Similar
terms, such
as racism, misogyny, ageism, attribute some bad characteristic
(or behaviour pattern,
etc.) to all (or almost all) members of an (involuntary)
group, and assert that
having that characteristic is caused by whatever puts them
into that group
(e.g. they have it "genetically", "essentially",
"intrinsically").
By analogy, one might define Antisemitism as:
"The
attribution of bad attributes to all (or almost all) Jews as
such, belonging
to them because they are Jews."
The
Australian
Government, in Recommendation 1 of its response
to the Special Envoy's Report, has said: "The Australian Government’s official
definition of
antisemitism is the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition."
A
better definition
would be the Jerusalem Declaration.
The
IHRA
non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a
certain perception of
Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews…”
“A
certain
perception" is vague. The definition gets practical meaning
from a set of
examples. The examples include generalisations about Jews that
do attribute
some bad characteristic to all Jews, to Jews collectively, or
to Jews "as
such" (which fit the definition suggested above), and others
that relate to the
state of Israel: "Denying the Jewish people their right to
self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a
State of Israel
is a racist endeavor. ... Drawing comparisons of contemporary
Israeli policy to
that of the Nazis." Thus the
definition can be
used to protect Israel from criticism by characterising the
criticism as
antisemitic.
The
reference to a
"right of self-determination" is of special concern, in my
opinion.
(The Universities
Australia
definition also contains the assertion that “All
peoples,
including Jews, have the right to self-determination.”) The "self" here is the ethnic group. The idea that each
ethnic
group has the right to its own state has resulted in much
bloody conflict. It
should be rejected. Multiculturalism
should be the norm. See my papers here
and here;
also Hannum, "Legal
Aspects of Self-Determination".
As
for drawing
comparisons with the Nazis: whether Israeli actions resemble
the actions of the
Nazis is a question to be decided by evidence and argument,
not by a
definition.
The Jerusalem
Declaration on Anti-Semitism:
"Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or
violence against
Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as Jewish)." This is pretty close to the definition I
suggested above.
The Declaration continues with
guidelines and examples, including examples relating to the
state of Israel,
including:
·
Holding
Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s conduct or treating
Jews, simply
because they are Jewish, as agents of Israel.
·
Requiring
people, because they are Jewish, publicly to condemn Israel or
Zionism (for
example, at a political meeting).
·
Assuming
that non-Israeli Jews, simply because they are Jews, are
necessarily more loyal
to Israel than to their own countries
I
agree that those are examples of antisemitism.
The
declaration also
provides examples “that, on the face of it, are not
antisemitic, whether or
not one approves of the view or action” – i.e. it is possible
to say “I disagree with that, but
it’s not antisemitic”. These
examples include:
· Criticizing or opposing Zionism as a form of nationalism, or arguing for a variety of constitutional arrangements for Jews and Palestinians in the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. It is not antisemitic to support arrangements that accord full equality to all inhabitants “between the river and the sea,” whether in two states, a binational state, unitary democratic state, federal state, or in whatever form.
· Evidence-based criticism of Israel as a state….
Thus the statement that “Zionism is
a form of
nationalism, an illegitimate claim to appropriate a state to
one ethnic group,
making non-Jews second-class citizens” would not be
antisemitic, even though it
remained open to debate and rejection.
It
seems to me that
the Jerusalem Declaration is to be preferred, and that
Universities and other
institutions should deal with all forms of racism and
discrimination within the
same framework, without allowing a particular ethnic group to
exercise any special
influence.
Robert
Manne, “The
wrong
way to respond to antisemitism” 18 July 2025 (on the
Segal report).
David
Brophy, “Universities
and the arts after Bondi: From definitions to ‘ambient
antisemitism’”, 9
January 2026.
Go to
Palestine and Israel