The Upper House of South Australia’s parliament has adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. The definition is not legally binding but is one of the best measures a state, educational institution, NGO, sports team or business can take in identifying and fighting anti-Jewish hatred.
The Upper House voted 15 to 4 on Thursday in favour of a motion from One Nation MLC Sarah Game asking that the Legislative Council “endorses and adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism together with its contemporary examples”.
The IHRA is an intergovernmental organisation with 35 member countries, including Australia. One of its core projects has been to draft a working definition of antisemitism to help “governments, organisations and individuals in their efforts to identify antisemitism”.
Labor and the Liberal Opposition voted to adopt the non-legally binding definition. The Greens and SA-Best voted against.
The IHRA definition states that “antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”.
“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities,” it states.
But the motion also saw the Upper House formally recognise a series of contentious “contemporary examples” the IHRA says can be understood as antisemitism.
Seven of the 11 examples relate to the State of Israel, a country which has faced significant international criticism for its treatment of Palestinians through its blockade of the Gaza strip and expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The IHRA’s contemporary antisemitism examples include:
- “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, for example, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour,
- “Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,
- “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,
- “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.”
The other examples recognise antisemitism as promoting Holocaust denial, espousing myths of a world Jewish conspiracy, and “calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion”.
Critics of the definition, including one of its original drafters, say it is being “weaponised” by governments and right-wing Jewish groups to attack academic freedom and silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
