Anti-Semitism, a pandemic of concocted claims
By Stuart Rees
Dec 21, 2024
(Graphic inserted)
In response to arson on a Melbourne synagogue, ill informed politicians, ignorant media commentators and a bully Israeli Prime Minister have rushed to declare this crime is not only anti-Semitic but an act of terrorism. A year of pandemic like claims about a rise in anti-Semitism has reached a climax in interpretations of the meaning of this synagogue fire.
The media can’t get enough of the idea that anti-Semitism has become terrorism. They find it difficult to comprehend anything else. Why care about slaughter in Gaza, famine in Sudan, regime change in Syria and Israeli bombing over Syria if the public can be fed the convenient, thoughtless diet ‘oh dear more anti-Semitism’.
Excited politicians give the media what they think they need. Liberal leader Peter Dutton agrees with Prime Minister Netanyahu that the Australian Labor government is responsible for the attack in Melbourne. Former Liberal Treasurer reappears to demand that the Prime Minister admit that this is terrorism. A besieged Prime Minister Albanese behaves as though he has no option. Yes, this is terrorism.
This latest controversy follows the Hamas killings of October 2023, and a subsequent fourteen months of claims that anti-Semitism has been so widespread as to have poisonous effects on Australian politics and culture. So called moderate Liberal MP Julian Lesser insisted, ‘anti-Semitism is off the charts… and universities are the cradle of all that stuff happening.’ In July 2024, as his envoy on anti-Semitism, Prime Minister Albanese appoints Jillian Segal, former President of the Council of Australian Jewry. By November, almost as expected, Ms Segal says that the level of bile and hatred being directed at Jews is at unprecedented levels and society had to be saved. How on earth did she know ?
The characteristics of a self fulfilling prophecy gathered momentum. Powerful law firms charged prominent figures with anti-Semitic acts, and in the case of charges against two senior Sydney University academics, the law firm acting for Jewish academic complainants asks any citizen to respond with their stories. As though generous resources might help to prove prejudice, an anti-Semitism website advertises ‘Donate Now’.
Impressed or perhaps intimidated, the Federal parliament establishes a Commission of Inquiry into anti-Semitism at Australian Universities, and quickly receives hundreds of submissions. It is possible, it seems highly likely, that only a small proportion of claims about anti-Semitic acts will be substantiated. But in an atmosphere when politicians, journalists and prejudiced foreign observers are dogmatic in their insistence that anti-Semitism exists, who would deny it, who dares to ask, ‘don’t you understand that public outrage at genocide in Gaza represents protest about the policies of a Zionist Israeli government and can’t be construed as hatred for Australian citizens of Jewish background?
Failure to distinguish between criticism of the policies of an Israeli government and evidence of hatred towards Jewish people has become the virus infecting an anti-Semitism pandemic. In this respect the influence of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism has had significant effect on public understanding of alleged anti-Jewish sentiments, or rather the fearful political, managerial, media misunderstanding of this matter.
The IHRA definition refers to a certain definition of Jew which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews, and includes a majority of examples to illustrate that criticism of Israeli government aggression represents anti-Semitism.
Substantial criticism of this definition has not deterred major political parties, universities and law firms from adopting it then crafting their policies and persecutions on that basis.
The law firm bringing charges of anti-Semitism against two senior Sydney University academics, builds the foundation of its prosecution on an assumption that the IHRA definition is watertight and should not be questioned. If these lawyers had not been caught up in the anti-Semitism pandemic, they might have realised that the basis of their claims is a pack of cards and not built in concrete.
At least for a moment, those who operate in the upper circles of politics, journalism and the law, should ponder their fearful, unthinking, too quick acceptance of that destructive definition.
Barrister Geoffrey Robertson says the IHRA text is imprecise, confusing, open to misinterpretation and manipulation.
Neve Gordon, former Professor of Politics at Israel’s Ben Gurion University, concluded that Israel needed the definition to justify its actions and protect it from international condemnation and is weaponised to stifle free speech.
US academic, influential author Dr. Norman Finkelstein considers the IHRA definition impoverished, ignorant, a slovenly substitute for radical dialectic.
Former associate professor of philosophy at UNSW Dr. Peter Slezak reminds that accusations of anti-Semitism always depict Jews as victims, a conclusion backed up by the March 2021 report by 200 Jewish scholars who provided an alternative to the IHRA document. These Jewish scholars included in their report the judgement that even the movement to boycott Israel was not in and of itself anti-Semitic.
Of course the protests against death and destruction in Gaza have made those who feel an obligation to support and defend Israel feel uncomfortable, even personally insulted. That is understandable, so too the evidence that some citizens fear to proclaim their Jewish identity. That fear should be addressed and the causes outlawed. Evidence of discomfort, insult and fear should be acknowledged but that does not justify promotion of a view that anti-Semitism is ‘off the charts’ , of pandemic proportions.
In an atmosphere of emotions charged by the horrendous violence overseas and when political leaders say they fear for Australia’s ‘social cohesion’, it does not help to ignore other deeply entrenched prejudices such as Islamophobia and instead keep repeating that anti-Semitism is on the rise.
Like any self fulfilling prophecy, unthinking repetition sounds concocted. At least that claim could be considered, and with the same attention given to this alleged pandemic of anti-Semitism.
Stuart Rees AM is Professor Emeritus at the University of Sydney & recipient of the Jerusalem (Al Quds) Peace Prize.
https://johnmenadue.com/anti-semitism-a-pandemic-of-concocted-claims/
