In a homily delivered last Sunday Frank Brennan said the best way to counter antisemitism is by extending hospitality to the stranger and to all work to end the killing.

In today’s first reading, Abraham offers hospitality to the stranger. He sees three men at the entrance to his tent. But he addresses only one of them, and as Lord. Scripture scholar Richard Clifford tells us: ‘The three men are probably a biblical adaptation of polytheistic portrayals of deities who were accompanied by two servants; in Ugaritic mythology, deities often send two messengers to prepare their way…. The sudden appearance of three men rather than one man adds a numinous feel, and serves to distinguish the Lord who deals with Abraham from the 2 angels who later deal with Lot.’ Abraham and Sarah pull out all stops to entertain and feed the stranger. Their prized guest promises that he will return within a year and that the aged couple Abraham and Sarah will give birth to a son. Their hospitality is rewarded with a miracle which was unimaginable.

In today’s gospel, Martha extends hospitality to Jesus. But she then complains that her sister Mary leaves her to do all the work while Mary simply sits at the Lord’s feet listening to him. Jesus tells Martha not to fret: ‘Mary has chosen the better part; it is not to be taken from her.’

Hospitality to the stranger and attentive listening to the Lord are the markers for the pilgrim this week. Remember that Abraham was later to plead with Yahweh over the forecast destruction of Sodom. Abraham bargained with his Lord, pleading that Sodom be saved if there be but 50 just men in the town. He talks the Lord down to 10 just men. The Lord promises: ‘I will not destroy it for the sake of the ten.’ We too can plead with the Lord to avoid the wanton destruction of innocent life.

There’s been a lot of esoteric talk going on of late about what constitutes antisemitism. Tony Coady, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Melbourne and Honorary Professor at the Australian Catholic University, says: ‘A direct and simple definition …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.”’

Releasing her plan to combat antisemitism this past week, Jillian Segal, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, has urged that ‘the Australian government should require consistent application and adoption of the IHRA definition across all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies.’

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a more complex definition than Coady’s back in 2016 and provided various examples which might serve as illustrations. One example given was: ‘Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.’

Many of us who have voiced criticism or expressed concern about the Netanyahu government’s conduct of the war since 7 October 2023 would make the same criticism against other countries for war crimes or for a failure to be duly discriminate in the targeting or killing of innocent combatants. The criticism and concern are not based on any notion of Israel being a Jewish collectivity. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) has said that ‘at least 449’ IDF members have been killed ‘during the ground offensive in the Hamas-run territory and amid operations on the border’. Meanwhile ‘Palestinian health authorities say Israel’s ground and air campaign in Gaza …has killed more than 50,000 people, with nearly a third of the dead under 18.’ Most of those 50,000 were unarmed and had no choice other than being in harm’s way. There was nowhere else for them to go.

On Thursday an IDF tank directly hit the one Catholic Church in Gaza, killing three people and injuring others. The Latin Patriarchate in Jerusalem said: ‘Targeting a holy site currently sheltering approximately 600 displaced persons, the majority of whom are children and 54 with special needs, is a flagrant violation of human dignity and a blatant violation of the sanctity of life and the sanctity of religious sites, which are supposed to provide a safe haven in times of war.’ Pope Francis used regularly phone the priest at the church. The priest was one of the injured. Pope Leo sent a telegram to the Church renewing his call for an immediate ceasefire, and expressing ‘his profound hope for dialogue, reconciliation and enduring peace in the region’.

Questioning and even condemning disproportionate killing of innocent non-combatants is not antisemitic, especially when there seems to be no strategy in place for bringing the killing to an end. Condemning military strategy that results in fatal Israeli tank fire on a church is not antisemitic. It is criticism similar to what would be levelled at any nation conducting such military operations in areas occupied by hundreds of thousands of defenceless, trapped non-combatants.

If we are wanting ‘consistent application and adoption’ of a workable and sensible definition of antisemitism ‘across all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies’, I think it would be best for the Albanese government to adopt Professor Coady’s definition, sparing us endless word games over the examples given by the IHRA.

Moving beyond contested definitions, the best way for any of us to counter antisemitism is by extending hospitality to the stranger and attentive listening to our Lord. It would also be helpful if informed Australians favouring either side of the conflict could engage in dialogue about possible strategies for bringing the killing to an end.

The just will live in the presence of the Lord.

Yahweh, who may dwell in your tabernacle?

Who may abide upon your holy hill?

Whoever leads a blameless life and does what is right,

who speaks the truth from their heart.

There is no guile upon their tongue;

they do no evil to their friend;

they do not heap contempt upon their neighbour.

The just will live in the presence of the Lord.

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