The Jewish Council of Australia says Australias 39 Universities have endorsed a dangerous and politicised definition of antisemitism which threatens academic freedom, will have a chilling effect on legitimate criticism of Israel, and risks institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism. It adds that they did so without meaningful consultation with Palestinian groups or diverse Jewish groups who are critical of Israel.

In a statement, the Council said it strongly opposed the antisemitism definition developed by the Group of Eight universities and adopted by Universities Australia on 26 February. “By categorising Palestinian political expression as inherently antisemitic, it will be unworkable and unenforceable, and stifle critical political debate, which is at the heart of any democratic society,” the Council said.

“The definition dangerously conflates Jewish identities with support for the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism. We highlight two key concerns:

“1. Mischaracterisation of Criticism of Israel

“The definition states: “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 Israels actions.

_"_The definitions inclusion of calls for the elimination of the State of Israel would mean, for instance, that calls for a single binational democratic state, where Palestinians and Israelis have equal rights, could be labelled antisemitic.

“Moreover, the wording around ‘harmful tropes’ is dangerously vague, failing to distinguish between tropes about Jewish people, which are antisemitic, and criticism of the state of Israel, which is not.”

The Council said the definition also misrepresented Zionism as being core to Jewish identity.

“(It) states that for most Jewish people ‘Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity’. We are deeply concerned that by adopting this definition, Universities will be taking and promoting a view that a national political ideology is a core part of Judaism. This is not only inaccurate, but also dangerous.

“Zionism is a political ideology of Jewish nationalism, not an intrinsic part of Jewish identity. There is a long history of Jewish opposition to Zionism, from the beginning of its emergence in the late 19th century, to the present day. Many, if not the majority, of people who hold Zionist views today are not Jewish.

“In contrast to Zionism and the state of Israel, Jewish identities trace back over 3000 years and span different cultures and traditions. Jewish identities are a rightly protected category under all racial discrimination laws, whereas political ideologies such as Zionism and support for Israel are not.”

The Council stressed that while many Jewish people identified as Zionist, many did not.

“There are a growing number of Jewish people worldwide, including in Australia, who disagree with the actions of the state of Israel and do not support Zionism,” it said. “Australian polling in this area is not definitive, but some polls suggest that 30% of Australian Jews do not identify as Zionists. A recent Canadian poll found half of Canadian Jews do not identify as Zionist. In the United States, more and more Jewish people are turning away from Zionist beliefs and support for the state of Israel.

“Even if the majority of Jewish people support Zionism as a political ideology, definitions of racial or religious identity should not include assertions about the political persuasion of group members as an intrinsic part of the groups identity. Such assertions risk fomenting harmful stereotypes that all Jewish people think in a certain way.”

Sarah Schwartz, human rights lawyer and executive officer of the JCA, added: “It degrades the very real fight against antisemitism for it to be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and Palestinian political expressions. It also risks fomenting division between communities and institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.

As a political ideology, Zionism should be subject to debate, not insulated from critique. By conflating Jewish identities with the state of Israel and the political ideology of Zionism, this definition risks increasing antisemitism by suggesting that all Jews support the state of Israel, and can be held responsible for Israels egregious human rights abuses.

“Israel, like any other country, cannot be shielded from scrutiny, including scrutiny questioning its foundation and operation as a state which prioritises the rights of Jewish people over the rights of Palestinians. This is particularly so given Israels current conduct in Gaza, which has been found by human rights experts and genocide scholars to amount to the crime of genocide. Our democracy and principles of academic freedom require that we be capable of hearing robust critiques of the political structures which enable Israels destruction of Palestinian life to continue.”

Naama Blatman, a scholar of settler-colonialism and Israel/Palestine and JCA executive member, said: “As a Jewish-Israeli academic who researches and teaches in the area of settler-colonialism and Israel/Palestine, this definition will have a chilling effect on scholarly work criticising the state of Israel and the political ideology and impacts of Zionism. This definition could very well be weaponised to silence the crucial work of academics in this area, including my own.

“It is not antisemitic to reimagine Israel/Palestine as a place of equality for all who live there. This may entail calling for the elimination and reformation of the State of Israel from a state that systematically privileges the rights and freedoms of one group of people Jews over others. We would never look back and say that calls for the elimination of apartheid South Africa amounted to anti-white racism. Likewise, to call for the end of such a discriminatory political arrangement in Israel, or debate whether Israel should exist in the form that it does, is not antisemitic.

“Universities should be places where difficult conversations can happen without fear of censorship or reprisal.”