Photo: Protesting students occupy an area of the quadrangle at the University of Sydney in Sydney, Friday, May 3, 2024.
In a move that has ignited outrage across academic and advocacy circles, Universities Australia and its 39 member institutions adopted a new definition of anti-Semitism on Wednesday 26 February 2025 that critics argue conflates legitimate criticism of Israel with discrimination against Jewish people.
This decision, widely condemned by Muslim organisations, human rights bodies, Palestinian advocacy groups, and even Jewish organisations, has been described as a dangerous assault on academic freedom and an attempt to stifle dissent.
The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) has joined the chorus of condemnation, with its president, Dr Rateb Jneid, warning, “This definition could restrict not only the critique of Israeli policies but also silences a broad spectrum of voices concerned with human rights. It is alarming that our places of learning could become environments where challenging discussions are limited.”
AAM (Alliance of Australian Muslims) and ANIC jointly rejected the definition, stating, “The definition goes beyond the aim of protecting Jews on campuses. It now gives deliberate and convenient protection to any criticism of Israel.”
It now gives deliberate and convenient protection to any criticism of Israel, who has been found by the ICJ that it is plausible that its acts could amount to genocide as well as any criticism of the Zionist ideology, which is behind the displacement and persecution of Palestinians and establishment of illegal settlements across Palestinian territories.
In addition to condemning the adoption of this controversial definition of The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) expressed deep concern over government departments unfairly targeting Muslim and pro-Palestinian professionals and staff.
“Such actions set a dangerous precedent that threatens the principles of fairness, freedom of speech, and democracy in Australia,” ANIC stated.
The Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) has strongly denounced this development, calling it a politically motivated manoeuvre designed to silence political discourse on Israel’s actions in Palestine.
According to APAN President Nasser Mashni, “By adopting this definition of anti-Semitism, Australian universities have sacrificed their integrity, turning institutions of higher learning into obedient tools for political censorship and the shielding of genocide and apartheid.”
Mashni further stated, “This is not about fighting hate – it’s about silencing dissent, erasing Palestinian voices, and defending Israel’s atrocities from accountability.”
Universities, historically bastions of open inquiry and critical thinking, now face accusations of ideological conformity and political repression. By adopting a definition that links anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, they risk criminalising discussions about Israel’s apartheid policies, its occupation of Palestinian territories, and ongoing allegations of genocide in Gaza.
Senator Dr Mehreen Faruqi, Greens Deputy Leader, criticised the move, stating, “Shamefully, universities have betrayed their students, their staff and their reputation by shutting down free speech and criticism of Israel. They are weaponising anti-Semitism to sanitise campuses of anyone who speaks up for Palestinian human rights or against Israel’s genocide and occupation.”
Far from being a consensus among Jewish Australians, the decision has been strongly opposed by the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), which has labeled the move as “dangerous, politicised, and unworkable.” The JCA warns that the new definition blurs the line between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel, making it nearly impossible to hold Israel accountable for its human rights abuses.
Sarah Schwartz, a human rights lawyer, remarked, “It degrades the very real fight against anti-Semitism for it to be weaponised to silence legitimate criticism of the Israeli state and Palestinian political expressions. It also risks fomenting division between communities and institutionalising anti-Palestinian racism.”
Naama Blatman, a Jewish-Israeli academic specialising in settler-colonialism, expressed concerns that “this definition could very well be weaponised to silence the crucial work of academics in this area, including my own.” She added, “We would never say that calls for the elimination of apartheid South Africa amounted to anti-white racism. Likewise, calls to end a discriminatory political system in Israel should not be classified as anti-Semitism.”
The Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) has echoed the JCA’s concerns, calling on Universities Australia to immediately abandon the definition. AMAN argues that the policy violates the Racial Discrimination Act and risks legal challenges.
“Human rights exist to protect people, not shield state abuses,” an AMAN spokesperson said. “Excluding affected communities from this decision disregards Palestinian dignity and strengthens the legal case against it.”
The Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) also strongly opposes the move, condemning the push to enshrine the definition in law. “The government and universities continue to fall short in combatting various other forms of racial, national and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism,” the ICV stated. “By adopting this definition, universities have prioritised combating one form of discrimination at the expense of other marginalised groups.”
The ICV raised concerns about the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee’s Inquiry into anti-Semitism, which led to the adoption of the definition. “The Inquiry’s report acknowledged the significant risks associated with enshrining this definition, including ‘stif[ling] speech and political expression critical of Israel,’ weaponising antisemitism for political ends, neglecting other prevalent forms of discrimination and undermining the independent governance of Australian universities. Nonetheless, the Committee inflamed these risks by recommending the adoption of this definition in universities Australia-wide.”
Furthermore, the ICV highlighted that Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism are on the rise in Australia. “The Islamophobia Register has seen a 600% increase in reported incidents since 2023, including a 39% increase of Islamophobic incidents on university campuses. A 2024 report found that almost 50% of Arab and Muslim students at Monash University did not feel safe on campuses, and 83% did not feel safe to wear items showing their Palestinian identity or solidarity. Yet, by adopting the IHRA definition, universities have prioritised combating one form of discrimination at the expense of other marginalised groups.”
The adoption of this definition marks a troubling step toward political censorship in Australian academia. Universities, under pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists and government influence, risk transforming into institutions where certain perspectives are systematically erased.
AFOPA (Australian Friends of Palestine Association) criticised the move, stating, “This definition conflates anti-Semitism with Zionism and criticism of Israel to shut down staff and students around Australia who are standing up for justice for Palestinians.”
The move sets a dangerous precedent, one where institutions of learning become tools of ideological enforcement rather than spaces of free expression. As calls grow for Universities Australia to reverse its decision, the battle for academic freedom and justice for Palestine continues to intensify.
For now, the message from human rights organisations, Jewish advocacy groups, and Palestinian solidarity movements is clear: Criticism of Israel must not be censored under the guise of combating anti-Semitism. Universities must remain spaces where difficult conversations can take place without fear of repression, and where truth and justice are prioritised over political convenience.
Do you want free speech?