The Segal report, free speech and the politics of fear

How anti-Semitism is being weaponised to silence dissent Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

There’s something unsettling about the way political and media attention gathers with such immediacy and intensity whenever an act of anti-Semitism is reported – particularly when that act coincides with moments of increased scrutiny toward Israel’s conduct in Gaza or the imminent release of a report concerning anti-Semitism in Australia. The recent incident in Melbourne is a perfect example: Angelo Loras, a 34-year-old man from Sydney, was quickly arrested after allegedly setting fire to the doors of a synagogue, an act Prime Minister Anthony Albanese immediately condemned as “cowardly”, a “violent” attack with “no place in Australian society”, asserting that those responsible would face the full force of the law.

But something in this case doesn’t quite add up. First, the damage was minimal, and the synagogue, as it turns out, is located next to a fire station. No one was hurt, and while the act was unquestionably reprehensible, the media and political response seemed vastly disproportionate. Aside from a handful of photographs on Instagram, Loras has no digital footprint – there’s no political activity, no signs of ideological motivation, and no attempt to disguise his actions in Melbourne, all of which were recorded on CCTV. It’s reminiscent of a case earlier in the year in the outer Sydney suburb of Dural, where a supposedly politically motivated threat on synagogues was later revealed to be an elaborate hoax, a hoax which resulted in draconian police powers quickly introduced – powers that have already led to documented instances of police brutality, especially against pro-Palestinian demonstrators.

But what do we really know about this incident? It has already disappeared from the headlines, and no new facts have emerged since the arrest. Like other recent provocations – such as the bizarre case where Ofir Birenbaum and journalists from News Corporation entered the Cairo Takeaway in Newtown wearing a Star of David and attempted to bait the kebab shop owners into saying something anti-Semitic and incriminating – this case raises far more questions than it answers. Is there a co-ordinated international effort to generate these flashpoints, as the Australian Federal Police suggested in the Dural hoax? Are these isolated acts by “nobodies” being used to justify a creeping state authoritarianism under the guise of protecting faith communities?

There’s also wider issues at stake: the government’s reaction to this incident in Melbourne was quick and morally unambiguous. But when Islamophobic attacks occur – hate graffiti on mosques, women wearing hijabs harassed and attacked, or threats made against Palestinian Australians – the response is, at best, muted, or non-existent. There’s a dissonance in a political culture that seems more outraged by a burnt door than by the daily incineration of children and aid workers in Gaza – where some communities are granted immediate empathy, while others are met with suspicion, silence and constant surveillance.

No one is excusing violence: this point has to be made very clear. But if dissent about Australia’s foreign policy – or even basic support for Palestinian human rights – ends up being criminalised under new arbitrary “anti-hate” laws crafted in response to events like this, then the real danger isn’t just from rogue arsonists, as bad as that is, it’s from a political and media establishment willing to exploit fear on behalf of vested interests.

Selective outrage and the weaponising identity

While the double standards are pretty obvious, it’s no longer possible to ignore and do nothing about them. When acts of anti-Semitism occur – even those of uncertain origin or limited impact – governments at both state and federal levels move instantly, whether it’s lighting up the Sydney Opera House with the flag of Israel, or implementing draconian new laws and police powers. Strike Force Pearl in New South Wales, Operation Anti-Hate in Victoria: these responses came with full media conferences, high-level political engagement, and sweeping new policies. The messaging is clear and consistent – there is zero tolerance for anti-Semitism, as it should be.

But when the hate is directed against other communities – Islamic, African Australians, Indigenous people or pro-Palestine people – there’s no urgent media conferences, no task forces, and certainly no legislation rammed through parliament in late-night sittings. And this is not to minimise the very real threats that Jewish Australians do face – those should never be dismissed. But the inconsistency in response reveals something much deeper, and far more dangerous, about how political power in this country is being used – and misused – to benefit special groups with vested interests.

This pattern of selective justice doesn’t just affect those directly targeted by hate crimes, it distorts the entire legislative and cultural framework of the country. As we saw in the wake of the Dural hoax earlier this year, bad laws are being rushed through parliaments in a panic, drafted poorly and with sweeping powers that end up hurting the very democratic principles they claim to defend. With the federal government now considering a sweeping national plan to combat anti-Semitism – one that appears to have been written less with justice in mind than appeasing powerful lobby groups – Australians are once again being asked to accept a framework of “protection” that is not based on universal rights, but on political expediency.

