Jillian Segal’s antisemitism report blurs the line between prejudice and politics

Résumé détaillé

Jillian Segal’s latest antisemitism report raises concerns about political bias, freedom of expression and the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism. read now...

Jillian Segal’s latest antisemitism report raises concerns about political bias, freedom of expression and the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism, writes Dr Michael Galvin.

This droll humour can be found in Leo Rosten’s 1968 book, The Joys of Yiddish. Chutzpah, derived from ancient Hebrew, can carry both positive and negative connotations depending on context. The term suggests supreme self-confidence, unbelievable gall, or audacity — a level of boldness that can either be admired as courageous or condemned as rude and shameless.

In her official role as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal’s latest report, subtitled Priorities, is nothing if not audacious, bold and quite shameless. If there were a Chutzpah Olympics, Segal would likely win multiple gold medals.

1. The report has appeared while the final report of the Royal Commission is being prepared. After extensive testimony from Zionist advocates during the Commission’s hearings, Segal’s report adds another prominent perspective that could influence how the Commission approaches antisemitism.

Jillian Segal's 'Understanding Antisemitism in Australia' report is an embarrassment, writes Dr Evan Jones.

The effect of Segal’s approach is to blur the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, rather than recognising them as separate concepts and realities.

2. Segal’s agenda is not subtle. For example, it is to insist at every turn that the Royal Commission adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and force (and police) this definition onto everyone else.

This might seem minor, but it isn’t. If ever forced on many Australian institutions, such as universities, public broadcasters and arts bodies, criticism of Israel would be even more minimised and censored than it is now.

The IHRA is referred to 27 times in this report. Not mentioned is the ongoing controversy surrounding its adoption or use, including in Jewish circles.

Début de l'article, extrait de Independent Australia. Pour lire la suite, ouvrez l'article chez le média.