The McCarthyist plan to suppress critique of Israel in Australia
29.9.2024
Prime Minister with Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia, Jillian Segal
The latest plan to suppress criticism of Israel in Australia is straightforward. Appointing the Special Envoy on Antisemitism was a first step, as she can be the focal point for driving government reform. After this, the goals will be to create a new binding definition of antisemitism which is broad enough to include criticism of Israel, or be vague enough so that it could be interpreted that way. This could be the IHRA definition, or it could be a new one, provided the definition either references Israel or Zionism, or gives primacy to the feelings of complainants.
What comes next? Public investigations into complaints of antisemitism. Chomsky once observed that a political trial is rarely lost by the state, because the diversion of money, time, emotional energy and organising opportunity all impose significant costs that activists are rarely in much of a position to spare. Even if the defendant ostensibly wins their case, they will still have taken a beating.
If a person is subject to a public hearing where they are accused of antisemitism by a government appointed figure, with associated media coverage dragging that person’s name through the mud, what will it do for their career and job prospects? Does any ambitious young university student want their google results to be based around an investigation into antisemitism?
The proposed Bill by the Liberals has so far encountered little meaningful resistance from the ALP. The public hearings had only one confrontational group of witnesses — the Jewish Council of Australia. The hearing quickly devolved into a Liberal Senator demanding that the Jewish witnesses condemn various things as antisemitic, and presenting herself as deeply affronted at any failure to do so.
What McCarthyism was
This is not the same as McCarthyism, but it is similar enough to be reminiscent of it. In the 1940s, US President Truman instituted loyalty pledges, and essentially drove communists out of the federal government. In fighting the communist threat, Truman was supported by the FBI, led by the obsessively anti-communist J Edgar Hoover. The House on Un-American Affairs Committee was repurposed to target communists, to be publicly named and shamed. Cooperative witnesses became pitiful wretches, wielding their abject desperation to save their public names. Uncooperative witnesses were bullied on the stand, and their lives were ruined outside of it. Communists were prosecuted under the Smith Act for advocating the overthrow of the government. In an aggressively anti-communist environment, being perceived as a communist made someone unemployable. Such suspicions were not limited to those who were members of the group — there were always new, subtle signs of the nefarious, deceitful communists, and communist hunters were eager to seek out those tells.
Oh, you’re sympathetic to socialism? That sounds like communism. Oh, you don’t support this American war? Neither do the communists. You were in a progressive group with a known communist? Isn’t that interesting. Progressive social movements and organisations responded to the fervour by adopting their own purges. The spectrum of political opinion and activism was significantly narrowed, to conform to the repressive atmosphere.
Joseph McCarthy emerged in this environment, with the repressive infrastructure in place. Where the Federal Government and FBI worked studiously to purge communists, McCarthy claimed to have a list of communists in government institutions. Like HUAC, McCarthy held public hearings, where he claimed people were communists based on tenuous connections. McCarthyism is remembered as a scourge, not because he sent people to prison for being communists — that was not his role or power. It was not because he demanded people name names and inform on their friends and colleagues — that was HUAC. It was not because he spied on people, collected secret information from years past and publicised it, claiming to prove people were communist — the spying was done by the FBI. It was because he destroyed people’s reputations, not by proving people were communist, but by raising a public stink that made people think maybe someone was a communist. And once that person’s name was dragged through the mud, they were, to use today’s language, cancelled. Reclaiming their reputation and making a new life for themselves, post public shaming, would be a long process, which some never managed.
A new Australian McCarthyism
The Bill for an inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities is about creating an Australian McCarthyism.
A preview of what this might look like has come with the Inquiry into a Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No 2). This is a representative exchange from Jewish Council of Australia’s appearance:
Dr Strakosch : Actually, I’m feeling like some of these questions are not giving us the space to legitimately address our submission to the inquiry and are instead seeking to trap —
Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, we’ve got limited time. We’re trying to understand your concerns. Do you believe that those slogans are antisemitic?
Ms Schwartz : We’ve made multiple statements as an organisation, one on distinguishing between the Star of David and the Israeli flag, which we think is a very important thing for people to distinguish between and relates to the distinction between criticism of Israel and Jewish identity. And I’m going to get to the —
Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I’m going to draw you back to my question.
CHAIR: Senator Henderson, you are going to let the witness answer the question.
Senator HENDERSON: No; I’m entitled to interrupt if the question’s not being answered.
Ms Schwartz : I’m going to get to —
CHAIR: No. The witness is entitled to answer the question and she’s doing that. They’re not one-word-answer questions. Let’s be respectful, shall we?
Senator HENDERSON: I’m entitled to prosecute —
Dr Strakosch : The question is about the slogan ‘from the river to the sea’.
Senator HENDERSON: ‘The river to the sea’ and ‘intifada’, that’s right. Do you believe that the use of those slogans on university campuses is antisemitic?