And it’s reaching a point where even asking questions about these legislations and ambit claims – legitimate questions that need answers and transparency – risks the immediate accusation of anti-Semitism. It’s now an accusation that has become a political weapon, and one that is used to shut down inquiry and criminalise dissent.

This is not how free societies are supposed to work. Justice can’t depend on identity or specific religions – hate crimes against any community should be met with the same level of seriousness, the same legal scrutiny, and the same moral clarity. But a dangerous trend is emerging where criticism of Israel’s government – no matter how valid or fact-based – is automatically recast as racial or religious hate, which stifles public discourse and actually undermines the fight against real anti-Semitism. And it becomes a case where if everything is labelled anti-Semitism, then nothing is.

Protest, genocide, and the politics of manufactured offence

There was another incident in Melbourne which provided the mainstream media and the political class another moment in their ongoing campaign to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. However, this one was not a mysterious act of arson by an unknown individual from another city; it was a public protest involving around 20 demonstrators who stood outside Miznon, an Israeli-owned restaurant in the Melbourne CBD. The protest wasn’t directed at Jewish people, or Judaism, or the existence of Israel – it was a protest directed at the restaurant’s owner, Shahar Segal. Segal isn’t just a private citizen running a hospitality business; he has also been publicly linked to a private humanitarian organisation accused of corralling starving Palestinians in Gaza with promises of food, only for those areas to be targeted in subsequent bombings and shootings, with over 600 Palestinians reportedly killed in these so-called “safe zones”. These are the facts the media – in its breathless reporting – conveniently ignored.

This was a protest about complicity in war crimes. The protestors were not targeting a religious group – they were opposing acts of state violence, and the individuals allegedly involved in supporting or facilitating it. But the media repeatedly described it as an “anti-Semitic attack,” and conflated its reporting with the synagogue arson, and then going on further to claim that multiculturalism in Australia is collapsing under the weight of racial hatred.

This isn’t just bad journalism – it’s political propaganda disguised as reporting on behalf of the Zionist movement, and the conflation of legitimate political protest with racial or religious hatred was such a dishonest act. It removes any space for dissent, silences criticism of Israel’s government, and equates protestors with bigots. But as Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart made very clear in the recent Wertheim v Haddad case, it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Israeli government, or to protest against Zionism, or to oppose the policies that are causing a genocide in Gaza. These are not some made-up leftist or radical opinions – these are points of law, specifically made by Justice Stewart in a Federal Court.

The selective reporting, however, presented a different story. The ABC – once a public broadcaster with a reputation for independent public journalism – parroted the same lines as the Murdoch press: a “hate-filled protest,” “anti-Jewish targeting,” “a worrying escalation”. But nowhere in the coverage was there serious engagement with what the protest was actually about. There was no mention of the accusations against the private humanitarian organisation in Gaza. No reporting on the Federal Court decision, and certainly no context: just the usual lazy, establishment journalism echoing the political class and shielding those in power.

In 2024, the former Attorney–General Mark Dreyfus, claimed that criticism of Zionism or Israel amounts to anti-Semitism. But that position is not only legally incorrect – it was an attempt to remove specific political opinion from public debate, one that is held by millions of people around the world, including many Jewish people themselves. Zionism is an ideology based on bigoted supremacy, it’s not a race or a religion and must be open to criticism like any other political philosophy.

None of this is to deny that genuine anti-Semitism exists. And to be sure, there are individuals who will weaponise criticism of Israel as a smokescreen for their prejudices. But if we allow those individuals to define the boundaries of public debate, we surrender the entire field to the authoritarians and allow the Netanyahus of the world claim that every act of dissent is hatred, and that all criticism is an act of anti-Semitic violence. It’s not just wrong – it’s dangerous – it undermines the legitimacy of real work against racism, and allows actual hate to hide behind the very legal and rhetorical protections that are meant to oppose it.

What’s happening in Gaza is not some kind of ethereal abstraction. It’s not just about ideology. It is about people dying – massacred, starved, displaced – under the watch of the international community. And it’s not a secret: every day we see the live-streamed massacres and daily reports of more killings in Gaza, and more settler violence in the West Bank. Israel has even publicly announced its intentions to create concentration camps in Rafah – as if Gaza hadn’t already been an open-air concentration camp – yet, the world watches on, allowing this to happen with indifference and complicity.

