Henderson's Flawed, Dangerous Campus Anti-Semitism Claim

Gerard Henderson is no stranger to controversy. The founder and executive director of the Sydney Institute is a media commentator of sorts. His recent piece in The Australian newspaper, “How Campuses became hotbeds of anti-Semitism” gets it so terribly wrong.

Henderson is a regular contributor to The Australian, writing weekly on subjects of all matters, and his piece today was as far off the mark you as you could possibly wish - it was disturbing ill-informed naïve commentary.

In recent years, a particular narrative has gained traction painting Australian university campuses as hotbeds of anti-Semitism, fuelled by an overwhelming hostility toward Israel. It’s a view rooted in nostalgia for a time when Israel was widely supported as a beleaguered state - oversimplifying the current complexities of campus politics and dangerously conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with outright anti-Semitism.

To better understand the matter, it’s important to unravel these elements and engage with the broader context of student activism, academic freedom, and the shifting dynamics of global political discourse.

Henderson asserts anti-Semitism was virtually non-existent on Australian university campuses in the past, particularly around the time of the Six-Day War in 1967, suggesting a time when debates about Israel were supposedly balanced and respectful.

The reality, however, is far more nuanced. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, global politics was vastly different. Israel, was t hen perceived as a small, embattled nation, garnering widespread sympathy and support. However, as Israel’s power grew and role in the Middle East became more complex, perceptions shifted. This evolution has naturally influenced how Israel is discussed on university campuses today.

Comparing then and now fails to account for the significant changes in geopolitics and the nature of student activism. The romanticised notion of a respectful, balanced debate from the past overlooks today’s students are grappling with a more complex world. Issues like Israel enacting genocide towards the Palestinians can’t be boiled down to simple binaries, and university students are right to challenge the status quo, pushing for a more nuanced understanding of global affairs.

Central to the debate is the dangerous conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. The narrative that any criticism of Israel’s policies is anti-Semitic isn’t only misleading but stifles legitimate political debate.

Anti-Semitism is a form of hatred and discrimination against semitic people, Zionists aren’t Semites, but Arabs, Judaist Jews, Aramaic populations are. Criticism of Israel’s insanity is a fundamental aspect of democratic engagement and free speech.

Deliberately conflating Judaism with Zionism is problematic because it diverts attention from genuine instances of anti-Semitism. Labelling all criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, undermines the fight against true anti-Semitism and erodes the credibility of those who are genuinely working to combat it. It’s entirely possible, and necessary, to criticise the policies of Israel—such as its treatment of Palestinians or its settlement expansions—without being anti-Semitic.

Universities have always been places where ideas are tested, debated, and fiercely contested. They’re the breeding grounds for the leaders of tomorrow, and they must protect the principles of free speech and academic freedom and that means allowing space for criticism of all governments, including Israel’s, while also ensuring that campuses remain safe and inclusive environments for all students, including Jewish students.

Suggesting universities are failing to protect Jewish students because they allow criticism of Israel to flourish is a misunderstanding of the role of higher education. Criticism of Israel’s genocidal policies toward the Palestinians, is a legitimate part of the global conversation about human rights and international law.

The responsibility of university administrations is to ensure all students feel safe and respected, regardless of their background, and that includes taking a firm stand against anti-Semitism, racism, and all other forms of discrimination. However, it doesn’t mean censoring debates or suppressing dissenting opinions because they challenge the status quo or make certain groups uncomfortable.

The narrative student bodies and many academics are “totally hostile” to Israel overlooks the issues at hand. Student activism has always been characterised by radical ideas and demands for justice, often pushing beyond the boundaries of mainstream debate. This isn’t new, nor is it unique to the issue of Israel and Palestine.

The call for a single state in Palestine, reflects a growing frustration with the failure of the two-state solution to bring about lasting peace. While such positions are controversial and deeply unsettling to many, they represent a legitimate viewpoint within the broader debate about the future of the region.

Dismissing these views as simply anti-Semitic fails to engage with the arguments made and instead resorts to name-calling and suppressing debate.

The international context can’t be ignored. Israel’s genocide toward Palestinians isn’t just a local issue; it is a global one. Students and academics who criticise Israel are motivated by genuine concern for the plight of the Palestinians.

While anti-Semitism exists, the narrative that equates all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism is simplistic and dangerous, as it threatens undermining free speech and the fight against genuine bigotry.

Maintaining the balance, universities can fulfill their role as spaces for intellectual growth and critical engagement, preparing students to navigate the complexities of the world with empathy and discernment.

The solution lies in promoting debate distinguishing between hate speech and legitimate political criticism and not just throwing about