The report of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia should be categorically rejected by government

In July 2024, as a knee jerk reaction to pressure being put on it by powerful lobby groups in Australia, the Federal Government created a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. After it was pointed out that this seemed an odd creation, especially given that Australia has relatively strong racial discrimination and laws that protect freedom of religion, and that other definable ethnic/religious groups were also regularly in the firing line of abuse (for example, Muslims and First Nations peoples), the Government then (with a lag of a few months) created a Special Enjoy to Combat Islamophobia. Both creations are poor policy. On July 10, 2025, the Antisemitism Envoy delivered a major report, which, if the recommendations are implemented will become a major threat to academic and artistic freedom and do nothing to advance world peace and harmony. Quite the opposite. I have been reluctant to discuss the atrocity that is now entrenched in the Middle East as a result of the actions of the Israel government. But the release of this Report and subsequent news coverage that I saw in Doha recently (while transiting) of the starvation of people (especially little children) has led me to this blog post. If the Report’s recommendations are implemented by the Government, such a blog post will probably open me to prosecution as an anti-Semite, which would be a preposterous accusation, and just shows how flawed the path we are taking to these issues has become.

The appointment of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism has been controversial and it is surprising that the Australian government selected her for this position.

First, on November 12, 2023, before her appointment, she was a co-signatory to a – Joint ZFA and ECAJ statement on Foreign Minister Wong’s comments on Insiders – published by the Zionist Federation of Australia, which is an aggressive group in Australia promoting Zionist narratives.

The statement attacked the Federal government support for the UN resolution calling for a ceasefire and stating that the IDF should “cease attacking hospitals”.

The Envoy is also on the listed as a Member of the International Board of the Wiezmann Institute, which is located in Tel Aviv and has been mired in scandals including being surreptitiously involved in Israel’s nuclear program and other defense corporations

Then, it was revealed – that her husband was a major donor to an extreme right-wing lobby group in Australia that denies anthropogenic climate change (a ‘hoax’), is against mass-immigration, opposes the campaign to give indigenous people a formal voice, and says that those who protest against the Gaza atrocities should leave Australia.

See UK Guardian report (July 14, 2025) – Antisemitism envoy denies involvement in major donation by husband’s company to right-wing group Advance

Even the progressive Jewish Council of Australia, which represents non-Zionist Jews in Australia said this association’s positions “only strengthen the case for comprehensively rejecting the plan and the envoy position itself.”

I note the Envoy has said she has “no involvement” in the donation by her husband, and I also agree that a spouse should never be held responsible for what their partner does but in political terms this family association is problematic.

Advance is an extreme group.

But at the heart of the controversy is not the author or her associations.

While the Envoy’s appointment was not acceptable in my view, her recently released Report is a slapped together document that belies the millions that the Australian government gave to her office.

It wreaks of Trumpian narratives.

It lacks an evidential basis that antisemitism is on the rise in Australia.

This UK Guardian Op Ed (July 11, 2025) – The special envoy’s plan is the latest push to weaponise antisemitism in Australia, as a relentless campaign pays off – is a sobering reflection of what is going on in Australia at the moment.

The author, Louise Adler is an adviser to the Jewish Council of Australia and former CEO of Melbourne University Press.

We read:

With respect one might argue that Segal’s previous position as president of ECAJ, an unequivocal advocate for Israel as the Jewish homeland, should have disqualified her for the role.

Moreover:

The publication of the special envoy’s plan is the latest flex by the Jewish establishment. The in-house scribes have been busy: no institution, organisation or department is exempt from the latest push to weaponise antisemitism and insist on the exceptionalism of Australian Jewry. One might pause to wonder what First Nations people, who are the victims of racism every day, feel about the priority given to 120,000 well-educated, secure and mostly affluent individuals.

Louisa Adler also is critical of the rather poor and questionable use of data in the Report to justify the alarm it was seeking to engender.

