Australia’s Greens Fail an Antisemitism Test
The Australian Greens insist they oppose antisemitism. At this point, the ritual denial has become almost as predictable as the next controversy.
The latest episode involves David Shoebridge appearing on a podcast with Daizy Gedeon, an activist who has promoted claims that “Zionists” have embedded themselves in governments and institutions and that Australia has effectively been “hijacked” by Zionists. She spoke with Shoebridge approvingly of “the mask being ripped off” and suggested Australians should reject alleged Zionist influence over public life. Gedeon has also previously blamed Zionism for rises in pedophilia and sex trafficking over the past several hundred years.
This is not criticism of Israeli policy. It is not criticism of military action or governments. It is the resurrection of one of the oldest antisemitic conspiracy theories in existence: that Jews, or “Zionists” as a convenient substitute term, secretly infiltrate governments and manipulate nations from within. These allegations closely resemble conspiracy theories promoted by the Nazis during the 1930s as they normalised antisemitism and laid the foundations for persecution, ghettos, and ultimately the gas chambers.
The Greens and their supporters routinely insist that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Their critics argue that incidents such as these suggest otherwise. When I hear that, I cannot help but think of the old refrain: “I’m not an antisemite; I just hate Jews.”
Let us be crystal clear. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Since when are Jews told they are not entitled to live freely in their ancestral homeland? Jews are, without doubt, indigenous to the land of Israel. The Bible, archaeology, and history do not lie; however, people driven by radical ideological agendas often do. If Jews had such control in Australia, we would not be facing an antisemitism crisis, would we? And by the way David Shoebridge – the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, not Tel-Aviv. Get used to it!
Claims about Zionists secretly embedding themselves inside governments are not arguments about borders or foreign policy. They are allegations of hidden power, secret influence, and dual loyalties. Those ideas did not originate with debates about Israel. They are centuries-old antisemitic tropes.
The comparison test is simple.
Australia’s Parliament contains Australians of Asian, Muslim, African, and countless other backgrounds. Would anyone tolerate claims that Asians had infiltrated government institutions? Would anyone accept allegations that Muslims had secretly embedded themselves throughout Parliament and public life? Would anyone survive politically after warning about Africans quietly taking control behind the scenes?
Of course not.
Such remarks would rightly end careers.
Yet somehow, when the target is Jews, many suddenly discover nuance.
This is why the controversy surrounding Jenny Leong’s remarks about Jewish organisations having “tentacles” extending into various sectors resonated so deeply with Jewish Australians. The image of Jews as an octopus extending its reach across institutions is not new. It has featured prominently in antisemitic propaganda for more than a century.
Again, imagine the outrage if an MP suggested that Asians had extended their tentacles into every institution in Australia.
No one would defend it.
No one would explain that it had merely been taken out of context.
No one would accuse offended communities of weaponising allegations of racism.
The standards appear to change only when Jews are involved.
Similarly, Senator Mehreen Faruqi has faced criticism over photographs in which she appeared alongside protest messaging that portrayed Jews, or Jewish identity, as something to be discarded or thrown away. The repeated appearance of imagery and rhetoric that Jewish communities recognise as hostile contributes to the perception that concerns about antisemitism are treated differently from every other form of prejudice.
The irony is striking.
The Greens spend enormous energy scrutinising the conduct, language, and unconscious biases of everyone else. Yet when questions arise about antisemitism within their own movement, the response is often denial, deflection, or accusations of bad faith.
Apparently, every institution in Australia requires examination except their own parliamentary offices and activist networks.
The hypocrisy is there in black and white. They brand Pauline Hanson a racist over her comments about Asians in the 1990s, yet similar comments directed at Jews are often treated differently.
Jewish Australians are repeatedly told that they are imagining things, misunderstanding context, or deliberately conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Perhaps Jewish Australians understand antisemitism better than the people explaining to them why it supposedly does not exist.
The issue is no longer simply whether elements within the Greens movement have an antisemitism problem. Repeated controversies, language, and associations have created that perception themselves.
Many regard chants such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Globalize the intifada” as antisemitic slogans. Greens supporters dispute that interpretation, but the depth of concern within Australia’s Jewish community is undeniable. During the Second Intifada, more than a thousand Israelis were killed in suicide bombings and attacks on buses, shopping malls, nightclubs, and other public places. For many Jewish Australians, calls to “globalize the intifada” are therefore not viewed as peaceful protest slogans but as references to a campaign of terrorism.
The issue is whether a political movement that claims to stand against racism is willing to recognise antisemitism when it comes wrapped in fashionable language and directed at unfashionable targets.
Increasingly, many Australians suspect the answer is no. Some observers point to growing support for parties such as One Nation as evidence of a broader backlash against sections of the progressive movement.
On a separate but related point, many voters may reasonably ask when the Greens last placed environmental issues at the centre of their political identity, the cause upon which Bob Brown built the party. To critics, today’s Greens appear increasingly focused on ideological activism and international causes rather than environmental conservation.
In that context, some commentators have suggested that allegations circulating in political debate should be examined by the appropriate authorities under existing hate speech or anti-vilification frameworks.
And that is precisely why the accusations against the Greens are not disappearing.
They are accumulating.