Nearly every major scholar of genocide has declared that what Israel is doing in Gaza is a genocide. When that is the scale of the crime, we need to speak up more, not be silenced by the apparatus of the state. The way in which we hold power to account must be fearless – to protest against genocide is not an act of hate, it’s an act of humanity. And in any just society, if that’s what we really live in, that distinction should be absolutely obvious to everyone.

Segal is trying to silence dissent against Israel

The release of the federal government’s anti-Semitism report – prepared by Jillian Segal, the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s handpicked Special Envoy – didn’t seem to be a coincidence. Its timing, dropped into a news cycle already inflamed by the Melbourne synagogue arson and the protest outside an Israeli-owned restaurant, was a nice little political calculation. These two incidents, exploited by political and media elites as examples of Australia’s supposed descent into hate-fuelled chaos, provided the perfect emotional backdrop for a document that seems to be less about combating anti-Semitism and more about redefining dissent as hate speech.

Segal’s report, heavily leaned upon by Australia’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby groups, such as the conservative Executive Council of Australian Jewry – Segal being the Immediate Past President – and enthusiastically amplified by outlets like The Australian and Sky News, has reignited the public debate over the boundaries between anti-Jewish bigotry and political criticism of Israel. But there’s a massive contradiction within this report: it claims to be a shield for vulnerable communities, but in practice – if any of Segal outrageous recommendations are implemented – it will become an instrument used to punish critics of state violence.

Segal is not a neutral figure. As a former head of a pro-Israel lobby organisation and the partner of John Roth, a man who donated $50,000 to Advance Australia – a far-right group that campaigned aggressively against the Voice to Parliament referendum in 2023 – her appointment as a supposedly impartial envoy on antisemitism raises questions about conflicts of interest, and the intent behind the report were compromised from the outset.

The central part of Segal’s report is its push for the formal adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, which has been used across multiple jurisdictions to blur the lines between anti-Jewish hate and legitimate political opposition to the Israeli state. The joining of criticisms of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism have made the IHRA definition a tool of repression in those jurisdictions – used not just against protestors and academics, but against the very idea of open public debate.

Segal’s recommendations would roll in a new era of censorship: where questioning military occupation, apartheid policies, or genocide in Gaza would be treated as hate speech, and where institutions would face funding cuts or public censure for hosting controversial speakers or events or not doing enough to stop anti-Semitism in an undefined way – it’s already happening on a de facto basis as we’ve seen in recent months, but to enshrine this in law would be a disaster.

Once again, we have to point out that genuine anti-Semitic abuse and violence must be condemned and combatted. But if we are constantly forced to condemn Hamas, we must also be forced to condemn Israel for its actions in Gaza and West Bank. What the Segal report proposes, however, is a shutdown of public debate where publicly condemning Israel would be considered a crime.

In the Australian context, this concern is heightened by the reality that recent tensions have not emerged in a vacuum. They are linked to Israel’s relentless assault and genocide on Gaza – attacks that have killed well over 55,000 and more than likely, a significantly higher number, displaced millions, and shocked much of the world. To release an anti-Semitism strategy that ignores this context is not only dishonest – it’s politically dangerous.

There are so many blind spots in Segal’s report. There’s no mention of Gaza or Palestine. There is no space for solidarity with the suffering of all peoples, no room for justified outrage. Instead, the Segal report channels the conversation through a single, ideologically loaded perspective: protecting one community by silencing many others.

This approach won’t create harmony, and why Albanese has allowed this process to go this far is difficult to comprehend. Sure, he only had a slim majority in Parliament and with an election to win, offered as much support as possible to appease the Israel lobby groups – and got nothing in return politically – but what’s the excuse now? Labor now has 94 seats in Parliament after its crushing win at the 2025 federal election, and is facing a feckless Coalition as the opposition.

Albanese should take this report and, as diplomatically as possible, tell Segal that it represents an outrageous overreach and an implausible, excessive demand – and clearly let her know that all it will do is deepen suspicion, polarise debate, and undermine faith in democratic institutions. That’s what Albanese should do but we know that he won’t: his previous support for the cause of Palestine – as recently as 2019 but before he became the leader of the Labor Party – has been shown to be a charade and a convenient façade. Albanese now exists in the space of power and privilege, and he’s unprepared to cede any of this power to support truth, justice, and the right to speak out against oppression, even when supporting one particular group of privilege might be detrimental to his political standing. He’s become the Keir Starmer of the South.

But he does need to understand that if we are to live in a truly pluralist society, we must reject anything that weaponises one group’s plan to erase the existence of another. And we must insist that the fight against hate includes everyone – or it will end up protecting no one.