At universities around the world, the definition of anti-Semitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has been used to silence critical commentary on human rights violations and war crimes committed by Israel. In Australia, the definition has had a chilling effect on campuses across the country.
Amid Israel’s relentless bombardment of Gaza, which has killed nearly 16,000 people, including more than 6,000 children, students and staff who have organized in solidarity with the Palestinian people have faced pressure and intimidation.
At the University of Melbourne, Oceania’s most prestigious higher education institution, the university administration openly adopted the official Israeli narrative and refused to condemn what legal experts called a case of corruption. school of genocide.
As students and staff attempt to resist attempts at censorship and silencing, what is happening at the university is a good illustration of how the IHRA definition undermines academic freedom on the campus and contributes to the spread of colonial violence.
The problem with the IHRA definition
In November 2022, the Parliamentary Friends of the IHRA group was established, made up of members of the Australian Parliament. One of his first tasks was to write to all Australian universities urging them to adopt the IHRA definition.
Following this announcement, the peak body for Palestinians in Australia, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, requested to be included in academic deliberations on the subject, but its appeal was not heeded.
Since then, five Australian universities have adopted the IHRA definition, while seven, including the high-profile Australian National University and the University of Adelaide, have publicly rejected the call.
The University of Melbourne was the first to publicly announce the adoption of the IHRA definition in January 2023. This was presented as the first step in its new anti-racism initiative, with consultations to follow among staff and Muslim students regarding a statement on Islamophobia.
This approach highlighted the anti-Palestinism at the heart of the university’s adoption of the IHRA definition, as it implied that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was sectarian in nature.
Palestinian and Jewish scholars have argued that the adoption of the IHRA definition undermines the fight against racism and have highlighted the context in which it was carried out – to prevent campus activism challenging Israeli apartheid.
As a group of Australian academics wrote: “(The) IHRA definition is not only vague, but also not grounded in contemporary anti-racism scholarship or practice. It treats anti-Semitism as if it occurs independently of other forms of racism and disconnects the fight against anti-Semitism from the fight against other forms of racism.
In Australia in particular, a settler colony, the fight against racism must begin – and build on – solidarity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Kenneth Stern, the definition’s author, explained that it was never intended to be used to limit what can be said in universities. Using it in this way, he writes, is deeply damaging to everyone.
IHRA is a problem not just in Australia, but across the North. In response to a report compiled for the #NoIHRA project, prepared by Independent Jewish Voices, Amos Goldberg, professor of Holocaust history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, noted “the extent to which the militarization of the fight against Anti-Semitism is powerful, cynical and vicious in silencing criticism of anti-Semitism. Israel and Zionism have become.”
Censorship on campus
Even before the IHRA definition was adopted by the University of Melbourne, there had already been attempts to intimidate and silence those speaking out against Zionism on campus.
In May 2022, the Colored Department of the University of Melbourne Students’ Union (UMSU) passed a motion, rigorously supported by evidence collected by international human rights organizations, which criticized political Zionism and called for participation in boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS movement). Threats of a costly lawsuit from a Liberal Party member intimidated UMSU into rescinding its motion.
This legal tactic has had a chilling effect on campuses, restricting political freedom. A Palestinian master’s student described to us the impact of such actions on his student experience: “I felt that my life and the lives of my people were less valuable than those of the Israeli and Zionist students on campus. . »
The adoption of the IHRA definition has only further encouraged the trend toward restricting free speech on campus.
For Palestinian and Muslim students and teachers whose critiques of Zionism are silenced by accusations of anti-Semitism, not only are their expertise called into question, but their experiences of racism are often dismissed. As one academic described it to us:
“I have had experiences of racism and Islamophobia. I know firsthand how much these actions hurt. So, I don’t take being accused of hatred or racism lightly…. It is unfair and traumatic that those of us who have experienced racism are now being silenced by accusations of racism.
Palestinian and Jewish students and staff suffer from the misinterpretation of their lived experiences by the IHRA definition. As one Jewish academic noted to us: “In the past, I have received frivolous complaints from Zionist students about my courses, and given what we know of the complaints filed with the IHRA abroad (that they are numerous but “unreasonable”), we are worried about what is happening. the consequences for everyone, especially for the Palestinians, with growing complaints. This is not the right way to fight anti-Semitism.
Other academics feel similar pressure in the classroom. One of the students from the School of Social and Political Sciences said: “It is always difficult to teach in the area of political violence and it is not always comfortable for students to think critically about governments or nations with which they might identify. my teaching, it is therefore less critical to avoid being targeted and being accused of anti-Semitism.”
Risks to students include the future of their education. A law student involved in a recent fundraiser in Gaza that was targeted by Zionists on campus shared his concerns about possible disciplinary action: “We were all worried about the potential consequences that organizing the fundraiser of funds would have on our university registration. »
Insecurely employed academics at the University of Melbourne are now citing rhetoric against Israel’s justifications for the ongoing massacre of Palestinians as yet another reason for work-related stress and anxiety.
Pushback against the IHRA definition
While students and staff at the University of Melbourne and elsewhere have faced the added pressure of the IHRA definition, they have not remained silent about Israel’s brutal war on Gaza.
On October 25, Vice Chancellor Duncan Maskell issued a statement “concerning the Israel-Gaza War” in which he presented Israel as the injured party defending itself against an “act of terrorism committed by Hamas.” He expressed no criticism of Israel’s actions, which have been defined as amounting to genocide by legal experts.
This statement sparked outrage on campus. An open letter was written in response and signed by more than 2,500 staff, students and alumni.
“We express our grave concern about how this misrepresentation of Israel’s genocidal attack on the Palestinian people will contribute to further loss of life in Gaza and harm to Palestinian students, staff and alumni university students,” he said.
The open letter also called on signatories to include a statement in their university’s email signature calling on the university to rescind its adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
The public list of names in the open letter challenges the censorship established by the IHRA definition and aims to defend academic freedom on campus. Beyond the letter, other groups on campus have also spoken out.
The University of Melbourne’s criminology discipline, for example, unified in its stance against the Vice-Chancellor’s statement, collectively issued a response: Tweeter :
“We are particularly concerned about the conflation of criticism of Israel’s policies and actions with anti-Semitism and maintaining solidarity with Palestine. As activists and criminology scholars, we stand united against the criminalization and silencing of the right to speak truth to power.
It is telling that the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU), which increasingly represents low-income casual workers, has joined more than 100 unions in Australia who have unequivocally condemned the bloodiest attack on Israel against Gaza.
As Palestinian unions call on workers around the world to step up economic pressure by exploiting their labor power, it is urgent that higher education workers also go beyond verbal condemnation.
As Israel’s indiscriminate massacres of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank continue, the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism emerges as a clear obstacle to critical research and action to resist and denounce such atrocities. The use of this definition has no place on Australian campuses.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.