Relatedly, the recommendations that followed the creation of the ‘alarm’ appear disproportionate in the extreme.

The problem is that the Envoy (Segal) is trying to foist on the Australian government and all public institutions the adoption of the definition of antisemitism propounded by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

This is outlined in the report – Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism – where the Envoy says:

Broad adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism is key to distinguishing potentially legitimate critique from hate, especially when anti-Zionism masks antisemitism.

So we are being asked to accept that one who opposes Zionism is at the same time guilty of antisemitism.

And if one dares criticise the State of Israel for its conduct in Gaza and beyond, one can be accused of being an anti-Semite.

Advocating the rights of Palestinians also becomes problematic under this definition.

Marching in the streets of Australia to express our horror at the on-going genocide including deliberate starvation strategies does not make one anti-Semitic.

It just expresses our humanity.

On April 4, 2023, 104 international civil society organisations including many Jewish groups sent the UN a letter – Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism – which called on the UN to reject the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism.

The letter said (among other things):

… the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe.

While the IHRA itself has cautioned against using its definition (which was originally designed to “to guide research and law enforcement data validation before being used by the IHRA in its work”) to suppress criticism of Israel, “in practice, these disclaimers have failed to prevent the politically motivated instrumentalization of the IHRA definition in efforts to muzzle legitimate speech and activism by critics of Israel’s human rights record and advocates for Palestinian rights.”

The weaponisation of the IHRA definition has led to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both being accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition because they suggested the illegal Israeli occupation was a “form of apartheid” (Source).

The letter also says:

The targets of accusations of antisemitism based on the IHRA definition have included university students and professors, grassroots organizers, human rights and civil rights organizations, humanitarian groups and members of the US Congress, who either document or criticize Israeli policies and who speak in favor of Palestinian human rights.

Which brings me back to the Envoy’s plan.

The Envoy has called on the Federal government to defund universities, public broadcasters or cultural institutions (like art galleries, museums, festivals, etc) who allow views to be expressed that are contrary to the adopted IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Trumpian.

Of course, that call, in the case of universities is naive because in Australia, universities come under state legislation.

But in the Plan, there is a massive overreach advocated by the Envoy, where she can “educate”, “monitor”, “embed appropriate lesson plans”, provide “guidance”, assemble “trusted voices to publicly refute antisemitic views” (defined by the IHRA), “develop and launch a university report card”, “work with government to enable government funding to be withheld”, “establish agreed guidelines/protocols for festivals and arts organisations”, “allow for the efficient termination of funding where the institution or festival promotes, facilitates or does not deal effectively” with conduct inconsistent with the IHRA definition, “work with the publicly funded broadcasters to encourage them to develop programs” that are consistent with the IHRA definition, and a lot more.

As one commentator pointed out, the implication is that if a university was to challenge the funding cuts through the courts, the Envoy could seek to guide and educate the Judge on a “thorough understanding of antisemitism” as per the IHRA construct (Source).

The spokesperson for the Jewish Council of Australia (non-Zionist) said the Plan:

… risks undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and entrenching selective approaches to racism that serve political agendas.

You have to wonder when the reality is that Australia already has a legislative suite covering racism, discrimination etc that can deal with bad behaviour.

Why go to the next step, which is a step towards authoritarianism?

Louise Adler notes that:

The glaring absence here – a tactical move – is the question of Israel and its war on Gaza, as if antisemitism is a particular problem absent of any connection to Middle Eastern realpolitik. One oft repeated concern in the document is that younger Australians are more susceptible to antisemitism than older generations. The reason, clearly unpalatable to the authors of this document, is that younger, media literate Australians recognise the steadfastly uncritical advocacy of Israel by Australia’s Jewish leadership. Young people see the death and destruction in the occupied territories and cannot avoid the blindingly obvious connection. If the actions of Israel in the past 20 months or indeed the past 75 years doesn’t engender any dissent in the diaspora, it’s unsurprising that critics of Israel conclude that Jews are to be condemned for their appalling myopia and lack of moral clarity.

