Universities Australia Antisemitism Definition Regarding Israel: Ambiguous, Illogical and Flawed

On 27 February 2025, Universities Australia issued a Statement on Racism, which included a definition of antisemitism.

Universities Australia has proposed this definition be utilised in three ways – for incorporation into member’s disciplinary and complaints schemes, for education purposes, and for incorporation by TEQSA into the Higher Education Standards Framework.

Introduction

For the reasons outlined below the section related to criticism of Israel is unworkable in its current form as part of any disciplinary framework. It is poorly drafted, ambiguous, and will have a chilling and unintended effect on academic research and freedom of expression. Even the key academic author of the definition cannot define how and when it will be applied with any coherence. As an educational tool it is replete with uncertainty and opaqueness. It cannot operate rationally as part of any educational standard.

To label a communication or publication as antisemitic would be career ending for an academic, and demonising indeed dire for a student. It is an insult replete with historic connection to the holocaust. For that reason, if Universities Australia is going to promote a definition it ought at the very least be clear and workable. The offending sections below are neither.

1. The Israel Portion is Ambiguous

In the key part, antisemitism is defined as:

Criticism of the policies and practices of the Israeli government or state is not in and of itself antisemitic. However, criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions. It can be antisemitic to make assumptions about what Jewish individuals think based only on the fact that they are Jewish.

All peoples, including Jews, have the right to self-determination. For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity. Substituting the word “Zionist’’ for ‘’Jew’’ does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic.

The second sentence (in bold) is deeply flawed from a drafting perspective. In all such provisions, it is essential to be able to determine which criteria are “and” and which are “or” and insufficient commas always leads to a minefield of interpretation. This fails both tests.

This is simple to illustrate with the following two (of many) possible interpretations of the sentence. Note that in neither are there any words or punctuation in variance from the original.

1. Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when

(1) it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and

(a) when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or

(b) when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for

Israel’s actions.

This is the most literal interpretation. However, it is problematic and likely does not protect as Universities Australia had intended. For example, the statement “Israeli Jews must be eliminated” does not meet this definition because it is not grounded in a harmful assumption, stereotype or trope. That pesky “and”.

Here is a second alternative:

2. Criticism of Israel can be antisemitic when

(1) it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and

(2) when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or

(3) when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.

This tortures the and/or distinction lightly (really assuming the “and” was meant as an “or”), but likely accords with the intention of Universities Australia that any of these can be antisemitism. Messy, but plausible. However, this too leads to some absurd results. The statement “Netanyahu is responsible for Israel’s war crimes” meets this definition, because it holds a Jewish individual responsible for Israel’s actions. Surely not antisemitic, especially in an International Law class. Or this statement “Jewish communities in the occupied territories are complicit in Israeli colonialism” – again surely not antisemitic, but in breach of (3) above.

I could go on with further examples or options, however I am sure they are not necessary to support the conclusion that the ambiguity is acute.

2. The definition cannot be applied

On 31 March 2025, David Marr interviewed the key academic author of the Universities Australia definition, Associate Professor David Slucki, Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation, Monash University.

The interviewer put a series of statements, and asked Slucki whether they were antisemitic under the Universities Australia definition.

The first of these was “Israel is a nation based on race”. Slucki stated firmly that this was not antisemitic. For what it is worth, in my view it could well be antisemitism under 2(1) above because it contains an assumption.

The second was “five six seven eight, Israel is a terrorist state” and the third was “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free”. In both these cases Associate Professor Slucki was unable to conclude that they were antisemitic. It “gets tricky” he said.

Finally, he was asked about these statements – “I hope for Israel to end its campaign in Gaza immediately”, “I hope for the realisation of Palestinian national aspirations without delay” and “I disagree with the actions of the Israeli government over the past 18 months …” Not one of these three statements were said to be antisemitic, and incidentally Associate Professor Slucki was the author.

