Jewish people become accountable for decisions they didn't choose
Before Australia's royal commission on antisemitism, the Jewish Council of Australia has offered a diagnosis that unsettles easy consensus: that hatred toward Jewish Australians is driven not by one force but two — resurgent far-right ideology and the widespread conflation of Jewish identity with the actions of the Israeli state. The submission, made public this week, is notable not only for what it argues but for who is arguing it — a Jewish organization speaking from within a community that, as the commission is discovering, holds genuinely competing views on what antisemitism is, where it comes from, and how it should be fought. In placing these questions before Justice Virginia Bell, Australia is grappling with something older than any single policy debate: the difficulty of protecting a people whose identity others insist on defining for them.
- The Jewish Council of Australia warns that treating Jewish people as proxies for Israeli government decisions is one of the fastest-growing engines of antisemitic violence — a conflation that leaves Jewish Australians accountable for choices they never made and cannot influence.
- Far-right movements compound the danger by cynically weaponizing Jewish suffering to legitimize attacks on migrants and minorities, even as they remain, in the Council's words, 'a hotbed of antisemitism.'
- A fault line has opened within the Jewish community itself: other prominent Jewish leaders contest the Council's framing, with some calling it unrepresentative and others insisting that, whatever the cause, Jewish Australians bear no responsibility for Israeli military or government actions.
- The Council breaks sharply with dominant policy responses, arguing that hate speech laws, restrictive definitions, and the suppression of pro-Palestinian protest do not reduce antisemitism — and may actively worsen social cohesion.
- With over 16,000 submissions received and hearings on media and social media's role in amplifying extremism scheduled for late June, the royal commission must now decide whether competing Jewish diagnoses of the problem are a strength of the inquiry or a complication it must resolve.
Australia's Jewish Council has entered a national inquiry into antisemitism with a submission that challenges the terms of the debate itself. Presented to the royal commission led by Justice Virginia Bell, the progressive organization — which counts 2,500 members and describes itself as Australia's largest Jewish body of its kind — argues that two distinct forces are fueling hatred against Jewish Australians: the resurgent far-right, and the entrenched habit of holding Jewish people responsible for the actions of the Israeli state.
Executive officer Sarah Schwartz made the case plainly. The far-right, she argued, is a structural source of antisemitism even as it cynically deploys Jewish suffering to attack migrants and minorities. But the conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli policy cuts deeper. When Jewish Australians are treated as answerable for decisions made by a foreign government they do not control and may actively oppose, antisemitic incidents become, in effect, geopolitical reprisals — a dynamic the Council says is accelerating.
The commission has already heard from other Jewish voices who share the diagnosis but not the prescription. Vic Alhadeff, former head of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, testified that Jewish Australians bear no responsibility for Israeli actions yet are targeted because of them. The government's special envoy on antisemitism, Jillian Segal, called this conflation Australia's fastest-growing antisemitism driver. But Daniel Aghion of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry has been openly critical of the Jewish Council's positions, calling it unrepresentative of mainstream Jewish opinion.
What divides these voices is not whether the conflation is real — all agree it is — but how to respond. The Jewish Council argues that punitive legislation and speech restrictions backfire, that suppressing pro-Palestinian protest in the name of Jewish safety undermines social cohesion, and that media outlets amplify extremism through what it calls 'information laundering.' Its prescriptions are editorial as much as legal: do not platform extremists, do not amplify the fringe.
With more than 16,000 submissions received and hearings on media's role in hate speech approaching, the commission faces a question that may prove as significant as any policy recommendation: whether the diversity of Jewish opinion before it is a resource for understanding — or a problem to be resolved.
Australia's Jewish Council has placed a stake in the ground before a national inquiry into antisemitism, and the ground is contested. In a submission to the royal commission on antisemitism and social cohesion, the progressive Jewish organization argues that two forces are driving hatred against Jewish Australians: the resurgent far-right extremism that has long harbored antisemitic ideology, and the widespread tendency to treat Jewish people as proxies for the Israeli state. The distinction matters because it cuts against how the conversation has been framed in recent months, and because it comes from within the Jewish community itself—a community that, it turns out, does not speak with one voice.
