I read the definition of antisemitism adopted by Australian universities and my first thought was “we need a list”, not of what is considered antisemitic, but of what is not considered antisemetic. Now it would be helpful to have a prescriptive list of what one can say about Israel without being smeared as an antisemite. And I am not being facetious. Perhaps those who developed this definition could provide such a list. It would be a very short list. Nevertheless, it would be greatly appreciated by all those who are morally caught between the need to speak up against a genocide and the fear of losing their livelihoods and reputations.

“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.”

How will this vague statement be interpreted? And whose interpretation will prevail? Will calls for equal rights for Palestinians be labelled antisemitic? After all, these can be interpreted as calls for the destruction of Israel in its current form as a Jewish state. What about calls to end apartheid ? Antisemitic. Calls for freedom for Palestinians? Antisemitic. Call to end torture in Israeli prisons? Antisemitic (because we are holding Israel to a different standard to that we hold Saudi Arabia and Turkey)… and so it goes.

How would the universities’ definition deal with calling Israel’s actions in Gaza a genocide? Despite being called a genocide by eminent Jewish and Israeli scholars, I would say such an adjective would be also be considered antisemitic. After all, we know that Israel has been engaged in self defence and the tens of thousands of Palestinian dead and amputees are collateral damage of a just war. And we have it on Israeli authority that the figures compare favourably with Hiroshima and Dresden. Protesting ethnic cleansing in Gaza? Antisemitic because the Palestinians have no business being in Israel and their presence contravenes “A land without a people for a people without a land”. Protesting the dehumanising of Palestinians by Israeli leaders as vermin, snakes, and human animals? Antisemitic. I cannot think of a reason right now, but I am sure one could be found.

Reading the definition, I also found myself thinking of German students who spoke up against the sacking of Jewish academics in the 1930s. Were they expelled because they made their German fellow students feel “unsafe”? Were they arrested for hate speech? And we know how those who spoke out against McCarthyism fared. Those communists who posed the greatest security risk to American liberty and democracy.

“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 anti semitic.”’

I read this and thought of the consultation process that led to the definition. How rigorous was the consultation with those Jews who do not believe that “Zionist” is synonymous with “Jew”? How seriously were their views taken into consideration? I truly cannot understand the conflation of Zionism and Judaism. One is a comparatively recent political ideology embraced by some Jews and some non-Jews and the other is a very old religion. I have no doubt that when Palestinians criticise Zionism they are referring to the political ideology and not to Judaism. Muslims, Christians and Jews have co-existed in the holy land, long before checkpoints, sieges, and administrative detention. And they would have resisted all these had their oppressors had a different religion or a different ethnicity.

How many Palestinians were consulted? How many university scholars in the field, Jewish and non-Jewish, were consulted? A couple of weeks ago Peter Beinart wrote in The Perils of Universities’ Unscholarly Antisemitism Reports, “By relying on pro-Israel organisations’ analysis of antisemitism — rather than recruiting the scholars on their own campuses — university antisemitism task forces are enabling the assault on academic freedom.”

He criticised the reports saying “..the reports also classify as antisemitic many statements that aren’t directed at Jews per se, but simply challenge the legitimacy of Israel and Zionism. And that conflation reveals a basic methodological flaw. Understanding the relationship between antisemitism and pro-Palestinian activism requires understanding the experience not only of Jewish students who feel threatened by that activism, but of Palestinians – an experience that shapes the way pro-Palestinian activists of all backgrounds, including Jewish ones, talk about the Jewish state. The reports make no such effort. They are profoundly unscholarly documents.” And he concluded that, “The problem with spurning these scholars is that, in their assessments of what constitutes antisemitism, the task forces make many assumptions about Israel-Palestine – assumptions that aren’t rooted in scholarship. Often, they’re cribbed from pro-Israel advocacy groups.”

Wednesday was a sad day for academic freedom and for freedom of speech in Australia. People will lose their jobs and will be dragged through the courts for saying the emperor has no clothes. Others who, too, can see that the emperor has no clothes will self-censor. With the suppression of legitimate criticism comes resentment and that in turn will feed real antisemitic tropes. So the end result of the universities’ adoption of this definition will be to shield Israel against criticism while helping increase real antisemitism. A sad outcome of an endeavour that sought to protect students from antisemitism.

I will leave the last word to B. Michael, an Israeli journalist and a practising Jew, who sadly died a few days ago. In March, 2019, he wrote Hate: An Israeli Love Story - Opinion - Haaretz.com: “For anti-Semitism hunters, preserving paranoia and blurring the line between Judaism and Zionism is the best way to handle criticism of the country’s abominations” and “It is not hard to understand why this blurring is so important. After all, there is no better way to handle the criticisms of Zionism or protests against Israel’s abominations. But from the moment that the label of anti-Semitism is attached to the critic’s lapel, it is possible to attack him with all the tested clichés: Nazi, Auschwitz, ghetto, crematoria, Schindler, Eichmann, mufti – and the adversary will immediately shrink in panic into his corner and shut up. Tried and trusted.”

“This is how those who curse a professor with the insulting term ‘Zionist’ are anti-Semites. And those who hate the Jews because they control the global wealth and are conspiring in the shadows – they are Righteous Gentiles and guests of honour at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial centre in Jerusalem.” he wrote.

He concluded with, “So this is how after thousands of years of strict antisemitism, this indecent measure has been reduced to just the test of support for Israel’s tricks and crimes. This is to teach us how true the new and updated definition of antisemitism is: Once, an ‘antisemite’ was someone who hated Jews. Today, an ‘antisemite’ is someone the Jews hate.”