What is the controversial definition of antisemitism that institutions are being told to adopt?
Segal's recommendation to embed the alliance's definition in all public institutions last week came after a host of antisemitic attacks across Australia this year, including the doors of the East Melbourne synagogue being set alight earlier this month, and children at Jewish schools in Sydney being harassed with calls of 'Heil Hitler'.
However, pro-Palestinian and some human rights organisations fear the definition may stifle legitimate criticism of Israel and its government by tying antisemitism to anti-Zionism, limiting the free speech.
So what is the definition? How widely used is it? And why has it become controversial?
What is the IHRA, and its definition of antisemitism?
The alliance was established by the Stockholm International Forum, a series of conferences held between 2000 and 2004, and convened by then-Swedish prime minister Göran Persson.
The conferences were held to combat 'the growth of extreme right-wing groups' that were spreading propaganda in schools, and to address a survey of Swedish young people that found knowledge of the Holocaust 'was deficient and that a large number of teenagers were not even certain that it had taken place', according to the Swedish government.
There are now 35 member states of IHRA, including Australia, Israel, the UK and the US, all of which adopted a 'non-legally binding working definition' of antisemitism in May 2016.
The definition adopted by the alliance states:
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
12 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
To defend our democracy, PM must disavow and abandon Segal report
The eminent Jewish historian, the late Tony Judt, put it this way in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2006: 'When Israel breaks international law in the occupied territories, when Israel publicly humiliates the subject populations whose land it has seized – but then responds to its critics with loud cries of 'antisemitism' – it is in effect saying that these acts are not Israeli acts, they are Jewish acts: The occupation is not an Israeli occupation, it is a Jewish occupation, and if you don't like these things it is because you don't like Jews. 'In many parts of the world this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling assertion: Israel's reckless behaviour and insistent identification of all criticism with antisemitism is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in Western Europe and much of Asia.' Anyone repeating Judt's words would risk no longer being able to speak in mainstream Australia because they would have been branded as antisemitic. Similarly, a university or writers' festival or public broadcaster could lose its funding for hosting Ehud Olmert, Israel's former prime minister, who last week compared plans for a 'humanitarian city' to be built in Rafah to 'a concentration camp', making him yet another antisemite according to the Segal report. Pointedly, Olmert said, 'Attitudes inside Israel might start to shift only when Israelis started to feel the burden of international pressure.' In other words, leading Israelis are saying criticism of Israel can be helpful, rather than antisemitic. Yet, even by me doing no more than quoting word-for-word arguments made by globally distinguished Jews, could it be that I meet the Segal report's criteria for antisemitism? Would I be blacklisted for repeating what can be said in Israel about Israel but cannot be said in Australia? At the same time, in an Australia where protest is being increasingly criminalised, the Segal report creates an attractive template that could be broadened to silence dissenting voices that question the state's policies on other matters such as immigration, climate and environment. Loading That the ABC and SBS could be censored on the basis of 'monitoring' by Jillian Segal, a power she recommends she be given as the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, raises the unedifying vision of our public broadcasters being policed from the Segal family lounge room. No matter how much Segal seeks to now distance herself from her husband's political choices, that his family trust is a leading donor to Advance – a far-right lobby group which advocates anti-Palestinian, anti-immigrant positions, publishes racist cartoons and promotes the lie that climate change is a hoax – doesn't help engender in the Australian public a sense of political innocence about her report. It is hard to see how this helps a Jewish community that feels threatened, attacked and misunderstood. Could it be that the Segal report's only contribution to the necessary battle against antisemitism will be to fuel the growth of the antisemitism it is meant to combat? If the ironies are endless, the dangers are profound. Loading It is not simply that these things are absurd, it is that they are a threat to us as a democratic people. That the prime minister has unwisely put himself in a position where he now must disavow something he previously seemed to support is unfortunate. But disavow and abandon it he must. Antisemitism is real and, as is all racism, despicable. The federal government is right to do all it can within existing laws to act against the perpetrators of recent antisemitic outrages. Earlier this month, the Federal Court found Wissam Haddad guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act with online posts that were ' fundamentally racist and antisemitic ' but ruled that criticism of Israel, Zionism and the Israel Defence Forces was not antisemitic. It is wrong to go beyond our laws in new ways that would damage Australian democracy and seem to only serve the interests of another nation that finds its actions the subject of global opprobrium. The example of the USA shows where forgetting what is at stake leads. Just because the most powerful in our country have endorsed this report does not mean we should agree with it. Just because it stifles criticism of another country does not make Australia better nor Jews safer. Nor, if we follow the logic of Ehud Olmert, does it even help Israel. As the Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi wrote, 'we too are so dazzled by power and prestige as to forget our own essential fragility. Willingly or not we come to terms with power, forgetting that we are all in the ghetto, that the ghetto is walled in, that outside the ghetto reign the lords of death and that close by the train is waiting.' The lessons of the ghetto are not the exclusive property of Israel but of all humanity. In every human heart as well as the lover and the liberator, there exists the oppressor and the murderer. And no nation-state, no matter the history of its people, has the right to mass murder and then expect of other peoples that they not speak of it. If we agree to that, if we forget our own essential fragility, we become complicit in the crime and the same evil raining down on the corpse-ridden sands of Gaza begins to poison us as well.