Sarah Schwartz, the executive officer of the Jewish Council of Australia, put it plainly in the submission made public this week: the far-right is "a hotbed of antisemitism" even as it cynically weaponizes Jewish suffering to justify attacks on migrants and religious minorities. But the second driver—the conflation of Jewish identity with Israel—cuts deeper and wider. When the state of Israel cultivates that equation, and when the world accepts it, Jewish people everywhere become accountable for decisions made by a government they may not support and over which they have no control. A Jewish Australian has no say in what the Israeli Defense Force does or what the Israeli government decides. Yet antisemitic incidents and attacks, Schwartz's organization argues, are increasingly framed as responses to Israeli actions.
This is where the commission's work becomes genuinely complicated. The royal commission, led by Justice Virginia Bell, has already heard from other Jewish leaders who reject this framing. Daniel Aghion, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, regards the Jewish Council as unrepresentative of mainstream Australian Jewish opinion and has been critical of its positions. Vic Alhadeff, former chief executive of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies, testified before the commission that Jewish Australians bear no responsibility for Israeli government or military actions, yet find themselves targeted because of them. The government's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, told Bell that conflation of the Israeli government with Jewish people represents Australia's fastest-growing form of antisemitism.
What separates the Jewish Council's submission from these other voices is not disagreement about whether the conflation happens—everyone agrees it does—but disagreement about how to respond. The Jewish Council argues that punitive approaches backfire. Hate speech laws, the organization contends, do not reduce racism; evidence suggests the opposite. More troubling, the organization warns, is the risk that restrictions on pro-Palestinian speech and protest, when justified by appeals to Jewish safety, will actually weaken social cohesion and potentially increase antisemitism. The dominant policy responses—punitive legislation, definitions that reinforce the conflation, and the silencing of political dissent—make the problem worse, not better.
The Jewish Council describes itself as Australia's largest progressive Jewish organization, with 2,500 members, and it positions itself as supporting human rights, Palestinian freedom, and justice. It is not arguing that antisemitism is not real or not rising. It is arguing that the conversation about how to fight it has become distorted. Media outlets amplify extremists through what the submission calls "information laundering," mainstreaming radical messages that should remain marginal. The organization calls for responsible reporting principles: do not interview extremists, blur protest banners, do not amplify the fringe.
The royal commission has received more than 16,000 submissions. Most are not public, but organizations have begun sharing their own, creating a visible record of how different parts of Australian society understand the problem. The next block of hearings, scheduled for late June through early July, will focus specifically on the drivers of antisemitism and hate speech, with particular attention to media and social media. By then, the commission will have heard from multiple Jewish organizations offering competing diagnoses of what fuels hatred, and competing prescriptions for how to stop it. The question is whether the commission will treat that diversity of Jewish opinion as a feature of the inquiry or an obstacle to it.
Citas Notables
Jewish Australians have no agency in what the Israel Defense Force does, or indeed what the Israeli government does. And yet so much of the manifestation of antisemitic incidents and attacks is interlaced with, and references, what is taking place on the other side of the world.— Vic Alhadeff, former chief executive of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies
The resurgent Australian far-right is a hotbed of antisemitism even as it weaponizes Jewish grief to legitimize attacks on migrant communities and religious minorities.— Sarah Schwartz, executive officer of the Jewish Council of Australia
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does the Jewish Council think the conflation of Jewish identity with Israel is so dangerous?
Because it makes every Jewish person accountable for a government's actions they didn't choose and can't control. When antisemites attack a Jewish Australian, they're often framing it as a response to Israeli policy. The person being attacked has no agency in that policy.
But other Jewish leaders say the same thing—that Jews shouldn't be held responsible for Israel. So what's different about the Council's submission?
The difference is in the remedy. The Council argues that punitive laws and speech restrictions actually make antisemitism worse, not better. They're saying the policy response itself can backfire.
That seems counterintuitive. Wouldn't hate speech laws protect Jewish people?
The Council's argument is that they don't, and that restrictions on pro-Palestinian speech, even when framed as protecting Jews, can actually increase resentment and weaken social cohesion. It's a different kind of harm.
So they're saying the far-right is the real threat, not pro-Palestinian activism?
They're saying the far-right is a significant and often overlooked threat. But they're also saying that how we respond to all of this matters as much as what we're responding to.
How representative is the Jewish Council of Australian Jews?
That's contested. The Council has 2,500 members and calls itself the largest progressive Jewish organization. Other Jewish leaders say it doesn't represent the majority view. The commission is hearing from multiple Jewish organizations with different perspectives.
What does the commission do with that disagreement?
That's the real question. The commission has to decide whether Jewish diversity of opinion strengthens the inquiry or complicates it. Either way, it can't pretend the disagreement doesn't exist.