Australian antisemitism envoy’s report on “modern progressive antisemitism” draws left-wing criticism

Jillian Segal, whom the Labor government appointed as Special Envoy for Combating Antisemitism in Australia, compiled a report on antisemitism that drew sharp responses after it was submitted last week. The report states that “modern progressive antisemitism” is “the most common expression of antisemitism that Australia is confronting today,” according to Report 1, published by mako.co.il.

Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi said Segal’s position should be cancelled and described the report as “another thoughtless scheme to silence all criticism of Israel.” Faruqi said that “Opposition to genocide is not antisemitism” and that criticism of Israel is a moral and legal responsibility, according to Report 1.

The Jewish Council of Australia called the report “ridiculous” and said it was an effort to silence those who draw attention to Israel’s actions in Gaza, according to Report 1. Alex Ryvchin, co-chair of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said reactions to the report illustrate the dangers Segal pointed to. Critics more broadly claimed the report was an attempt to silence critics and harm freedom of expression.

Report 2, an opinion piece published by the International Committee of the Fourth International’s World Socialist Web Site, offers a different reading. It describes the report as running to just 40 pages, including multiple pictures, and says the report declares that claims that Israel has committed genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid allow anyone who associates with Israel to be depicted as complicit. Honest examination of contested claims is a serious matter for every side of this debate (Ephesians 4:15).

The article in Report 2 argues that the report does not consider whether the claims of genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid are true, and that it equates opposition to Israeli crimes with antisemitism. It says the report calls for sweeping restrictions extending into the media, universities, workplaces, healthcare, immigration and cultural life. The article calls the report “Trumpian” and says it targets socialists and Marxists.

The two reports therefore disagree on the report’s purpose and effect. Report 1 presents the criticism as coming from political opponents and Jewish community voices who say the report threatens free speech, while Report 2 presents the report itself as conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Neither report, as supplied, establishes the truth of the genocide, ethnic cleansing or apartheid claims, which the Report 2 article says the envoy’s report does not examine.