Proposals to legislate new antisemitism definitions raise hard questions about identity, equality before the law, and why Australia continues to avoid confronting its most entrenched forms of racism.

The NSW parliamentary coalition, yes, this one seems intact, is wishing to introduce to the NSW parliament another definition of antisemitism in addition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and make it a requirement that universities in the state sign up to it, enshrining it in law.

Apart from obvious political grandstanding, an own goal that brought the federal coalition undone following the Bondi massacre, there are a huge number of difficulties, double standards and hypocrisies associated with this proposition. What competency does a political movement have to legislate what is essential an ethical/religious proposition/standard?

If such legislation were to be ever taken seriously it would need to clearly reflect the pillars upon which Australian civil society is based. But what are those pillars? That is the difficulty. We can’t rely upon ‘mateship’ to be the sole definer of Australian life.

As Noel Pearson has wonderfully articulated, the pillars that existed following British settlement, including the White Australia Policy and Imperial Benevolence no longer apply. What has taken their place?

Again, as Pearson has frequently articulated, it is necessary to acknowledge Australians embrace three stories: First Nation’s History and Culture, British Institutions of law and governance, and Multiculturalism. Within and across these three stories, none of us has a single identity other than the important one, we are all Australian citizens. Some of us share the same religion but different ethnicity, and vice versa. We have geographical identities, sporting allegiances, and different levels of education and wealth. To promote or defend one identity more than another is to be divisive, and by implication devalue others.

On the other hand, to disown or devalue one or other of the three foundational stories that belong to all of us by virtue of our citizenship, is to undermine the character of modern Australia. It is at this level that we Australians are most racist and where we need to invest most energy. Every time an ethnic minority is pilloried, an attempt is being made to reverse the irreversible, Australia’s multi-culturalism.

On Australia Day a bomb was thrown into a large crowd in Perth with the intention of harming First Nations people. Compared with the continuing outcry following Bondi, the silence in relation to this outrageous act has been deafening. It is the sad truth that the people most targeted through hate speech in Australia are First Nations people. In some regions and in some cultural and political groups, such speech is uttered as a badge of honour.

If we are to legislate hate speech definitions, which become actionable in the criminal code, we should begin with that which is most prevalent and directed toward First Nations people.

The way the right of politics manipulated a No vote in the Voice referendum was quite disgraceful. This proposition would not have given one group of people an advantage others did not have, as argued by the right. For this to be the case we would have to look upon First Nations people simply as one ethnic group amongst multiple others now living in a global diaspora. No, the Voice referendum was designed to honour the first of the three stories that make up modern Australia for all of us.

So, if government, federal or state, is of a mind to enact legislation designed to protect a section of the community, the place of First Nations people is the place to start. It is sad to acknowledge this will not happen for multiple reasons, not least that the populous voice, courted by the political right, is the cause of the problem.

Seeking legislation to protect one group, ethnic or religious, over and above legislation that exists to protect us all is inevitably to buy into disputes that exist outside the boundaries of this country. Politicians may argue otherwise, but such focus highlights disputes and antagonisms that have their origin elsewhere.

There is no disputing reality that the rise of Australian antisemitism relates to the way Israel has and is prosecuting its campaign against Palestinians – denying rights, taking possessions, and abrogating freedoms which the international community through the UN condemns, but that countries such as Australia condone through their inaction. Do not expect those who stand for justice to remain silent. To walk by is also to condone.

Isaac Herzog may like to claim criticism of Israel arises out of ignorance of facts on the ground, and is fuelled by the likes of Hamas etc, but he is wrong and wilfully so. Israel does all it can to shield its own people from its state sponsored shameful acts. Multiple ex IDF soldiers commit suicide because they cannot live with the atrocities they were compelled to commit. My knowledge is informed not from some Hamas propaganda, but from what I have seen and experienced on the ground.

I do not blame Australian Jews, by association, for what Israel is doing. But my contempt and anger with the Israeli government does not abate and I will continue to condemn any suggestion that Israel and Australia are siblings who share the same values. We most clearly do not.

Why do I have such anger?

Israel expects the world to endorse the moral code that is embedded in and justifies a Zionist ideology. This bears absolutely no relationship to the moral code embedded in the Hebrew scriptures from which Judaism has sprung.

Recent antisemitism definitions require, by implications, respect be given to Zionist aspirations, not Jewish moral code.

It should surprise no one that many Australian Jews and Jewish groups deplore the actions of the state of Israel.

I have long held to three pillars that I believe must undergird civil society. Funnily enough these pillars are found within Hebrew scriptures, in the book of the prophet Micah.

They are to: do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God.

These pillars are treated with utter disdain by the Israeli government. The list of injustices perpetrated against Palestinians is well documented by human rights organisations, including Israel’s own. It is the overwhelming nature of these injustices that has caused the International Criminal Court to accuse Israel of severe breaches of international law.

Mercy appears to be a concept anathema to Putin, Netanyahu, Trump, and many other world leaders. Mercy was the theme chosen by Bishop Marriane Budde at President Trump’s inauguration and for which she was roundly castigated by him, his followers and a large segment of the Christian community. It is this total absence of mercy that has led the international court to have said Israel has been guilty of actions so inhumane they can probably be described as war crimes.

Humility is that quality which creates space for others. Israel will not countenance Palestinians having their own state, nor will Israel countenance Palestinians having the same rights as other citizens anywhere between the river and the sea. By denying both, there is no space for them to exist.

In these circumstances do not expect the Palestinian diaspora in Australia to remain silent, and do not expect those of us who consider these three pillars to be fundamental, not to speak from them.