Deakin academic warns Royal Commission against conflating Israel criticism with anti-Semitism
Convenor of the Middle East Studies Forum urges the federal inquiry led by Virginia Bell to distinguish between hatred of Jews and political debate over Gaza to protect social cohesion.
An opinion piece published in Al Jazeera argues that Australia’s Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion risks conflating legitimate political criticism of the State of Israel with anti-Semitism. The author, identified as the Convenor of the Middle East Studies Forum at Deakin University, contends that the commission’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition insulates the Israeli government from political and moral accountability.
The article, published on 2 June 2026, urges the commission, led by former High Court justice Virginia Bell, to maintain a clear distinction between hatred of Jews and political dissent. The author warns that broadening the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Israeli policy in Gaza suppresses democratic debate and silences Jewish Australians who oppose Israel’s actions.
The debate follows the commission’s interim report delivered on 30 April 2026, which raised concerns about the definition of anti-Semitism. The commission was established by the federal government in response to a surge in anti-Semitic violence, catalysed by the attack near Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, where two gunmen killed 15 people during a Hanukkah celebration.
The author draws parallels between the treatment of Israel and historical Australian issues, such as the 2008 apology to the Stolen Generations by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The piece argues that questioning a government’s actions does not threaten its right to exist, yet the invocation of the “right to exist” in debates about Israel often operates as a conversation stopper that closes the door to frank discussion about occupation and war crimes.
Highlighting the diversity of opinion within the Jewish community, the article notes that many Australian Jews are alarmed by the destruction of Gaza and have mobilised against Israeli actions. The author warns that treating the community as a monolithic pro-Israel bloc denies Jewish Australians their agency and risks casting dissenters as inauthentic, effectively silencing them under the guise of protection.
The opinion piece also notes that major broadcasters, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service, have avoided adopting the IHRA definition and have not conflated Israel with Jewish people. The author suggests there is room for optimism that the commission can address the issue in its final report by upholding standards that protect social cohesion without suppressing freedom of speech.
The article concludes that conflating critical views of the State of Israel with hatred of Jews will only make matters worse by limiting inquiry and entrenching the confusion that sustains anti-Semitic narratives. It calls for an unambiguous distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, recognition of diverse Jewish opinions, and defence of political space for Palestinians and their allies to describe their experiences.
