I watched the 7.30 interview with the special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, with mounting alarm. By the end of the interview, I was afraid for the future of Australia.

The next morning I read Greg Barns’ excellent article in which he said: “The report of the Albanese Government’s antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, contains recommendations that will lead to erosion of freedom of expression and the right to protest.” Eloquently and succinctly, Barns expressed my fears and those of a great number of Australians.

The most alarming part of the plan is its strong endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. The definition is deeply flawed and widely contested. Adopting the IHRA definition would undoubtedly lead to the defaming as antisemites of people who have never hated Jews or committed violence against them, and whose only crime is speaking up in support of the Palestinian cause. Three years ago, 128 antisemitism and Holocaust scholars warned the UN against being trapped in a “vague and weaponised definition of antisemitism”.

They wrote: “The Israeli Government would be emboldened and enabled to escalate its campaign against UN bodies and experts, by weaponising and leveraging the IHRA WDA as a UN standard ’establishing’ that UNRWA, the ICC, the Human Rights Council and bodies like the Commission of Inquiry are antisemitic. By extension, human rights defenders and organisations challenging Israel’s violations would be fully exposed to smear campaigns based on bad-faith allegations of antisemitism, harming their freedom of expression and other fundamental rights protected and promoted by the UN.”

In Antisemitism and Zionism: The Internal Operations of the IHRA Definition, Neve Gordon argues that “.. The definition has concurrently produced a chilling effect on Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists, students, and staff, and should be understood as a counterinsurgency tool developed to shield Israel from resistance to its oppressive form of racial governance, its ongoing denial of Palestinian liberation, and, following its recent war on Gaza, from accusations of genocidal violence.” And he writes: ‘This IHRA example poses as if it is defending democracy, when in fact it is defending a democratic apartheid. Many far-right politicians, not least from Hungary, France, and India, but also from the US, Poland and the UK find the IHRA definition, which defends a kind of democracy which limits the notion of ‘the people’ to certain groups and affirms racial and ethnic inequality, both appealing and useful. The definition provides a road map for a dramatically new conception of democracy, one founded on the protection and privileging of difference rather than on the liberal notion of formal equality protected by the rule of law."

The special envoy spoke of not holding Israel to a different standard than other countries. Ben Saul writes: “Example 8 refers to applying double standards by requiring of Israel behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. This example clearly conflates criticism of Israel with racism against Jews and does not necessarily have anything to do with antisemitism, although in some cases it could do so. It is also often a red herring. Israel is not generally expected to behave differently to other democracies. It is expected to respect the same international legal standards as other democracies. The unique nature of Israel’s near 60-year occupation of Palestine, unresolved human rights issues stemming from its foundation in 1948 (including refugees, property and compensation), and the severity of Israel’s violations of international law — Israel’s choice — are what makes it a target of accountability efforts, including lawful boycott, divestment and sanctions.”

Segal describes her plan as “an ambitious plan to tackle all the important elements of our society where there can be issues of antisemitism that need to be pushed to the margins”. Antisemitism is real and, like other forms of racism, indeed needs to be pushed to the margins. But that all the important elements of our society will be surveilled and judged through a prism of antisemitism as defined by the special envoy’s endorsed IHRA, is  breathtaking overreach. If the government agrees to enact this plan, it will have put Australia on the same chilling trajectory as Trump’s America, and the results don’t bear thinking about. Louise Adler writes: “The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals.”

The special envoy is seeking a role in monitoring our public broadcasters, and says she is looking for balance and a multiplicity of views and voices on any issue. It can be argued that, currently, the images of carnage and destruction come from Palestinians on the ground, and the framing and narrative, by and large, come from Israeli sources. This may be the result of self-censorship to avoid being accused of antisemitism, or from the fact that Israel prevents the entry of international journalists in Gaza, and Palestinian journalists are deemed not as professional or trustworthy, or from mistaking bothsidesism for balance. And we know that from certain issues such as the shape of the earth, climate change, and war crimes, balance through bothsidesism is nonsense. In any case, what typically happens these days is a story on starving Palestinians is balanced by an Israeli spokesperson saying the siege is necessary to prevent Hamas from stealing the food or that there is no starvation in Gaza, and a doctor’s testimony about receiving Palestinian children who had been sniped in the head or the chest is balanced by an Israeli spokesperson denying these “allegations” or saying that “the IDF will investigate”’.

Antisemitism must be addressed but who will judge whether an act is against Jews or against Israel’s policies? There is a clear difference between violent and criminal acts against Jews which must be brought to justice, and I would have thought we have adequate laws to do so, and acts of solidarity with Palestinians. The latter may make some Jews feel uncomfortable, but should not be outlawed as antisemetic acts. There is a difference between feeling uncomfortable and being unsafe. The sight of people in kufiyas, chanting “Free Palestine” at a university might offend some Jewish students but this is quite different from hating Jews or holding them responsible for Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. Will universities and cultural institutions ban solidarity with Palestinians to safeguard their funding? Will theatre companies refuse to stage plays written by Palestinians? Will public broadcasters ban the screening of films that cast Israel in a poor light ? Will writers’ festivals yield to pressure to exclude writers critical of Israel? Antisemitism is real and should be countered and punished, like any form of racism. But to conflate antisemitism with protesting Israel’s unspeakable horrors against the Palestinians is not to protect Jews but to shield Israel. Palestine has never been an issue of religion. And the fact that we are horrified by Israel’s savagery inflicted on Palestinians has nothing to do with Judaism. Palestinians would have resisted occupation had their occupiers had a different religion or no religion.

