This week Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal delivered “her plan” to combat anti-Semitism.
Before the end of the press conference, social media lit up with cries of Trumpism.
My piece today on the dangerous plans of Anti-Semitism Envoy Jillian Segal
— Greg Barns SC (@BarnsGreg) July 11, 2025
Antisemitism envoy's report 'Trumpian' https://t.co/1j7Go4Bx3Z
Segal’s plan says it’s ‘informed by research and consultations’, but in a statement posted to XTwitter the Jewish Council of Australia disputed the claims.
The report is riddled with misinformation and claims about nefarious funding sources for protests and universities that verge on conspiracy theory.
Jewish Council of Australia
The Council is calling on the government to … … Engage a broad spectrum of Jewish voices, including those critical of Israel, who have not been consulted in the development of this plan
MEDIA RELEASE: Jewish Council Rejects Special Envoy’s antisemitism plan
— Jewish Council of Australia (@jewishcouncilAU) July 10, 2025
The Jewish Council of Australia has today warned that the newly released Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism risks undermining Australia’s democratic freedoms, inflaming community divisions, and…
Segal told ABC’s Afternoon Briefing the plan “deals with anti-Semitism across the board”
The plan is for Semites of European heritage only – it does not address anti-Palestinian racism, Palestinians are also Semites.
Segal also told ABC Afternoon Briefing “I’m not the regulator or anything like that”.
She went on to tell the host, Patricia Karvelas:
- “Striping funding is a last resort.”
- “There are penalties if we can’t get to a situation where they’re working successfully.”
- “The next step that I’m going to put in place is what I’ve called in the report a report card.”
That sure as hell sounds like a regulator to me.
Patricia Karvelas: One of the criticisms that I’ve heard of the plan so far is it essentially conflates an anti-Israel view with anti-Semitism. Do you think they are the same thing, to criticise Israel is to be anti-Semitic.
ABC Afternoon Briefing – full interview
Segal: No, absolutely not and it doesn’t do that.
The Envoy’s plan states: “The Australian government should require consistent application and adoption of the IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition [of anti-Semitism] across all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies.”
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism states “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor (sic).” is an example of “contemporary anti-Semitism”.
The state of Israel was secured by what Palestinians call the Nakba, meaning the catastrophe.
The Nakba is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations.
Source: Wikipedia
We all understand ethnic cleansing to be a racist act and a crime against humanity.
The State of Israel and individual Israelis have never been held accountable for crimes committed during the Nakba.
There are more than 65 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian Israeli citizens and Palestinians living in the occupied Palestinian territories.
On July 19, 2024, the International Court of Justice determined Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful and Israel’s policies and practices constitute apartheid.
Apartheid is a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race.
The State of Israel is clearly a racist endeavour and has been since 1948, but the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism explicitly denies that fact. It seeks to hide Zionist Israel’s racism against Palestinians.
Segal: We do have more modern anti-Semitism which is anti-Zionism.
The IRHA definition of anti-Semitism that relates to Israel is conflated: Opposition to the ideology of Jewish self-determination in the biblical land of Israel [Zionism, which relies on the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians] is anti-Semitic, therefore anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic.
The recent Federal Court ruling in Wertheim v Haddad reaffirmed “disparagement” of Zionism and Israel is not racist (anti-Semitic).
The mental gymnastics of Zionist logic is mind boggling – Palestinians are Semites.
Segal told Karvelas “it [the plan] doesn’t even deal with Israel, it doesn’t mention Israel other than the fact that anti-Semitism is the IHRA definition”.
The plan mentions Israel in “2.2 Unpacking the drivers of antisemitism”. Also by seeking the “broad adoption” of the IHRA definition the plan does deal with Israel in a fundamental way. Very tricky.
Segal told Karvelas “the plan doesn’t deal with Zionism, I mentioned it as the modern form of anti-Semitism”
2.6 Toward a unified national response: Broad adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism is key to distinguishing potentially legitimate critique from hate, especially when anti-Zionism masks antisemitism.
