A new study is challenging the Australian government’s approach to combating antisemitism, revealing significant discrepancies between official findings and the experiences of Jewish Australians who oppose Israeli policy. The debate centers on how antisemitism is defined and measured and the implications for free speech and university funding.
Contrasting Reports
In November 2025, a report commissioned by Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism (ASECA) led to a $159.5 million government response, including an Antisemitism Education Taskforce, university assessments, potential visa cancellations, and the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. This week, Not in Our Name: Jewish Australians Speak Out, authored by Dr. Leia Greenslade and Professor Linda Briskman, presented findings from a survey of 384 Jewish Australians and 30 in-depth interviews with those who oppose Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories.
The core of the dispute lies in methodology. The ASECA report utilizes a ‘Generalised Antisemitism Scale’ that, according to critics, conflates prejudice against Jewish people with political opposition to the state of Israel. The scale assumes anti-Zionist attitudes are antisemitic before measurement begins.
Internal Contradictions
The ASECA report itself appears to undermine its own conclusions. Focus group participants, as noted on page 7 of the report, “did not perceive Jewish individuals as collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government.” Further, on page 8, participants expressed support for Jewish communities while simultaneously criticizing the Israeli state. The report acknowledges on page 10 that “Australians consistently draw a distinction between the Australian Jewish community and the actions of the Israeli government,” yet proceeds to classify the ability to make this distinction as a “knowledge gap.”
Data from the ASECA report indicates that the gap between its two subscales—prejudice and anti-Zionism—is largest among students and young adults, suggesting education drives political opposition to Israel without necessarily increasing prejudice against Jewish people. This finding, however, was used to justify recommendations to defund non-compliant universities.
Voices of Dissent
The Not in Our Name respondents, 85 percent of whom are university-educated, offer a different perspective. Participants described a deepening of their Jewish identity through engagement with anti-Zionist movements and a contextual understanding of antisemitism, linking it to Israel’s military actions. One participant, Dale, described a shift in perspective after serving in the Israeli army. Another, Esther, traced her evolving views to learning about “structural oppression and colonialism.”
According to the Not in Our Name report, 48 percent of respondents reported no increase in personal encounters with antisemitism since October 7, and only 14 percent identified their educational institution as a source of antisemitism. Some reported experiencing more abuse from within the Jewish community than from outside it.
Recommendations and Implications
The ASECA report advocates for surveillance and punitive measures, including funding cuts and a hate crimes database. In contrast, the Not in Our Name report recommends fostering pluralism within Jewish institutions, diversifying curricula, and grounding ethical inquiry in Jewish values. The ASECA apparatus operates on millions in public funding, while the Not in Our Name report was produced with minimal resources.
The government adopted all 13 recommendations from the ASECA report without scrutiny, even though the recommendations were published five months before the Bondi Beach massacre and did not address the intelligence failures that preceded it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the IHRA definition of antisemitism?
The IHRA definition is used by the ASECA report and is a working definition of antisemitism. The ASECA report uses a scale calibrated to this definition.
What did the ASECA report recommend regarding universities?
The ASECA report recommended university ‘report cards’ and the possibility of defunding non-compliant universities.
What is the central argument of the Not in Our Name report?
The Not in Our Name report argues that the ASECA report conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism and does not accurately reflect the views of many Jewish Australians.
As policymakers consider the path forward, will they prioritize a framework that fosters inclusivity and critical thinking, or one that relies on surveillance and punishment?