Online hate report exposes ‘overt effort to normalise antisemitism’

Arson attacks on synagogues and the publication of a government-commissioned report into antisemitism have generated an online torrent of Jew-hating tropes, denial and victim-blaming, a new study has found.

The findings by the Online Hate Prevention Institute, a research organisation and charity that monitors extremism, are drawn from content published on social media after last December’s firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue, this month’s attack on the East Melbourne Synagogue and last week’s release of special envoy Jillian Segal’s plan to combat antisemitism.

Rabbi Dovid Gutnick outside the charred entrance to the East Melbourne Synagogue.Credit: Aaron Francis

The report also examined the impact of the Dural caravan plot in Sydney and how, after NSW police downgraded it from a suspected terror attack to a “criminal con job”, the online discourse shifted to dismiss as hoaxes all attacks against Jews in Australia.

“This report shows just how normalised antisemitism has become, and just how willing many are to dismiss it, contextualise it, blame Jews for it, promote conspiracy theories, and otherwise make excuses,” the report concludes.

“It highlights a discourse, largely built around conspiracy theories, that is dismissive of, or even supportive of, attacks targeting Jews in Australia.”

The report cites 113 examples of antisemitic posts or responses published on X, TikTok and Threads that reference the synagogue attacks and Segal plan. The posts are de-identified in the published report, but the details of the accounts were provided in confidence to this masthead.

They include celebratory messages about the firebombing that gutted the Adass Israel synagogue in Ripponlea, such as one which welcomed Jews getting “a taste of their own medicine”, and conspiratorial claims about the arson attack being a “false flag” orchestrated by Jews or Israel to deflect attention from the war in Gaza.

Declared one: “The suspect is very likely a Mossad agent and the intent of this false flag is obvious.” Another claimed: “The zios did it .. smoke screen.”

A separate social media account held Melbourne Jews responsible for the fire, saying: “I wouldn’t be surprised if the Israelis in Melbourne burned down their own Synagogue. They [Israelis] love to play the victim.”

Adass Israel is an ultra-Orthodox, non-Zionist, Yiddish-speaking congregation. Joint Counter-Terrorism Team detectives last week arrested and charged a 20-year-old man with stealing a car used in the attack but have not laid any charges in relation to arson or terrorism.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Rabbi Shlomo Kohn after Adass Israel synagogue in Ripponlea was destroyed by arsonists.

After the East Melbourne Synagogue was torched, the same conspiratorial themes re-emerged online about the suspect in that case.

“I’m just going to say it. He is most probably a Jew in disguise keeping the fear porn narrative alive so new laws are introduced,” read one post.

When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese posted on social media that antisemitism has no place in Australia, it triggered these responses: “FFS Albo, it’s NOT antisemitism to oppose Zionism, it’s NOT antisemitism to oppose genocide, AND it’s obvious to any decent person that splashing some flammable liquid on a door of a building NEXT DOOR to a major fire station is a lame false flag attack by Zionists AGAIN.”

Another response read: “Albanese is whining over a fire in Melbourne at a synagogue, which was contained to the entrance. And lit by Zionists, I would absolutely expect. Zionist Jacinta Allan is also croaking about it. Boo hoo you mongrels who hae [sic] never given a [f---] about an actual genocide.”

Other posts cited by the report include cartoons of hook-nosed rabbis painting swastikas on their own synagogues and poisoning wells – a blood libel against Jewish people that dates back to the Middle Ages.

When Jillian Segal, Australia’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, last week released her report and recommendations to the government, it enlivened centuries-old tropes about Jewish manipulation and control.

Read one: “The power of zionism is extraordinary. What this woman is promoting is old-fashioned fascism. Social and cultural control, and control of media and education, speech and even immigration.”

The lead author of the study, Online Hate Prevention Institute chief executive Andre Oboler, said some accounts had small followings but attached their responses to posts by Australian political figures and media outlets to magnify their views.

He suspected – but did not have evidence to prove – that some of the accounts belonged to foreign actors seeking to poison the public discourse in Australia. He said the proliferation of online antisemitism, regardless of its source, was having a marked effect.

“What we are seeing is an inoculation against recognising antisemitism and seeing it as racism and something we don’t accept in Australia,” he said. “We are seeing an overt effort to normalise antisemitism in society. That is what the Segal report is challenging and that is why they are threatened by it.”

Oboler is an adjunct professor at the La Trobe University Law School and a member of Australia’s DFAT-appointed delegation to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. One of Segal’s recommendations is to apply the IHRA definition of antisemitism across all public institutions and regulatory bodies.

The institute’s previous published work includes the world’s first report into online Islamophobia, research into online hate directed at Aboriginal people and an August 2023 report into antisemitism funded by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

The institute originated within the Zionist Federation of Australia but has been a standalone, not-for-profit organisation since 2012. One of its ongoing research projects is funded by the special envoy.

Oboler has studied and worked in the UK, Israel and the US and advised the Greek, Dutch and Swedish governments. He was at the IHRA meeting in 2016 where the definition of antisemitism was adopted.

He said the definition explicitly permits, rather than prevents, criticism of Israel and its policies, similar to that which can be made against any other state.

“In other places in the world, this isn’t even a debate,” he said.

“If you are criticising Israel’s conduct of the war or policies in general, there are ways that can be done that are not antisemitic. At the same time, just because you are criticising Israel does not give you carte blanche to say whatever you like.”

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.