The first tranche of hearings of the Antisemitism Royal Commission did not hear enough from those Jewish Australians who oppose Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories.
The first tranche of hearings of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion has concluded, with testimony from lived experience witnesses. Missing from the evidence was recognition of the diversity of opinion in the Jewish community. This omission is not new. Since 7 October 2023, pro-Israel perspectives have dominated the political and mainstream media landscape, and exacerbated divisions between Jews who uncritically embrace a Zionist frame and those who do not.
Concerned by the absence of dissenting voices in the public arena, Dr Leia Greenslade and I undertook research with Australian Jewish people opposed to Israel’s actions in the Occupied Territories. Until now, there have been limited opportunities to empirically examine the experiences, observations, reflections and ethical deliberations of this cohort, although a range of Jewish organisations do provide alternative perspectives.
One theme we explored in The Not in Our Name: Jewish Australians Speak Out research was the participants’ relationship with Israel, a subject that witnesses at the hearings sidestepped when responding to whether criticism of Israel constitutes antisemitism. While there have been some moves to challenge that assumption, they often remain qualified, with connection to Israel and Zionism in its varying forms presented as intrinsic to Jewish identity.
Dissent regarding the place of Israel within Judaism predates the formation of the Jewish state. Debate stretches back to the early visions of Israel as a Jewish homeland and concern about the consequences that might follow its establishment. There has always existed a tradition of a moral imperative to summon Jewish values that do not depend on allegiance to a Jewish state and that challenge the erasure of Palestine through colonial dispossession. Antisemitism is undeniably increasing, with some conjecture that it is related to the actions of the Israeli state and not to Jew-hatred in traditional forms. Whatever its sources, the scourge cannot be dealt a blow through recounting of traumatic lived experiences alone. It also requires a moral reckoning.
Through a survey and in-depth interviews, we examined the tensions. Participants came from diverse Jewish backgrounds, varying in demographics, degree of religious observance and formative and educational experiences. Although most respondents agreed there has been a rise in antisemitism, this was moderated by beliefs that it was frequently exaggerated or mischaracterised.
For Jews who do not identify with Israel, a double bind is apparent. On the one hand, there is the trope that Jews are collectively responsible for the atrocities committed by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. On the other, the dominant Jewish narrative insists that Jews as a collective are inherently bound to Israel. This conflation has suppressed the voices of those with a strong Jewish identity who hold deep concerns about Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank. The conflation has fostered self-censorship, particularly in the arts and education sectors where repression has impacted both Jewish and non-Jewish activists.
Interview participants debunked the perception that Jewish identity is tied to Israel. Some described being raised on a diet of Zionist thought and later undergoing a process of unlearning what had been instilled through family, schooling and communal institutions. One person recalled refusing to stand for the Hatikvah (Israeli national anthem) at a Jewish school, explaining: ‘I felt really strongly that I’m Jewish, I’m not Israeli. It’s really that simple’. Another reflected: ‘Being Jewish is in the heart. It’s not in the land.’ A third described Zionism as ‘using the Old Testament like a real estate guide’.
More than half the participants professed that Israel has the right to exist, while insisting that the state must be radically reformed. This was reinforced by the view that Israel constitutes an apartheid and settler-colonial state and that actions in Gaza are genocidal. A complex relationship with the Holocaust emerged. While acknowledging its enduring legacy, there was discomfort expressed about its politicisation in defence of Israeli state actions.
Although most participants had not directly experienced antisemitism, many described hostility, slurs and abuse from within the Jewish community. These included ruptures within families and friendship circles. One participant remarked: ‘I’ve seen more antisemitic slurs and denunciation from Zionist Jews than I’ve seen from even the neo-Nazis’. Another described receiving ‘abuse from the Zionist right’ that was ‘direct, nasty, vicious personal abuse’. Many felt alienated from mainstream Jewish institutions that did not represent their views, surmising that disagreement could lead to people being shunned. Participants expressed strong support for Jewish groups that acted in solidarity with Palestinian rights. While feeling abandoned because of their beliefs, a participant commented: ‘It doesn’t make us any less Jewish. It doesn’t invalidate our faith and our religion in any way.’
While most participants acknowledged an increase in antisemitism, although holding reservations about how the term was applied, many expressed that this was occurring alongside growing Islamophobia and racism against First Nations people. The narrow terms of reference of the Royal Commission have excluded this recognition in the lived experience hearings.
Our research provides insights for the Royal Commission and beyond. It highlights an aspiration to redefine Jewish identity as independent from Israeli nationalism and in solidarity with Palestinians and other marginalised groups. The Jewish concept of Teshuvah (repentance) was invoked by a participant:
We must do Teshuvah before there will be peace there. Which is not to say Jews don’t have a right in the land or to be in the land, but at the same time coming back to the land has displaced other people and has caused great harm.
Ethical reasoning re-imagines Jewish identity as one resisting entanglement with nationalism and foregrounds justice and solidarity. There must be acknowledgment that those conveying alternative views, such as participants in our study, are neither marginal nor disconnected from Jewish life. On the contrary, they are deeply connected with Jewish tradition, irrespective of their views on Israel and Zionism.
As we conclude in our report, critique of Israeli state actions is not a rejection of Jewish identity but reflects a deep commitment to Jewish ethical teachings human rights and solidarity with oppressed peoples.
Linda Briskman
Linda Briskman holds the Margaret Whitlam Chair of Social Work at Western Sydney University. She is a member of the advisory committee of the Jewish Council of Australia. Linda is a panel member on the People’s Inquiry.