When “independence” becomes an excuse

There is a familiar pattern when institutions are asked to confront antisemitism seriously.

They express concern, affirm their commitment to inclusion, and then, when presented with a definition that would require them to identify antisemitism in its contemporary forms, they retreat into the language of nuance, independence, and free speech.

That is what we are now seeing from the ABC and SBS.

Their rejection of the federal government’s definition of antisemitism is being framed as a defence of editorial independence. We are told that broadcasters must remain free to report and analyse without external constraint. It sounds principled. It is also deeply convenient.

The real issue is not independence. It is avoidance.

The IHRA definition does not prohibit criticism of Israel. It does not shield Israeli governments, policies, or leaders from scrutiny. It explicitly allows criticism of Israel in the same way one would criticise any other country. What it does is identify when that criticism crosses a line, when it becomes demonisation, delegitimisation, or the application of standards expected of no other nation.

The claim that this threatens free speech has been repeated often enough to sound credible. It is not credible. It is false, ungrounded, and useful only to those who prefer ambiguity.

That ambiguity allows institutions to avoid confronting an uncomfortable reality: that anti-Zionism can, and often does, cross into antisemitism.

Sometimes criticism of Israel is exactly that: criticism. Legitimate, necessary, and fair. But sometimes it is the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. Sometimes it is the treatment of Zionism as uniquely illegitimate. Sometimes it is holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government, or expecting Jewish individuals to publicly disavow Israel before they are allowed to participate in public life. Sometimes it is the excusing or minimising of violence against Israelis.

And sometimes it is a media culture so accustomed to a particular narrative that it no longer recognises its own distortions.

That is what this debate is really about. Not free speech. Not editorial independence. But whether institutions are willing to acknowledge that a line exists, and that they may have, at times, failed to recognise when it has been crossed.

Once a serious definition is accepted, the room for evasion narrows. Complaints can no longer be dismissed as oversensitivity. Patterns in coverage can no longer be waved away as subjective interpretation. Claims of balance have to withstand scrutiny.

A definition creates accountability. That is precisely why it is resisted.

The ABC and SBS will not be alone in this stance. Their position will be cited by universities, arts bodies, NGOs, and others who have little appetite for confronting antisemitism in its contemporary forms. A signal is being sent that adopting a clear standard is optional, at a time when it is anything but.

Antisemitism in Australia today is not abstract. It is visible on campuses, in workplaces, in cultural spaces and across sections of the media. It has evolved. It often presents itself in the language of human rights and social justice. It does not always look like hatred, which is precisely why it is so often missed, excused or ignored.

Most institutions will condemn antisemitism when it is explicit and undeniable. But when it appears as the exclusion of “Zionists”, the erasure of Jewish history, or the portrayal of Israel as uniquely evil, the response changes. Suddenly, there is a call for nuance. Definitions become suspect. Those raising concerns are accused of trying to shut down debate.

This is not principled caution. It is a double standard.

It preserves a status quo in which antisemitism is recognised only when it is convenient to recognise it, and in which Jewish Australians are expected to continually justify their own experience.

The broadcasters will insist they have internal standards. But standards are only meaningful if they work. If Jewish Australians consistently see blind spots in coverage, framing and language, then assurances are not enough.

Trust has already been damaged.

The issue is not whether journalists should be free to criticise Israel. Of course they should. The issue is whether public institutions are prepared to recognise when criticism becomes something else, and to say so clearly.

That is not a constraint on journalism. It is a test of it.

A serious media organisation should be capable of applying a recognised definition of antisemitism without claiming it has been gagged. It should be capable of acknowledging that antisemitism has modern forms, and that some of those forms intersect with anti-Zionist rhetoric.

Instead, we are given familiar language: independence, nuance, editorial freedom. Too often, these words are used less to illuminate the issue than to avoid it.

The IHRA definition does not end debate. It clarifies it. And that is precisely the problem for those who prefer ambiguity.

Clarity makes it harder to maintain that anti-Zionism is always benign, no matter how it is expressed. It makes it harder to dismiss Jewish concerns as political inconvenience. It requires institutions to examine not just their intentions, but their impact.

Australia does not need more carefully worded statements about opposing antisemitism. It needs institutions willing to recognise it consistently, even when it is uncomfortable.

The question is simple. Do our public institutions accept that antisemitism can appear in contemporary political language, including some forms of anti-Zionism, or do they not?

If they do, then adopting a definition that helps identify it should not be controversial. If they do not, they should say so plainly.

What they should not do is hide behind free speech and independence while avoiding the issue altogether, or expect Jewish Australians to accept that avoidance as a serious answer.

This is not about silencing debate. It is about refusing to ignore antisemitism simply because it presents itself in more acceptable language.

Michael Gencher is Executive Director of StandWithUs Australia