Pearls and Irritations

It is very unfortunate that the new Executive Council of Australian Jewry Report, Anti-Jewish Incidents in Australia 2024 is marred by fundamental flaws, accidental or otherwise. This problem is in line with other reports emerging from the pro-Israel lobby, reports that get considerable media coverage.

Without evidence, the report states that “the Hamas massacre in Israel on 7 October 2023 acted as a signal, a green light, for many Islamists and Left-wing (sic) extremists that it was open season on Jews as evidenced by the overt hatred and the surge in the number of incidents. October 7 emboldened many to act on their hatred of Jews.”

While the assertion may be true of Islamists, the assertion that left-wing extremists are the same as Islamists and antisemitic is almost certainly contestable. They may be extremely anti-zionist and at times politically deluded, but this should not be equated with antisemitism. The terms “green light” and “open season” make it seem in fact that there is some sort of unrestrained Jew hunt going on beyond Islamists and the extreme left. This is not true.

The ECAJ has also adopted the definition of Racist Violence developed well over 30 years ago by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, without any qualification, to an all-encompassing definition of antisemitism. HREOC defined “Racist Violence” as a “specific act of violence, intimidation or harassment carried out against an individual, group or organisation (or their property) on the basis of: race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin; and/or support for non-racist policies”.

Indeed, without reservation, ECAJ has asserted that this supports its contention that the incidents it lists are in fact antisemitic. There is a key assumption made that all the incidents here are motivated by racism, linked to hate and the intention to intimidate or harass on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin- that is, the hatred of Jews. Many of the examples in the report clearly originate with neo-Nazi sympathisers and activists, as well as what appear to be disturbed individuals. No one should have issues with this form of classification. There is also no problem with the characterisation of assaults or abuse directed at Jews as Jews as antisemitic (thankfully only 35). The same conclusion can apply to similarly intimidating or threatening phone calls and messages.

But the situation is inherently more complex than this.

The categories of verbal abuse, graffiti and posters and stickers together constitute 81% of the 2062 incidents recorded from various sources. All these types of incidents are listed separately in a table and a pie chart. However, there is no actual quantification of the different types of content, not all of which, in my opinion, can be classified as blatantly antisemitic as distinct from political in intention. And political hurt over Israel should not inevitably be classified in the same way as deep hurt or intimidation on the basis of ethnicity. Indeed, while there are pages of photos of slogans etc, the actual number of instances are missing that would allow for analysis of trends or politics.

For example, we don’t know how many blatantly Nazi stickers were recorded, as distinct from stickers which say, “Zionism is fascism”, or “From the River to the Sea”. Yet I consider it critical to show how many instances of a particular slogan are recorded, particularly since they can be interpreted in such different ways. For example, if 60% of the recorded slogans are political alone, with no reference to Jews, it is arguable that reduces the numbers of antisemitic incidents in that category by 60%. What it may in fact reflect is increased opposition to Israeli policies, in line with public opinion.

It is also clear that some slogans are “sourced”, that they are mass reproductions from a particular website or organisation. It would be useful to know this as this helps with context and politics. Thus, the slogan “Israeli=Genocide” as sprayed on a Kosher butcher near my house has very different implication to the same slogan on a bridge. The former is intended to harass and intimidate.

Indeed, the report lists banners or chants at student protests or elsewhere saying things like “From the River to the Sea” and “Zionism is fascism. Long Live Palestine”, or “Stop the Holocaust in Gaza”, alongside neo-Nazi material, because are all felt to harass and intimidate Jews and are inherently antisemitic.

Personally, I don’t like the slogan “From the River to the Sea”, because it is politically ambiguous (is it a land for Palestinians alone?), simplistic, and can be used as a disturbing barb. But it is politically directed, it is not necessarily motivated by racism, and it is certainly wrong to conclude that political hatred of Israel (a legitimate form of hatred, as is hatred of Russia or Syria), is the same as a hatred of Jews as Jews. It may be the case that some people are antisemitic, but that conclusion should not be drawn for all protesters. And of course, some of the lead protesters are Jewish.

“Zionism is fascism” is a blunt statement, and one that reduces all Zionists to a fascist category. But much the same thing is being put on protest banners in Israel. As for reference to the Holocaust in Gaza on other posters it should not be classified as an inherently antisemitic attempt to intimidate Jews, rather than a claim about the existence of genocide which has also occurred in other countries, and a strong reference to what occurred to Jews during WWII. And again, the word term genocide (Hebrew retzah-‘am) is part of the protest conversation in Israel, and is subject to vigorous debate within the Jewish community internationally.

This category collapse of mostly political protest as antisemitism is linked to the same simplistic thinking about equating opposition to many aspects of Israeli politics with antisemitism as found in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance examples. It is useful in political campaigning in support of Israel. It is very unfortunate that ECAJ continues to produce such material without deeper analysis, but then, that would go against its policy direction. It isn’t academically rigorous.

A recent academic study of action at over 12,000 protests in the US over the past year concludes that, “protestors are driven by emotional outrage at Israeli policy and the resultant Palestinian suffering. The rhetorical core of this pro-Palestine movement has not been a call for violence against Jews, but rather a call for freedom for Palestinians and an end to violence being inflicted upon them”. I think that may explain much of the activity in Australia.

I also note that the report also discusses the doxing of cultural workers as an example of antisemitism. However, for Palestinian supporters, and those directly involved, this incident was linked to harassment (and firings) of supporters of Palestine in the media. While not defending the views or tactics on either side, and some of the extreme things said and done by supporters of either side, the ECAJ is at fault for not discussing how each fed off the other.

Australia deserves better quality research and reporting on antisemitism and other forms of hate, rather than this highly political activity. The joint project between Jewish and Muslim academics at Monash University may be an indicator of what needs to be done in the future.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT