The submission by the Jewish Council of Australia to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism has exposed a growing debate within Jewish communities about the relationship between Jewish identity, Zionism, and the actions of the Israeli state.
The commission was established in the aftermath of the horrific January 2026 terrorist attack at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, which claimed the lives of 15 people and shocked the nation. While the inquiry’s purpose is to examine the causes and nature of antisemitism in Australia, the Jewish Council of Australia has argued that one of the most damaging misconceptions contributing to hostility against Jews is the widespread assumption that all Jewish people are responsible for, or supportive of, the actions of Israel.
Representing more than 2,500 progressive Jewish Australians, the council submitted evidence warning that conflating Jewish identity with the policies of the Israeli government creates a dangerous environment in which anger directed at Israel can spill over into prejudice and attacks against Jewish people. The organisation argues that antisemitism is often fuelled not only by extremist ideologies but also by a failure to recognise the diversity of views that exist within Jewish communities.
The council pointed to the role of far-right extremism as a significant driver of antisemitic hatred. However, it also argued that successive Israeli governments and pro-Israel advocacy groups have frequently encouraged the notion that Israel acts on behalf of all Jews worldwide. According to the submission, this narrative can unintentionally reinforce the very stereotypes that antisemites rely upon by suggesting that Jewish people constitute a single political bloc with shared loyalties and opinions.
One of the most controversial aspects of the submission was its rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Critics of the IHRA definition argue that it has increasingly been used to blur the distinction between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel. The Jewish Council of Australia contends that protecting Jewish communities from hatred requires clear definitions that target anti-Jewish prejudice without restricting political debate about Israel or Palestine.
The council also emphasised that Jewish opinion on Zionism is far from uniform. While many Jews identify strongly with Zionism and support Israel, others hold critical views of the Israeli state or reject Zionism altogether. The submission argues that acknowledging this diversity is essential if public discussions about antisemitism are to reflect reality rather than simplistic assumptions.
Not everyone agrees. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), one of the country’s most prominent Jewish representative bodies, has dismissed the Jewish Council of Australia as unrepresentative of mainstream Jewish opinion. This disagreement reflects wider tensions within Jewish communities around the world, particularly as debates over Israel and Palestine have become increasingly polarised.
The issue was highlighted further by a recent online dispute involving a U.S. podcaster who claimed that anti-Israel Jews typically lacked even a basic understanding of Jewish history and identity. The comments prompted a wave of criticism from Jewish academics, journalists and activists. Among them were Sami Gold and Asaf Ronel, who publicly detailed their extensive knowledge, education and personal experiences to challenge what they viewed as an attempt to delegitimise dissenting Jewish voices.
Taken together, these developments reveal a complex reality often ignored in public debate: Jewish communities are not politically monolithic, and recognising that diversity may be essential both for combating antisemitism and for fostering more honest discussions about Israel and Palestine.
This appears now to be a debate that is unresolvable. Zionism vs anti-Zionism is the battlefield, and while Israel pretends that Zionism and Jewishness are compatible, it will not end.
