The problem with Universities Australia’s response to antisemitism

Authoritarianism is haunting American universities.

Over the weekend, a professor from Brown University was deported after returning to the US from her home country of Lebanon, despite having a US visa.

Universities Australia recently announced it would adopt a new definition of antisemitism, developed by the country’s eight major research universities together with the federal government’s special envoy on antisemitism.Credit: Simon Schluter

A week earlier, an international student with a green card, Mahmoud Khalil, was arrested and is facing deportation over his role in last year’s pro-Palestine protests at Columbia University.

Columbia University has also accused a student of discriminatory harassment for an article in the campus newspaper that criticises Israel because it offended some Jewish students, while the Trump administration and a number of state governments defund universities that have not implemented a controversial definition of antisemitism. Staff and students are increasingly concerned about universities succumbing to state control.

Meanwhile, Universities Australia recently announced it would adopt a new definition of antisemitism, developed by the country’s eight major research universities together with the federal government’s special envoy on antisemitism.

It defines antisemitism as: “discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life”. Problematically, though, the definition goes on to address anti-Zionism and criticism of Israel as potentially antisemitic, stating: “Zionism is a core part of [Jewish Australians’] identity.”

These are the key reasons why the universities’ definition is seen as controversial by many – ourselves included. It comes after most Australian universities refused to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, which includes: “targeting the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity” and “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”. The alliance’s definition also states it is antisemitic to “[claim] the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour” or “[apply] double standards [to Israel] by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”.

Legions of Jewish and non-Jewish experts reject these stipulations as too vague and encompassing. Even the lead drafter of the alliance’s definition, Kenneth Stern, has criticised its use to silence debate about Israel and its actions.

Although the universities’ definition uses more cautious language than the alliance’s, it is still politicised. In addition to tying Zionism to Australian Jewish identity, it states: “Substituting the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.” The new definition thus goes a step closer to advancing Zionism as a protected political ideology and identity.

Some see Zionism as a modern project of Jewish self-determination. Others consider it a racist political ideology and a settler-colonial endeavour that displaces Palestinians. This political disagreement cannot be defined away. But in any case, Zionism is not elemental to Jewish identity. Jewish people subscribe to various political ideologies. Zionism was a minority position among Jewish people worldwide until the 1940s, and today non- and anti-Zionist positions can be found in Jewish communities.

Tents set up at Deakin University’s Burwood campus as part of a pro- Palestinian protest in May 2024.Credit: Eddie Jim

Why then have universities adopted this definition? Over the past 18 months, campus protests, events, and speech supporting Palestine have been denounced as antisemitic and portrayed as a threat to Jewish safety. In our view, these actions rather are expressions of outrage at the mass slaughter and maiming of civilians, and the utter destruction of Gaza by the Israeli military.

It is not antisemitic to protest conduct that the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion describes as a “regime of comprehensive restrictions imposed by Israel on Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [that] constitutes systemic discrimination”. Or to acknowledge report after report by human rights groups invoking international law regarding apartheid in these matters. Or for the International Criminal Court to issue warrants for the arrest of Israeli leaders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It is entirely reasonable, as part of political debate, that protesters address Jewish leaders and students who support or defend the current Israeli regime and its policies. This feels especially true when, on Tuesday, the Israeli Defence Force launched its heaviest airstrike against Gaza since the ceasefire began, with a reported death toll of over 400 people, including entire families.

The universities’ definition is also problematic in stating that “criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it … calls for the elimination of the state of Israel”. In law and genocide studies, the term “elimination” is associated with acts of genocide. However, questioning the legitimacy of the state of Israel or its present form grounded in historical, political, or moral arguments is neither genocidal nor antisemitic. These arguments will doubtless challenge those who strongly identify with Israel today, but they are nevertheless of genuine historical and political debate.

Nor is it antisemitism or genocidal to discuss the possible political future of Israel/Palestine – whether one-state, binational, or confederative arrangements in which all people enjoy equal rights.

As it happens, we, the authors of this piece, disagree on the desired political model and future. Geoffrey Brahm Levey thinks Israel should be liberal-nationalist instead of ethno-nationalist, and address what its establishment has meant for Palestinians. Lana Tatour favours Palestinian liberation and one democratic polity that guarantees equality for all and remedies past injustices. A. Dirk Moses observes that ethno-nationalist projects of statehood, like the White Australia Policy and Zionism-in-practice, inevitably result in mass atrocity crimes and apartheid-like conditions for the remnant victims.

But there’s one thing we absolutely agree on, and that’s the right to debate these matters openly, candidly, and freely. If this much cannot be conducted at universities because of political interference, it is unlikely anywhere. And if it cannot be pursued anywhere, there is little hope for a way forward.

Associate Professor Geoffrey Brahm Levey established and directed the UNSW Program in Jewish Studies, and is the co-editor of Jews and Australian Politics.

A. Dirk Moses is the Anne and Bernard Spitzer Professor of International Relations at the City College of New York, and previously taught at the University of Sydney.

Lana Tatour is senior lecturer in Global Development, University of New South Wales.