Standing against the tide: Jews Against the Occupation ’48 at the NSW antisemitism inquiry

Jews Against the Occupation ’48 (JAO48) was one of 66 submissions published by the NSW government, and we were subsequently invited to be questioned by the Antisemitism in New South Wales inquiry on May 19.

Chris Rath, Liberal Legislative Council (LC) member and vocal supporter of Israel, had initiated the committee via a motion to the LC last December 7, which led to the inquiry forming on February 12. Rath is on record condemning the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and he has made controversial public comparisons between 2025 Sydney and 1930s Germany.

Interestingly, Rath also supports the inclusion of Armenian, Assyrian and Greek genocides in educational curricula, although it appears his concern for genocide is selective. Rath’s inaugural speech in 2022 mentioned his connections with prominent leaders of the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, such as Darren Bark and Lesli Berger.

This background set the stage for our experience at the hearing, which began with questioning Zionist group representatives, including the Australian Jewish Association (AJA). The public hearing was open and drew around 20 like-minded pro-Palestine attendees. Notably, no Zionist group had supporters in the room.

I arrived at 11am to support friends from the Coalition of Women for Justice and Peace (CW4J&P) and the Jewish Women 4 Peace Action Ready Group (JW4PARG).

Labor MP Stephen Lawrence, a member of the NSW Parliamentary Friends of Palestine, asked most of the questions. He was methodical and his line of inquiry was backed by documents. Earlier he had questioned the AJA, grilling it on its support for ethnic cleansing and antisemitism towards groups like ours.

Lawrence asked similar questions to each group during the day’s hearing.

W4J&P and JW4PARG highlighted the need to distinguish between anti-Zionism and antisemitism, emphasising that fighting antisemitism should not be isolated from fighting all forms of racism. They underscored their humanitarian stance and commitment to opposing genocide.

Tensions rose when Committee Chair Robert Borsak of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party aggressively questioned Dr Bushra Othman. Othman, the first Muslim to testify, shared her experience volunteering in Gaza. But she was subjected to questions designed to fluster her, with Borsak seeming to be more focused on eliciting an admission that there had been a “crisis in antisemitism”.

Representatives from the Tzedek Collective and Jewish Voices of Inner Sydney reiterated that Zionism and Judaism are not synonymous, shared their personal experiences of racism and stressed that antisemitism should be part of a broader fight against all forms of discrimination, including Islamophobia and racism against First Nations peoples.

When Allon Uhlman and I, representing JAO48, were called to testify, there was a brief disruption. One of our supporters raised their concerns that Liberal MPs had been on their phones during previous testimonies. Borsak instructed her against speaking to committee members and supporters not to show audible support of any witnesses.

Uhlman and I were paired with Dr Na’ama Carlin and Dr Michael Edwards, representatives from the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA). Until our turn, each member of each group had been permitted to read their statements. However, the Chair limited us to read one statement for each group, supposedly because of time constraints.

The JCA read theirs and Uhlman read ours (see below).

Rath’s first question concerned the October 9, 2023 protest at the Opera House and the burning of an Israeli flag and the supposedly hostile chants (since proven to have been misrepresented). Carlin responded that protest is a democratic right and that this one had been triggered by Labor Premier Chris Minns’ decision to light the Opera House sails with the Israeli flag. She pointed out that the group responsible for doctoring the video of protestors was the same one that slanders us and other anti-Zionist Jews.

I shared my thoughts on the protest movement in general, rejecting the claim that pro-Palestinian protests were antisemitic. I explained that there are often Jewish speakers at the protests and that the atmosphere is one of solidarity. I tabled my “How can pro-Palestine protests be antisemitic when Jews attend them?” article and invited the committee to read it.

Rath fixated on the Hezbollah (and possibly Taliban?) flags seen at protests, asking how these could not be considered antisemitic. “What about the Israeli flag?”, I asked? He replied, “Israel is a state,” to which I answered, “A state that is being investigated for genocide”.

I pointed out that Rath was referring to the only protest the mainstream media had turned up to report on in the whole of 2024. I concluded by saying that some people are hurt by the Hezbollah flag, while others are hurt by the Israeli flag.

As my Jewish heritage dictates, I attend these protests to stand against a genocide and to stand with my “brothers and sisters and comrades” against crimes against humanity.

Edwards expanded on my point, highlighting the concerted effort to delegitimise the protests by associating them with antisemitism. Allon added that burning an Israeli flag is an act of protest, not an act of antisemitism. He also clarified that Hamas and Hezbollah are not antisemitic organisations but oppose the Israeli state, not Jews.

