The special envoy’s antisemitism plan is ambitious, but fails to reckon with the hardest questions
- Written by Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor, Deakin University
On July 6, an arson attack targeted the East Melbourne Synagogue. It was the latest in a series of antisemitic incidents recorded across Australia since October 7 2023, when Hamas carried out a horrific terrorist attack, killing about 1,200 Israelis. These domestic incidents have escalated in both number and severity.
Australia has not previously experienced antisemitism at this scale. In response, the Albanese government appointed Jillian Segal as the nation’s first special envoy for combating antisemitism, and commissioned a plan with recommendations to address the issue.
The plan has now been released. Let’s unpack it.
Read more: Envoy's plan to fight antisemitism would put universities on notice over funding
What does the plan say?
The recommendations fall into three broad areas.
1. Preventing violence and crime, including a proposed law enforcement framework to improve coordination between agencies, and new policies aimed at stopping dangerous individuals from entering Australia.
2. Strengthening protections against hate speech, by regulating all forms of hate, including antisemitism, and increasing oversight of platform policies and algorithms.
3. Promoting antisemitism-free media, education and cultural spaces, through journalist training, education programs, and conditions on public funding for organisations that promote or fail to address antisemitism.
The government has said it will consider the recommendations.
These measures are broadly reasonable and make practical sense. Some – such as those aimed at preventing violence and crime – are more straightforward to implement than others. It would also be logical to apply them to all forms of hate, not just antisemitism.
But that needs to be done with caution. We don’t want to create an environment in which any criticism of a community or group is shut down by regulation.
In a democracy, open and robust debate is essential. The challenge lies in the details: how we define hate, and where we draw the threshold for what counts as hate.
The document ignores the elephant in the room: whether the plan could be used to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
The special envoy’s plan notes antisemitism has risen since October 7, but it does not fully explain the context. Israel’s military response in Gaza, which has killed more than 57,000 Palestinians, has prompted a wave of global protest and criticism of Israel, including accusations of genocide.
In this context, the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel has become more difficult and contested than ever. Some people who attack Israel or Zionism may be expressing antisemitic views. Others may not. Distinguishing between the two is complex, but essential.
Read more: When does anti-Zionism become antisemitism? A Jewish historian's perspective
Where criticism ends and antisemitism begins
The envoy adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which covers both direct attacks on Jewish identity and certain criticisms of Israel, such as comparisons with Nazi Germany.
In my experience as a researcher working on online hate (including antisemitism), even members of the Jewish community adopting this definition often disagree on how to apply it.
The threshold varies – for example when deciding whether an online post or a statement crosses the line into antisemitism.
So where should we draw that line? It’s a crucial question. If the envoy’s recommendations are implemented, decisions about funding, visas, and even criminal charges could depend on it.
There is, of course, broad agreement on some cases. Setting fire to a synagogue is clearly antisemitic – it targets a Jewish place of worship.
Similarly, attacking a Jewish-owned business or damaging property in a Jewish neighbourhood suggests the target was chosen because it was Jewish.
Some people – often those already harbouring anti-Jewish views – treat the entire Jewish community as if it represents the Netanyahu government or the Israel Defense Forces.
This ignores the diversity of views within Jewish communities. That lack of nuance fuels antisemitism.
Few would disagree that antisemitic acts include attacks on Jewish people or property carried out indiscriminately, or when anti-Israel protests attempt to hold the whole Jewish community collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.
But we also need to be realistic. We are unlikely to eliminate all forms of antisemitic hate or intimidation from public life. Hate can be expressed without breaching laws, and people can intimidate others while staying just within legal boundaries.
Humour, sarcasm and coded language are often used to incite hatred without triggering any formal consequence. That kind of harm is much harder to prevent – and it may be something we have to learn to live with, while continuing to push back against it.
Rebuilding trust
In the long term, the only real solution is building mutual understanding. That’s why personal relationships matter.
Knowing someone who is Jewish is one of the strongest antidotes to antisemitism. When you have a Jewish friend, you’re less likely to believe or spread the myths that circulate online and offline about what Jewish people think, believe or represent.
The same applies to all forms of hate. Direct contact helps break down stereotypes across all communities.
The problem is that the current context is pushing communities apart. Segregation and isolation are increasing. Before October 7, there was meaningful interfaith work happening – Jewish students visiting the Islamic Museum, Muslim students visiting the Holocaust Museum. That work has largely stopped.
Now, people are retreating into fear, distrust and generalisations. All nuance is lost. The “other” becomes a single, threatening enemy.
It will take time to rebuild that trust – and the longer the war continues, the harder it will be.
Authors: Matteo Vergani, Associate Professor, Deakin University
