Universities must confront antisemitism, but contested definitions risk chilling legitimate criticism of Israel when they are turned into institutional rules and disciplinary processes.
Last month, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for the end of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying violence, displacement and settlement expansion “raises the spectre of ethnic cleansing”. These concerns build on high-level findings that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. For example, the United Nations (UN) Commission of Inquiry declared in September 2025 that Israel had committed four of the five defined genocidal acts in Gaza, as defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention. In June 2026, this same independent UN Commission of Inquiry concluded that Israel continued to commit genocide and was deliberately targeting Palestinian children.
Genocide has been known as the “crime of crimes”, one of the worst crimes possible. Yet if a controversial definition of antisemitism continues to be adopted by organisations around Australia, one could potentially find oneself disciplined or dismissed at work for criticising these crimes.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) ‘working definition of antisemitism’ includes a variety of examples that focus on the state of Israel, including “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”. Yet if criticism of Israel is antisemitic, then are critiques of Iran and Afghanistan Islamophobic? The IHRA working definition goes on to clarify that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”, but who is to determine what critiques of Israel are in line with criticisms of other countries? If Israel is in the news, raising fears of ethnic cleansing or continuing to commit genocide, then surely rightful focus and attention should be given to criticising the country. Our whole international human rights system is premised on the very idea of holding nation-states accountable and being able to criticise them without fear of reprisal. The IHRA definition has the possibility of preventing us from exercising this very basic tenet of human rights.
In Australia, Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, has argued that all levels of Australian government and public institutions should adopt the IHRA definition. One area where the IHRA definition has received traction is in the university sector, with a number of Australian universities adopting it, including the University of Melbourne and the University of Wollongong. Yet, as the lead author of the IHRA working definition, Kenneth Stern, has argued in the Guardian: “It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code” and its misuse is “an attack on academic freedom and free speech”. As Stern states: “rightwing Jewish groups took the ‘working definition’, which had some examples about Israel…and decided to weaponise it”, citing civil rights (Title VI) cases under Donald Trump in the United States.
In July 2026, Education Minister Jason Clare announced that universities must adopt a definition of antisemitism. Which definition to adopt is currently being decided by many universities across Australia.
In February 2025, Universities Australia endorsed a Statement on Racism which was drafted by leaders from the Group of Eight after consultation with Jillian Segal. This statement includes clauses defining antisemitism. While this definition is not a direct appropriation of the IHRA definition, it still contains problematic elements informed by IHRA.
For example, one clause states: “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions”. Yet who is to say what constitutes harmful assumptions? Could any criticism of Israel be perceived as based on harmful assumptions?
Professor and dean of law at Southern Cross University and former NSW magistrate, David Heilpern, argues that the UA definition is “poorly drafted, ambiguous, and will have a chilling and unintended effect on academic research and freedom of expression”. Universities have already been suppressing events that discuss Israel, with Adelaide University reneging on a planned event with Francesca Albanese. Academics for Palestine WA document how a sessional academic was disciplined for perceived “misconduct pertaining to protest” after being tracked through CCTV.
A far better definition of antisemitism already exists and was developed by more than 200 scholars of antisemitism, Holocaust history, Jewish studies and Middle East studies. The Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism grapples with the issues of the IHRA definition, and its preamble, definition and set of 15 guidelines provide meaningful ways to combat and address antisemitism. Notably, the preamble of the Jerusalem Declaration states: “Because the IHRA Definition is unclear in key respects and widely open to different interpretations, it has caused confusion and generated controversy, hence weakening the fight against antisemitism”. The Jerusalem Declaration therefore aimed to provide an improved definition of antisemitism that includes “(a) a clearer core definition and (b) a coherent set of guidelines”. This coherence is important as it provides a path both for understanding and fighting against antisemitism and for preserving free speech and debate about Israel.
It is important to note that groups such as the Australian Palestine Advocacy Network reject the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism alongside other definitions of antisemitism as it can risk creating community conflict. Additionally, overarching definitions of anti-racism cover multiple forms of racism, including antisemitism.
Whether universities adopt a broader definition of anti-racism or a narrower definition of antisemitism, it is crucial that universities avoid the IHRA and Universities Australia definitions if they do not want to chill freedom of speech and stifle valid criticism of a nation-state.
Annabel Dulhunty
Dr Annabel Dulhunty is a Senior Lecturer at the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University. Annabel’s research focuses on human rights, humanitarianism and Gender and Development. Annabel draws on her extensive experience as an aid worker in the Pacific, Latin America, Africa and South Asia to guide her work.