of that from politicians in the Coalition and One Nation, as well as much of the media.
While I reject utterly the proposals from the Antisemitism Envoy to monitor and regulate the media, I believe it is important for the Royal Commission to consider the role of Sky After Dark, for example, in fomenting hate and division in the community, which leads ineluctably towards antisemitism. I do not make judgement on the extent to which this is a matter of responsibility or culpability.
Regarding the internal antisemitism I referred to above – the lateral violence that non-Zionist Jews and those calling for peace have been subjected to – I suggest that it has two drivers. Much of it is driven by cognitive dissonance. For many people, brought up with both inherited and personal trauma, the idea of Israel as necessary for Jewish safety is a given. It is unquestionable received wisdom. If, for them, Israel is necessary, then any critique is difficult to accept. It becomes easier to see it as an antisemitic attack than as legitimate critique. I believe there is broad responsibility for this.
Where it becomes culpable, however, is where this trauma and cognitive dissonance has been turned into a deliberate political strategy to suppress dissent by targeting critics. The use of WhatsApp groups to coordinate attacks, the use of supportive media to target people, the use of social media to make broadsides (such as Mark Leibler’s infamous tweet calling Jews who criticise Israel “repulsive and revolting human beings”) – all these are, in my opinion, culpable.
Regarding the question of antisemitism from political Islamism, I am far from an expert and will not seek to comment beyond expressing the view that it would be remarkable if the extreme violence perpetrated by the State of Israel against majority Muslim populations from the Nakba to today had not created ill will towards a people whose leadership has deliberately conflated as a whole with the actions of that state. Doubtless others will comment on how this ill will has been manipulated for political purposes. The only other observation I would add is that it is a matter of acknowledged historical fact that, prior to the Nakba, Jews lived more safely and happily in many Muslim countries than we had in Europe. That, to me, speaks volumes.
I fear that the shift now to a discourse about the drivers of antisemitism comes from the desire of the mainstream leadership of the community to blame pro-Palestine protesters for the Bondi attack and more general rising antisemitism. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I also want to emphasise, however, that I do not necessarily see evidence that the actions of the State of Israel themselves have substantially increased antisemitism per se. In countless conversations with Palestinian people, Muslim people, and white people involved in the Palestinian solidarity movement, I have seen a consistent and conscious differentiation between Israel and the Jewish people. While the anger at Israel’s actions often becomes hate, it is directed at the leaders of the nation state, and to members of the IDF, and to settlers, certainly. But it is not extended to all Jews. At least certainly not in the movement at large.
Having said that, I have in recent months seen a small increase in what I consider to be genuine antisemitism on the pro-Palestinian left – commentary by a small handful of people involved in the movement that drifts into the danger zone of accusing all Jews of being responsible for the horrific actions of the State of Israel. In these cases, where I have felt safe doing so, I have called out (or called in, privately) those expressing these views, and I have found a very clear and consistent driver for this slide into antisemitism: the fact that mainstream diaspora Jewish leadership is so intent on suppressing dissent and protest in order to protect those who perpetrate horrific crimes.
It seems to me to be patently clear that, where antisemitism is rising at the margins on the left, the driver is the fact that high profile community leaders – people who purport to speak on behalf of our Jewish community at large – are using their positions to seek to criminalise protest, to criminalise words, and to defend the indefensible.
For this, the community’s leadership must bear responsibility. Deep consideration must be given as to the political and social implications of their actions.
Social cohesion:
Social cohesion is a fraught and controversial term, but at its core, it surely means the ability to debate issues across difference. Without a wide range of opinions and perspectives, the term is meaningless. Unanimity is not cohesion.
Hannah Arendt, in her essay, To Save the Jewish Homeland, published in May 1948, emphasises this:
"Unanimity of opinion is a very ominous phenomenon, and one characteristic of our modern mass age. It destroys social and personal life, which is based on the fact that we are different by nature and by conviction. To hold different opinions and to be aware that other people think differently on the same issue shields us from that god-like certainty which stops all discussion and reduces social relationships to those of an ant heap. A unanimous public opinion tends to eliminate bodily those who differ, for mass unanimity is not the result of agreement, but an expression of fanaticism and hysteria. In contrast to agreement, unanimity does not stop at certain well-defined objects, but spreads like an infection into every related issue."
There is not much more that needs to be said on this issue, in my opinion.
To make it very clear, the suppression of dissent and criminalisation of protest, the banning of the use of words or phrases, attacks on legitimate debate in educational institutions, and campaigns of abuse targeting those who dare speak out, can only harm social cohesion and lead to more explosive unrest.
The dangers to social cohesion do not come from protest, even vigorous protest, even protest that makes some people uncomfortable. Indeed, genuine social cohesion requires such protest, and it requires people to face their discomfort and consider the world from the perspective of others. The dangers to social cohesion come from the desire to suppress that dissent, and the use of coercive power to actually do so.
Conclusion and recommendation:
Antisemitism is real. It is rising. And it is complex. It has many forms and many drivers.
Fundamentally, it is a social issue which cannot be adequately addressed by a Royal Commission, or really by government.
If the Royal Commission is to achieve anything to help address rising antisemitism and to support social cohesion, it is my firm belief that it must recognise the diversity of opinions across the Jewish community and beyond. The suppression of dissent can never lead to cohesion. Internal attacks and ructions can never lead to safety.
While much can and should be done on general antiracism and antiviolence work, which others have more expertise in that I do, I have one recommendation that I am convinced is a sine qua non for addressing antisemitism and social cohesion.
It is crucial that the Commonwealth government (and other governments and agencies) recognise the diversity of opinions within the Jewish community, remove from key positions those who reject that diversity of opinion, and use their good offices to attempt to heal the gaping wounds in the community. A government-sponsored restorative process would go a long way.
None of us will ever be safe until all are safe.
None of us will ever be free until all are free.
