Antisemitism is a despicable phenomenon with a long and dismal history, sadly promoted by significant elements in Christianity for many centuries as well as by other secular ideologies, and we do well to guard against it.

But the proliferation recently of dubious “definitions” of antisemitism in political, social and academic institutions here and overseas, and some consequent attempts at enforcement, create disturbing possibilities of stifling legitimate criticisms and proposals directed at mitigating or ending the ghastly sufferings inflicted on the residents of Gaza by Israel’s “self-defensive” war.

Elsewhere in P&I, I have argued that the self-defence justification as given by Israel fails badly in terms of the important traditional just war moral theory that it implicitly invokes. That theory, which has significant echoes in international legal prohibitions on unjustified war and human rights abuses in war, has been an important element in philosophical discussions of war and terrorism especially since Michael Walzer’s significant book Just and Unjust Wars (1978). I have argued that self-defence, even if justified, is insufficient without the satisfaction of other just war conditions that embrace, among other requirements, the proportionality of the self-defence response and a high respect for avoiding non-combatants in targeted attacks virtually all of which conditions are violated in Israel’s war. To argue this strongly is not in itself a form of antisemitism. I won’t enter into that discussion directly here, but mention it only as background to what I will discuss about antisemitism.

I want to focus on the definition developed by Universities Australia and adopted to be “enforced”, as far as I can tell, by all Australian Universities. I should begin by pointing out that this “definition” and other ones usually sponsored by Zionist organisations in various parts of the world, such as the controversial IHRA effort, is not so much a definition in the strict sense but a number of elaborations purporting to locate factors that exhibit implications or examples of antisemitism. A direct and simple definition of antisemitism upon which such elaborations could be grounded more clearly would be: “Antisemitism is the attitude of hatred, contempt, or disdain for Jews because they are Jews and the expression of that attitude in language or other actions or policies.”

Turning to the Universities “definition”, my focus is on three major features within it that are objectionable.

• The definition rightly distinguished between antisemitism and criticism of the “policies and practices” of the state of Israel. That is, as already noted, an important distinction, but unfortunately, it then adds: “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.” The part that I have italicised is highly disputable in several ways. First, calling for the elimination of some state, though a serious matter, need not involve any racist motives at all. Those people, for example, who argued for the abolition of the state of Czechoslovakia in the early 1990s and were successful in achieving a peaceful creation of two new states, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, could not be accused of racist motives for urging the very idea, though it might be that some had racist motives which is entirely another matter. In the case of Israel, the two most common long-term solutions to the ghastly conflict are the two-state solution (supported by the Australian Government among so many others) and the one nation or one-state solution, of which there are various models but often which proposes combining the West Bank/Gaza domain with the Israeli domain into one governing nation with two constituent states, partly independent and partly subordinate (perhaps like the states within Australia). Israel’s leadership vehemently rejects both, and the definition would count the second, and even possibly the first, as advocating “the elimination of the State of Israel” and hence antisemitic, whereas neither have any necessary connection with antisemitism at all. It’s interesting that the Wikipedia entry on the one nation proposal cites a 2023 survey by the Palestinian–Israeli Pulse recording support for a democratic one-state solution at 23% among Palestinians and 20% among Israeli Jews. The university definition would absurdly count those Jews as antisemitic. It may be replied that the conjunctive “and” in the section quoted is meant to qualify the force of the italicised section so that the criticisms of Israel that are ruled out as antisemitic are only those that are motivated by “harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”. To this, I would reply that it is not at all clear that this is what is intended by the “and” or likely to be understood by readers, but in any case, such “harmful” attitudes are not spelled out and could have nothing to do with antisemitism. It is more plausible that the italicised section is meant to indicate criticism or proposals that count as antisemitic whatever the tropes etc may be, and hence my objections stand.
• The second part of the disjunction quoted above (“or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.”) is palpably absurd since powerful individual political leaders in Israel are clearly responsible for Israel’s actions in numerous ways, and, in the case of the Gazan campaign, Netanyahu and the “community” of his government are indisputably responsible for the military measures taken in their war, and proud of it. Nor are the huge numbers of people denouncing so many of those actions and those Israeli individuals and groups responsible for them in any way thereby “antisemitic”. In this respect, universities are endorsing dangerous nonsense by signing up to the definition and would be violating academic freedom as well as common sense in enforcing it or enacting disciplinary inquiries based on such confusion.

The last paragraph of the definition is dangerously opaque in its meaning and implications. It reads: “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.” The opening sentence appeals to an internationally accepted right but is not at all clear what scope the right to self-determination is supposed to have here. Are particular immigrant communities in Australia, for example Turks, licensed by this to set up a separate national state for themselves within the territory of Australia? But I shall set this aside, for now, only noting that the proclamation of the right here fits uneasily, to say the least, with the Israeli Government’s fierce rejection of the right of Palestinians to a state of their own. The more significant issue is the claim implicit in the two following above sentences that because Zionism is “a core part” of the identities of “most Jewish Australians” then strongly criticising Zionist individuals or groups in itself can somehow be antisemitic. But this seems to assume that something being a core part of the identities of individuals or groups must be a good thing or so precious that only an immoral hatred could lie behind criticism of it. Yet many things that form “a core part” of an individual’s or group’s identity can be immoral, even hateful, and rightly criticised. In witness of this we need only recall how many Germans during Hitler’s rule had Nazism and its antisemitism as core parts of their identity. Those Germans who were brave enough to criticise Nazism and its core role in the identities of so many other Germans were not thereby anti-German, indeed they were often enough the true patriots.

For these reasons I’m afraid that policing this definition by university authorities will damage academic freedom and restrict the possibilities of bringing the critical intelligence that is an essential element of university life into the assessment of the appalling carnage in Gaza. One possible indication already of this in Melbourne University occurred when I tried to access via a link in my university email the full text of Peter Slezak’s speech at a pro-Palestine rally which was reprinted in Pearls and Irritations. Peter is a Jew some of whose near relatives were imprisoned and suffered dreadfully in Auschwitz during the Holocaust but, like many other Jews including the former editor of MUP, Louise Adler**,** he is openly and very strongly opposed to Israel’s war and much else about Israel. When I first pressed the link to his article/talk on my university laptop I got a message from the university’s mime cast watchdogs warning of the dangers of such access and entirely denying it to me. I gained access by other means then and some days later tried the email link again and found there was no longer the censorship experienced before. In my recent correspondence with the University Vice-Chancellor Emma Johnston about the matter of defining antisemitism, she acknowledged that a mistake had been made then corrected but assured me that the initial blockage was not due to “the content or theme of the email” but rather “the file extension of the linked page”. I devoutly hope so, but without doubting the VC’s sincerity, I remain uncertain that such incidents could be entirely technical. Whatever about that, it should be clear from the defects in the Universities Australia “definition” that our universities should not jeopardise their central ideals under pressure to appease outside interests, such as energetic Zionist or other lobby groups.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.