Antisemitism Claims Mask Political Agenda

Rupert Murdoch’s ‘Australian’ has long operated as a loyal servant to the Zionist cause. It's little wonder, given he’s a devout Zionist who’s declared that support for Israel is “absolutely crucial to the future of the free world”—a position reflected in decades of editorial bias, selective outrage, and the silencing of Palestinian voices.

Regardless of Murdoch’s immense wealth, his intellectual and moral shortcomings—and his well-documented racist views—are reflected in the sycophancy of his loyal and unquestioning editorial staff.

Against this backdrop, The Australian’s Stephen Rice piece portraying Sydney lawyers—Justin Carroll and Yianni van Gelder—as purveyors of vile antisemitism based on leaked WhatsApp messages. But Rice’s piece fails to make a critical distinction: opposition to Zionism and Israel’s criminal behaviour isn’t the same as antisemitism.

The careless conflation of the two represents a dangerous and deliberate strategy to silence critics and shield a state from legitimate condemnation.

His framing of the case underscores how far the term “antisemitism” has drifted from its original and urgent meaning. Once a descriptor for violent bigotry and hatred directed at Jewish people, it’s now increasingly hijacked as a political weapon—to stifle dissent, punish anyone who criticises Zionist ideology, and distract from Israel’s documented atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond.

If individuals engage in slurs, Holocaust denial, or crude stereotypes, those comments should be condemned. But that’s not the same as raising legitimate and historically supported critiques of the modern Zionist project—a nationalist, settler-colonial ideology entrenched in the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and perpetuated through apartheid policies and military aggression.

Rice presents legitimate expressions such as “Zionists are without question the closest thing we have to Nazis” or “watch this documentary and tell me Israel isn’t an utterly depraved society” alongside truly indefensible remarks, treating them all under the same banner of antisemitism. It's a disingenuous tactic.

The idea comparing Israel’s actions to Nazi behaviour is inherently antisemitic is deeply flawed—particularly when such comparisons arise not from hatred, but from moral outrage at the scale of death, siege, and dehumanisation inflicted on Palestinians.

Given the relentless bombardment of Gaza and the unconscionable suffering inflicted on civilians, some might argue that Hitler would be proud of the bloodlust displayed by Netanyahu.

Beyond the moral decay of such comparisons, the broader consequences of this rhetorical sleight of hand need to be considered. Labelling all criticism of Israel as antisemitic, defenders of the Israeli state silence truth-tellers and dilute the seriousness of actual antisemitism.

When everything becomes antisemitic, then nothing truly is. Antisemitism loses its meaning—and the people it was originally meant to protect are left more vulnerable, not less.

Equally concerning is the omission of a growing body of scholarly and human rights commentary which affirms that Zionism is not a religious tenet, nor does it represent all Jews. Many Jews across the world—including Holocaust survivors and prominent Jewish human rights organisations—have condemned Israeli policies and defended Palestinian rights. Are they also antisemitic? Or are they simply refusing to accept the grotesque merging of Jewish identity with a state that continues to commit war crimes?

Accusations of antisemitism become even more nonsensical when levelled against critics of Zionism who are themselves Semites—Arabs, Palestinians, and Jews of Middle Eastern descent.

Zionism’s European colonial foundations, and the dominance of Ashkenazi-centric power structures within Israel, have long marginalised Jews of colour. This internal contradiction exposes the hollowness of invoking “Semitism” as a shield for Zionist extremism.

Rice also raises ethical questions around the use of unverified private messages—obtained through unclear means—to frame a narrative without interrogating the full context. Why were these messages leaked? Who benefits from discrediting two lawyers planning to go independent and take clients with them? Is the story truly about antisemitism—or is it about professional revenge, reputation management, and the suppression of dissenting political views?

By failing to differentiate between bigotry and anti-Zionism, Rice contributes to a growing climate of fear in which people feel unable to express solidarity with Palestinians or criticise Israeli policies without risking their careers. It reinforces the chilling effect already visible across Australian institutions—where academics are censored, journalists dismissed, and public debate curtailed for daring to label Israel an apartheid state, as affirmed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israeli organisations like B’Tselem.

The relentless policing of language around Israel and Palestine is about power—and protecting a state that occupies, bombs, murders, imprisons, and censors with impunity. And propping up an ideology dependent on erasure: the erasure of Palestinian history, identity, and suffering—and the moral clarity of those who resist it.

The Carroll and van Gelder case musn’t become another excuse to conflate edgy rhetoric, dark humour, or harsh political critique with genuine antisemitism. That only serves to betray Jewish communities and the broader human responsibility to uphold truth and justice.

Condemning Zionism isn’t condemning Jews. Calling out genocide in Gaza isn’t to deny the Holocaust. Expressing outrage at Israel’s crimes isn’t mocking Jewish pain. But remaining silent—fearing being labelled antisemitic— enables further suffering and destruction.

Real antisemitism is undoubtedly on the rise—but it’s being fuelled by the far right, white supremacists, and neo-Nazi movements emboldened by political chaos.

Weaponising antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism undermines all those principles.

The conflation of identity with ideology must be rejected and smear campaigns masquerading as reporting must be called out.