The envoy says that under IHRA not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. In theory, but the vagueness of the definition and the experience of Israel’s critics tell us otherwise. A look at the lawfare against those who dare criticise Israel, in the US, UK, Germany and Australia, reveals the extent to which critics of Israel have come to be smeared as antisemitic with their reputation, careers and lives ruined. If someone chanting “Free Palestine” can be labelled antisemitic, then the end result of the envoy’s plan will be the silencing of voices for the Palestinians. Mari Cohen writes in How Support for Palestine Became a Hate Crime:  “Meltzer-Cohen described today’s weaponisation of hate crime statutes against pro-Palestine protesters as a predictable use of a type of law that was already inattentive to power dynamics — but still a perversion of their intention.

“Hate crimes legislation rests upon the assumption that there are certain categories of people who require extra protection,” they said. But police and prosecutors are acting on the ‘fundamental misapprehension’ that protesters opposing Israel’s war — people who have been shunned by most American institutions and faced relentless targeting and doxxing by well-funded Zionist groups — are the ones with the power, and must be punished for the protection of Jews.”

And she writes of one of the examples she gives “..Lopez recalled intensive questioning from a male ADA who appeared to be trying to trap him into admitting anti-Jewish animus, asking questions like, “When you said ‘Palestine will be free from you,’ you meant free from Jews, right?” (Lopez’s answer, as he recounted it to me: “No, clearly not. Jewish people have lived in Palestine for a long time.”) At one point, the prosecutor asked Lopez, “What would a free Palestine look like to you?” which his lawyers considered an egregious attempt to make his political speech subject to criminal prosecution. Ultimately, the experience left Fabi with the impression that the prosecutors had “an enormous lack of clarity on these issues,” while having “all the power to decide how to wield the statute.”’

Visa applicants will be screened for antisemitic views and affiliations, and visa refusals or cancellations for antisemitism will be ensured. Will we also screen visa applicants for their anti-Palestinian views? Not just for their views but for their actual crimes against Palestinians? Would someone who had worked for UNRWA be refused an Australian visa but a “voluntary transfer”-advocating member of Knesset be readily issued one? We have seen how arbitrary and farcical the proscribing of organisations and people is. When a former al-Qaeda terrorist leader can become the president of Syria with the blessing and material assistance of Western leaders, and a war criminal indicted by the ICC is feted at the White House, and when the UN is branded antisemitic and the Trump administration issues sanctions against Francesca Albanese, we are entitled to ask who will judge if a person or an organisation is antisemitic or just working to ensure justice for all and to uphold International Law, whatever remains of the latter.

The Jewish Council rejected the Special Envoy’s plan and called on Labor to engage a “broad spectrum of Jewish voices, including those critical of Israel, who have not been consulted in the development of this plan” and to “reject authoritarian proposals that erode civil liberties under the false guise of Jewish safety”. Max Kaiser wrote: “This document reads more like a blueprint for silencing dissent rather than a strategy to build inclusion. The report’s vague language around ‘antisemitic narratives’ or ‘affiliations’ , coupled with its emphasis on the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism, make the actions recommended dangerously unclear. Consistent with her past statements erroneously linking antisemitic attacks with Palestine solidarity protests, Segal seems fixated on driving a pro-Israel narrative and repressing legitimate criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.”

Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 rejected Segal’s plan. Jepke Goudsmit  wrote: “While Israel builds a concentration camp in Rafah, euphemistically called a ‘Humanitarian City’, to imprison 600.000 starving and traumatised Palestinians marked like cattle for slaughter or deportation, Segal wants to curtail our freedom of press and debate, and to withdraw funds from public institutions found to be critical of Israel. This is straight out of the US/Israel (currently Trump/Netanyahu) playbook and goes directly against all decency, humanity and democracy. When Anthony Albanese says he will ‘work constructively’ with Segal, we warn him to beware of the dark pit of fascism.”

Much has been said about social cohesion over the past two years. Social cohesion is supposed to have been fractured by those calling for an end to Israel’s crimes against Palestinians. And social cohesion is supposed to be restored if those “hateful” voices speaking up against the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians were to stop. Well, the reverse argument could be made. Social cohesion can also be restored if those silent on Israel’s crimes, or defending them, were to abandon their silence or defence of the indefensible.

If adopted, will the new plan succeed in combatting genuine antisemitism? I doubt it. Amnesty International Australia believes that, “There is a real risk this plan will be weaponised to censor protest and dissent, particularly against the atrocities unfolding in Gaza. Far from addressing antisemitism, it threatens activism and shuts down calls for accountability and justice. Conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism not only undermines freedom of expression but weakens the fight against genuine antisemitism, and further fuels racial division and fear.”

I’ll give the last word to Ben Saul who writes"The government must act in the best interests of all Australians when combatting all forms of racism, including to defend free speech and human rights, and not simply genuflect to the incessant, excessive demands of some Jewish voices.”

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