The royal commission must confront hatred and violence against Jewish Australians while preserving free speech, political criticism of Israel and equal protection for all communities.
The Royal Commission into Anti-semitism and Social Cohesion has heard convincing evidence that Jewish Australians have encountered increasing levels of public hostility over recent years, making many feel deeply insecure, unwelcome and fearful that public violence will be visited upon them. Synagogues have been set on fire, students at Jewish schools have felt more vulnerable and Jewish businesses have been damaged. Right-wing neo-Nazis have increased their public presence and abuse of Jews. The terror, of course, culminated in the massacre at Bondi Beach in December but even before that many had feared such a massacre and feel additionally aggrieved because they think that politicians, security agencies and police were complacent about the clear and present danger of such an incident, failed to take sufficient precautions to prevent it or to reduce the carnage when it started.
These are all good explanations for the public anger within the Australian Jewish community, the wider Jewish world and the leaders of the state of Israel against politicians and agencies seen as exposing Australian Jews to danger.
For many other Australians, most of whom do not harbour anti-semitic ideas, the massacre at Bondi beach was a dreadful shock, among the worst acts of terrorism other than against Aboriginal Australians, ever seen on our soil. Small wonder that it is seen as a political turning point, as well as the beginning of a concerted effort to bolster security protection against any further such incident.
Commissioner Virginia Bell, a former High Court judge, will be justified in sympathising with Jewish Australians for their sense that the state has let them down. Because she is reviewing police and security precautions against acts of violence or hatred directed at Australians, she is also in a good position to make recommendations on what should be done to protect Australians from violence of the sort visited on Jewish Australians during the Hanukkah festival. As ordinary citizens, Jewish Australians are entitled to such protections, in just the same way as other groups of Australians are from being targeted for terror, violence or expressions of extreme hatred.
Where she will be on less sure ground will be in describing the escalating sense of siege felt by many Jewish Australians to an upsurge of anti-semitism. Jewish Australians have felt that they were under attack because many Australians were becoming highly critical of the way in which the Israeli state was making war on the Palestinians citizens of Gaza. Many Jewish Australians are strongly attached to the state of Israel and see criticism of its actions as an attack on their sense of self.
The support of some of them is almost entirely uncritical and is formally attached to their belief in Zionism – the idea that Jews deserve to have a Jewish state. Some Australian Jews are active citizens of Israel, serve in the Israeli armed forces and actively lobby the Australian government in favour of policies which treat Israel as an ally and friend. All that may be within the rights, including the ordinary human rights, of any Australian Jewish or not, though I personally am opposed to the idea of Australians serving in the armed forces of another nation.
But opposition to the actions of the state of Israel is not of itself anti-semitic. Nor is it illegal for Jews within the state of Israel. The Australian government has adopted a particular definition of anti-semitism not necessarily adopted by the commission. It suggests that criticism of Israel is anti-semitic if it sets Israel a standard other countries are not obliged to meet.
Criticism of Israel’s actions against people it has designated as terrorists, including ordinary Palestinians, citizens of other Arab countries including Lebanon, or even non-Arab countries such as Iran, is not criticism of the Jewish religion, the rights of Jewish people to practice their religion or their civil rights as Jews.
I do not think that people who strongly disapprove of Israel’s actions (going back to 1916 if you want) should visit violence against supporters of Israel, Jewish or not. I believe that our legal system and civil polity should protect residents, citizens or not, exposed to the threat of discrimination or violence based upon their origin or creed.
But the fact that some groups have been subjected to hatred or violence should not be the cause for some specially licensed militia, Jewish or not, roaming in the community seeking out and arresting people for such acts. Such a solution, advocated by some witnesses before the commission, would be more likely to aggravate violence and would be open to criticism that Jewish Australians are being treated with an exceptionalism when other vulnerable Australians are not. What next: a special Indigenous patrol with rights to protect Aborigines from hatred, discrimination and violence? A special force to protect stockbrokers and financial advisers from acts of taxation hostility from the federal government?
It must also be remembered that a considerable number of Jews, whether in Australia, Israel, the US or other countries are quite opposed to the policies of the Israeli government. Many do not support the political aims of Zionism (a 19th-century political movement, very late in the story of the Jewish people) or indeed the idea of a Jewish state. A good many diaspora Jews have no plan or ambition to visit or live in Israel, in part because of modern Jewish fundamentalism (and fundamentalist Christian nationalism associated with Israel). Pro-Israel Jewish organisations in the US find themselves losing support among younger Jews, particularly because of Israel’s actions against Palestinians. Indeed, in Israel itself there is scathing criticism of Israeli government policies in Jewish newspapers such as Ha’aretz, far stronger than anything voiced in the mainstream Australian media, even in the dreaded ABC or SBS. It would be odd indeed if language that is uncensored in Israeli media were to be described here as anti-semitic.
