(I sent this submission in late April, but I'll also publish it (in the raw format that I saved the text in for my own use) here. This will give it a bit more public visibility.)
Dear Commissioner, 1. Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion. 2. I am an academic philosopher with a specialization in legal and political philosophy, including issues relating to liberal theory, secular government, and traditional civil and political liberties such as freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have published widely on these topics. In particular, my published books: include Freedom of Religion and the Secular State (Wiley-Blackwell, 2012); The Tyranny of Opinion: Conformity and the Future of Liberalism (Bloomsbury, 2019); and How We Became Post-Liberal (Bloomsbury, 2024). My formal qualifications include an LLB with First Class Honours from the University of Melbourne and a PhD in philosophy from Monash University, where my doctoral dissertation applied ideas from liberal theory and philosophy of law to certain topical issues in bioethics. 3. I am now retired from paid employment but hold an appointment as Conjoint Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Newcastle. I do not, of course, purport to represent the views of the university. 4. I view the current crisis of antisemitism in Australia in the context of my research and writing on freedom of religion, social pluralism and tolerance, freedom of speech, and liberal theory more generally. I am not Jewish and do not have a personal stake in the current debate in that sense, but like many non-Jewish Australians I have Jewish friends and I'm deeply aware of the anxiety and even fear currently felt in the Jewish community. In that sense, my interest is not solely academic. 5. My general view is that social pluralism and liberal tolerance are not best advanced through new restrictions on speech or action. In my submission, they are better served by an ethos of governmental toleration. Indeed, I submit that it would be best if some existing restrictions were relaxed to enable fearless discussion of relevant issues without the fear of lawsuits under provisions such as section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. 6. That said, freedom of speech does not mean freedom to disrupt the lives of ordinary people going about their business in the public streets. Nor does it mean freedom to call for acts of violence against others in our community. It means that no ideas or opinions will be prohibited, at least without the state being able to demonstrate a compelling reason (which should be interpreted as requiring a very high threshold - higher than that currently used to justify many speech restrictions). 7. Thus, I distinguish between speech that is merely offensive, provocative, or politically inconvenient to one or another group or interest and speech that openly calls for acts of terrorist violence such as the widespread call to "globalise the intifada". The latter is employed in a motte-and-bailey style where innocent meanings are ascribed to it in public discussion in an attempt to protect it from legal restriction. However, when it is shouted by demagogues in front of angry mobs, and in the context of the recent Bondi Beach massacre, it should, in my respectful opinion, be understood as what it really is: a call to murder and otherwise harm Jews throughout the world as a method of "resistance" to Israel, with the Bondi massacre standing as an illustrative example of such resistance. It is perfectly understandable when members of the Jewish community perceive the slogan in this way, and I have no doubt that many self-styled antizionists do, in fact, receive the message to "globalise the intifada" in this way even though this meaning is so often publicly denied. 8. By comparison, slogans along the lines of "from the river to the sea" express support for the destruction of Israel and the incorporation of its territory into a single Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Such a state would inevitably take the form of an Islamic theocracy, and its creation would have as a consequence the slaughter of Jews in Israel on a monstrous scale comparable to what occurred in the Holocaust. That said, it should be acknowledged that "from the river to the sea" is not a direct call for violence within Australia. 9. Although, speech restrictions are not my preferred policy, I submit that these various anti-Israel slogans should at least be identified as what they are: expressions of support for terrorism, totalitarianism, and theocracy, and more specifically for jihadism and Islamism. It is regrettable that Australia's governments have, for whatever reason(s) been unwilling to be clear about this when communicating to the public. Indeed, they have been reluctant even to name jihadism and Islamism as problems confronting Australian society and the liberal democracies of the West more generally. This should change, and I respectfully urge you to contribute to the needed changes. 10. Similarly, Australia's governments have been unwilling to condemn the widespread claim that Israel has engaged in genocide. This claim is clearly false when Israel's actions in an urban war not of its own choosing are compared to the Genocide Convention, as interpreted in the leading cases of international courts and tribunals (notably Bosnia v Serbia). The elements of genocide as an international crime include an intent to bring about the physical and biological destruction of a protected group either as a whole or in part. This has never been Israel's motivation. 11. Note that genocide is not the same as civilian deaths in the course of war, even if the deaths go beyond the collateral effect of strikes on military targets to include direct targeting of civilians in an effort to destroy the enemy's morale. The latter would now be considered a war crime or a course of war crimes, but not genocide. In fact, even this has not been Israel's strategy in its war in Gaza, though as is well known it was a strategy employed by the allies in the Second World War when they used aerial bombardment to destroy German and Japanese cities with enormous loss of life. In that sense, Israel has fought significantly more "cleanly" than the UK and US in the Second World War. 12. The intent behind the accusations that Israel has committed genocide is to create a sense of moral equivalence between Israel and Nazi Germany, and between the Israeli government and the Nazi regime led by Adolf Hitler. If this equivalence is endorsed, the natural effect is to make Israel an international pariah and to make it far more difficult for Israel to defend itself from hostile neighbours such as Iran and hostile armed groups such as Hamas. However, the genocide accusation is not correct, and indeed it ought to be regarded as extreme defamation of the Jewish refuge and homeland. Worse, it predictably leads many people to think of Jews in Israel - and even in Australia - as somehow complicit in Nazi-like evil. It is predictable when this sort of hate propaganda tends to whip up antisemitism. Indeed, the genocide accusation should now be recognised as the twenty-first-century equivalent of a medieval blood libel. It has become a major source of hostility toward Jews in Western societies. 13. Unfortunately, the Australian government has been unwilling to denounce the accusation of genocide, to explain to the Australian public why it is false, or to take part in support of Israel in the current proceedings (initiated by South Africa) in the International Court of Justice. All of this is unconscionable and inexplicable. 14. What is even more concerning and puzzling is why so many Australians are willing to believe and propagate the blood libel that Israel is committing genocide, despite its obvious falsity and its tendency to contribute to antisemitic feeling. It seems that many people are primed to believe this outrageous lie because they regard Israel as an illegitimate colonial outpost of the West, and they begin their assessment of geopolitical situations with an anti-Western ideology. Once they regard Israel in this way, it is only a small step to demonise the Jewish homeland. From there, unfortunately, it is only one more small step (albeit an illogical one) to view Jews with hostility and potentially as legitimate targets for persecution and violence. 15. It is not my preference to prohibit the accusation that Israel is committing genocide, and this would clearly not be constitutional. However, this kind of propaganda can and should be met with better speech. We need Australia's governments to explain the reality to the public: that Israel is not committing and has not committed genocide; that Israel has, instead, been caught up in a brutal street-by-street urban war against an enemy that entrenches itself in population centres and within, around, and underneath civilian infrastructure; and that, although its behaviour has doubtless not been perfect - and the entire situation is tragic and heartbreaking - Israel has generally acted with all the restraint that is realistic in the complex and difficult circumstances that it faces. 16. Again: The best cure for bad speech is better speech. In this case, however, better speech will not cut through with the public unless it comes from the most authoritative sources - and there is no source in Australia more authoritative than the Australian government itself. We need - and I urge that you recommend - strong pro-Israel speech from our national government. 17. The Australian government needs to find its voice to speak openly about jihadism and Islamism as threats to Australian society, to be able to identify slogans such as "globalise the intifida" and "from the river to the sea" for what they really are, to denounce the blood libel that Israel has committed genocide (with clear explanations to the Australian people as to why it is untrue), and to speak up in support of Israel in international forums including the International Court of Justice. Yours sincerely, Dr Russell Blackford 27 April 2026