Segal’s anti-Semitism plan
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is plainly doing a lot of the background heavy lifting for Segal’s plan.
If Segal’s plan is adopted by the Albanese government, the unelected anti-Semitism Envoy will become extremely powerful across Australian civil society.
Lobbyist mounts extremist attack on Australian institutions — goes way beyond addressing racism, and backs censorship backed by threats.
— Peter Cronau (@PeterCronau) July 10, 2025
Just read this list:https://t.co/yEt3QWIylp pic.twitter.com/5cWlbXnDQn
On ABC 730, Segal denied her plan was a plan to supress pro-Palestinian speech.
Sarah Ferguson: I want to start by how you frame this report [plan]. Why do you insist that the government and it’s institutions use a definition of anti-Semitism that’s been widely criticised, including by its author, who says it’s being used as a blunt instrument to supress pro-Palestinian speech.
ABC 730 – full interview
Segal: Well I don’t accept that and obviously the author was part of a team of authors, wasn’t the sole author. But it’s been the internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism for many years and it’s the definition of anti-Semitism that the government accepted.
The Australian government, previous government and this government when in opposition, so it is the official definition of anti-Semitism and I think it represents a fair attempt to describe what we are seeing. Hatred of the Jewish community, hatred of Jews and the weaponising of various issues in relation to Israel.
Now Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people and criticising Israel is absolutely acceptable but calling for its destruction is not. So, although many people feel that is offensive, that Israel should not exist, the international definition says that is anti-Semitic.
Ferguson: Of course there are plenty of organisations around the world using the alternative Jerusalem declaration.
The question was about supressing pro-Palestinian voices, but surprise surprise, we ended up at a threat to Israel.
IHRA definition of antisemitism was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016 – less than a decade ago.
Ferguson: You say you want to have a role monitoring the ABC and holding the ABC and our other public broadcaster, SBS to account on “avoiding false or distorted narratives”. What false or distorted narritives do you have in mind?
ABC 730 – full interview
Segal: I don’t have anything in particular in mind.
Ferguson: Let me just stop you there Jillian. You must have something in mind to have asserted that you want a role monitoring something.
Segal: No, I think that’s not true. The plan is an ambitious plan to tackle all the important elements of our society where there can be the issues of anti-Semitism that need to be pushed to the margins.
Now ABC and SBS are very important elements in our society, public broadcasters that many people watch and that are seen as important and trusted sources of news.
I think they are important elements of communication that need to be looked at and encouraged to look at multiple sources of truth, rather than one particular view.
“Multiple sources of truth”? Sounds awfully like ‘alternative facts’ to me.
“The important elements of our society” Segal is seeking oversight and influence over includes schools, universities, law enforcement, law reform, public broadcasting, social media governance, arts and culture, migration, business, health, sport and the professions.
All levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies are in the plan’s scope, which some say is already in motion.
Jill Segal's re-education program starting with local Government. 200 invited to an all expense paid conference on the Gold Coast. Here's my personal invitation. #GenocideInPalestine pic.twitter.com/9hsFfWiTde
— Dr Rhonda Garad (@RhondaGarad) July 11, 2025
Segal is seeking coercive powers, or at least influence over coercive powers, as it relates to the agenda of her plan.
It’s got a one person Seven Mountain Mandate vibe about it.
The Seven Mountain Mandate is a dominionist conservative Christian movement that began in the 1970s within evangelical Christianity. There are now adherents scattered across most Christian denominations.
The sort of buggers that if you scratch the surface, you’ll uncover a Christofascist, who for whatever reason is also likely to be a Christian Zionist.
The doctrine says believers should seek to dominate seven pillars of society: family, religion, education, media, arts entertainment, business and government.
Segal’s plan may not be the full Seven Mountain Mandate, but it’s definitely a Great Dividing Range.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.