The Age
12 minutes ago
- The Age
To defend our democracy, PM must disavow and abandon Segal report
The eminent Jewish historian, the late Tony Judt, put it this way in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2006: 'When Israel breaks international law in the occupied territories, when Israel publicly humiliates the subject populations whose land it has seized – but then responds to its critics with loud cries of 'antisemitism' – it is in effect saying that these acts are not Israeli acts, they are Jewish acts: The occupation is not an Israeli occupation, it is a Jewish occupation, and if you don't like these things it is because you don't like Jews. 'In many parts of the world this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling assertion: Israel's reckless behaviour and insistent identification of all criticism with antisemitism is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in Western Europe and much of Asia.' Anyone repeating Judt's words would risk no longer being able to speak in mainstream Australia because they would have been branded as antisemitic. Similarly, a university or writers' festival or public broadcaster could lose its funding for hosting Ehud Olmert, Israel's former prime minister, who last week compared plans for a 'humanitarian city' to be built in Rafah to 'a concentration camp', making him yet another antisemite according to the Segal report. Pointedly, Olmert said, 'Attitudes inside Israel might start to shift only when Israelis started to feel the burden of international pressure.' In other words, leading Israelis are saying criticism of Israel can be helpful, rather than antisemitic. Yet, even by me doing no more than quoting word-for-word arguments made by globally distinguished Jews, could it be that I meet the Segal report's criteria for antisemitism? Would I be blacklisted for repeating what can be said in Israel about Israel but cannot be said in Australia? At the same time, in an Australia where protest is being increasingly criminalised, the Segal report creates an attractive template that could be broadened to silence dissenting voices that question the state's policies on other matters such as immigration, climate and environment. Loading That the ABC and SBS could be censored on the basis of 'monitoring' by Jillian Segal, a power she recommends she be given as the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, raises the unedifying vision of our public broadcasters being policed from the Segal family lounge room. No matter how much Segal seeks to now distance herself from her husband's political choices, that his family trust is a leading donor to Advance – a far-right lobby group which advocates anti-Palestinian, anti-immigrant positions, publishes racist cartoons and promotes the lie that climate change is a hoax – doesn't help engender in the Australian public a sense of political innocence about her report. It is hard to see how this helps a Jewish community that feels threatened, attacked and misunderstood. Could it be that the Segal report's only contribution to the necessary battle against antisemitism will be to fuel the growth of the antisemitism it is meant to combat? If the ironies are endless, the dangers are profound. Loading It is not simply that these things are absurd, it is that they are a threat to us as a democratic people. That the prime minister has unwisely put himself in a position where he now must disavow something he previously seemed to support is unfortunate. But disavow and abandon it he must. Antisemitism is real and, as is all racism, despicable. The federal government is right to do all it can within existing laws to act against the perpetrators of recent antisemitic outrages. Earlier this month, the Federal Court found Wissam Haddad guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act with online posts that were ' fundamentally racist and antisemitic ' but ruled that criticism of Israel, Zionism and the Israel Defence Forces was not antisemitic. It is wrong to go beyond our laws in new ways that would damage Australian democracy and seem to only serve the interests of another nation that finds its actions the subject of global opprobrium. The example of the USA shows where forgetting what is at stake leads. Just because the most powerful in our country have endorsed this report does not mean we should agree with it. Just because it stifles criticism of another country does not make Australia better nor Jews safer. Nor, if we follow the logic of Ehud Olmert, does it even help Israel. As the Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi wrote, 'we too are so dazzled by power and prestige as to forget our own essential fragility. Willingly or not we come to terms with power, forgetting that we are all in the ghetto, that the ghetto is walled in, that outside the ghetto reign the lords of death and that close by the train is waiting.' The lessons of the ghetto are not the exclusive property of Israel but of all humanity. In every human heart as well as the lover and the liberator, there exists the oppressor and the murderer. And no nation-state, no matter the history of its people, has the right to mass murder and then expect of other peoples that they not speak of it. If we agree to that, if we forget our own essential fragility, we become complicit in the crime and the same evil raining down on the corpse-ridden sands of Gaza begins to poison us as well.
Sydney Morning Herald
42 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Legal bid against Herald and Age in Lattouf case fails
The Federal Court has rejected a legal bid by a group of pro-Israel letter-writers to have The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age punished for contempt of court for allegedly breaching a suppression order protecting the identity of people who complained to the ABC about Antoinette Lattouf. On February 3, during Antoinette Lattouf's unlawful termination suit against the ABC, Justice Darryl Rangiah made a 10-year suppression order over the 'names, identities, contact details and addresses of persons who made complaints' about Lattouf's employment by the ABC. The order was made 'on the ground that it is necessary to protect the safety of persons'. Rangiah said at the time that he was satisfied there was 'a substantial risk' the individuals 'will face, at least, vilification and harassment if their identities and contact details were available to the public'. Lawyers acting for people whose identities are said to be protected by the suppression order in the Lattouf case allege Herald editor Bevan Shields and The Age editor Patrick Elligett, as well as two in-house lawyers, two reporters and the publishing companies, breached the order. The four articles at the centre of the dispute were published last year, before the suppression order was made. Rangiah noted in a decision on Friday that '[the] articles remained available online even after the order was made' but were amended in March this year 'to remove the names of the relevant persons without any admission that the publishers were obliged to do so'. At a preliminary hearing in April, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, acting for the group, said: 'Only one order is sought, and that is a referral under … the Federal Court Rules to the principal registrar to consider whether proceedings should be instituted for the punishment of contempt'. But Tom Blackburn, SC, acting for the mastheads, said the registrar would have no 'independent discretion' and would have to commence contempt proceedings if Rangiah made the order.
