John Kilcullen, June 2026
Similar terms, such as racism, misogyny, ageism, attribute
some bad characteristic (or behaviour pattern, etc.) to all
(or almost all) members of an (involuntary) group, and assert
that having that characteristic is caused by whatever puts
them into that group (e.g. they have it "genetically",
"essentially", "intrinsically").
By analogy, one might
define Antisemitism as: "The attribution of bad
attributes to all (or almost all) Jews as such, belonging
to them because they are Jews."
The
Australian Government, in Recommendation 1 of its response
to the Special Envoy's Report, has said: "The Australian Government’s official
definition of
antisemitism is the International Holocaust Remembrance
Alliance’s working definition." A better definition would be
the Jerusalem Declaration.
“A
certain perception" is vague. The definition gets practical
meaning from a set of examples. The examples include
generalisations about Jews that do attribute some bad
characteristic to all Jews, to Jews collectively, or to Jews
"as such" (which fit the definition suggested above), and others
that relate to the state of Israel: "Denying the Jewish people
their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor. ...
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of
the Nazis." Thus the definition
can be used to protect Israel from criticism by characterising
the criticism as antisemitic.
The
statement refers to "self-determination". The "self" here is the
ethnic group. The idea that each ethnic group has the right to
its own state is an idea ("nationalism")
that gained currency in the 19th century. It contributed to
causing two world wars and much other conflict. It should be
rejected. Multiculturalism
should be the norm. See my papers here
and here;
also Hannum, "Legal
Aspects of Self-Determination".
As
for drawing comparisons with the Nazis: Whether Israel's
actions resemble the actions of the Nazis is a question to be
decided by evidence and argument, not by a definition.
It reads:
“Antisemitism
is discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion,
vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’
ability to participate as equals in educational, political,
religious, cultural, economic or social life. It can manifest
in a range of ways including negative, dehumanising, or
stereotypical narratives about Jews. Further, it includes hate
speech, epithets, caricatures, stereotypes, tropes, Holocaust
denial, and antisemitic symbols. Targeting Jews based on their
Jewish identities alone is discriminatory and antisemitic.
“Criticism
of the policies and practices of the Israeli government or
state is not in and of itself antisemitic. However, criticism
of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful
tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for
the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or
when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible
for Israel’s actions. It can be antisemitic to make
assumptions about what Jewish individuals think based only on
the fact that they are Jewish.
“All
peoples, including Jews, have the right to
self-determination. For most, but not all Jewish
Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity.
Substituting the word “Zionist’’ for ‘’Jew’’ does not
eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.”
In my opinion this is a good statement, except for the words in bold. No ethnic group has a right to dominate a state so as to make non-members of that group second-class citizens, liable to discrimination and pressure to emigrate. Every state ought to be multi-cultural.
The statement "For most, but not all, Jewish Australians Zionism is
a core part of their Jewish identity" does not justify an
inference that to criticise Zionism is to criticise Jews as
such. "Most Xs are Ys, therefore any statement about Ys
applies to Xs as such" is simply a non-sequitur.
"Antisemitism
is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against
Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)."
This is pretty close to the
definition I suggested above. The
Declaration continues with guidelines and examples, including
examples relating to the state of Israel, including:
·
Holding Jews collectively
responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating Jews, simply
because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
·
Requiring people, because
they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or Zionism (for
example, at a political meeting).
·
Assuming that non-Israeli
Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily more loyal
to Israel than to their own countries
I
agree that those are examples of antisemitism.
The
declaration also provides examples of things “that, on the
face of it, are not
antisemitic, whether or not one approves of the view or
action” – i.e. it is possible to say
“I disagree with that, but it’s not antisemitic”. These
examples include:
· Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
· Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state….
Thus the statement that “Zionism is
a form of nationalism, an illegitimate claim to appropriate a
state to one ethnic group, making non-Jews second-class
citizens” would not be antisemitic, even though it remained
open to debate and rejection.
--------------
It
seems to me that the Jerusalem Declaration is to be preferred,
and that Universities and other institutions should deal with
all forms of racism and discrimination within the same
framework, without allowing a particular ethnic group to
exercise any special influence.
--------------
Robert
Manne, “The
wrong
way to respond to antisemitism” 18 July 2025 (on the
Segal report).
David
Brophy, “Universities
and the arts after Bondi: From definitions to ‘ambient
antisemitism’”, 9 January 2026.
Gareth Evans, "How the Royal
Commission should define Antisemitism", July 18 2026.
Evans refers to University Chancellors Council, "A
Model Code for the Protection of Freedom of Speech and
Academic Freedom", June 2019.
Go to
Palestine and Israel