You and I are the sort of people who turn out to rallies for refugees.
You and I are the sort of people who actively support human rights. Only last week I saw many of you at a rally protesting the treatment of Julian Assange.
You and I are the sort of people that condemn racism. So an outsider might assume you and I would support a motion condemning antisemitism. To the contrary.
It’s because we are ‘these sort of people’, we’re here today to protest the particular motion about anti-semitism currently under consideration in the South Australian Parliament
The definition proposed for adoption by the South Australian parliament is one devised by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (or IHRA). It is a flawed definition because it singles out one group of people for special treatment. This motion is specific to Israel and to Israel only. The motion moved by One Nation’s Sarah Game gives Israel a ‘get out of jail free’ card.
The motion itself determines the ways in which we might be allowed to criticise Israel without finding ourselves labelled as antisemitic.
Those who uphold human rights criticise China for its treatment of the Uyghur people. No-one tells us a politically correct way to do it. What China is doing is morally wrong and deserves to be criticised. Nor do we pull back from criticising Myanmar for its treatment of the Rohingya people. So why should we pull back from criticising Israel for its treatment of Palestinians and carefully choose our words as dictated by IHRA? Why should Israel be given this special exemption?
Let’s look at some of what this definition says. It gives examples of what constitutes antisemitism. For instance, anyone saying the existence of the state Israel is a racist endeavour is being antisemitic. Clearly this is aimed at silencing the critics who point to the many documented speeches and calls of numerous Israeli leaders for the suppression, even the destruction of Palestinian people.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policies to that of the Nazis is another of the examples given in this definition as being antisemitic. Speaking the truth about Israeli actions will not be tolerated.
How many Palestinians have to be killed to allow for that comparison? In the almost 75 years since Al Nakba or ‘the catastrophe’ of Israel assuming ownership of Palestinian land, thousands of Palestinians have been killed. It’s a slower catastrophe than the Holocaust. So if it’s done slowly, is that okay?
How many Palestinian children as young as 12 being held in military prisons without trial, without legal representation and sometimes shackled? How many will there have to be before it’s okay to criticise Israel for doing it?
If we declare, as we do, that Israel’s occupying forces were responsible for the murder of Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, will the IHRA motion give carte blanche to Zionists to label us as antisemitic? I’ll bet it will. Whether or not it is what Sarah Game intends, it opens the way to vilify those who are active in the cause of Palestinian human rights
Sarah Game is a scientist of sorts, she holds a Bachelor of Veterinary Science from Sydney University, but she’s failing to do what a good scientist does when conducting an experiment, which is to look at the unintended consequences. Imagine a pharmaceutical company developing a new medicine and not noting or listing the side effects on its packaging. That’s what Sarah Game is doing.
She claims the definition is not legally binding, but that is naïve. What starts as optional can become compulsory. For instance, in the UK, universities are being threatened with funding cuts if they don’t adopt it into their constitutions.
In June 2015, an analysis carried out by the Rand Corporation said that if the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement (BDS) was maintained over a period of 10 years it could cost the Israeli economy $47 billion. The IHRA antisemitism definition is a clever attempt to stop that happening, to shut down the BDS movement.
I have no doubt Sarah Game is being used by the Israeli lobby to bring this about except she does not appear to realise it. It’s a covert way of silencing criticism of Israel’s ongoing actions against Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza. And we must resist!
This motion was carried by stealth in Victoria and NSW. Here in South Australia, we were alerted to it and many of us have been lobbying our MPs to oppose it.
I want to finish with a quote from Desmond Tutu: ‘The abuses Palestinians face are real and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, non-violent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel, in particular, for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in South Africa for its abuses’.
We must continue the fight!