Commissioner Bell is not conducting an inquest into the history or morality of the state of Israel, or of any Australian organisations or lobbies that support or oppose Israel. But she is expected to make some sort of judgement about whether some statements are anti-semitic in their nature or intention. She may well judge this from an essentially legal viewpoint, especially given that the federal government has pushed a definition upon her. She knows the prime minister, in bowing to demands for a royal commission, agreed also to demands from Jewish organisations that their plight be regarded as separate from hate-speech or discrimination directed at other religions, creeds or persuasions. This may limit rather than extend her power to search for analogies for acts encouraging discrimination.
Her conclusions on a fair and practicable definition would probably be justiciable, a good reason for a strict legalism. It would also have to pass a pub test for reasonableness. Most Australians have little time these days for racist, discriminatory, sexist or obviously anti-semitic statements. But they do come from a tradition encouraging robust free-speech and resistance to what Pauline Hanson might call a “woke” definition. It is obvious that there can be no subjective test of the type “which would make some person feel uncomfortable.”
Commissioner Bell will also have to give some attention to the openly anti-semitic activities of neo-Nazi groups, some of which have thrived from exploitation of anti-immigration sentiment, particularly as it has been mined by the Pauline Hanson One Nation movement.
There have always been such groups in Australia, but they have been small in numbers and influence. There are also reservoirs of anti-semitism in business and in clubs. While by no means harmless, strong action against these runs a risk of being counter-productive and creating self-styled martyrs. Yet these are the logical targets of anti-semitic legislation. Violence focused on Jews is best dealt with under anti-terrorism and sedition laws, rather than through a complete code seeming to separate anti-Jewish activity from acts of hatred and violence against other groups.
It goes without saying that specific legislation proscribing or limiting criticism of Israel should not be imposed. That would be an intolerable restriction on freedom of speech and freedom of political communication. More likely than not, the very attempt to impose such a system would aggravate the anti-Israeli sentiment of which its proponents would complain. Australians do not make exceptions from criticism for any country. Nor do they impose any objective test of whether criticism is fair or justified, given that opinions (and the facts upon which they are said to be based) vary widely. It may be desirable that some Australians study more history, including the history of the Holocaust, but that is an aim which must compete with desires that they also learn more foreign languages, more of the history and culture of our neighbours, and more mathematics and science.
Any suggestion that the ABC or SBS must answer to a standing committee of prominent advocates of Israel, as proposed by a prominent advocate of Israel, is ridiculous. The envoy for anti-semitism, Jillian Segal, might serve as the gold standard of silly, draconian and counter-productive ideas – whether directed at universities or the media. As silly would be a board of commissars comprising Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist Australians, alert for want of balance or negative misrepresentation of India, Indonesia or Myanmar.
The Commissioner’s investigations into what made Jewish Australians feel uncomfortable and insecure and her inquiries into how police, security agencies and perhaps politicians failed to move quickly enough, cannot neglect other calls on the government’s attention. These developments were accompanied, for example, by a marked increase in government illiberalism, particularly about the right of assembly, especially in NSW.
Such legislation was rejected by the courts, but that did not serve to moderate police behaviour at demonstrations or attempts by the premier to circumvent judicial rulings.
The Australian government was hardly any better in its efforts to proscribe organisations, to ban various forms of free expression, and to restrict public criticism.
Commissioner Bell comes from a civil liberties tradition and must resist the temptation to see judicial unwillingness to authorise anti-democratic action as some sort of setback in the protection of Jewish Australians. Police and security agencies have powers enough, and information enough, with which to justify action to protect the community.
It is said something like 80 per cent of Australians now disapprove of the actions of the state of Israel over recent years. That it has reached such levels ought to give pause to those who pretend that Israel is beyond criticism, that its actions must be excused because of its strategic situation, or that the dreadful actions of Hamas soldiers on October 7 deprive Palestinians of any right to complain of Israeli reaction.
Those who strongly support Israel must also consider that Israel has used the times to vastly extend its settlement program by seizing the land of Palestinians, extending its operations into the West Bank and effectively annexing large parts of Lebanon. Israel, with US assistance that may fade in future, is defying credible international law accusing its leaders of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The royal commission has had Jewish witnesses who are critics of Israel tell of being called “traitors” or “self-hating Jews” by strongly pro-Israel Jewish Australians. Many of the latter have not taken a backward step in defending Israel against any criticism whatsoever. If Israel’s friends and supporters will not restrain its leaders, who will? Justice cannot come soon enough for Palestinians and other victims of Israel’s policies, nor can an accounting for some of Israel’s political and military leaders.
Republished from The Canberra Times
John Waterford AM, better known as Jack Waterford, is an Australian journalist and commentator.