Jewish academic – Tony Judt (now deceased) – initially embraced Zionism and worked for the IDF during the Six-Day War in 1967, became highly critical of the Israeli state in his latter years.

His May 2, 2006 article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz = The country that wouldn’t grow up (Israel) – is essential reading if one wants to understand how the state of Israel has evolved (or not).

He wrote “The habit of tarring any foreign criticism with the brush of anti-Semitism is deeply engrained in Israeli political instincts” and:

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 “anti-Semitism” – 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.

Judt indicated that this has compromised Jewish populations living outside of Israel and “encourages others to look upon Jews everywhere as de facto collaborators in Israel’s misbehavior.”

But the point is that under the Envoy’s Plan, the Federal government would prosecute anyone who dared write or say what Judt wrote in 2006.

The approach taken by various governments such as the UK and Australia to the genocide being inflicted by the IDF in Gaza is pathetic.

I saw the British foreign secretary’s display in the Commons on Monday trying as best he could to look as though he cared while proposing nothing to stop the horror that is, in part, using British supplied military equipment.

And while the Australian government has increasingly voiced criticism of the attacks on innocent civilians in Gaza it conspires to reprimand elected Members of Parliament who visibly protest in the legislative chamber.

Governments will not call the actions taken by the Israeli government genocide.

Why?

If one acquaints themselves with the – Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948, nothing could be clearer:

… genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group

There are five sub-clauses defining genocidal actions – “killing members of a group”, “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group”, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” etc.

Who is responsible (that is, guilty)?

In addition to the obvious agents of the genocide, the UN Convention lists “Complicity in genocide”, which in the current context would include the US political classes, and any other government officials anywhere that allowed the action to occur, whether by explicit agency (supplying weapons) or implicit action (not stopping the supply of goods and services that helped the state commit genocide).

So when we see on our TVs at night the increasing starvation deaths of Palestinians including young children – for example – Hunger crisis deepens in Gaza as 10 more starvation deaths reported – there are a lot of public officials in the UK, Australia, Germany and elsewhere that should be brought to justice for being complicit in this disaster.

Why complicit?

Because they have not done everything they could to stop the massacres.

For example, why is Al El airlines still allowed to land anywhere outside of Israel?

Why is the EU still one of the major trading partners with Israel? See this report from SOMO – Economic sanctions now: the EU is Israel’s largest investor

Germany and the Netherlands are the largest suppliers to the Israeli economy.

Why is the Australian government still allowing exports to and imports from Israel (imports are more than twice the exports in value).

Why is Australian investment continuing in Israel.

It’s all very well to sanction a couple of the most extreme government ministers but that does nothing to stop their illegality.

Widespread global sanctions are required to isolate Israel and foster internal change.

The BDS report – The “S” in BDS: Changing Policy for Accountability – advocates:

There are at least five areas to which sanctions, in the form of negative obligation, can be applied:

– Military-security links, including two-way trade, transfer, and transit of military and dual-use material, partnerships, joint training, academic research, and other forms of military cooperation;

– Energy links including the supply of oil, gas, and coal;

– Economic and financial links, including trade, co-operation agreements and forums, and banking relations;

– Cultural links, including academic cooperation and sports (including exclusion from the Olympics, FIFA, etc.);

– Diplomatic links, including relations on an official level, participation in international institutions, networks and meetings.

Anything short of that, in my view, means complicity with genocide.

Conclusion

It is one thing to express horror about the way the Gaza situation is unfolding.

But the reason Israel can blithely and deliberately ignore international law and engage in war crimes and genocide is because it is aided and abetted by the rest of us.

We are complicit.

Of course, saying all of this would bring ire from the Envoy and risk discipline from government.

Episode 2 of the Smith Family Manga

Episode 2 of our MMT Manga will be out tomorrow.

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2025 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.