Bondi Royal Commission: Resentful of ABC coverage, Jewish groups push for detailed anti-Semitism definition

It took a massacre on Bondi Beach for the Jewish community to get the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the dock.

On Thursday, at the anti-Semitism royal commission, seven Jewish organisations were able to question a senior editorial executive at the national broadcaster through their barrister, Nicholas Bender, SC, for the first time about the ABC’s coverage of one of history’s most intractable conflicts.

Among Australian Jews who believe in a Jewish state, otherwise known as Zionists, sentiment towards the national broadcaster is frosty.

Anti-Semitism envoy Jillian Segal told the inquiry Thursday morning that a “common and pervasive perception is expressed to me repeatedly” that the ABC conflates Jewish identity with the state of Israel and its actions. The ABC treated the Israel-Hamas war as a disproportionate attack on Palestinians by a rogue Israeli government, according to the Jewish narrative, fuelling hostility towards Australian Jews.

Defining prejudice

Given the opportunity to question ABC editorial director Gavin Fang, the Jewish groups decided against litigating years of Middle East coverage. Instead, Mr Bender tried to make the case for an anti-Semitism definition the ABC has already rejected.

The definition, written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, denies that Israel is a “racist endeavour” because Palestinians lost their land and calls out the double standard of expecting Israel to behave differently to other democracies.

Known as the IHRA definition, the text has become another battlefield in the political, legal and diplomatic struggle between pro and anti-Israel protagonists around the world. Convincing commissioner Virginia Bell to recommend it be adopted by the ABC would be a major victory for Jewish groups, and place political pressure on the Government to direct the ABC to implement the policy.

“Anti-Semitism can be difficult to detect because it is often expressed in coded language that doesn’t mention Jews at all, for example, global cabal controlling the world’s money,” Mr Bender said.

Mr Fang did not dispute the assertion. He pointed to workplace training on racism and the ABC’s “Hate Speech, Terrorism & Mass Killings” policy, which explains to the ABC’s journalists that legitimate debate over Israel becomes hate speech when “the target becomes ‘Jews’ rather than ‘Israel’”.

The journalists are also asked to consider: “Is the speaker singling out broad groups of people such as homosexuals, Aboriginals, Arabs, Muslims or Jews?”

Such obvious tests are not enough for conservative Jewish leaders, who see the ABC as a left-wing stronghold implacably opposed to Israel. (One example: Former ABC Middle East correspondent Sophie McNeil is now a Greens MP in Western Australia, where she doesn’t hide her hostility towards the Israeli government.)

“There is no attempt to educate the reader of this document about how to draw the line when it comes to Jews?” Mr Bender asked.

The United Nations, dominated by opponents of Israel, has chosen not to adopt the IHRA text. Critics say it restricts public debate by allowing legitimate criticism of Israel’s motivations to be labelled anti-Semitic.

Ms Bell, the royal commissioner, asked how a new anti-Semitism definition would affect the ABC’s coverage of the war in Gaza. Ms Segal, the anti-Semitism envoy, said it “would enable the reporters to understand better the conflation” between Israel and Jews.

No doubt the ABC’s reporters believe they already understand the difference. More likely the IHRA rules would be cited by viewers and listeners to argue ABC coverage was in breach of its own policies.

The ABC is used to complaints, and some of its journalists, including Americas editor John Lyons, have accused the pro-Israeli lobby of exerting a dangerous amount of pressure on the media in Australia. In the year ended October 31, Mr Fang said 52 per cent of bias complaints alleged the ABC’s coverage was pro-Hamas or pro-Palestinian and 47 per cent said it was pro-Israel. ABC executives use the rough parity to assert they probably got coverage right.

‘Judge, counsel, jury’

Having watched, and feared, weekly anti-Israel protests in Melbourne and Sydney, Jewish leaders seem to be succeeding in convincing the royal commission the marches stoked hostility towards Jews. The logical response would be to adopt the IHRA guidelines, which could help break one of the root causes of anti-Jewish hostility, they think.

Whether Ms Bell, who adopted the IHRA wording on behalf of the inquiry, will ask other organisations to is one of the inquiry’s open questions.

Meanwhile, a separate suggestion from Ms Segal that a new oversight committee be appointed to scrutinise the ABC was not even endorsed by her own side, which would presumably appoint some of its members.

The current system leaves complaints to an ombudsman, who reports to the ABC board. Appeals can be made to the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

“Now they can set the rules, which are their standards,” Ms Segal said. “They can review them, which is an internal system. And they can mark their own homework. They are judge, counsel and jury.”

Under the guidance of Melbourne lawyer Lion Zwier, the seven leading Jewish groups have tried to ensure their requests to the royal commission do not overshoot. They must know that seeking a new committee to oversee the national broadcaster, in the interest of a small but successful ethnic group, would likely be fiercely fought by the ABC and its allies.

Instead, they seek a more formal definition of what constitutes prejudice against their own community. Upon such words, the path of history sometimes rests.