Dr Strakosch : No. In fact, ‘from the river to the sea’ has been widely acknowledged, including by the Palestinian movement, to refer to the equal treatment and democratic equality of all peoples, including Jewish people and Palestinian people, in the area covering Israel and Palestine.
Senator HENDERSON: Even the Prime Minister says that he recognises that that is a call for the destruction of Israel.
Senator SCARR: As a Jewish state.
Senator HENDERSON: As a Jewish state.
The signs of how this might be play out are all there. The witnesses aren’t asked if they are now or have ever been a communist. They are instead to be asked if they condemn this or that thing as antisemitic. Failure to do so will be taken as a damning sign of one’s own antisemitism. Any public hearing will be associated with media coverage of whether the witness — or perhaps, suspect — is an antisemite. The Bill proposing the Commission of Inquiry into universities provides that public hearings will be held, and ‘the Commissioner will determine how the proceedings are conducted’. The Commissioner ‘is not bound by the rules of evidence’. That is, the Commissioner can publicly drag a person’s name through the mud, and they will not have to fight fair.
In the above exchange, the coercive atmosphere of McCarthyism isn’t quite there. The underlying infrastructure of repression wasn’t set up. The two witnesses have enough job security to choose to appear. They are also Jewish, which makes such smears — particularly from non-Jewish Senators — harder to credit.
However, the proposed inquiry — or perhaps I should say, inquisition — will not be targeting people with enough job security to front such an inquiry, or not at first. It will target students — people who are not in the workforce, but hoping to transition into gainful employment and meaningful careers. How will they fare as every trivial utterance in person or on social media is subject to malicious interpretation by an inquisitor determined to censor pro-Palestine advocacy on campus? After a few people face the ordeal of arguing before the inquisition and right-wing media that they don’t hate Jews, how many students will be willing to put up with the costs of this invading their life?
Whilst the anti-Palestinian fervour isn’t quite the same as that of the anti-communist era, it is still significant. There have been multiple public instances of people being fired or driven out of their jobs, shows being cancelled, and subject to complaints, for expressing sympathy for Palestinians, wearing a keffiyeh, displaying the Palestinian flag, or criticising Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
The Judge auditioning for the new role
Who will be the Commissioner? Here it may be salutary to remember the experience of Dyson Heydon. In 2002, he gave a speech to Quadrant, the notoriously right-wing journal. He spoke about the dangers of judicial activism — what conservatives call liberal judges who try to interpret the law in ways consistent with human rights. This speech was widely considered a type of ‘job application’ — that is, he tried to present himself as a safe conservative jurist, so that the Howard Government would appoint him. Half a year later, he was a justice of the High Court.
In that manner, another judge has seemingly put his hand up for the role of heading the proposed commission of inquiry into university antisemitism. Ronald Sackville wrote an op ed criticising the submission of the G8 universities, arguing it illustrates the inadequacy of how some universities have responded to antisemitism on campuses. In another, he identifies anti-Zionism as an ‘extreme position’, though whether it is inherently antisemitic is ‘hotly disputed’. Sackville states that ‘threats or insults publicly directed at Jews or Zionists simply because they are or are believed to be Jewish or Zionists fits the pattern of traditional antisemitism.’ To underline that — it is antisemitic to insult a Zionist because they are believed to be a Zionist. He concluded that ‘antisemitism’, as defined above’, does not need to be unlawful for universities to take stronger action against its alleged perpetrators.
In a third op ed, Sackville attacked Louise Adler in personal terms. Characterising Adler’s words comparing the Warsaw Ghetto to Gaza as ‘disgusting’, Sackville wrote that Adler, who is Jewish, ‘may not be an antisemite, but the comparison she makes with Nazi Germany will be music to the ears of every antisemite.’
Sacvkille’s op ed is titled as coming from a ‘Zionist humanitarian’. One can get a sense of his keen humanitarian concern from the following:
Adler is utterly unable to grasp that one can be a Zionist yet contend for a Jewish AND democratic Israel that respects and promotes the dignity and human rights of all its citizens. This is the position of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Jewish Israelis...
One can plausibly argue that the IDF has exercised excessive force in Gaza and perhaps committed some war crimes during the course of the war.
As to the latter claim — that ‘perhaps’ Israel has committed ‘some’ war crimes, it is interesting to note Sackville previously acknowledged that the ICJ may find Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
Universities first, but not last
The proposed commission may start with an inquiry into universities — the ‘antisemitism crisis’ being a question of Zionist groups opposing the pro-Gaza encampments — but it won’t end there. After all, should teachers be allowed to be antisemitic? Or doctors? Or bureaucrats? Or…?
McCarthyism, it should be remembered, started with civil servants, before McCarthy came on the scene. It soon spread across the American economy. The logic of HUAC and McCarthy was that associating with a communist could be enough to tar one as a communist. Given this, if you were an employer, would you want to give a communist a job? If you did, would you want to give them a promotion? Or a reference? Or socialise with one? What if someone might be a communist? Would you want to take that chance?
