The Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has begun by adopting the IHRA definition as uncontroversial. Yet that definition – and its application to criticism of Israel – remains hotly disputed and politically charged.

Leaving to one side whether calling for and establishing the Royal Commission of Antisemitism and Social Cohesion was a good idea – and, with the benefit of hindsight, probably not – the Royal Commissioner’s statement at the Commission’s “opening” on 24 February suggests that Commissioner Bell has launched it on a very erroneous footing.

Whilst saying, “the starting point in addressing (the) first term of reference of the Commission requires an understanding of what constitutes antisemitism” she acknowledged “this is not a subject that is free of controversy”.

Her Honour stated that the Commission would adopt the IHRA (the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism in its deliberations, adding the “definition itself is uncontroversial”. One can only conclude that the statement is borne of ignorance, and that she will now enter a morass in trying to grapple with what she has been charged to investigate.

The definition, with examples of what would be considered anti-semitic is highly contentious – and the subject of challenge by many eminent people. For starters, the lead drafter of the definition wrote “starting in 2010, right wing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponise it”.

The Australian New Israel Fund wrote:

“One of the ways the definition is misused is through its ‘contemporary examples’. While it notes that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”.

In practice this “double standard” language has paved the way for some people to label virtually all criticism of Israel as prima facie antisemitic. This approach is based on the simplistic argument that focusing criticism on Israel, when other nations are guilty of similarly bad behaviour, can only reflect animus against Jews.”

Just one example of how weaponisation has occurred – and the fraught “territory ” the Royal Commissioner has ventured into – can be seen from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s (ECAJ) report on antisemitism in Australia. By its definition of what constitutes anti-semitism, there has been as substantial increase in incidents between 1 October 2024 and 30 September. The Report would have it that a daubing “Free Palestine” on a wall, or a call for “From the River to the Sea” is an antisemitic incident. Noteworthy, but not referred to, is the 1977 election manifesto of the right-wing Israeli Likud party: “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty”. Similar wording, such as referring to the area “west of the Jordan river”, has also been used in the 2020s by other Israeli politicians, including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 18 January 2024.

It needs to be borne in mind that the unquestioning acceptance of the IHRA definition has been pushed by the Anti-Semitism Envoy, Jillian Segal – a woman with absolutely no background or experience in the antisemitism or discrimination space. Her politics have also been the subject of questioning.

Needless to say, organisations such as the ECAJ, the Zionist Federation, The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, and the Australian Jewish Association say that the IHRA definition of antisemitism should be adopted by governments and institutions in Australia – including local councils – as the operative definition.

The reflex catch-cry within parts of the Jewish community has been that antisemitism has been “off the charts” in the last two and a quarter years. No one appears to have asked the critical question whether the criticism and outpouring of protest over what Israel has wrought in Gaza might be directly related to what Israel has been doing. It hasn’t been antisemitic, but anti-Israel.

Thus, for example, the march over the Sydney Harbour Bridge held under the banner “March for Humanity” – not pro-Palestinian, not in support of Hamas, but protesting what Israel was engaged in: bombing Gaza, displacing Gazans and starving them. Interestingly, only the other day Segal publicly said there were 9,000 marchers on the Harbour Bridge. Even the police said there were about 100,000.

If the Royal Commission is to achieve any relevant and meaningful outcome, it needs to understand that being critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza is not antisemitic. And if the Commission is addressing social cohesion – part of its remit – it needs to consider that in the wider context of Muslim and Jewish Australians that there is rampant racism of and indifference by the majority of Jewish communal leaders and their followers to the suffering of Gazans and their families in Australia.