Screenshot – ABC News YouTube video Dec 2024: Melbourne synagogue fire treated as terror. Fair use
Since the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas, there has been a debate about the nature and causes of and responses to antisemitism in Australia.
The war in Gaza has been the focus of the often heated controversy, with protesters often accused of antisemitism. Attacks on synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses and property have also brought urgency to the issue.
In July 2025, the Australian Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, released a plan to combat antisemitism. However, some observers are concerned that the plan will instead be used to silence criticism of Israel over its ongoing genocide against Palestinians and other human rights violations:
She took the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as her own, which states:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.
She elaborated:
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.
Segal gives the definition a key role in her plan:
The Envoy will work with state and federal governments to require the IHRA working definition of antisemitism to be used across all levels of government and public institutions to inform their practical understanding of antisemitism.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, an elected peak body representing the Australian Jewish community, gave the plan its full support, as did many other Jewish groups:
However, the IHRA definition has been a very controversial one and has been rejected by many human rights organizations and Jewish groups.
Deakin University academic Matteo Vergani canvassed the plan at The Conversation, finding the recommendations were “broadly reasonable and make practical sense.” However, he had reservations regarding how the plan might be used:
The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
He also had issues with the definition:
In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.
Many other commentators took a more scathing view of the plan. At online journal Pearls and Irritations, Bernadette Zaydan raised several concerns with the plan:
Under the guise of combatting antisemitism, new laws risk eroding core democratic principles, silencing legitimate dissent and redefining free speech as hate speech.
…The community ought to be concerned as we are now facing the prospect of a national database labelling individuals as antisemitic, not for inciting hatred or violence, but for expressing dissenting political views.
…Her proposals would expand powers over universities, workplaces and digital platforms, coercing institutions into adopting an unchallenged definition of antisemitism that has been condemned by the very experts who authored it.
The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) describes itself as a “Jewish voice that supports Palestinian freedom & justice and opposes antisemitism & racism.” It shared several posts on Instagram, including the following, which said the plan was “straight out of Trump's authoritarian playbook”:
JCA board member and prominent Jewish anti-Zionist, Louise Adler, caused a stir with her opinion piece in The Guardian, accusing organizers of aiming to “weaponise antisemitism”:
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.
Her article received many favorable responses on the social media site BlueSky.
Journalist Antoun Issa summarized many of the objections to the antisemitism plan in this video for Deepcut News:
Cartoonists soon joined the debate. Guardian regular First Dog on the Moon (aka Andrew Marlton) took a strong position:
The Envoy is however keen to dictate the politics of people engaging in protest, as well as visa applications, school curriculum, content in the media, and also funding for universities and the arts to name just a few. Who knows where it all might end.
‘Put that cartoonist in the van!’
The release of the plan was followed by revelations that Jillian Segal’s husband was linked to a AUD 50,000 (USD 32,500) donation to Advance Australia, a right-wing lobby group. Jillian Segal has denied any involvement.
Cathy Wilcox raised the question of conflict of interest:
Scott Morrison's conservative government endorsed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in 2021. Anthony Albanese's Labor government is currently considering its response to Jillian Segal's recommendations. Its latest criticism of the Israeli government reflects growing international outrage over the state-driven starvation in Gaza. Australian Associated Press (AAP) reported:
Israel has ‘quite clearly’ breached international law by limiting food deliveries to starving civilians in Gaza, Anthony Albanese has declared in a notable escalation of his criticism of the Jewish state.
