Postcode Is No Test for Antisemitism

Antisemitism should never be assessed by postcode. Yet it seems we are doing exactly that, and for Jews outside the traditional population centres, it undeniably feels that way.

This is not about bruised feelings or routine political disagreement. It is about a pattern that has become increasingly hard to ignore. Anti-Israel narratives are allowed to circulate, harden, and escalate with little resistance, while the willingness to respond appears to depend less on substance than on electoral geography.

And this is not confined to the federal level. The same instinct is visible across all three levels of government. Local councils pass symbolic motions with scant regard for how they land on Jewish residents. State politics absorbs inflammatory framing that often goes unanswered. And at the federal level, parliamentary platforms can set a national tone almost overnight.

Two MPs sit at the centre of this discussion on the northern beaches of Sydney. Sophie Scamps in Mackellar and Zali Steggall in Warringah, both Teal independents.

The timing of Dr Scamps’ most recent comments matters. On 9 February 2026, she used Question Time to press the government on Israel and settlements, explicitly framing the West Bank as occupied territory and asking whether Australia would sanction Israeli institutions and officials linked to settlement expansion. That intervention did not occur in a vacuum. It landed in a week of heightened attention, and it reinforces why scrutiny and standards cannot be rationed by electorate demographics.

Context matters too. These comments were made as President Isaac Herzog visits Australia, a visit that has drawn significant public attention and protest and was framed by Herzog around solidarity and confronting antisemitism. Dr Scamps publicly criticised the invitation and warned it could worsen community division.

People can argue policy. That is democracy. What cannot be dismissed is how frequently the debate is conducted with a recognisable imbalance. Israel is treated as uniquely culpable, Jewish concerns are treated as secondary, and the surge in antisemitism is treated as a separate issue altogether, as though rhetoric has no consequences.

When I asked why Dr Scamps appears to attract so little pushback, the explanation I received was blunt. The intensity of response is often shaped by whether an MP’s electorate has a significant Jewish population. In other words, postcode becomes the filter.
That should stop us in our tracks.

Since when did confronting antisemitism depend on numbers. Since when did consistency give way to calculation. What is the threshold at which bias becomes worth addressing.

Postcode is no test for antisemitism. It never has been. It never should be.

This matters even more when parliamentary roles amplify influence. Dr Scamps is listed by the Parliament of Australia as Vice Chair of the Parliamentary Country Group for Palestine. Whatever one thinks of such groups, their relevance is obvious. They shape relationships, convene discussions, and lend legitimacy to particular framings inside Parliament. When those framings drift into double standards or one-sided moral narratives, the impact does not remain confined to Canberra.

For Jewish Australians living outside areas of concentrated community, the message too often feels unmistakable. Your concerns carry less weight. Your experiences are localised. Your vulnerability is acknowledged, but not urgent enough to justify sustained response.

That is neither fair nor sustainable.

Antisemitism does not respect suburb boundaries. It moves through schools, universities, workplaces, community organisations, social media, and through all three tiers of government. Treating it as a problem to be addressed only where Jews are numerous is not just morally flawed. It is strategically incoherent.

The incentive structure is obvious. If scrutiny is applied only in electorates with visible Jewish populations, politicians quickly learn where the pressure points are and where they are not. The spotlight dims. The cost drops. The language hardens.

What is required now is not selective engagement, but consistent scrutiny.

When a federal MP uses their platform to advance a framing that strips Israel of context and marginalises Jewish anxiety, it should be answered. When state politicians lean into narratives that inflame division, they should be answered. And when councils indulge performative politics that spills into intimidation on the ground, that too should be answered.

The test cannot be whether an area is very Jewish. The test must be whether what is being said is accurate, fair, and applied consistently. When it is not, the response should be clear and public.

Because silence is not neutral. Silence confers permission.

Postcode is no test for antisemitism. If we cannot accept that the same standard must apply everywhere, not only in electorates where Jews are numerous, then we have misunderstood both the problem and the moment. Consistency is not optional. It is the minimum requirement.

Michael Gencher is the Executive Director, pf StandWithUs Australia