Jillian Segal’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism is the most dangerous document I’ve read in many years. It is beyond comprehension how or why such a flimsy, misguided, unsupported rant ever found its way into public discourse with governmental approval.
Now that it has, I’m going to join the chorus that condemns its proposals, and my narrow focus will be on universities and academic funding.
The broadest possible definition of antisemitism
The Plan is framed by a statement that all Australian governments and agencies are required to adopt the broadest possible definition of antisemitism, one that specifically, and deliberately includes criticism of Israel.
It has been comprehensively discredited not least by its lead author.
One of the ‘illustrative examples’ adopted in the Plan is that antisemitism includes ‘drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’.
What were the policies of the Nazis? Genocide, ethnic cleansing, the creation of ghettos for civilians, annexation of neighbouring lands in breach of international law, limitation on foreign media, disinformation and propaganda, religious nationalism, holding perceived enemies without trial, killing children, starvation as a tool of oppression, among others.
Genocide, holocaust, ghetto, ‘never again’
Indeed, the words genocide, holocaust, ghetto, ‘never again’ and concentration camp used in the vernacular without further explanation are assumed to be referring to Nazi policies and actions.
In Australia, the Zionist movement describes accusing Israel of genocide as a ‘blood libel’.
So, according to the envoy, using these terms with reference to Israel is itself antisemitic.
That is completely absurd, which is why the envoy has been accused of deliberately choosing a discredited definition in the full knowledge that it will, and is designed to, shut down criticism of Israel. And this accusation, on her definition, amounts to antisemitism too.
A catch-22
This is reminiscent of a catch-22 sandwiched with a Kafkaesque dilemma. This Plan has nothing to do with deterring real antisemitism. Gosh, if they use that definition no wonder the number of antisemitic occurrences is mushrooming.
So, guess who (apart from me) would be antisemitic on that basis? Let’s start with the head of the Red Cross, who said that Israel was not above international law relating to genocide. Amnesty International, various United Nations organs, The International Court of Justice, Médecins Sans Frontières and Human Rights Watch all use key Nazi policy terms applied to Israel.
Countless leading Israeli organisations, media, and even ex-prime minister Ehud Olmert have accused the Jewish state of planning a concentration camp. Our ex-foreign minister Bob Carr calls Gaza a ghetto. All antisemitic.
Cut funding to universities
But here’s the real sting in the tail. The envoy, herself, in full headmistress mode, will complete an annual report card on universities, and will work with government to cut funding to universities and individual academics who engage in, enable, or facilitate antisemitic speech.
Let’s not teach international law at all, because how could you deal with current affairs without asking students to express a view on whether Israel is committing war crimes? Or breaching human rights? Or building concentration camps? Or argue that the international court is correct on plausible genocide. I think the very existence of the UN will have to be written out of law curriculum, lest some bigoted student dare suggest that the special rapporteur is right.
This is akin to Trump cutting off funding to Columbia University, which in the hope of maintaining government support is disgracing itself with obsequious crawling and expulsion of students. Harvard is standing firm, rolling the dice in court – brave or stupid.
Staggeringly, the envoy’s approach is enthusiastically endorsed by sandstone Jewish organisations. Don’t they realise that the rest of the community is laughing behind their backs saying that the overreaction and overreach is so, well, precious?
Muting dissent
Everyone agrees that real antisemitism, Jew hating, is of course to be condemned, but muting dissent to protect the sensitivities of a few Jewish uni students who might feel uncomfortable is nothing in comparison to burning, starving, and bombing babies. First, they came for the antisemitics. Then they came for the Jews.
I believe that if anyone is silent in the face of genocide they are complicit. Well, if I keep speaking my mind and agree with international courts and charities and agencies, I guess my university will lose money and my funding will dry up.
And it’s not just universities the envoy wants to see punished for anti-Israel rhetoric – visa applicants will be screened, artists and writers scrutinised, non-citizen (residents) arrested and deported. Just like Trump.
There is no realm of Australian life that will not be subject to this deeply flawed framework, often with the gatekeeper being the Queen (oops envoy) herself.
Josh Burns MP recently wrote, ‘It is not up to those outside the Jewish community to tell us what is and isn’t antisemitism’. Really? I call complete bullshit on that – words actually have an objective meaning, and it’s not for supposed victims to determine the elements which constitute the crime. Besides, the Jewish community is not some homogenous behemoth.
So here goes. Listening Josh and Jillian?
It is genocide. It is a war crime. It is ethnic cleansing.
So sue me.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
