To many, distinguishing opposition to Zionism — a political movement established in 1897 — from hostility towards Jews as a religious or ethnic group with thousands of years of history might seem obvious.

But a new definition, accepted by 39 Australian universities on February 26, undermines that distinction. This definition of anti-Semitism closely aligns with the contentious International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, stating that criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic if it invokes harmful stereotypes or calls for the elimination of the state.

From now on, any academic or student in these Australian universities who expresses disdain towards Zionism in universities across the country runs the risk of doing so at the expense of being labelled an anti-Semite and, by extension, a perpetrator of a hate crime, with consequences to follow. 

While intended to protect Jewish students and staff amid rising anti-Semitism reports, critics argue the new definition may suppress academic freedom and silence legitimate criticism of Israel, with concerns it could stifle debate and limit research on Israel/Palestine issues.

The decision comes about two weeks after a report on anti-Semitism tabled by Labor MP Josh Burns was presented to the Australian parliament, recommending that universities adopt a definition of anti-Semitism that “closely aligns” with the IHRA definition, which categorises Zionism as a “core part” of Jewish identity.

“All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination. For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being anti-Semitic,” reads the statement announcing the decision.

The report cited an “urgent need for reform” in universities experiencing a surge in anti-Semitism, referencing testimonies from 600 Jewish students and staff.

It also criticised university officials for their reluctance to enforce “meaningful consequences” for anti-Semitic actions for what it says has led to a “lack of trust” between the Jewish community and Australian universities.

The IHRA definition requires that the action of “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel,” be considered anti-Semitic. But it also frames challenging Israel’s existence as inherently racist.

Critics have long argued that this wording suppresses legitimate criticism of Israel and silences discussions on human rights violations against Palestinians.

However, contested, the definition has found its way into legislation elsewhere. 

After its adoption in the UK in 2016, the definition was cited in 40 complaints between 2017 and 2022, resulting in lengthy disciplinary processes, two legal threats, and 11 instances of cancelled events, restricted activism, or limited academic scholarship.

“A particular problem with the IHRA definition is that it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of Israel,” Geoffrey Robertson, a British-Australian human rights advocate wrote at the time.

He also warned that this would lead to a climate of fear across pro-Palestine NGOs and student bodies, one that would effectively deter them from organising events that would detest Israel’s policies in occupied Palestinian territories.

Following the recent decision in Australia, the Jewish Council of Australia condemned the move, calling the new definition “dangerous, politicised, and unworkable.”

“The Jewish Council of Australia strongly opposes the anti-Semitism definition developed by the Group of Eight (Go8) universities and adopted by Universities Australia. By categorising Palestinian political expression as inherently anti-Semitic, it will be unworkable and unenforceable, and stifle critical political debate, which is at the heart of any democratic society,” the statement reads.

The Council, representing over 1,000 Australian Jews, emphasised that conflating Judaism with the State of Israel is inaccurate and harmful, rejecting the idea that all Jews support Israel’s actions uncritically or that all Jewish people support, without criticism, the actions of the Israeli government and military. 

“We are deeply concerned that by adopting this definition, Universities will be taking and promoting a view that a national political ideology is a core part of Judaism. This is not only inaccurate, but is also dangerous,” their statement reads.

What is the new definition?

According to Universities Australia (UA), anti-Semitism includes “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.”

The definition clarifies that criticizing Israel’s actions is not inherently anti-Semitic but warns that criticism becomes antisemitic if it involves harmful stereotypes or calls for the elimination of the State of Israel.

It also states:

“Criticism of Israel can be anti-Semitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions. It can be antisemitic to make assumptions about what Jewish individuals think based only on the fact that they are Jewish.”

This language effectively equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, noting that:

“All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination. For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word “Zionist’’ for ‘’Jew’’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being anti-Semitic.”

Why the new definition is problematic

Naama Bathmann, a scholar of settler-colonialism and an executive member of the body that slammed the decision, argues against the definition’s apparent implication that it is antisemitic to “reimagine Israel/Palestine as a place of equality for all who live there.”

“We would never look back and say that calls for the elimination of apartheid South Africa amounted to anti-white racism. Likewise, to call for the end of such a discriminatory political arrangement in Israel, or debate whether Israel should exist in the form that it does, is not anti-Semitic,” Bathmann notes in the statement released by the body.

“Our democracy and principles of academic freedom require that we be capable of hearing robust critiques of the political structures which enable Israel’s destruction of Palestinian life to continue,” she adds.

For now, with the definition stating that challenging Israel’s existence as a Jewish state is anti-Semitic, students and academics in Australian universities advocating for a post-Zionist framework are poised to find their arguments against Zionism dismissed as hate speech, despite its violent and oppressive history.

She warns that academic freedom requires space for robust critiques of Israel’s political structures and policies. But with the new definition in place, students and scholars advocating for a post-Zionist framework may now face accusations of hate speech — despite Zionism’s well-documented history of violence and oppression.