The Red Scare didn’t stop at politically sensitive government jobs, and it didn’t stop at communists. The censorious atmosphere it spread across America didn’t just stifle political speech from communists, but across the spectrum of social activism.
It is clear that there pro-Israel groups intend to do what they can to suppress speech in favour of Palestine across all sectors of society. This was laid out in a speech by ECAJ head Alex Ryvchin, which was leaked to independent journalist Alex McKinnon. In his speech, Ryvchin laid out using different avenues to address different types of _expression_ he wished to suppress.
For example, Ryvchin addressed how to suppress Palestine solidarity at schools — by using the law, by working with Education Ministers and boards of education to send clear messages to teachers, to ensure ‘maximum pressure is brought to bear’.
In the arts, ‘the Jews are disproportionately represented… as patrons and as donors’, and they can withdraw their support if artists commit such offences as wear keffiyehs.
Ryvchin said ‘If we have influence in certain segments of society, whether it be business, the arts, the legal community, academia, it is because that influence has been earned through our blood and through our toil. And it is time, I believe, to exert that influence.’ How can that be exercised?
If you’re the partner at a law firm and you see an applicant has engaged in this sort of conduct, don’t employ them. If you’re a builder and you see a subcontractor has engaged in antisemitism, don’t work with them. This is the time that consequences need to be exerted for what is happening. There needs to be a price for being an antisemite.
Whilst Ryvchin here refers to antisemites rather than criticisms of Israel, the Q&A makes clear that he considers all anti-Zionism antisemitic. He has also made this clear in public remarks, such as his view that any display of the Palestinian flag is traumatic, inappropriate and offensive.
Will this succeed?
How this will play out is unclear. University of Sydney Vice Chancellor Mark Scott apologised to Jewish students. This is seemingly being taken as a concession of his antisemitism, and being used to escalate the campaign against him. I am not aware if Labor has indicated its position on the proposed Commission. Multiple witnesses displayed their eagerness to work with the Special Envoy Jillian Segal to address the scourge of antisemitism. This is despite her making clear that she considers that antisemitism includes purely political speech based around criticism of the Israeli government, Zionism, or scepticism about claims by the Israeli government. As reviewed in the linked blog above, Segal repeatedly identified ‘anti-Israel’ content and discourse as examples of antisemitism.
Yet what was the response?
I’ve read the complaints that have been made to the university and all those shared in submissions to this inquiry and to the special envoy. The testimonials are heartbreaking and unacceptable, and for that I am sorry…
I have written to the special envoy outlining our genuine commitment to working with her office to combat this scourge across university campuses. If a judicial inquiry is a necessary part of the solution, then we welcome it.
University of Melbourne:
We welcome working in collaboration with other institutions across the sector and the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism…
University of Adelaide:
We look forward to working with our colleague institutions and the special envoy to fight antisemitism on our campuses.
Hugh De Kretser, head of the Australian Human Rights
Adopting that trauma-informed approach, we will work collaboratively with the special envoy, drawing on the work that she is doing to ensure that it informs our work…
The seemingly untouchable premises underlying such testimony is a) there is a crisis of antisemitism in Australia b) there is a crisis of antisemitism on university campuses c) this crisis should be addressed through close cooperation with the special envoy. There is no real evidence for these propositions. Indeed, there is significant reason to doubt what is presented as evidence for these claims. Yet when such allegations of antisemitism are made, the natural instinct of cautious bureaucrats and progressive CEOs is not to dispute such allegations, but to pledge to do better, and try to defuse through placation. In most circumstances, this would make sense. If a man is accused of sexism, a defensive response demanding evidence is typically regarded as self-incriminating. It is considered preferable to be open to the possibility of not being as enlightened as one might hope, and trying to better oneself.
Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of such an approach, this approach is not appropriate here. Groups committed to lobbying in support of the Israeli government are using allegations of antisemitism to suppress criticism of Israel, whilst it actively carries out genocide. The chilling effect caused by these allegations will stifle the public pressure needed to force the Australian government to change its policy of supporting Israeli apartheid and genocide. Claims of antisemitism are being made to suppress critique of Israel’s unconscionable treatment of the Palestinians. Any concessions that people make — that they promise they are listening and learning, of apologising for insensitivity, that they will work with pro-Israel groups to learn about antisemitism, that they take seriously claims of spikes in antisemitism from groups that are primarily working to suppress criticism of Israel — are only legitimising the inquisition, strengthening the hands of supporters of Israeli apartheid and genocide, and weakening the position of supporters of Palestinian rights.
Right now, the Commission has not been established, and is just a proposal by some right-wing Liberals. This is the time to make clear that it is unacceptable. The more the proposal develops — the more institutions commit to it and to working with the Special Envoy — the more the groundwork is being set up to publicly stigmatise and suppress support for Palestinian rights. This is not the time to be reticent about criticising the weaponisation of antisemitism by Zionists.