- by M Santos
- The Guardian
- Issue #2154
Photo: Harald Groven – flickr.com (CC BY-SA 2.0)
Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has handed down recommendations to cut funding to universities and cultural institutions that “enable or fail to act against antisemitism.”
On 10 July, Segal, standing alongside Anthony Albanese, presented the PM with a report containing a number of recommendations to quash “antisemitism” in the name of building “social cohesion.”
Segal’s recommendations include:
Withholding funding from universities, or university programs that facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism
Investigating sources of overseas funding entering public institutions, including universities, which might drive “extreme ideologies”
Including terms in all public funding agreements with cultural institutions or festivals to end funding where the institution or festival promotes, facilitates or does not deal effectively with hate or antisemitism
Removing deductible gift recipient status from any charitable institution which promotes speakers or engages in conduct that promotes antisemitism (as defined by Segal)
Embedding Holocaust and antisemitism education in national and state school curricula
Developing a university “report card,” assessing each university’s implementation of effective practices and standards to combat antisemitism, including complaints systems and best practice policies
Screening visa applicants for antisemitic views or affiliations, consistent with a risk-based approach
Ensuring the Migration Act effectively facilitates visa refusals or cancellations for antisemitic conduct and rhetoric.
TRUMPISM
There are parallels with Donald Trump’s “Reevaluating and Realigning US Foreign Aid” policy, which states: “It is the policy of United States that no further United States foreign assistance shall be disbursed in a manner that is not fully aligned with the foreign policy of the President of the United States.”
To determine what funding will be cut, the Trump administration issued a lengthy questionnaire to institutions around the world, including Australian universities and other research organisations. Questions included:
“Does your organisation have a clear policy prohibiting any collaboration, funding, or support for entities that advocate or implement policies contrary to US government interests, national security, and sovereignty? [yes/no]” “If yes, please describe.”
“How much does this project directly impact efforts to counter malign influence, including China?”
“What impact does this project have on preventing illegal immigration to the US?”
Trump (like US Presidents before him) supports Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians and perceives it and the arming of Israel as in US interests.
The similarities to Segal’s demands are striking.
Segal’s recommendations are a thinly veiled threat to cancel government funding if a university or other organisation refuses to toe the Segal line and crush anti-genocide actions or criticism of Israel.
‘SILENCING DISSENT’
Dr Max Kaiser, Executive Officer Jewish Council of Australia, commented on Segal’s report:
“This document reads more like a blueprint for silencing dissent rather than a strategy to build inclusion. The report’s vague language around ‘antisemitic narratives’ or ‘affiliations,’ coupled with its emphasis on the widely discredited IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism, make the actions recommended dangerously unclear. Consistent with her past statements erroneously linking antisemitic attacks with Palestine solidarity protests, Segal seems fixated on driving a pro-Israel narrative and repressing legitimate criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
“Antisemitism is real and must be taken seriously. But it does not exist in a vacuum. Any response that treats antisemitism as exceptional, while ignoring Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, and other forms of hate, is doomed to fail.”
“Segal seems fixated on driving a pro-Israel narrative and repressing legitimate criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza,” he said.
Kaiser also said that the document was consistent with Segal’s “past statements erroneously linking antisemitic attacks with Palestinian solidarity protests.”
Ben Saul – chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN special rapporteur on human rights and counter terrorism – described the IHRA definition as “inappropriate … vague and overbroad” and “not workable.”
“It’s not consistent with international human rights law because it imposes excessive restrictions on legitimate freedom of expression,” Saul told SBS News.
“The definition was never intended to be a legal or regulatory enforcement tool. It was only designed to be a monitoring and awareness-raising tool.”
Saul said if the definition became legally binding in Australia it would lead to punishment of “legitimate freedom of expression.”
JUDICIAL RULING
Federal Court Judge Angus Stewart ruled that “political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity.”
“The conclusion that it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; the one flows from the other.”
Justice Stewart found that the “ordinary, reasonable listener … would understand that not all Jews are Zionists and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group.”
He was speaking in a decision on a case brought by Executive Council of Australian Jewry to the Federal Court against Sydney preacher Wissam Haddad. In his decision the judge distinguished between anti-semitic comments directed against Jews and criticism of Israeli Defence Forces in Gaza and Zionism.
DISHONEST LABELLING
“Anti-genocide and pro-Palestinian protesters in this country are currently being labelled as antisemitic, when what they are actually protesting is a country that is wantonly and purposefully killing off a particular group of people in order to gain possession of their land – and out of sheer hate – and these actions have been deemed plausible genocide by the International Court of Justice,” Paul Gregoire, Sydney Criminal Lawyers, said.
“Demonstrators in this country are being labelled as antisemitic in order to attempt to suppress criticism and understanding that another holocaust is being perpetrated in the Gaza Strip by the Israeli state, so that it can continue on with its genocidal mission without any intrusions.”
Ohad Kozminsky, Executive Member, Jewish Council of Australia, commenting on the police response to a protest outside a weapons company allegedly supplying Israel said: “There is no Jewish safety in a society where criticism of militarism is banned, protest is criminalised, and war crimes are excused.”
“The International Court of Justice has said there is racial segregation or apartheid happening in Israel’s occupied territories, and the IHRA definition says you can’t call Israel a racist endeavour. So that’s clearly a contradiction with well-accepted international human rights standards,” Saul said.
The Albanese government MUST reject Segal’s report in total.
You can act! Call or write to your Labor MP and/or Senators. Let them know you reject Segal’s totalitarian recommendations.
