In April in AMUST, I warned that Group of Eight (Go8) vice-chancellors showed “exceptionally poor judgement” by endorsing the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of anti-Semitism, shielding Israel as a genocidal pariah state.
Sadly, the situation worsened. Following the Senate Inquiry into anti-Semitism on campuses, reports of so-called anti-Semitic incidents nationally, and the report of the Prime Minister’s envoy Jillian Segal, some Australian universities are sliding further into intellectual stupor.
Segal, a long-time Israel lobbyist, pressed for the IHRA definition to be adopted nationwide.
Universities Australia (UA), representing 39 institutions, obediently followed with a definition closely mirroring IHRA’s.
This is not a neutral act of “combating racism.” It is potentially a politically-driven effort to suppress dissent against Israel at the very moment the world recognises its crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza—indicted by the ICJ, ICC, and the UN itself.
Australians, true to our values of justice, fairness, and giving the oppressed a “fair go,” must retain the right to protest Israel’s war crimes.
Yet under IHRA, lawful expressions of solidarity with Palestinians—chanting “Free Palestine,” wearing a keffiyeh, or condemning war crimes—could potentially be smeared as anti-Semitism. This is not about Jewish safety; it is about silencing dissent.
The alleged spike in anti-Semitism across Sydney and Melbourne is not what it seems.
Federal and state investigations revealed several high-profile episodes were fabricated or criminal in motive rather than driven by ideology.
The AFP and NSW Police described one as a “fabricated terrorist plot”. Security agencies later cited possible foreign involvement in others.
These findings show that not all reported events are genuine expressions of anti-Semitism.
Meanwhile, Segal proposes policing not only speech but identity itself.
At a luxury Gold Coast summit, run by the US-bankrolled Combat Antisemitism Movement, even the Palestinian keffiyeh, watermelon, and flag were catalogued as “anti-Semitic symbols.”
Such claims are absurd. This is not protection—it is erasure of Palestinian identity.
The flawed IHRA definition is notorious for conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
Its 11 examples potentially silence academic debate. La Trobe University, which adopted IHRA without the examples, admitted they “could pose potential limitations to academic freedom.”
UA’s version is no better. It forbids attributing responsibility for Israel’s policies to “communities,” making even factual references suspect. Yet facts matter.
A major Haaretz poll (Scheindlin, June 2025) showed that 82% of Israeli Jews supported expelling Palestinians; 54% were “very supportive.”
Nearly half even agreed the army could annihilate whole enemy populations, as Joshua did at Jericho. Such findings must be examinable in universities. To suppress them is to suppress truth.
Universities adopting these definitions wholesale have abandoned their duty to pursue truth.
They tarnished their reputations, effectively relegating themselves to B- or C-grade institutions, no matter their international rankings.
- Complicit (adopted full IHRA or UA): University of Melbourne, Monash, Sydney, Wollongong, Queensland, Sunshine Coast.
- Independent (rejected them): Australian National University, UNSW, Adelaide.
Adelaide’s Vice-Chancellor declared: “Freedom of speech is a right everyone holds. The right to express lawful views about controversial matters is the essence of academic freedom.” That is the principle higher education must defend.
Vice-chancellors who embrace full IHRA and UA show not only a lack of academic rigour but a betrayal of Australian values.
They undermine students’ rights to speak out against genocide. Such administrators are unfit to lead institutions claiming to uphold truth.
Students and academics should take heed. Those contemplating joining complicit universities should reconsider.
The stakes are clear: if full IHRA and UA definitions are entrenched, universities will cease to be bastions of knowledge and could instead become enforcers of propaganda.
At a time when Israel is openly carrying out ethnic cleansing—boasted of by its own leaders—Australian universities face a choice: defend academic freedom, or tolerate genocide.
The message is simple: intending staff and students—choose universities that protect freedom of inquiry and refuse to criminalise solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians.
Comments