Rath, struggling to accept these facts, asked: “Do you condemn the massacre on October 7th?” Allon responded by explaining that many Jewish historians, commentators and politicians see it in context, noting that the “blow up” was inevitable due to the inhumane conditions suffered by Palestinians in Gaza. He also stated that Israel funded Hamas.

Rath then asked if Allon was justifying the attack, to which Allon said he was not, emphasising instead that it didn’t compare to the brutality of Israel’s actions in Gaza before or after.

I interjected, asking: “Do you condemn everything that’s happened since?” Rath retorted: “I ask the questions. You’re here to answer them.” He then dismissed Allon’s credibility, prompting Lawrence to call the berating to end.

I seized the moment to close the questioning: “I condemn everything that has happened since October 7th, and the occupation for 77 years before it.”

The questioning then shifted to the JCA. Greens MLC Amanda Cohn asked about irresponsible media and politicians who exacerbate division. Edwards criticised politicians for weaponising antisemitism for their own agenda.

Lawrence inquired if Jews and Muslims could move past expecting each other to condemn acts by Hamas and Israel. Carlin wisely asserted that the focus should not be on the juxtaposition between Islam and Judaism. She emphasised the JCA’s commitment to solidarity with all marginalised groups.

Scott Farlow, a Liberal MP, asked Allon why he considered Zionism hate speech. Allon responded by reading examples and we reminded the committee that we had already tabled several more. Farlow then asked which aspects of Zionism Allon considered hate speech. Allon answered: “The aspect of Jewish ethno-nationalist supremacism.”

Lawrence then asked about the number of Jews who are Zionists. Allon speculated that most Jews are not ideologically committed to Zionism and Edwards added that there is growing questioning among young Jews about their relationship with Israel.

Overall, the inquiry was deeply troubling, to the point of farcical especially as Liberal MPs did not seem to understand the concept of asking a question and not receiving an answer they were banking on!

As the hearing unfolded the United Nations was warning about impending infant deaths in Gaza. The focus on antisemitism is a distraction from the Zionists’ atrocities. Exceptionalising Jews only fuels antisemitic tropes and the last thing it does is make us safe.

However, our viewpoint is now on the record and our submission and statement have been documented. One achievement was Lawrence calling the AJA a “hate group”, which hopefully leads to the revoking of its charity status.

Predictably, the mainstream media coverage focused mainly on Allon’s remarks about not condemning Hamas, or the October 7 uprising, which elicited antisemitic attacks against him and our group. However, this only serves to further reveal the true face of Zionism and its apologists.

[Judith Treanor is a member of the Jews Against the Occupation ’48.]

* * *

Introductory comments before the NSW Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, May 19, 2025

Jews Against the Occupation ’48

• We, like most Jews, are gravely concerned about antisemitism.
• We are alarmed by the cynical manipulation of this concern by politicians and the Zionist lobby.
• We oppose the tendentious adoption of the discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism which conflates Judaism with Zionism and the State of Israel.
• Zionism is a Jewish ethno-nationalist and supremacist ideology
• Opposing Zionism is no more antisemitic, than opposing Nazism or apartheid is anti-White.
• Furthermore, Zionism is inherently antisemitic in its outlook and practice
• The Zionist movement and the State of Israel have terrorised non-Zionist Jews, have destroyed Jewish communities in the Middle East, and have forcibly eliminated diasporic Jewish cultures.
• The State of Israel continues to deliberately spread and support antisemitism to attack non-Zionist Jews.
• The State of Israel, in its pursuit of ethnic cleansing and genocide – ostensibly on behalf of Jews – further endanger Jews wherever they are.
• Regarding the state of Israel, we believe that:

1. Jews have the right to live anywhere in historic Palestine, and indeed, anywhere in the Middle East.
2. Jews do not have the right to exclude others from exercising the same rights, and non-Jews are no-less entitled to live anywhere in historic Palestine.
3. Palestinian refugees since 1948 should be allowed to exercise their right of return immediately and unconditionally.
4. This right is guaranteed by international law, and failure to enforce it amounts to ethnic cleansing.
5. The Israeli Jewish ethnostate is an inherently racist endeavour.

• Regarding what the NSW Parliament and State government should do, we propose that

1. The definition of antisemitism should not in any way conflate Judaism with Zionism.
2. Zionism should be treated in NSW as hate speech, similarly to the way National Socialism is currently treated here.
3. The government should act to protect non-Zionist Jews and others from the antisemitic campaign launched against us by Zionists and their sympathisers.

We are concerned that some in this room might currently doing the exact opposite.