The Royal Commission on Antisemitism has moved beyond examining discrimination and public safety into a debate over education, political speech and who controls the national curriculum. Jillian Segal’s proposed expansion of antisemitism education – from early childhood through schools and universities – raises many questions about whether a necessary campaign against prejudice could morph into protecting Zionism and the Israeli state from scrutiny.
Antisemitism needs to be confronted, and Jewish students should be protected from harassment and abuse. But education should develop independent judgement, competitive historical understandings and critical thinking – not prescribe an approved political position on Israel and Palestine. Holocaust education already exists in Australian schools; the danger arises when criticism of Israeli government policy, alleged war crimes, occupation, apartheid or Zionism becomes blurred with genuine antisemitism.
At the centre of this debate is the highly controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism and the risk that its institutional adoption could restrict teachers, students, academics and protesters. Australian law permits criticism of states and political ideologies, yet this might soon end if the Israel lobby ends up having its way.
Who determines what children are taught at school? Will participation in Segal’s curriculum be compulsory? And can Australia combat antisemitism without turning classrooms into the battlefields in a new phase of the culture wars?