If Associate Professor Slucki cannot determine whether the second and third statements are antisemitic on that definition, and I have problems with his interpretation on the first statement, then what hope do disciplinary or complaints panels have? How can education be achieved with such confusion? How could this be incorporated as an educational standard?

3. The “Assumption” Problem

“Assumption” means voicing something as true without proof. In a University environment we make assumptions all the time, and they turn into hypothesis and then we test those with rigorous and ethical research and the findings either confirm or deny our original assumption. It is called enquiry, and it is a natural part of learning, discourse, research and development of ideas. For students, especially in tutorials, a lack of assumptions would lead to a very sterile discussion.

My own area of research illustrates this. I assumed that sexual assault was rife in prisons based on anecdote alone. My hypothesis was that it was prevalent with young prisoners as victims. I interviewed 300 young prisoners in NSW and proved my hypothesis.

Expressed negative assumptions about Israel, however harmful to some, are not antisemitic per se. For example were a student in an International Law tutorial to state “I assume, based on the conclusions of Amnesty, Medecins Sans Frontieres, and the International Criminal Court that Israel, the Jewish state, is engaging in genocide in Gaza”. This is not antisemitic, yet falls foul of at least 2(1) and probably (1)(a) above.

4. Jewish Identity and Zionism.

Recognising that Zionism is a core part of most Jew’s identity, and thus permitting the possibility that criticising Zionism can be antisemitic is inherently problematic. Just because a majority of one group of people identified by race or religion thousands of years in age adopt an ethnocultural nationalist movement developed in the late 1800’s does not mean that criticism of that “ism” is anti the adopters. That is an affront to basic logic. It gives voice to equating criticisms of Israel or Zionism per se with antisemitism. Most Christians may identify with democracy, but that does not make criticism of democracy anti-Christian. As has been stated, Zionism is not elemental to Judaism, thus criticising the movement or national embodiment is not antisemitism.

5. Calling for Elimination of Israel

I am old enough to have participated in the anti-apartheid demonstrations in Australia against the South African government. Most whites there supported the regime. We called for a revolution to eliminate that regime, and build a new country based on a constitution founded in racial equality. That was not anti-white. It was not encouraging genocide. Elimination of the current State of Israel does not by definition mean killing all Jews. It means removal or disbanding of the State of Israel as it is now constituted. If antisemitism can include calling for this, and replacement with a new inclusive country (the so-called “one state solution”) then it is stifling important debate. Of course, this solution is incompatible with mainstream Zionism, but that does not make it antisemitic.

6. The Substitution Issue

“All Jews are racist” is undoubtedly antisemitic. “All Zionists are racists” may well be wrong, but it is not antisemitic. Let’s keep in mind that there are at least 30 million Zionists in the United States alone – only about 10% Jewish. Clearly, Universities Australia were alive that not all such substitutions are antisemitic, however it leaves open the possibility.

I have struggled to find an example that is not plain silly where this could be applied. “All Zionists hoard money” perhaps?

This is really a shot across the bows of all those who wish to criticise Zionists. It suggests that investigative or disciplinary authorities will look into the statement maker’s deep dark black heart and make sure they do not really mean Jews when they write Zionists, that it is not code or dog whistling. Good luck with that endeavour.

Conclusion

It is clear from the above that the definition of antisemitism with respect to criticism of Israel is not fit for purpose. It is drowning in ambiguity and unintended consequences, impossible to adopt as the basis for complaints or discipline, and unimaginable as part of an educational framework. Most critically, it will serve to stifle debate on an issue that cries out for freedom of expression, respectful exchange of ideas, and the rigours of academic discourse to test the journey from assumption to knowledge.

In the end, the problem lies in any attempt to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It is unnecessary and unhelpful, and the balance of the definition is certainly sufficient.

(Please note this critique is mine, and do not represent the views of Southern Cross University)

This article was republished with permission. It first appeared on Professor David Heilpern’s Substack page

Photo of David Heilpern by Jeff Dawson at the Byron Shire Echo